text:
Is it wrong to watch fight events like boxing, MMA, judo etc.?
From a Buddhist's perspective, is it wrong to watch such sports on television for example? Of course, I'm talking as a lay person. Monks have a completely different approach regarding entertainment.
Does watching it create any bad Kamma?

In one instance a head of a group of actors asked from Buddha if his profession is a good one and whether he could go to heaven because he provides entertainment. Buddha refused to answer this question three times. But when he insisted on, Buddha's answer was,

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

So I think this applies to such sports as well because they are not devoid of passion, aversion and delusion. So technically, any action or intention with desire, anger and delusion should create bad karma.

Great answer. This is how I would reply as well.

Indeed. I agree. Someone devoted to 'live according to Buddha Dhamma' would not do things/act that'll cause more desire, delusion..

The excessive use of double negatives makes this an arduous read.

Does it create bad Kamma?

It can!
Watching the news, dramas, commercials, musical shows etc. can create bad Kamma. Seeing the no signal screen can create bad Kamma. Doing school work can create bad Kamma. Eating an ice-cream can create bad Kamma. Drinking water can create bad Kamma. Smelling a flower can create bad Karma. Scratching your head can create bad Kamma. Stretching your arms can create bad Kamma.
Even if you sit in the dark and do nothing, you can still be creating bad Kamma. It depends on whether you have Samma Sati or not. Whatever you do can create bad Karma as long as your thoughts are defiled with craving, aversion and ignorance.

Is it wrong to watch sports entertainment?

Only if you take the eight precepts. MMA, Judo, Boxing etc. fall under the 7th precept.

Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana
  mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani
  sikkhapadam samadiyami - I undertake the precept to refrain from
  dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing
  garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

So it will be wrong to watch them on Poya days when you take the eight precepts.
Can it still create Karma even if you don't take the precepts? Yes.

"Wrong" is highly subjective. I dont see how simply seeing something going on in front of you is inherently "wrong"... It would be detrimental to an attempt to practice the 8 precepts strictly if it is viewed as entertainment and is certainly not necessary for practice. Kammicly it could attach your mind (if you are entertained) to aspects of reality giving them a propensity to bring about a possible good or bad situation really. speculation on that is dubious at best.


text:
Why not force awareness of things during vipassana?
I have heard a lot about vipassana just being mindful of what happens to come up, not looking for more things to notice. However, if we compare meditation with e.g. lifting weights, when you start, you lift (say) 50, so even though its harder, you add 20 more... Then when you normally just need to lift 50, its way easier because you've been working out with 70. My question is, why not do that with meditation? I'm curious why some people don't think it's the thing to do.
As in speed noting, if I can be aware of everything all at one time constantly isn't that being fully aware?  If I can see even the most minute details of the current reality effortlessly through pushing my mental ability during meditation, looking further into things to note more things and staying aware of them all at one time moment by moment till they pass away.  Until you lose track but then try to remember to be attentive to those that remain and notice the new.
What is said about mental "exercise" as a developmental practice?

Moved your comment into the question. Deleted my answer as no longer applicable.

The mental exercise the be able to note everything is developing Concentration and Wisdom. These are tenets covered in the Anapanasati Sutta and (Maha) Satipatthana Sutta according to the Theravada Tradition.

yes, ive been looking into the Visuddhimagga

Forcing awareness is a tricky concept.  I would not be surprised if every practitioner of meditation has done it on occasion.
The best analysis I have found for the issue is that forcing awareness can, in theory, allow one to become more insightful and aware.  However, the act of doing so admits the "desire for insight and awareness."  By meditating in this fashion, it is not possible to simply let that desire pass through you.  It is held on to.  At the very least, this is a desire which will not pass.  It can obscure that which you are looking for.  At its worst, it can lead you down a false target leading you along a less ideal path.
I have found that forcing awareness in meditation can be effective for identifying illusions and assumptions, but it is less effective at actually encouraging awareness.  Accordingly, in this complicated world with its many illusions and assumptions, I feel it has its place.  However, the traditional approaches as advised by the other answers are more effective as these things they do best.  A focus on them is wise.

Vipassana meditation isn't about being mindful of as much as possible, but about developing mindfulness to the point where we can clearly see the nature of reality in the three characteristics. It doesn't matter how many or how few things you see, as long as you discern it. If you are able to discern them and maintain it, you can attain enlightenment with even a single object.

yeah, but if i wanted to develop a very insightful and powerful mind for teaching and helping others... i do understand the different opinions reguarding the subject. I suppose im just looking for some direct opinions in a reliable environment.

Both Samatha and Vipassana meditation can help you with that, as both will lead to the abandoning of the five hindrances which go a long way towards deepening understanding of things. Beyond that, there aren't really any specific meditations I know of that develop conventional intelligence and insight. However, the Buddha did say that the Karmic cause for intelligence is the asking of questions, so I would recommend studying a lot and engaging in a very inquisitive kind of reflection on whatever you are studying to gain conventional insight.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the second precept only apply to theft?
Considering the second precept

Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

which I am most familiar with its translation as

I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given

Does this precept only apply to cases of theft or can it be extended into more intangible possessions such as someones time or energy? Considering the answers around the illegal download question it does seem as if there are interpretation in which it is only theft. I'd particularly like to know interpretations from different schools and the differences (or not) between them.
For this can we take the definition of theft as provided by wikipedia

theft is the taking of another person's property without that
  person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful
  owner of it.

No, it's meaning is far wider even in Theravada, let alone in Mahayana.
Check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's compilation of Vinaya: the cases he lists include dealing with counterfeit money and smuggling goods without paying custom duties -- which clearly goes beyond expropriating someone's property.
Of contemporary teachers, e.g. Bro. Chan Khoon San (trained in Myanmar's Theravada) lists the following Types of Taking What Is Not Given in his Introductory Course on Early Buddhism:

The most blatant, involving threats or force, are daylight  robbery, extortion, purse snatching, kidnapping.
The second type is stealing or secretly taking the article without  the owner's knowledge such as housebreaking, burglary and
  pick-pocketing.
The third type is fraud, laying false claims or cheating by  confidence tricksters to gain someone's possessions.
The fourth type is deceit when dishonest traders cheat their  customers by false weights and measures or supply products of  lower
  quality than specified.
The fifth type is forgery when people pass counterfeit money as  real or sell counterfeit gold and jewelry.
The last type, though seemingly slight, is very common and  occurs when employees take small items from their company for  their own use
  without paying for it.

Most importantly, we should not forget the main purpose of training rules: to help one "curb the grosser forms of defilements" (Bro. Chan Khoon San):

The actions prohibited by the precepts such as killing, stealing,
  sexual misconduct, false speech and  partaking of intoxicants are all
  rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and when we succumb to them, we
  strengthen these evil roots that they become dominant traits. By
  undertaking to observe the precepts, we weaken the grip of these evil
  roots by dispelling them with wholesome mental volitions. Each time
  the precepts are upheld, each time the moral volitions become
  strengthened, until  eventually morality becomes a habitual trait
  through the condition  of repetition (asevana paccaya).

Sat-Dharma (True Dharma) is famously "good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end". Among other things this means that Buddhist precepts both play their role at supporting social harmony and decreasing anguish at large, AND they propel the practitioner towards Enlightenment. All interpretation of Buddhist precepts must be made in light of their dual purpose.

I agree with Andrei's answer but would like to add some extra point.
One of Vajrayana teachers taught that every little action creates some subtle Karma and we should be mindful whenever we reach out for things. For example, when visiting friends we may find out that we forgot our toothpaste so we use the one that is in the bathroom asserting that the friends wouldn't mind us using their paste. Technically, however, we took something that was not given to us.
Instead of getting paranoid that we constantly create negative impressions, we can twist such situations and use them as an opportunity to generate something positive. We go ask our friends whether they could lend us some paste not out of fear of breaking the precept, but rather because we want to offer them a chance to be generous. It is not a big deal to offer some toothpaste to friends, but every, however small, act of generosity creates positive impressions in our minds. It is also a chance for us to express gratitude to our kind friends.

The Buddhist precept, "adhinna dhana weramani sikka phadan samadiyami," emphasizes the avoidance of stealing others' possessions.
This precept is transgressed when an individual takes something that rightfully belongs to someone else without their consent, making theft the primary focus. Intentional theft of another's property constitutes a breach of this precept. However, if one obtains the owner's consent, their actions are in accordance with the precept, underscoring the importance of respect for personal boundaries and consent in the context of this ethical guideline.

I think we should make it clear, are we talking about Buddhists precepts or about the consequences of our actions?
The precepts are 2600 years old so they will not address modern issues in a very specific way, it will always be a matter of interpretation, for example: Is cybersex, without real touch, considered wrong according to the precepts? I think the answer is yes, but it is open to interpretation.
From a Buddhist's precept perspective (downloads) I believe we will not reach a final conclusion and that is alright, I personaly heard monks saying it is wrong and it is ok, so you will have to decide, the debate will go on and on...
If you think in terms of the consequence of your actions, there is not much to debate, it is simple and clear, stimulating pirate CDs and illegal downloads will stimulate the pirate's industry and take money away from the legal industry, you will be creating problems for people that are just trying to make an honest living, we should put ourselves in their shoes and also we should think about what kind of society we want to create.
In the end, it is up to us, it is a personal choice.

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

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


text:
Buddhist precepts and suppression
In the Buddhist precept it teaches us to 'abstain' and 'refrain'. How is this abstention is different to suppression? It's good to practice with understanding and wisdom but most people are still practising, some people are naturally good in practising some precepts but not the other precepts. Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal? Why should someone follow and practice the Buddhist precepts (5, 8, 10 or hundreds of precepts) if there is no suppression?

1. How is abstention different from suppression?
It is not. Suppression means "preventing the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain" 1, so they are actually synonyms.
(In case you are referring to the psycho-analytical concept of repression, instead of suppression, then abstinence is indeed different from it since repression is applied in a different context and from a different point of view.)

2. Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal?
I'd say suppression (as defined above) is mostly useful in the initial phases of developing morality. As one progresses, there will be no more suppression since the act of abstaining will be implicit in the use of alternative skillful actions. (For example, instead of just abstaining from punching someone when one gets angry, one may foresee the upcoming situation and take appropriate measures like avoiding or seeking mutual understanding. Technically, one is still abstaining but this type of action is more refined and has no element of stopping a punch from happening when anger has already entered one's mind.)
So I'd say, no, it is not true.

3. Why should someone follow and practice the Buddhist precepts (5, 8, 10 or hundreds of precepts) if there is no suppression?
As I pointed above, suppression and practicing the precepts are the same in the beginning. After that initial stage the precepts are still being followed but there will be no suppression.
This leaves this specific question (3rd question) meaningless. If this was not the type of answer you were looking for in this specific question, I suggest clarifying it a bit since I had a bit of trouble understanding it.

Thanks for your prompt reply. I think there are many ways in dealing with our shortcomings such as anger, we can see there are a lot of anger management provided by some company. But how about something more subtle such as sensual desire or the desire of sexual activity?
Someone who eats 3 meals a day needs to adapt himself to 1 meal a day, there is repression of hunger in the initial stage. But I believe sexual desire is much more subtle and rooted in our being so to speak.

It can take a whole life of 'initial phase', we are told our body is full of impurities or maybe imagining woman as mara for example yet the desire is still there only 'temporarily inactive'. How is it different from repressed sexual desire?
We can only practice the precepts without repression if we are perfectly enlightened. But repression is not the way of practice at the same time, right?

When the perception of ugliness is well established towards the body, desire fades away very quickly. By training this perception, in time, that desire won't even come up and so there won't be repression because there won't be anything to repress. One can only repress what is present. If the sexual desire is not present, there is no repression. This and other forms of meditation also help by providing another source of pleasure which acts as a support for abandoning sensual desire.

The purpose of focusing this i.e. body is full of urine, faeces, pus, etc. is to hold back the sexual desire. So there is suppression there. And no one knows how long one needs to 'instill' this perception.

This is turning into an argument and not an addition or a request for clarification of the answer which is the purpose of the comment section. Do you have an additional question to ask? If you do, feel free to ask. If not, then we'll end here and I'd wish you well and good luck!

**Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal?
**
Yes there is an element of suppression until we reach the final goal but it is more a question of intensity.One starts with suppressing a lot then it gradually lessens to not needing to suppress anything anymore.Not needing to because at some stage insight would have arisen and uprooted the defilement from its root or weakening it considerably.
For example one may use the Jhanas as a means to suppress the hindrances and to let insight arise.Once insight has arisen then the hindrances can be eradicated.Same goes for practicing the precepts as a form of restraint. Precepts deals with the coarser hindrances and the Jhanas deal with subtle hindrances.
Suppression of defilements is needed in the path because wisdom,which is the only thing that can eradicate defilements, cannot arise when one's mind is running around with defilements in the first place.


text:
What does the Pali canon, and other respected work, teach about parenting?
What does the Pali canon, and other respected work, teach about parenting, particularly early fatherhood? In particular the many possibilities for dukkha which arise?

I also found this question and answer useful, not least because the questioner was better at expressing their query. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-to-combine-buddhism-with-being-a-parent

It teaches that birth is suffering for the reason that it is like entering into a binding contract:

One goes through all these sufferings simply because one happens to take a new existence. Accordingly, jāti, re-birth, being the foundation of all the miseries of the whole existence, is defined as dukkha by the Buddha. A careful consideration will confirm the accuracy of this definition. Re-birth is really dreadful like signing a document which later will give rise to complications. Thus jāti is dukkha because of its dreadfulness. To summarise, the physical and mental afflictions are occasioned (arise) because of jāti in each existence. Only when there is no more re-birth will there be total release from these inflections. Thus the Blessed One had taught that the very origination of new existence, jāti is suffering.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

It teaches that children have power over their parents:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight powers. What eight? (1) The power of children is weeping; (2) the power of women is anger; (3) the power of thieves is a weapon; (4) the power of kings is sovereignty; (5) the power of fools is to complain; (6) the power of the wise is to deliberate;"" (7) the power of the learned is reflection; (8) the power of ascetics and brahmins is patience. These are the eight powers.”
AN 8.27 (Bodhi, trans)

It teaches that a parent has responsibilities towards their children:

"In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
  (ii) I shall do their duties,
  (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
  (iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
  (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed
  relatives.[9]
"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:
(i) they restrain them from evil,
  (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession,
  (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
  (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.
"In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the East and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the East covered by them and made safe and secure.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

It teaches that parents are meant to be helpful to their children:

“‘Brahmā,’ bhikkhus, is a designation for mother and father. ‘First teachers’ is a designation for mother and father. ‘Giftworthy’ is a designation for mother and father. For what reason? Mother and father are helpful to their children: they raise them, nurture them, and show them the world.”
AN 3 (Bodhi, trans)

It seems to suggest that children might are an impediment to attainments higher than stream-entry:

Sitting to one side, the lay follower Dhammadinna then said to the Blessed One: “Let the Blessed One, venerable sir, exhort us and instruct us in a way that may lead to our welfare and happiness for a long time.”
“Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness.’ It is in such a way that you should train yourselves.”
“Venerable sir, it is not easy for us—dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying Kāsian sandalwood, wearing garlands, scents, and unguents, receiving gold and silver—from time to time to enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness. As we are established in the five training rules, let the Blessed One teach us the Dhamma further.”
“Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will possess confirmed confidence in the Buddha … in the Dhamma … in the Saṅgha.… We will possess the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken … leading to concentration.’ It is in such a way that you should train yourselves.”
(Bodhi, trans)


text:
If someone purposefully obsessed over a certain animal how much might it impact their chances of rebirth as that animal?
And im looking for a buddhist perspective mainly, preferrably the views of various traditions.
But yeah, if i (for example) wanted to be reborn as a bird, would obsessing over and even acting birdlike, practicing a birdlike mentality, living on seed (grain)... even dying with bird thiughts in full swing... stuff like that, would the attachment and desire cause my mind to reform into a bird?
(Sidenote- i do not want to be reborn as a bird. It is a valid point i am trying to understand in a round about way).

I think Buddha has answered this question perfectly. You can find the full answer here. Two people went and asked the same question from Buddha. One of them was practicing like a dog and the other one was practicing like an ox. Here's the answer to the one who was practicing the dog duty by the blessed one.

.. someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell.

So I think it's not difficult to deduce what happens to the person who tries to act like a bird.

yep... he answered that one pretty well. haha.

Yes and no. Being observed with a bird will increase the probability of you being born as a bird. This does not mean any would be definite.


text:
Do meditative "exercises" and "mental workouts" enhance the ability to reach enlightenment?
If i were to practice some serious brain training regimens for a short period to develop my mundane mental faculties into almost super powers...
or even to develop Super mundane powers...
1- Would that enhance my ability to become fully "Enlightened" (not nibanna or arahantship) faster and/or with more ease?
2- Would it help me to help others reach full enlightenment more?

if your super powers make your ego more proud, it will definitely be an obstacle on your way.

definately watching for that, but thanks for the reminder!

All the abilities you have might work as a tool to benefit others or an obstacle on your way. It really doesn't matter what abilities you have, Buddha gave countless of teachings for people with various capabilities and they all are able to reach enlightenment.
Personally, years ago I developed really good memory. Many people are astonished that I am able to recall details of events that happened years ago or that I remember long sequences of numbers, words etc. Maybe not a super power, but something I gained while deliberately practising some specific cognitive techniques. Does it help in my Buddhist practice? Well, when reading texts I easily remember many details so I need much less time to read and understand some teachings of my masters. But on the other hand, I also remember lots of bad days of my friends. While others already forgot some unpleasant things, I still keep it and my good memory doesn't want to let it go. This is a real obstacle on my way.
If you want to develop great abilities to benefit others, it implicitly means that you feel compassion to other sentient beings. But to benefit others you really don't need super powers, you can simply be kind. Try to smile to strangers, say some nice words to cheer people up, offer some time to your friends so you can listen to them and give some comfort. There is lots of people around us who suffer and very often all they need is someone to offer a little bit of interest and support.
To answer your 2 questions directly:

No, super abilities won't enhance the ability to reach full enlightenment. To be fully enlightened you need to get rid of ego and understand the emptiness of all phenomena. You need to embrace the impermanence of all compounded things - your brain is only a tool you can use and one day it will die. The enlightened mind, on the other hand, is a clear space without the limits. To reach enlightenment you will need to give up your ego and brain. So it really doesn't matter if you have to give up a normal ego or super-mundane ego. In terms of ease and time needed to reach enlightenment - it all depends on how much pride, attachments, compassion etc. you have. So better start with working on that.
Super-mundane abilities are only tools so on their own they won't help you to benefit other beings. Imagine having a knife - you can either cut bread to feed others or you simply can kill them. It all boils down to whether you have more compassion or anger.

If one wants to quickly reach enlightenment there is no point developing super-mundane powers. The fastest way to enlightenment is to use techniques to give up ego and understand emptiness. The fastest way to benefit others is to develop compassion and start with being kind to people around us.

You become enlightened only when you develop knowledge of Dependent Origination, the 3 characteristics, and 4 Noble Truths. Not when you develop powers.
If you do have powers this might help in teaching (the only permissible use of such powers in Theravada Buddhism). But trying to develop them you might get "lost" as you might get attached to the powers.


text:
How buddhist meditation leads to liberation?
Buddha taught meditation to develop concentration, calm of the mind to finally experience nibbana.
Other religions (Hindu yoga, etc) also taught meditation.
So in which way Buddhist meditation is different? and leads to end of suffering?
If I'm not wrong, if someone is absorbed in concentration, whatever religion does not matter. since there is no thought during absorption.
Please explain if possible in terms of 7 factors of awakening, 8 foldpath, etc...

The essential difference is that in Buddhist meditation, at some point one uses one's mind to actively examine and investigate one's direct experience and to realize it's nature that way. This is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold path, Right Mindfulness, Samma-Sati. It is described in the Sattipatthana Sutta like this:

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, >alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains >focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & >mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
...
In this way he remains focused internally on the body etc... in & of itself, or >externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & >of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the >body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of >origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a >body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, >unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains >focused on the body in & of itself."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html )
The result of which is that the mediator begins to discern that reality is impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self. As one realizes this more deeply, one is lead to liberation. This process is described in many places in the Suttas, most famously in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta like this:

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with >form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with >fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. >Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, >'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task >done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

(Source http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )
Non-Buddhist systems of meditation often focus on just developing concentration without this process of analyzing direct experience, and so end up attaining other things, such as mastery of the Jhanas, rebirth into the Brahma worlds etc... There is nothing wrong with these other things, and they can also be a part of Buddhist practice, but they aren't the goal.

Hi! In this post are you implicitly saying that jhana does not lead to insight? If that's the case, why do you think the Buddha insisted so much on the importance jhana had on its own journey to awakening? Aren't some of the jhanas described as states that produce the arising of the awakening factors related to the development of wisdoms, just as stated here and here. Kind regards!

This is one of those questions that an entire book could be written to answer. Fortunately it already has - the Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman. The book is a comparative survey of mediation across a number of traditions. He takes in Buddhism and Hinduism which one might expect and also brings in Christainity, Judaism, Islam and secular practices.
This book doesn't give any particular pride of place to Buddhist practices as such although he does reference the Visuddhimagga extensively as a map to meditation. So maybe it is overall looking at it in a Buddhist framework although I think it is more fair minded than this.
If I had to maybe try to give the main difference I would perhaps say there is a real systematisation of the path to enlightment that is perhaps not as strongly pronounced in other traditions particularly if we are looking a Abrahamic faiths. This is probably best exemplified by the 51 mental factors as outlined in the Abididarma and also in maps in the aforementioned Visuddhimagga.
I think there is also a feeling that Buddhism has emphasis on insight practices but not been an expert in comparative religion I couldn't attest to that. Certainly in the Meditative Mind there is a list of awakened states and this is not exclusive Buddhist at all. Sufism has Baqa, kabbalah has devekut, TM has cosmic consciousness etc...

The method of meditation is learning through play. You study your mind by trying to make it do things. As you study the mind, you study various aspects of how it generates "reality".
For example, if you are drowsy, by trying various mental tricks that might keep you awake, you can learn something about your mind. (I'm not suggesting staying up as a serious practice, just using it as a simplest example.)
Some people erroneously take the goal of meditation to be a state of non-distraction (from the object of meditation, e.g. breath), or even a state of open awareness -- which is pretty cool, but not the goal. The goal is to exhaust samsara. In order to exhaust samsara you must exhaust ego. In order to exhaust ego you must explore all corners where Enlightenment might hide, until you know you couldn't have possibly missed it. Then it finds you :)

May of the other systems outside Buddhism do not emphasise Morality, Concentration and Wisdom (3 Fold Training) to the extent there is in Buddhism. In many cases it become to develop either morality or concentration. For enlightenment you need all 3 hence Buddhism is the only holistic and balanced systems as per my perspective which can take you to enlightenment.
In buddhism you use meditation and concentration as a tool to see reality as it is. This includes understanding of the Dependent Origination, the 3 Characteristics, and the 4 Noble Truths.
When practicing Vipassana and start developing the 37 Factors of Enlightenment which include the 7 Factors of Awakening and the 4 Right Exertions you more towards enlightenment.

Try to see this book..knowing and seeing...
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/know-see.pdf
This book is a practical version of The Path of Purification.
This book is also a very good reference.


text:
Does the "nature" of a person move with her to the next life?
Imagine a person that is very calm, generous, doesn't like to harm others etc. If this person gets a rebirth in the human realm will he/she develop the same characteristcs?
The point is that Kamma and the last mental state can go on, but according to Anatta I'm not sure about the rest.

kamma doesn't actually go on. kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed. Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future.
It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life; a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality.

"Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."
MN 19 (Bodhi, trans)

That makes sense to me, like the stream entry, we are moving in this "flow", in this direction, so probably a calm and gentle person will reborn like that, of course other events can change it, but it would be the natural tendency...

I've heard this issue described as one of the major philosophical problems for Buddhism. How does rebirth make sense in the absence of a fixed self? The problem is akin to the problem of evil for Christians - how does a good God allow bad things to happen. And as fitting this kind of problem there's been a lot of historic opinion and arguably no definitive answer.
The thoughts and analogies that I have found useful have been

One position is that there is rebirth but no-one is reborn. I fit this satisfying mystical to be honest.
The analogy of the candle. A new candle is lit from an old one and the flame passes from candle to candle. We can't say it's the same flame but then we can't say that the flames in the candles are unrelated. The contention is that this is an instructive way to think about rebirth.
Another analogy of a pile of coins versus a string of beads. Reincarnation (with a soul) can be viewed as a string of beads. There is something (the thread/a soul) that runs through all beads. A pile of coins is like rebirth (no soul). There is nothing running in the pile of coins that gives them their location in the pile. However it is the positions of all the previous coins that gives the uppermost coin it's elevated position.
If none of these work then there is always the Buddha's advice about not worrying about such metaphysical mechanics. Knowing this stuff won't help you get liberated.

I am aware that Tibetan Buddhists will have a far more definite idea about how these things happen. The perspective of this answer is probably more Theravadan but the book that I've sourced this from is more eclectic and even secular (Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya ).

Looking at it from another angle, what would it mean to be reborn without your nature? In what sense would the reborn being still be you? Rebirth without persistence of nature is indistinguishable from no rebirth at all.

Everything is impermanent, even one's nature. If you look at the span of your life, your year, your month, or even a single day in your life you will see that your nature is in a constant state of change.

Agree with @Christopher Lee on this but with a small addition.
Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away.

so a calm person in this life can become a murderer in the next one?

Yes. If you look at the Bodhisattva, in one life he murdered his brother to get the inheritance. But having said this general strong characteristics persist.

Nature doesn't move. Your thinking is moving. You cannot think about your nature, you cannot speak about it, because your thinking is a "product" made from the nature by your tendencies which again raise from your habits.
We need to perceive our nature to understand it. Not to think about it. It's like to think about meals instead to eat.
Your nature appears when you stop the mess in your head.
Right now!
Enlightenment
Helping others
Congratulations! :-)


text:
Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?
I was reading about Buddhism in Wiki and I just am not able to make out if celibacy is a must for Buddhists?

In practice, some schools seem to allow non-celibate monks and nuns. I've known a few soto-zen monk/nun couples...

What kind of Buddhism? As I have to keep reminding question askers, Buddhism isn't a monolithic single thing with a central body for deciding doctrine. Also, within a sort of Buddhism, do you mean lay or monastic? You used the tag five-precepts, which normally means lay Buddhist who in no tradition that I no of obliges lay Buddhists to be celibate.

Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?
The answer depends as follows:

As a householder, no, celibacy is not required. It is only required to abstain from improper sexual conduct. And what is improper sexual conduct?

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.
-AN 10.176, To Cunda the Silversmith (Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta)

As a monastic, yes, celibacy is required. You can get a better understanding of monastic celibacy by reading this discourse (AN 7.50, which is at the bottom of the linked page).

This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to be celibate if they feel inclined to do so.

The referred discourse (AN 7.50) in the answer above is now a 404 link.

@Troll Updated.

If you choose a way of a monk - you have to keep your vows so celibacy is a must for you.
If you choose to be a lay Buddhist, you should undertake 5 precepts and one of those is avoiding sexual misconduct. When two people love and respect each other they can generate lots of happiness through sex. In tantric Buddhism giving sexual pleasure is actually seen as a form of generosity.
One of the most important practices in Vajrayana Buddhism is meditating on Yidams (Buddha forms). Some of the forms represent male and female Buddhas in union. If Buddhas do it, there must be nothing intrinsically impure in sex.

It would be ideal if a question like this were framed as either an inquiry into personal experiences and views or as relating specifically to the precepts of specific schools of Buddhism.

am not able to make out if celibacy is a must for Buddhists?

The answer I would give is no. Only one Buddhist ever was required to practice celibacy: that was Shakyamuni; and he required it of himself by "marrying himself to the Earth." In an allegorical sense this marriage is indicated by the story of Shakyamuni's final struggle with Mara (the devilish nature of delusion integral to all beings; an innate part of consciousness); when challenged by Mara to produce any person who could testify that he, Shakyamuni, was qualified to become the Tathagata, the Teacher to all living beings, Shakyamuni placed his hand, palm upon the ground and said "The Earth is my witness" (it is said that when he did this, the ground trembled in many directions, scattering the followers of Mara, who fled in terror).
Vinaya, the codified rules of monastic conduct, do not apply outside the school which claims them. So the Vinaya of Theravadan Buddhists cannot be applied to those answering from a Mahayana perspective (as informed readers will no doubt deduce that I am).
I have been celibate for more than a dozen years as I write this. I am in my 50s and am a male American person. It has some great aspects.  However, everything is like a blade that has two edges.

(+1) for some decentness in your answer which I like much (without being sure I'll share everything while I'm thinking over it)

a delicious cake is displayed in a cake shop showcase and a male  and female ,both are tempted to eat it .they go inside, order it, eat it together with joy. now nobody will think it as immoral,etc etc. There is no guilt associated with it. but as regards to sensuality ,eating is attached with guilt,immorality etc etc. It is this attached guilt is hindrance in any kind of spirituality be it hinduism,buddhism,christianity,islam and lot many. this associated taboo has its roots in the early primordial humans living in tribes,groups. The desire of sensual pleasure makes the women vulnerable and vica versa .to protect it the taboo might have been got associated. we cannot help it now ,since this taboo is coming from thousands of years . even the small children are taught to refrain from touching their private parts and hence how they will also come out of this taboo. the cycle goes on repeating . the taboo is not associated with wearing nice clothes,eating delicious food,enjoying good movie. if the guilt of being immoral is absent then there is no need to give so much importance to this taboo. whole religions are whirling on this aspect only. so listening/following to those are also filled with ego of maintaining celibacy .On the contrary the ego or "i " is to dissolved,ruptured. So it is upto the individual what to follow. celibacy making the "i' still stronger or tabooless,guiltless non celibacy.

Something which is intrinsic to Buddhism applies to it regardless of its levels of practice or cultural variation. Insofar as the 8-Fold Path is definitive for Buddhism as a stipulated formula of practical application interpreted according to insight received in meditation, there is no part of it which clearly requires celibacy.
It would be far more helpful to talk about monasticism, the extremes to which it tends to aim, and whether celibacy is intrinsic to Buddhist monasticism, or indeed monasticism of every other kind. The justification for it being essential and important to monasticism is in part what also sets up the contextual Indian framework of the Four Stages of Life (Student, Householder, Forest-Dweller, and Renunciate): that the energetic focus and interest wanes from or turns aside from conventions, reproduction, and the drama of emotional co-dependence, and shifts toward cohabited placidness, the peace attractive to those with spiritual values, and the equipoise available to those set upon Nirvana.

Originally, in the 1st sermon, it was made quite clear the Noble Eightfold Path was a celibate path.

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One
  addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus:
Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
  happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
  worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
  self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
  veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
  to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
  knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
And what, bhikkhus, is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata,
  which gives rise to vision … which leads to Nibbāna? It is this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. This, bhikkhus, is that middle way awakened to by the
  Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge,
  which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to
  Nibbāna.
SN 56.11


text:
Is austerity necessary in Buddhism?
I have been watching Buddhist followers for sometime now in India and it made me wonder if austerity is necessary in Buddhism ?
Like if I wish to become a Buddhist do I need to give up on listening to music, watching tv, using social networking sites, making a livelihood by working in a firm, self- pleasure (read masturbation), have to sleep on floor and beg for a living?
I don't mean any of this questions in an offense way. But most of the people here, at least the common opinion as most of my friends/family have told me is that if you believe in Buddhism you have to live like a "Monk".

You will need to give up lots. However, I see loads of monks not
sticking no.7 of the precepts.

Is austerity [as defined above] necessary in Buddhism?
The answer depends as follows:

As a householder, austerity, as you defined above, is not required since it's not part of the five essential precepts prescribed for him.1 However, this austerity, also know as the 8 precepts, is usually applied during retreats and Uposatha days.2
As a monastic, it is required consistently since it will help to develop the meditation practice more effectively by diminishing unwholesome obsessions & available distractions.

This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to follow this kind of austerity more consistently if they can and feel inclined to do so.

According to Triyana framework as presented by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, the first stage of Buddhist training, known as "Hinayana", involves special emphasis on discipline and simplicity, in essence very similar to what you call "austerity" above.
The idea is to reduce the coarse defilements by restricting activities that lead to experiences that sustain the defilements. Metaphorically, in order to sober up you have to stop drinking. Basically, this means saying "no" to indulging, in all its shapes and forms.

I honestly am not sure why people are ascribing these qualities to 'Buddhism' without qualifying what type of Buddhism they are talking about. Hina/Maya/Vajrayana isn't enough either, as ideology in these schools varies widely. Thanks very much to the poster who mentioned Trungpa as a source!
There are adherents that believe that the eight fold path is antiquated, and should be modernized. Especially with cheap and accessible birth control, we can eliminate the sexual abstinence part of this (for example). Other parts of it could be revisited, in the light of 2.4 centuries of progress, and since we are not India.
The ONLY reason the eight fold path was designed this way. in 600+ BC, was as a teaching tool, and to give people a simple path that could work for uneducated people... we know this.. however, some schools of Buddhism insist on thinking it is the ONLY way to practice, and fossilize the teachings in amber.
To each his own. I don't like that approach.
Essentially, I believe the answer to your question is "No", "yes" and 'It Depends" :-)
We have the advantage now of education and science that is totally beyond the capabilities of a 6th century BC human to understand, Buddha or not, and in looking at the eightfold path and the four noble truths, we really need to understand that they were designed as a shorthand for the real story.. which is much more complex than these simple ideas.
Remember, it was also said that there are many paths.. and it was implied the eight fold path was but one. The whole point of it was to eliminate suffering by bringing people to a point where they could rid themselves of the strong boundaries they make in their minds about the world, and learn to see the world directly. That's all, really. It's not anything special, and so it might mean that YOU, in particular, should practice austerity as YOUR path, if you have problems with excess and impulse control, for example.
Your question has no general answer! It can't be answered for all Buddhist ideologies, nor for all Buddhists.

"Practicing" Buddhism typically involves study, meditation, and effort... without, at the very least, some sort of effort you are not practicing anything, and to practice Buddhism is to meditate...
making "practicing buddhism" an austere act in and of itself.
so yes, it is a necessary condition to a varying degree.

i will add that "Austerity" is defined with slight variations that make a big difference really, so the question is very subjective.

Even gautam buddha left the five ascetics 'Kondana, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama, Assaji' when he realised that even after going through severe austerities until his body was almost emaciated, that austerities could not lead to realisation, he abandoned them...they how could you say that we have to sacrifice all. gautama buddha until the age of 29 was living a life envied by all, so in his case he had to sacrifice all that he have or want to the way to nirvana making it a mile long than any common man would have to go through as we were not living a life like him. we are already not bestowed with an early life like him. so in our case the meaning or amount of sacrifice is comparatively less.


text:
Is there any freely available English translation of the Peṭakopadesa?
I only have knowledge of Ñāṇamoli's translation which is not available for free. Does anyone have knowledge of an English translation available for free?

looking to see more questions and answers from you.

The Pali Text Society is about the best authority for English translations, and they did produce a reference text in 1977. There is not a lot of online translations, but here is a link to the digital version of the book:
http://lirs.ru/lib/The_Guide,Nettippakarana,Nanamoli,1977.pdf

That is the Netti, not the Peṭakopadesa, and there is already an answer that mentions that link. Thank you for the answer anyway.

You can try to find it at http://tipitaka.sutta.org/ , not sure about the quality of translation.

I couldn't find anything there. Did you find it? If you didn't find it yourself and were uncertain that it was available, why did you answer? I know you may have had a good intention but this doesn't actually answer the question.

Sorry thats the best i can find you do need to read word by word whith the built in dictionary function which cant get all the words in that particular book :(

This book claims to compare
The Nettippakarana and Petakopadesa, compared - xiii. 6. Authorship and ... Glossary (Pali-English). 288 ... The book here translated—as it stands, it was perhaps composed ..... The only extra source available is the contents of the two books.
lirs.ru/lib/The_Guide,Nettippakarana,Nanamoli,1977.pdf
This is a free resource. Hope that is of interest

I've already skimmed through that one. I was looking for a complete Peṭakopadesa but thank you for the notification on that specific Netti chapter. It's very enlightening about their similarities & differences.


text:
Can Right View be interpreted as scientific fervor?
The first in the eightfold path talks about having a right view of things. Or as wikipedia puts it,

The purpose of right view is to clear one's path of the majority of
  confusion, misunderstanding, and deluded thinking. It is a means to
  gain right understanding of reality. Right view should be held with a
  flexible, open mind, without clinging to that view as a dogmatic
  position. In this way, right view becomes a route to
  liberation rather than an obstacle.

Isn't the purest way to interpret reality the way of science ? Can I interpret the first of the eightfold path as scientific fervor ?
I don't think things like rebirth would gel well with a scientific view point. Also since there is no scientific evidence to rebirth, would believing in it make my belief dogmatic or narrow minded maybe ?

Sounds like Wikipedia is suffering from some Buddhist fervour of its own... ;)
Can I interpret the first of the eightfold path as scientific fervor ?
Right view has nothing to do with fervour; it refers to one's outlook or point of "view". The word "diṭṭhi" literally means "way of seeing". As the commentary explains it:

sammādassanalakkhaṇā sammādiṭṭhi
The characteristic of seeing properly is right view.
(DN-a 6.5)

In Theravada Buddhism, right view is of five kinds:

1. Right View Regarding Karma (kammassakatāsammādiṭṭhi)

“And what is accomplishment in view? Here, someone holds right view and has a correct perspective thus: ‘There is what is given, sacrificed, and offered; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings spontaneously reborn; there are in the world ascetics and brahmins of right conduct and right practice who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves by direct knowledge, make them known to others.’ This is called accomplishment in view."
AN 3.117 (Bodhi, trans)

The Buddha calls this type of right view "affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions" (MN 117)

2. Right View Regarding Insight (vipassanāsammādiṭṭhi)

And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one’s right view.
MN 117 (Bodhi, trans)

The commentary explains that this is the understanding one gains along the path of the three characteristics (impermanence, suffering, non-self).

3. Right View of the Path (maggasammādiṭṭhi)

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
MN 117 (Bodhi, trans)

4. Right View of Fruition (phalasammādiṭṭhi)
The right view of fruition is the same as the right view of the path.

5. Right View of Reflection (paccavekkhaṇāsammādiṭṭhi)

“When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it was liberated, there came the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ I directly knew: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
MN 4 (Bodhi, trans)

This refers to the knowledge that comes after attainment of enlightenment upon reflection of the path and fruition.

Further, Ven. Sariputta equates right view with knowledge of the four noble truths:

“And what, friends, is right view? Knowledge of suffering, knowledge of the origin of suffering, knowledge of the cessation of suffering, and knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering—this is called right view."
MN 141 (Bodhi, trans)

Since there is no scientific evidence to rebirth, would believing in it make my belief dogmatic or narrow minded maybe?
However you come to the understanding that rebirth is a fact of life, that understanding is considered right view, insofar as it is in line with the truth. If you believe that at death the mind ceases, or that at death the same mind that existed before death continues on, both of these are wrong view.
As according to the quotes above, right view can be "affected by taints" if it is simply belief that happens to accord with reality, or it can be "noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path" if it is acquired through observation and understanding.
Rebirth really isn't a big mystery; it is simply the fact of existence that is perfectly open to reasonable scientific investigation that everything in the universe arises and ceases, and that certain arisen phenomena spawn further arisen phenomena in an unbroken causal chain. That this ceases at death is wrong view (ucchedaditthi); that this constitutes a lasting, continuous entity is also wrong view (sassataditthi).

The way that I have been taught is that right view forms an entire limb of it's path by itself and the other seven steps form another. Right view provides a glimpse of enlightenment or maybe it's even a glimpse of a glimpse. This then provides the motivation and inspiration to go through the other seven steps. They reinforce each other so that the glimpses of enlightenment become stronger or more frequent as you engage with the other steps of the eight fold path.
So it has very little to do with scientific fervor. It is a glimpse of things just as they are. While science deals in truths   I wouldn't say it proceeds like this. Also scientific truths are provisional even though they might not seem it. They hold so long as they are not falsified - think Newton vs Einstein (then vs string theory maybe???). The truth from right view isn't provisional (I don't  know what it is in fairness).
A note - I don't think this eightfold path interpretation is standard. It is as taught by Triratna Buddhists but I don't think it's wildly heretical. It's just a slightly different viewpoint.

Good point about scientific "truth" being provisional

Yup that convinced me too @AndreiVolkov. But the answer I accepted quoted a lot !! No hard feelings mate :)

@Aditya, I don't think the accepted answer understood your question's point of view.

@AndreiVolkov Bro .. Do you mind waiting till the end of this week. Its festival season and stuff.. I am kinda busy these days. I will re-read all the answers and get the view points straight. Also English is not my first language, so I might have misread something..

What's known as "Right View with tincture" (aka expedient Right View) is not similar to Scientific Fervor at all. What's known as "Right View without tincture" (or the resulting Right View) could be similar to Scientific Fervor in some ways and at odds with it in other ways.
Summarizing/extrapolating e.g. MN 117, we can get the following components of the Right View with tincture:

There is good (health, peace) and bad (sickness, trouble, suffering) (=no nihilism)
We have a choice how to act. By acting one way or another we can change our life. (=no fatalism).
The responsibility for our life is ours. (=no victim consciousness)
The goal of Buddhism is real and achievable. (= Enlightenment is not a fiction)

As for "Right View without tincture", it is defined as "Faculty of discernment and analysis of qualities". This is similar to Scientific Fervor in the sense of being objective, non-dogmatic, and rational. This is dissimilar to Scientific Fervor, because of Buddhism's radical orientation at practical results, with no affinity to any single conceptual model of the world.
This last point is a reference to (Mahayana) Buddhism's use of "expedient means" (upaya) -- which is something that has no analogies in the scientific method. To take your example, if thinking in terms of rebirth can help someone make steps towards Enlightenment, rebirth becomes a perfectly legitimate set of training wheels, utilized until the practitioner outgrows it, to adopt a more nuanced understanding of karma, eventually outgrowing karma to adopt the vision of Emptiness etc.

My understanding of Right View is to see all phenomena according to the 3 laws of existence. All conditioned things are 1) impermanent 2) unsatisfactory and 3) without any permanent essence (not-self). And all the 3 laws are scientifically backed.
The only reality is the present.


text:
Evolution of a Buddha vs. Anatta
Based on the lifestory of Shakyamuni Buddha, one can see that there is an evolution, from disciple to boddhisatva until the Buddhahood stage... like a path his mind was following, but we know minds just go around samsara up and down, nothing except seeds of kamma goes along with the mind, no such thing as a soul. So how can one relate that to Anatta?

This question has been asked on this site now in so many different forms... I really think they're all duplicates. Here's an answer, for example: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2898/18

Karma does not go from life to life. Karma is the volitional action performed here and now. It only lasts a moment. But it can have future repercussions. The consequence is the result of a Karma. Not the Karma itself.
The question of if something goes from life to life would not even arise, if you understand what's happening here and now. Lets say now you are thinking about building a house in the future. If you think about it for an hour, does it mean your first thought about it lasted for an hour? No! The first thought moment appeared and vanished then and there. But as a consequence, similar thoughts kept appearing in your mind one after the other. But they all vanished immediately. You might think about the building of the house tomorrow or even months from now. But that doesn't mean your original thought lasted that long. It'll be a new thought, but it can be similar to the thoughts you had today.
So if nothing goes from this moment to the next, even in this life, how can anything go from life to life?

I feel like we're repeating ourselves over and over with this question... kind of ironic :)

Yes Bhante, it keeps coming back in slightly different forms. :) Anatta is a hard truth to grasp it seems.

I think you've forgotten that anyone who wants to attain nibbana requires to develop the ten perfections (Paramis) in him in each life since the day he decides to go out of this vicious cycle of life and death.

Generosity (Dāna)
Morality (Sīla)
Withdrawal (Nekkhamma)
Understanding (Pañña)
Enthusiastic Energy (Viriya)
Patient Forbearance (Khanti)
Honesty & Truthfulness (Sacca)
Resolute Determination (Adhitthāna)
Kind Friendliness (Mettā)
Imperturbable Equanimity (Upekkhā)

The one who tries to become a Buddha must perfect them in three different ways.

Those who awaken as disciples = Savaka-Bodhis give all possessions away
including wife and kids to perfect generosity.
(Similar level with the 9 other perfections...)

Those who awaken as Solitary Buddhas = Pacceka-Buddhas  give an
organ, limb or eye away to perfect generosity.
(Similar level with the 9 other perfections...)

Those who awaken as Perfect Buddhas = Sammāsam-Buddhas  give
even their own life away to perfect generosity.
(Similar level with the 9 other perfections...)

So the 10 qualities he inculcates in each life will guide him as positive kamma along the way and will help him until he attains nibbana. As an example let's say you taught someone the dhamma (Dāna the first perfection), and as a result you may reap the benefit of it in the next life as being born among admirable friends (kalyanamitta).
The Buddha said:

"These few supreme mental qualities, will culminate in complete
enlightenment.  There is nothing elsewhere beyond them! Be thorough,
firm and systematic so to complete them all..."


text:
Meditating in stressful days
In stressful days, when I really need to calm down and find some inner peace, is when I find it harder to meditate. A lot of thoughts going in and out and creating intense feelings as a consequence of the events of the day.
Is there any kind of method one can use to meditate in such days?

One of my favourite quotes is an old Zen adage

You should sit in meditation for twenty minutes every day - unless
  you're too busy; then you should sit for an hour

I find that both infurating and inspirational at the same time. So on the zen theme, when I am just way too busy I can't do mindfulness of breathing or metta practice. So the one I turn to is a just sitting or zazen type practice. I just sit there and ask - what is it like to be this. It might not be traditional zazen but it helps me.
Ironically when meditation is going well and seems to be taking off (if that makes sense) then I also do just sitting. It's the beginning and end of practice for me.

That is a good quote. Do you know who said it?

@Lanka I actually asked that here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5632/157  and there is a variety of opinions about where the quote comes from

I've also had this problem in the past since I had a small anxiety problem. Before the exam days and presentation days it was at its worst. I tried several techniques which were successful during the peaceful days. Most of them actually didn't work the day before the presentation or the exam.
One technique I had a bit of success was Metta meditation. I would not perform it to all the beings, but I would first do Metta to myself and then the specific people I would meet the next day e.g. my supervisor, teacher. :)
I also had a sleeping problem the day before exams and presentations due to cycles of same thoughts arising mainly due to the fear of failing. Metta meditation on myself helped mostly to get rid of them and have a good sleep.

One thing you can work on is letting the thoughts pass through you, seeing them pass, and being aware of them, but not fussing over them. I grew up in a city and if I have trouble start by remembering how I'd zone out watching cars pass on the overpass, the thoughts being like that, and after that just letting go of that image as well.
In the end you can do a similar thing with your anxiety itself, become aware of it and (particular) its origins and impermanence and it doesn't get in the way.
(Just my experience which might work for you, I'm no expert).

(+1) because this answer gives some concrete and focused help, even more based on personal experiences from the buddhist practizing.

The best prepration for formal insight meditation is practising mindfulness/being in the present moment in the daily life. All of the little things/activities that usually a person overlook in daily life can be immensely helpful to meditator. Washing the hands, drinking water, walking inside the home or in a street, spending time in a bus, being aware of the feelings exc.. every moment in daily life is a huge opportunity for a person to prepare the mind against the ups and downs of the life. Because in daily life a person faces all kinds of thoughts, emotions, feelings, external events. A person who becomes a master of living mindfully in daily life can easily shift to formal meditation in every situation and even in a stressful day. And If he has free time he can even start practicing intensive meditation, which is meditating all day long with some advanced methods. And as it is mentioned above doing metta meditation can also be a helpful tool to calm the mind before formal meditation.
Mahasi Sayadaw's noting method is very helpful for person who is practising mindfulness and formal meditation in daily life.

The best is to do Metta meditation, recollection of past good deeds, recollection of qualities of the Triple Gem, etc. for a while as it calms your mind.
These meditation tend to bring about tranquility and also result in positive Karma. This helps to switch back to Insight Meditation.

ok, so in a practical way, what do you do? whishes for all beings to be happy, free from dangerous...etc? what is the technique you use

You wish for everyone to be well and happy. Also if you have helped some one keep recalling that. Or mentally meaning of the quality of the triple gem.

Some teachers compare meditation with experiments done in a lab where conditions are controlled and manipulated. We use specific meditation techniques to learn about our mind or to generate peace, compassion etc. It is done in a quiet room without distractions, with an altar or other various objects that help us achieve good results.
In everyday life we are outside of this safe environment and this is the time to check the results of our meditation. How do we react when we are thrown into difficult situations and bombarded by the unwanted stimuli? Do we rely on our inner peace or are we driven by those external stimuli? What is it that makes us stressed, what exactly knocks us out of our safe settings? Is it our boss, our tasks or some uncertainty? What is the underlying feeling? Fear of failing? Anger? Attachment? By carefully watching and analysing our emotions and reactions on stressful days we can clearly identify the obstacles that keep us away from the inner peace. Maybe not a formal meditation technique, but definitely a powerful tool for watching one's mind. If we identify a single thing that stresses us out, we might also recognize how small and unimportant it is so immediately we can dissolve the stress.
The type of formal meditation which we can do on stressful days will depend on the meditation we normally do and the school/lineage we follow. I follow Vajrayana so on such days I keep repeating specific mantras and imagine perfect Buddhas above my head and the head of my horrible boss. I do all those things to try to remember that we are all Buddhas, our mind is indestructible and all the powerful emotions, tensions and difficult situations are impermanent - they can last for some time but at some point they will inevitably end. So we can as well relax about them here and now.
The final goal of the meditation is to have equally stable mind during the formal meditation and in every day life. Naturally, it takes years or even lifetimes to master it so there is no need to feel bad that we still depend so much on the external settings. If on the next stressful day we feel a tiny little bit less driven by the outside circumstances, it is a great step forward on our way to recognizing one's mind.

As a Pureland Buddhist our core practice is 'Nian Fo' - earnestly chanting the name of Amitabha Buddha, to be 'mindful of Buddha'. The practitioner can chant just the Buddha's name "Amituofo" (in Chinese), or "Namo Amituofo" (Homage to Amitabha Buddha, the Shin Buddhists chant "Namu Amida Butsu"), chant repetitively with great clarity and concentration, thus blocking any possibility of wandering thoughts, or even transforming wandering thoughts into 'Amituofo'.
In Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, Buddha said that chanting the Buddha's name is the highest, deepest and most wonderful of Jhana (In Chinese,《大集經》曰：若人但念阿彌陀，是即無上深妙禪也。).
The 13th Patriarch of Pureland Buddhist, Venerable Master Yin Guang (1862 - 1940), has reiterated the importance of Nian-Fo, and written detailed instructions the 'Ten Chants Method'（十念法）, each chant first voiced from the heart, then spoken with clarity, counted (from 1 to 10 and repeat), and clearly heard with the ears. One should also refrain from using chanting beads, to avoid bodily distraction. By doing so, 4 of the 6 senses are focused on Buddha, and with eyes gently closed all senses are able to focus on chanting.
Pureland and precept are practiced in all schools in Chinese Buddhism, and during the last 10,000 years of Buddha's influence it is one of the surest approach to attain enlightenment.
Practicing meditation in today's world is highly challenging. Today's society demands a lot more from us, our duties have grown in complexity, and information is booming at an incredible rate. We have to learn and fulfill complex tasks like mortgages, tax systems, beauracracies, insurance policies, and many many more. The more we multi-task the more challenging it is for us to find time to meditate and practice.
Without uninterrupted time, how can we expect to focus and penetrate through the eternal cycle of Samsara? If we're not careful, we could spend our entire lifetime and not even come close to Sotapanna.
Venerable Master Yin Guang emphasized on the importance of fulfilling our duties, and whenever we have time, we can chant, voiced or silently with our minds depending on the environment we are in.
I chose to practice Pureland because I find it is the most suitable for my circumstances. It is convenient and, as described in many Buddhist scriptures, the merit is unimaginably wonderful.


text:
Is there anything like "positive suffering" for Buddhists?
In some religions, suffering is seen as a positive thing, some people even see it as a necessary step for growing, however in Buddhism suffering is seen as something that should be avoid or eliminated, we don't invite suffering, we want peace and there is nothing wrong with it.
So, is there anything like a positive and necessary suffering in Buddhism?

Yes, there is, as mentioned in the Upanisa Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya:

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
(SN 12.23, Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote an article on this sutta here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html
As he puts it:

The Buddha's declaration that suffering is the supporting condition for faith points to the essential backdrop to the awakening of the religious consciousness. It reveals that spiritual awareness and the quest for enlightenment do not arise spontaneously in harmony with our natural modes of world-engagement, but require a turn "against the current" a break away from our instinctual urges for expansion and enjoyment and the embarkation in a different direction. This break is precipitated by the encounter with suffering. Suffering spurs the awakening of the religious consciousness in that it is the experience of suffering which first tears us out of our blind absorption in the immediacy of temporal being and sets us in search of a way to its transcendence. Whether in the form of pain, frustration, or distress, suffering reveals the basic insecurity of the human condition, shattering our naive optimism and unquestioned trust in the goodness of the given order of things. It throws before our awareness, in a way we cannot evade, the vast gulf stretching between our ingrained expectations and the possibilities for their fulfillment in a world never fully susceptible to domination by our wills. It makes us call into question our schemes of values built upon the bedrock of personal expedience. It leads to a revaluation of all values and a new scale of worth indifferent to the claims of self-concern. And it opens us to confidence in an unseen order of relations and inter-connections, an order in which the values that emerge, so often in forceful opposition to the old, will find their proper justification and reward.

I guess I'd put it more simply: suffering leads one to put one's faith in spiritual practice because one no longer sees pleasure in mundane existence. It leads one to gain faith in the Buddha's teaching specifically because it teaches that suffering is a fact of life, which one has come to verify.
So yeah, suffering is important.  There is another sutta (Padota Sutta) that talks about four types of thoroughbred horses as a simile for humans:

"Once more, monks, here we may have a goodly thoroughbred man who neither hears it said... nor yet with his own eyes beholds... nor is his own kinsman or blood-relation afflicted or dead, but he himself is stricken with painful bodily feelings, grievous, sharp, racking, distracting, discomforting, that drain the life away. Thereat he is stirred, he feels agitation. Being so stirred he strictly applied himself. Thus applied he both realizes in his own person the supreme truth, and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. Just as, monks, that goodly thoroughbred steed on being pierced to the very bone is stirred, feels agitation, even so using this figure do I speak of this goodly thoroughbred man. Of such a sort, monks, is the goodly thoroughbred man in this case.
(AN 4.113, Woodward, trans)

So there is definitely the idea that suffering spurs one towards enlightenment, at least in a preliminary way.

For me a sense of dukkha (suffering) is the originator and foundation of my motivation to practice Buddhism.
I think it's instructive to consider the imagery of the wheel of life in this regard. It is the human realm not the God realm that is seen as the most favourable realm to be reborn in. To some this might seem counter-intuitive but the human realm is the only one where it is possible to get enlightened. The God realm is undeniably great but without the impetus of some suffering there will be no enlightenment. It is only with a moderate amount of suffering within the human realm that we can step off the wheel entirely and into liberation.
I think generally I am in an extremely fortunate position and can spend a lot of time in my own personal heaven realm (this won't always be the case of course - old age, sickness and death). So for me a small sense of dukkha is good, certainly to keep me moving with practice.

There are two kinds of sufferings in Buddhism: the suffering of Samsara and the suffering of exertion.
The suffering of Samsara, is famously defined as:

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; being together with the
  unloved is dukkha; being apart from the loved is dukkha; unsatisfied thirst is dukkha.

Or to summarize, "this world sucks, get me outa here". As was pointed out by other respondents, this works as motivation for Spiritual Quest.
But there is a different kind of suffering in Buddhism, called the suffering of exertion. This happens whenever we go against, and through, our pathological habits; whenever we push ourselves beyond our comfort zone:
(in this translation the code-word for suffering is "stress")

Furthermore, the monk notices this: 'When I live according to my
  pleasure, unskillful mental qualities increase in me & skillful
  qualities decline. When I exert myself with stress & pain, though,
  unskillful qualities decline in me & skillful qualities increase. Why
  don't I exert myself with stress & pain?' So he exerts himself with
  stress & pain, and while he is exerting himself with stress & pain,
  unskillful qualities decline in him, & skillful qualities increase.
  Then at a later time he would no longer exert himself with stress &
  pain. Why is that? Because he has attained the goal for which he was
  exerting himself with stress & pain. That is why, at a later time, he
  would no longer exert himself with stress & pain.
Suppose a fletcher were to heat & warm an arrow shaft between two
  flames, making it straight & pliable. Then at a later time he would no
  longer heat & warm the shaft between two flames, making it straight &
  pliable. Why is that? Because he has attained the goal for which he
  was heating & warming the shaft. That is why at a later time he would
  no longer heat & warm the shaft between two flames, making it straight
  & pliable.
In the same way, the monk notices this: 'When I live according to my
  pleasure, unskillful mental qualities increase in me & skillful
  qualities decline. When I exert myself with stress & pain, though,
  unskillful qualities decline in me & skillful qualities increase. Why
  don't I exert myself with stress & pain?' So he exerts himself with
  stress & pain, and while he is exerting himself with stress & pain,
  unskillful qualities decline in him, & skillful qualities increase.
  Then at a later time he would no longer exert himself with stress &
  pain. Why is that? Because he has attained the goal for which he was
  exerting himself with stress & pain. That is why, at a later time, he
  would no longer exert himself with stress & pain.
This is how striving is fruitful, how exertion is fruitful.

As you can see, just like in some other religions, there is "positive and necessary suffering" in Buddhism. It is not pleasant to restrain one's impulses. It is not pleasant to meditate. It is not pleasant to go through one's fears and preconcepts. It is not pleasant to have one's ego die. But this suffering seems to be necessary in order to tame the mind, and, eventually, transcend all suffering forever, as explained in the surgeon parable:

It's as if a man were shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison.
  As a result of being shot with the arrow, he would feel fierce, sharp,
  racking pains. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would
  provide him with a surgeon. The surgeon would cut around the opening
  of the wound with a knife. As a result of the surgeon's cutting around
  the opening of the wound with a knife, the man would feel fierce,
  sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would probe for the arrow with a
  probe. As a result of the surgeon's probing for the arrow with a
  probe, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon
  would then pull out the arrow. As a result of the surgeon's pulling
  out the arrow, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The
  surgeon would then apply a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound.
  As a result of the surgeon's applying a burning medicine to the mouth
  of the wound, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. But
  then at a later time, when the wound had healed and was covered with
  skin, he would be well & happy, free, master of himself, able to go
  wherever he liked. The thought would occur to him, "Before, I was shot
  with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot
  with the arrow, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. My friends &
  companions, kinsmen & relatives provided me with a surgeon... The
  surgeon cut around the opening of the wound with a knife... probed for
  the arrow with a probe... pulled out the arrow... applied a burning
  medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of his applying a
  burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, I felt fierce, sharp,
  racking pains. But now that the wound is healed and covered with skin,
  I am well & happy, free, master of myself, able to go wherever I
  like."


text:
Is there a specific range of meditation styles that could help with extreme clumsiness and disconnected mind-body?
I have always been very clumsy, specifically,i am not aware, if that's a correct term,o f where my body is located or how its moving, leading to accidents, over-use of force, hitting things accidentally ,etc.... I have been practicing basic mindfulness meditation,along with zen meditation and it has worked wonders in many aspects of my life. Given that, would there be a specific type of practice which would affect this somewhat disconnected body "syndrome"?, for lack of a better term.

If you body is clumsy, exercise the body - gym, yoga, martial arts etc. By sitting on the cushion the body won't learn to move gracefully...

I've also go a real disconnect with my body so I am just taking up Tai Chi at the recommendation of an oestopath and a physiotherapist. Let's see how it goes

Of the four foundations of mindfulness (satipatthana)...
Mindfulness of the body is the main one in western practice already. Transitioning a constant state of awareness of the body into daily life could definately combat clumsiness.
           During meditation just feel all of your entire body at once... be aware of it, the feeling of it sitting there or better yet do walking meditation more... if something comes up, note it how its experienced by the body, then refocus on feeling the body just being a body.
do that regularly and you'll find yourself more aware of it naturally... then its more difficult to be clumsy.


text:
Performing magic breaking the fourth precept(lying)?
Magic used to be a great passion of mine. Performing card tricks etc. Im thinking of picking it up again, but what ive been thinking is if the performance of a trick constitutes breaking the fourth precept(lying)?
For exampe saying: "Now the coin is in my hand" even though the hand is empty, then making it dissapear.(Perhaps a bad example but you get the point).
Will doing magic for the purpose of entertainment create any negative karma due to the lying and deceptions?
From what ive understood its all about intent. So if the intent is to entertain is it okay?
Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

I don't personally see any problem with it. Although what you are saying is technically untrue, in the case of stage magic the audience knows that the performer is using sleight of hand and that it's just a trick. It's no more deceptive than telling a joke or a fairy tale. Technically the words aren't true, but the listener knows that. Unless you are trying to convince people that you actually do have powers like some fraudulent faith healers do and stuff, I wouldn't worry about it.

Just wanted to say, glad to see you here :)

@yuddadhammo Thank you Bhante. I'm glad to be here

OTOH there's a sutta in which the Buddha speaks against being an actor. Maybe that's because they're faking passion though, not faking 'reality'.

Performing magic doesn't necessarily break the precept but the kind of methods you use to perform magic may break it. There must be four factors involved in your action to breach the fourth precept. If I take your example with the four factors here,

An untrue state of affairs. - In your case the coin is not in your hand
An intention to deceive - Your intention is to deceive the people by saying it's in your hand.
The expression of the falsehood either with gesture, words or body language- In your case you are saying that it's in your hand
Conveying a false impression - The audience is deceived by your words.

Hence, the precept has been broken here. In this kind of situation I think we can use our intelligence to avoid such things from happening. Even if you lie to save someone's life, let alone entertain someone that's still a breach of the precept. From this action, there'll be good results by saving a life and bad consequences from lying.

Thx for replying. Seems really technical then. You could then perhaps change the phrasing to. "Your belief might now be that the coin is in my hand, but if that is so, you are mistaken" (showing hand empty). The above example would then not break the precept. So perhaps there are honest ways to perform magic?

Yeah exactly my point. :)


text:
What's the relationship between effort and zazen?
I'm currently reading Zen Mind Beginners Mind which I am enjoying. However when I read Zen books I'm always confused about the role of effort in zazen practice. Reading the book it makes it seem like there is no effort involved. In one sense I can subscribe to this. However if zazen was truly effortless then everyone would be doing zazen most of the time. That seems like a flawed conclusion to me. Can anyone help me with how effort relates to zazen please.

From what I understood Master Suzuki talks about so-called Pure effort

As someone who has practiced zazen (in the Rinzai tradition) for many years, I will second Michael's answer.  That very much describes how I meditate.  You have to lift and apply the mind in meditation otherwise, well, otherwise you tend to fall asleep.  ;-)  Too much effort (like forcefully eliminating thoughts and 'crushing' the mind on the meditation object) is also a bad idea.  The approach might be slightly different for the Soto lineage (and the language your book uses seems to suggest a Soto bent).  Still, I highly doubt there's that much difference in how the mind is engaged while sitting.
One thing to remember is that Zen is heavily influenced by Taoism.  You might want to tangentially exploring the concept of non-effort by reading up on the Taoist concept of wu wei.  Sometimes it helps to explore a similar idea from a different avenue.

Thank you for the response. You are right the book is from a Soto Zen perspective

I am not familiar with zazen since I practice theravada meditation. In theravada there is the idea that you have to make effort to sit and meditate. You also have to make effort to establish the 3 mental qualities which will support the meditation. Those are mindfulness, clear comprehension and ardency (sati, sampajañña and atapi in pali). But having established those qualities the meditator has to let go of all the rest and that translates as non-doing or in other words not effort. If one continues to apply effort at this stage the meditation becomes very tiring with little progress. Hope that helps.

Thanks for the answer it is appreciated. The thing with  Zen as I read it though is that there is no phase about establishment. Unless that is implicit. They don't seem to state it in what I have read

Maybe that is a  cultural thing - it is the approach more acceptable to the Japanese culture. Or maybe it has to do with the idea of deconstruction, like you need a clean field to build something on it. Deconstruction would clean the mind and make it suitable for insights. But maybe this would only work  for certain people or within a certain cultural context. It may imply a dependence/subjection/complete trust on the teacher/master.


text:
Life before life on earth
Is there any reference in Buddhism about how our life was before life has appeared on this earth? Were we all in heaven or hell realms?

At the end of a Maha Kalpa, if the world system gets destroyed by fire, all the Brahma, Deva, human and hell realms below Abhassara Brahma realm get destroyed. But once the earth is reformed, beings come back from the Abhassara Brahma realm to populate the earth once more. Agganna Sutta hints that the last time, it was destroyed by fire while the Sapthasuriyuggamana sutta says that this time also it is going to be destroyed by fire. The pattern is: 7 times by fire, 1 time by water and at the 64th repetition, it will be destroyed by air.
"Abhassara brahmas" means Brahmas with streaming radiance. They feed on delight, self luminous and glorious. Abhassara realm is said to be located 5508000 Yojanas away from the human realm. One has to cultivate the 2nd Jhana to the highest degree to be born there. There are two more Brahma realms at the same level. Appamanabha(2nd Jhana- medium degree), Parittabha(2nd Jhana- minor degree).
The lifespan of an Abhassara Brahma is 7 Maha-kalpas since the Abhassara realm also gets destroyed at the 8th time. One day there lasts an Asankya(10 to the power 140) human years.
1 Maha-kalpa = 4 Asankya-kalpa
1 Asankya-kalpa = 64 Antah-kalpa
1 Antah-kalpa = time period it takes for the human lifespan to increase from 10 to Asankya and drop down to 10 again. The increase or decrease said to happen at a rate of 1 year per every 100 years.
Apart from them, there are other beings with Nihilistic(no rebirth, no karma etc.) views who refuse to do good deeds and cultivate Jhana to get into higher Brahma realms. They get caught in the destruction of the world and are born in an Asura hell called the Lokantarika Narakaya. There is no mention as to if they ever get to come back when the new world system is formed. It is said to be situated at the center of three worlds - the human world, the ordinary hells and heavens.
At the center of these three worlds, there is a dark sea of acid water surrounded by rocky mountains. This sea is covered with eternal darkness; no ray of light can reach this place.  The creatures of the Lokantarika-niraya hang themselves on cliffs like bats. They are tortured by hunger and thirst as there is no food for them. While moving along the cliff they sometimes come across each other.  Thinking that they have come across food, they jump upon each other and start fighting. As soon as they start fighting, they let loose their grip on the cliff and as a result they fall into the sea below and their bodies melt away just like salt melting away in water.

What happens to the beings when the Abhassara Brahma world is destroyed at the eighth time? :D

At the eighth time, the world system is destroyed by water. All the realms upto the Abhassara realm get destroyed. Before that, the beings attain the 3rd Jhana and go to the Parittasubha,Appamanasubha,Subhakinna Brahma realms. Beings at Subhakinnaka has a lifespan of 63 Maha-kalpas. Because that realm only gets destroyed at the 64th time when the world system is destroyed by air.

Once Subhakinna gets destroyed by air do they go to the realms of 4th Jhana and so on?

Yes, the 4th Jhana realms and the formless Jhana realms are safe from end of Kalpa destruction. That's why they have huge life spans. The highest is the Nevasaññanasaññayatana realm with a lifespan of 84000 Maha-kalpas.

But they would also get destroyed one day. When that happens, beings are transferred to another universe? Do you have a reference for this?

Destruction of those realms are not mentioned. But those realms are also impermanent. Whether they get destroyed or not, once the lifespan of beings runs out, they fall back to lower realms. There's a nice chart here: http://www.aathaapi.net/Charts/Sakwala_-Ver_5..jpg
But it's in Sinhala. Couldn't find an English version.

I suggest you take a look at the Dhammapada which is part of the Pali Canon if you are interested in Buddhism.
The Buddha taught that such questions weren't important. He rather encouraged people to focus on the life here and now. There are a few dialogs in the Pali Canon in which Buddha answers his apprentice's similar question with a metaphor.

I would say that our goal is to free ourselves from the notions of "life" and "non-life", from "before" and "after".
"We
are
scared
because
of
our
notions
of
birth
and
death,
increasing
and
decreasing,
being
and
non-‐being.
Nirvana
means
extinction
of
all
notions
and
ideas.
If
we
can
become
free
from
these
notions
we
can
touch
the
peace
of
our
true
nature.
There
are
eight
basic
concepts
that
serve
to
fuel
our
fear.
They
are
the
notions
of
birth
and
death,
coming
and
going,
the
same
and
different,
being
and
non-‐being.
These
notions
keep
us
from
being
happy.
The
teaching
given
to
counteract
these
notions
is
called
"the
eight
no's,"
which
are
no
birth,
no
death,
no
coming,
no
going,
not
the
same,
not
different,
no
being,
no
non-‐being."
No
Death,
No
Fear:
Comforting
Wisdom
for
Life
by
Thich
Nhat
Hanh
2003
pg
51
–
53


text:
Will I keep my memories and experience with each passing incarnation?
I am curious because I have seen documentaries, videos, posts and all kinds of books and literature saying some people are born with knowledge from a past life, I believe I might be such a person as even from a young age I was very knowledgeable about things I've never been exposed to.
So you see I'm just wondering if this is possible and how would it work? because the laws of Physics state no information is ever lost it just keeps on changing form (entropy) just as Buddhists believe You will keep incarnating infinitely until you learn your lesson and reach that higher state of being. So does this mean that in some fundamental way we get to keep what we have experienced and learned over lifetimes?
I ask this question also out of fear for the thought of being in an infinite void when the brain and mind dies and loses its content. Because to have lived a good life just to have your system wiped would be a big anti-climax.

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2892/does-the-nature-of-a-person-move-with-her-to-the-next-life/2898#2898

Very doubtful but not impossible.
Insight into past lives is known in a few Buddhist traditions including Mahayana Buddhism. It is not a common practice in Therevada tradition, but certainly not unheard of.
I once heard of this monk, practicing a teaching in which he tried to see into his past lives by recollecting his memories backwards. From his current age until it's childhood to it was a baby - and so forth while he was in a deep meditative state.

I ask this question also out of fear for the thought of being in an
  infinite void when the brain and mind dies and loses its content.
  Because to have lived a good life just to have your System wiped would
  be a big anti-climax

Your brain will lose it's content but you will not experience an infinite void as you state because reality is ultimately created by the mind and that is gone.

We do not even keep our memories from moment to moment and day to day. Memories are relative. They have no intrinsic self and are impermanent. Certain memories change over time, or are covered with a lens of delusion. Other memories are completely fictional.