text:
Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta?

Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta? How it can be presented in numerical notation?
Is there any complete translation of all tipitaka into English language (not leaving any single Sutta without English translation)? And
Any good Pali-English online dictionary available?

Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta? How it can be presented in numerical notation?
There are two (or maybe three) that I've seen, to reference a sutta:

Two are used in Access to Insight, for example a sutta like Sigalovada Sutta is numbered as (see the top of the page, above the title) "DN 31" and/or "PTS: D iii 180".
The second one, "PTS", is the Pali Text Society's numbering.
Dharmafarer's numbering for that same sutta includes:

D 31
D 3:180-193
D 3.8 (Dīgha Nikāya 3, Pāthika Vagga 8)

Sutta Central uses the same pair of numbers, i.e. "DN 31" and "DN iii 180".

See also this answer to the question 'Tripitaka Section Numbering'.
A deleted comment to that answer says that there are a few major numbering schemes: PTS, Buddha Jayanthi, Royal Thai, Burmese, SLTP, and Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi et. al., Access to Insight.
When I answer questions I like to include a hyperlink to the sutta I'm citing (I think that's the clearest way to reference a sutta and the easiest for other people to read).
To reference a paragraph, I give the name, number, and hyperlink of the sutta, and then copy-and-paste (block-quote) the relevant paragraph -- for example, like this from the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31):

One portion for his wants he uses,
  two portions on his business spends,
  the fourth for times of need he keeps.

Alternatively Sutta central lets you create a hyperlink to any fragment (including though not necessarily paragraphs): use the mouse to highlight the section you want to quote, click on the thing that pops up which says "Link to selected text", and it will say "URL Copied". Then you can paste the link into the answer; the link for example looks like this: https://suttacentral.net/en/dn31/45.355-
Is there any complete translation of all tipitaka into English language (not leaving any single Sutta without English translation)?
There are several online collections of translations, I think the most complete (not necessarily the best) is Sutta Central's. I try Sutta Central when the sutta I'm looking for isn't listed elsewhere.
Any good Pali-English online dictionary available?
There's a PTS dictionary here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
It needs you to use the right non-ASCII letter when you search, so to search for "Ditthi" for example I would:

Type di in the search box
Click on "Search entry words only (not definitions)"
Click on "Words starting with  (Example: bud)"
Press the Search button

That finds words including Diṭṭha which is the correct spelling (note the non-standard ṭ with a dot underneath, which I wouldn't know I need to search for: that's why I search by prefix).
Another reference I like is http://www.buddha-vacana.org/ -- it has a glossary and side-by-side word-for-word translations of a few of the most famous suttas.
I've also seen people recommend, or say that they use, this Digital Pali Reader (also available here for Android).

The standard reference scheme in the West seems to be the Pali edition of the Pali Canon published by the Pali Text Society. One often finds it referenced in the standard English translations at the top of each page. Unfortunately, it is only useful to Pali specialists who have this edition of the Pali Canon.

Each part of the Pali Canon has its own reference scheme. Unlike the King James Bible, for example, each text has its own internal structure, ranging from simple to complex. Here are some examples: V:III.4.2[72] (III.2) (Horner, Book of the Discipline, p. 125); DN 21:[263]1.6 (ii 268) (Walshe, Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 323); AN VII:64(11)(7) (IV 96) (Bodhi, Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p.  1067); etc.
The Burmese Pali Tipitaka is also online at http://www.tipitaka.org. It uses a system of sutta and paragraph references that do not necessarily correlate with the English editions.
A critical edition of the Pali Canon in English is in preparation, based on all Pali editions. Hopefully this will simplify the matter (when it is completed).

The Pali Text Society has published English translations of nearly all of the Pali Canon. These are available in North America from Pariyatti (http://www.pariyatti.org).
The best and standard Pali-English dictionary is still the Pali-English Dictionary of Rhys Davids and Stede, published by the Pali Text Society.

Is there any reference scheme for paragraph in Sutta? How it can be presented in numerical notation?

This is not universal but here is: Sutta lists and indexes by Piya Tan. These indices give the reference numbers to Sutta Discovery (SD) and PTS schemes. Also multiple indices at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-sutta.html, etc.) which included PTS and their own Scheme.
Also see: https://suttacentral.net/sutta_numbering which highlights the scheme used in the site which modified vertion of the PTS scheme which is used in the Indices on the site but Meta data is found for other numbering schemes within the Suttas. Also if you go to the side bar (you have to navigate to a sutta 1st and click on textual information you get couple of paragraph numbering schemes. This is not complete and varies depending on the Sutta. E.g. Mūlapariyāyasutta has paragraph numbering of Suttacentral {SC}, PTS and Wisdom Publication Paragraph Number {WP} at the time of writing. E.g. https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn1#1 {SC}, https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn1#pts1.1 {PTS}, https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn1#wp2 {WP}). Paragaph 3 in the WP scheme is: https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn1#wp3.
The Burmese edition numbering see http://www.tipitaka.org as menioned in this answer by @alexander-duncan.
Buddha Jayanti (BJT) has another schemes, e.g., see Mūlapariyāyasuttaṃ (from http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/ which is a mirror of now defunt http://metta.lk) which has meta data on the BJT scheme and PTS.
Each edition seems to have their own Scheme. Many online editions generally tend to cross reference the PTS edition. This with the Sutta name can perhaps help in navigating across editions. Also there are lesser know editions: A P de Soyza

Is there any complete translation of all tipitaka into English language (not leaving any single Sutta without English translation)? And

Even the PTS edition is missing the Yamaka, hence there is no complete translation. But the whole Tripitaka is translated but you have to collect from different sources and authors.
The Pali Canon & Related Works by Piya Tan does mention some of the translations available.

Any good Pali-English online dictionary available?

https://suttacentral.net/ (This includes non english Pali dictionaries also - included in the side bar and main search function)
http://www.wisdomlib.org/

Searches multiple dictionaries / sources.

Is there a dictionary at https://suttacentral.net/ ?

There are dictionaries. Click on dictionary after searching.

I do not see why you ask the obvious when I have mentioned it in the text.

I asked because I'd never seen a dictionary on that site, and didn't know it existed. After you mentioned, I looked for it but I didn't see it; and so I asked you, to double-check. I found it now, thank you.


text:
Life Duration and Rebirth
Did Buddha speak about the duration of lives in any way that related it to where one currently stands on the path?  For example:  "When one is closer to enlightenment, one will have shorter lives after each successive rebirth."
This wouldn't make a lot of sense when following the literal doctrine of Rebirth, but maybe it would make sense as a metaphor.
At any rate - is anything like this idea touched upon in the sutras?

Life expectancy (Ayu-Kalpa) changes, but not related to any individual's progress. This is related to the whole society itself.

Ayu-Kalpa - a variable time span representing the life expectancy of a typical human being in a particular era or yuga. This can be as high as one Asankya or as small as 10 years. This number is directly proportional to the level of virtue of people in that era. Currently this value hovers around 100 years and is continually decreasing.

Source: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kalpa
As society declines or improves life expectancy declines and improves. A rough outline is as follows:

stealing 1st & 2nd thieves given financial aid - 80,000 years
killing: 3rd thief executed; stealing grows - 80,000 years
beauty decline; killing is widespread - 40,000 years
lying: beauty declined further - 40,000 years
slander: some beautiful, some ugly - 20,000 years
sexual misconduct: the ugly coveted the beautiful - 10,000 years
harsh speech & idle chatter - 5000 years
covetousness & ill will - 2500 years (some 2000)
wrong view - 1000 years (some 500)
abnormal lust, excessive desire, deviant conduct - 500 years
disrespect towards all elders and the holy life - 250 years (some 200)
beauty declines further - 100 years
life-span at its shortest; widespread immorality & war - 10 years

Adopted from: Commentary on Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

Very useful answer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can someone mention few good web sites to learn theravada Buddhism?
I run a Buddhist blog with daily updates and i am facing a bit of trouble finding sources for it as i try to update it everyday with at least a single new article or a book everyday.
I am already using "Accesstoinsight.org" as a primary source of good materials.
Can you please mention a few more such good web sites?

A Handful of Leaves has books and papers. Also http://www.dhammatalks.net/, http://www.wisdomlib.org/, http://www.buddhanet.net/ (multiple authors) and http://www.dhammatalks.org/ (by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), http://www.aimwell.org/. In addition https://archive.org/ does have many old Buddhist books. http://static.sirimangalo.org/pdf/ has also got scans of some old books.
http://www.abhidhamma.com/ has many Abhidhamma books.
Also there is Piya Tan's website - http://dharmafarer.org/ which has essays and traslations.
Also VRI (Ledi / U Ba Khin tradition) has couple of online resource:

http://www.vridhamma.org/Research-Index
http://www.vridhamma.org/Research
http://www.vridhamma.org/Online-Books-and-Pamphlets

Also you can look into magazine like: https://tricycle.org/, http://www.mindful.org/, http://www.lionsroar.com/ to get material.
Also have a look at: https://what-buddha-said.net/. This is a blog which posts something new on Buddhism nearly every day.
Also following are other sites like http://www.accesstoinsight.org/: https://suttacentral.net/, http://www.tipitaka.org/, http://newguide.org/

Thank you for the answer dear friend,this will help many to learn the teaching and i share that good karma will you. please mention any more sites or books you can recommend as well because it will be of great help to me and a dhamma gift fore many others. May the triple gems bless you.  Namo Buddhaya!

https://suttacentral.net/ offers a more comprehensive collection of the Tripitaka, in many languages too!

Thank you for the answer dear friend,this will help many to learn the teaching and i share that good karma will you. please mention any more sites or books you can recommend as well because it will be of great help to me and a dhamma gift fore many others. May the triple gems bless you.  Namo Buddhaya!

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


text:
Which Vinaya has the least number of rules?
According to Wikipedia, “Extant vinaya texts include those of the Theravada (the only one in Pali), the Kāśyapīya, the Mahāsāṃghika, the Mahīśāsaka, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda.” Does anyone know which of these Vinayas has the least number of rules?
According to Peter Harvey (Introduction to Buddhism, p. 290), the Theravadin Vinaya has 227 rules for male monastics, the Mula-Sarvastivadin has 258, and the Dharmaguptaka has 250, making the Theravadin the one with the least number of rules.
The Wikipedia article on Vinaya substantially agrees with this, but has 253 for the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. However, the Wikipedia articles for Mahasamghika and Sthavira (and elsewhere) also state that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has the least number of rules, citing Andrew Skilton, A Concise History of Buddhism, stating that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, compared to 75 for the Theravadin (apparently referring to the 75 sekhiyavatta), which appears to contradict Harvey’s statement that the Theravadin Vinaya has the least number of rules.
Does anyone (1) have any insights concerning the relative number of rules in the Vinayas that can reconcile this apparent contradiction or (2) know where English translations of the non-Theravadin Vinayas may be found? I am still researching this question online so may end up answering my own question, but would like to hear any relevant information from others.

Of the extant Vinayas, the Mahasanghika has the least rules, if by "rules" you mean "patimokkha rules".
As per your post, the difference is almost entirely in the number of sekhiya rules, which are essentially table manners and the like. Indeed, in the early sources the number "150" rules is mentioned, and I believe this means that patimokkha in the time of the Buddha did not include the sekhiya rules. So if we were to count the rules as per the "original" patimokkha, there would be almost no difference between the Vinayas.
The patimokkha rules, however, are only a small, albeit important, collection of rules. Throughout the Vinaya there are many minor and incidental rules and procedures. Since these often occur by way of permutations of factors for other rules, it is difficult to count them exactly, and I don't believe anyone has done so.
The fact that the Mahasanghika has fewer sekhiya rules has been misinterpreted to imply that the Mahasanghikas were lax in Vinaya, and that their Vinaya text is early. In fact, from this we can't really draw any conclusions about the Vinaya practice of the Mahasanghikas (since the details that differ deal with tiny matters of etiquette), nor about the historical development of the Vinaya texts (since in other aspects the Mahasanghika Vinaya appears later than the Theravada).

Well, just like what you've read inside "A Concise History of Buddhism" The Theravadin Vinaya is based on Sthraviravadin Vinaya without changing or adding any rules to it.
As for Mahasanghika's Vinaya, i can only find some Dharmaguptaka's translation in suttacentral and Mahasanghika's Nuns Vinaya on Buddhanet
I do have translation in other language but unfortunately not in English.
BDK has a project to translate every texts into English tho but it seems like they haven't translated the Vinaya's

Visuddhimagga silaniddesa wrote that bhikkhu's rules in vinaya pitaka appear 91,805,036,000  rules.
If you have ever been monk you will understand that it is not just the similitude counting.
The number in your question are just uddesa that bhikkhu must recite in fortnightly meeting day (uposatha). Those are just little example rules, in 91,805,036,000 rules that appear in vinaya pitaka.

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


text:
Taking care of our sexual energy
In the Five Mindfulness Trainings as presented in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh, the third one - called "True Love" - says:

I am committed to learning appropriate ways to take care of my sexual
  energy.

What do you think appropriate ways means here?

The "five mindfulness trainings" obviously correspond to the traditional "five precepts".
So you can find more (by other authors) on that subject by searching for "third precept", for example Buddhism and Sex.
A lot of what what "appropriate ways" means is explained fairly clearly in the paragraph you referenced, i.e.

True Love
  Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivating responsibility and learning ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. Knowing that sexual desire is not love, and that sexual activity motivated by craving always harms myself as well as others, I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without true love and a deep, long-term commitment made known to my family and friends. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct. Seeing that body and mind are one, I am committed to learning appropriate ways to take care of my sexual energy and cultivating loving kindness, compassion, joy and inclusiveness – which are the four basic elements of true love – for my greater happiness and the greater happiness of others. Practicing true love, we know that we will continue beautifully into the future.

The simplest definition of "appropriate ways" is "not inappropriate".
Examples of "inappropriate" are described in AN 10.176:

He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.

In other words, don't break existing families. Like, first of all, do no harm.
Some people interpret this as meaning that, according to the letter of the law, casual sexual relations with otherwise-unattached (i.e. unmarried, independent) partners (or prostitutes) is OK: not wise, necessarily; and ultimately dissatisfactory; but at least not immoral, not breaking the third precept.
But Thich Nhat Hanh goes further than that, when he says, "true love and a deep, long-term commitment made known to my family and friends", which sounds to me like marriage (or celibacy).
He also says that "sexual desire is not love, and that sexual activity motivated by craving always harms": so "appropriate ways" means consequent to a loving relationship, in which in which sexual desire is not mistaken for love.
FYI this answer summarized some guidelines for choosing a marriage partner.

To summarize the paragraph:

Beware that "sexual misconduct" causes suffering
Protect other people, by not engaging in sexual misconduct
"Manage" your sexual energy accordingly

The French translation uses the verb gérer, which means "manage" (it's the word used for what a professional manager does, at work)
I'm not sure what he means by "take care of" in English.
It could perhaps mean "beware of".
Another Buddhist parable (that I read a while ago, I'm not sure where) is that you should "take care of" your body in the same way that you would "take care of a wound": i.e. don't love it, but bandage it and protect it from further harm (though perhaps that isn't what Thich Nhat Hanh was saying).

Develop "true love" (the four elements of love which he lists are more-or-less equivalent to the brahmavihāras)

Buddhist notions of virtue (sila), for each of the five precepts, equate virtue with protecting or freeing everyone from harm; and freeing everyone includes or results in a share of that freedom yourself:

Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift...

One of the famous summaries of Buddhism is from the Dhammapada:

Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

"Not doing evil" ranks highly, is important.
"Abstaining from (harmful or evil) sexual misconduct" is part of the five precepts, which is part of the first training.
It's not only a negative (absence of harm), it's also a way towards a positive.

I would add that criminals and "whores". "he avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are ... , nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls" Anguttara Nikaya 10:176 (words of the Buddha) .

I assume he meant not giving in.  Just like one way of taking care of cigarette craving is to smoke a cigarette but that would be inappropriate way of dealing with it.
Buddha gave 7 ways to remove (or dealing with) asavas;

āsavas that should be removed through vision.
āsavas that should be removed through restraint.
āsavas that are to be removed through proper use.
āsavas that are to be removed through forbearance.
āsavas that are to be removed through avoidance.
āsavas that are to be removed through rejection.
āsavas that are to be removed through cultivation.

I assume in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh, learning appropriate ways to take care of sexual energy is probably one of the six ways above (excluding the 3rd method because it deals with "proper use" of necessities to maintain life, which sex isn't).
Sabbasava Sutta


text:
What is the significance of Reclining Buddha Statue in Laos compared to other countries in Asia?
Hello regarding the reclining Buddha statue here in this link http://www.buddhastatuesnow.com --

What are the differences between this and other reclining statues in Asia? I have seen several and this one is different. For example the fingers are much longer and the Buddha appears happy while in other countries he is more solemn and hands are not so prominent. Thank you for any info you can provide!

Hopefully someone who has good knowledge in Southeast Asia art reads your post.  For certain, I believe historical Buddha shaved his head.  It appears in many suttas that Buddha was called "bald headed monk" by people outside Buddhism to insult him.

This is a depiction of the Buddha in his last moments of life, just before he achieved parinibbana (nirvana-after-death). There are 32 signs of a great man and 80 secondary signs (all of which the Buddha possessed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha#The_32_Signs_of_a_Great_Man and long slender fingers, long earlobes as depicted are two of the lesser signs.. I guess if you examine it up close, you will probably get some more  (foot arches etc?)! As for the differences, I am not well versed in art or its history, sorry!


text:
Why didn't the Buddha speak about God and the soul?
The Four Noble Truths and Eight Noble Paths are the main principles of the Buddha and every person can be a Buddha if he/she follows these principles.
As far as I've heard the Buddha didn't believe in the existence of God, in the immortality of the soul, and the soul itself.

Was the reason why the Buddha didn't speak about God and the soul, because he couldn't provide the proof for it?
He wanted to be more practical than theoretical (so that the practicality ultimately leads one to believe in God and soul)?
He wanted to attract the atheists to Buddhism? Please what is the truth behind it?

Your third paragraph is entirely speculation. You're speculating that there was an ulterior motive to what the Buddha taught instead of what is apparent from the Buddhist texts. We can't give you any non-speculative answer because you're doubting the only source we have for what the Buddha taught.

I'm not sure I'd vote to close this.  Asking why the Buddha did not teach of a soul is eminently answerable. He also had quite a bit to say about gods albeit not in a Judeo Christian sense and only rarely in a Vedic creationist sense.  The third paragraph needs to go, though.

Promoting Hinduism appears to be the intention behind this question.

I don't think closing the question is necessary. At root the question is straightforward: Why did the Buddha reject the notions of God and self? The statement in para. 2 that "I think he believed in God in the existence of soul" and the first, third, and fourth sentences in para. 3 should be removed. Also the first sentence in para. 1 is unnecessary.

No body knows 'exactly' what Buddha said or believed.

Alexander Duncan below correctly answered... The premise to the question is basically entirely wrong. The Buddha spoke about the 31 Planes of Existence in which "God" is a ruler of a specific dimension of existence, not the entirety of the universe.

For the question of "soul": because that word/concept was not existent in his time/country - that is the same simple reason, why he did not talk about "facebook". For the related concept of "atman" - he permanently talked about that idea, teaching that there is no "atman". Also he talked a lot about "god" and "gods", he even told of controverses and discussions with the highest of the gods known in Brahmanism, Sakko, and there are a lot of sutras about this. So your question is based on false premises. You might want to read a bit at least in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aakra_(Buddhism)

The Buddha did speak about God or Brahma. He said that God is the chief of the realm of the Brahmas, the lowest realm of the Form world, but that he is deluded and others are deluded by virtue of being the first to be reborn in a new universe, thus being deceived and others being deceived that he was the creator of the universe.
One can regard this as a mythological expression of the truth, also stated in the suttas, that God as a First Cause is an unnecessary speculation because the question then becomes, "Who created God," thus positing an infinite regression and begging the question of the origin of things. The Buddha taught that there was no singular origin point, that the phenomenal world of samsara is eternally self-perpetuating, with no beginning, since to posit an absolute beginning is to posit an uncaused cause, which violates the law of karma and the identity of cause and effect. (This appears to be the direction that modern physics is heading too, with the infinite complexity of interconnected black and white holes, multiverses, etc.)
As for the soul, the Buddha taught that the Upanishadic notion of a 'little man in the heart' (atta; see PED) is undemonstrable and that no self is found anywhere, since a self must be permanent and everything observable is impermanent and dependent on conditions. Both God and the self are also objects of attachment and thus suffering, and thus merely another form of error. Ultimately the Buddha rejected both theism and the soul theory because they are delusions and objects of attachment. We see this being played out today in the internecine strife of theists around the world.
I think this interlocutor may be confused by the occurrence of the word "brahma" in the Pali Canon, where it does not mean "God" but rather "ultimate" or "divine" (e.g., the title of the first sutta of the Digha Nikaya, the Four Divine Abidings, etc.).

I'm Influenced by the teaching of Buddha. The Four Noble Truths and Eight Noble Paths are the main principles of Buddha, and every person
  can be a Buddha if he/she follows these principles.

There is no real 'person' in Buddhism (please refer to SN 5.10) apart from 'view' (refer to SN 5.10) and conventional speech (refer to SN 1.25). In Buddhism, the idea or view of a 'person', 'being' or 'self' is dependently originated from ignorance, craving & becoming (refer to SN 22.81; MN 44, etc).
In Buddhism, what becomes a Buddha is the mind (citta). The Buddha is not really a 'person' (refer to SN 22.85, for example).

As far as I've heard Buddha, didn't believe in the existence of God, in the immortality of the soul, and the soul itself;

Correct. These matters are discussed in suttas such as DN 1 & AN 3.61.
Dhp279 & SN 20.7 state all things whatsoever are not self & the whole universe is void of self.

..but I think he
  believed in God and in the existence of soul. Since he wanted to make Buddhism a unique and separate religion from other religions in that time, he made the principle of Buddhism more
  practical or scientific than other religions.

This is just a personal opinion about something completely unknowable. The Buddha Gotama may have never existed. All that can be known is what is written in the scriptures. It is the scriptures rather than an imaginary person that lived 2,600 years ago that is Buddhism.
The Pali scriptures say the Buddha was only concerned about one primary matter, which was/is the complete cessation/freedom from suffering (dukkha) or the unshakeable freedom of mind (refer to MN 22, MN 29, MN 30, etc).

Was the reason why the Buddha didn't speak about God and the soul, because he couldn't provide the proof for it?

Yes. AN 3.61 gives reasoning for refuting the idea of an existence of a creator god.
The Buddhist scriptures speak extensively of the 'world of gods' or 'deities' (deva loka) but these gods seem to be just people with worldly power (e.g. kings & queens); great wealth & luxury; or great spiritual powers (such as great love, supernormal meditative attainments or psychic powers).
For example, it is said the Buddha had a psychic power called the 'Divine Eye' or 'Eye of God'.

Or, He wanted to be more practical than theoretical (so that the practicality ultimately leads one to believe in God and soul)?

No. There is no soul or creator God to be found. In Buddhism, all of the gods or deities have minds with ignorance & are destined for 'hell' (suffering) if they do not realise the Four Noble Truths (refer to AN 4.123; SN 56.102-113; etc).

Or He wanted to attract the atheists to Buddhism?

No. Buddhism is for people who wish to find freedom from suffering & perfect peace. The Buddha is called the 'teacher of gods & humans'. The scriptures report most of the Buddha's leading disciples were formerly Brahmans. If the history of religion is studied, both Indian & Western, it will be found great changes to religion occurred after the Buddha. For example, the Jewish Bible is divided into pre-exile & post-exile writings, in which many of the post-exile writings sound very similar to Buddhist ideas. The novel teachings of Jesus are closer to Buddhism than to pre-exile Judaism. For example, in the Tevijja Sutta, it is taught the way or path to Brahma (God) is to radiate perfect unconditional love in all directions (which is similar to what the Christians later taught).
In summary, SN 12.23 states the supporting condition for faith in Buddhism is the clear experience of suffering (and thus wanting to end suffering). The Buddha is the Spiritual Doctor; the Healer of Suffering.

Please what is the truth behind it?

As explained.

I'm by no means an expert in this, but based off of what I've studied, I would say that there is grounds for there being a "soul", but I don't think that there is much for there being God or a god.
In regard to the soul, when I say that I do get the sense that the Buddha believed in a soul, I'm not referring to it in its colloquial sense. In many sutras (e.g. The Heart Sutra), the Buddha says that there is no soul in the sense that every individual doesn't have their own soul that would go somewhere after death or is separate from the body. However, he did believe in something of that sort.
For example, in The Lotus Sutra, in the "life span of the thus come one" chapter, the Buddha addresses the great assembly and says:

"Since I attained buddhahood
  the number of kalpas that have passed
  is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,
  millions, trillions, asamkhyas.
  Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting
  countless millions of living beings,
  causing them to enter the buddha way,
  all this for immeasurable kalpas.
  In order to save living beings,
  as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana
  but in truth I do not pass into extinction.
  I am always here, preaching the Law.
  I am always here,
  but through my transcendental powers
  I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement
  do not see me even when close by.
  When the multitude sees that I have passed into extinction,
  far and wide they offer alms to my relics.
  All harbor thoughts of yearning
  and in their minds thirst to gaze at me.
  When living beings have become truly faithful,
  honest and upright, gentle in intent,
  single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha,
  not hesitating even if it costs them their lives,
  then I and the assembly of monks
  appear together on Holy Eagle Peak.
  At that time I tell the living beings
  that I am always here, never entering extinction,
  but that because of the power of expedient means
  at times I appear to be extinct, at other times not,
  and that if there are living beings in other lands
  who are reverent and sincere in their wish to believe,
  then among them too
  I will preach the unsurpassed Law.
  But you have not heard of this,
  so you suppose that I enter extinction.
  When I look at living beings
  I see them drowned in a sea of suffering;
  therefore I do not show myself,
  causing them to thirst for me.
  Then when their minds are filled with yearning,
  at last I appear and preach the Law for them.
  Such are my transcendental powers.
  For asamkhya kalpas
  constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak
  and in various other places.
  When living beings witness the end of a kalpa
  and all is consumed in a great fire,
  this, my land, remains safe and tranquil,
  constantly filled with heavenly and human beings.
  The halls and pavilions in its gardens and groves
  are adorned with various kinds of gems.
  Jeweled trees abound in flowers and fruit
  where living beings enjoy themselves at ease.
  The gods strike heavenly drums,
  constantly making many kinds of music.
  Mandarava blossoms rain down,
  scattering over the Buddhaand the great assembly.
  My pure land is not destroyed,
  yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
  with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
  filling it everywhere.
  These living beings with their various offenses,
  through causes arising from their evil actions,
  spend asamkhya kalpas
  without hearing the name of the three treasures.
  But those who practice meritorious ways,
  who are gentle, peaceful, honest, and upright,
  all of them will see me
  here in person, preaching the Law.
  At times for this multitude
  I describe the Buddha’s life span as immeasurable,
  and to those who see the Buddha only after a long time
  I explain how difficult it is to meet a buddha.
  Such is the power of my wisdom
  that its sagacious beams shine without measure.
  This life span of countless kalpas
  I gained as the result of lengthy practice.
  You who are possessed of wisdom,
  entertain no doubts on this point!
  Cast them off, end them forever,
  for the Buddha’s words are true, not false.
  He is like a skilled physician
  who uses an expedient means to cure his deranged sons.
  Though in fact alive, he gives out word he is dead,
  yet no one can say he speaks falsely.
  I am the father of this world,
  saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
  Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
  though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
  For if they see me constantly,
  arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
  Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five desires
  and fall into the evil paths of existence.
  Always I am aware of which living beings
  practice the way, and which do not,
  and in response to their need for salvation
  I preach various doctrines for them.
  At all times I think to myself:
  How can I cause living beings
  to gain entry into the unsurpassed way
  and quickly acquire the body of a buddha?"

I know it's a bit of a lengthy excerpt, but I think it outlines you point quite well. The Buddha said that his life span is countless kalpas, but that through his transcendental powers, he appears dead. One however, can not say that he is living in the normal sense- you can't meet him in person or anything like that. Basically, he is saying that his "soul", is immortal. The term that is used to describe this in my experience is, "life force". Although his body has long been gone, his life force is never born and nor does it die. We all have this, "life force", and for that reason, one can say that he is "immortal".
This is really the closest thing I can think of that really describes what you're terming a "soul".

As for the existence of God or a god(s), I think that there is little evidence for this. Although there is mentioning of gods that "strike heavenly drums" in the excerpt above, that is a metaphor. When the Buddha describes his "pure land", he is referring to the Saha world, saying that, if one acts is gentle, peaceful, upright, etc., one will find that the Saha world is in fact, the pure land.
    Another reason that I don't think that there are any gods in Buddhism that the Buddha believed in is just by logic. Some of this is my own personal inference and from my studying of Absurdism and Existentialism, but there, to me, is no reason that there would be a god or God. That however, is personal opinion, so to back it up, here is an exerpt, also from The Lotus Sutra, in the "expedient means" chapter. Here, the Buddha is also addressing the great assembly and, among other things, is talking about the nature of reality:

"What the buddhas have achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law. The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of the appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end.”

This would indicate that reality consists only of things occurring. This reality is then divided into 10 parts as listed above. Suppose there were no living things in the universe. If the sun were to explode and planets to collide, would it really make any difference? Because there is nothing to, in essence, care, it doesn't really matter if there is total destruction of planets or stars or anything. This is the reality we live in. However, we cannot say that no living things exist, for we see them every day. The difference is that, now, were planets to collide and stars explode, people would care- it would then affect living things. Really, when we say something is bad, evil, etc., really what is happening is that the events that occurred that cause our displeasure are just happening to be against what would allow us to live most easily. People say they don't understand how evil or other such things exist in the world. In reality, it exists in our mind. That's not to say that it's nor real, but that it has no existence in reality.
As such, I don't think that the Buddha was trying to manipulate people or cause them to slowly believe in something (at least not God). I think that many people want to believe in God , and so it makes sense for it to exist, but since the Buddha knew that no event has any intrinsic implications, there was really no need for a desire for a god or God. This is the main reason that I see no evidence for a god and nor does it seem like something that would exist.
I hope that helps. If you have any other questions or things that I should clarify, feel free to comment.

Why I'm close votes in my question? It's merely my curiosity that why Buddha didn't believe in God and in soul, did he want to be different than other or let's say he wanted to lead one to enlightenment(Godness) without believing in God or soul ?

@yubrajsharma I think it was downvoted because it included, "I think he believed in God and in the existence of soul", which is more or less contradicted by the Buddhist suttas. Anyway Lanka edited the question a bit, I think the question is less controversial now without having lost what it was asking.

Sorry for just now responding, I just saw your comment. I agree with ChrisW in that your question was worded in a slightly controversial way. It also has some personal opinion which goes against the community guidelines, but I think that now, as the question is, it is okay.

It's a matter of translations and concepts here. Let's take the concept of God. In other religions god is an entity or a divine being that created all of existence. Buddhism rejects the idea. There is no divine being that created the existence. Or no-one has. That type of God concept is rejected. But there are gods in buddhism. They are beings just like humans.
Buddha understood that there are 3 types of realms.

Realm of Desire(Kaama)
Realm of Form(Rupa)
Realm of Non-Form(Arupa)

In the Desire realm there are 11 planes(worlds in our conventions).
4 myseries, human plane and 6 Deva heavens.
In the Form realm there are 16 Brahma(much more superior to Devas) planes.
In the Non-Form realm there are 4 Brahma planes.
So as you can see they are just beings in the universe. They are also have a life expanse. They also die. You can be born in any type realms too.
So basically the term God in Buddhism is basically referred to the "Devas" in the Deva realm, and beings from "Brahma" realm are referred to as "Brahma Devas" or "Brahmas" itself.
Everything changes in all the these realms. So nothing is actually Divine or everlasting up there. Divine is just a way to express a superior lifestyle relative to humans.
Now regarding the Soul let's take the concept.
According the definition of Soul by Oxford it says

The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded
  as immortal.

Buddhism accepts the soul as the mind as it is the immaterial part of a being but rejects the idea of immortal.
So it's basically your mind that we refer as the soul in our normal lives.
The mind cannot live without the body. And vice versa. Then when the body dies, how can the mind exists? How can it be immortal? The mind also comes to and end. It your things you collect (Sanskara/Fabrications/Formations) in this life creates your conscious to your next life.
It is like Newton's third law.

Every action has a equal opposite reaction.

In other words Karma. The past tense of things you collect or in other words Sanskara/Fabrications/Formations, is Karma. They become karma. So basically your thoughts is the starting place of Fabrications. And they become Karma. Based on your karma, you will be born as per your karma itself. So if you are born as a Dog, you will have eye,ear,nose,tongue,body and mind(Soul) of a Dog. Therefore your soul is never immortal. Even your mind/Soul comes to an end. Everything changes.

As far as I've heard Buddha, didn't believe in the existence of God

It is not the fact of believing. Because the Buddha has access to direct knowledge. So he knew the there is no existence of an almight God and an Immortal soul.

Was the reason why the Buddha didn't speak about God and the soul,
  because he couldn't provide the proof for it? Or, He wanted to be more
  practical than theoretical (so that the practicality ultimately leads
  one to believe in God and soul)? Or He wanted to attract the atheists
  to Buddhism? Please what is the truth behind it?

Well, Since he has access to Direct Knowledge of all of existence, he understood there's is no need to show proof that an almighty god and an immortal soul exists. Rather than that he taught something anyone has never taught before. The four Noble truth. When you understand them, you will see for yourself that there is no possibility to an almighty god and an immortal soul to exist.
Read more on Paticca-Samuppada and the Three Marks of Existence. Read the DammaCakka Pavattana Sutta and Ananta-Lakkana Sutta. Check on the Five Aggregates. once you understand these things, meditate on them. Then you will be able to see the connection of all the above, and the answer to your question as a personal experience.

There is no proof that God (Creator, the first living being who rule/manage the new comers and their fate/destiny) exists in scientifically, biologically, historically, philosophically and logically. Set aside Buddha, there is no one who can prove that God exists, never before and never will be.
Immortality never exists in any form (both physical and mental). There is no such thing (or state mind) that exists eternally or that exists along with something eternal. There is no such thing (or state of mind) that never perish or that exists along with something never perish. Also in science, biology, history, philosophy and logics no a single person can define something everlasting beyond time or eternity.
In any practical way/mean, no one can find the above two.

I heard it said that when Buddha was asked about God and what is, he just laughed. I heard it said that he laughed because it is not something for words. Like the Buddha taught different things in different places(The all is illusion, that nothing is illusion and that there is illusion[coming from you] and reality from outside ~ Or maybe that's the other way around ;) and like there are saint from all walks of life, with all sorts of stature. God is not something to be described because God is not something. God is in nothingness.
There are no right or wrong answers.


text:
Thoughtlessness
Sometimes, when I am focusing on the body or the breath, I have a feeling that thoughts have ceased. I am unsure whether I am suppressing or not, I don't feel that I am, but that I am merely focusing upon an object.
Should I worry about this lack of thoughts? Should I keep meditating even if very few thoughts arise?
Thanks.

If you have a meditation teacher, you should ask that person. If you do not, or if the teacher cannot give a helpful answer, you should seek a meditation teacher who can.

The development of calm (samatha) & concentration (samadhi) in meditation is based on the mind focusing on the breath without any thoughts. It is important to feel a soothing calm in this process.

You better stick to only one meditation technique of a meditation master. Also it depends on how long you practice each session, to which interval already practiced so that to which level of concentration you achieved, it all depends. Sometimes stages of insight meditation go up and down and sometimes stick to one stage and cannot get through it if not enough concentration.  If you focusing on breathing in and out, focusing point to note mindfully at the tip of the nose , if other phenomenon  arise only if it is remarkable try to note mindfully as "know it, know it" if it disappears, noting breathing again. If you get concentration more and more, all your noting become so subtle that you noticed nothing. Sometimes just like lack of thought.  Then appear again clearer visualizing some phenomenon never seen before. Then all these disappear again slowly disintegrating into smaller ones. This time again sometimes so clear-minded and nondescribable feeling of experience.   Like that much more left. Not every one will have similar experience. Based on your previous experience from the beginning of practice and how closely done each session without hiatus so that how deep your concentration achieved it all depends.


text:
Do you need both parents' permission to become ordained?
Do you need both parents' permission to become ordained?
What if one of the parents refuses contact? Should you strive for it?

You'll have to ask the monastery you wish to ordain at. Some will even ignore a parent's opinion if it's clear that the parent doesn't have the child's best interests at heart.

Would you post that as an answer, please, Hugh, instead of as a comment?

This is a question of law. In some places, the laws will allow one parent, or even no parents, since it's a matter of religious preference. In other places, the laws are strict, and require both parents' permission.
This is also a question of the sangha's policies. Most will have an age limit because they observe a need to gain life experience. Some will permit children, and others will even seek after them, so that children will not be unduly influenced by outside ideas. So it depends a lot on who is asking, and who is doing the ordaining.
Ordination can be a big deal. Mostly, though, it's merely feeling a call to serve others, seek the best interests of the world and promote its well-being. Nobody needs an ordination for that, but it helps to have a legal piece of paper to avoid certain troubles.

According to the Theravada Vinaya, one wishing to ordain needs to obtain the permission of all living birth or foster parents, unless they have abandoned him or her.

A son whose parents have not given their permission. According to the
Commentary, this requirement includes foster parents as well as birth
parents. There is no need to get a parent’s permission if he/she is no
longer alive or has abandoned the son. From this it can be argued that
if the parents are divorced and one of them has totally abandoned
responsibility for the son, there is no need to get permission from
that parent. If, however, both parents continued to assume
responsibility for the son, he needs to get the permission of both.
Vinaya on Ordination

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


text:
Canonical definition of Upekkha
Where can I find a canonical definition of equanimity (upekkha) in the Theravada buddhist texts?

From SN 36.31:

"Now, O monks, what is worldly equanimity? There are these five cords of sensual desire: forms cognizable by the eye... tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense desire and alluring. It is the equanimity that arises with regard to these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly equanimity.'
"Now, what is unworldy equanimity? With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of gladness and sadness, a monk enters upon and abides in the fourth meditative absorption, which has neither pain-nor-pleasure and has purity of mindfulness due to equanimity. This is called 'unworldly equanimity.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly equanimity? When a taint-free monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred and freed of delusion, then there arises equanimity. This is called a 'still greater unworldly equanimity."

There's a chapter about the Brahmaviharas in the Visuddhimagga -- chapter IX, which starts on page 291 of this PDF: Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). The section on Equanimity starts on page 310.
The Visuddhimagga is a Theravada text, I'm not sure whether it's "canonical" (Wikipedia says, "It is considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures").


text:
Why this hair style on statues of the Buddha?
http://9gag.com/gag/arOnzn5 says that the Buddha's "hair" on this statue represents snails.

I thought Buddha shave his head like all his disciples. And there is a claim that his hair are actually snails.

The question isn't just whether the hair represent the snails, but what do the 108 snails present. Recall that Buddhism heavily utilize symbolism to convey it's message. It doesn't mean that the historical Buddha actually had snails on his head.
The number 108 represents the 108 mental afflictions.
http://mrob.com/pub/epist/buddhism.html

In traditional Buddhist thought, people are said to have 108
  afflictions or klesas. There are six senses (sight, sound, smell,
  taste, touch, and consciousness) multiplied by three reactions
  (positive, negative, or indifference) making 18 "feelings." Each of
  these feelings can be either "attached to pleasure or detached from
  pleasure" making 36 "passions", each of which may be manifested in the
  past, present, or future.
which corresponds to: {sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and
  consciousness} × {positive, negative, indifferent} × {attached to
  pleasure, detached from pleasure} × {past, present, future}    =
  6×3×2×3 = 108

In this sense the snails and their hard shells essentially represents mindful concentration which guards against all these afflictions.

Buddha didn't shave his hair like a monk, as a teacher doesn't wear uniform when students do, in school.
Buddha has deep blue hair, 绀青色 similar to ultramarine, his hair naturally curled clockwise, harmonized with the spinning of the universal energy. In fact the Buddha statues in ancient China are made with strict proportions, with support from the Sutras.
If the Buddha statues show signs that we ordinary human beings don't have, it's not necessary an imagination of the people at that time. For Buddha is an enlightened being, when one's self-cultivation has reached a higher level, the body will change, too, it must, else this is not a true advancement but only an intellectual achievement. The structure of a body is the reflection of thought, thus a facial feature, hair colour, skin texture, limbs etc., all are not randomly by chance, it has it's intrinsic value.

大般若波羅蜜多第381卷 link (Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra) 世尊髮毛端皆上靡，右
T06n0220_p0967c10║旋宛轉柔潤紺青 (hair right-curling with tips pointing upward) 世
T06n0220_p0968a05║尊眉間有白毫相，右旋柔軟如覩羅綿 (a fine white "thread/hair" between the eyebrows, also right-curling)... 《佛說造像量度經》 [link] (http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sutra/chi_pdf/sutra10/T21n1419.pdf) recorded the ratios and rules of making a Buddha statue, supposed this was asked by Śāriputra and this Sutra was written by him.

Bodhiharma always depicted with hair and beard, though bald at the top. link. Buddha also called himself "śramaṇa", who renounced the world symbolically most of them cuting off the hair, it's not necessary he shaved his hair all off. The monk with hair shaved clean is likely a later requirement. The shape of the head does reveal one's stage of self-cultivation. The hair should not hinder the sharp teacher's observation but in the later time, it may. The Ushnisha the fleshy protuberance signifies the completeness of enlightenment.

This is incorrect, Buddha shaved his hair

This blog entry, The Buddha's Hair, says no: not snails.
Also, you're probably right about his shaving his head:

the Tipitaka offers no authentic information about the Buddha’s hair other than to say that it was black (kalakesa) and that he cut it off when he renounced the world to become a monk (M.I,163). Although it is not mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka, we can safely assume that the Buddha shaved his head like all other monks. Depictions of him with hair, is an iconographical convention without historical basis.

It theorizes that it's an attempt to depict one of the "32 Signs of a Great Man", which it calls "a rather strange idea introduced into Buddhism at a later period", one of the signs being that "the Great Man’s hair was black and curled upwards and to the right".

So once he became a monk he never shave again?

I mean how old is he when he leave palaces and how old is he when he dies? He never shaves all those years?

The blog entry says, "we can safely assume that the Buddha shaved his head like all other monks".

Buddha cut his hair himself when he left his palace for retreat. In some India and Buddhism countries, it is not respectful that touching one's head if the one who touched is younger in age or less respectful (lower in rank) than the one who was touched. So logically no one should touch Buddha's head for shaving since Buddha is superior to all living beings. That is why there was no barber who did Buddha's hair after his retreat and Buddha-hood. So Buddha cut his hair by himself once when his monk life began, definitely not possible to shave himself. So there some hair left on the head and are all in clockwise spiral shape and rest till Buddha's Mahaprinivana.
The above statement is very logical but there are no reference or citation in pali canon as far as I read. Buddha definitely was not totally bald like monks and hair relic are supporting facts about it though it has not been proved scientifically.

Buddha did have one of his disciples to trim (tidy and keep the length) his hair after starting the Budda-hood, recorded in one of the Sutra I came across. The disciple's occupation was a barber (lower caste. Buddha accepted disciples from all castes to show that all beings' essences are equal) before becoming a monk.《佛本行集經優波離因緣品第五十五》(chapter 55) described Upali cutting Buddha's hair and entered deep meditation. Upali was the barber for all the princes incl. Siddhartha.

From an unverified source I read that those are snakes protecting his head from heat when he was exerting himself for enlightment.

That is not correct , those are just myths

Buddha had hair before he achieved nirvana. After that he shaved his head . Because buddha's father asked him not to be like that, because that was shameful to their family status , because in india all the lower class people and beggars used to shave the head .
But Buddha didn't listen to what his father said and kept the head shaved.
And he is like any other human being , no such differences as those stories say .
Side story
Once the Buddha was going somewhere by foot at stopped his journey when it 's dark and went inside a small public cottage nearby to spend the night. There was this person in this cottage who also was on his way to see Buddha. His name was "pukkusathi" as much as I remember, so Buddha asked about him, and he said he was going to see the Buddha, so this implies the Buddha was same as any other monk in appearance.
Conclusion
He might had curly hair before he achieved nirvana ,
I think its best to not to talk about Buddha s appearances because , only thing Buddha asked from humans was to follow the path to nirvana.
So the hair is like that on statues because , There are statues of other monks as well , so people have to identify who is Buddha to worship those statues, so the artists who made those had to make it that way to make it different from other statues.

Buddha cuts off his hair, not keeping the long hair with adornment is one thing, shaved all hair clean with a [b]bald head[/b] is another thing. Buddha did cut off his hair to renounce the prince statue, yet the bald head of a monk was a later version, which was not the monk at that time and Buddha's appearance, I believe. It needs more research and long explanation to support which I'll give a pass. See this picture, the monks are with cropped hairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#/media/File:Central_Asian_Buddhist_Monks.jpeg[/link]

The most logical answer is that Buddha was black, ie Negroid, which makes perfect sense as Asia's aboriginal population are black people.
Avoiding the most logical answer to the question is underpinned by some kind subconscious racialist notion that people have to evolve to develop straight hair and fair skin before they become capable of spiritual enlightenment.
It is similar to the questions which ask why Krishna is black or dark-skinned, as he is described as a curly-haired, black-skinned man with red eyes. I doubt the question about Buddha would be asked if he had the wavy or straight hair typical of  contemporary South Asians or of Krishna if his skin was white.
The first pic below is of a Semang man taken in 1906. Check the Wikipedia page.

Semang man 1906 (Malaysia) source wikipedia
This one below is a Jarawa woman from the Andaman Islands. The Jarawa are notable because they all exhibit the widow's peak often seen in Buddha images.

Compare her hair and widow's peak to the Buddha icon below.

The Jarawa man displays the hair better. You can see the widow's peak as well if you look well enough.

Buddha head statue, with elongated earlobes.
Buddha's ears are most likely the result of heavy earrings worn for long time, or plugs in the ear lobes. In effect the Buddha image is basically one of the African woman below with the ear lobe plugs removed, with added widow's peak.

Buddha is said to be from modern day Nepal. So the best guess of his appearance would come from what people in that area looked like. Using statues/paintings to determine what he looked like will not work as no one new what he looked like when first paintings/statues were made 100s of years after buddhas death. And every culture made the statue look like the ideal person of their culture.

It’s dreadlocked. Dreadlocks in Vedic Scripture is called Jaata which means twisted locks of hair. Short or long, usually worn by holy men, which the Buddha was.

As far as I know Buddha shaved his head.

He had curly hair, more sure where al this snale ish came from. As a person who has curly hair, I have this style just by accident


text:
What is the logic behind visualization meditation
I have practiced meditation for the better part of a decade now. I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but that's immaterial. I've experienced and practiced many kinds of meditation (energy, dream, mindfulness), and all of the meditations I have practiced I have a logic for. I can understand the goal of the meditation and why the meditation works.
One meditation that I've always been troubled by is visualization meditation. The type where repeatedly visualizing a very complex scene leads to certain goals. How is it that by visualizing a certain scene I enact unique changes in my psyche?
Obviously there are many different flavors, but recently every path I turn to has resulted in some kind of visualization meditation and I quite honestly doubt the very fundamentals of such a meditation. When I have such a strong doubt I certainly won't be able to practice effectively.
Are there any resources on this subject?

It depends on the system.
In the sutra system, there are analytical meditations involving visualizing the form of the body of the Buddha, for instance. You do this in order to achieve calm abiding on the mental image of the form of the body of the Buddha. It is very much practiced in Tibetan traditions, since it is said that the object (that mental image) is very virtuous and thus preferable to neutral objects such as one's breath and so forth. It is said that one has to focus on a mental image to achieve calm abiding: if you take the breath, usually from the fourth mental abiding (calm abiding itself being the tenth), your mind becomes so subtle that a mental image of the breath starts to appear. Taking a mental image (such as the form of the body of the Buddha) from the outset makes things easier.
In the tantra system, the way of visualizing, the reasons to do so, and the objects visualized are completely different. I will not go into it here because it is secret mantra. However, in general, one engages in deity yoga so as to take the resultant enjoyment body into a path. It's called "taking the result as a path", or "mixing of the ordinary states with the three kayas."
The idea is to create the substantial cause of the enjoyment body. This substantial cause has to be of a similar type (and in the continuity of its result). It is a special body, a special mental body you create the cause of when you identify with the deity.

I apologize I should have been more clear. I'm specifically referring to the practice within tantras. I also understand well that the specific objects of visualization certainly fall under secret mantra, but to me it feels very much as though the rationale behind this visualization as a practice is not secret mantra. This may just be my ignorance though. Thank you for the answer regardless of whether or not you are able to answer my clarified question.

@SlaterTyranus I added a little but it is as far as I can go, hoping that it will not cause distrust in anyone's mind reading such seemingly weird assertions. Enjoy your practice!

Many Kammaṭṭhāna (working places, or themes of meditation/reflection/visualisation), which are taught by the Buddha, are actually visualisations in regard of signs.

the 10 kasinas (certain colors, elements
(as less distructing for the mind)
tenkind of corpse
(parts of) the body (kāya)
(as to gain disenchantment in regard of form)

Especially objects in signs have the purpose to concentrate the mind. In regard of the objects of repulsion, they also give ground for transcendent form by focusing on it.
The other objects are visualisations of virtues (of the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) or reflections on own virtues (generosity, conduct, virtues like Devas) and then there are certain other visualisations of thoughts to more directly "change" ones level of awarness.
All, how ever, are used to gain certain concentrations used on one hand as proper dwellings, livelihood for the mind on one hand and as object of investigation for insight.
Since the prerequisite to gain absorbed concentration is the (a good amount) abounding from sensuality, such as visualization of grave stimulating objects of form, beautifullness in form, form to identify one self with it or even such as "bodily sequences" are not found in the advices of the Buddha, with is also clear when remembering that to transcendent form is the very first step.
Where ever such kinds of meditations are found,they can be content regarded as "this is not the teaching of the Buddha".
It's pupose might be what ever kind of "illusion" one might objecting with it or what ever identification one tries to pursue with such, but certainly not for release, undinging, Nibbana. It might be also of use for wordily special powers.
Again, if reflecting on Deities and Devas, one is encouraged to remember virtues one has (means there must be experians to be able to visualise) equal them.
Form and material qualities are not regarded as graspworthy at all but obstacles for any useful one-pointness or for inside, aside of those giving disgust to it.
A person, having grasped after seeing the Buddha in Form, when finally met him was taught clearly that seeking after form makes no sense, not lasting as it is: "Who ever sees the Dhamma, sees the Tathagata, who ever sees the Tathagata, sees the Dhamma." It should be clear, that this does not put into hope that lasting, real Form can be found or worthy to seek after.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Visualization utilizes the right hemisphere of the brain that encodes information in images far more efficiently than the left hemisphere that is verbal/linguistic/logical/rational. The old adage is that "a picture is worth a thousand words." This principle is the basis of the medieval system of memory training (see Francis Yates, The Art of Memory).
The unconscious expresses archetypal information using visual images and prelinguistic symbols that are psychologically powerful and empowering, as evidenced by the research of psychologist Carl Gustav Jung for example. Peter Harvey discusses visualization in his Introduction to Buddhism (Cambridge University Press), esp. pp. 347-57. See also Guenther, The Teachings of Padasambhava; Korn, Visualization: The Uses of Imagery in the Health Professions;  Ahsen, PsychEye: A Basic Introduction to the Natural Self-Analytic Images of Consciousness Eidetics; and Assagioli, Psychosynthesis.
Virtually all religions and spiritual paths testify to powerful visionary experiences including in the Pali Canon, including collective visionary experiences. It seems to be psychologically innate. Poetry and art also testify to the power and importance of the visionary/symbolic dimension of consciousness.

Right brain left brain distinction is a thoroughly debunked myth. Visualization meditation is also very distinct from a visionary experience.

The purpose of visualization is manifold depending on the practice:

guidance of the energy systems of the body (sambhogakaya)
making oneself focused and absorbed (samadhi)
mental factors are cultivated (i.e. generosity when practicing giving away of the body to hungry ghosts)
realigning one's belief systems with Right View

These are not all true for every visualization practice.

I would say that as a general mechanism, whether Buddhist visualization or some other kind, it probably relies on the concept of neural plasticity. Visualization could be viewed as an exercise for the brain, which in turn affected the mind.
Essentially, we are what we think, within limits of what is possible of course.
Scientifically there are many examples of the brain being physically changed by the input it receives. This has been shown in musicians for example and the representation in their primary somatosensory cortices. The increased representation is indicative of a greater abundance of receptors in the periphery and the combination confers better acuity, for example. Thus, the brain is sculpted by input, which in turn influences who we are or at the very least what we can do.
Now consider that mentally imagining an image or sound activates the same (or very similar) network of cells as perceiving the object for real. The implication is that our brains are also shaped by what we imagine, probably assuming you can imagine clearly.
Finally, perception, particularly when profound, has effects on the brain and body. Perhaps changing cardiorespiratory patterns, hormone release and all sorts of things. Presumably, if you could imagine the same percept very clearly, and sustained, it would lead to the same set of physiological changes. So, filling the mind with compassion, generating the experiential feeling associated with compassion should cause changes in the body that reflect genuine compassion, with the added bonus of the circuits being reinforced and easier to enter the next time.
Just a thought.

Definitely makes sense, but this is more about general meditation and doesn't have much to do with the specific practice I was mentioning.

You didn't really describe the meditation owing to it being secret. Is whatever you're visualizing completely neutral? If not then whatever it evokes would be what you're reinforcing in your psyche. The whole idea of plasticity is that it is specific to the stimulus, i.e. your meditation.

As an aside, the right brain left brain distinction is hardly a debunked myth. Just last week scientists at the Max Planck Institute published work explaining how the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex processes music as Broca's area on the left process language. Perhaps the media and pop books have exaggerated the concept of laterality but it is certainly real.

I think you're looking at Tenzin Dorje's response on the secrecy. I'm referring to the general tantric practice of visualization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra_techniques_(Vajrayana)#Visualisation
It's not a neutral, but rather extremely specific visualization that doesn't neatly fit into this explanation. I should have been more specific - I wasn't trying to say that there is no lateralization, more saying that the simplistic presentation made of it was thoroughly debunked. Hopefully reviewing the link above on the visualization I was talking about explains why this is not relevant.


text:
Causes of Reincarnation
If Buddha didn't believe in soul why did he believe in Re-incarnation, after life etc which could be because of soul ? What causes one to be born again, is that the desire, if it's the desire, Buddh's belief is the same as told by Krishna(who is supposed to be the previous incarnation of Buddha) who said "what you think at think about at the time of dying, you will be born likewise" Is the desire main cause of "Re incarnation" ?

The Pali scriptures (e.g. SN 12.2) define the word 'jati' ('birth') to mean the mental generation of the view, idea or thought concept of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self'. Please also refer to SN 5.10.
For example, in India today, the word 'jati' means 'social-self identity' or 'caste' rather than child birth from a woman's womb. To quote Wikipedia:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. Among the
  Muslims, the equivalent category is Qom or Biradri.
A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military
  scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may
  co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to
  district.

This contemporary Indian meaning of the word 'jati' is also found in ancient Pali scriptures, such as MN 98 (which describes the various social designations or 'jati' of people based on their kamma) and MN 86 (which refers to the life of a monk as a 'noble birth').
Therefore, what is called 'rebirth' in the Pali scriptures is the re-arising of this 'self-view' or 'self-social identity' within the mind (rather than reincarnation from life-to-life).
This 'rebirth' is caused ignorance & craving. Due to kamma (action), the mind develops more craving &, due to ignorance, the mind clings to that craving as 'self' or 'me'. This is 'rebirth'.
The famous Buddhist monk Ajahn Sumedho said:

Or, we speculate about re-birth: what is it that carries on from one life to the next if there's no soul? If everything's anatta, how can
  'I' have been something in a previous life and have some essence that
  is born again?
But if you watch the way things operate independently of yourself, you begin to understand that rebirth is nothing more than desire
  seeking some object to absorb into, which will allow it to arise
  again. This is the habit of the heedless mind. When you get hungry,
  because of the way you've been conditioned, you go out and get
  something to eat. Now that's an actual rebirth: seeking something,
  being absorbed into that very thing itself. Rebirth is going on
  throughout the day and night, because when you get tired of being
  reborn you annihilate yourself in sleep. There's nothing more to it
  than that. It's what you can see. It's not a theory, but a way of
  examining and observing kammic actions.
Kamma & Rebirth

As for Krishna, his appearance in the Bhagavada Gita (composed around 200 BC) occurred after the Buddha therefore Krishna could not be a previous reincarnation of the Buddha. Such ideas are obvious Hindu rather than Buddhist because, in the Pali Buddhist scriptures, the only gods mentioned are Indra (Vishnu), Brahma & Prajapati.

The Buddha's most famous sutta about "not-self" is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59).
There are various things (called Skandhas) which you might (mistakenly) think of as self:

Form (matter or body)
Sensation (feeling)
Perception
Mental formations
Consciousness

The Buddha argues that these are all impermanent, and not under our control, so we shouldn't think of them as self: we shouldn't think, for example, "I am this body" nor "I have this body"; and similarly for sensation, consciousness, etc.
Because there's nothing that isn't impermanent, there's nothing that can be described as self (or as soul).

Another sutta is Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22), which includes the following:

"You may well take hold of a possession,[26] O monks, that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition. (But) do you see, monks, any such possession?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such possession that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition."

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

In the above verses he says that if you can find something that's permanent, which if you accept it doesn't lead to "sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair", then you may accept it.
But, he doesn't see anything like that, and therefore doesn't assume there is such a thing (a thing which you should view, which you would be wise to view, as permanent self, permanently yours, e.g. "soul").

"Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.

The above verse is maybe part of the general Buddhist advice, that being attached to (or desiring) impermanent things results in unhappiness.

If Buddha didn't believe in soul why did he believe in Re-incarnation, after life etc which could be because of soul?
So apparently he didn't believe in soul because he saw things (everything) as impermanent.
There are various reasons for believing in rebirth: but one of them might be not seeing death as permanent. Someone once wrote, "Buddhists don't believe in death".
Actually the same person wrote that Buddhists (at least, Theravada Buddhists ... Tibetan Buddhism explains things differently) don't believe in reincarnation, they believe in rebirth. And really it's more just a believe in "birth" (as a cause of suffering and existence), rather than rebirth.
Another reason, I think, was because it's important to teach that actions and intentions have moral (as well as material) consequences.
Also, by the way, there's the matter of other people and of altruism. Assuming that actions are inconsequential would be wrong, according to AN 10.176:

And how is one made impure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: '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 how one is made impure in three ways by mental action.

Some teachers like the Dalai Lama say that it's by seeing other people as important that he doesn't feel trapped (which he would feel, trapped, if he thought of himself).

Another way to answer this question would be to say that the "cause" is karma, craving, and/or (in more detail) the 12 nidanas.

I think there are two main reasons "why," which is the question. First, according to the Pali Canon the Buddha actually experienced past life memories as a result of his Enlightenment experience. Second, the law of karma requires that every cause have an effect; therefore, if at death there are any "unfruited" causes, as will be the case with anyone driven by desirous attachment, these must remanifest in a subsequent rebirth, even if there is no permanent self or "soul."


text:
Therapeutic Effects of Masturbation
I've read in an article on religious views on masturbation that there were individuals in the Buddha's time that viewed masturbation as therapeutic. The reference given was (Vin. III 109) which I'm guessing stands for a part of the Vinaya, but I cannot really navigate my way and find the source. I'm wondering if anyone knows about these arguments for masturbation, and those which the Buddha gave in disagreement to these views. Ultimately I'd like to know whether masturbation is always a fetter, if one gains many benefits from its non-practice.
Thanks.

Celibacy and Religious Traditions, edited by Carol Olson (https://books.google.ca/books?id=apq1G-o2OzoC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=masturbation+vinaya+pitaka&source=bl&ots=YtJc3M7TAs&sig=DShKDVt6HKWn1yGu2D-tjf9dlSA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBkO3Sy8TQAhUkS2MKHXnYBlwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=masturbation&f=false) mentions Vinaya III.109 on page 222.
The reference appears to be to Sanghadisesa I, which appears on pages 192-98 of Horner, The Book of the Discipline, Vol. I (PTS ed.), where the venerable Seyyasaka was emaciated with yellowish skin and varicose veins. The ven. Udayin saw this and recommended that he eat, sleep, bathe and engage in the activity asked about "as much as you like," for reasons of health. This cured him, "and in a short time the venerable Seyyasaka was nice-looking with rounded features, of a bright complexion and a clear skin." Since the 5th cent. BCE was the golden age of Ayurveda, one wonders if there might be an Ayurvedic precedent for this? In any case, the Buddha rebukes Seyyasaka for this practice, saying that it is not appropriate for a monastic to engage in such a practice, which leads to passion, bondage, and grasping. The actual rule to which it gave rise is stated on page 195. As an infraction of the second order (disesa), it entails a formal meeting of the order. Also see the example referred to on page 359 (Vin. III 112).
The prohibition reminds me a bit of the Qur'anic prohibition against drinking alcohol, which simultaneously recognizes its health benefits yet prohibits it.

The idea/notion "Masturbation is therapeutic" in Vinaya was highly personal experience. In Vinaya, this particular monk is not pleased to be in life of monk and had thin body and he got normal body weight after having regular masturbation. In this very personal experience the monk had tendency to do sexual intercourse but he cannot. By doing masturbation he was trying to satisfy himself but actually he is encouraging the fetter to overcome him. There was nothing therapeutic effect in any extent.
I will try to answer your question with medical example. While we are trying to test the effect of placebo medicine to sampled/surveyed patients, it show significant positive effect on targeted patients. But not a single FDA from any country will approved that it will have therapeutic effect on the particular type of patient we tested. Scarcely, placebo medicine will be commercially available for this particular disease. Masturbation is lightweight demonstration of sexual intercourse. If you cannot do the latter, you are satisfied with masturbation. It will make you psychologically feel better but is is not therapeutic cure to extinguish strong sexual desire (which is fetter in Buddha's teachings). It is just like placebo medicine and highly personal experience.
There is another example, if someone is highly allergic to nicotine and addicted to cigar, will change from cigar to cigarette be better for his allergy? So as masturbation, it will make your sexual desire to burn more inside (which is definitely fetter in Buddha's teachings). If you think masturbation has therapeutic effect, then you are changing from cigar to cigarette expecting same therapeutic effect of cutting off nicotine intake. And that is why masturbation is prohibited in Sanga society by Buddha.
Buddha said masturbation is not make people bored about Samsara (born, live, die, reborn, live, die cycles). It is not beginning of noble practices to stop/get out of sufferings (Samsara).
Masturbation has only placebo effect on sexual desire to intercourse it will make personal Raga to make stronger. Raga is one of three unwholesome roots and now (at the time of 2016 AD) people thinks masturbation is disgusting and not allowed to do in public (compared to smoking, people does not like it, but there are public smoking places).
People has mindset that sexual desire is normal to animal instinct and one should practice masturbation if he/she cannot find mating partner but clearly it is psychological placebo and not therapeutic solution to cure to make calm to sexual thirst because they do not know what is cause of Raga, what is supporting Raga to grow in mind, what is the nearest cause of Raga and how to get rid of it.


text:
How Atheism and Buddhism are different?
As I'm knowing Buddhism called atheism religion but I've doubt both are different, I call myself I'm an atheist as well as Buddhist. Or it just described what is it ?

How are lightening and lightening bug different?

Atheism is not a religion. It's just a view that says there are no deities. Atheism is harmless & compatible with Buddhism when it just means there is no creator/almighty God who is responsible for our fates. But it becomes extremely dangerous and contradictory to Buddhism when it grows into nihilism & materialism.
On the other hand, Buddhism is a comprehensive religion with vast number of texts containing in depth teachings and clear guidance on the nature of phenomena and their workings. It teaches the causes of these phenomena, what we need to aim for, and how to achieve that which needs be achieved.
These teachings include deities, non-humans, hells, heavens, rebirth, karma etc. & also guidance on how to make the household life successful. Buddhism also has rules & rituals associated with it.

I wouldn't say any view is harmless, especially when we think we are correct.

A view is harmless if it is correct.

In what way do you mean? The side who holds the correct view in a war still gets harmed, that's why wrong view is any view and right view is no view.

Correct views do not cause harm. Views tainted by greed, aversion & ignorance cause harm

Atheism & Buddhism are the same in that both do not believe in a creator god.
Atheism & Buddhism are different in that atheism does not provide a path to end suffering.
Buddhism and some theistic religions have some similarities in that both share some (moral) aspects of the path to reduce suffering.

Buddhism and Atheism, these two words although having some overlap, are contradictory for most people. Atheism is not Buddhism, Buddhism is clearly not Atheism.
Buddhism can be said to be Atheistic because of rejection of conventional notions of afterlife and creation but Atheism cant be said to be Buddhistic because Atheism is rejection of specific views and not a view itself.
As i see it Atheism is a counter opposite to Theism and rejection of theistic religious views. Atheism clearly communicates what it doesn't believe, rather than what it actually believes.
Buddhism gives totally new definitions to words like "god", "angel", "good", "evil", "death", "wisdom" which are common concepts in theistic religions. Therefor Atheism doesn't really apply very well to the framework of Buddhism as i see it, because they deal with same words but completely different meanings.


text:
Which are the vipassana jhanas?
Which are the vipassana jhanas? What are the differences with the jhanas? Where can I find more information about them?

Please see Ven. Gunaratana's "The Jhanas". He gave pretty detailed descriptions of the standard jhanas versus the vipassana one, what's called "momentary concentration"/khanikaSamadhi.


text:
Four noble truths, any single being of mankind can invent, find the new truth other than that?
Gautama Buddha found the traditional path of previous Buddhas and spoke about "The four noble truths". Nowadays, people cannot talk about/discuss the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity. Did the current generation lose the ability to judge/determine/conclude the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity? Or do we universally accept the idea that not a single living being be able to find/invent/prove that the new truth about the entities? Do we really have to remove the words truth and false from our dictionaries since we are not allowed to use in anywhere else?

If you will study in-depth, the Four Truths are a complete system in themselves.
Asking if there is a 5th truth to be invented is like saying if there is an additional step to the scientific method... i.e. such a person does not understand the scientific method in the first place.

So, your question is from outside the perspective of Buddhism, which I have to say is wonderful.
From the Buddhist perspective, the word "truth" in English has multiple meanings which don't always strictly mean the objective truth of a situation without bias. For example, the Four Noble Truths are not true in the sense of "true/false" but rather in the sense of "true to the ideal"—in their case, true to the ideal of overcoming suffering. They are "truths" in that they are statements about that ideal as the Buddha taught, rather than being "false" and diverging from it.
We should each measure the truth of these by experience, rather than by any absolute truth or falsehood. Trying to talk about them in this sense shows a degree of lacking knowledge, and it doesn't apply in that sense.
So, no, it's not that these words are removed; it's that they don't apply in the way you want to apply them. They are faithful to the ideal teachings of the Buddha, and so cannot be claimed as false, even if they are found false by the measure of any particular person's experience.

The Four Noble Truths are absolutely true & cannot be disproven as false. Therefore, it is pointless to argue they are false.
This said, Buddhism does not encourage the dogmatic attachment to spoken truth but totally exhorts the truth must be verified by each wise person prior to belief.
In summary, the Four Noble Truths state:

All suffering is (egoistic) attachment to the five aggregates.
All suffering arises when there is craving leading to new (egoistic) becoming.
This suffering will end when craving ends.
The noble eightfold path is the way of practise to end suffering.

In short, it is impossible to show there is an arising of suffering without craving, attachment, becoming, egoism, etc.
However, people may not accept the truth due to craving, such as occurred in the Piyajatika Sutta, where a man did not believe the Buddha, when the Buddha said:

"Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear"

Instead, the man believed gamblers who said:

"Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear".