text:
After the Buddha's enlightenment, did he receive any teachings?
There's not much background to this question. Did the Buddha ever receive a teaching after his enlightenment; a teaching that he accepted and made use of, either his own or another - or perhaps a teaching from another being other than a human.
Please provide sutta references.
I'm asking because of this term commonly found near or at the end of suttas: 'the job has been done, there is nothing more for this world'
Another way to put it: can one be independent of the teachings? If not, what situations would call forth the remembering and practising of the teachings for an enlightened mind?
Thanks
ADDITIONAL EDIT:
In my quest to answer this question I had found a sutta in which the Buddha had asked Venerable Mahacunda to give him a teaching on the enlightenment factors. You can read it here.
Also, the second part of the question  is answered here which references this sutta here.

The answer to this question -- Reference request for “the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior” -- might be a partial answer to the questions in the last paragraph above.

@ChrisW - yes, it partially answers the question, but I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching. It's very interesting to me! I'll update the question soon.

I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching

Consider this

Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks."
"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him.
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].' - AN 5:165

He whose victory cannot be undone,whose victory no one here approaches, the Buddha, whose range is endless,by what path can you lead the pathless one? - Dhp

The Buddha, being fully enlightened and fully liberated, does not really need any new teachings for spiritual liberation from anyone, for his benefit.
However, he may ask his arahant disciples to provide teachings or elaboration for the benefit of the unenlightened.
An example of this is SN 12.31. It ends with:

“Good, good, Sāriputta!... (the Buddha repeats here the entire statement
of the Venerable Sāriputta) ... it is in such a way that the meaning of
this, stated in brief, should be understood in detail.”

Please also see this answer. The Buddha denied complete omniscience. He could potentially know and understand all things, but not all at the same time. He only possesses the full knowledge and understanding of spiritual liberation.
With regards to other types of knowledge, for e.g. of science, the Buddha possesses the intellectual capacity to understand them. So, the Buddha can still receive teachings unrelated to spiritual liberation from others.

46.16 says he asked Venerable Mahacunda for a teaching on the enlightenment factors. If he did it once, he must have done it before. Have I misinterpreted that sutta? Is there another meaning to it?

@NeuroMax The Buddha wanted Ven. Mahacunda to recite or express his understanding of the enlightenment factors, and then the Buddha, his teacher, approved his recitation or understanding. The Buddha did not learn anything new from Ven. Mahacunda.

I think one can go further than "does not really need any new teachings for spiritual liberation from anyone" to does not need any teachings at all. He is a Buddha, perfect in behavior & traditions of the Noble One's, he knows everything a Buddha needs to know because he is one and his ranges are limitless. It is said that he even opened up heaven's & hell for all to see ... i think that if someone was to teach a Buddha then the universe wouldn't be able to live with itself, is my conviction.

@Buddhism Please see this answer. The Buddha denied complete omniscience. He could potentially know and understand all things, but not all at the same time. He only possesses the full knowledge and understanding of spiritual liberation. With regards to other types of knowledge, for e.g. of science, the Buddha possesses the intellectual capacity to understand them. So, the Buddha can still receive teachings unrelated to spiritual liberation from others.

You are making a mistake saying that knowing & seeing things simultaneously is the same as having a capacity to understand. Mn90: Great king, I recall making this statement: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”.  The Buddha can know & see all things heard, senses or cognized, he can also know the mind of another with his mind. Traditional Theravada holds that he can know anything he directs his mind to albeit not simultaneously. This notion of being capable to understand through instruction is kind of absurd.

The Blessed One said: “Monks, whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. - AN 4:58

@Buddhism What about MN 71? -  “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: “Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent him with an untruth? ...
“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”

@Buddhism Continuing MN 71 - ‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.”

I do not say that Buddha knows everything knowing & seeing everything without exception. There is a difference between "everything can be be known" and "everything is known without exception". Therefore i think your followup excerpts are irrelevant as i did not assert that he knows & sees everything without exception.

Perhaps give an example of what he doesn't know or can't know having directed the mind to it, how to seclude information from someone who can read minds.

Not that i enjoy pestering you with this but i want to say that i think i understand why you see it otherwise. I guess it is because "knowing all" can be taken to mean understanding the workings of the perception of other beings, 'understanding' as direct seeing for an 4:58, basically taking the sutta definition from sabba sutta and applying it here to 'knowing all'.

There is this passage as well;
“Sir, I’m well-known as a charioteer skilled in a chariot’s parts. All the parts are well-known to me. The answer just appears to me on the spot.”
“In the same way, when clever aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics come to see me with a question already planned, the answer just appears to me on the spot. Why is that? Because the Realized One has clearly comprehended the principle of the teachings, so that the answer just appears to him on the spot.” https://suttacentral.net/mn58/en/sujato i think that this applies to anything a person might plan

As i see it there is a lot of evidence for Buddha basically being able to answer any question that can be posed to him and that about anything a person can think of. One could explain away the evidence but at some point one has to produce counter evidence as well.

Lord Buddha didn't receive any teachings after his Enlightenment. He spoke with various philosophers, however, and they told him many interesting things, but that doesn't count as "receiving teachings".


text:
How does Buddhism deal with failure?
I've developed over the years an attachment to social media, which I've many, many times tried to break. I'm starting to suspect it is because there's no problems when things go well, but when I fail, I automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up.
For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure? Something that would allow one to cope with such discouragement? I feel many factors are involved.
Thank you

In case it matters,  wasn't sure I understood the second sentence -- but now I think it's saying, that the reason why you "try many times" (i.e. haven't succeeded finally) is that when you fail (to break your attachment) then you "automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up".

I guess I was trying to say that the blaming and discouragement and giving up is causing the failure. If I didn't blame myself, or get discouraged, I'd preserve my motivation and keep trying to abandon my attachment to social media.

Both Eterna's and asd123's answers are good advice. I will say though, with regards to asd123's advice, that although one should certainly embrace those feelings and not be afraid or angry or upset at them, don't indulge them and fall into a pit of self pity. Respect them but don't let them drown you.
Failure is natural, we all make mistakes, learn from them. Maybe it was good that you made this or that mistake, maybe it was a lesson that you needed to learn which will help you in the future. Maybe this failure now will lead to success in the future you otherwise wouldn't have. To quote Ajahn Brahm: "good, bad, who knows?".
I am not sure I understood your question correctly, but it seems you are also dealing with social media addiction? If you are relapsing, try to think about why that happens, get to know the rationalizations your mind offers. Think of reasons not to give in to them, and have those reasons on the tip of your tongue. Are you getting a lot of urges? Then sit for a bit and meditate, clear your mind, remember impermanence and suffering (as Eterna said).
Not sure if this last part is what you were looking for, maybe you could clarify your question? Are you saying that failure in other parts of life is causing you to relapse to your social media addiction, or is it the failure to stay away from social media that bothers you?

I guess what I meant has been addressed in the answers.  Judging myself for having failed intensifies my experience of failure. It causes me to get discouraged and to self-sabotage. There are many addictive behaviours that I experience which share the same pattern of failure and relapse.

For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure?

First of all, don't be too hard on yourself. We are all failures here in Samsara.
The Buddhist way to deal with this is to be mindful of the thoughts and feelings that arise. We use the Four Foundations of Mindfulness which encompass The Five Aggregates. They're the primary field of work when practicing Vipassana meditation.
Try to be mindful of the thoughts and feelings and you will come to see the Three Marks of Existence and (part of) Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
Most important thing is to do consistent meditation practice in order for the mind to see things clearly. When that happens the majority of our "problems" will subside.
May you have a fruitful practice.

Why would you want to cope with those feelings?  Feeling bad about failure is the whole point!  It makes you less likely to do it again.  Embrace those feelings.  They are a gift that will help lead you to further success.

I read of a modern experiment: two groups of children are given a task, and afterwards one is praised for how well/successfully they did it, and the other is praised for how much effort/attention they put into it. Then they're given another, more difficult task -- the children who were praised for their success would get discouraged and give up ("I can't succeed, so no point in trying"), and the children who were praised for their effort persevered.
Similarly it might be worth mentioning that Buddhism promotes "Right Effort".

According to the Vinaya, I think that most "failures" (to keep the rules) are considered "faults of confession" and so on -- i.e. a monk confesses the fault and then continues.

Another doctrine I learned of pre-school teachers, is that you should criticize or redirect bad behaviour, not condemn the child -- so you'd say, "You mustn't hit people when you're angry, use your words", and not say, "You're a bad boy (or bad girl)".
Similarly according to Buddhism it might help to not identify with failure -- say, "this is misbehaviour", not, "I am a failure", and not "this is my failure".

There's a sutta, AN 7.61 which lists about a dozen ways to overcome drowsiness, along the lines of, "Try this, maybe that'll work. And if that doesn't work? Then try this other method. (etc.)"
That reminds me of what medical doctors do, incidentally.
Another Buddhist doctrine is that things arise because of conditions -- so if you want to change what arises, perhaps change the conditions -- who you're with, where you are, and so on.
For example I avoid junk food by not buying it -- so it doesn't exist where I live, conditions don't exist for my being tempted by it. Perhaps to a similar effect, Buddhist doctrine recommends "seclusion". A social media web site might be harder to "cut off" if you have internet access at all for some reason, but you can (and I do) edit the computer's configuration so that it can't access certain web sites that I might otherwise use excessively (I do this by editing the "etc/hosts" file, you can also do it using "parental control" software).
Another useful technique might be substitution -- instead of trying to "eliminate" something harmful, try to replace it with something more beneficial.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours?
I noticed that for me, it is very difficult to cease certain behaviours, such as eating junk food for example. Does Buddhism suggest a benefit to delaying such behaviours to later in the day, as opposed to early on? Is there an inherent benefit in delay, or does it change nothing, given the behaviour will have occurred that day anyways?
Is delay a viable strategy for urges?

https://quitnow.ca/stay-quit/surviving-quit-day/tips-craving-and-withdrawal says, "Delay: Here is the big secret to beating cravings: they rarely last more than a few minutes" etc. (also, "Cravings and withdrawal are strongest during your first few days").

Delay is not a viable strategy.
Instead you should use a wholesome mental reflection, in the spirit of the following sutta quote:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

There is a sutta quote about moderation in eating:

“When a man is always mindful,
knowing moderation in eating,
his discomfort diminishes,
and he ages slowly, taking care of his life.”
SN 3.13

Perhaps your mental reflection can be along the lines of reflecting on what long term suffering will be brought on by consumption of junk food. You will be the owner and heir to the consequences of this action.

My friend,
What you're describing is the temporary suppression of sense desire, but if, during what you call the delay period, there is no kusala citta brought about by right concentration  - or an inclination towards dharma discovery - then your efforts would be a waste of time. That is entirely the point; to quell the sensate noise such that you can realise ever more subtle parts of the mind; regions of mind that will spur you forward with curiosity, motivation and newfound discoveries, and may just blow your mind to smithereens only to leave behind a glorified, unmovable wisdom that no single person can claim!

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is five-factored noble right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath
powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again
and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated,
moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not
drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body
with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of
his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from
withdrawal. This is the first development of the five-factored noble
right concentration.
Samadhanga Sutta

Delay is a viable strategy, so long as you capitalize upon the delay time with concentration and a wholesome mind. I wish you well.

Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours?

Delaying or suppressing unwholesome intentions/actions is not skillful or beneficial. It will only cause these phenomena to increase in size and intensity.
The Buddha's teaching is not meant to cause temporary release from suffering. It's meant to effect a lasting and permanent change, eventually leading to a total release from suffering.
Mindfulness meditation is the only way to go about this. Why is that?
Unskillful behavior stems from Ignorance (Avijjā) in the mind. The only way to dispel Ignorance is to gain clarity of mind through mindfulness meditation practice. The more clarity of mind the easier it is to see how harmful unwholesome actions are.
When the mind sees that clearly again and again, it will gradually begin to let go. The more the mind lets go of unskillful behavior the more freedom, peace and happiness arises.
That's the only way to become free from suffering permanently.

Of course it's beneficial..
Think about it a little, if you make peace with yourself resolng on moderation then you might just die or otherwise change before you ever do any bad thing.
It's a lot better than dying whilst doing the bad thing or to die having done the bad thing.
If you can moderate yourself it is to be praised and encouraged.
There is a canonical incident where a monk wanted to disrobe for a woman and was talked out of it as the Buddha promised him heavenly nymphs if he stayed in robes. This led up to the monk attaining Arahantship and The Buddha's promise with that being nulified, monk's name is Nanda.

Then the monks who were companions of Ven. Nanda went around
addressing him as they would a hired hand & a person who had been
bought: "Venerable Nanda, they say, has been hired. Venerable Nanda,
they say, has been bought.[1] He's leading the holy life for the sake
of nymphs. The Blessed One is his guarantor for getting 500
dove-footed nymphs."
Then Ven. Nanda — humiliated, ashamed, & disgusted that the monks who
were his companions were addressing him as they would a hired hand & a
person who had been bought — went to dwell alone, secluded, heedful,
ardent, & resolute. He in no long time entered & remained in the
supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from
home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself right in
the here-&-now. He knew, "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the
task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And
thus Ven. Nanda became another one of the arahants.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.02.than.html

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


text:
Is Buddhist insight non-conceptual?
For me, until recently, an insight was this: having been mindful of some phenomenon that I contemplated, I then have a spontaneous idea about that phenomenon. For example, I might be contemplating suffering and then get a cognitive insight, a thought, comprehending and summarizing suffering and its nature.
Is this what is meant by insight in Buddhism? I have been considering that maybe Buddhism means insight in an altogether different way. I know that in insight meditation, in vipassana, one examines specifically non-self, suffering and impermanence.
But:

Is there such a thing in Buddhism as general insight, that is an insight into any type of phenomenon?
And as I mentioned, is there in Buddhism some other type of insight than a conceptual thought, an insight that might require mere awareness without thought?

Question 1:
Many different Buddhist words are translated as "insight" or "enlightenment" (the latter being a terrible Victorian choice of word). The following list is by no means exhaustive:
Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". But the "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.'
A synonym for vipassanā is paccakkha "perceptible to the senses" (Pāli; Sanskrit: pratyakṣa), literally "before the eyes," which refers to direct experiential perception. Thus, the type of seeing denoted by vipassanā is that of direct perception, as opposed to knowledge derived from reasoning or argumentation.
Kenshō (見性) is a Japanese term from the Zen tradition. Ken means "seeing", shō means "nature, essence". It is usually translated as "seeing one's (true) nature", that is, the Buddha-nature or nature of mind. Kenshō is an initial insight or awakening, not full Buddhahood. It is to be followed by further training to deepen this insight, and learn to express it in daily life.
Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding" (thus: insight)
Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajñā and Buddhahood.
Bodhi (Sanskrit, Pāli), from the verbal root budd, "to awaken", "to understand", means literally "to have woken up and understood".
Prajñā : In Theravada Buddhism pannā (Pali) means "understanding", "wisdom", "insight". In Mahayana Buddhism Prajna (Sanskrit) means "insight" or "wisdom", and entails insight into sunyata. The attainment of this insight is often seen as the attainment of "enlightenment".
Wu (Chinese: 悟) is a concept of awareness, consciousness, or spiritual enlightenment borrowed from the Chinese folk religion.
Many of these terms have a gradual quality to them, implying that insight in most personal cases is a journey (like the Buddha's own journey). Even in Chan/Zen (often called the Sudden Teaching) the "sudden" refers to the insight "striking like lightning" after considerable time walking the path. This is perhaps best illustrated by the "Oxherding Pictures" detailing the stages of insight.
Question 2: yes, but this is generally not regarded as the end of practice. This is generally associated with the 9th step in the "Oxherding Pictures":

Reaching the Source
Too many steps have been taken
returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf
from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode,
unconcerned with and without -
The river flows tranquilly on
and the flowers are red

The final step is to learn to apply this insight in daily life (i.e. to conceptualize it) to help others. You can interpret this in two ways:
a) If this insight was purely non-conceptual, no sutras or books from Masters would exist to "point at the moon".
b) All writing and conceptualization is allegorical, i.e. "pointing to a reflection of the moon in a pond"


text:
Discrepancy between quality and consistency
In my meditation, I face a paradox. The quality of a single session of meditation is usually quite good for me. However, in terms of regularity across sessions, I struggle immensely, skipping sessions continuously. How can there arise such a discrepancy between a single meditation session's quality and my ability to be consistent? Are those reliant on different faculties? Is there a way to remedy this?

Sounds like a struggle that you aren't in control of that is impermanent. That is correct practice if you are practicing Satipathana.

Ignore the quality of your sits, at least for now.  That's largely irrelevant.  Consistency is far more important.  At this stage of the game, the most important thing for you do be doing is generating momentum in your practice.  You want to develop habit energy or, dare I say it, good karma.
The great way isn't about blissing out on the cushion.  It's about being a selfless, sweating mule resolutely putting one foot in front of the other as he climbs up the mountain.  Sometimes a cool breeze blows through, but for a long time it's just the humid lowland air, the bugs, and aching legs.  Don't judge your practice by how it makes you feel.  Instead, evaluate it according to your dedication.  After all, we can never really tell where we are on the path.  But we can evaluate our commitment to walking it.

Koan 17 of the Hekiganroku
Cutting through nails and breaking steel for the first time, one could
be called a Master of the First Principle. If you run away from arrows
and evade swords you will be a failure in Zen. The place where even a
needle cannot enter I’ll leave aside for a while, but when the foaming
billows wash the sky, what will you do with yourself then?
Case
A monk asked Kyorin, “What is the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from
the west?” “Sitting long and getting tired.”

If one manages to occasionally create a peaceful state that one can relax in & enjoy, then one might also on that account become content with that attainment & not exert more effort.
One might think things like: 'I am a good meditator because of this and it is easy for me" or "I now know how to do this and can relax a little". Otherwise one might get restless & overly excited which will make one lose one's intensity of judgement and be carried away on the currents of lustful intent. Otherwise one might start to worry about "when will i again enter into & abide in that awareness release" and further worry about it not working as you expect and becoming frustrated, taking a break and etc

you're fortunate to have the capacity for stable concentration but are unfortunate to have the habit of believing it will last and will always be available to return to.
extremely common result from being conditioned by a physicalist hedonist society.  the way to remedy is to study subtle impermanence so you can perceive your death clearly and function in accord with reality instead of just conditioning and appearances.


text:
If one is with firm good heart but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still approach better in samsara?
Edit 2: It is really hard to find a corresponding word to 功德 in English... Maybe I should abandon using the Sanskrit word guṇa... And consider 功德 and guṇa as "qualities that leads to better existence in samsara or liberation or buddhahood".

I am recently considering a question, and thus I found that I have difficulties understanding what is guṇa/功德.
The question is: If a person is with firm good heart (which may even be renunciation or bodhicitta), but unknowingly serves and follows unjust masters, does one still generate guṇa/功德? That is, approaching better existence in samsara or even liberation or buddhahood?
Note:
I have known that: a person with deep firm renunciation will eventually go further and further on liberation path and finally attain Arhat; a person with deep firm bodhicitta will eventually go further and further on bodhisattva path and finally attain Buddhahood.
But the question that I have difficulties with involves the concept of guṇa/功德. So I have spend days thinking about it but I still failed to reason out an answer.

Edit 1:
Here is the meaning of guṇa/功德 from < The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism >.

I am not sure what you mean by "firm with good heart".
In Buddha's time there were many people practicing asceticism, take for example naked ascetics, they practice asceticism but what is that good for?

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he
eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long
been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What
will be his future course?"[1]
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the
Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does
what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground.
That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will
be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say
'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore
answer you.

"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
to hell." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

I think there is another text i can't find where Buddha says that he looked far back and only saw one naked ascetic who had a favorable rebirth and that was due to him teaching the doctrine of cause & effect.
Therefore i think if one follows a doctrine thinking,
'by means of this training i will become a Buddha ir i will become Ariya, a Deva or have a favorable human rebirth, if one holds wrong views in regards to this and follows fake teachings then hell is the destination or animal womb.

Good householder,
guṇa means "simply" giving, better goodness. As goodness which leads toward liberation always starts with Sila (moral precepts), certain "goodness" which harms others (at the same time/way) wouldn't lead to freedom of remorse, debt-reduction, liberation...
Worldly guṇa is for the most kama-guna, which means "benefiting in regard of sensual gain", and as sensuality causes always others, or oneself, suffering, it's the lowerst kind of goodness if just giving means but harm others by it and it may force attachment to sensuality as well.
Dhamma-guna means giving, goodness, which leads toward liberation, actually for both, oneself and the receiver, if able to take. So maybe good householder is willing and able to take this simple guidance.
For more on guṇa, ggod here: guṇā គុណ - benefactor, string/bound
As for "unknowingly", it protects even in common laws not from punishments, so doesn't it in regard of effects. At least, not to forget, notknowing (avijja), ignorance, is the root cause of suffering and nobody would ever do bad if knowing: "He wouldn't do wrong, if knowing".

I am not sure what you mean by "firm with good heart".
In Buddha's time there were many people practicing asceticism, take for example naked ascetics, they practice asceticism but what is that good for?

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he
eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long
been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What
will be his future course?"[1]
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the
Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does
what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground.
That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will
be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say
'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore
answer you.

"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
to hell." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html

I think there is another text i can't find where Buddha says that he looked far back and only saw one naked ascetic who had a favorable rebirth and that was due to him teaching the doctrine of cause & effect.
Many Buddhist monks even go to hell, it's all about one's views and Buddha said in pali texts that there is no single thing worse than wrong views when it comes to going to hell.

One good heart is pure love and so pure it can be higher than what you think there's no two ways ONE HEART. that's what SOME people say CHOSEN ONE. They can fall get back up fall get back up fall get back up. For that reason it's because We had to go threw that to have life up and down just like your heart beat if there was no up and down there wouldn't be life.

Is this answer somehow related to Buddhism?


text:
What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him?

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?
MN 140

Also has:

Then the venerable Pukkusāti, having delighted and rejoiced in the
Blessed One’s words, rose from his seat, and after paying homage to
the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he departed in order to
search for a bowl and robes. Then, while the venerable Pukkusāti was
searching for a bowl and robes, a stray cow killed him.
Then a number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, and after paying
homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him: “Venerable sir,
the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed
One, has died. What is his destination? What is his future course?”
“Bhikkhus, the clansman Pukkusāti was wise. He practised in accordance
with the Dhamma and did not trouble me in the interpretation of the
Dhamma. With the destruction of the five lower fetters, the clansman
Pukkusāti has reappeared spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and will
attain final Nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.”

And we have this alternative translation of the relevant passage from Bhikkhu Sujato:

"But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.
Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”
“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him?

the Buddha never said: "Where has he been reborn in his next life?”

Yes, the emphasis was not meant to imply that he did. It was the who mendicants who asked this of the Buddha, and according to Bhikkhu Sujato the Buddha replied, "...he’s been reborn spontaneously..."

I'm marking this as pali and theravada as I'm only interested in the answers from these perspectives. Thanks.

The highlighted translation in the question of "Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo" as "Where has he been reborn in his next life?” appears questionable or dodgy. "Gati" can simply mean "progress" and "samparāyo" simply means "future" (per Iti 44). Therefore, the question could simply be "what was Pukkusāti's path progress after being instructed by the Buddha?" (rather than "what was Pukkusāti's progress after being killed by a cow?").
In MN 68, the Buddha explains why he declares the "upapattīsu" (noun; locative case) of disciples who have deceased and passed away. While "upapattīsu" is often translated as "rebirth"; it appears it cannot mean "rebirth" because an Arahant disciple that passes away cannot have a "rebirth" (such as in Ud 1.10). Most literally, "upapattīsu" means "proceeded to state". Refer to this answer.
"Opapātikā" does not mean "reborn spontaneously". It means "spontaneously arisen". "Opapātikā" may derive from ‘upapatti’ or, otherwise,
‘upapāta’, which is said can mean ‘unusual’ or ‘unexpected occurrence’.
When the mind enters the stream and particularly when it flows non-volitionally through various jhanas, which occurs to the non-returner, then meaning of 'spontaneously arisen' may be comprehended in its reality. The common insertion into translations of "Pure Abodes" appears to refer to the 4th jhana.
The suttas appear to say the opapātikā of a non-returner occurs in the here-&-now, as follows:

Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are
Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are
spontaneously arisen, who will realize complete nibbana (parinibbāyī) there and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.
MN 118
How is a person like a good horse with speed but not beauty or the
right proportions. With the destruction of five fetters, a bhikkhu
becomes one of spontaneous birth... This is his speed. But when asked
questions about Dhamma, he falters or does not answer. This is his
lack of beauty. Or he does not gain requisites (food, clothing,
shelter, medicine). This is his lack of right proportions.
AN 3.141

In addition, MN 12 says:

What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking
out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What
is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out
from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is
moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten
fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten porridge, in a cesspit, or in a
sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous
generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human
beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous
generation (opapātikā yoni). These are the four kinds of generation.
MN 12

Since MN 12 differentiates 'opapātikā' from womb birth and since people are born from a womb, obviously spontaneous generation as a gods, denizen of hell, certain human beings and in the lower worlds does not refer to physical birth but, instead, the birth of a psychological state.
As for the common non-returner translation (above) of "parinibbāyī" as "who will realize complete/final nibbana", this appears questionable to me. Refer to the 2nd answer to this question, below. In my opinion, 'parinibbāyī' here may simply refer to the 'complete extinguishment' of the five lower fetters, rendering the lower lower fetters incapable of ever arising again.
To add, the word "return" means to return to sensuality, as follows:

Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
One freed from the bond of sensual desire but still bound by the bond
of being is a non-returner, one who does not come back to this state
Iti 96

In conclusion, it appears possible the Buddha said nothing in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti after a cow killed him. Instead, it appears, in MN 140, the Buddha said non-returner happened to clansman Pukkusāti after the Buddha instructed him.

i finished my answer. It is unorthodox.

I decided to provide a second answer to this question because the definition of a non-returner has never been clear to me. I personally do not believe a non-returner attains Nibbana in a future life. Therefore, this second answer to the question, whilst unorthodox, is as follows:

Iti 96 says the word "return" means to return to sensuality, as follows:

Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
One freed from the bond of sensual desire but still bound by the bond
of being is a non-returner, one who does not come back to this state
Iti 96

The Arahant & Non-Returner are defined in the suttas (from MN 118) as follows:

For in this Saṅgha there are Arahant monks, who have ended the fermentations (khīṇāsavā), completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own goal, utterly ended the fetters of becoming and are rightly freed through perfect understanding (sammadaññā) .
In this Saṅgha there are monks who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are spontaneously arisen. They are extinguished there (parinibbāyī) and are not liable to return from that world.

Examining the above, I am skeptical "parinibbāyī" refers to final Nibbana because:

The monk has spontaneously arisen in "a world".

The monk is not "liable to return [to sensuality] from that world".

Nibbana cannot be attained in "a world" because Nibbana is the cessation of all "worlds" (SN 12.44) and "transcends all worlds" ("lokuttara").

"Parinibbāyī" does not necessarily mean a Nibbana without fuel because MN 37 uses the term "parinibbāyati" to refer to here & now Nibbana with fuel.

Also, AN 4.123-125 use the term the "parinibbāyati" in relation to the extinguishing of godly lifespans arising from jhana & metta.

MN 43 includes the 4th jhana as a liberation of mind (cetovimuttiyā); albeit not unshakeable (akuppā) thus not final Nibbana.

It follows I doubt "parinibbāyī" is referring to a future Final Nibbana but merely to some type of lesser "complete extinguishment" of only certain defilements; possibly referring to the final extinguishment of the five lower fetters; where the five lower fetter can never arise again.
Note: this answer is work in progress.


text:
Why did the Buddha not answer Vacchagotta (SN 44.10), but did answer the monks (MN 140)?
It has been said that the reason the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta:

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”
“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been
siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When
Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I
had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have
been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.
When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had
answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give
rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”
“No, sir.”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely,
if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’,
Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused,
thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”
SN 44.10

It's also been said that the Buddha did answer the question about what happened to Pukkusāti after a cow killed him even though it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha:

But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow
took his life.
Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was
advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been
reborn in his next life?”
“Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the
teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending
of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will
become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”
MN 140

This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but did answer the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

There is not much point asking questions that include questionable translations by Sujato. First, the phrase: Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as: "What is his destination? What is his future course?” may need to be investigated. For example, samparāyikā in Iti 44 cannot mean "future life". It means "future". Therefore, questions: 1. what is the difference between samparāyikā & samparāyo? and 2. what is the meaning in MN 140 of the word "gati" ("designation"), which as myriad meanings, such as simply "progress in understanding".

The questions are similar in that the existence of self appears to be discussed.
In Vacchagotta's question, a nonsensical demand about the question of existence of self is simply ignored as nonsense.
However, in the case of the monks, they are simply using the convention "he" as a proxy for "that aggregate known as Pukkusāti". And the question is about kamma, not self. The monks are not asserting Pukkusāti's literal existence any more than saying "what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?" Indeed, if the monks had asked "where has Vacchagotta been reborn in the next life?", the answer might not be so bright.  Vacchagotta's rebirth might be a bit like the plastics in the ocean. Not extinguished, entangled in notions of a self.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that while it is possible to have the view that a piece of toast is hypostatically existent when speaking, "what will happen to this piece of toast tomorrow?" that it isn't necessarily so? And had the Buddha thought the monks were speaking of Pukkusāti as hypostatically existent, he would have rebuked them or not answered them just like he did Vacchagotta? Does that match what you are saying? If so, then I think I can accept this answer! :)

Erm. I had to look up hypostasis. My goodness what a word. And my head hurts, but I think that, if we can agree that hypostatical existence is "this or that bag of bones or elements", then that is what Vacchagotta and Pukkusati and toast and Oyamist and Yeshe Tenley are.  Views of self are described as traps in DN1, The Prime Net. Vacchagotta is lost in The Prime Net asking the wrong question. The Buddha only teaches the Four Noble Truths about suffering.

NOTE: I've selected this particular definition for hypostasis per Merriam Webster: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid.  Hello fellow precipitate.

NOTE: Funny :) This is however what I had in mind: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostatize ie, to reify something as "real and actual" is to believe it has hypostatic existence.

I don't see the similarity
Vaccagotta asks whether there is a self or not and i assert that meaning is close to whether there is a soul-consciousness.
Bhikkhus ask where was Pukkusati reborn.
A person can be said to be reborn without there being an assertion of the persistence of consciousness.
Like knowledge is transferred from a teacher to student or how a family lineage is perpetually upheld without there being same anything transmigating from one to another but yet we say it is the same knowledge being transferred or same lineage being upheld.
So monks too can say that a being is reborn without making the redundant assertions because when one speaks of a being one speaks in terms of the doctrine of self, whether this doctrine is agreed upon as being a grasping with wrong view is what separates ariya from common people.
Imo it is most evident in questions Buddha would ask to have one pin down the existence of self.

Are the body/intellect/feelings/perceptions a self? No
Is the self without body/intellect/feelings/perceptions? No
Is the self in, apart from or is the body/intellect/feelings/perception taken together? No

So, one asserts the terms of the doctrine but it does not align with inferable elements and is therefore a lie basically or a grasping with wrong view of some sort.
When it comes to inferable elements this is the very basis for the doctrine of dependent origination.
In it's most basic form there is a discussion or pondering about "something" because there is a pondering and it has an object and the object's particulars which can be agreed upon due to inference and demonstration.
It can agreed upon that there is seeing, smelling, hearing, feeling, tasting & thinking and it can be agreed upon that these depend on certain requisite conditions.
Seeing depends on the eye, when there is no eye there is no seeing.
Seeing depends on the visible form, when there is no lights forms do not become visible.
Seeing depends on the eye-consciousness, an unconscious person doesn't see even if there is an eye & light by which forms are made visible.
We know even from QM physics or philosophical paradoxes that the eye in no way persists over time so why would one assume this about consciousness.
Yet one can speak about an eye persisting or a person getting a new eye without any issues and likewise it is in the texts.

There are some on this forum with idiosyncratic views of anatta and rebirth and how they are to be understood. I say idiosyncratic because they do not seem to be widely shared among the Buddhist traditions from what I can tell. In particular, they hold that speaking of the self in this life - when it is merely for conventional communication - is fine and not in contradiction to anatman, but speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly verboten as always contradicting anatman.

They believe that Vacchagotta was contradicting anatman by speaking of the self in this life (not out of mere convention, but rather believing in the hypostatic existence of the self) while the monks were contradicting anatman by speaking of the future self of Pukkusati in a future life after he died which always presupposes hypostatic existence.

It is the view of hypostatic existence that they believe is what contradicts anatman. In this, I am in agreement.

However, I do not understand why they insist that all discussions of future or past lives necessarily entails the presupposition of hypostatic existence. In short, why is it that hypostatic existence is only sometimes the basis for discussions in this life, but always the basis for discussions about past or future lives. Why do they hold so dearly that the Buddha could not be speaking of future lives in the very same conventional manner that the Buddha often used the word "I" to refer to himself in his present life... merely as a means of communicating the truth to worldly beings.

This question is for those people. If you do not believe that this is the case or hold to this idiosyncratic idea, then this question is not for you. I hope this clarifies the intent of the OP.

I will open a question pointedly about the above to let others weigh in who do not necessarily agree with the viewpoint articulated above. That seems a decent compromise.

Yeshe. Have you considered joining a forum such as Dhammawheel or Buddhism Without Boundaries so you can discuss these matters in depth? This said, my answer above is a correct answer.

thing about the doctrine of self is that even tho it is a lie, we are living the lie and grasp what is conceived & perceived as the lie even tho it's perception & conception is technically entirely impersonal, it's just nature. It is not a mere convention, the element of delusion is real and plays a part, it is the basis and is necessary to make sense of the delusion as one would try to understand the delusion of a mental patient this samsara can only be explained in terms of the doctrine of self adherence to which sustains the becoming as perpetual genesis.

In MN 140, the monks asked the question: "Tassa kā gati, ko abhisamparāyo". There is an exact sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya, namely, MN 68, which ends with the Buddha explaining why he answers this very question. MN 68 says, per Horner translation:

The Tathāgata, Anuruddha, does not have the purpose of defrauding
people nor the purpose of cajoling people nor the purpose of gains,
honour, fame and material advantages, nor the thought: ‘Let people
know me thus’ when he explains the uprising (upapattīsu; noun; locative case) in which are disciples who
have deceased and passed away, saying: ‘Such and such a one has
uprisen (uapanno; verb; past participle) in one, such a one has uprisen (upapanno) in another.’ But there are,
Anuruddha, young men of family who have faith and are of great
enthusiasm, of great joyousness, and who, having heard this, focus
their minds on suchness. Anuruddha, this will be for their weal and
happiness for a long time.

In summary, the question by the monks is answered for the sake of explaining the Path progress of the deceased for the purpose of generating faith in the community. The question is not answered for the purpose of generating belief in reincarnation or self.
Where as Vacchagotta was a befuddled wanderer and his question was not related to any aspect of the Path.
END of ANSWER

Note: Ven. Sujato translates MN 68 as:

"What advantage does the Realized One see in declaring the rebirth of
his disciples who have passed away:
kaṁ atthavasaṁ sampassamāno tathāgato sāvake abbhatīte kālaṅkate
upapattīsu byākaroti:

Bhikkhu Bodhi translates "upapattīsu" here as "reappearance".
The above appears more evidence supporting the assertion of Ven. Yuttadhammo on BSE and also DD there is no Pali word that means "rebirth" because when the Buddha declares a deceased disciple is an Arahant obviously this is not a declaration of a "rebirth" or "reappearance" because Arahants are not subject to any "rebirth" or "reappearance".


text:
Why is speaking about the conventional self in this life ok, but speaking about the conventional self in past and future lives forbidden?
It is widely understood across all Buddhist traditions that the Buddha often spoke of persons and used words like 'I' and 'person' and 'self' and this is not seen as problematic or contradictory to the doctrine of anatman.
Just as it is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

It is also self-evident that the Buddha would associate a proper name with individual beings and use this name conventionally over time to identify specific individuals. This is also not controversial for any Buddhist tradition that I'm aware.
However, there were times when "the self" was discussed in such a way that the Buddha would not answer such as the famous case of Vacchagotta. It is widely understood that the Buddha found Vacchagotta's questions or mindset about those questions as problematic. Specifically, he held that Vacchagotta was confused or had some invalid presuppositions about the self that directly violated or contradicted the doctrine of anatman.
Vacchagotta held to the notion that the self necessarily was real and actual and the Buddha understood that Vacchagotta was incapable of understanding the truth so he was silent.
There are some on this forum who hold that speaking of the self in this life - when it is merely for conventional communication - is fine and not in contradiction to anatman, but speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly forbidden as always contradicting anatman and necessarily presupposing the self to be real and actual.
Why insist that all discussions of future or past lives necessarily entails the presupposition of real and actual existence? In short, why is it that real and actual existence is only sometimes the basis for discussions in this life, but always the basis for discussions about past or future lives? Why do some hold so dearly that the Buddha could not be speaking of future lives in the very same conventional manner that the Buddha often used the word "I" to refer to himself in his present life... merely as a means of communicating the truth to worldly beings?
Why is it that some believe we can speak faultlessly of persons in this life and identifying them across various points in time in this life, but we are foreclosed of speaking faultlessly of persons in next lives or in past lives?
Consider the Yamaka Sutta:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do
you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling,
without perception, without volitional formations, without
consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
SN 22.85

From this we can draw four conclusions:

It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as possessing or consisting of the aggregates taken together as real and actual

It is not appropriate to regard the Tathagata as not-possessing the aggregates or without them taken together as real and actual

The Tathagata is not to be regarded as real and actual

This is true both for future lives (the focus of Yamaka's question) as well as the present life

If this is so, then it was entirely appropriate to refer to the Tathagata as existing in his present life, but not to do so with the presupposition that the Tathagata was 'real and actual', right? It was faultless to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally, right?
If this is so, then why is it a fault to refer to the Tathagata as merely existing conventionally in a future life? Indeed, Yamaka was rebuked for denying this very thing, right?!
With this question I'm interested in the perspective and answers from all the Buddhist traditions.
NOTE: Some may see an apparent contradiction between SN 5.10 and SN 22.85 but it is cleared up by understanding the difference between 'convention' and 'real and actual'

This question is inspired from discussion about this answer to another question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/45064/13375

Did you notice how "do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” of Yamaka Sutta contradicts the chariot metaphor of SN 5.10?

I think it is a useful contradiction - thanks for pointing it out! - but I don't perceive a true contradiction: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49556/is-there-a-true-contradiction-between-sn-5-10-and-sn-22-85

I must read the entire question later. However, to answer the title of the question: the Pali suttas have a number of examples of speaking about the 'conventional self' in past and future lives (eg. MN 81, MN 123 and MN 143).
Personally, I regard all of this as "fake dhamma" composed under the ambitions of King Ashoka, when probably the Jataka, Buddhavamsa and Apadana (which are all about literal past lives) were composed. For example:

MN 81 (which says "I was" in a past life) contradicts SN 22.79 (which says any recollect of the past is not-self and mere aggregates).
MN 81 includes the phrase 'ahaṃ tena samayena') found numerously in the later day Buddhavamsa.
MN 123 (where a new born infant says "I am") contradicts MN 64 (which says a new born infant cannot have "identity").
MN 143 contradicts other suttas that say Anathapindikovada was a stream-enterer. If Anathapindikovada was a stream-enterer, he obviously understood the dhamma of non-attachment spoken in MN 143, which MN 143 says Anathapindikovada never heard before.

It is both from chronological point of view and as a class of poetical
composition, [that] the Pali Apadāna ranks with the Buddhavaṁsa and
Cariyāpiṭaka. According to the traditional enumeration of the Buddhist
canonical texts, these are reckoned as the last three works of the
Khuddaka Nikāya. Even from the doctrinal point of view the three works
together show the Mahāyāna [OMG!] Buddhism in the making.
Buddhakhetta and Buddhāpadāna by Mr. Dwijendralal Barua, M.A

Hmm, I'll let you take your time, but are you saying MN 140 is also likely "fake dhamma" in your view? I also fail to see how MN 81 contradicts SN 22.79...

SN 22.79. is properly translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, here: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi. It does not use the word "lives". The Pali nivasa does not mean "lives". SN 22.79 says the past is mere aggregates and not self. Therefore, cannot be "my past", as MN 81 says.

I don't understand how you think it is contradictory? Do you think the Buddha was incapable of remembering his past as Gotama after he sat under the tree and became enlightened? Was he not able to say "my past" as Gotama faultlessly?

This is a lot to take in and i've tried to read as carefully as i can.
As i understand it, when you say hypostatic you mean something close to 'a background element which is instrumental to knowledge & vision or simply something upon which a person's experience inherently depends, as a soul, an invisible personal element apart from this worldly phenomena, it is transcendental to the world & nature itself.
I don't understand why you assume this;

speaking of the self in other lives in the same continuity is strictly forbidden as always contradicting anatman and necessarily presupposing hypostatic existence.

Isn't this what the Bhikkhus did when speaking of Pukkusati being reborn? Were they not there speaking about a being in a future existence by the name of a previous birthname and were not censored for this? This happens more in the Sutta;

'Venerable sir, Anathapindika the householder is diseased, in pain, severely ill.
...'It would be good if Ven. Sariputta would visit Anathapindika's
home, out of sympathy for him.'" ...[so they visit him]... Then Ven.
Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to
Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and
reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in
the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the
entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
bowed down to him and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he
addressed the Blessed One with this verse:
This blessed Jeta's Grove, home to the community of seers, where there
dwells the Dhamma King:   the source of rapture for me.
Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities,[1]  virtue, the highest
[way of] life:    through this are mortals purified,  not through clan
or wealth.
Thus the wise, seeing their own benefit, investigating the Dhamma
appropriately, should purify themselves right there.
As for Sariputta:     any monk who has gone beyond,   at best can only
equal him     in discernment, virtue, & calm. That is what Anathapindika
the deva's son said. The Teacher approved. Then Anathapindika the
deva's son, [knowing,] "The Teacher has approved of me," bowed down to
him, circled him three times, keeping him to his right, and then
disappeared right there.
Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks:
"Last night, monks, a certain deva's son in the far extreme of the
night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove,
came to me and, on arrival, bowed down to me and stood to one side. As
he was standing there, he addressed me with this verse:
This blessed Jeta's Grove, home to the community of seers, where there
dwells the Dhamma King:   the source of rapture for me.
Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities, virtue, the highest [way
of] life:     through this are mortals purified,  not through clan or
wealth.
Thus the wise, seeing their own benefit, investigating the Dhamma
appropriately, should purify themselves right there.
As for Sariputta:     any monk who has gone beyond,   at best can only
equal him     in discernment, virtue, & calm. "That is what the deva's
son said. And [thinking], 'The Teacher has approved of me,' he bowed
down to me, circled me three times, and then disappeared right there."
When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that
must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the
householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."
"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced
what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the
deva's son, and no one else." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html

I think think is close as they refer to a certain 'Deva's son' as Anathapindika. Maybe you can clarify the controversy for me and tell whether i am close with hypostatic meaning.

Don’t dwell too much on the words “hypostatic existence” other than to say it’s meaning generality is the same as what you might call “inherent existence” or “intrinsic existence” or “real genuine existence” such as referenced in the Yamaka sutta.

As for “Isn't this what the Bhikkhus did when speaking of Pukkusati being reborn? Were they not there speaking about a being in a future existence by the name of a previous birthname and were not censored for this?” ...  No, I don’t think that is what they did and I do not read the sutta as the Buddha rebuking them in any way at all. Rather, he answered their straightforward question with a straightforward answer that also did the same. The Buddha correctly answered about what happened to Pukasatti after he was killed by a cow.

I will try to amend the question to provide more clarity...

yeah, I don't think this question is meant for you as you don't ascribe to the controversy. i'd rather it answered by those who genuinely believe conventional rebirth can not be faultlessly spoken of.

Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
The detailed explanation based on suttas for this, can be found in this answer.

The problem with this answer is that it discards too much. While your long answer does indeed refute 'real and actual' rebirth it cannot be used to refute merely conventional rebirth. The same logic you use in your long answer that you link refers to 'there is no this world' and so on. If you use it to refute conventional rebirth then you can also use it to refute the conventional self in this life.

BTW, you also implicitly suggest in your long answer that kamma is also merely an 'upaya'. The suttas you mention also talk about kamma being active in this life. So if you use that logic to refute conventional kamma applying in the next life it can also be used to refute conventional kamma from pertaining in this life. Is that what you wish? Is it not conventionally true that we can experience the fruits of our actions in this very life?

@YesheTenley "I am the heir of my kamma. The kamma I generate results in my future consequences including future rebirth state" is the upaya. Please also see old kamma and new kamma from SN 35.146. Old kamma comes from volition and it's meant to be felt. New kamma is done now but who caused the old kamma, is not mentioned.

How do you answer to the charge that you're refuting too much? Do you see that the logic you are using to refute 'real and actual' rebirth (which is correct) can also be used to refute 'real and actual' self (which is correct) but that if you use it to refute conventional rebirth (incorrect) you can also use it to refute conventional self (clearly incorrect)?

Look at the suttas you use in your long answer and in each case where they deny either the self or rebirth see if they are refuting 'real and actual' or 'conventional' or if you think you can find one that is refuting both. I claim that in each sutta what is being refuted is 'real and actual'

@YesheTenley Another one is SN 12.17. What you experience as suffering is neither caused by you nor another. Instead, it is explained by dependent origination.

Please address the context of the questions: the difference between 'real and actual' and 'conventional'. We know that it is faultless to talk about the merely conventional self. We know that it is a major fault to deny the merely conventional self. There is not a single sutta anyone can find that denies the conventional self. Agreed?
Why then do you use suttas that deny the 'real and actual' self to deny both 'real and actual' rebirth (correct) and conventional rebirth (incorrect)?
The same is true for kamma. Are you here saying that an enlightened one can deny conventional kamma??

@YesheTenley I would say that if one holds self-view, then conventional rebirth would be true. For one without self-view i.e. a stream enterer, any next-life rebirth is not sensible as that is an extension of self-view.

Do you also say that if one holds self-view, then conventional self would be true. For one without self-view i.e. a stream enterer, any this life next moment is not sensible as that is an extension of self-view??

It seems to me your logic says that conventional self, conventional rebirth, conventional kamma are all fine for one with right view with effluents, but that for one with right view with NO effluents that conventional self, conventional rebirth, conventional kamma are all denied. But that goes too far as conventional self is not to be discarded. To deny the conventional self is nihilism/annihilationism -> 'There is no this world, there is no next world'

@YesheTenley Without self view, the next life moments are only explained as momentary rebirths based on dependent origination, strung together by craving. Although self-view is overcome, conceit or self-habit continues. Please see Khemaka Sutta for that.

For one without self view are those 'momentary rebirths based on dependent origination' real and actual or merely conventional?

For one without self view when they look at someone else still tainted by the effluents do they deny the conventional rebirth of that person in the next life?

Regardless, you're not addressing the crux: your logic denying conventional rebirth is also used to deny the conventional self which we know is a major fault. That should tell you to not trust it and go back and look.


text:
Timeframe of meditation's relaxing effect
I'd like to meditate on the breath to calm myself and diminish stress. Yet, when I meditate on the breath, I typically feel more stressed afterwards.
How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects? How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

Can you be more descriptive about your practice? The phrase 'meditate on the breath' can point at a number of different practices, not all of which are (or are meant to be) relaxing.

If one just focuses on the feelings & sensations of the breathing, the feeling of air flowing in & out as you draw in & out, if one wants one can be thinking about the breathing if it helps to cut off distracting thinking, then one creates a bit of distance from compulsive thinking and it relaxes due to not be given attention, out of sight - out of mind.
First gross themes of thinking associated with sensuality, anger, worry, doubt, lust, thoughts about past & future and general disturbance cease before thinking is calmed altogether.
Breathing get's progressively stilled in the process in as far as the perception of breathing goes.
I guess it will take a while to start calming down, 3-15 minutes and 15-45+ minutes for breathing to become very subtle to the point where it's shallow & rare at which point one is quite secluded from unwholesome tendencies.
If one is doing walking meditation beforehand or is otherwise in a good mood one might not need any long time to attain deep samadhi as the mind is already secluded and saturated with joy & ease and at that point this is an opening and mind will direct itself based on it's inclination to a further settling in & enjoyment and one might then experience what people would consider mystical deep meditations of various kinds.
Sometimes focusing on breathing is not effective in cutting off distracting thinking and one might need to try other things to eliminate those such as directing the mind to a different theme associated with development of good qualities, examining the fault of the distracting thoughts & etc

When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

One should examine one's mind before sitting down and resolving on developing perception of breathing and see if it is suitable. Sometimes the theme of tranquility and concentration isn't appropriate as it won't rouse a  sluggish mind.
Therefore one should also pay attention to one's themes of thought and not just ignore thinking altogether which is appropriate sometimes but ineffective otherwise.
In example if one is lazy & sluggish then you can sit for an hour and it will be close to taking a nap. One would here be better served spending 3-5 minutes on stirring up energy somehow and then doing anapanasati when one's energy is aroused. Same thing with lustful thoughts, the mind is simply too inflamed to focus on a bodily sensation and can be more effectively calmed by giving attention to the theme of eg unattractiveness, danger or another countering theme.
In terms of general quality of life effects, these should be immediate & proportional to the work you put in as the peace you set yourself up to experience by living disciplined & practicing mental hygiene should translate directly to more joy & happiness, if it doesn't then one wouldn't be doing it.

Yes. It does take time. Sariputta stresses this in DN34:

DN34:1.2.20: What one thing is hard to comprehend?
DN34:1.2.21: The heart’s immersion of immediate result.

I also want to add a crucial point. When there is such level of calm & distance from unwholesome themes that evil & unskillful thoughts do not come to mind. At this very point this is already a full opening and mind can go even to absorption based on the cessation principle if that is it's inclination. To make it it's inclination one must ponder the skillful themes a lot because what one gives a lot of attention becomes the inclination.

Assumimg good technique, in order to get a relaxation response, you're looking at about 15 to 25 minutes.  Once you pass that, you're meditation session can be said to truly begin.  This can be relaxing, but it also can bring up psychological and other unaddressed issues as the flurry of your day in no longer keeping them suppressed.  Sometimes, meditators can find that they feel more stressed after a session than when they began.  And once the energy starts to rise?  Well, let's just say there's a reason I recommend against long sits before bed!

How long should I practice this technique before seeing effects?

It's not really possible to say due to beings having different past kammas. Looking for results is a hindrance in and off itself.
Just try to practice 5-15 minutes in the morning and/or evening everyday, make a great effort to keep the 5 Precepts and if you practice Samatha meditation, try to find a quiet place to practice (at least in the beginning).
If you do that systematically and consistently, then at some point you will begin to experience the fruits of the practice. At that point you could increase your sitting time to 30-60 minutes - whatever you're comfortable with.

How can I tell if it actually relaxes me?

The mind and body will begin to relax meaning fewer thoughts and longer between thoughts, bodily pains, tensions etc. starts to loosen and disappear. If you practice correctly then at some point the Nimitta will begin to arise (it grants access to the Jhanas).
My advice is to not worry about all that now. Just start doing a little bit of consistent meditation practice every morning and evening.
Oh and lastly, it's always great to find a teacher that can guide one on the Path.


text:
Open-monitoring meditation versus doing nothing
In psychology, there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment. I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations.
Is it necessary to have some experienced with focused attention in order to practice more objectless meditations? Is there a big difference between sitting on the cushion doing nothing, and practicing an open type of meditation? How is the concentration required?

I think you're misunderstanding the word "concentration" as it applies to meditation.  This is very, very common and I can imagine that it's wrecked the practice of thousands of people.  I want you to think about holding a piece a paper up against the wall with your finger.  How much pressure does it take to hold it there?  If you applied the energy most meditators try to foist on their meditative objects, all the blood would drain out of your finger due to the pressure being exerted.  You'll also quickly grow tired and maybe end up hurting yourself.  In actuality, of course, it takes almost no effort to hold that piece of paper in place.  All you have to do is keep your finger on a single spot, gently apply it, and keep a very minimal amount of sustained pressure.
Single pointedness, applied, sustained.  Sound familiar?
So what am I bringing this up?  These supposed "open" meditations that you are talking about follow the same formula.  Even "doing nothing" on the cushion works the same way.  I'm sure you've read about shikantaza meditation or the art of "just sitting".  Let me be the first to tell you that "just sitting" is anything but.  Rather than get into the intricacies of the practice, however, let's just say for now that act of not moving satisfies the criteria of single pointedness, applied thought, and sustained thought (and if you don't believe me, sit in one place, utterly still, for 30 minutes).  As we pin down our bodies according to those restrictions, only then can we really "notice" the distractions and other phenomena that arise.  We have to establish a stable seat in order to appreciate those things that would try to move us.
So those open meditations?  They aren't really as open-ended as you might think.  They only really work provided that we've first "set up our seat" so to speak and have achieved stability of mind (not, as most people think, a laser-like, "concentrated" mind).  If you just plop down on the cushion and start noting what comes up, you'll quickly start following your mind down all sorts of rabbit holes.  Worse still, you'll have no place to return to for when you do wander.  What comes up in meditation is actually pretty meaningless.  The coming back to rest on that single place is what really matters.

So from what you're saying, I feel it would be more difficult to meditate while walking, especially without an object?

It's difficult to meditate while breathing!  So yes.  Don't get me wrong, you can lightly meditate in just about any posture, but if you're looking for deep, productive sits, the less movement, the better.  As your practice progresses, even the slightest movement of a finger will feel like a truck driven through a dynamite factory.

when one does nothing, one is still hearing, feeling, thinking, remembering and etc, these are all perception developments because you are growing & are not unconscious. When walking it suffices to just walk attentively from a to be, noticing beginning and the end of things you experience. One needs not think 'i am walking' if you are not oblivious to your walking, think of walking in public and there suddenly appearing a person you are about to shoulder-bump into, you need not think about what's going on because you are mindful and therefore you snapturn as if it's eye coordinated reflex.

It may help to think about the walking or wholesome things as you are walking but thinking is not walking. So if you are developing the perception of breath you stick to the perception of breath as much as possible, not the perception of thinking about the breath, that is a different development of defining elements; likewise when walking try to focus on the feeling of posture and general disposition of the body and the sensations associated with motion element.

walking is defined in the sutta as a posture, therefore that is what primary object should be grasped as.

that's actually the inferable orthodox theravada definition of walking meditation, namely the mindfulness of walking, as the opposite of obliviousness to having assumed the walking posture. They define mindfulness as the opposite of obliviousness in the Abhidhamma.

Short: since good householder wouldn't not do anything (which would be already ending of Kamma, Nibbana) it's most required to monitor all the way, especially in regard of skillful and unskillful deeds. But good to start right by the practice of Sila and Dana first, to get the raw stuff (deeds by word, body) known and abound. The rest comes by it's "own" (given causes).

there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment

I think in Sutta terminology this would be close to concentration development leading to mindfulness & alertness.

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

but

I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations.

Thus have i heard;

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry:
mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or
non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of[1] his
master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out
for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that
curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master
likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet
curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today
my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty
curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty
curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or
gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful
cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced,
unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent,
alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to
the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his
mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not
abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused
on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental
qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting
aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus
focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not
become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not
take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a
pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is
that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not
take note of his own mind.[4]
"Now suppose that there is a wise, experienced, skillful cook who has
presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry:
mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or
non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He takes note of his master,
thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for
that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry or he praises that curry.
Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes
mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry...
alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master
likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he
takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a
result, he is rewarded with clothing, wages, & gifts. Why is that?
Because the wise, experienced, skillful cook picks up on the theme of
his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful
monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... feelings in & of
themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of
themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental
qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his
defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result, he
is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with
mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced,
skillful monk picks up on the theme of his own mind." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html

open monitoring would be closer to meditation of the unskillful monk


text:
Is the space between thoughts an indicator of meditative calmness?
In this answer, it is suggested that space between thoughts, less discursive mental activity, is related to relaxation and concentration. I know it is not advised to judge one's inner experience too much during meditation, and that inhibiting thoughts intentionally is not recommended, but would it be right to say that a period wherein thoughts are more infrequent signifies a calmer mind? Does the diminution of thoughts correlate with calmness?

I was thinking about OP today and i figured it might be worth adding that OP is not wrong in not judging thoughts & ignoring. It seems you only read part of the Sutta and missed the rest..

I know it is not advised to judge one's inner experience too much during meditation

Sutta

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful...
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

OP

and that inhibiting thoughts intentionally is not recommended

Sutta says that sometimes it's appropriate to be without attention to thoughts but at other times one should investigate & direct thinking to abandoning.

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside.
Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it...
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking quickly? Why don't I walk slowly?' So he walks slowly. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking slowly? Why don't I stand?' So he stands. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one.

OP

would it be right to say that a period wherein thoughts are more infrequent signifies a calmer mind? Does the diminution of thoughts correlate with calmness?

In general yes, if you can still thought it's closer to the stilling of applied & sustained thought/ideation.
Another metric by which one can judge one's ability to concentrate is the strength of one's ability to apply the mind to a theme and keeping it connected without disturbance, this can be thinking about a particular theme without disturbance. This can be a contemplation subject or memorization even.
I think using both metrics is more reliable measure of own's abilities because everybody can keep their mind more or less still and one might fool oneself into thinking it's amazing when it's modicum at best.

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning.

If one didn't develop abandoning then one wouldn't abandon...if one didn't perceive abandoning... if one didn't conceive abandoning... if one didn't feel abandoning... didn't cognize abandoning... didn't experience abandoning then one wouldn't come to having abandoned.
Thoughts are like breath they get more subtle and rare, is perhaps as simple as i can put it.

Subtle and rare - like wispy clouds.  That's exactly it.  If I had an account, I'd +1!

Sutta AN9.41 provides a broad overview of immersive progression.  In the suttas thoughts are included in senses, so we have six senses rather than the contemporary understanding of five sense. Your "gap between thoughts" might therefore be understood as relatable to "secluded from sensual pleasures".

AN9.41:7.15: And so, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Your word "calmness" touches on many other terms used in AN9.41. For example, "rapture and bliss" in the above. However, "calmness" is also an attribute of "equanimity", which occurs later in the sutta:

AN9.41:9.2: ‘Why don’t I, with the fading away of rapture, enter and remain in the third absorption, where I will meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, “Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss”?’

It might be helpful to read the sutta carefully to explore the deeper meaning in each of the carefully chosen terms. Day-to-day language doesn't quite express the subtleties involved.

When we begin to meditate, we think about our breath and so become more calm. But the aim is for the calmness, and the deep and regular breathing, to come not from 'outside' imposed by attention, but from 'inside', leading the breath rather than following it. Like a mood or an attitude, of serenity & equanimity. I would say just as breathing naturally slows then, thoughts also slow.
In samatha meditation, it's not truly 'thoughtless' intervals that it is about, but meditative absorption. This can be focused on the sensation of breath on the tip of the nose, a candle flame, the bodies energy centre just below the navel, or other objects or sensations. See the Nine Mental Abidings for an example of how to understand progress in this.
With this same kind of absorption, vipassana meditation can be applied the deep matters of Buddhism like suffering and dependent origination, reflecting on them as they relate to our own lives. In ways that allows deep insights into our own nature to rise up, once we no longer rush to 'grab' extraneous thoughts and so get distracted.
I would caution against just equating lack of internal monologue with meditative progress. Some people just naturally have little or no internal monologue, and I can tell you they don't find meditation easier!

the space between thoughts is a technical term used in yogachara and madhyamika it doesnt refer simply to the stopping of thoughts which happens at the end of the 4th of the 9 stages of shamata (aka access concentration,  and which by the end of the 8th results in being able to sustain vivid extended uninterrupted attention on the spacious luminous nonconceptuality that is the mind ie. an ongoing observation of a lack of thoughts)
with good instructions it should not take longer than 2 or 3 months to fully stop thoughts arising and pulling u off ur chosen object of single-pointed fixation (aka end of stage4).  quite a while before this happens ur enemy already is not fully formed thoughts arising and pulling u off ur object but rather the beginning processes that eventually lead to full thoughts arising--these are the subtle and brief interruptions arising and pulling u off ur object momentarily which u immediately observe and correct by returning to ur meditation object.

While eating on either form, sound, smell, taste, bodily touch, yet not aware of it, that, what the Sublime Buddha called "household-equanimity" may be present at such time, equanimity which has not gone beyond sensuality. As it is a very dangerous one it's very needed to leave home first before engaging in higher paths, good householder. May he know those "good" in meditation but incapable of leaving home as those caught up there where hardly one could ever trace the path.