text:
Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like?
Do enlightened people "know" what nirvana is like? Obviously, they can't express it to anyone else, so the question isn't super helpful. I just wondered whether nirvana is a thing that we can know as well as experience or taste.
One response, one I don't (personally) want to hear about (at least without some in depth quotation) is that nirvana isn't "like" anything. And, of course, nirvana isn't similar to anything.
I'm asking whether Buddhas of any sort "know" the qualities (e.g. bliss) of nirvana.

Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) therefore it is obviously something known.
MN 26 says:

Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced (vedanīya) by the wise.

SN 56.11 says:

‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized (sacchikata).’

Concise Pali English Dictionary sacchikata pp. of sacchikaroti
  realised; experienced for oneself.
PTS Pali English Dictionary sacchikata seen with one’s own eyes,
  realized experienced

The Dhammapada says:

205. Having savored the taste of solitude and peace (of Nibbana), pain-free and stainless he becomes, drinking deep the taste of the
  bliss of the Truth.

Nibbana is the dropping of all burdens; like the experience of relief when urgently urinating or dropping a heavy backpack or drinking cool fresh water on a hot day.
Read more here: SN 43.14-43 and Nibbana For Everyone

thanks, i accepted this answer due to the use of 'Truth', which is easily understood.

Nirvana is an application of the fire-metaphor (a fire going out) used to point at certain aspects of The Goal.
What aspects?

dispassion, disenchantment
the finality (no state subtler than this, nothing further to be attained, no realization that is more fundamental, no fuel to burn, no further becoming)

There are other aspects of The Goal not covered by the metaphor of Nirvana, and to indicate these aspects we use other concepts, namely

liberation
peace
suchness
Enlightenment, Awakening, Knowledge
bliss, happiness
the emptiness
the other shore
the deathless
the unconditional
one's true nature
the unborn

These describe various other aspects of The Goal (not of Nirvana, which is just one concept among many).
It is therefore incorrect to say that Buddha knows Nirvana or experiences Nirvana. Buddha experiences what Buddha experiences, and he can invent various ways to talk about it, including the metaphors like Nirvana. Buddha knows and experiences The Truth, and Nirvana is only a didactic device used to talk about attainment of Truth and its personal implications.
All these terms and descriptions remain in the conceptual field, as qualities or aspects that try to characterize The Goal by relating it with something the listener knows from his own unenlightened experience.
In one important sense, attainment of Nirvana is a personal transformation. As you change, reality you perceive changes as well, so all these concepts are attempts to describe both the change as well as the new reality, in contrast with old.

Is that hearsaying, or where does it origin from?

This originates from 2600 years of study and practice of Buddha-Dharma, including 25 years in this life.

"It is therefore incorrect to say that Buddha knows Nirvana or experiences Nirvana."... ! .... Mahayana's Taoist non-conceptuality is not 2600 years old, although Taoism is

No, it's not about nonconceptuality. Just about not confusing the concepts with reality. Buddha knows and experiences The Truth, and Nirvana is only a didactic device used to talk about attainment of Truth.

When a fire is extinguished, are you saying the transformation from heat to coolness is a "didactic device"? Thanks

"Path" is a metaphor. Etc.

And yes, heat and coolness are only one way to talk about reality, which can also be described as the slowing down of the vibrations of atoms. Etc.

The Upanishads ask, 'Who is there to experience the experiencer?'. The Buddha goes beyond experience for Truth and Reality. Thus to ask what buddhas experience as Nirvana may be to slightly miss their message. Nagarjuna proposes that we much travel beyond the Samsara-Nirvana distinction for the final goal, as suggested by Andrei. . .  ,.

Bhikkhu Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

This translation is problematic because there is no such thing as infinite consciousness in Buddhism. Equating Nirvana with infinite consciousness would be more of Advaita Vedanta rather than Buddhism.
However, in this answer, Bonn explained that this is a wrong translation.
It should rather be:

That which could be known (Nibbana),
  is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

So, Nirvana is something knowable, but it is not within the normal scope of physical and mental experience. It is not even within the normal scope of the experience of gods.
How do the enlightened ones know and experience Nirvana as?
From AN 3.32:

‘This is peaceful (santaṃ), this is sublime (paṇītaṃ),
  that is, the stilling of all
  activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of
  craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’

From Dhammapada 204:

... Nibbana is the greatest bliss. (nibbanam paramam sukham)

They know and experience Nirvana as the greatest bliss, that is peaceful and sublime, and free from all suffering.
The ending of AN 3.32:

‘Having surveyed the world high and low,
  they’re not shaken by anything in the world.
  Peaceful, unclouded, untroubled, with no need for hope—
  they’ve crossed over birth and old age, I declare.’”


text:
Spiritual Potential and Consequences of Actions
Upon reading this question, I wondered: would a person with great spiritual potential, without compassion, be more likely to cause great harm than an average person? Not intentionally, but say due to anger or hate; would this person be akin to a politician with great power who's actions can affect more?
Thus, would spiritual potent individuals' actions have greater consequences under the effect of negative states?

Instead of "spiritual potential", you probably meant those with supernormal powers/Iddhi capability right? because those with higher spiritual potential would naturally tend to act/speak/think in a more skillful way than those who don't. If that's the case then sure. Just like that common expression "with great power comes great responsibility". A foot soldier can save or kill someone with just his weapon, but an emperor can build or annihilate an entire country with just an order! So probably a more apt expression would be: "with great power comes great kammic consequences".

Yet think what a mind-master is able to, not even use words. Kamma by mind is far more powerful than physical actions could.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pride and Compassion
I have read in psychological studies that oxytocin and serotonin interact to produce social rewards. Serotonin has been postulated to relate to authentic pride (a positive kind of pride based on accomplishment). Oxytocin is a hormone linked with compassion. Therefore, it would seem natural that pride and compassion relate in some way.
Even, I will say that when I meditated on compassion, imagery of altruistic pride naturally emerged. Recently, I'm in a more depressed state -- which may entail less serotonin -- and the pride imagery fails to occur as well as the reward.
My question is: is there any evidence of such an interaction between compassion and pride in Buddhism? I feel naturally emptiness entails an interaction with compassion in the Mahayana, but I feel pride would be linked with desire and materiality.
Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?

Possibly related -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?, and, What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?

I think this is an interesting question, and also the words "evidence" and "buddhism" in the same sentence is particularly interesting to me. If i'm not mistaken the onus of evidence is exclusively the responsibility of a buddhist practitioner, no? (I'm not counting suttas as evidence, obviously).

Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?

Not sure if such concept has a place in the Teaching. If authentic pride is based on accomplishment, then it's important to notice that "accomplishment" in the Dhamma is just a label, or a word expression to denote how much one has given up instead of picked up. For example, one's accomplishment in Sotapanna-hood/Stream-entry is simply a label to denote someone who has completely given up the 3 lower fetters: identity view, doubt, and wrong grasp of rules/rituals. Similarly for other higher "accomplishments", the higher one "attains" something, it really means the more one has "given up/let go" of something. And the highest "accomplishment", again, is really just a label for someone who has completely eliminated all hindrances/fetters/defilements of the mind.

Without having the buddhist source to back it up, i'd argue that compassion is all-encompassing, meaning that true compassion doesn't distinguish between self or others.
Pride then, would be a flavor of self-compassion, as long as we're talking about the type of pride free from arrogance or grandiose perception of the self.

In Aditya Sutta, the Buddha describes a Dhamma-following householder who expresses altruistic pride and states how this is a positive state of mind:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
  my dependents supported,
      protected from calamities by me.
  I have given supreme offerings
      & performed the five oblations.
  I have provided for the virtuous,
      the restrained,
      followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
      would desire wealth,
          that aim I have attained.
  I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
  When this is recollected by a mortal,
  a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
  he is praised in this life
      and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

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


text:
What is Bodhicitta?
What is Bodhicitta?
I recall reading that the "power" of it is what ends up making someone a Bodhisattva or Buddha. So my specific question is whether it is nirvana, and if it is qualitative, felt etc..

Bodhicitta means awakening-mind, from 'bodhi' meaning awakening and 'citta' meaning mind or consciousness. In Mahayana Buddhism, three aspects liberate one from cyclic existence: the attitude of renunciation (which turns away from worldly attachments), the wisdom of emptiness (which sees object without grasping at intrinsic existence), and finally bodhicitta, which is the intention to help all sentient beings.
Bodhicitta is of two types: first, the very intention and aspiration to free all sentient beings from suffering; second, the process and implementation of doing so. Bodhicitta is also categorized as relative and absolute, where relative bodhicitta implies a compassionate wish and striving to help others, and ultimate bodhicitta is seeing the empty nature of things. I believe this is linked with either training compassion or gaining compassion through wisdom.
There are various ways of training bodhicitta. Among these, one may train the four immeasurables: loving-kindness (wishing for others' well being), compassion (wishing to alleviate others' suffering), sympathetic joy (partaking in others' well-being), and equanimity (considering others equally). Other means exist in Buddhism to develop bodhicitta, as equalizing oneself and others, which involves going past the distinctions between persons via an understanding in emptiness. Also, seeing all beings as one's mother relies on an understanding of karma to conceive others as having helped us in past lives.
--
Relative to your question, bodhicitta is not nirvana as it relies on worldy attachment (i.e. compassion) to occur. I understand, though I'm unsure, that you're asking if it is felt or cognitive. Interestingly, the Dalai Lama has said its best to focus on feeling when generating compassion, after having produced reasons. And, I have read a scientific papers 1 2 claiming the value of both motivational/affective aspects and cognitive aspects of compassion meditation. So, both components are clearly experienced in compassion.
More so, given that the union of compassion and emptiness is the aim of the Mahayana, and that emptiness entails initially an analytical training, one might consider how compassion merges with cognitive processes to see the world differently. So, it is indeed felt and realized.
Finally, given emptiness is related to non-duality, I feel the separation between cognition and feeling is illusory, as everything is highly related via cause and effect.
Hope this helps!

good answer, thanks! could use something more explicit for "felt and realized"

i'll accept, though i wish that ^^


text:
Cutting Computer in Evening
I have recently managed to restrict my eating period to about 8h per day, which is supposed to help circadian rhythm.
Yet, to further promote sleep and circadian rhythm, I should also cut out blue light from a computer a few hours before bed (and go to bed at the same time each day). Since I get bored when I cut the computer at this hour, I always revert to using the computer, delaying bedtime in the process.
What would Buddhism suggest as solution towards such a computer use? In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer.
Would avoiding the computer at other times decrease my attachment to it overall? What might help?

When using a computer you get a lot of input or information to process. This leads to more vitakka and vicara hence dispersion of the mind. It is best to limit this and try to be more mindful when using computer and phones.

well since the problem is that you cannot get sati or samadhi in your evening spare time, you destroy the evening spare time. To remove the spare time in the evening, you wake up earlier, so that you will be tired in the evening and directly go to bed.
Plus you wake earlier and striving for sati and samadhi in the morning is easier, since you have more energy and less papanca after you wake up. You can do that in bed too.
Plus since you will wake up earlier, you do not need an alarm clock to wake up.
Even if your activities are not related to the dhamma, People who wake up early have more energy for their spare time (which is in the morning), instead of doing their hobbies in the evening after a full at work.

In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer.
I have found two solutions:

When using the computer, I use it mindfully to educate myself on current events and trends (e.g., global warming, technology trends, national conflicts, etc.) that deepen my study of the suttas with current considerations. Or I work on projects that help myself and/or others.
I walk meditation listening to the suttas. This is difficult and interesting for my restless mind. At the very least my mind is occupied by wholesome thoughts.

MN20 has a good exposition of how to stop thinking. Restraining thoughts is important and it is difficult because we tend to identify with those thoughts such as "I am bored. Let's see what's on the computer tonight.":

Now, suppose that mendicant is ignoring and forgetting about those thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. They should focus on stopping the formation of thoughts.

First ask yourself, what do you want to see in Computer? Computer is for you, not you for computer. If you want to watch movies, or chat with friends, you can do that in morning as well. You cant think of mindfulness and meditation unless you are saturated with the sensual gratification. Buddha himself was born as a King with all kinds of luxuries, but eventually realized that earth will never be enough for an uncontrolled mind and hence renounced his kingdom.
Any addiction is created because of repetition and leads to misery eventually, for example an obese man is addicted to eating, a gambler is addicted to greed, all are desires born from untamed mind for non-self. If you can think and understand the cause of your bondage than you can also free yourself from it, as no one can free you except you. You are the writer of your own destiny in very first place. Follow the madhyakama or the middle path and maintain balance in everything food, sleep, life etc., Any crest of sense imbalance in life will be followed by a trough of miseries.


text:
Attachment Towards Environments and Objects
I have just asked a question about computer use, and it spurred another question in my mind: How does attachment towards objects and places occur?
I'm specifically wondering if all pleasurable activities and experiences reinforce attachment to their corresponding objects and places. For example, if a person watches different shows on television, and each are pleasurable, does this -- in addition to creating attachment to the different shows -- produce attachment to television overall aside from these shows?
In other words, I'm asking whether attachment transfers from activities to their related elements, the objects involved. Another example might be a person watching a theatre play which gives them pleasure; would such a person develop attachment to the theatre and the actors?
Finally, it seems relevant to include the example of someone engaging in casual sex for the sake of it but who then develops attachment towards the other person. Is this yet another case of strong pleasure forming at attachment via attribution?

Attachment is attachment and we become attached to attachment. Generating a desire and fulfilling it is a wonderful pleasure. You must have noticed that people usually prefer to transfer their attachments rather than lessen them. It's much easier.
It seems an important issue. Transferring attachments is a great way of avoiding doing without them, and I should know, but also a way of overcoming those that are unwanted and steering our attachment towards objects and activities that might be better for us.
Your point about the transferring of attachment to the object of pleasure seems right to me, and again it seems an important issue.

With each input you get a feeling which cases craving and generates metal concepts to which one gets attached. This can be films, actors, songs or any other concept or the experience from the 6 sense bases.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception
  and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to
  delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the
  end of
the latent tendency of lust, the latent tendency of aversion, the
  latent tendency of views, the latent tendency of doubt, the latent
  tendency of conceit, the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
  the latent tendency of ignorance. This is the ending of the taking up
  of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife],
  slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and
  [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear |
  nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.
From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception
  assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds |
  smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye |
  ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta

With ignorance as condition, there are volitional formations;
with volitional formations as condition, there is consciousness;
with consciousness as condition, there is name-and-form;
with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense-bases;
with the six sense-bases as condition, there is contact;
with contact as condition, there is feeling;
with feeling as condition, there is craving;
with craving as condition, there is clinging;
with clinging as condition, there is existence;
with existence as condition, there is birth;
with birth as condition, there arise decay and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, physical pain, mental pain and despair.
Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta

i. On seeing a form with the eye,
one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.
ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,
one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.
iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,
one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.
iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,
one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.
v. On feeling a touch with the body,
one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.
vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Also each input and perception is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral leads to negative mental states inclusive of attachment:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to
  pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful
  feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral
  feelings.

Pahāna Sutta

Oh standholder eggmann, and the same questions on and on... smile: so for those with possibility of a way out:
Places of dwelling are a matter of Upanissaya (strong conditions; peopie, dwelling, clima, food, are a matter of Upanissaya), meaning strong tendency toward certain "food" or often used association.
Strong attached to "virtual" existance, dwelling has surely to do that beings often used to dwell in fine sensual realms, lower Devas:

Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
Devas Delighting in Creation (nimmanarati deva)

...are the highest inhabitants in this "internet-realm".
While this Devas certain have done great merits to be able to dwell here, having Mara actually as their head, they are seldom of great wisdom.
To get ride of certain tendencies wisdom in regard of the disadvantages is needed: insight in regard of the dangers of sensuality.
Also developing Jhanas would bring one to more refined "food" (here all 4 kinds) tendency, above the kama-loka and sugati realm.
Caught in this realm, especially internet, Googlyana - a Dharma practice approach on internet-realm, i.e. addopting the Buddha Dhamma also here, is surely a good way out of this specific Upanissaya and even beyound.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
Can (an) Urban-Dhamma lead to path, fruits and liberation?
Urban-Dhamma, Urban-Dhamma they say and is a popular approach, but is it possible that Urban-Dhamma leads to path, fruits and beyond?
Is it possible to transport the Ariya-Magga under such an approach? Is it possible that Urban-Dhamma goes beyond material spheres?
What is the conventional meaning of "urban", how is it perceived at large, the common use of this quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/urban

(Note that this question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

I'm not sure what you mean by Urban Dhamma. Do you mean Dhamma practiced in the city? Yes. There's no problem with that.
In his lifetime, the Buddha spent 19 out of 45 vassas at the Jetavana Monastery. This monastery was built by the rich lay disciple Anathapindika.
This monastery was located in the city of Savatthi or Shravasti, which was the capital city of the Kingdom of Kosala with a population of 900,000 in 5th century BCE. It was one of the six largest cities in India, in the Buddha's time. The Buddha had many lay disciples in and around Savatthi, headed by wealthy merchant Anathapindika and wealthy aristocrat Visakha.
So I can't see anything wrong with the practice of the Dhamma in an urban setting.

Why answering in a manner as if actually respecting the question and "stand" of whom/what raised it, householder? Isn't the matter one of wishing to share pearls under pigs? Freedom under those trusting in security under cattles?

Google suggests the term is associated with Ven. Kusala (though the urbandharma.org web site isn't very up-to-date).
I haven't listened to his podcasts -- I first heard of him in the comments under this question.
The word "urban" conventionally means "in a city" (or "of a city"), contrasted with "rural" ("in the country-side" perhaps farmland or even woodland), or "suburban".
It doesn't mean much to me as a word -- except that if I were living in a big city (which a lot of people in North America do), the term "urban dhamma" might seem to me to imply a meaning like "dhamma here" (e.g. sandiṭṭhiko).

Not sure how much google matches and related to what might return on "urban dhamma" or "urban dharma", just often came across, as well as also related to this Question (translated into German)

There are incredible amounts of distraction in a City. Effort, determination, patience, generosity, virtue, truthfulness. Many important qualities can be developed.

There are many benefits to staying in or close to the city like the access to public facilities, toilets, sauna, healthcare, shelter, food and whatnot.
I think that being otherwise secluded in the forest or a private place to do walking and sitting meditation is the important part.


text:
What does 'all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"' mean?
Upasaka Angus asked on another place:

What do you mean that all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real"?

So what does a statement '"all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real (anicca)"' dhammical mean?
What are phenomena related to the senses?
(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Note: Real/echt should be not understood as "act-ual/wirk-lich", what ever else notion of real would neverteless fit.

I think that "not real" is not a good translation, and is not a translation that I'm used to seeing on Access To Insight or other careful translations.
It's a phrase I used to see written sometimes in some author's modern paraphrase of Buddhism, and before I discovered the translations of the suttas -- but it's a phrase I didn't understand at that time, and which might be (in my experience) a little harmful because it makes Buddhism sound like nonsense (e.g. because I don't understand it).
For that kind of reason I wish that people wouldn't use the phrase ("not real"). As well as being unclear, and maybe untrue, the phrase "not real" also seems to be a bit unkind -- if someone is grieving a loved one's death, for example, would you say "the grief you feel isn't real"? That kind of message ("grief isn't real") is not the kind of message I get from the suttas (though the suttas do describe a way towards the end of suffering).
I think the conventional (non-Buddhist, English-language) understanding of "not real" is something like "illusory" or "not existent" -- also "not tangible" or "not thing-like" -- but that sort of meaning might be refuted by this Zen story:

Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”

The word anicca is usually translated "impermanent".
The "phenomena related to the senses" are usually described as "dependently originated", "not fit to be regarded as 'self'", "changeable", maybe "not satisfying", and by implication "not reliable" etc. (though they're also described as "The All" in one sutta).

Whats the different between "not real" and "not lasting"?

What's the phenomena that arises when touched on the intelect base with perception "not real"? Real? Nail it down.

I'd say that conventionally "a horse" (for example) is real, where in contrast "a unicorn" is not real and is instead imaginary (see also e.g. a definition of real). You can explain that things (sense-objects) aren't real or explain why they aren't real -- I think that people say that Nagarjuna proves that "things don't really exist" -- but if so I think that does require some explanation and I find it an unconventional and non-obvious usage of the word "real".

Whereas I find that suttas (e.g. the four noble truths) as they're more usually translated are self-explanatory or self-evident, easier to understand -- as well as prescriptive (i.e. useful) and so on.

Anger? Real? So what? Got hit by a stick?

Loving comes from taking things as real.

How then could it be abounded, comes and goes?

Some forms of love might be an attachment, perhaps desiring (or craving) the continuation of a phenomenon that was experienced as pleasant -- but I don't think that "not real" is a good, clear description of what's happening if that happens (e.g. I think that an explanation involving "craving" or "attachment" might be a clearer explanation).

If you do think that "not real" is a good explanation, then OK, I guess different words have different meanings to different people, but I personally didn't find "it's not real" to be clear. Saying "not real" might imply that nothing is real (which might be wrong view), or that that there's something else apart from what's perceptible that's more real (shrug).

Yes "real" can mean something like "actual" or "present". A phrase like "he was in real pain for two days" is not self-contradictory nonsense, imo.

@Angus I don't think I remember suffering being described as an illusion -- though perhaps "the self" is sometimes described as an illusion, or at least as no more than a convention (and "self-view" as a cause of suffering) -- ditto all the skandhas (e.g. here) -- and "suffering" described (e.g. by later Buddhists, not in the suttas) as "optional" which implies that it's affected by or might be ended by choice, as well as being described as subject to cessation (the third noble truth).

@Angus Samana Johann wrote, "not real (anicca)" in the OP above, so perhaps he understands or uses the phrase "not real" as meaning "impermanent" or something like that.

Real/echt should be not understood as "act-ual/wirk-lich", what ever else notion would neverteless fit.

@SamanaJohann I'm sorry, what I wrote might sound rude. I was hoping to answer based on my own experience. I'm not familiar with words related to philosophy (nor German philosophy). When I read paraphrases of Buddhism a while ago I didn't understand what "not real" meant, so it didn't help me. And later when I read translations of the suttas (which I found were relatively helpful), those translations tended to use a lot of words other than (perhaps more specific than) "real".

More real hmm... :-) no problem, just "real" was offended.

The word 'unreal' causes problems but is often misread.
I would suggest (with Marino above) that it means 'reducible' or 'not real in the way we usually think it is'. It may mean 'having only a dependent-existence'. Often 'unreal' is associated with 'appearance' as in title of Bradley's 1897 essay 'Appearance and Reality'. This is a reproduction of Nagarjuna's argument against the genuine reality of multiplicity, (although I don't think Bradley knew of Nagarajuna).
Ibn 'Arabi discusses this in various texts. Every 'thing'  would derive its reality from the Real and 'exist' only as an expression of consciousness or God. These things would be not metaphysically real, being reducible to God, Reality or Consciousness. Every-thing would derive its reality from the Real, and in this sense is both real and unreal depending on how we look at it. 'Two Truths' would be required to describe the situation, as in the statement 'All things are real and unreal'. This satisfies Lao Tsu's condition that to describe Reality with rigour means speaking in a paradoxical manner.
He makes the point that God has two 'modes' and levels of description, one that requires us and one that doesn't. From the first perspective everything is real, deriving its reality from God, and from the second everything is unreal, since it derives its reality from God. (Where God, Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon).
The point would be that Reality is Unity, not a collection of things. These 'things' would be real as appearances but unreal as independent objects. All phenomena would be void. As the Upanishads say 'The voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'.
Thus one might say that the end of suffering is the realisation of its unreality and the unreality of its causes.
Calling the world unreal causes many problems because it might seems to say that the world is not important, can be ignored or even despised. This is not at all what the word should mean.
I feel you'd be better off reading the literature than asking here since a full answer would be a lot to ask. A very short text by Ibn 'Arabi called Treatise on Unity may be useful. A good modern translation by Cecelia Twinch (great name!) is titled Know Yourself- An explanation of the Oneness of Being'.
The notion of Oneness, Unity, Unicity and non-duality requires the (metaphysical) unreality of composite or multifarious phenomena. They would be real as sensations and perceptions, but would not 'really' exist. Nothing would 'really' exist, but the Real would be really real.
The great thing about Nagarjuna's view is that as soon as one has adopted a one-sided or 'positive' stance on any issue, for instance the reality of phenomena, one knows one is not understanding it properly. When one can see both sides then one is on the right track. Thus it is said the sage can agree or disagree with any statement about Reality as they choose, since if it does not seem paradoxical it will be true and false depending on our level of analysis.

"all the phenomena related to the senses are "not real (anicca)"' dhammical mean?
What are phenomena related to the senses?" was asked, householder Peter.

@SamanaJohann - Apologies, but I cannot disentangle your comment. I did not use the words 'anicca' or 'dhammical'. What are you asking?

Just that, but no problem if not knowing.


text:
In how far does involvement in certain undertaking effects one, good or bad?
In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking?
In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims?
Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings?
And how should common-kamma here be understood?
(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Ven Sir, I have noticed you have opened a new bounty but not voted on or accepted any of the answers given. Doing so is all up to you. But this will mean the bounty will get "wasted" when it expires.

My person leaves it up to the community, the system and to ones Nissaya. It's abounded with a blessing, Upasaka, and can not be of waste. My person thought longer about how to get ride of much reputations and it would be not proper to transfer them back into the world, give them householders personally. He also does not make use of voting generally since it is better to comment and know of who approves or disapproves. In this matter one should not think that ones good gifts are not regarded. So double+ merits if answering the "bounties" with same state of mind, toward Tripple Gems and Nibbana.

Good opportunity to possible engage in a transaction on one side or even two sides purified, Upasaka @SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena and not at all one should fear that there could be a lose by giving into it, yet very insecure to receive direct reputations. Good training for one self, btw. Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it? (had a bounty of 500)

The site would also let users put a bounty on someone else's question (if you think it's a good or difficult question while you'd like more people to try to answer).

That would be a possibility, yes. How ever, those having given reputation before and also others, would easy say "look he likes to benefit..." or "or how could be give up reputation giving in faith for him, this or that...", how ever, sometimes it has been made already. And if seeing an answer good if answered, why not answering by oneself? So is really not easy to carry such around and has much "burden" of responsibility, if holding, received for the Juwels.

There are also less questions not answered yet. If doing such on questions which have already answers, but highly wrong answers much upvoted...? Just to give a sample. It's not for exchange made, not to forget, but for giving possibility to make releasing high merits.

If:

rejoice in others' action - mental approval
partake in the activity

one accumulates common karma.
Also, being encouraged or not (sasañkhārikam / asañkhārikam) does matters. This reduces potency. In case of doing something as a group, not everyone will have the same motivation. If one is self-motivated karmic potential is high. If one loses motivation and seeds some self-encouragement it is lesser. If one needs external encouragement it will be even lesses.
If a group is taking some negative action. One should disassociate with the negative action and also not rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to disassociate. One should not encourage anyone to do what is negative.
If a group is taking some positive action. One should associate with the positive action and also rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to associate. If one's motivation lapses one should encourage oneself.
If one is a monk being suspected of doing wrong may discredit the institution/order of monks. So it best to be mindful of if this happens. For a layperson disassociating mentally is enough to prevent karmic repercussions, as karma is volition based, but wise even not to appear as associated as this will have social consequences.
Even if one does not have the means to participate or do a positive action if one mentally approved it then one partakes the merit. If one is indifferent or does not approve one does not get karmic results. Same is true for negative actions.

Sadhu Upasaka. One thing that comes to mind is that the Buddha warned "even if not mental involved, approve by thoughts, one becomes suspected by good fellows, and may have disadvantages, losing them". What about such? Is mind here enough? Or does disapprove requires clear signs and actions for security? "partake in the activity"= body, speech, signs, right?

"rejoice in others' action", approve, agrees, ignores in ways "that is not my problem" and takes benefits from it anyhow (cheating one self, a-sacca), right?

The Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma (AN 6.63). Therefore, those minds free from self-view can engage in any necessary quantity of skillful undertaking without reaping negative results, such as paranoid neurosis that occurs to those unskillfully craving the Path who generally view anatta as annihilationism or vibhava.


text:
What is breath?
There is a lot of talk on breath, now what is breath? What's the meaning?
Is it form? What of it? Is it an action? Is it a perception? A feeling? How should it be taken, if to be taken, so that it would be used right, focused on it right?
Addition: It should be seen to be encouraged to give answers after own investigations on field, having investigated breath, in and of itself.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

In the context of Anapanasati or Anapanasati Sutta this is the respiratory process of breathing in and out.

FORMATION (SAṄKHĀRA)
Ayya, how many kinds of formation are there?
Avuso Visākha, there are these 3 kinds of formation

bodily formation, kāya,saṅkhāra
verbal formation, vacī,saṅkhāra
thought formation. citta,saṅkhāra
But what, ayya, is bodily formation, what is verbal formation, what is thought
  formation?

Avuso Visākha,

The in-and-out breaths, are bodily formation.
Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.
Perception and feeling are thought formation.

But, ayya,'

why are the in-and-out-breaths bodily formation;
why are thinking and pondering verbal formation;
why are perception and feeling thought formation?

~

The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body. Therefore, they are bodily formation.
Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech. Therefore, thinking and pondering are verbal formation.
Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind. Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
So the breath is of bodily formations.
Normal breathing, viz., non-volitional, involuntary, uncontrolled breathing is not an action. Controlled breathing like pranayama, is an action as it is volitional or voluntary. Bening mindful of the respiratory process displaces ignorance once sees clearly the true nature of things through the breath, but the same cannot be said about controlled breathing, hence the reason Buddha abandoned these practices as per Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Mahā Sīha,nāda Sutta, Maha Saccaka Sutta. Controlled breathing is an unskilful action which is rooted in ignorance, hence reaping future conditioning. Non-controlled breathing dissolves formations and does not create new formations hence is skilful action. So controlled and mindful breathing is an action with karmic results. Being unaware of the breath and everything else, i.e., one is not practising any of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana), one is accumulating unskilful actions. When one is aware, i.e., practising any of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana), but not necessarily of the breath but compatible with the Satipatthana Sutta and related Suttas, then one still is accumulating skilful action.
The breath as 2 aspects:

movement of the air element - this aspect of the breath can only be perception - this is sensed by the mind sense door. The air element can only be perceived but not be felt.
touch sensation of the breath - this can be felt and perceived - this is felt by the body sense door and subsequently the mind sense door.

The movement of the breath is a perception. Giri-m-ananda Sutta mentions breath as a perception (sanna).
The perceived aspect of breath meditation is the Samatha part and felt part of the breath meditation is the Vipassana part. When once feels the breath at some point one will see a counterpart sign where you feel the touch. When the perceiving part of the breath meditation becomes stronger one starts seeing a mental image.
Breath meditation covers all 4 foundations of mindfulness (Satipatthana).

First Tetrad: Contemplation of the Body (kāya)

Discerning the in and out breathing (SA 8.10 begins with "he trains" in the first step)
Discerning long or short breaths (Ekottarika Agama 17.1 version adds "warm" and "cool" breaths)
Experiencing the whole body (sabbakāya). Pali versions add "he trains" in this step. Some Samyukta-Agama sutras meanwhile have "bodily-formations" in this step.[12]
Calming bodily formations (kāya-saṃskāra)

Second Tetrad: Contemplation of the Feeling (vedanā)

Experiencing rapture (pīti)[14]
Experiencing pleasure (sukha)
Experiencing mental fabrication (citta-saṃskāra)
Calming mental fabrication

Third Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mind (citta)

Experiencing the mind
Satisfying the mind
Steadying the mind (samādhi)
Releasing the mind

Fourth Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mental Objects (dhammā)

Dwelling on impermanence
Dwelling on dispassion (virāga). SA 8.10 instead has 'eradication'.
Dwelling on cessation (nirodha). SA 8.10 instead has 'dispassion'.
Dwelling on relinquishment (paṭinissaggā). SA 8.10 instead has 'cessation'.

Source: Anapanasati Sutta

So breathing in and out is not an action? Not watching an action, maybe a sequence? Upasaka?

Updated the answer.

The reason there is a lot of talk about breath is its intermediary function between voluntary and involuntary personal features in human beings. This is also a reflection on the strong emphasis which it has received as a symbolic or literal reference to subjective essence (spirit, soul).
The biological factors are obvious. As mammals we need respiration to survive as part of our sustained organic process. This is part of what constitutes human experience. We breathe, and this continues or we expire. The variable character of this breathing, however, is the focus of a number of liberation instructions or ideologies ostensibly disclosing meaning and purpose.
The reason that focal practices of the Dharma include attention to breath is its rhythmic, ever-present, and involuntary nature. We may learn to loosen our self-control and begin to enter into a condition of repose (calm reflection).
There is no requirement as to breath's role in doctrine or practice. As part of disciplines such as pranayama it may become an exclusive tool to help one move toward liberation. In certain Buddhist practices it may function as an element of practice while meditating having no influence upon breathing while so doing.

The Buddha did not teach to focus on breath. The question is non-sequitur.
The Buddha taught to abandon craving. When craving is abandoned, the mind will be quiet, silent & still. When the mind is quiet, silent & still, the breath will "visit" the mind. When the breath "visits" the mind, the mind remains unconcerned & detached about the breath and merely experiences the "visitor" as the "visitor" is.
It is similar to when a monk goes on alms round. Women, with their filial lusts, wish to feed the monk. The monks accepts the alms food but does not pursue the women. Similarly, the Noble Meditator does not pursue the breath. Instead, like the monks on alms round, the Noble Meditator maintains Noble Silence and allows the breath to visit or give.

Breath is a physiological process which can be voluntary or involuntary. When you don't try to control it, it proceeds at an involuntarily regulated pace. That's similar to blinking. When your eyes are open, they automatically blink once in a while. Breath is quite regular in its frequency, unlike blinking. Your heartbeat is also involuntary and regularly paced, but you usually cannot feel it (unless you have palpitations).
So, breath, is the only physiological process that I know of, which fulfills all these criteria: it proceeds involuntarily at a relatively regular pace and it can be felt through it's effects on the nostril, upper lip, movement of abdomen or movement of rib cage. It's frequency is also not too slow and not too fast, for observation of its effects.
Now how does that relate to Buddhism?
Well, the regularly paced change of effects on the nostril, upper lip, movement of abdomen or movement of rib cage that can be felt by a person, are sensations (vedanā). Not the breath itself, but the effect of the physiological process of involuntary breathing, causes detectable and observable sensations.
And how is this useful in Buddhism?
There is nothing mystical about the mind-breath connection in Buddhism, unlike prāṇāyāma in Hindu Hatha Yoga.
In meditation, the observable sensation (vedanā) caused by breathing is physically rooted and is something that the mind doesn't control, which the mind can use as an object to track, in order to cultivate concentration, instead of becoming bored and distracted.
If the meditator tries to observe something that his mind created, he might get carried away in imagination.
If the meditator tries to track an unchanging sensation like the sensation of his palm, he might get bored and fall asleep.
However, breathing is not imagined by the mind, and changes at a regular pace, so it makes a good meditation object for cultivation of concentration. Of course, the meditator could still get distracted or bored or fall asleep, but at least when he remembers that he had drifted off, he can come back to the observable sensation caused by breathing.

"Breath is a physiological process", given by God, accidentally... or maybe an act of will, react? Good to investigate what's the matter with breath.

Did breath come about due to being created by God or accidentally? Well, that's answered by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

No, not at all, since one investigating the breath looks after the cause. Good if starting to get breath known, suffereing known. It's called Maha-puta, great-"seed" btw. investigation defender Ruben.

What's the cause of "a physiological process", what is breath?


text:
What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation?
What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation?
Doing, acting, content toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit?
Doing, acting, persist toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

you discern and focus on the birth of stress and suffering,
The Buddha:

    If you ask me the coming-into-being of stress and suffering, I will tell it to you
    as one who discerns. From acquisition[1] as cause the many forms of stress and suffering come into being in the world. Whoever, unknowing, makes acquisitions
    -- the fool -- comes to stress and suffering
    again
    and again.

So one who's discerning,
    focused on the birth
    of stress and suffering,
    their coming-into-being, should make no acquisitions.

and the way to do that is
 Mettagu:

What we asked, you've expounded. Now we ask something else.
    Please tell us. How do the prudent cross over the flood of
    birth and aging,
    lamentation and sorrow? Please, sage, declare this to me
    as this Dhamma has
    been known by you.

The Buddha:

I will teach you the Dhamma
    -- in the here and now,
    not quoted words -- knowing which, living mindfully, you'll cross over beyond entanglement in the world.

Mettagu:

And I relish, Great Seer, that Dhamma     supreme, knowing which, living mindfully, I'll cross over beyond entanglement in the world.

The Buddha:

Whatever you're alert to,
    above, below,
    across, in between:[2] dispelling any delight,
        any laying claim
        to those things, consciousness should not take a stance
        in becoming. The monk who dwells thus
    -- mindful, heedful -- letting go of his sense of mine, knowing right here would abandon
        birth and aging,
    lamentation and sorrow,
        stress and suffering.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/snp/snp.5-04.than.ati.htm

So holding, persisting on discerning suffering and not content with any release, or how should this be regarded to fit to the question, good householder?


text:
Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma?
In reference to this:
Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting,  and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?
Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?
Their usual advertisement:

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?
or the usual approach of them:
Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?

Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute?
That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma? I, personally, would state the question thus!

@IlyaGrushevskiy Or, "Does censuring harsh speech imply that you're wrongly acting with aversion as your motive?" Or, "If someone (e.g. a site moderator) censors (i.e. deletes or bans) what another person would write on a site (e.g. writing that's perceived as "racist" or even just "extremist"), isn't that contrary to the advice in SN 7.2? Is it right to describe that as averena?"

"Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate?", no, but in most cases, especially if wrapped in hate speech. Look around seriously, householder @IlyaGrushevskiy. Where ever is love is hate: Pema Sutta. Looking foward to see a reflective answer, no political correctness but Dhamma prefered, from her.

DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds
prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a
noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity,
and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.
That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on
to say:
“If you act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, or stupidity,  your fame shrinks,  like the moon in the
waning fortnight.
If you don’t act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, and stupidity,  your fame swells,  like the moon in the
waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome &
unwholesome, benefit & danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising
of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it
has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful
and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and
those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to
them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of
principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
SN 46.2

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or
properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3)
What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by
means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the
skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?
Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only "racism" is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.
The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.
If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.
If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying such perceived extremism?
Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?

A question that contains words like "fighting", "deleting" or "destroying" implies that any form of antagonism towards extremism is an extreme act in itself. But making a case against intolerance really doesn't have to involve those things. So yes, it's possible to make a stand against extremism without being an extremist.

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself?

Sometimes, but you don't have to be. The "politically correct" views on tolerance partially stems from certain people being targets of real abuse, assault, or other forms of harassment/violence. Pleading for tolerance then becomes part of allowing people feeling - or in fact - being safe from harm.
To label the above "intolerance" seems like a rather creative use of language.

Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?

I am not familiar with any suttas that teaches us to accept those cases where certain people are being in actual danger. Perhaps i missed them.
(Also, the phrase "politically correct" can come across as a pejorative to people. I'll let you figure out what the suttas may mention about derogatory speech).

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?
You said that was "in reference to this".
The bit of "this" which defined "extremist" was as follows:

What is an extremist view?
Generally it refers to views that blithely reject well-established facts. The views themselves may or may not be hateful, but they are always delusional. Such views seem like an innocuous theory, but they often aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism.
It is not possible to define these with precision, so I will decide on a case by case basis, with consultation if necessary.
We are concerned primarily with Buddhist extremist views, but other forms of anti-reality extremism are included, such as climate change denial.
Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.
Examples of non-hateful extremist views include:

The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka.
Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence.
The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist.
Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).

In that context, "extremist" is defined as meaning "blithely reject well-established facts" (with examples).
So are you asking, "is it possible to reject statements which reject well-established facts, without yourself rjecting well-established facts"?
Anyway I think the Four Great References ask you to consider statements "without approval and without scorn", and compare those statements to other statements before deciding whether to accept or reject them.
I suppose they have done something like that with those statements (e.g. compared "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" with other "well-established facts"), found that they contradict, and decided not to accept them.
Incidentally I think you have a different view on this topic -- perhaps I'm misquoting you but I remember you, Samana, as expressing disapproval of someone who rejected a statement like, "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" -- because in your opinion a statement like that is associated with someone's faith (in Buddhism), and to reject the statement might be to decrease that person's faith (and decreasing someone's faith is a bad thing).
Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate?
I think the opening verses of the Dhammapada advocate against "hate" and say that "hate" is not right.
It uses the word avera (i.e. "a + vera").
I think of this word as meaning "without hate" or "non-hate" -- but Ven. Sujato now translates that as "love", saying,

Negatives in Pali often have a stronger sense than in English, so avera is indeed a synonym for mettā.

Another question is whether a site like SuttaCentral should feel obliged to accept, tolerate, welcome, or permit (and not censor or delete) every post, no matter what it says and how it says -- even "extremist" and "hateful" posts.
If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?
I think that the Vinaya doesn't expect a sangha to welcome or even to tolerate every view -- it expects "schisms" to be resolved, may eventually forbid someone from attending meetings, and isn't obliged to accept everyone (no matter what they say) in the first place.
I'm not saying that SuttaCentral is a Sangha, but I think that -- some consensus or social contract (or rules) on what's said, how it's said, what's on-topic -- is a feature of almost every "community" that I know of.
A possible exception is a public community. For example people have little choice but to be a citizen of a country, they're required to belong to that community. In exchange the country might (or might not) have "free speech" laws where the government and the government's laws try to be permissive about what people are allowed to say.
That's not so true of private communities, or voluntary associations -- where you can choose to join (or not) a community and the community can choose (or not) whether to accept that, and on what terms and conditions.

How would, when aware of fraud, join such a community at first place. The "issue" is the presentation of lies as cheep politic, like here. It's not about "I have a right". Why wishing to take over a gathering of fools?

Of views, such as "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka." is surely the most harmless one. To kill one on such delieve is fatal evil.

Of course one greegy, nurishes from corruptions left overs, the plunder of communists, might fear to judge right. So how could a consumer ever speech rightly...

"even "extremist" and "hateful" posts", my person never saw such, but killing and censuring when pointing out faults and extrems a lot.

Of views, such as "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka." is surely the most harmless one. I agree that's not a topic I'd want to argue about. If it were true that it's "nationalism" ("aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism") I'm not sure that (i.e. nationalism) a good thing -- the really most extreme forms of nationalism have in the past involved "ethnic cleansing". There are suttas like AN 10.69 which identify certain topics as unfit topics of conversation.

What's the different in "ethicl cleaning" here? Killing (taking ones existance) is not a light transcression, also to encourage others to such. A fool who approaches a fool (or strange views), or? It's all about identification-views.

"Ethnic cleansing" means literally killing people, or forcing them out of the country they live in, because of a factor they cannot control (i.e. their ethnicity). The other is saying that there are some are topics of conversation which the moderator (and perhaps the community) doesn't want to see/allow/discuss/moderate on their internet site. That's certainly a difference, isn't it, if not the difference?

What's the different? No. Purely, and in regard of mindstates and "stupidy" simply the same. And if acting with such fraud under the robe or lable of Arahats, most downward directed for all involved and approving such.

What's the different? Well, in practice, one would involve mass-murdering people; whereas the other would involve avoiding certain topics of conversation (or, I'm not sure, avoiding conversation with people who insist on posting certain types and topics of conversation).

Avoiding, stepping back, is wise. Harming and fighting unbeloved or wrong (if even!) is feeding the wheel of kamma potencialy.

'Hate nothing except hatred', right. Like craving is abandoned by relying on craving, as desire is abandoned by reliance on the desire for abandonment. Is it now so that we can infer that hate is abandoned in reliance on hate for hatred? I think that it is agreeable if one explains that 'hatred for hatred' is to be understood as 'discernment of hatred as undesirable and being averse to the disagreeable'.

As for the only thing that's good to kill: SN 1.71, yes. And how to kill: Dhp 3

Aside of the issue that there is not even evidence that those killed have hateful views...

I dont understand sir, perhaps i misunderstood your question or expressed myself poorly. I dont understand the 'dying with hateful views part'

My guess is that @SamanaJohann is saying is that a moderator's banning somebody from SuttaCentral is like "killing" that person -- and that there's "not even evidence" that those "killed" (i.e. banned from the site for so-called hate-speech) have "hateful views".

Nyom Chris, if in the right mood, is outstanding discerning and if able to share, shares. How ever: good if trying to answer in a way that does not oppose the very basics of Dhamma, if no more idea about it.

For many surely a new aspect, not heard before: Maybe useful, also to increase the value of extended answers: How should Monks, Nuns, Lay follower act when quarrelsome Monks arrive?, possible to draw back to other communities and relations as well.
There is "hopefully" no need to talk on the consequences of monks not dare to "kill" and censure, banner and encourage people to do all that bad things, even public... (the case sample, of course, is a hopeless matter of total basic wrong view).
[Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for release from this wheel]


text:
Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times?
Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present?
If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past?

I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future.

It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

These are covered in the:

15 Wrong / Right Views
16 Doubts
108 thought-courses motivated by craving mentioned in this answer

15 Wrong / Right Views

Let go of the past
“How, bhikshus, does one pursue the past?
(1) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such form in the past.’
(2) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’
(3) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’
(4) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’
(5) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’
This is how, bhikshus, one pursue the past.
And how, bhikshus, does one not pursue the past?
(1) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘I had such form in the past.’
(2) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’
(3) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’
(4) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’
(5) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’
This is how, bhikshus, one does not pursue the past.
Let go of the future
And how, bhikshus, does one hold fond hope for the future?
(6) One seeks delight there thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’
(7) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’
(8) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’
(9) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’
(10) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’
This is how, bhikshus, one holds fond hope of the future.
And how, bhikshus, does one not hold fond hope for the future?
(6) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’
(7) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’
(8) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’
(9) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’
(10) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’
This is how, bhikshus, one does not hold fond hope of the future.
Let go of the present
And how, bhikshus, is one dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises?
(11) Here, bhikshus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, who has no regard for true persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma,
regards
  - form as self, or
  - self as possessed of form, or
  - form as in self, or
  - self as in form.
(12) He regards

feeling as self, or
self as possessed of feeling, or
feeling as in self, or
self as in feeling.

(13) He regards

perception as self, or
self as possessed of perception, or
perception as in self, or
self as in perception.

(14) He regards

formations as self, or
self as possessed of formations, or
formations as in self, or
self as in formations.

(15) He regards

consciousness as self, or
self as possessed of consciousness, or
consciousness as in self, or
self as in consciousness.

This is how, bhikshus, one is dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises.
And how, bhikshus, is one not dragged along [undistracted] by each present state as it arises?
(11) Here, bhikshus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma, who has regard for true persons and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma,
does not regard

form as self,
nor self as possessed of form,
nor form as in self,
nor self as in form.

(12) He does not regard

feeling as self,
nor self as possessed of feeling,
nor feeling as in self,
nor self as in feeling.

(13) He does not regard

perception as self,
nor self as possessed of perception,
nor perception as in self,
nor self as in perception.

(14) He does not regard

formations as self,
nor self as possessed of formations,
nor formations as in self,
nor self as in formations.

Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta
16 Doubts

He unwisely attends in this way:
(1) ‘Was I in the past?’
(2) ‘Was I not in the past?’
(3) ‘What was I in the past?’
(4) ‘How was I in the past?’
(5) ‘Having been what, did I become what in the past? [What was I before I became that in the past?]’
(6) ‘Will I be in the future?’
(7) ‘Am I not in the future?’
(8) ‘What will I be in the future?’
(9) ‘How will I be in the future?’
(10) ‘Having been what, will I become what in the future? [What now would lead me to that future
  state?]’”
Or else, right now he inwardly has doubts about the present, thus:
(11) ‘Am I?’
(12) ‘Am I not?’
(13) ‘What am I?’
(10) ‘Having been what, what will I become in the future? [What now would lead me to that
  future state?]’”
(11) ‘Am I?’
(12) ‘Am I not?’
(13) ‘What am I?’
(14) ‘How am I?’
(15) ‘Where has this being come from?’
(16) ‘Where will it [this being] go?’”

Sabb’āsava Sutta
I have quoted the Pali Suttas. I would believe the Āgama texts may have a similar parallel.

great answer, thanks, though i'd also like a mahayana one (if it's any different i mean)

@user3293056 - Mahayana denies the metaphysical reality of time and the 'I' that believes itself to be subject to it. Perhaps check-out 'Divine Instant' or 'Perennial Now'. The answer above seems to cover the Mahayana doctrine.    For the sage the only time is now.

I am not an expert in Mahayana. Perhaps you might be able to find the Agama parallel of the Suttas I mentioned in my answer from: https://suttacentral.net/

E.g. for Sabb’āsava Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/mn2; for Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta : https://suttacentral.net/mn131; I could not fine (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta in SC

See if any of these match: https://suttacentral.net/ea40.6/lzh/taisho, https://suttacentral.net/t31/lzh/taisho, https://suttacentral.net/ma10/lzh/taisho,

i always assumed that the agamas are incomplete truths in all mahayana buddhism?

There are the 108 craving verbalization which will answer good householders question.
It's how ever good to relate ones actions as own and that there will be a fruit of them in the future, so the path is not one of "not mine" or "mine" extremes, but both used at proper time.
Much urged always: DON'T Waste your short lasting time of a seldom human and blessed existence!
Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta is sure for good assistance and given for liberation.
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

this is fine, but reads more like advice than an answer!

What's the different householder and for what reason was it asked? Why does good householder read anything if not just for entertaining and amuse?

just to understand an idea!

And to understand, see for one self, is there an advice where and on what to look needed, good householder?

yes to conceive (you in) the past or future or present is the opposite of the result and so opposite of the practice, as it is said in the suttanipata.

“A purified conqueror whose coverings are removed, a master of things, gone beyond, without impulse,
  skilled in the knowledge of the cessation of conditioned things, he
  would properly wander in the world. (14)
“One who has overcome mental constructs about things past and future, having overcome, wise about purity, released from all the
  sense bases, he would properly wander in the world. (15)
“Having known the state, having penetrated the Dhamma, having seen clearly the abandoning of the influxes, with the utter
  destruction of all acquisitions, 116 he would properly wander in the
  world.” (16)

it is not good to be ''Concerned, too, with the future or the past''

Stuck in the cave, densely covered over, dwelling immersed in bewilderment, [152] a person such as this is far from seclusion, for
  in the world sensual pleasures are not easily abandoned. (1)
Based upon desire, bound to enjoyment of existence, they let go with difficulty, for there is no release through others. Concerned,
  too, with the future or the past, they hanker for these sensual
  pleasures or earlier ones. (2)

again here

“How does he see, how does he behave, the one who is said to be ‘peaceful’? When asked by me, O Gotama, describe the supreme person.”
  (1)
“Devoid of craving before the breakup,” (said the Blessed One), “not dependent on the past, not to be reckoned in the middle, for him
  there are no preferences. (2) [167]
“He is without anger, unafraid, not boastful, not regretful, of speaking with reflection, not restless: he is truly a muni controlled
  in speech. (3)
“He is without attachment to the future; he does not sorrow over the past. As a seer of seclusion in the midst of contacts, he is not
  led astray among views. (4)

For minds able to practise the Noble Path, the Buddha taught when the past is recollected, it is to be recollected as merely 'aggregates' ('khandha'). In other words, the self-becomings or adherences ('nivasa') of the past must be seen as delusions or ignorance from the past. This is the 1st Knowledge for Enlightened. The Buddha taught:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect
  their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it
  is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling
  whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi


text:
How to Proceed By Right Effort
I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort, which involves aspiring to what is skillful and abandoning what is unskillful.
Yet, I wonder:
How do practitioners proceed in terms of order or in terms of determining what to do next? How does one determine what is most important?
Thank you

Not just my own understanding, but a standard teaching is to approach things gradually, from coarse to subtle.
First, we have to stop creating major sources of trouble for ourselves. How do we do that? By following five precepts. Then, we stop creating medium-sized issues, by following the behavioral parts of the Eightfold Path. Then we stop creating subtler types of problems, by learning to control our emotions. Then, we get to subtle problems, by engaging in Samatha meditation to learn to stop compulsory thinking and inner dialog. Then, very subtle problems, by getting rid of egoistic perspectives. Then, ultrasubtle problems, by letting go of attachment to perfection and spirituality. Then extremely ultrasubtle problems, by practicing groundless suchness. These are just examples, you get the idea.
This is taught in many schools, and by many teachers. One thing at a time, by size, do the bigger stuff first. Stop creating large problems first.

The order is in the 3 fold training is

sila
samadhi
panna

Having said that dana proceeds sila. The 3 main merits are

dana
sila
bavana

Bavana incudes samadhi and panna.
So do,

dana
sila
samadhi
panna

This is a gradual training starting from simpler like dana to more advanced like panna. This is like building a house. What you want is a roof above your head (panna). Do do that one has to have walls to support (samadhi). Walls need to be on a strong foundation (Sila).
Right effect is to prevent unwholesome and develop wholesome my guarding the sense doors.
After right effort come right mindfulness. Order of practice is given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path. Namely, items 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2
The stating from panna is for the very intelligent out of the  4 types of people.

There's a non-Buddhist saying, "Put the big rocks in first".
I understood that to mean "duty first", i.e. don't neglect what it might be immoral or unwise to neglect.
There's a Zen story, Wash your bowl -- that I suppose is meant to be instructive. Or maybe Zen people will stereo-typically "sweep the floor" or something like that. Is that aspirational, perhaps you might want to reach a stage of simplicity (of other-duties-having-been-finished) in life that there is no more to do than to "sweep the floor"? Is that an aspect of "liberation"?
I don't know but I get the impression that life in a monastery is regulated, i.e. that there are rules about what to do when, and how (e.g. rules to follow if you're a monk newly-arrived in a monastery).

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.
Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.
Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).
As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.
As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.
So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.
Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.

I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort
Sure?
What next to do?
No next to do, homework fist, householder, just this and the rest comes by it's causes. Samadhi come by/on that cause. Understanding comes by/on that cause. If not perfect now, no change to progress:
Right effort:

1. "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."->

-> and back to 1.
And what is right view, metta?

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

Could one go on if still having debts?? No. If he runs away it's just a matter of time that he will be caught up again.
Only once the home-task has been done, one can leave the own made prison and progress. No ways to do such for one holding, bound on a house, stand.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
Temporary Influences on Meditation
I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality? Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?

The vinaya probably talks more about food. In the suttas the stock phrasing is ''moderation in eating'' is associated to good condition with minduflness, like that
https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html

"And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/bhojan.html

Householer, interested,
althought already knowing, heard and read often... => there is no way around, no short cut for "lazy".
Keeping 8 precepts, the Brahmacariya, is needed, otherwise meditation on lack of precepts, holding wrong views, would never arise, at least not for right liberation. Once Sila section, based on right view is complete, Samadhi comes alone by it's given causes.
To get possible some access to right view, practice of generosity of all kinds will be needed to train at first place as well.
What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?
unskillful things. See right effort.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality?

That depends on how much/little (blood) sugar you're starting with. Too low blood sugar levels is equally detrimental to meditation as excessive sugar intake can be.
A rule of thumb for determining what is too much is probably to stick to what's necessary for your body/concentration to function to an acceptable degree, but no more than that as it will bring you into sensory desire territory (kāma-taṇhā).
What fits your physiology best is probably a matter of trial-and-error.

What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?

Generally speaking, according to satipaṭṭhāna sutta the hinders to meditation are described as:

Sensory desire (kāmacchanda)
Ill-will (vyāpāda/byāpāda)
Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha)
Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Doubt (vicikicchā)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
The sutta also goes into detail on how to counter the hindrances. I personally find these advice for countering hindrances good starting pointers, but also a bit generic. Again, you might need to explore what counters fits you best, personally.
Also, this is a huge topic, since pretty much every aspect of the eightfold path contributes to preserving meditation quality, meaning that everything we do according to the eightfold path inbetween actual sessions of meditation is conducive to fruitful meditation practice, and vice versa.
Also, continuous meditation will strenghten itself as you go from coarse examination to finer insights. The message here is to be patient and compassionate about your struggle for elaborating concentration. Don't give up!


text:
Continuity With Meditation Practice
I have been practising compassion meditation somewhat consistently. I usually try to do so in the morning and in the evening. Somehow, I've come to view these two moments as 'ideal' in terms of meditation. But, when I skip a meditation session, I am afraid or unwilling to meditate outside of those morning and evening times.
Would it bring more benefit to just meditate whenever possible, independently of a routine schedule? I feel like meditating during the day (other than morning or evening) will maybe affect my schedule, making my evening meditation 'too much'.
In sum, is it profitable to meditate outside of schedule (or even disregard schedule) to compensate for skipped sessions?

I hate to sound too critical, because you appear to have a healthy meditation regime, so kudos for that. Having said that, adhering too strictly to a specific routine runs the risk of being silabbatupadana, i.e. clinging to a ritual for it's own sake.
Based on contemporary learning theory, more frequent meditation is likely more favorable for developing the dhyanas, over a strict routine, or having few session with longer duration, for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if the suttas reflects these findings.
To sum up: a scheduled routine helps, as well as meditating often, even when it's outside your regular routine.

adhering too strictly to a specific routine runs the risk of being silabbatupadana, i.e. clinging to a ritual for it's own sake., that's pleasing food for the defilements (i.e. especially laziness in the case here)... :-)

Particularly with Karuna/Compassion it is most beneficial to not only have formal meditation time devoted to it but to make it a living practice by checking in with how (and if) compassion is coming into play during your daily interactions. Looking for opportunities for compassion to arise in response to situations throughout the day is a powerful practice. Also learning to allow it to grow or expand in the moment that more of it is needed. This will boost your progress more than just adding to or adjusting sitting times.