text:
Justifying the Four Noble Truths without rebirth
In the article entitled A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth, Doug Smith, of the Secular Buddhist Association, wrote:

It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically
  informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its
  associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them.

It appears that many Secular Buddhists do not accept rebirth, while almost all other Buddhists do.
In the essay entitled Dhamma Without Rebirth?, well-known Tripitaka translator and scholar Ven. Bodhi conveyed the mainstream view of the Buddhist world:

If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go
  directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the
  Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his
  teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us
  that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his
  time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has
  tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice,
  affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the
  motivation with which it is followed through to completion.

If someone considers himself a Buddhist, we can assume that he accepts the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. I guess this should apply to Secular Buddhists as well.
If there is no such thing as rebirth (or continuation of the stream of consciousness or mind after death, in a new life), then there is no need to end suffering by ending craving (third noble truth), through following the Noble Eightfold Path (fourth noble truth). Instead, it's much easier to commit suicide, or simply wait for natural death. After all, if there is no rebirth, then at death, all suffering would end anyway, right?
So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end suffering?

@ChrisW I disagree that this is a duplicate. This question asks how to justify the Four Noble Truth... up to the 8F Path, not just about suicide. The linked "Secular Buddhism and Suicide" post addresses part of the topic, if not completely lacking the depth and riches of the referred articles in this post. The OP clearly stated ...simply wait for natural death also a valid way, not just suicide. I suggest to give that top linked as "related topic".

@ChrisW I also disagree that it's a duplicate because if the part on suicide is removed, the rest of the question is still valid and asks a previously unasked question

This question seems to me to be, "If you don't believe in rebirth, why bother with the 4NT, because instead of the 4NT you can end suffering by suicide?" ... and I think that is a duplicate. What is left in the question if the part on suicide is removed? If you remove "suicide" as an option, then the question is "Why does a secular Buddhist follow the 4NT?"

@ChrisW Yes. The question is about why does a secular Buddhist follow the 4NT, if at death, all sufferings would end (due to no rebirth)?

I still don't understand what you're asking ... unless you're asking about suicide, what does death or rebirth have to do with anything? People follow the 4NT when/while they're alive. Also if they don't follow the 4NT then perhaps they wouldn't be considered secular Buddhists (so "Buddhists follow the 4NT because that's the definition of a Buddhist"). Also the question you're suggesting might be a "polling question" i.e. "If you're a secular Buddhist (or even just agnostic about rebirth) why do you follow the 4NT?"

See this meta-topic: Is “Why do secular Buddhists follow the 4NT?” a valid question?

@ChrisW + OP: the 3rd Truth ayam dukkha-nirodha, "this is the cessation of suffering", if the secular Buddhist rejects doctrine of rebirth, then death can replace the 4th Truth Path, whether natural or suicidal death. Hence, there's no need for the Path. Here the Path is Buddha Dhamma... I emphasize, this OP a very good question. It would be very enlightening if anyone, particularly the secular, give sound answer how the 4th Truth should be kept or even removed in the secular doctrine.

Perhaps the other way to ask this question is:  "must suffering be ended only by ending craving, or can it be ended by death?" If suffering cannot be ended by death, then this leaves us with the conclusion, that there definitely is rebirth.

I think rebirth is the bone in this OP; that's also why it's different from other linked OP. Yet I'm not seeing/concerning there's any measurable means to valid or invalid whether that is or not rebirth; this type of agruments are plenty in this forum. But more important, how does secular Buddhist make a rounded Buddhist doctrines set by rejecting rebirth. I see the original wording is perfect, except the moderator think that it has to be withdrawn or edited...

@Mishu米殊 I think it was an OK question, except that as currently written it's the same as a previous question (about secular buddhism and suicide), which has already been answered. If this question wasn't asking about suicide then I don't see why belief in rebirth might still be essential -- death doesn't "replace the path" before you die -- and if you want dukkha to cease before death then death isn't an option.

@ChrisW now I see... the blind spot here is that, in your mind, you already justified dukkha can be ended by practicing 8FP before death; without rebirth. yet without going through the justification process... how do you justify it? If justified without justification process than why 8FP? Why not playing Pokeman, or doing sit-ups or anything or any moral codes that can be practiced to end dukkha?? This is exactly what the value of this OP about, not asking to justify/disprove suicide, but justify "how 8FP can end dukkha without rebirth"... do you see the broadness rebirth implies... ?

@Mishu米殊 Perhaps the topic you're talking about is reflected in this discussion which includes, In secular Buddhist circles, it is quite normal to say that the four noble truths and dependent origination do not mention rebirth, and therefore that it could not be a central Buddhist teaching. But that idea falls apart as soon as you realize that taṇhā ponobbhavikā does not mean "The craving that makes for further becoming …" but "the craving that leads to rebirth".

Anyway, if you think there is a question to be asked that isn't about rebirth-belief and suicide, can you edit the text of the question, to make that question plain and to remove any mention of suicide?

@ChrisW i'll pass the ball back to the OP... too much intellectual exercise is unhealthy to the mind ;)

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.
3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?
6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)
Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

"Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html
Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).
That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.

"So, based on this, how do Secular Buddhists justify their acceptance
  of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha's teachings in general, if
  they reject rebirth? How would the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana have
  any meaning or usefulness for them? Why would they choose to follow
  the Noble Eightfold Path, if death is a much simpler way to end
  suffering?"

You should give this question to the author of the article.
From the article it seems like the author has the belief that rebirth does not exist because there is no evidence for it. If he has such a belief, then his belief is no different than the belief that rebirth exists. In fact, both beliefs are mostly based on "lack of evidence":
The author, due to lack of evidence, believes "there is no rebirth". The religious, due to lack of evidence, believes "there is rebirth". Both are believers. Thus, both have their own religions.
Not only that I don't have a belief in rebirth, but I KNOW that rebirth is true. I was and I am a big skeptic and an agnostic (if I have no proof of something, I neither reject it nor accept it ... I leave it open, but need STRONG proof and evidence before I accept something as true). Nonetheless, regarding spirituality, I was more an atheist then an agnostic. I thought that spiritual and religious beliefs are all made up. I've never read any suttas, nor religious texts, nor books about spirituality, nothing. Never been in the church, nor practiced any religion or spiritual belief nor knew much about them. I was a total skeptic, almost atheist, and gave ZERO attention to spirituality, past lives, God, and similar. During the period when I meditated, I refrained from reading any suttas, religious texts, books about spirituality and similar. I didn't want it to somehow influence my findings and most importantly, if I knew or read about the teachings of the Buddha and similar before attaining my own realizations, how would I know that what I've realized was not just my own imagination under the influence of some teaching, belief, idea, that I've read in some sutta or book about spirituality or religion?? That's why I refrained from reading anything at all. It was only when I got answers to all my questions, that I started to read about God and compared my realizations to what was written in the old texts. I read the Bible and it all made perfect sense to me, but I couldn't 100 % accurately connect it with my own realizations because the texts contained symbolic words and/or stories (example is God which I understood as nonself; heaven which I understood as Nibanna; Satan which I understood as self; hell which I understood as lower realms; "Believe in God and he'll forgive you all your sins" which I understood as "realize nonself and you'll be free from suffering"; the story of Adam and Eve which I understood as volitional activities and thus the birth of self; and similar). It was only when I found Buddhist suttas that everything was written exactly as it is ... no symbolic words nor symbolic stories ... just pure truth. You just can't come closer to the truth in writing.
My message to you is don't accept nor reject anything.
Find a way to TOTALLY calm your mind and observe. Then ask yourself questions. Who am I? How my mind works? Why do I hear sounds through my ears? Is it sound or is it just sound waves vibrating my ear membrane giving raise to sensation in my mind/body, giving raise to thoughts that sound like sound? Why does a thought arise? What's its cause? What is pain? Why does it arise? What is memory? What is remembering? What is time? Just ask questions. Do tests. Do experiments. Be curious. All the answers are in meditation.

Just a little ontological comment (no vote): you write that you KNOW (I don't dispute that you do). But you don't write why you KNOW. That makes the answer kind of incomplete. Of course, it will still be a subjective account, but nonetheless interesting after your "buildup". :)

I think that this doesn't answer the question at all, which was, "given that secular Buddhists don't believe in rebirth, why do they accept the 4NT and why do they not end suffering by suicide?"

@AnoE With a clear and calm mind one must realize anatta. Once anatta is realized, he should study atta. Once atta is realized, he should study volitional activities of the mind as these build atta. Once volitional activities are entirely known, he should search for their cause. The cause is ignorance: volitional activities due to the "want" to liberate from suffering, not knowing that this same activities actually build atta... not knowing that atta is impermanent ... thus creates this whole mass of suffering.The cause is volitional activities arising due to ignorance. Not knowing all this.

I upvote this answer! If I'm the OP, will choose this the correct answer. The most sound and logical agrument is paragraph 3 & 4, that answered perfectly the question of the dispute on rebirth: ...rebirth does not exist because there is no evidence for it. If he has such a belief, then his belief is no different than the belief that rebirth exists. In fact, both beliefs are mostly based on "lack of evidence"... The author...Both are believers. Thus, both have their own religions. Full of wisdom the (bolded) words. Definitely you are authentic meditator! Wisdom from med. Buddha teaches.

This post is very inspiring to read, I appreciate and learnt, thanks. But your comment has mistake, the talk on Anatta > Atta > volition > ignorance. I think your understanding tainted due to the word volition, it's an alien I think because the Sutta translators were coming from background of Biblical doctrine "free will" that's why. So is Ignorance not really a correct term to 無明... another hinderance to Buddha's authentic teaching...

@Mishu I think it all boils down to putting the word 'volition' (sankhara) (second link in 12 nidanas, immediately after ignorance) in the correct context. Me thinking that sankhara means this https://palidictionary.appspot.com/browse/s/sankh%C4%81ra and the best word I can use to describe it from my experience in meditation and outside is "volitional activities" or "wanting" or "building activities" or "all that is created" or "craving" or "deciding" or just "building". Even I can't communicate with one word what it is exactly, so it has sense that this word is very much misunderstood.

in 12 nidanas, Samskara translated as 行 in Chinese. eng. transl. widely adopted is by Bhikku Bodhi: formation. by considering the Chinese and studying wikipedia on Sankhara, i think reaction/activities is better, unless i come up with another. to talk volition, the better way to understand is rather called discerning. the whole mass will conclude as, due to ignorance, the discerning ability is obscured, created activities/reactions based on wrongly discerned conclusion.

of import, it's not something wrong with discerning ability, it always is sound. just like a student who can't produce a sum of certain equation, it's nothing wrong with his brain, he is fine, not mad, or retarded, just that his calculation cannot proceed correctly due to there things he doesn't understand, or somewhere he made mistake.


text:
Is 'impermanence' skillful means?
Is 'impermanence' skillful means?
Wikipedia's definition of "Skillful means" says:

The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way.

And of Impermanance:

The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without
  exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal
  things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a
  continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.

I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too?
I am looking for an answer which:

Says yes or no (and explains why)
References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer
Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

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

See this topic on Meta to discuss whether this question can be reopened, and/or how to improve it.

still getting downvotes! i'm sorry it's not helpful for you

Well in one sense impermanence is ultimately true. In the other sense though it's just a concept, an idea, used to make a point. The objective of the point is to preempt grasping for things as if they were permanent, and the purpose of non-grasping is prevention of suffering. But even prevention of suffering is merely one of many motives that leads a person to enlightenment, other motive for example being perfection or conceit. In this sense everything is just a skillful mean inasmuch as it pushes some people in the right direction.

Yes you have practice Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta in skilful means. Basically this applies to all teaching of Buddha.
Reference:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/pushinglimits.html

Not all kind of 'impermanence' can be seen als 'skillful means', just the path, leading beyond 'insecurity' counts as 'skillful means'.
Useful Essay: The Essence of the Dhamma and for "wordily" issues Wisdom over Justice
As for the case where some Mahayana schools, say, everything is skillful means, here it seems that other views have been addopted, reminding on deterministical assuming of cause and effect.
A talk and explaining, direct on the topic, here:

The Integrity (good means) of Emptiness, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2006; 10pp./30KB)
Much has been written about the Buddhist concept of emptiness — in particular, that it refers to a metaphysical principle of the absence of any inherent existence. In this essay the author points out that this notion has very little to do with what the Buddha himself actually said about emptiness. In fact, the Buddha's teachings on emptiness are of a fundamentally practical nature, having everything to do with how to choose your actions with care and how to relate to their results with wisdom.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains of trade and exchange]

I think you're answering your own question. I think one's understanding of skillful means ought to include the understanding that what is true for one is not true for all. What is true for a man is not true for all man. So impermenance or this or that specific doctrine may for you personally not apply or rather, may not hold truth for you to gleam or learn from.
I dare to suggest that if there are those who say 'everything is skillful means' that this is so for a reason, one perhaps that does not concern you personally as ur character or whoever you were before was able to get here because of how you understood Dharma before.
This just means that the truth of one doctrine may not be applicable to who you were before waking up. Wasn't your understanding of impermenance at the time before you woke up integral to your attainment? If it changes after the fact is not so important? If it were changed how would sentient beings get to where you got when you woke up?
Buddha Nature is a funny term because it can really only be understood if one is enlightened. It's definition exists in time not space.

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Can Nibbana be experienced by believers in 'rebirth-reincarnation'?
SN 22.59 states experiencing Nibbana requires the dispassion (viraga) that occurs from completely realising the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of every type of consciousness & the other four aggregates.

Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, O Lord.
Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?
Unsatisfactory, O Lord.
Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?
Indeed, not that, O Lord.
Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or
  near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom,
  according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is
  not my self.'
O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
  is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is
  emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life,
  what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this
  becoming.'"
This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this
  exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were
  freed of defilements, without attachment.
Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

Many suttas describe Nibbana as the ending of the perception (sanna) & asava (defilement) of 'becoming' (MN 121) and the calming of all formations (MN 26; sabbasamathosankhara).
Therefore, can the thought of or belief in 'rebirth' in the mind result in Nibbana?
Is the belief in 'rebirth-reincarnation' not a type of 'becoming' & not a 'thought formation'?

this is not exegesis tho, is it? not being mean, just combatative

who will take rebirth? it is the delusionary "I" . But this 'I"  dissolves while journeying on the path as development of anitya and anatta. So all beliefs of heaven ,hell,rebirth,etc etc etc are vanished as the nibbana stage comes closer and closer. So this is just begining on the path, and even if we have so many beliefs of rebirth,heaven,hell not be worried at all. just to keep going

"Therefore, can the thought of or belief in 'rebirth' in the mind
  result in Nibbana?"

No, it can't.
In the same way, the thought of or belief in "non existence of rebirth" in the mind, can't result in Nibanna.

"Is the belief in 'rebirth-reincarnation' not a type of 'becoming' &
  not a 'thought formation'?"

It is a type of "becoming" and a "thought formation".
In the same way, a belief in "non existence of rebirth-reincarnation", is a type of "becoming" and a "thought formation".
When a thought or belief arises in a being due to ignorance, that being clings and craves on that thought or belief. This clinging and craving will not result in Nibanna.
When a thought arises in a being due to wisdom, that being does not cling nor crave on that thought. This absence of clinging and craving will result in Nibanna.
A belief is something that is accepted as the only truth. Thus, no belief can ever arise in a being who truly destroyed ignorance. That would be impossible. The one who destroyed ignorance, dwells in wisdom. He is the knower of the truth. How could the knower of the truth say "this is the only truth", when he knows "all truths are non truths"? That would be impossible. That's why the knower of the truth stays in the middle.

I marked this answer down because the belief in no rebirth leads to the abandoning of craving, attachment & self-view; never thinking about rebirth & fully acknowledging impermanence; which is a foothold in the deathless, This answer sounds like a hatred of impermanence. This  answer is like arguing atheism (non-belief in god) is an obstacle to Nibbana. Next it will be posted disbelief in Santa Claus is an obstacle to Nibbana.

I think this answer is similar to this one -- saying that any fixed views of self (including e.g. "I exist" or "I don't exist" or "I believe in the existence of rebirth" or "I believe in the non-existence of rebirth") are views or beliefs, which are obstacles -- and saying that both polarities (e.g. "I believe in the existence of rebirth" and "I believe in the non-existence of rebirth") are extremes, attachments, and not right view.

I upvote this answer for the poster's anology indicated he penetrated deep into the question answered with self-generated wisdom (not parroting some doctrines or some quotes of Suttas, nor any authorities' intepretations); his argument is sound and logical.

@ChrisW it is not the view is right or wrong, it's the view that indicated a residue in one's consciousness. Mahayana Sutras often have the Buddha used this parable: like a bird flys over the sky, left no trace [of its flying] in space.

@Dhammadhatu Suppose a noble monk, fully versed in the Dhamma, the knower of the truth, fully liberated, fully awakened and fully compassionate, is on a SINGLE TELEVISION SHOW where the WHOLE PLANET Earth is watching him answer to ONLY ONE SINGLE question. Suppose the monk is allowed to answer only with "yes" or "no", but not with silence.Suppose he agreed on these rules and came to the show. Suppose the host of the show asks him the ONE SINGLE QUESTION: "Is the belief in no rebirth the way to the abandoning of craving, attachment and self-view?" Would the noble monk answer with "yes" or "no"?

Rebirth in a Buddhist context does not involve a belief in a soul. It merely refers to the continuation of the mental-physical causes and effect process after  death. It should not be confused with the Hindu belief of reincarnation.
However if a person clings to the view that everything ends after death, he/she wont be able to attain Nibbana as it falls under Uccedavada.

Yes. It can. The belief that rebirth results in more suffering provides motivation to find liberation and escape samsara.

Zhiyi claimed that teaching rebrith was the 1st teaching, even before meditation. I think he called it the teaching of the inferior herbal grass.
This does not mean it is not true.

"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is
  nothing further for the sake of this world"

Would not make much sense, if there were only one birth to end or no births to end. Rebirth is part of (mundane) right view:

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as
  wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view.
  And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
  nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
  actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father,
  no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who,
  faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
  after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
  wrong view...

Rebirth is the understanding that within conditionality, a beginning and an end cannot be conceived. As such, death is a misnomer - redeath would be better really, but with rebirth being used instead of birth already, the description would gain a slightly more Essentialist sound.
Rebirth is a 'thing' that is given an unlimited and full range to balance kamma within conditionality. Because rebirth is an attempt to describe dependent origination in a concrete, 'one truth' way, it doesn't fit very well with the spirit of the Buddha's words imo.
But if some form of being subject to kamma is defined, then rebirth is an accurate description of how kamma remains in balance across conditioned existence. It reminds me of Nagarjuna's claim that Samsara is unconditioned, in that when looked at as a whole, there is no 'thing' external to Samsara to provide a condition for it. This leads to a very still image of Samsara, because

"Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of
  samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?"

Gives an image of Samsara as still, empty (the image swings a little towards the nihilistic for my mind), then all this perceived change and dis-balance must balance out. Rebirth is a description of that balance act.
Really though, because it does not lead to the cessation of objectification (not in my mind at least), it is best put aside.

arahants declared ""Birth is ended". Arahants do not lie or speak conjecture. if arahants are alive, how can they declare in truth that "physical birth has ended?"  the birth that ends is the birth of self-view or the view of "beings" ("satta").  When the mind enters the stream, it will know this without any doubts whatsoever. The view of Brahmali is the view of Mara, as explained in SN 5.10.  SN 5.10 states to believe "a being" is anything but a mere view (ditthi) is the view of Mara. SN 12.2 defines jati as the production of the view of "beings" ("satta"). Satta is in SN 23.2. best wishes

Certainly the ending of the birth of self-view is key, but that is why there is a remainder before parinibbana, otherwise the declaration would imply that a free mind could then just wander on for ever at peace, from body to body. One can talk about conditioned beings, the subjective 'mere views', but for no good reason from the point of view of Buddhism. Rebirth, in trying to unify the whole field of living beings into one complete and coherent process, suffers from the same problems other conditioned linguistic descriptions of a unifying principle suffer.

But if seen as defining something that is only not impermanent, it's reasonable speculation.

Arahants could just be saying there there will be no further birth in next life. Arahants didn’t say life is ended. They just said that “birth is ended”

We have may duplicate topic, today.

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.
3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?
6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)
Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

"Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html
Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).
That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.

Try to avoid posting the same answer to multiple questions. Instead, vote to close the second question as a duplicate ... or post a comment under the question, like this comment ... to show that readers who are interested in one topic might want to read the answers to the other topic too.

Is it acceptable to add a duplicate answer to several questions?

Only Buddha know the possibles, and the impossibles. It was one of his exclusive qualities. You will need to know every possibility to come up with yes or no questions.  That why I am very skeptical when people answer yes or no for possibility questions without referencing words from Buddha. Root cause of  ucchedadiṭṭhi and  sassatadiṭṭhi are from sakkaya ditthi.  It seems strange for both to come from same causal.
Following is from personal experience so please take it with grain of salt.  With sakkaya ditthi, self identity view, it creates boundary lines around self and with that the inside, and outside.  if one chooses the inside is self,  it emphasis on annihilation.  And opposite for outside.  So in a nutshell, if there are boundary lines around self, it comes with  one of these two extremes; "this life" or "next life" .  But when boundary lines are blurred, together with depended origination, there is really no next life or this life. As long as root causes are there, it will just keep going even at the breakup of this body.  When consciousness causes by this name-form is broken, sattanam or latching on as self will reappear with other name-form.
for your question, this is what i think.  Believing in rebirth (if you meant  sassatadiṭṭhi/soul) then that means that person is still have first fetter binding tight.
If I understand correctly, your view of sattanam or self view does not go beyond name/form of current 5 skandha? so it is impossible to have self view on anything beyond the current of what is yours now?  forgive me if i was wrong.

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


text:
Why do secular Buddhists not commit suicide?
In Thailand, there was a very famous monk who was chosen to represent Thailand in 1954 at the 6th Buddhist council in Burma who did not believe in rebirth (and who many Thai puthujjana considered to be a heretic & sutta-cutter). His life ended by natural causes at 87 years old.
A certain Sangharaga (Supreme Patriarch) who taught 'heaven & hell' where cultural beliefs that represent 'ancient geography' lived for 100 years, as follows:

"As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the
  goal of religious practice itself. On this very subject, His Holiness
  critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and
  hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and
  belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of cosmology appeared in
  Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at
  all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was
  included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of
  popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about
  heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original
  teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and
  hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha
  wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’
  message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his
  teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact
  symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead.
  One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to
  wait until one dies..."
View on Heaven and Hell of Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism.

These monks with secular views lived to & died from old age.
Why do secular Buddhists not commit suicide?

Isn't this an exact duplicate of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22706/254 which asks why "secular" Buddhists (who don't believe in rebirth) don't end suffering by suicide?

Just a friendly reminder to the authentic Truth (Buddha's teachings) seekers: How many articles and interpretations you read are tainted with Theosophical Society's fingerprints? Buddhadasa is one well-known, not sure about the above mentioned S. Pat., haven't done research on him. Most of the influential Bhikkhus around the WWI WWII time, when Asia was falling into colonial rules, Western cultures imported, were hijacked or groomed by these Theosophists. Many of the Western Bhikkhus were ordained with suspicious motives... Do your own research and discover the truth yourself.


text:
If devas are real, than why don't they show us themself?
If semigods/devas/dities are their, than why don't they tell us that they do exists, so that people will follow dharma with out doubt?

not to play the fool, but do devas have the dharma, or do humans?

@user3293056 According to MN 26 and Wikipedia, Brahmā Sahāmpati, said to be the most senior of the Mahābrahmās, was the deity who visited the Buddha when he attained enlightenment, and encouraged him to teach the Dharma to humans.

They are around, just that you don't see them. Likewise bacterias are everywhere, you don't see them.
Not seeing/hearing is not existing obviously is scientifically proven false, but people tend to dwell in this fallacy without remorse.
The way to learn is to improve the capacity. Bacterias can be seen by inventing microscope, but the Buddha seen them 2500 years ago. Maybe one day someone can invent devascope to see them; yet again you can learn what Buddha was capable and see them ?year ahead the inventor ~ :D

- The OP asks for elaboration, I extend my answer -
Dialogue for those who's minds are not contaminated by the neo-Buddhist. (Neo-Buddhists - those who believed in their "scientifically-authenticated-Buddha".)
Prelude:
Buddhists from tradition and Buddhists at heart are seeing the emerging of the trend of neo-Buddhism, a Buddhism invented by applying so-called scientific methods, surgical skills and dissecting analysis are callously utilized. Taking the convenient standpoint that Buddhism is a religion/(not a religion) appealed to reasoning, unlike Christianity or other faith-based. Therefore, anything that's not scientifically proven should be stripped, for it's either misunderstanding/mis-translating the words, primitive superstitions or later additions by fanatic religious... etc. In a nutshell, they want to reduce the Buddha to be a merely human, any feature of Buddha a Buddha is committing suicidal scientific fraud.
Traditional Buddhist and Buddhist at heart knows the Buddha is the Buddha, yet Buddha is also human therefore it completed the teaching that we humans can become the Buddha, or be liberated forever like the Arhat/Arahant by dwelling in Nirvana.
The blindness of the neo-Buddhist is that they equal reasoning with science. Science is only one of the many methods for searching the ultimate, science is not the ultimate. Reasoning includes scientific methods, but scientific methods not the totality of reasoning. Buddha's teaching is the teaching from the ultimate, he is not searching for the ultimate; reasoning is a method taught by the Buddha to realize the ultimate by oneself, reasoning itself is not the ultimate.
We are seeing science characterized by the ability to re-adjust itself, such as Newtonian physics disproved by Einstein's Relativity. The day will come when E=mc2 being disproved (I said the c, speed of light, is false. How do I know? I learnt it from the Sutras - not directly the Sutra with explicitly this saying but one has to really get it). This is the goodie of science - being able to adjust; the very way science survived is by disproving itself. Applicable is this rebuttal logic used by the Epicurean refuter on "pursuing happiness is the very reason happiness will never be obtained by the pursuer", likewise science is refuted. We can never predict what science will come up next, but surely can predict whatever come up next will be refuted late; hence a sound mind can infer thus see clearly that "scientific methods" we called nowadays can never obtain the ultimate. Therefore, can we trust scientific authentication? You know better than me. Do you trust someone who come up day after another day, time after another time, telling you, "Sorry, what I said before was wrong, in fact it should be so and so...?"
The Dialogue:
Why don't the Devas show us themselves? I don't think I can answer this question on behalf of the Devas, or as the envoy of the Devas ;). Ultimately one should get his own answer by knowing it directly himself. But I put in my two cents to enrich this investigation:
A) It's really as hinted above, they are around but we don't see them since we don't have the ability to see them, nor it's their duty to let themselves be seen by us.
Here is the incident I read in the Vinaya, that may illustrate this: A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.
B) Only with special cause that the Deva to the human can be seen.
A case to illustrate this is from a linked Sutta I read in this forum. In it talked about a Bhikkhu visited by a Deva requested to bring him to the Buddha for asking a question, for the Buddha was surrounded by many higher Devas he didn't have a chance to get near. The reason for this Deva to seek for his help was due to in eons lives before, they were relatives... or something like that.
Therefore, there must be cause (Karma) to fulfill the criteria. Likewise, Aishwarya Rai won't come to see everyone in Mumbai, but she may come to see her friend if she has one there.
C) It's not allowed for the Devas to take "mass-appearing" to induce people following Dharma/Dhamma, for it violated the rule:
(i) Another incident I read in Vinaya, about Maudgalyāyana/Moggallāna being accused faking Dhyana/Jhana for he told the rest that State A would win the battle against State B for he saw the Yaksas (city protecting Deva of State A) winning the other Yaksas in their battle. But it turned out the opposite for while M. reporting this the battle of the Devas made a significant turn...
(ii) Another case I read from the Sutra, said Śakra/Sakka paying tribute to the Buddha for Buddha's teaching turned more people to good hence it increased his citizens decreased the Asura's citizens.
Therefore it shows that the Deva worlds and human world are synchronizing, the battle of the Devas is playing out in the human world, so is the human world reflected back to the higher realm. Imagine, if the Devas made their mass-appearing to induce followers, then the Asuras will do the same, then the battlefield will be shifted to the human world... can the human world sustain such turmoil? (I think the Mahābhārata was such event happened eons ago when Planet Earth was the celestial realm, or semi-celestial realm, before it degraded to be only suitable for humans).
(iii) Last, the Parinirmita-vaśavartin (pleasure from other's pleasure), the highest of the celestial realm ruled by desire, the Lord of this realm is Mara, named Pāpman (Pali: Pāpiya or Pāpimant), his sustaining and joy is produced by the desirous activities carried out in the lower realms, particularly the human realm, he won't allow this mass-appearing, he would prefer humans staying in Samsara, being under his rule.
Ok, it's a bit too sophisticated for it related to ample studies in the Sutras, Vinayas and Sastras to understand, especially many of the sources are not available in English.
The above is very pictorial, vivid, narratively dramatic... for in the tangible it manifested as people, places, events... but in the intangible, it should be decipher differently.
... is it enough now to buy a Big Mac meal in McDonald's, huh?

they maybe around, and maybe humans can't see them. but my question was why they/ devas don't communicate with us? are devas unaware or unconcious who don't know of their own existance? why don't they communicate with humans? are just just energies of universe or something which is self aware?

You need to develop the divine eye faculty to see Devas and ghosts. Read the  Visuddhimagga if you are genuinely interested in it.

When you walk in a park and find some ants walking in a row, bend down and look at the ants and observe what they are doing. Then wave your hands at them and say, "ants, how are you today?". They don't respond back. If you place your finger somewhere near their path, they would ignore it and continue onwards.
You would find that the ants are completely oblivious of your presence.
Similarly, the devas or brahmas who are said to be superior to humans, may be watching us and attempting to interact with us, but we may be completely oblivious of them.
We don't need to trust that the teachings of the Buddha are true by proving that devas and brahmas exist. All we need to be convinced of, is that the Buddha was truly enlightened in the nature of reality, just as we trust what Einstein taught in physics, because we are convinced that Einstein was enlightened in his area of physics. And just like physics, the Buddhist teachings are very empirical, in the sense that it is verifiable by practical experience.
In this answer, I stated that it's quite possible  to have "retrograde realization" (to quote Andrei Volkov) i.e. to realize upon reading some teachings of the Buddha, that it really fits your own observation of the workings of your mind. However, if the Buddha did not point it out, you would not have noticed. This kind of "aha" moments can convince you also, of the truth of the Buddha's enlightenment and skill in teaching.
You can read the story of the world's happiest man, Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, through whom neuroscientists empirically verified the efficacy of the Buddha's teachings, using 256 sensor nodes. Ricard also encouraged us to similarly verify the Buddha's teachings in his statement: “Try sincerely to check, to investigate. That’s what Buddhism has been trying to unravel — the mechanism of happiness and suffering. It is a science of the mind.”

To quantify just how happy Ricard is, neuroscientists at the
  University of Wisconsin attached 256 sensors to the monk’s skull. When
  he meditated on compassion, the researchers were shocked to see that
  Ricard’s brian produces a level of gamma waves off the charts. He also
  demonstrated excessive activity in his brain’s left prefrontal cortex
  compared to its right counterpart, meaning he has an abnormally large
  capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity,
  the researchers say.
During the same study, the neuroscientists also peeked into the minds
  of other monks. They found that long-term practitioners—those who have
  engaged in more than 50,000 rounds of meditation—showed significant
  changes in their brain function, although that those with only three
  weeks of 20-minute meditation per day also demonstrated some change.

First, we have to distinguish between mundane devas and supramandane deities. The mundane devas can either follow Dharma or not, but usually they do not,  because of their illusion of everlasting happiness. This means they are not compassionate and so they don't have a cause to deign to humans, nor human beings have an ability to see them, just like ants don't have ability to see humans and/or communicate with them, or just like humans usually don't treat ants as their peers.
Second, those mundane devas who follow Dharma might be compassionate, yet they can hardly be noticed by those humans who haven't achieve an ability to see devas and/or supramandane deities.
Last but not least, the supramandane deities require a practitioner to have special abilities and/or to be determined by some special causes to see them. E. g. all the  - if I am not mistaken - Kashmiri women put together are the manifestation of the Shri Devi's speech, yet which mortal can perceive all the Kashmiri women at once?

Good people have no doubt in Devas, having no doubt in devas, they watch out their deeds, knowing that they are next and here. Watching out their deeds, they are no more ugly and bad smelling for Devas and those established in good ways are not deprived to come even in a human life in reunion with them.
Devas, like good people, avoid uglines and bad smell. Those who watch over their qualities are not in lack of their company.
Would you, for example, join a community of pigs and act in their ways so that you get recognised and be followed by them? What else as a pig keeper, those who gain benefit of them, would a common pig follow aside of it's kind?
Likewise Devas do not appear to common men, will be not found in their reunion. Even if they appear from time to time, it's not for those incapable to see and hear the meaning of their voice.
Maybe an inspiring story for those open to it:

“Devas possess divine sight and divine hearing, enabling them to see and hear over great distances. They know about the good and bad of human affairs better than do humans themselves. Couldn't you find a way to make humans more aware of right and wrong? I feel that you are more capable of it than we human teachers are. Is there any way you could do this?” ...An Impeccable Human Being

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for use of commercial purposes and other wordily gains but intended and bound to awakening and liberation, and so good shared.]

Upvote for mentioning "Devas... avoid uglines and bad smell". It's very true, mentioned in many places in the Sutras.

They are as real as Adam and Eve ie a metaphor. From what I gather through various readings and podcasts the Buddhist story of Mara is also not meant to be taken literally. These are fables.  If a demon did appear it would have been in Siddartha's mind.
Its unwise to take religious teachings literally in my opinion. You only have to look to these Christians who do so with the Old Testament to see the negative effects it has.

There is no reason to assume that the gods follow dharma. Some may. Others may not. It is my understanding that it is best to be human since humans have the combination of opportunity to practice and the suffering that that can motivate to practice. Gods with less suffering are not as motivated. But back to the original question, people make their own choices with or without gods, miracles, evidence, and so forth. This is what I love about buddhism. It is based on logic and evidence. You do not have to take anything on blind faith. Experimentation with positive practices produces positive results. Succumbing to negative states (anger, grasping, etc.) produces negative results.


text:
Meditation in stressful environments
My significant other is an extremely busy person who constantly lives life on the road and rarely has moments to himself. He's an incredibly stressed out person and because of this I've recommended meditation to him. I've given him a pair of mala beads and well wishes but I'm not sure how else I can help him.
What are some tips that I can offer him? It pains me to see him so stressed so often and I would like to help him relax and reflect.
Thanks so much in advance!

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

This is based on nothing more than my own experience so please take it in that light.
I'm fairly busy at times as well. When I am super busy I find it very difficult to do any 'formal' meditation. It makes me more stressed sometimes to have to do 'another thing'. One thing I find useful is posture. There are no meditation police (i think) telling you that you must sit for meditation. Why not try lying down and doing nothing, perhaps watching the mind and paying attention to the desire to do something else; the desire to check your phone, write an email, get up and so forth. It's all there going on and worth a look.
I sometimes find it useful to set a timer for a small amount of time (10 mins say) and just do that. I don't find it stressful and it does alleviate the whir of the mind. If nothing else your partner gets to lie down for 10 mins. If your partner really struggles for time this can always be done last thing at night. Everyone has to go to bed at some point so there is a little time there maybe.
As I say, this is just what I have found useful when struggling. A teacher once said to me that meditating lying down wasn't cheating so it's kind of based around that idea. Anyway best of luck to you and your partner.

Short sessions work for me when I'm stressed. But I also try not to stress out on the fact that I have only a little time some days--10-15 minutes. I don't think time is a crucial factor anyway. It's the quality of your meditation experience that counts. Also, I have found that some of my most insightful sessions have come when I'm most stressed or least inclined to practice. Shamatha is a good antidote for a mind on the jump. I have been practicing it for almost a year now and have been able to see some real progress. As to the posture police, they should remember that the Buddha cited four acceptable postures: sitting, standing, walking or lying down. In other words--anything! Keep at it and good luck!

Very good answer. The distinction between duration and quality is crucial to understand (experientially).

It pains me to see him so stressed so often >

First of all, you should learn to relax. I suggest that you practice some breath meditation. Then teach that to your significant other.

"It pains me to see him so stressed so often and I would like to help
  him relax and reflect."

The most important question is not how you can help him, but: does he want your help?
I understand he needs help, but does HE want your help?
I understand he's incredibly stresses, but does HE want to do something about it?
You and your significant other are both adults and smart people. If he really needs your help, you two will definitely sort it out and find a solution.
If you two can't find a solution and you need to come here ask for suggestions how to help him, then:
1. either he doesn't need your help or
2. there is some other issue not related to your question that you, or him, or both need to sort out
If it's 2, I suggest to find a wise teacher/therapist who will help solve these other issues.

Mindfulness meditation can help a person deal with stress. This is due to the fact that, by being objective, it facilitates the engagement of psychological "safeguards," unconscious mental processes that make sure you are thinking or doing the best thing, given the circumstances. This is how mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) medical programs work. In general, more advanced states of mindfulness meditation are required to gain insight into more unconscious and flawed forms of motivation (karma). If you want to know more about the practice, please read my book, How Mindfulness Meditation Works.


text:
What are the 5 cords of sensual pleasures?
I looked it up but the person answer was unclear. I read greed which is a sense desire of unprofitable things (Which if I'm correct is different from sense desire of objects) has all 5. So doesn't that mean when suppressing the defilement i should suppress all 5 cords separately kind of like you do the hindrances.

If you're asking about something you read, can you add a reference or link to what you read?

Bonn answerd it. I just wanted to know the 5 cord of sense pleasures

The five kāmaguṇa are:

color
sound
smell
flavor
phoṭṭhabba (=temperature, matter, and vayo).

They tie the kāma-person to live in kāma-bhava.
kāma means "living in kāma loka"; and guṇa means "a binder".
So, the five kāmaguṇa are things that kāma-taṇha (addicting to drug), and bhava-taṇha (addicting to becoming, born to be, future birth).
See the first part of the mahadukkhakkhandhasutta for more information:

Now what, monks, is the allure of sensuality? These five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Now whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is the allure of sensuality.

guṇa also has two other meanings, besides string.  One is "quality" and another is "to multiply".  Most translators choose the "strings that bind" meaning, but it's been noted that these other two meanings also aren't unreasonable in this context - namely "proliferation resulting from the senses" (from the multiply meaning) and simply "the five sensual qualities".


text:
Who was the first buddha?
If the number of buddhas is increasing, who was the first, and how did he become buddha without the dharma or a guru?

You asked a very intelligent question; but this is an intellectual quest that fallen into the category of the Ten Unexpounded Questions, I infer. It belongs to this group: Is the world eternal?. Discerning that question, it is asking Does the world have beginning/When does the world first appear; follow suit, Who was the first Buddha?
Since the Buddha withdrawn from giving answer to the Ten, usually that's the end of it. And then the classical way is to stress, Buddha's teaching is for ending suffering... for someone like wounded by an arrow at heart dying immediately... etc. etc. full-stop. Done.

But I think maybe you are interested to investigate a bit more...
The intellectual questions are confined by intellectual limitation. Intellectual limitation of procuring question or answer is limited in these four types:

This is (P)
This is not (-P)
This is also is not (P also -P)1
Neither this is nor is not (Neither P nor -P)2

Called Catuṣkoṭi, I prefer the name "Four-statements". Not a fifth statement can be procured by the intellect, except combining the four to make sub-sets.
A question asked from these Four-statements answered in the Four-statements, Buddha called it "game of the mind" (戲論). There are plenty of these examples in general teachings recorded in Agama Sutras; sophisticated examples in advance teachings recorded in such as Avatamsaka Sutra (the first Sutra spoken by the Buddha). For instant, if this same type of question asked by a Christian: Who created the world? Ans: God. Who created God? Ans (maybe:)): God's father. Who created God's father? Ans: God's grandfather... finally, one can only come up this answer to halt the question: God is Alpha and Omega (the beginning and end/no beginning and end). See? How horrible the mind can elicit gaming!
But, The Truth is beyond these Four-statements; beyond intellect, beyond the mind; can be pointed, yet not caged for display, like the finger pointing to the moon. That's the deepest teaching of the Buddha. Nagarjuna elaborated the teaching profoundly, for easy application, used one word: Emptiness (空).
OK. I'm diving a bit too much into the sea, giving too long an answer, a bit scary too, huh? Better is finding out by yourself :)

Now let's go headlong into your title question:

Who was the first buddha?

The short answer is: 。 (silence)
Additional: The number of buddhas isn't increasing nor decreasing... etc., for this analogy is an extended fabrication constructed by the Four-statements.

Now let's deal with the next:

how did he become buddha without the dharma or a guru?

I think the he you referred to Buddha Shakyamuni. First, the Dharma is constant and present, not created hence can't be destroyed; the word used to refer is suchness, or thusness. By the moment Prince Siddhartha realized full enlightenment, he embodied the Dharma, by embodied the Dharma he realized full enlightenment, called Buddha Shakyamuni.
Guru I think you meant teacher. Buddha's teachers are previous Buddhas, one of the most significant Gurus for our Buddha, would be Buddha Dipamkara. To be the Lord Buddha of the Three-thousand-world (三千大千世界)3, one has to receive the Mark (授記) from the previous Buddha. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, the Mark was endorsed by Buddha Dipamkara4. When a Buddha is perfectly enlightened, worth to be the teacher of all humans and devas, opens the deathless gate for all, he is called a Samyaksambuddha, one who attained the pinnacle of enlightenment, Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. My other post may provide more info.
There is another type of Buddha, he doesn't have a Guru [to endorse him the Mark], called Pratyekabuddha, or called self-awaken Buddha (獨覺佛). He realizes full enlightenment by discovering the Dharma by himself, contemplating the 12 Nidanas, during time there's no Buddha appearing. He doesn't teach nor forming Saṃgha to carry on any teaching.

Indeed your question is well formulated, involving understanding many Buddhist doctrines. My answer just serves as indications, it's for you to explore the richness of the Buddha Dharma, how Buddha sees cosmology, life, the world... etc. _/|\ _ (all-my-ten)

Footnotes:
1. From Chinese wording I think it made more sense to use also then and. Obviously putting and is violating logic.
2. It follows that the 4th statement should be treated same way.
3. Three-thousand-world has different definitions, I'm still not clear about the grouping of solar systems and galaxies how they referred to in Buddhist cosmology. My assertion is, either one galaxy one world, or one thousand galaxies one world. If it's the later, then 1,000 Milkyway-like star-clusters will be one Samyaksambuddha's teaching ground ~ huge classroom! Sources related to one 3TW presiding one Lord Buddha: Agama Sutras, Avatamsaka Sutra, Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, Abhidharma-kośa, etc.
4. Sources: in the Sutras collected in one of the 12 Sutra-sections of the Chinese Canon, the Agama Section (which is equivalent to Pali Canon's Nikaya Pitaka); Diamond Sutra, Dharmagupta Vinaya (survived only in the Chinese Canon), Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, etc.

What's the origin of the statement, "to be the Lord Buddha of the Three-thousand-world (三千大千世界), one has to receive the Mark (授記) from the previous Buddha" ... is that from the Lotus Sutra? And/or is it somehow inherent in the way that "Dharma is transmitted"?

@ChrisW I will have to retrieve... one Lord Buddha presides over one 3TW is the case, or maybe in Avatamsaka or Brahma Net. About the Mark is in Lotus.

@ChrisW your next part of the question is stepping into the esoteric area. in Lotus Sutra, it said, all previous Lord Buddhas are teaching Lotus this Sutra... i don't want to sound like a mystic but in the whole Lotus Sutra in fact no Lotus Sutra was taught at all! if you can see this... that's why many people said it's inconsistent and using it as one of the evidences to attack it...

@Mishu米殊 How could the number of buddhas not be increasing? Are you not working to become a buddha? And is it not impossible for a buddha to lose perfect enlightenment?

@Mishu米殊based on your answer I suppose the 1st buddha would have been a Pratyekabuddha.

If you prefer to think in this way it's perfectly ok, @jacknad. But what about further investigating that comes to next concern, will then there not enough space for the Buddhas since it's only increasing... etc. This is the process of discovering the truth by yourself. Only by realizing the truth yourself you are at it. Truth is not words, so is my writings here and there.

I was quite captivated by the Pratyekabuddha, before I even cared about Buddhism, I though that was cool. But I notice, in many Sutras and Vinayas I read, when it involved narrating a Pratyekabuddha, it never mentioned his name, but if about previous Buddha, it definitely with that Buddha's name. Now, how can you know which one is the 1st since none of them has a name? How do you call "him", because you must say so and so is the 1st right? Again, it's for you to discover. But of import, it seemed Buddha discouraged one aspired to be a Pratyekabuddha if there is option of being Buddha...

In Tibetan Buddhism, the primordial Buddha is Samantabhadra also known as Vajradhara.
Primordial Buddha is not a personality, so has no personal history. It is the essence of ever-existing Sat-Dharma implicit in the very nature of things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajradhara

There will be no Buddha if there are no sentient beings. Everything is relative. The first Buddha began from the first sentient beings.

Nidanakatha - Introductory story, to the Jatakas may give some "answers", yet not sure if such as "the first Buddha ever" was ever mentioned by the Buddha.
Better to reflect the Dhamma of all Buddhasn

The non-doing of any evil,
  the performance of what's skillful,
  the cleansing of one's own mind:
      this is the teaching
      of the Awakened.✦

And "knowing": who ever meets the Dhamma, meets the Buddha, meeting the Buddha, one meets the Dhamma.
How seldom to meet a Buddhas Dhamma! Honor it and make the best of you wealth previouse gained.
Buddhas, if attentive reading, always have their previous "Teacher", devoted, vow before them.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Impermanent self
I hear people saying this a lot regarding Annatta -  "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self."
 But doesn't this only  apply if you're coming from the view that a 'self' must be permanent?   Why can't the self be impermanent?  If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.

Because that would lead you to say that self is suffering. You have to see in your experience how impermanence is stressful, then you can decide if stress is self.

That sounds like the Hindu perspective that there is a permanent self (Atma). This is not Buddhism.

UrsulRosu - But my understanding is that  Dukha does not arise from life or the object of our attention but from our response to it. So therefore I could have an impermanent self and be ok about that without suffering

ruben2020 -  I'm saying an impermanent self not permanent so it's not the Hindu perspective

Well yeah, but the self comes from identificantion with phenomena so if you identify with something impermanent that will be stressful. Check for yourself.

A self should be something under your total control. Impermanence is merely one aspect that proves something is not a self. Suffering is another. But Anatta(non-self) aspect can stand on it's own without impermanence and suffering.
ex: Nibbana is permanent and peaceful, but it is still not a self. Why because you are unable to attain it at will. You have to cultivate the mind to attain it. It's the same with everything else. You cannot bring anything into existence, retain it, alter it or make it go away at will without being dependent on other conditions. Hence Anatta.

Why should a self be something under your total control? I mean, that's my understanding too but  I am not quite clear on it

Otherwise what's the point of calling something a self? :)

Just for semantic reasons? Being able to tell another person about our own personal experience of self?

You are mixing up conventions with ultimate reality.

Yeah? So what? Don't we all do that?

You are confused! The OP's question is referring to ultimate reality. He is not asking if it is ok to use the word 'self' in a conventional sense.

Aren't we all confused? What's an OP? Aren't you the OP? Anatta is confusing my friend if we try to explain with words. I

OP is original poster. Not everybody is confused. Speak for yourself :)

I love how explain things with a direct command, cute stuff my friend.

I think it's the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, which says e.g. that form is impermanent, therefore unsatisfactory (or painful) rather than pleasant, and therefore not fit to be regarded as "this is myself".

Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

Ditto the other aggregates (feeling, perception, etc.).
See also the first noble truth, which equates suffering with the "clinging-aggregates".
There's also the Alagaddupama Sutta,

“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

So it's not exactly that "it cannot be self" -- it's that "it's not fit to be regarded as self", or that "viewing it as self arouses suffering in one who clings to it."
If I have the view that there is a self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self.
According to the second sutta quoted above, you may cling to that doctrine if it would not arouse suffering ... but the Buddha didn't see any doctrine of self that wouldn't arouse suffering.
Conversely perhaps Buddhists seek a view of Nirvana (which is timeless rather than impermanent).

As per my understanding ,all phenomenon are nonself. Eventually any self identification which you have, will get discarded because it will pass away.
You think you are Arturia but Arturia will pass away. You will have no choice but to give up the identity of Arturia as an error,illusion or a dream and move on. You will adopt new identity which will again pass away...and so on. If we discard one identity as error , illusion or a dream then we must discard all identities as error,illusion or a dream. If there is no Self which can be considered as me, mine or myself then what should we conclude about yourself now? Now you are living an identity which will eventually pass away. This is not you. That realization is Wisdom. The Truth.
Below I quote from accesstoinsight.org:

There are three types of teachers, the first one teaches that the ego
  or the self is real now as well as in the future (here and hereafter);
  the second one teaches that the ego is real only in this life, not in
  the future; the third one teaches that the concept of an ego is an
  illusion: it is not real either in this life or in the hereafter.
The first one is the eternalist (sassatavaadi); the second one is the
  annihilationist (ucchedavaadi); the third one is the Buddha who
  teaches the middle way of avoiding the extremes of eternalism and
  annihilationism. (Here the middle way is the doctrine of dependent
  arising, or causal conditioning — Paticca Samuppaada).

I asked Bhante Yutthaddhammo this question. I think he got frustrated with the question or maybe all questions.
Bhante was probably frustrated as a teacher because students often are thinking about Buddhism more than actually  practicing Buddhism not that pondering things has no place  in the practice.
All things are no self means whatever we experience, that experience is not a self, it's no self or soul. Just because we can't find something doesn't always mean it's not there. For all we know there is a self or a not a self or the self is imperminant or not imperminant or maybe it's just a giant hot dog floating somewhere in space. All we can know is what comes in through the eyes, ears, mind and body in the present moment.
Regarding a not so permanent self, you find impermanence in every moment... the Buddha's no-self teaching goes something like this:
A soul is not to be found in any practice the Buddha teaches but he didn't necessarily say that there was no soul at all and it is important not to ponder it too much but instead try to understand you and what's the center of you by practicing some kind of meditation that will give you insights into yourself like Zazen or Satipatthana Vipassana.

When one assumes that self exists, it is assumed to be permanent, otherwise self that is present in two events continuous in time are not the same! Say some action is committed upon expectation of a reward, the self that performs action doesn't get anything in return as the self that experiences the consequences is something else! This leads to lot of suffering as the self that acts doesn't get anything in return and hence any action by it is unsatisfactory.
That is not to say that concept of self that one assumes to exist is permanent. It is assumed to be permanent, otherwise we will have a problem accommodating causality or accepting that self can act in pursuit of rewards, as noted above. There are stages in insight practice (starting from bhanga nana or knowledge of dissolution) where one gets direct insight into the impermanent nature of self. No wonder these stages are grouped under dukkha nanas (knowledges of suffering/unsatisfactoriness).

" "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self." But doesn't
  this only apply if you're coming from the view that a 'self' must be
  permanent?"

The view "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self" can come from wisdom or from ignorance.
If it comes from ignorance, it comes from the view "self is permanent". Those who hold the view "self is permanent" have not yet realized anatta. They think that there is a permanent self, which is in contradiction to anatta which states that there is no self that can be found.
If it comes from wisdom, it comes from observing reality as it really is. Reality as it really is is that there is no self to be found anywhere. Reality is anatta. Somebody who realized anatta clearly sees and knows that "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self".
Why does he think like that?
Because he deeply and extensively meditated on the subject of anatta and came to the following observations:

If I were my body, then I wouldn't age. If I were my body, I would be my body, thus I would have complete control of my body. If I would have complete control of my body, I wouldn't let it age.
If the body were truly mine, I wouldn't age. How could I age, if I'm the essence of "aging"? If I'm the essence of "aging", I can't age, because I'm the definition of "aging". Just like a line drawn on a piece of paper is a line and nothing more, in the same way I would be the definition of "aging" and nothing more, thus I wouldn't age. How could I age if I'm "aging" itself? That would be impossible. I could only age if there would be some other "aging" acting upon me, but since I'm the definition of "aging", no other "aging" could act upon me, thus I would not age.
If the body were truly mine, nobody could take it away from me or cast me away from it. Because if somebody took it, he would not took the body and leave me behind, but he would take me with it. Or, if somebody took it, he would not be able to take it and cast me away from it, but I would stay with it. Thus, when I would die, the body would go with me or I would stay with the body. But it doesn't go with me, nor I stay with the body ... it stays on the spot where I died and rots until it turns into dust.
If I truly were my body, nobody could touch it. Because even if somebody touched it, for me it would be like nothing touched me. How could I feel touch, if I am the essence of "touch"? It would be like being "touch" and feeling touch. How could you feel touch, if you're the essence of "touch"? It would be impossible. It would be like being the color red and changing into the color red. That would be impossible because you're already red. In the same way, it would be like being "touch" and changing into "touch". That would be impossible because you're already "touch".
If I truly were my body, I wouldn't feel hot and cold. Because even if I were in a hot or cold place, for me it would be like temperature is non existent. How could I feel hot or cold, if I am the essence of hot and cold? It would be like being "hot and cold" and feeling hot or cold. How could you feel hot or cold, if you're the essence of "hot and cold"? It would be impossible. It would be like being the color red and changing into the color red. That would be impossible because you're already red, thus I wouldn't detect any change in color, which means that I wouldn't detect any change in me. In the same way, it would be like being "hot and cold" and changing into "hot and cold". That would be impossible because you're already "hot and cold", thus if I were "hot and cold" I wouldn't detect any change in me, thus I would feel no differences in temperature.
If I truly were my thoughts, feelings, sensations and all other "things" that I feel in my mind and/or body, I would have complete control over them. How could I not have complete control over them, if I'm the essence of them? If I'm the essence of something, I have complete control over that thing. I am that thing! Thus, I would have complete control over that thing as I AM that thing.
If I'm truly something, nobody could touch me. How could I be touched, if I AM that thing? If I AM that thing, I have complete control over that thing. Thus, I have complete control over the arising of sensation of touch in that thing. Thus, if I AM that thing, I could just erase the sensation of touch, and no touch would be felt.
If I'm truly something, nobody could take it away from me. Taking it away from me would be impossible. How could that thing be taken away from me, if I'm that thing? That would be impossible. Whoever takes it away, cannot take it away from me, but is taking me with it.
If I'm truly something, nobody could change it into something else, but me. Somebody else or something else changing me into something else, without my approval, would be impossible. How could somebody or something change me, if I AM that thing? Nothing could change me without my approval for change to happen, because If I AM that thing I have total control over that thing that I AM.
If I truly were my thoughts, feelings, sensations and all other "things" that I feel in my mind and/or body, I wouldn't experience any of them. How could I experience something if I'm the essence of that thing? It would be like experiencing something that you're already being. It would be like being the color red and changing into the color red. That would be impossible because you're already red, thus I would detect no change in color, thus no change in me, thus no feeling in me could arise because nothing changed in me to make me react to that change. No feeling of that thing that I'm being could arise. If I were sadness, I wouldn't feel sad. If I were fear, I wouldn't feel afraid. If I were a thought, I wouldn't detect the thought. In the same way, it would be like being "thoughts, feelings, sensations" and changing into these same things. That would be impossible because you're already "thoughts, feelings, sensations", thus no change would be detected in ME ("thoughts, feelings, sensations"), thus I would feel no differences in these thoughts that I AM, feelings that I AM, sensations that I AM ... if I truly were these things.
If I truly were some object that I see, hear, touch, smell or taste, I would have complete control over that object. How could I not have complete control over it, if I'm the essence of that object? If I'm the essence of that object, I have complete control over that object. I am that object! Thus, I would have complete control over that object as I AM that object.
Nonetheless, when I observe my body as it really is, I see aging, death, differences in hot and cold. I see thoughts, feelings, sensations and all other "things" that I feel in my mind and/or body. I see, hear, touch, smell and taste objects that I have no control over them ... All of this is constantly changing and I can't do anything to change that. All of this is impermanent. Thus, I'm not my body. If I were my body, I would not age, I would not die, nor would I feel hot nor cold. Thus, I'm not my thoughts, feelings, sensations and all other "things" that I feel in my mind and/or body. If I were them, I would not experience them and I would have complete control over them. Nor I'm some object that I see, hear, touch, smell or taste. If I were, I would have complete control over that object. If I were truly these things, I would stop changing, I would erase suffering from me and I would become permanent.
Whatever I would be, I would be permanent. Deathless. Immortal.

Read the above.
The above observations can be applied to any object you desire. No matter which object you choose, you will come to the same conclusion: "if I were that object, the object wouldn't be subject to change. It would be permanent. Deathless. Immortal.". From this it follow: "if something is impermanent then it cannot be self"

"Why can't the self be impermanent? If I have the view that there is a
  self and it's impermanent then something impermanent can be self."

Do you think that you are impermanent?
If you answered "yes", you're holding onto the view "self is impermanent".
When you fully realize anatta, you would never hold onto the view "self is impermanent", because you would know that you are not "that" which is impermanent.
If you answered "no", then do you think you are permanent?
No, you don't think you are permanent, because you don't believe in rebirth, thus if you answered "no", there would only be two options remaining:
1. either you achieved Nirvana or
2. you haven't fully realized anatta thus you're still searching for a self
You haven't achieved Nirvana yet, because you're still suffering, so the only option that remains is 2.
Thus, you should work either on one of these two things:

stop clinging on the view "self is impermanent" or
realize anatta in its entirety.

Clinging or no clinging, it doesn't really matter, as it will stop when anatta will be realized in its entirety. Thus, work on the realization of anatta. For that you need a clear and calm mind. Once that is achieved, anatta can be easily realized in its entirety.

Anicca, dukkha =whole 5 aggregates, both lokiya and lokuttara aggregates. Because they depend on many causes to arise.
Object of insight meditation=just 5 lokiya aggregate, except tanha. Because lokuttara aggregates can't not be attached by tanha, so practitioner must doesn't make vipassana on lokuttara. Another, tanha is samudayasacca, so practitioner must make tanha finish at all, not just make vipassana on tanha.
Anatta=everything and every objects=whole 5 aggregates, nibbana, and paññatti.
Paññatti=imagination (it is not reality, like a dream, never arise, no cause). Aatta (self) is one kind of paññatti, too.
See: abhidhammatthasangaha in 1st and 8th chapter.

Some people perceive impermanent as self, some perceive permanent as self. Both permanence and impermanence are self. The idea here is when the self perceives a permanent "impermanent" or permanent "permanent" then there is suffering when permanent "impermanent" becomes impermanent "impermanent". To be free from suffering, one must realize everything is impermanent - even have to realize that  "impermanent" is impermanent.

If one must realize that "impermanent" is impermanent, then can you answer the question "Is 'impermanence' skillful means?"

I can hardly understand what you wrote. May be you can explain in more detail. You say "Both permanent and impermanent are self". What is permanent ? Then you say "realize that "impermanent" is impermanent". What is the meaning of that ?

ChrisW - "impermanence" refers to sufferings in this context.

"Why can't the self be impermanent?"

The notion (ārammaṇaṃ) of "self" is impermanent. Therefore it is 'not real' (anicca). Not real 'does not make sense' (anattha) . What ever is not real, does not make sense, is brudensome, makes stress (dukkha). It's just the process of becoming and decay, which is seeming to be real (nicca), till stopping to build again and "take a grasp", giving it a sense (atta).
For now, you are real and act with effect.
(Atma/my person, "likes" the word 'Paññatti', 'taking for real', but more 'paññāvimutti')
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for trade for wordily gain]


text:
Mindfullness and Imagination
I have read some of the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh about mindfullness and anchoring oneself in the present by focussing on in-breath and out-breath.
I am curious what teaching there may be about imagination, because imagination seems to take oneself away from the "here and now".
How can mindfullness and imagination be reconciled? Is there any place for imagination? Thanks

Imagination (paññatti) is object of ānāpānassati-jhāna (mindfulness in breath).
The excepted imaginations are just  imaginations that are objects of unwholesome-consciousnesses, and imaginations that not relate with practitioner's current meditation (although it is an object of wholesome-consciousness).

I answered about "here and now" in thai, here.
I have not enough time to rewrite this title in english, because it is very hard, and my english is very terrible, and many sources of this title are pure pāli. Maybe someone can translate read my thai version, or understand my thai version then rewrite it in his own, before I can write this title in thai by myself.

a friend's father used to day-dream while he was driving and almost had car accidents. It seems it is important to be in a "safe place", e.g. meditating, if one is to use the imagination and not be "here and now" focussed

Your topic asking about ānāpānassati, not driving, you loose your own question. Here and now of driver is driving situation, but here and now of ānāpānassati-practictioner is breath imagination. Breath is not the noble truth in tipitaka, so the practictioner has to analysis breath again while meditating insight meditation to see suffering noble truth of breath-imagination, pathavī tejo and vāyo.

To progress along the path, to realise what the Buddha did, we need a vehicle. If the vehicle uses imagination as a method, then imagination becomes the path. Imagination is not mindfulness, but is used to train mindfulness.

(I am told to not say "thanks", well that's not how I roll. so...) Thanks. I have read a bit about Vipasanna and Samatha, but still wonder how imagination can be used to "train" mindfulness. I recall Thich Nhat Hanh telling a story about a dream he head (a type of imagination), in which he realized that he could perform in a music class with the bell he carried with him in his pocket, even though he was not in his own self-image, a "musician". That was an inspiration (comment cut short)

Imagination is a form of fabrication (verbal fabrications). One objective of the practice is to reduce it. [Samma Ditthi Sutta] So by using imagination you are introducing a barrier to Vipassana or Insight.
In case of Samatha practice the focus of attention is a mind made object but the objective of this is different from mindfulness meditation. Samatha can be used as stepping stone to Vipassana.

By practicing Vipassana, is one able to find solutions to problems, e.g. do problems then solve themselves, or solutions present themselves as a result of Vipassana meditation, I wonder.

how do you know this?  imagination is stepping away from vipassana, etc? how is it verbal?  i can imagine using inner light, how is that verbal?


text:
Are there NDE known where Buddha is met?
It happens to people when they get for example a heart attack they will get a near death experience (NDE). Sometimes they encounter a very bright light but sometimes persons like Jesus encounters them. Probably such experiences are very cultural influenced but are there studies of NDE in more Buddhist countries where Buddha appears in a NDE?

Not that I know of. I know some people encounter Lord Yama in their NDE but not Buddha. Maybe because Buddha has attained parinibbana.

The NDE is one and the same phenomena as the OBE (out of body experience) this is described by the Buddha as manomaya, or 'mind made body' and is expressed as a fruit of the contemplative life. One is able to leave body at will after the fourth jhana and as one develops the mind in the immaterial realms. This happens most often during sleep when the jhanas have been attained regularly. This is also known as astral plaining. The NDE is exactly this, this mind leaves the body in an astral body. Death, astral plaining and deep meditation are one and the same thing. I know a person who astral travels regularly and she has stated that she has met the Buddha. Even though his spirit has been liberated into Nibbana, she explains that a fragment of his consciousness still remains that continues to teach in the higher realms.

Interesting. How, in which way, did she recognice the Buddha as Buddha, Avi Samvadi.

Good question. She described a golden city, or 'temple of temples' which resides in the upper regions of the physical heavens, or devas realms. Here many spiritual teachers teach the path and people visit to practice. This corroborated my own experience of this city in personal visions. She did not describe what he looked like, however I get the feeling, if the Buddha spoke to you, you would know you were speaking to the Buddha.

Another spiritual friend/teacher of mine who has not met this lady also details meeting many spiritual teachers who have long left this plane and they both describe this as a normal part of one's spiritual journey and mastery over the immaterial jhanas and OBE. I personally pop into the surrounding forests of this city front time to time, but I am not disciplined in the OBE enough just yet to maintain it enough to make it through to the city. I may or may not achieve this. and it is not my goal. This is for those interested in traversing the immaterial realms and OBE.

Also bare in mind, at this point one is in manomayao, and not bound by the physical body and senses. When you meet someone, there is a lot more going on than just physically seeing someone. He may even project a recognisable image of himself to the people surrounding him who are there to listen, but this is speculation. If scepticism arises upon reading this, I would direct you the Buddha's teaching on 'a handful of leaves'.

@user12001 Since a death is not followed by return to a same physical body and NDE and/or 'an astral projection' usually are, these phenomena differ by result. Because they differ by result, they are also different by their causes and/or processes, that means, that they also differ by natures, which means they are not the same.

@user12001 Also, 'manomaya' may refer to a Hinduism term based on an idea of Atman, which contradicts one of the core principles of Dharma (Anatman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchakosha


text:
What is the phantom in the conclusion of the Diamond Sutra?
This is the version I am referring to:

Thus shall ye think of this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
  in a stream; A flash of lightning in a summer cloud; A flickering
  lamp, a phantom, and a dream.

illusion? rhetorical, i like it

No phantom, no...

The Diamond Sutra in Classical Chinese, wherein one of the verses instantly enlightened the 6th Patriarch Huineng, the corresponding verse to your quote is this:

一切有為法，如夢幻泡影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀。

This beautiful verse was done by this guy with his league of national selected translators:

Kumarajiva is held by some Great Buddhist Masters as the "return of Sariputra". A memorial was built for him right after his cremation wherein housed his tongue Śarīra,  Kumarajiva Temple in Gangsu, China:

Recently out of curiosity I studied some Vinayas, one incident got description of Sariputra, said he was with small built; immediately echoing with the above image in my mind... though that saying remained just a saying.

If I render the above verse, it should read as:
All conditional things are, like mirages of the bubbles also an illusive dream, like dews also as if lightning, as such thus should be seen.
This verse transmitting the message that all existences are empty, constructed as if mirages and dreams; short-lived like morning dews, fleeting like lightning.
The phantom could be a different translation of mirage. A star at dawn could be the different translation of dew since by sunrise the dew will evaporate without trace... etc.

These are all metaphors for impermanent things. Phantom is a ghost.
You can find the full text in Tibetan and English here
An audio lecture (four parts) can be found here (On the main page click dharma essentials, and then course 6 for the links to parts 3 - 4)
Some written notes on the audio lecture here.

The concept of impermanence targets those good things in life (wealth, good health, good friends, peaceful circumstances, access to necessities, etc.) that allow us to be lazy about acquiring insight (about the nature of the mind, about the nature of one's own karma, about the true nature of love, about the nature of suffering, about how mindfulness meditation works, etc.). There are various activities that are not lazy in this sense of the term. Being a good parent or friend is not being lazy. Being a theoretical or experimental scientist seeking new knowledge is not being lazy. Actively seeking insight into human nature (as a meditator, psychologist, or philosopher), of course, is not being lazy. Insight into human nature is permanent in the sense that we retain it in future lifetimes, during which it is bound to be relevant and helpful. On a practical level, the contemplation of impermanence motivates us to take advantage of good health and peaceful circumstances to sit down and meditate or study the nature of the mind (study Dharma if you happen to be a Buddhist). When reading Buddhist sutras, hyperbole such as the "fleeting world," must be understood to be an emotional appeal to meditate and study rather than a statement about the nature of the world. In particular, the "fleeting world" is not something from which escape is possible, it is something to understand. The fact that all experience occurs in a flow of consciousness (and therefore impermanent in some sense) does not mean that love and insight are worthless.