text:
How can evil doers be 'reborn' as 'human'?
In the Pali suttas, SN 56.102-113  state those that realise the Four Noble Truth will be 'reborn in the human state' (manussesu paccājāyanti). The same message is found in SN 56.47 & SN 56.48, which also state the human state (manussattaṃ) is very rare.
As for the law of kamma, the message that unwholesome actions lead to pain & wholesome actions lead to pleasure is found in countless suttas, namely:

'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

However, a sutta named the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta claims evil-doers can be 'reborn' in the human state, as follows:

There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying,
  showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried
  out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she
  reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower
  realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
  of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is
  short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life:
  to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

How can this be? How can one single sutta (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta) override the doctrine or law found in all of the suttas that a brutal bloody-handed killer of living beings will experience a state beset by suffering? Surely, a killer than feels no pain from killing & murdering is a psychopath.

I believe that the CulaKammavibhanga sutta is highlighting that when we have both good karma and lots of bad karma it is still possible to be reborn in a good realm before the bad karma ripens and we go to a bad realm. This doesn't conflict with the many suttas which say that killers go to a bad realm.

Please post an answer. The comments section here is not for answers. Thank you, That being said, MN 135 does not literally state what you appeared to have imagined it states.

My comment was partially speculation so I didn't think it deserved a full answer. You're right that the sutta doesn't literally state this, I just meant to show that it can be easily explained away if you chose not to go into in-depth analysis. I believe that this part of the sutta is there to highlight order of karmic fruition while taking it as a given that killing results in going to a lower realm.

My issue is with the term: "manussattaṃ" ('human state') used in MN 135 rather than with the general dynamics & possibilities of good & bad kamma (which are discribed in MN 136). I have always thought 'manussattaṃ' has a specific meaning. In general, the suttas that discuss kammic consequences use the term "puggala" or "person", which is distinct from 'manussattaṃ', which refers a 'lofty state'. For example, the Arahantship of Angulimala did not necessarily shorten his life.

http://f.tqn.com/y/buddhism/1/S/H/1/-/-/A1wheelrealm.jpg might be of interest, it shows a map of the Buddhist karmic life flow, which is said to be cyclical.

Sorry, I guess I'm still trying to understand the question. From the last paragraph of it (the question itself), it appears you're saying that, according to all other suttas, a person who has performed an unwholesome deed (such as killing) cannot under no circumstances reappear in human state (or, perhaps, any other place but hell). Is that correct?

I personally do not believe in reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth so I take the law of kamma to mean when there is an unwholesome action an unwholesome result will occur. For example, I know through meditation that even an angry thought has negative vibrations in the body & mind. Or if when I ask this question here, I feel a sense of moral shame since my mind knows this topic may upset some people who believe strongly in MN 135. From unwholesome actions come unwholesome results yet MN 135 seems to state an unwholesome result ("hell") can be completely avoided & a wholesome result can occur .

@Dhammadhatu Isn't it possible for the unwholesome result to be experienced after that [wholesome fruit]? If a person who performed wholesome & unwholesome deeds experience a wholesome result, why does that mean the unwholesome result was completely avoided?

might be lost in translation somehow.   from this

"No ce kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ
  upapajjati, sace manussattaṃ ..

if replace "in stead of" with "if not" , that it makes more sense.

if not reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination,
  the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state,....

It could also mean that when karma is exhausted in suffering plane, and being appear in human world after? So once you burn your "debt" you move to the next phase or rebirth, lacking the "debt"
The vice versa is said to occur at the end of a rebirth in the heavens as a god. They burn through their "good debt" quickly and tend to fall into the lower realms when their dues are paid.
I am an amateur self taught Pali.  I could be wrong but at least it opens up for those who know more about Pali to chime in.  Could "No ce" together with rest of a sentence,  is better to translate to "if not" rather than "instead of"?

I mark your answer up despite it not being proven to be true. I think the sutta would have to say "after spending time in hell, the person (self/sou/atman) is then reborn as human".

@Dhammadhatu wouldn't it be "could be" reborn as human? Rather than
"is then"

There's no conflict between MN 135 and the rest of the Suttas. From this beginningless Samsara, no body in it had not once committed some very terrible kamma at some point and some very wholesome kamma other time. Even one of the Buddha's greatest disciples, Ven. Moggallana, in a distant past life, committed the horrific kamma (one of the Five Heinous Acts) of murdering his parents. No body is able to see the exact working of kamma except the enlightened ones, but we can safely assume it'll unfold according to a certain algorithm that takes into account of all the actions an individual has done in many life times, one of which s/he might had saved many lives, and at other point, killed someone. The only exception is the Five Heinous Acts which guarantee an immediate fruit of a rebirth in hell. So basically, the moral of the story is that until attaining the rank of the Noble Ones, starting with Sotapanna, all human beings are still capable of and potentially commit great harm and great help to their fellow human beings and hence reap the appropriate results accordingly. We'll continue to ride this merry-go-round of the Six Realms of existence, sometime experiencing much suffering as a hell being, other the countless pleasures as a deva, etc.

If only the Five Heinous Acts guarantee an immediate fruit of a rebirth in hell then why do 100s, maybe 1000s, of suttas state unwholesome actions lead to hell?

Again, I don't see any conflicts in those 100s or 1000s suttas you said. Please cite any exact passage out of any of them that said any other unwholesome action beside the Five Heinous Acts would always result in rebirth in hell immediately right after the perpetrator's current life has come to an end?

"In the Pali suttas, SN 56.102-113 state those that realise the Four Noble Truth will be 'reborn in the human state' (manussesu paccājāyanti)."
[edit]:
Assuming we agree with Bodhi translation, let me quote it:

"So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away as human beings, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are more numerous who, when they pass away as human beings, are reborn in hell. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths."

I don't read that sutta stating that those who realise the Four Noble Truths will be reborn in the human state.
What I read is that the reason why so many people reappear in a bad destinations contrasting with so few who reappear in better ones is because they haven't seen the Four Noble Truths.
Furthermore, to better illustrate a subtleness of logic, consider the following statement:

"So too, those beings are few who, when trying to construct a bridge, successfully construct it. But those beings are more numerous who, when trying to construct a bridge, fail. For what reason? Because they have not obtained a PhD in civil engineering".

The above does not necessarily say that everyone who constructed a bridge (i.e. reappeared in a good destination) necessarily have a PhD in civil engineering (i.e. saw the FNT). It also does not necessarily say that all bridges constructed were constructed by a PhD in civil engineering (i.e. it does not say that all beings who reappeared in human realm saw the FNT).
In the same way, I don't read the Buddha saying that those who see the four noble truths will reappear in the human realm (as stated in the question). And just for completeness, I also don't read the Buddha saying that all those who appear in human realm necessarily saw the Four Noble Truths. In other words, and to be more precise, it does not seem to say that seeing the FNT is a necessary (or necessary and sufficient) requirement for appearing in human (or deva) realm.
Furthermore, the intent of the sutta seems to be to inspire by showing how easy is to reappear in a bad destination, and to take the opportunity to dedicate to the dhamma practice which would be the best bet to reappear in a better destination. It informs that those who see the FNT have something going for them to reappear in human realm or better destinations, like a civil engineering training is a good bet for successfully constructing bridges (but not necessarily a necessary requirement for building one).

"How can this be? How can one single sutta (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta) override the doctrine [...]"
It's not the case that a single sutta overrides a doctrine. A few suttas explain that kamma always comes to fruition at some point:

“Bhikkhus, I do not say that there is a termination of volitional kamma that has been done and accumulated so long as one has not experienced its results, and that may be immediately [in this very life], or soon after  [in the next rebirth], or after that [on some subsequent occasion].
-- AN 10.218

Some notes on translation of the above here and and here.
MN 135 is also not a single sutta that says something to the effect of not tying deterministically the deed to the rebirth destination. The  Maha-Kammavibhanga Sutta is even more emphatic, and fully explains all possibilities of rebirth:

(i) “Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here… has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.
(ii) “Now there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. [...]
(iii) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.  [...]
(iv) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.
-- MN 136

The idea that the nature of the result of kamma can be drawn solely based on the deed is contested in suttas such as The Salt Crystal:

“Monks, for anyone who says, ‘In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,’ there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, ‘When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,’ there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

He goes on to say:

“There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
“Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
“Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
-- An 3.100

In the following passage, the Buddha refutes the idea that "Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by what was done in the past.":

“Bhikkhus, there are these three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing. What are the three?
(1) “There are, bhikkhus, some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by what was done in the past.’
[...]
(1) “Bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by past deeds,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to past deeds that you might destroy life, take what is not given, indulge in sexual activity, speak falsehood, utter divisive speech, speak harshly, indulge in idle chatter; that you might be full of longing, have a mind of ill will, and hold wrong view.’
“Those who fall back on past deeds as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my first legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.
-- AN 3.61

Moreover, some suttas (such as MN 136) give prominent role to right view at the moment of death and to whether consciousness is tied to sensual gratification at the moment of the death, things that seem to exert strong forces that influence the next destination (see the question Last thought before death?).
[edit]:
Finally, I understand that it's not that a brutal bloody-handed killer of living beings will be reborn here or there. There's no such killer: there's the killing, and there are also all other good & bad deeds performed in the past, and when these deeds come to fruition, to quote the Buddha again in AN 3.61: "When a person makes kamma to be experienced in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced."

If you are reading the internet, the SN 56.102-113 there is inadequate. The book version states: "those beings are few who, when passing [falling] away as [from] humans beings, are reborn among human beings...numerous are reborn in hell...for what reason?...they have not seen the Four Noble Truths...."

As for the blind turtle, SN 56.47 is clearer than the SN 56.48 often referred to. SN 56.47 states: "Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity...they have not seen the Four Noble Truths."

SN 56.47 is also interesting, in that it seems to describe the non-human world as: "Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak", which is similar to the animal world described in AN 2.9 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.irel.html.

MN 136 uses the word 'puggalā' or 'person', which appears to not be synonomous with the word 'manussattaṃ' ('human state') used in MN 135. Please note, SN 5.10 & SN 23.2 seem to define 'sattaṃ' as a 'view' or 'state of mind' rather than as a 'person' or 'living organism/being'. Also, MN 136 states the evil doer obtains the heavenly state due to changing from wrong view to right view: "In the case of the person who takes life... & holds wrong view....or later he performed fine action that is to be felt as pleasant, or at the time of death he adopted & carried out right view. "

@Dhammadhatu thank you for your detailed notes. I'm clarifying my comments regarding SN 56.102-113 (using Bodhi's translation) and making a small addition at the end. As soon as I have time, I'll dedicate myself to your remaining comments.

while not really related to the topic, AN 10.218, AN 6.63 etc may not necessarily refer to reincarnation or "rebirth". The Pali states karmic results arise in the here & now, at a later time & later again. For example, the immediate result of drinking alcohol is feeling pleasure. A later result is feeling sick if drinking too much or feeling a headache the next day. A later result in developing a habitual craving/addiction towards alcohol. This seems more real than imagining these teachings are about reincarnation. Thanks again for your thoughtful & detailed answer. With metta

To conclude despite your efforts i remain unconvinced. Buddha only taught about suffering & its cessation thus any 'rebirth' must be a state of suffering or happiness. I do not believe the realms refer to different places but states of mind of people. Therefore, heaven is pleasure, human is wisdom & morals, animal is instinctual behavior, ghost is craving addiction & hell is torture/suffering. Therefore, for me, 'manussattaṃ' cannot refer to something biological when the Buddha only taught about suffering & its cessation. Being so, 'manussattaṃ' cannot be 'short-lived' or 'long-lived'. Metta.

Human rebirth is a consequence of merit. However, every person is a complex stew of positive and negative karmas. Each subsequent rebirth is not the consequence of a single karma - it is the result of the confluence of all previous karmas, the number of which is incalculable. If one possesses sufficient karma to be reborn in a meritorious state, i.e., human rebirth, it does not follow that there no negative karmas are present, or that the human life will necessarily be free of negative karmas, the latter because human volition is essentially free, though conditioned. Thus human life, while meritorious in itself, exhibits both positive and negative aspects, and beings possessing negative karmas may be reborn as humans.

the suttas used the word "beings" ("satta") when referring to the samsara of ignorance & craving but use the word "manussattaṃ" ("human state") to refer to goodness. you would have to find other suttas that mention the "rebirth" of the "human state" to confirm your point of view

I think what described here is that (it says IF), if in case that person posesses good kamma (he/she gained from previous lives or good kamma that can erase bad) enough to bring him/ her back to human state but not to hell, then he/she will have a short-lived lives.
Sometimes it happens like this also;
He/she suffers in hell for a long time (too long), and when finaly he/she is done spending his/her kamma relevant to the hell state, born again as an animal. (may go to ghost world as well) then once that kamma is also spent, then goes back to human state but with short-lives; Until all kamma relevant for that mis-deed is finaly spent off.
Sorry for my english, im not a good writer in buddhism.

As simple as possible but not simpler:
Birth as a human means that you have accumulated good karma in the past!
However nobody has ever explained the amount of karma,it's measuring unit.The moral code has always been it's meter of measure!

Know that both heaven and hell are labyrinths for the soul.Sooner or later the soul finds its way out!

After all what you think,you become!Nothing is permanent,even those souls can change,that's why they are reborn as humans,however once a human you pay your karma,your bad luck,being poor,ignorant and so on.

Hope for enlightenment!


text:
What Is the significance of 'Sal Tree' in Buddhism?
'Sal Tree' is revered by most people in sri lanka and most temple in the country grown it. Is this tree mentioned in the buddhist tradition?

The Sal Tree has Religious significance in Buddhism. It was believed that the prince Siddhārtha was born under Sal Tree and Gautama Buddha did Parinibbana (DN 16) under the pair of Sal Trees.
The sal tree in Sri Lanka might be different from India and Burma but if people do respect to sal trees, it must be the two reasons above.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana?
Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana?
Teaching "Jhana" means:

Accepting students to learn only about Jhana
Proper courses and guidelines for student: step by step, from first Rupa Jhana to Four Arupa Jhanas, in Theravada Buddhist teachings (see Dhyāna in Buddhism)

It could be a monastery or public institution or school, which people can join by paying fees or free; but well disciplined and helping students to experience and acquire the capabilities to enter the state of various Jhanas above.
Are there any printed courses or lectures about entering Jhanas, published by such a school or institution (or by an author at least)?

Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw teaches both Samatha and Vipassana meditation. First one develops Jhanas and then one can progress to Vipassana if wanted.
Here is a description from the website of Pa-Auk Forest Monastery:

"The meditation taught at Pa-Auk Tawya is based on the instructions by The Buddha as found in the Tipiṭaka (the Pāli Canon) and its commentaries.
In brief, the main practice is to begin with Samatha (tranquility) meditation, which is to develop absorption concentration, also called jhāna. A yogi (meditator) is free to choose any of the forty Samatha subjects as taught by The Buddha. In Pa-Auk Tawya, most yogis develop jhāna with mindfulness-of-breathing (ānāpānassati).
Having developed Samatha, the yogi may proceed to practise Vipassanā (insight) meditation".

Because nowadays we almost have only neyya-puggala, who must have jhana to be base of vipassana, so Pa-Auk teachers always taught like that. It is full steps of meditation teaching. Pa-Auk method, that use all of  pali cannons method, have to take continuously long time to progress, but it is very sure method to get magga&phala&nibbana.

you can see netti-pali and mahasatipatthanasutta-commentary for more information.

Bhante Vimalaramsi is dedicated to teaching insight progress through jhana, following the original Pali suttas rather than the commentaries. He is the abbot of Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center.

Ajahn Brahm's group are dedicated to jhana. Try these links:

Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond - A Heditator's Handbook by Ajahn Brahm
Welcome to the Buddhist Society of Western Australia -
Dhammaloka Centre
Jhana Grove
Bodhinyana Monastery

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


text:
Lower realms rising?
recently i read an article about a troubled young man who was brought to attention by one of his friends to a temple.
Here is a brief description....

A young guy suddenly started acting really weird which was noticed by a good friend of him. This person was a regular guy and he suddenly developed an unnatural state of mind which his friends first assumed to be a typical porn addiction.
But his behavior soon became worse and he started being really indecent and started doing some perverse things like groping women on the bus and such.
He was accompanied by his friend when they traveled to "Ruwan Weli Stupa" (The monument with highest number of Lord Buddha's remains on earth) in hopes that some advice and worshiping the stupa would be sufficient to re-discipline him.
As he was worshiping he started acting weird and the friend asked for the help of monks. As Monks were chanting (In suspicion of the influence of a lower realm) he started talking in a rough voice.
The voice said....
I will not go away without taking him, he is like us.
I was passing by one day when i saw him looking at a picture box, he was by two humans in coitus (Porn) and i cling on to his body. I liked sex too, specially the taste of men. Now i only influence him he watch it and i get to feed.
After further questioning These were revealed....
We are building power among humans, it is easy now that they are seduced easily in the present. Food for us is not rare anymore.
Our kind cant know each other's gender until the season comes. When it comes they rip each other with claws to feed on each other. So we find satisfaction while clinging on to humans and letting them do our bidding.
We have captured the other parts of the world (this happened in Asia), almost all of those humans are born among us when they die. Soon we will establish our power here too (Asia)

This is not some article but a national newspaper published by a one of the most well respected monasteries.
What can we take as reference from the teaching to understand this & What would be the proper cause of action other than precepts?

If the man was a monk, he would eventually be expelled from the monastic order. Similarly, if the man's mind has been consumed by pornography to the  point his behaviour is contrary to social norms, he should probably be forbidden from entering the temple. Often, people with addictions cannot be helped, until those people can recognise for themselves they have a serious problems.
The four brahma vihara (metta, karuna, mudita, upeka) include equanimity when we wish to help someone but are unable to.
In short, the monks who are responsible for the temple should probably telephone the police to remove the deranged man from temple. Buddhism does not have the power to save everyone.

He did not misbehaved in the temple. he actually was seeking Rehab of sorts because of his friends encouragement to come out and accept his issue. The rest of the scene unfolded afterwards.

This person could probably benefit from modern psychiatric treatment.  Unfortunately Buddha said it's impossible for insane people to make progress in dharma (stream enterer or higher).  Buddha didn't give detail on this subject.  I don't think Buddha ever talked about lower realms raising but he did talk about devil (mara) both literally and figuratively.   Meditation in first jhanna is enough for one to temporary elude from mara or dangers from sensual pleasures and anger.

Do you remember anything about where the Buddha said, "it's impossible for insane people to make progress in dharma (stream enterer or higher)"?

ok.  i will give reference.  i remember from reading sutta awhile ago.  i remember there are 5-6 categories where a human cant make progress in dhamma.  I only remember 2, the insanes, or those (normal mental health) who didnt have the opportunity to hear dharma (not hearing impair but not taught).  person with wrong view might have been included in this sutta.

English translation as 8 inopportune moments for living spiritual life (brahmacārī).  (1) beings in hell, (2) beings in animal realm, (3) beings in hungry ghost, (4) long-live gods (formless realms), (5) humans live deep in country side-jungle, untouched by civilization, (6) humans in central civilization but hold wrong views, (7) humans who are "aneḷamūgo" (could be translated as slow, obtuse, retarded ( i know they are not PC terms) , (8)  Buddha doesnt teach dharmma.  AN8.29  Interestingly, person who have committed 5 heinous crimes are not included here

however, you may have heard Naga who tried to be ordained into sangha.  Buddha was clear he would not make progress (case #2), however, Buddha gave instruction for that Naga to observe 8 precepts and he would get to human realm faster.

an unnatural state of mind which his friends first assumed to be a typical porn addiction
I can't off the top of my head list symptoms of "a typical porn addiction". So I'm not sure there is such a thing: could it be like saying, "This sour milk is a typical witch infestation"?
Anyway, there's an English verb "to demonize" that might be relevant:

portray as wicked and threatening.
"seeking to demonize one side in the conflict"

Some examples a "demonizing" porn (in that sense of the word "demonize") might include saying:

Porn is wicked
You'll go to hell if you watch porn
People who like porn are (or become) evil
Porn is addictive
You are a porn addict

Some alternative statements which are, IMO, kinder:

Porn is unsatisfactory
There are other, more satisfactory states
While you watch porn, you don't learn how to be alone with yourself, and/or to be with others

In summary I suggest you avoid "demonizing" people and their activities.
Here for example is a (non-Buddhist) set of mottos which helped to guide preschool teachers: Children Learn What They Live

If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.
... etc. ...

What can we take as reference from the teaching to understand this
There are some references to possession in the Vinaya; for example, on page 308 of The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed
by non-human beings. Thus, in more ordinary circumstances, one may not eat
raw fish or meat even if of an allowable kind.

There's some mention of exorcism:

The Vibhanga states that bhikkhu who kills a “non-human being”—a
yakkha, naga, or peta—incurs a thullaccaya. The Commentary adds a devata to
this list, and goes on to say that a spirit possessing a human being or an animal
can be exorcised in either of two ways. The first is to command it to leave: This
causes no injury to the spirit and results in no offense. The second is to make a
doll out of flour paste or clay and then to cut off various of its parts (!). If one cuts
off the hands and feet, the spirit loses its hands and feet. If one cuts off the head,
the spirit dies, which is grounds for a thullaccaya.

Also Appendix I of Part 2 (Khandhaka Rules) mentions insanity as a reason why a monk may or may not be present at a community meeting (i.e. the meeting may be held with or without them). I don't know how/whether monks distinguish between "possession" and "insanity".
The Ratana Sutta and the Atanatiya Sutta are examples of suttas which describe how to pacify demons.
See also The Book of Protection - Paritta:

The Book of Protection which is an anthology of selected discourses of the Buddha compiled by the teachers of old, was originally meant as a handbook for the newly ordained novice. The idea was that those novices who are not capable of studying large portions of the "Discourse Collection" (sutta pitaka) should at least be conversant with the Book of Protection.

What would be the proper cause of action other than precepts?
Metta.
Here is a story attributed to Ajahn Chah:

There was once a woman in Thailand who was said to be posessed. She was violent: she'd attack anyone and everyone. She never cleaned herself. She screamed and cursed at passers by. One day, the villagers went to see Ajahn Chah, hoping to get him to exorcise the demon. Ajahn Chah hemmed and hawed, and the villagers persisted till he said, "fine...bring her by tomorrow."
The next day, the villagers brought her to the monastery. Ajahn Chah had some monks dig a hole, and told another one to go boil some water. So off they went. They held the woman down in the hole, and he kept shouting for the monks to hurry with the water. When they came back with a steaming kettle of boiling water, he said, "Okay...we have to pour the water on her. That will get the demon out." They held the kettle over the woman as if to pour it, and the woman stopped her behavior and calmed down. He was able to talk to her about her problems and help her from that point.
People confuse mental illness with demon posession. Ajahn Chah knew she wasn't posessed. It wasn't demons. She was in horrible pain and needed help, but no one could help her as long as she was acting the way she did. People who are "posessed" need professional help, not an exorcism.

That's not to say that even "professional help" is necessarily effective. Mental illness is difficult to treat. All the more reason for metta, IMO.
Still at the moment I think of it as a form of wrong view: for example, thinking "I am me" (or whatever it is that people think) is a form of identity-view. Similarly, thinking "I am human" or "I am a supreme being" or "I am a demon" are also, IMO, apparently examples of identity-view.
If you're talking with someone who is expressing that kind of insanity I think you're supposed to avoid confirming their delusion; for example

Saying "No you're not a demon" can be counter-productive because it's contradicting them (how would you like it if I contradicted you -- if you came up to me an said, "Hi there, I'm Theravada" and I replied "No you are not"?).
This is based on theory that saying "I am a demon" is trying to communicate something. Whatever it's trying to communicate, it's not communicating it well/clearly, but that's their 'personal truth' and it's not good enough to simply deny what they're trying to say. It's miscommunication, but you shouldn't contradict (i.e. deny that there was any communication at all). So instead of denying, you might reply something like, "Are you telling me that you're feeling bad?"

Saying "Yes you are demon" can be counter-productive because that confirms their delusion, and is I think an expression of a wrong/reifying view whereas you ought to be offering them something gentle and real (how would you like it if I came up to you and said, "Hi, you're a demon"?).

Even if you do meet a demon I think that metta (and, maybe, faith: faith that the Buddha and Dhamma can help whatever ails them) is the proper course of action.


text:
Do ascetic practices create samvega? If so, how?
Do ascetic practices create saṃvega? If so, how?
(I am trying to find ways to create samvega - and I understand ascetic practices can help in that).

i think you need to wait it out until this comes naturally through some event which makes you reevaluate things, hopefully not very traumatizing

Anyone can arise into samvega, spontaneously. In the West, it is discouraged as a non normative realization which leads to cognitive dissonance. But at any moment, ascetic practice or not, one can stumble into samvega, given fortunate causes and conditions.
In its most simple form, samvega is the thing which causes us to start practicing. To try to find a way out.
This talk may be of help: Samvega and the Flailing Fish

Ajahn Thanissaro defines samvega as “the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived...and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle.”

Samvega is a sense of urgency to practice.
In this light, yes, ascetic practice and all distasteful events lead to samvega for all aspirants of the Way because of the first two factors of enlightenment.
i.e. when someone is mindful and investigates, then it turns into samvega.
Almost all ascetic practices, "good" (fasting) and "bad" (self-abuse), do this.
From my extensive experiences in the healthy spiritual practice of fasting, when fasting for more than a day I definitely more intensely realize more of what is most important in life... though I can push this to the background of my mind still.
This may be due to the mental clarity and energies freed up (that normally go into digestion) or it may be due to the sympathetic (fight-or-flight) system becoming activated. It may be a combination of both.
Self-abuse and pain also lead to samvega as one is triggered to think about death and of course liberation.
This may only be true for Buddhists though or those who have connected the idea of "liberation" with "death."
On the other hand, a person who is ignorant of a way leading out of birth-and-death may just immediately shirk away from the pain, missing the chance to contemplate life-and-death and instead seek out and comfort themselves in hedonistic pleasure instead of the pleasure of self-cultivation.

Ascetic practices do not necessarily let someone acquire Wisdom of Samvega. You can see examples below.
When prince Siddhārtha saw four Nimitas (Old man, Sick man, Dead man and Monk) he was having the best of kinghood, the best of materials that a king can earn and have. He also had a very beautiful wife and life was on the bed of rose petals. But when he saw four Nimitas, he acquired Wisdom of Samvega and did retreat to find the truth about sufferings and escape from sufferings (free from suffering).
There is another example about a Paccekabuddha. He was also a king and he got Samvega- while he was watching one of his maids preparing fragrance (Sandalwood paste); he heard the two gold bracelets on the maid's arm hit each other and made sound. Eventually he became Paccekabuddha-hood after his mind did not attach to anything (from Samvega to Nirvana).
From the two examples above, it is not necessary to be ascetic to obtain Samvega. Even if it is pleasing sense, one can get Samvega if he/she can think all the pleasing sense come into existence finally become depleted, finally come to an end. By this way, many people got "wisdom of Samvega" before.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Finding the source of a sutta
How do you find out the source of a sutta? For example, MN 109, SN 56.11
begin

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One

How do we know who this author is? Is there general guidance on who to attribute the suttas to?

I don't know much about this but according to Wikipedia (here and here) it was Ananda who narrated the stories in the suttas.

A council of 500 Arahats was held at Rajgir (Sanskrit: Rājagaha) to agree the contents of the Dhamma and Vinaya. Ananda recited the Suttas, such that each begins: ‘Thus have I heard’.

aha, so Ananda is most likely going to be the author of those suttas. Also from accesstoinsight, the suttas were "...delivered by the Buddha and his close disciples...as well as many additional verses by other members of the Sangha. "

Most of the back stories are included in the commentaries. For English readers I recommend Mr. Piya Tan's translations and commentaries which are available at www.dharmafarer.org


text:
Help for a monks studies
I am an Australian monk at Pa Auk Tawya in Myanmar. For my studies I need some tipitaka translations to read on my kindle (available from amazon).
I have no means to pay for these. Any suggestions?
With metta

Bhante, there's a partial answer here: Is there an eBook reader compatible Tripitaka?


text:
Benefits of "Mental Noting" during positive events?
I've been using Mental Noting to improve my handling of anxious thoughts and emotions but I ran into a strange situation today. Most of my thoughts have been neutral or negative, and mentally noting such thoughts has allowed me to disassociate myself with any such passing clouds in my mind so that I can continue about my day.
However, after a physically gloomy day today I saw the sun come out and light up the city. I initially felt very happy seeing the sun shine across the buildings but then my habit of noting came in the picture and I felt a distance between me and the emotion (just as I would an anxious emotion). From what I understand, this is what the practice calls for me to do in any type of event.
Is there something I'm doing wrong or missing here? It seems that long-term noting will cause me to put a distance between pleasurable moments just as it would with negative ones? Why would I want this? I enjoy such emotions and whatever pain I experience from them being so fleeting is worth it. I'd rather maintain the duration by which I experience such moments, not shorten it with noting. I'm not sure what perspective to have in such cases and whether there is some greater benefit to continuing to do this for all situations?

I spoke before about the power of narratives. Narratives is how our mental world is shaped, narratives is one of the main ways to control the sukha/dukha mechanism described in the Four Noble Truths.
In this case, mental noting is a special case of narrative. By looking at thoughts and emotions in a certain way ("in and off themselves" as Buddha said in Satipatthana) we create a special philosophical narrative in which the thoughts are things of a different order than they are in our regular everyday context. We look at them neutrally, philosophically. Hence the dissociation effect.
However, mental noting is just one way to do narrative. The idea is to be the master of your thoughts (via control of the context / frame of reference) instead of being driven by your thoughts (being locked in a certain context). So don't fall in the same trap with your positive experiences, you don't have to shape it in a way that does not induce positive states of mind. You are totally free to create any sort of narrative (assuming it is true, not harmful, and does not go contrary to Dharma) - as long as it drives you up. In fact the whole point of the First Jhana is to learn to control your mood via narratives (and then directly, in the Second Jhana).

If one creates a narrative, how does one measure its truth? Can I read about these narratives anywhere? Thank you.

Theory: if you don't acknowledge positive state, you are likely to become more attached to it and have suffering when it ceases (that's what the mind does automatically: liking → craving → (later) disappointment). You've known this for sure.
Practically speaking (but I am only guessing based on what you write) you should acknowledge/note very carefully:

liking and disliking of conditions (of anxiety, negative thoughts, happy states etc);
the intent to change a condition by noting - this might come after the previous (liking & disliking), if you don't note it. You seem to have the habit of avoiding unpleasant stuff by noting; so you avoid the condition by diverting your attention, replacing hatred by ignorance (both are roots of suffering; the third one is craving, as you know).
the feelings of distance, disconnection, maybe sadness, isolation, loneliness etc. Disengagement has its price. (I am happy you could overcome your negative thoughts but maybe you need to overcome side-effects of that treatment now.)

Do not (ab)use noting to manipulate your experience, whatever it is, even if it is terrible: note the dislike, terrible, hate, anger, whatever it brings up. The goal is that you can fully experience negative, positive and neutral states, without making them go away or stay longer. Vipassana means "seeing clearly" - not "seeing clearly but only what I like" :)

Is there something I'm doing wrong or missing here?
According to the the original Buddhist teachings in the Suttas you should be aware of:

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings

Pahāna Sutta
Also similar passages in: Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Samma Ditthi Sutta, Cha Chakka Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, etc.

Where does the latent tendency of sensual lust lie latent?
The latent tendency of sensual lust lies latent here in the two feelings [pleasant and neutral] of the sense-sphere

Quote from Pm §587/123, Vbh §816/341, cf S 45.175 in Anusaya by Piya Tan
Cha Chakka Sutta goes to the extent that is is not possible if you delight in the pleasant.

...
Latent tendencies
LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE EYE. Bhikshus, dependent on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.
When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is what is
  felt as pleasant, or as painful, or as neither pleasant nor painful.
When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, one delights in it, welcomes it, remains attached to it. Thus one’s latent tendency of lust (rāgânusaya)
  lies latent.
When one is touched by a painful feeling, one sorrows, grieves, laments, beats one’s breast and falls into confusion. Thus one’s latent tendency of aversion (paṭighânusaya) lies latent.
When one is touched by a feeling that is neither pleasant nor painful, one does not understand it as it really is, the arising, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape with regards to that feeling. Thus one’s latent tendency of ignorance (avijjā’nusaya) lies latent.
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now, without abandoning lust for pleasurable feelings, without removing aversion towards painful feelings,
  without uprooting ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is IMPOSSIBLE.
...
Abandoning the latent tendencies
ABANDONING LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE EYE.
...
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now,
  having abandoned lust for pleasurable feelings,
  having removed aversion towards painful feelings,
  having uprooted ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is POSSIBLE.
...

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta establishers the 1st 3 Satipatthana should be done at the level of sensations and Chachakka Sutta establishes that the last Satipatthana is also at the level of sensations though it does not cover the full extend of Dhammanupassana.
So what ever pleasantness (and even neutral and unpleasant feelings) you experience be aware of:

arising and passing nature
keeping you mind firmly equanimous.

Anything else, you are doing it wrong.
Benefits of “Mental Noting” during positive events?
Any metal verbalisation creates Verbal Fabrications which you should explicitly avoid or your practice should be such that leads to ending of fabrication than creating them. Creating fabrication means future existence and misery hence hence there is little benefit though this might help develop a shallow form of Samadhi. See: Vedalla Suttas, Samma Ditthi Sutta.

Formations
Saying, “Good avuso,” the monks delighted and rejoiced in the venerable Sariputta’s words.
Then they asked him a further question: “But, avuso, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is
  straight, attained to wise faith in the Dharma, and has arrived at this true teaching?”
“There might be, avuso.
When, avuso, a noble disciple
understands formations (sankhara),
understands the arising of formations,
understands the ending of formations, and
understands the way leading to the ending of formations,
in that way, avuso, he is one of right view , whose view is straight, attained to wise faith in the Dharma, and has arrived at this true teaching.
And what are formations, what is the arising of formations, what is the ending of formations,
what is the way leading to the ending of formations?
There are, avuso, these three kinds of formations:
the bodily formation,
the verbal formation,
the mental formation.
With the arising of ignorance, there is the arising of formations.
With the ending of ignorance, there is the ending of formations.
The way leading to the ending of formations is just this noble eightfold path, that is, right view, right
  intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

It seems that long-term noting will cause me to put a distance between pleasurable moments just as it would with negative ones?
This is because noting there is Vitarka & Vicara (also see: Vitakka,vicāra by Piya Tan) creating access concentration. Though this process is creating fabrication which is negative the Samadhi part is gives a positive result. The net result of the -ve and +ve aspect will change from mental state you are in when practicing and net result will be hard to quantify hence should be avoided. People who might have benefited from this may have practiced in such a way that there was a net positive result, but this might not always the case for everyone and the same person at different times.
Also see this answer.
I enjoy such emotions and whatever pain I experience from them being so fleeting is worth it. I'd rather maintain the duration by which I experience such moments, not shorten it with noting. I'm not sure what perspective to have in such cases and whether there is some greater benefit to continuing to do this for all situations?
Trying to shorten it is aversion and trying to prolong it is clinging which are extremes you want to avoid.
To get the best benefit follow Pahāna Sutta and other Suttas:

Bhikshus, there are these three kinds of feelings.
What are the three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neutral feeling.
Bhikshus,
the latent tendency of lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling;
the latent tendency of aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling;
the latent tendency of ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neutral feeling.
Bhikshus, when a monk
has abandoned the latent tendency of lust in regard to pleasant feeling;
has abandoned the latent tendency of aversion in regard to painful feeling;
has abandoned the latent tendency of ignorance in regard to neutral feeling—
then, bhikshus. he is called a monk without any latent tendency, one who sees rightly. He has cut off
  craving, undone the fetters,18 and fully penetrating conceit, he has made an end of suffering.”

"..has allowed me to disassociate myself with any such passing clouds..", sounds like annatta-sanna (perception of non-self) to me.  I dont think there is anything wrong with it.  As a matter of fact, Buddha encouraged us to stay in that perception.    and if focusing on "passing clouds"  that might even be an impermanent perception (annicca sanna).  These two perceptions are leading straight to nirvana.  I dont remember exact which to which, but Buddha compared perception of non-self as archer who can shoot far, and impermanent perception to sharp accurate shooter. Together makes a great archer who can destroy enemies.

Benefits of “Mental Noting” during positive events?

From an insight meditational perspective the benefit would be to cultivate impartiality and objectivity towards both pleasant and unpleasant sense objects.
If one is cultivating impartiality towards unpleasant phenomena but partiality towards pleasant phenomena, then one cannot really be free from attachment and ultimately suffering.
Ven. Yuttadhammo likens pleasant phenomena to sweet poison, i.e. the stuff people give to ants in order to exterminate them. The poison is sweet smelling so the ants bring it down to their nest, thereby poisoning all the other members too.
Pleasant sense objects is like this since they are conditioned meaning they are subject to constant change and flux. One cannot be free from addiction if endulging in either pleasant or unpleasant phenomena.

Being happy seeing the sun shine across the buildings is a relatively harmless, simple & beautiful pleasure however, according to Buddhism, it remains a 'sensual pleasure' that the mind depends on or takes refuge in for happiness.
Buddhism teaches about an even greater happiness or pleasure when the mind experiences the 'non-sensual pleasure' of meditation/concentration/jhana.
Therefore, as Dhammapada 209 states:

If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater
  happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the
  greater.

I can't understand why the downvotes..


text:
What does 'awareness of the flow' mean
What is the meaning of 'awareness of the flow'? Does that mean awareness of the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things?
The phrase is mentioned on several occasions by Stephen Levine in 'A Gradual Awakening' (which is a book in which the author "writes about his experiences with and insights into vipassana meditation"); for instance at p. 39:

By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding.

Another example p. 57:

We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like.

Last example p. 58:

[Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

"The continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things" is exactly what it means. Levine mentions an "even-minded awareness of the flow", which is the definition of Vipassana: awareness with equanimity.
The flow itself one can only know by experiencing it through practicing Vipassana meditation. So to truly know what "awareness of the flow" means one must feel it by practicing Vipassana!
Therefore I would say the best reference here is: www.dhamma.org/en-US/courses/search  :)

What is the meaning of 'awareness of the flow'?

When I read your question I actually think you gave a perfect answer, i.e. "...the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things...".
I'm not too familiar with Stephen Levine or his book but it sounds like he is teaching about exactly this quality of conditioned phenomena. What is this quality?
Conditioned phenomena is also called compounded phenomena, meaning that they consists of other phenomena that again consists of other phenomena. In other words, we are here dealing with phenomena based on causality.
In Buddhism we have a Dhamma called the Three Characteristics of Existence, which are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability. These characterize conditioned phenomena. In regard to the question, especially impermanence and uncontrollability is important here.
Impermanence shows that phenomena arise and cease. They come and go according to their respective causes and conditions. Uncontrollability shows that there is no stability or control to be found anywhere. One cannot exercise control over this flow. Mahasi Sayadaw calls it therefore oppressive and terrible. Oppressive is the incessant arising and ceasing of conditioned phenomena.
It sounds very much as what Stephen Levine is teaching about and what you yourself are describing. Now, the Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but that one should not be fooled thereby. In this regard, it means that all these different words (concepts) really just mean the same thing. Its just different ways of teaching it.
If we really want to understand what flow is then the practice of insight meditation should be undertaken. Intellectual knowledge only goes so far. With wisdom gained from insight meditation one will be able to see conditioned reality with ones own eyes.
In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) the Buddha taught about 7 taints that should be overcome and with what method they should be overcome. The first taint should be overcome by seeing, i.e. The Four Noble Truths should be seen with ones own eyes. The truth about Samsara should be seen with ones own eyes, in here lies the incessant arising and ceasing of phenomena.

By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding.

It might mean that when staying in the present moment and not letting the mind straying into past or future even for one moment, Wisdom (natural understanding) will arise.

We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like.

Separation from the flow, meaning that when the mind has wandered off into past or future one disconnects from ultimate reality and instead ventures into conceptual reality.
What joy, fear or anger feels like, means to know the quality of that object when it arises, as it exists and when it disintegrates. To thoroughly contemplate the objects qualities and distinctive marks.

[Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

When hindrances are present one cannot clearly see reality as it has been plastered over with many different colors of dye (example given by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi).

I like to suggest the book Models of Brain and Mind: Physical, Computational and Psychological Approaches page 249 and onwards.
There you can find Awareness of sensation, mind or consciousness, mental contents. The four domains of Satipatthana
The awareness flow in Vipassana
For a practitioner of Satipatthana, one should have prerequisites before doing any Satipatthana, then one should sit in quiet place and do practices of Awareness of body (Breath or Kaya Cinkhara). After enough of practicing Awareness of body, the practitioner can have strong concentration to continue Awareness of mind or consciousness(Citta Cinkhara). This is recommended practice because Breath is comparatively slower in sequence than mind or consciousness. Any practitioner without properly trained Satipatthana of Awareness of body cannot practice Awareness of mind.
Awareness of flow is process in Awareness of mind or consciousness. The essential part of awareness of flow is the practitioner must not stimulate or initiate any feeling or thought. It is crucial the awareness (Sati) must be quick enough to catch up when there is any change of the state of mind/consciousness. Train of thought, feeling or sensation is not allowed to happen because it is required the effort or attempt to make this happen. At least, when feeling or sensation is happened awareness is quickly followed and the feeling or sensation is ceased to continue to be mature to train of thoughts. By mastering this technique, awareness of flow is obvious in practitioner's mind. Any state of change of mind can come and go and awareness is always in between of the flow. The result is mind is clear and free from craving, anger and other hindrances that make one's mind to pollute.
The above explanation is very succinct note and details studies of Satipatthana is required to practice it in real world and it'd better join long retreat to Vipassana meditation center to seek correct guidance to do so. The below references are recommended details of Satipatthana and you are free to adopt any practice preferred or comfortable for you.
References

Satipatthana Sutta Audio
Mahasatipatthana Sutta
Practical Vipassana Exercises

"Awareness of the flow" doesn't seem to be a standard phrase (if you Google for it). So I tried two Google searches to try to find out how he (Stephen Levine) uses the phrase (I haven't read his book):

flow "Stephen Levine"
flow "A Gradual Awakening"

Two of the quotes or paraphrases I found by doing this are:

http://lifeparalyzed.blogspot.fr/2011/05/gradual-awakening.html

He says everyone must start by focusing on the mind, as an observer, to watch thoughts, as they pass through the mind, and to begin to recognize the constant change, and flow, that is present, from moment, to moment. He warns, not to let one's self get pulled in, or get attached to any one thought, but to detach and let each moment unfold.

http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/stelev/part6.shtml

When we attend to the ongoing mind we see that even "the watcher" becomes part of the flow. The who that's asking "Who's watching?" is another thought-flash we see go by; there's "no one" watching, there's just awareness. When the "I" becomes just something else observed in the flow we see we're not different from anything else in the universe.

These seem to be using 'flow' to refer to a 'flow of thoughts', a sequence of thought, a progression or an ebb and flow of mental process ... watching flow is the same as watching thoughts.
This ("flow of mental observations") may or may not be exactly the same as "flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things" ... instead maybe it's "flow of arising and passing away of mental awareness of all conditioned things".
On the other hand I don't know how much emphasis you want to put on the difference between "the observed" (e.g. "all conditioned things") versus "the observation" (e.g. the mental awareness).
I think investigating the difference or relationship between observed and observation, between objective and subjective, has been a big theme of western philosophy ... it may or may not be important to understanding Buddhism.
There's also this quote from http://www.personaltransformation.com/stephen_levine.html

When it's my cancer, I'm alone with my cancer. I have nobody, just me and my cancer, and it looks like there is no way out. When I realize it isn't my cancer, but the cancer, there is space to work on it. My depression, my cancer, crams me in, like being in a phone booth full of my life. You open the phone booth and see that everybody is standing outside of their phone booth. It's isn't my depression, it's the depression. When it's the cancer, I am in this flow of human-kind, with all the energy of four or five million other people going through the same thing at this same moment. You connect to something universal, which brings peace.

Here he may be using the word 'flow' to refer to "conditioned things" (i.e. human kind), or he might still be using it to refer to 'mental process' (i.e. saying "I am in the flow of mental process that's common to human kind").

When you quoted, "what separation from the flow feels like", that's not clear or is a bit ambiguous. I think that phrase implies that "flow" refers to observation rather than observed (maybe we don't separate from a flow of things, separate from human kind, when we meditate, but might separate somehow from flow of observations). Assuming that flow is referring to the flow of mental observations (and assuming it's even meaningful to distinguish that from the flow of observable/conditioned things), I think that "separation" might mean either suspension of observation (e.g. entering a jhana state), or a disassociation or dis-identification (i.e. some kind of awareness of anatta).

Awareness of the flow is surrendering your mind to a higher truth, being centered on your non-being beyond the material plane, and observing the outwards events flowing like clouds. You are fully aware of the passing clouds, but you're not caught in the drama and are not affected by it.


text:
Will Buddhism last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana?
Is there any reference/citation saying that Buddhism or Buddha's teachings will last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana? How can this be possible if more people like to learn more about Buddha's teachings and Buddhism? Is there any weak point in Buddhism or Buddha's teachings that it is going to cease to accept and learn any more by people because that particular point is no longer adaptable by current/future generation? It could be related to moral principles, rules, disciplines, as well as concepts and ideas.

In the Vinaya (monk's rules), it is said (somewhere) the Buddha's teachings would last for 500 years (rather than 5,000 years). Many Buddhists claim this did not come true therefore the Vinaya teaching is false, for example:

The passages surveyed so far help to set into context the prophecy that because an order of bhikkhunīs had come into existence during the
  lifetime of the Buddha, the duration of the teachings will be
  shortened to 500 years (Cv X.1). Now this prophecy is surprising,
  since once would not expect the Buddha to do something which he knew
  in advance would have such an effect. In fact, the prophecy in the way
  it is recorded in the Vinaya has not come true, as after 2,500 years
  the teaching is still in existence. Even the bhikkhunī order was still
  in existence in India in the 8th century and thus more than a 1,000
  years after the time of the Buddha.
Bhikkhu Anālayo

Apparently, this was later altered by the scholar Buddhaghosa to 5,000 years (see here).
However, the majority of Buddhists, including Bhikkhu Anālayo, seem to often interpret many Buddhist teachings in a manner contrary to the original spirit of the teachings (such as, originally, the teachings of the Buddha were to be only accepted upon personal verification rather than through mere faith in unknown things). This seems to make an argument the 500 year prophecy actually came true in respect to the mainstream Buddhist religion. This video seems to make such an argument: The True Dhamma Has Disappeared: Thanissaro Bhikkhu
That being said, the Pali scriptures are mostly still pure so they do continue to exist in their purity.

In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are
  words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent,
  connected with emptiness — will come about.
Ani Sutta

"The good Dhamma of penetration (pativedhasaddhammo) will last five thousand years. The Dhamma of learning (pariyattidhammo) will also last this long. For without learning, there is no penetration, and as long as there is learning, there is penetration" (quoted from the Manorathpurani in Bodhi, trans., The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p. 1805, n. 1747). Each millennium represents a progressive diminution in dharma attainment, passing through five stages of analytic knowledge, dry-insight arhantship, non-returning, once-returning, and stream enterering. ("Dry insight" appears to refer to attainment without jhana.)
Thus, arhants only appear for the first two thousand years of the Buddhist dispensation according to this schema. If we take this literally and accept the modern date of circa 400 BCE for the Parinibbana, this refers to the period ending circa 1600 CE. Thus, according to this schema, the attainment of arhantship is no longer possible and non-returning is the best we can hope for.
Some authorities refer to a minor cycle of five periods of five hundred years each, which will be completed circa 2100 CE, including the mappo or 'degenerate age' or millenium that began about 1000 CE. This was celebrated in 1956 based on the erroneous Theravadin Buddhist era (BE) that dates the Parinibbana to 544 or 545 BCE.
Edward Conze cites a Burmese Theravadin sutta, dated to the mid-13th century by Andrew Dicks ("Enlightening the Bats") called the An[a]gatavamsa to the effect that "when the Dispensation of the Perfect Buddha is 5,000 years old, the relics, not receiving reverence and honour, will go to places where they can receive them. As time goes on and on there will not be reverence and honour for them in every place. At the time when the Dispensation is falling into (oblivion), all the relics, coming from every place: from the abode of serpents and the deva-world and the Brahma-world, having gathered together in the space round the great Bo-tree, having made a Buddha-image, and having performed a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle, will teach Dhamma.
No human being will be found at that place. All the devas of the ten-thousand world system, gathered together, will hear Dhamma and many thousands of them will attain to Dhamma. And these will cry aloud, saying: 'Behold, devatas, a week from today our One of the Ten Powers will attain complete Nirvana.' They will weep, saying: 'Henceforth there will be darkness for us.' Then the relics, producing the condition of heat, will burn up that image leaving no remainder. This, Sariputta, is called the disappearance of the relics" (quoted in Buddhist Texts through the Ages, pp. 49f.).
The An[a]gatavamsa also predicts that Metteyya (Skt. Maitreya) will appear before the end of the age (a vast but incalculable period of time). This sutta also refers to five disappearances: of attainment, conduct, learning, outward form, and finally the disappearance of the relics that constitutes the last stage referred to above. As we are now in the middle of the third millenium of the Buddhist era, according to this schema we are in the age of learning, which will last for almost another 600 years approximately (to circa 2600 CE).
This stage or age will be characterized by corrupt government, secularism, climate change, environmental degradation, the decline of the sangha, and the gradual disappearance of dharma from the world. (The Buddha also says in the Pali Canon that the sangha will end after about a thousand years, i.e., circa 600 CE.) This is the Theravadin schema. Other schools have different specific schemas, but all agree that the dharma will gradually decline over time and finally disappear entirely, but then be revived by the appearance of a future Buddha at some uncertain but distant time in the future.
This five-thousand year schema is also repeated in the Surangama Sutra, an eighth-century Mahayana Ch'an sutra. I am not aware of any reference to the specific period of time in the Pali Canon itself.
The significance of five thousand years may be astrological. This is very close to the period of two astrological ages defined by the precession of the equinoxes. The classical calculation is based on one degree of precession per 72 years, which would equal 4,320 years, i.e., five millenia in round numbers. (A more accurate rate of 50.27 arc seconds per year gives a period of 4,296.8 years.) Since the signs of the zodiac alternate between positive and negative polarities, two ages constitute a complete binary cycle. Karl Jaspers places the advent of the Axial Age, of which the Buddha was the exemplary exponent, in the eighth century BCE.
The Upanishads/samana movement, which deeply influenced the Buddha, may date back to the seventh century BCE. 799 BCE corresponds to the exact midpoint of the Age of Aries according to the current ayanamsa, which predicts the advent of the Age of Aquarius in 2424, corresponding to the appearance of Shambhala (global Buddhism) according to the Kalachakra. The Kalachakra appears to know the significance of the 2,500-year cycle as well as the midpoint of the Age of Aries too, as it puts the reign of King Suchandra, the first Shambhala king who requested teachings from the Buddha, from 900 to 876 BCE, and the twenty-five Kalki kings each reign for one hundred years.
Still others would date the five-thousand year cycle from the advent of the Kali Yuga in 3102 BCE instead of the Parinibbana, identifying the advent of the end of the age with the end of the 19th century of the common era. One might also interpret the prophecy concerning the appearance of Maitreya to refer to the end of the five thousand year period (i.e., circa 4600 BCE) or even the Age of Aquarius (2424-4572 CE), but these interpretations are not consistent with other suttas that place Maitreya's appearance in a distant "golden age" of humanity.

I can't find where the 5,000 year figure comes from in Theravada but it is mentioned that because Ananda begged The Buddha to allow women into the order that the pure dhamma would only last 500 years instead of 1,000 years:

"But since, Ananda, women have now received that permission, the pure
  Dhamma, Ananda, will not now last so long, the good law will now stand
  fast for only five hundred years." (PTS vp en BD.5.356)

I speculate that this would mean the disappearance of achievement of arahantship and the six higher knowledges (abhijñā) rather than the written disappearance of the teaching since it refers to the true dhamma or pure dhamma.
500 years after the parinibbana is around the same time-period that Buddhism started spreading all around the world.
According to DN 14 there were 1,250 arahants in the world during the time-period when The Buddha was alive and teaching. After the parinibbana I would guess much less and then 500 years later there were probably very few arahants in the world or maybe none at all.
Many think that the written or oral recited teachings surviving indicates that the dhamma is strong but there are many instances when The Buddha refutes this idea such as this one:

"Thus, bhikkhus, do I declare that it is through the Dhamma that one
  becomes a brahmin possessing the threefold knowledge; (I do not say
  this) of another merely because he can talk persuasively and recite."
"He who knows his former lives, Who sees heaven and states of woe, Who
  reaches the end of birth, A sage and master of direct knowledge—"
"By these three ways of knowing one becomes A brahmin having the
  threefold knowledge. That is what I call the threefold knowledge, Not
  another’s babbling and reciting."
  (Tevijja Sutta, Iti 99)

Being able to debate, talk persuasively, and recite doesn't mean someone is possession of the three higher knowledges or has achieved arahantship.
What is the use of mere words without the achievement of arahantship and the six higher knowledges?
With no experiences to correlate words by themselves are useless or meaningless.
Different people can interpret the exact same words differently.
It seems like during the time-period when there were many arahants in the world words weren't viewed as important or significant but now that there are few if any arahants in the world words are viewed as important.
I wonder if any arahants in the world with the six higher knowledges exist. For those who learn without a teacher it's just the same as becoming a pacceka-buddha.

Is there any reference/citation saying that Buddhism or Buddha's teachings will last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana?

Below reference were written before 500th in the Ancient Atthakatha.
The contexts about Buddhism's Existing Period Counting appear as 3 tenses in Aṭṭakathā:
1. The existing enlightenment of the current Buddha's follower (45BBE - about 5,000 BE):
Buddhism's existing period counting of current Buddha  according to Vinaya.A. (samanta.3) Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā, An.A. (manoratha.1) Dutiyapamadadivaggavannana:
1st 1000 years after Gotama, Current Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2nd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

3rd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Anāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

4th 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sakadāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sotāpanna with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna via Insight-only still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

2. The previous KassapaBuddha (uncountable millions of years ago):
KassapaSamBuddha's, previous Buddha's, Buddhism existing period counting appear in Di.A. (sumangala.3) Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā; It using the past tense verbs). And Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2) Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā, which connects to that Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā:
1st 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2rd 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

3th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

4th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years  after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Pāṭimokkha memorizer still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

3. The current Buddha's living time (45 - 0 BBE):
The sequence of existing enlightenment of the Buddha's followers just in current alive buddha's time, not died, appear in Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2)  Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā.It's explaining the Buddha's answer to KassapaThera's question in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Saddhammappaṭirūpakasutta:

"What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

At alive GotamaSamBuddha's time after he has enlightened, at the beginning Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta via Insight-only still occur. As time went by Anāgāmī still occur. As time went by Sakadāgāmi still occur. As time went by Sotāpanna still occur. As time went by Sīpavanta still occur.
(I copy from my answer because it's too long.)

How can this be possible if more people like to learn more about Buddha's teachings and Buddhism?

A short term of all above Buddha's periods are up and down depending on the situation, but it tends to go down in long-term of every period. It's something like this:

Cr. wikipedia

Is there any weak point in Buddhism or Buddha's teachings that it is going to cease to accept and learn any more by people because that particular point is no longer adaptable by current/future generation?

No, there isn't. Tipitaka has all aspect inside from the easiest to the hardest study, so the Buddhism has all kind of people inside from the fools one to the genius. The weak point is peoples' passion, not Buddhist teaching. And we need Buddhism because of peoples' passion.
When Tipitaka is going to lost people will try to reserve it. Don't  be worry for the losing. Focus on the meditation. It's the best way to keep the Buddhism go to 5,000th.

It could be related to moral principles, rules, disciplines, as well as concepts and ideas.

In one situation, it may be the weak point, but it may be the strong point in the other situations. The Buddha and his disciples already decided the middle paths for all of weak points and strong to keep the Buddhism go to 5000 years. Every effort  to destroy the Buddhism was known by that decision, so it is going to 5,000th definitely.
I'm not worry in this topic because which I should be worry is "Am I practicing follow Tipitaka with the best effort?"

Well, the Teaching's number is actually quite optimistic compared to the number that world renowned physicist Stephen Hawking gave, which is around 1,000 years when earth becomes completely unhabitable. So, no, there's no weak point in the Dhamma. The responsibility is squarely on us humans. How we've continue to mess up the earth and every single aspect of its eco-system. It's true that more folks are learning more about the Dhamma nowadays but that doesn't mean anything. Due to the information age, the average 21st century Buddhist's Dhamma knowledge vastly exceeds even learned monks in the old days. One can recite the entire Tipitaka and yet if s/he's not able to observe the most basic precept (like the Five Precepts for lay people), then his vast knowledge would mean absolutely nothing.

According to the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (enter username: guest), which covers mostly Chinese and Japanese Mahayana traditions, there are three periods of the dharma:

...true dharma 正法, the semblance dharma 像法, and the degenerate dharma 末法.

Pure Land Buddhism came to popularity nearly 1000 years ago because of the belief that the earth had already entered the period of "degenerate dharma"—essentially the end times of dharma. In the current, degenerated era, no one is able to achieve enlightenment on their own and can only do so with help—that is, the help of Amitabha (阿彌陀佛).
From the Pure Land perspective, we are already well into the third period and must first progress to the Pure Land of Amitabha, a sort of staging ground where cultivation may continue, before it is possible to aspire to the ultimate goal of achieving Nirvana.

Buddhism will last 5000 years. How it will disappear?
What Buddha said is Buddhism is magga-phala. That mean nobody will achieve magga-phala at that time of 5000 year after Buddha Mahaparinirvana. That mean magga-phala will disappear first at that time of 5000 year after Buddha Mahaparinirvana because nobody practice to achieve it anymore out of lobha, dosa and moha. After magga-phala disappear, nobody will know how to achieve it  because only those who achieve nibbana will be able to teach one to be like that. Then the Buddha Dhamma literature will disappear with no more proper guidance. But magga-phala is still present during this 5000 years and everybody can achieve it during this 5000 years upto the arahantship. Please do not have doubt on this.

There has, does, will come a time when the teachings of the Buddha has been pulled into households, his "disciples" worship household and there teacher have been taken on signs of householders. Householder will teach housholder, worldlings, worldlings, i.e. Vinaya has disappeared in this world. With it's disappearing the (re)-ligion disappears and only "corrupted" Dhamma and improper ways to forward and gain the teachings will last. So it's up to anyone's devotion, respect and modesty whether one might possible meet of what still continues to run out in this world, from this appearance of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha in a particular world-period.
What ever one nourishes inwardly and outwardly will continue to stay in ones world. What ever one stops to nourish inwardly and outwardly will disappear. It's all a matter of Upanissaya (strong seeds, strong foundation, strong conditions) and it's paccaya (causes, giving into,...) toward what. Some pull things down to where they are caught, some try to liberate them toward what leads or has gone beyond. Some are givers, but most are merely thieves. It's the nature of thieves to become imprisoned and deprived and only to stop such would be a future escape.
Now think where your explaining are from: homeless or those living in ways and with signs of householders?
And think about how you gained teachings or how those conducted who possible gave you a conscious share.
(This is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment bond or binding to the world but for a tiny exit of refuge and escape)

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


text:
How does enlightenment relate to the higher realms of existence?
How does nibbāna relate to the 31 lokas and does rebirth into higher realms of existence precede enlightenment or result from it? Many thanks.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with a resource tab which you might find useful. Enjoy your time here.

The higher realms are not directly related to enlightenment although some higher realms (such as the moral humane 'human' realm or the meditative jhana 'godly' realm) can help with reaching enlightenment. Thus, some (but not all) higher realms precede enlightenment rather then result from enlightenment.
The word 'existence' or 'bhava' generally refers to attaching to things as 'self' thus, as described in AN 4.123, for example, any attachment, self-becoming or 'ego-existence' in a higher realm will eventually lead to 'hell' ('suffering'; 'torment'; 'despair').
In short, enlightenment cannot precede from or result in any kind of 'existence' ('bhava') since enlightenment ends 'ego-existence'.

I think I understand. Except this: "In short, enlightenment cannot precede from or result in any kind of 'existence' ('bhava') since enlightenment ends 'ego-existence'." Didn't the Buddha exist?

There are two kinds of 'existence'. The 1st kind we can call 'physical existence'. The 2nd kind of existence is the psychological idea that "I" exist. For example, Buddhism explains, the same as modern science would, that a new born child does not have the psychological idea that "I" exist. It takes some months before the mind of a new born child develops the ideas or thoughts of "I", "me", "mine" & "self". Thus, the new born child exists physically but, to itself, does not exist psychologically. Enlightenment is the same. In enlightenment, the mind does not have the belief that "I exist".

For example, in the Pali scriptures (Yamaka Sutta), a monk believed the Buddha existed as a 'person' & held the view the Buddha, as a 'person', would 'die' & cease to exist. This monk was reprimanded for having wrong view. It was explained to the monk that the ending of the life of a Buddha is simply the ending of the body, feelings, perception, thought function & consciousness. Buddhas do not experience "death" because "death" is only experienced by minds that believe "I exist" & "I am going to die". But when the mind has no thoughts of "I", there is no death. There is only the ending of life

In my answer, I referred to AN 4.123, AN 4.123 explains two different minds entering into a higher realm (meditative jhana). One mind in that higher realms, believes it is a "god", i.e., one of the devas of Brahma's retinue. It thinks: "I am a god; I exist as a god". The other mind of the disciple of the Blessed One is "unbound" or non-attached in that higher realm. In that higher realm, the disciple of the Buddha does not believe "I am a god". Thus, they do not take "existence" in that realm. Instead, they only pass through that higher realm & view that higher realm as impermanent & not-self.

One more explanation of "existence". I assume you are not a millionaire or a billionaire. Not being so, you do not exist ('bhava') as a millionaire. But imagine you win $100 million in a lottery. By winning $100 million you start to exist as a millionaire. You buy big houses, all around the world, you buy fancy cars and attend lavish parties. You start to believe & behave as you a millionaire. This personal belief that you are a millionaire & someone very special is all psychological. It is just a belief, that is all. It is an "existence" created by your own mind.


text:
Does the aim of enlightenment equal the aspiration of the end of all life?
In my understanding suffering -- craving and aversion and all which it results in -- exists in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution, and life. Can the ideal of all beings attaining liberation, enlightenment, and thereby ending existence, then, be equated with the aspiration of the end of all life?

It certainly seems that the cravings & aversions that result in suffering are also the instinctual or underlying tendencies ('anusaya') that exist in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution and physical life. This seems to be why the biological life of both animals & people involve the struggle for survival, the merciless devouring of the weak, wars & emotional heartbreaks, such as mothers mourning for their lost sons, children & family members killed in war.
It may seem like a contradiction but the Buddhist way of life has its foundation in harmlessness & thus the preservation of life. Where as the biological evolutionary life that includes cravings & aversions (but which also must include love & social co-operation), as already mentioned, often demonstrates a scant respect for life.
For example, in fables for children that later appeared in cultural Buddhism, there is the story of the Buddha in a past life deliberately & compassionately feeding his body to a starving tigress (female tiger) that had just given birth to offspring. The female tigress devoured the Buddha-To-Be without a thought. This shows how the craving tigress cared less for (another) life than the cravingless Buddha-To-Be.
Therefore, the idea of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life because the sole goal of Buddhist practise is to improve life by ending both mental suffering & animalistic cruelty. Buddhism is about spiritual/wisdom evolution rather than biological evolution.
What is called 'liberation' in Buddhism means 'liberation from suffering' (rather than liberation from life). To quote:

This unshakeable deliverance (liberation) of mind is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood and its final end (culmination). Simile of the Heartwood

To quote again:

I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who
  leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the
  extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’
Monks, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

To quote again:

How can a fool gain gain the human ('humane') state...when there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous
  conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity...where there
  prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak...when they have not seen the Four Noble Truths...leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

In fact, enlightenment is equal to a higher or better way of "life", which is why, as shown in the first quote above, it is called "this holy life". Dhammapada verse 21 clarifies this:

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.

This is why a synonym for enlightenment is 'The Deathless'.

The destruction of lust, hatred and delusion: this is called the final goal of the holy life. SN 45.20
The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the unconditioned. SN 42.1
The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the deathless. SN 45.7

To quote again from MN 140 about the Deathless:

By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die;
  he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in
  him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not
  ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being
  shaken, why should he yearn?

To conclude,  the ideal of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life.
As for the ideal of all beings attaining liberation (which would probably end human life but not all life), this is only found in Mahayana Buddhism and did not exist in the original Pali Buddhism, as shown in the Uttiya Sutta. From the very beginning, the Buddha never believed all beings could reach enlightenment.

Out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes
  and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull,
  those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and
  those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
  MN 26

Thank you. Just two additional questions:

I take the Buddhist respect for life to be tantamount to "life matters, but my life does not matter, except insofar as I can do good"; like the Buddha-to-be feeding his body to the hungry tigress. How does one negotiate this point of view with the prescription to take care of oneself, otherwise one cannot help another? Would the Buddha-to-be have been able to help or save the lives more people had he remained alive, and had helping people been more valuable than saving the tigress and her cubs? Where is the line between sacrifice and suicide?

"As for the ideal of all beings attaining liberation (which would probably end human life but not all life)": you mean that it would end all human and animal life?

The tigress is just a story. However, if we take the story to be true, then, in the story, the Buddha-To-Be was not enlightened. He was unenlightened & the action of feeding himself to the tigress was an unenlightened action. I just used the story to make an illustration.

Buddhism will not liberate all beings. For example, today there are 7 billion people in the world and only a tiny fraction are possibly enlightened. The probability of Buddhism ending all life by making people so happy that they will not have sex is so much more lower than the probability of a nuclear war ending all life. Also, today many unenlightened non-liberated non-Buddhists choose to not have children. In summary, Buddhism will probably not be the cause that ends all life.

Can the ideal of all beings attaining liberation, enlightenment, and thereby ending existence, then, be equated with the aspiration of the end of all life?

I think the above presupposes that this is an ideal: that all beings should be liberated. Moreover, we don't really know how life springs -- thus, perhaps it may always do so regardless if there is already life or not.
And if we consider Buddhism doctrine alone, apparently the only known "exit door", the only way out of it is nibbāna. So, another way of seeing an ideal is that, ideally, the path to the "exit door" should always be there for whatever being that comes to be to choose to finally rest.

The aspiration to end life violates the first precept and therefore cannot be right view