text:
So what is a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist?
In brief Devadatta was Buddha's cousin and a monk. He could fly, tried to kill the Buddha, did many bad things and went to hell.

Devadatta did not understand dependent origination correctly; essence of the teacher's message.

If he did he would've been ariya; ariya savaka; 'a learner in training and not liable to go to hell.
Consider this
In Islam, a person who doesn't understand the essence of the prophet's message is considered an outsider.
A muslim belives that there is a god. Whether he is a good or a bad muslim doesn't matter.
If a person doesn't believe in god, holds the view that there is no god, that person is an outsider to Islam.
I am using Islam as just an example.
Buddhism is very different in this regard. It is the only(?) religious designation which doesn't require conformity in belief and is some abomination in that regard.
So was Devadatta a Buddhist?

If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?
If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?

The word Buddhist is a convention. All words are mere conventions. They have no inherent existence. They are subject to change over time. In fact, it would be an impossible mode of existence for them not to change over time. They are not fixed and rigid things endowed with an inherent meaning in some impossible platonic existence. It is not possible for the word Buddhist - or any word - to be fixed in time with a given definition perfectly understood by all.
Now, this does not mean it doesn't have good or bad definitions. Again, like all words, different people at different times will string together other words and sentences in attempt to define what their understanding is of a given word. Others will come along and dispute this or that part as erroneous, superfluous, or missing some vital ingredient central to their understanding of some given word. There is not some objective and valid answer to the definition of some given word that is bequeathed by the universe at some given time that all must agree to as the correct and uniform definition. To think that there is is quite a misunderstanding of the nature of how words exist.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it is possible to go around claiming no words have any definitions whatsoever since I can call an orange an elephant if I want and no one can say I'm objectively wrong by some universal law handed down by the gods from on high regarding the definition of oranges and elephants. That is also a gross misunderstanding of the nature of how words exist.
So all that said... what is the definition of a Buddhist? I take my definition from Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which has this to say:

All Buddhist traditions agree that taking refuge in the Three Jewels is the demarcation of becoming a Buddhist.

Which I think is both true and a pretty handy and useful definition.
To your more detailed questions:

If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice
incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?

Of course not. See the above definition which pretty easily leads to the conclusion that not all humans are Buddhists which is of course what we'd expect in common language.

If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?

Huh? Why do you think that a Buddhist can't believe wrong things?? Anyway, that's not part of the above definition and I'd say inline with what we'd expect with common language so again a win for the above definition.
Hope this helps!

So one must do a ritual at the temple or have a specific set of thoughts occurr?

You can read the book on what taking refuge in the three jewels entails, but no there is no formal ritual. Taking refuge is a Dharma practice that is one of the core practices of Buddhists.

Buddhist is someone who TRIES (correctly or incorrectly, perfectly or imperfectly) to follow the teaching of Buddha and its interpretations by the Buddha's disciples.

Sums it up well

The term "Buddhist" in English applies to just about anyone who associates himself or herself with the broad religion and culture of Buddhism, with all its schools and traditions.
For e.g. it is common in Buddhist majority and minority countries, for a person to call himself "Buddhist" but know nothing much of the teachings and simply visit the Buddhist temple to light joss sticks and get a blessing on Vesak Day. Please see this answer for an example of keys, amulets or other personal objects being blessed by a monk, who chants on them.
By this measure, even Devadatta in the time of the Buddha would be considered a "Buddhist".
Of course, what the Buddha himself thought and taught, can be found in MN 70.
There are people doing it the right way and the wrong way:

And how is enlightenment achieved by gradual training, progress, and
practice? It’s when someone in whom faith has arisen approaches a
teacher. They pay homage, lend an ear, hear the teachings, remember
the teachings, reflect on their meaning, and accept them after
consideration. Then enthusiasm springs up; they make an effort, weigh
up, and persevere. Persevering, they directly realize the ultimate
truth, and see it with penetrating wisdom.
Mendicants, there has not been that faith, that approaching, that
paying homage, that listening, that hearing the teachings, that
remembering the teachings, that reflecting on their meaning, that
acceptance after consideration, that enthusiasm, that making an
effort, that weighing up, or that striving. You’ve lost the way,
mendicants! You’re practicing the wrong way! Just how far have these
foolish people strayed from this teaching and training!

And people who are doing it the right way, can be classified into seven types:

Mendicants, these seven people are found in the world. What seven? One
freed both ways, one freed by wisdom, a personal witness, one attained
to view, one freed by faith, a follower of the teachings, and a
follower by faith.

The details are given in the sutta.

A buddhist is someone who keeps the five precept and takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

Can you explain it in non Buddhist terms? Also what does it mean to keep precepts when only Ariya understand precepts correctly, it is the third fetter right, silabattaparamasa or smth

If person breaks precepts, is he not Buddhist? What about Sarakaani who took to drink alcohol, he didnt keep precept but was Sotapanna abd a good seed said the teacher.

It’s fine if you break the precepts once in a while but you should at least make an effort to keep them. Also, can you give me a link to the sutta where a Sotapanna drink alcohol?

Ven Sagata, drink some pigeon's liquor they said after he defeated Naga with magical powers. Is the reason for the precept. Is Veb Sagata not a Buddhist? He was a monk with magical powers and lived with the Buddha.

Sagata and Sarakaani, two different people. It's called Sarakaani Sutta, there are two of them. Sarakani story is in the Vinaya but it doesn't specify his status.

Can you please provide a source for that? Thank you

https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/modern/bmc/ch8-6.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html https://suttacentral.net/sn55.25/en/sujato

Ok so Sarakaani took to drink alcohol but he attained stream entry at the moment of death. Even if he made mistakes before, he practiced the dharma at the moment of death and attained steam entry. He only drank alcohol before he became a stream entry. That’s what I got from this sutta.

This is not a question of whether he was Sotapanna anyway. He mustve been  dhammafollower or faithfollower anyway. Question is what is a Buddhist.

My point is he broke the precepts BEFORE he became a Sotapanna. You made it seem like he was a Sotapanna when he broke the precepts. He wasn’t a Sotapanna when he broke the precepts. He only became one at the moment of death.

Well what makes a Sotapanna, do you know? One practicing for realization of 1st fruition is called a sotapanna as well. It depends on how u split ariya types as 8 or as 4 pairs.

He wasn’t someone practicing for realization of fruition when he broke the precepts. Someone who is practicing for realization of fruition is someone who is practicing noble eightfold path. Sila/keeping the precepts is part of the eightfold path.

Lol you are misusing one term to justify the mususe of another. I can't go on to explain what is noble eightfold path to you. 1 hour ago u didnt even know these sutta existed...

I’m not going to continue this discussion because it seems that you misinterpreted the sutta and don’t understand the noble eightfold path and this discussion is not going anywhere. Have a nice day!

So what is a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist?
This is a question that can have various answers depending on how one might define what a "Buddhist" is or what makes one a "Buddhist" in the first place. To avoid that altogether, let's forget about the word "Buddhist" for now as it did not exist at the time of the Buddha and let us look to the Tipitaka...

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of
compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened
One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and
those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those
with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those
hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world. Just
as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born and
growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water,
without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level
with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand
without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with
the eye of an Awakened One, the Blessed One saw beings with little
dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and
those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those
easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger
in the other world.
Having seen this, he answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:
Open are the doors to the Deathless   to those with ears. Let them show
their conviction. Perceiving trouble, O Brahma, I did not tell people
the refined,  sublime Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, "The Blessed One has given his
consent to teach the Dhamma," bowed down to the Blessed One and,
circling him on the right, disappeared right there.
SN 6.1

We see here that the Buddha saw that people could understand the Dhamma, regardless of if it would be easier or harder for them to do so. In seeing this, he decided to teach it (obviously). Let's focus on the last verse. He is essentially saying that people can attain Nibbana as he, but only to "those with ears," meaning only those who correctly hear the path can attain Nibbana. If the path was incorrectly heard, one could stray from it and thus never reach the Further Shore.
Therefore, people can hear (and subsequently follow) the path incorrectly, but will never be able to attain the goal as a result and people can hear (and subsequently follow) the path correctly, but will attain the goal as a result. Fast forward to when the word "Buddhist" was developed and you just replace the word "people" in the previous sentence with "a Buddhist."
Thus, a Buddhist and what makes a person a Buddhist is if they are following the Dhamma. Now if the Dhamma they hear (and subsequently follow) is correct or incorrect, that is another story, but in short, one can come to know if it is correct by direct experience to verify it (per the Kalama Sutta).
In my opinion, one should not worry as to what a Buddhist is or what makes a person a Buddhist, it all depends on if they are following the Dhamma, not what they are identifying as. What one should worry about is if the Dhamma they hear is correct and will lead them to reach the Further Shore (which they can come to know through their experience).
So was Devadatta a Buddhist?
Devadatta heard (and subsequently followed) the Dhamma correctly as the Buddha himself expounded it to him in the first place (as far as I understand). The problem is that he took what he heard and distorted it. When he did that, he was not following the Dhamma, he was following his own views.
In that sense, he was following the Dhamma until he swayed from that path and onto his own distorted one, making him a Buddhist at one point and not one at another point.
If he was a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can believe & practice incorrectly; are all humans Buddhists?
Devadatta was a Buddhist until he stopped following the Dhamma for his own distorted views. One would not be a Buddhist if one is not practicing the Dhamma that the Buddha expounded. All humans are not Buddhists because all humans do not follow the Dhamma, only a percentage of them do. Now whether or not the Dhamma one follows is correct or incorrect, that is another story, but (again) in short, one can come to know if it is correct by direct experience to verify it.
If he wasn't a Buddhist; and a Buddhist can't belive wrong things & practice incorrectly; then why do you call ie Mahayana and Theravada followers Buddhists when seeing that they believe different things and pracrice differently?
Refer to my answer in the previous question.

I hope all of this helps. May you be well.


text:
Is it bad karma if you are waiting for someone to die?
I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die? For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

Maybe you can elaborate on why you think this is even a question. Why is it that you think it a possibility that waiting for someone to die might entail accruing bad karma?

It's quite respectable that you have decided to wait for them to die so that you can follow dhamma. Some people wait for others to die so that they can accrue financial gains. I don't understand your culture, but here in the UK, when we reach 16 we can choose to do what we like regardless of what our parents think. If you're an adult I struggle to see how your parents can stop you or what motivations they might have for keeping you at home.

NO. Human die from time to time whether you wait or not.

@NeuroMax It may be a rule of the Sangha that you need your parents' permission (regardless of how old you are).

@ChrisW - yes, my comment doesn't cover all scenarios.

I was just wondering if it’s bad karma if you were just waiting for someone to die?

"Whatever, monks, a teacher ought to do out of compassion, for the
profit of his disciples, that I have done, having compassion for you.
"Here monks, are the roots of trees! Here are lonely places! Meditate
monks. Do not be slothful, have no subsequent regrets. Thus we charge
you."
SN 35.145

If you do not have any unwholesome intentions (greed, hatred, or delusion) tied up in doing so, no unwholesome kamma should fruit. Despite that, in many other ways unwholesome kamma will fruit (unless you are enlightened) and so instead of spending your time waiting, meditate! :)
For example, let’s say you asked your parents for permission to become a monk but they declined so you decided to wait until they leave this world before ordaining. Is it bad karma if you do this?

"Do you have your parents' permission, Ratthapala, to go forth from
the household life into homelessness?"
"No, lord, I haven't."
"Ratthapala, Tathagatas do not give the going-forth to anyone who
doesn't have his parents' permission."
"Lord, I will do what needs to be done so that my parents will give
their permission for me to go forth from the household life into
homelessness."
MN 82

It is by tradition and respect that a lay person get their parents permission to ordain. I would suggest that you ask them in a very serious manner and list solid reasons for why you wish to ordain (and even show them your practice so they can understand your point of view better) and be persistent (some people take years convincing their parents!). I would recommend you read the entire sutta quoted above (you can find it by clicking here). Refer to my answer in the previous question for if such an action will produce unwholesome kamma.

It is bad karma wishing someone to die.

AN2.13:1.6: ‘Bad conduct of body, speech, or mind has a bad, painful result in both this life and the next.’

Also see MN81, where Ghaṭīkāra does not go forth because he is taking care of his parents:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The Various Theravada Traditions

What are the various specific traditions in Theravada Buddhism?
If you could please describe, compare, and contrast each of them
that would be greatly appreciated.

May you be well.

People believe that something is true, that it is not true, or that it maybe is and maybe isn't true.
There are major factions like this.
These are split as to which texts they assume to be true and worth studying.
To understand the various sections of thravada one has to look into how commentary & culture has been developing since the beginning and how it shaped the current traditions, teachers, translations & the translators.
There has been an tremendous change in how available the texts have become in the last 100 years, beginning with translations & more recently the internet, it is unprecedented.
The teachers who shaped what is now the monastic Sangha like Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ven. Ajahn Chah and many others are now either dead or soon dead.
Therefore the Sangha is rather slowly evolving new methods & understanding.
Many people are now interested in reading the Sutta more so than listening to a particular teacher or a commentator, people have access to the original texts and want to do their own analysis.
This is also rather unprecedented because historically only a few commentators have had access to texts and people had to get information 2nd hand from a teacher.
Ie nowadays the factions are divided as to:

Burmese Ven. Mahasi & Non-Mahasi
Thai as those who believe that maybe Buddha lives in Nibbana those who don't.
Thai who draw from Mahasi
In Sri Lanka, those who believe that Ven. Nanavira was Ariya and those who don't.
In Sri Lanka, those who draw from Mahasi and those who don't.

Some people analyze controversy by controversy and don't fit well into these broad classifications, ie those who accept some commentary but not all of it. I think this will be the norm in the future.
In regards to Mahasi, he follows commentary, seemingly all of it and then some. It is basically a mainline commentary based tradition and Mahasi Sayadaw produced a lot of commentary work himself.
Other than this it seems like the small monasteries require more conformity and a lot of the monastic division based on vinaya regulation as much as doctrinal differences.
As to Yuttadhammo, he mostly follows Mahasi as he was trained but i don't think he subscribes to everything.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, various Burmese monks (such Ledi Sayadaw, Webu Sayadaw. Mahasi Sayadaw, etc) and disciple laypersons (such as Sayagyi U Ba Khin, S. N. Goenka, Anagarika Munindra, etc) developed &/or taught various idiosyncratic meditation techniques, which the Thai monk Buddhadasa described as follows:

Organized systems of insight training, which were not taught by the
Buddha but were developed by later teachers. This kind of practice is
suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage, who still cannot
perceive the unsatisfactoriness of worldly existence with their own
eyes, naturally.
Handbook For Mankind

However, the above Burmese idiosyncratic meditation techniques appear to not delineate specific traditions within Theravada Buddhism because they probably all share the same doctrinal base in respect to the core Buddhist teaching of Dependent Origination/Four Noble Truths.
It appears there are two main and two minor traditions within Theravada Buddhism:

Mahavihara Buddhism, based in the doctrines of the commentator Buddhaghosa, which teach that the Buddha's core doctrine of Dependent Origination should be understood as three-lifetimes. This is the 'orthodox mainstream Theravada' of Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand and those who embrace the ideas of "rebirth" and past & future lives.

Here & now Buddhism, taught by Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, which reintroduced here-&-now Dependent Origination as the Buddha taught, which found its way into the Ajahn Chah tradition and its numerous Western monasteries; although not followed by all monks in this tradition. The influence of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa should not be underestimated, as it also pervades many Western lay Buddhist schools.

Solipsism Buddhism, followed by a small group of Western monks and laypeople who follow the doctrines of Sri Lankan monks such as Nanavira and Katukurunde Nyanananda who tried to teach contrary to orthodox Mahavihara Theravada but never quite grasped what the Buddha taught about Dependent Origination, despite their admirable attempts. These Solipsist Buddhists emphasise nama-rupa as the Hindu 'name-form' or 'naming-forms' and hold ideas that 'concepts' create 'reality'; similar to Mahayana ideologies of 'conceptualisation' and 'non-conceptualisation'.

Very recent evangelical traditions, such as Dhammakaya in Thailand, which are said to teach about a "True Self" and claim to have roots in Tantric Theravada.

In summary, the above is my personal impression of the current Theravada traditions.

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


text:
Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame?
Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame? The Buddha could have been a wheel turning monarch, and was in deed born a prince. So perhaps his decision isn't all that confusing for the rest of the world.
Is even a small degree of enlightenment preferable to unparalleled wealth and power, or are they in fact incomparable?

Put another way, what does your karma have to be to be born as a prince, as compared to e.g. the first jana?

your imagined choice is irrelevant. the bottom line is you are fantasizing about things that are rarely achievable

Not just complete enlightenment. The Buddha taught that even the fruit of stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment, incomplete) exceeds sole dominion over the Earth and lordship over all worlds.
From Dhammapada 178:

Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of stream-entry
excels them.

The commentary for this verse:

The Story of Kala, son of Anathapindika
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(178) of this book, with reference to Kala, son of Anathapindika, the
well renowned rich man of Savatthi.
Kala, son of Anathapindika, always kept away whenever the Buddha and
his company of bhikkhus came to their house. Anathapindika was afraid
that if his son kept on behaving in this way, he would be reborn in
one of the lower worlds (apayas). So, he enticed his son with the
promise of money. He promised to give one hundred if the youth
consented to go to the monastery and keep sabbath for one day. So, the
youth went to the monastery and returned home early the next day,
without listening to any religious discourses. His father offered him
rice gruel, but instead of taking his food, he first demanded to have
the money.
The next day, the father said to his son, "My son, if you learn a
stanza of the Text from the Buddha I will give you one thousand on
your return." So, Kala went to the monastery again, and told the
Buddha that he wanted to learn something. The Buddha gave him a short
stanza to learn by heart; at the same time he willed that the youth
would not be able to memorize it. Thus, the youth had to repeat a
single stanza many times, but because he had to repeat it so many
times, in the end, he came to perceive the full meaning of the Dhamma
and attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Early on the next morning, he followed the Buddha and the bhikkhus to
his own house. But on that day, he was silently wishing, "I wish my
father would not give me the one thousand in the presence of the
Buddha. I do not wish the Buddha to know that I kept the sabbath just
for the sake of money." His father offered rice gruel to the Buddha
and the bhikkhus, and also to him. Then, his father brought one
thousand, and told Kala to take the money but surprisingly he refused.
His father pressed him to take it, but he still refused. Then,
Anathapindika said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, my son is quite
changed; he now behaves in a very pleasant manner." Then he related to
the Buddha how he had enticed the youth with money to go to the
monastery and keep sabbath and to learn some religious texts. To him
the Buddha replied, "Anathapindika! Today, your son has attained
Sotapatti Fruition, which is much better than the riches of the
Universal Monarch or that of the devas or that of the brahmas."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 178: Far better
than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the
abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire
universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

Well the traditional story is that the Buddha was born as a Prince -- and became dissatisfied and left after meeting the "divine messengers" (devaduta).
There are three (sickness, old age, and death) in the introduction to the Jhakata, five in the Devaduta sutta:

The five divine messengers to whom King Yama
draws the culprit’s attention are a baby lying in its excrement, an old person, a sick person, a robber caught and
punished for his deeds, and a dead person. These are five
"divine messengers" in the sense that they exemplify the
inevitability of birth, old age, disease, karmic retribution
and death.

I think we're meant to understand that a Prince doesn't have "unparalleled wealth and power" -- against death, for example.
See also the description of dukkha in the First Noble Truth.
And if altruism is a motive (which we're told it is), it seems to me that the Buddha as a teacher has done more good -- brought more cessation-of-dukkha -- for more people (throughout history) than any temporal monarch.


text:
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva?
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva? I'm asking about doing so in a liberal (no infidelity or drug addictions) and to a conservative (no sex or glass of wine) way.
Apologies if I've misunderstood them and there is a complete consensus on what the lay precepts are to be interpreted as. I thought that the point was to use them as a guide, so making up your own mind. Precept

a general rule intended to regulate behaviour or thought.

Surely "general" here means incomplete not in the sense that we can break them, but not completely defined.

Is it not obvious that murder is wrong, whereas the evil of eating meat is more moot: so that - even if wrong - it is a lesser breaking of the precepts.

I guess you're asking about the third precept specifically, not all precepts?

not especially no @ChrisW : i mean all the precepts

Precepts help to foster a calm mind. However, it seems like you might be asking about sensual relationships and how the precepts play a role. You may have implicit and/or explicit agreements about the relationship, but those are - as cold as it sounds - transactional and contractual terms usually prevailing from society that define what you both agree to be acceptable relationship-type behaviour. Sexual misconduct is when one breaches those terms. When societal values get involved, it gets a bit messy so best to find some simplicity with it: don't hold your partner to any conditions.

ii think you've misunderstood the tenor of my question @NeuroMax i'm asking about the difference between lack of sexual misconduct, with and without the precepts, and celibacy. like not being addicted to heroin opposed to drinking a glass of wine. or murdering someone opposed to not eating meat

@anon - Yes, I misunderstood. To help invite better answers I would suggest you try to rephrase the question. I've tried to mentally edit the question with your additional information, but I still remain at a loss.

What's confusing is that "no infidelity" is the lay precept (but a glass of wine isn't), so maybe that's not a good example of what you're trying to ask. And not murdeing someone is not only a precept but also normal behaviour, conversely "not eating meat" isn't a (Theravada) precept.

sorry you've completely lost me now @ChrisW yes sometimes proper conduct is obvious

Ok so I gather now (e.g. from comments under ruben2020's answer) the question assumes there's a strict and a liberal interpretation of the precepts, i.e. that there's a difference. But then is the question asking whether one is better, or asking what's the benefit of each one? The crucial sentence in the question, "I'm asking about doing so in a liberal and to a conservative way", isn't quite grammatical (English) and so that's unclear.

i'lll edit the question again

The precepts are guidelines but with a correct  approach if I want to effectivly transcend suffering. I wouldn't leave it up to myself to decide anything if I could help it because I can never tell when my ego is involved.

In answer to your direct question in the title:
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva?
If you are a bodhisattva, you don't need to keep the precepts because you have no inclination ever to act otherwise. But if you are not a bodhisattva, you'll never get there in this life unless you keep the precepts:

The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally, no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts dwell.
Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. This is the second admonition of the Lord Buddha as to the keeping of the Precepts. (The Surangama Sutra, Chapter 2, "Importance of Keeping the Precepts)

As you point out in the background to your question, what 'keeping the precepts' means, unfortunately depends upon who you ask nowadays. The crucible in regards to the so-called 'Lay' Precepts—which all ordained sangha members must also keep, so they aren't ‘lay’ precepts, they're the Big Five Precepts—is the consumption of animal flesh, which, of course, entails killing the animal. I’ve answered this point here: Why is meat prohibited in Buddhism?  So I won’t repeat what I said there, but in side-comments to my answer an important point came up:

But as a Buddhist, one should adhere to the doctrine of causes and conditions, and realize that eating the flesh of animals creates the possibility for a profitable demand for animal flesh in those of weak minds who are unconcerned about profiting off the suffering of others for their own benefit. By eating animal flesh, you may sincerely feel that you are not directly responsible for the animal’s death, but by creating the condition for someone of weak mind and strongly selfish desires to cause harm to others, you are responsible for leading them astray. One may try to abdicate their responsibility to protect the weak and voiceless, but one cannot escape responsibility for their own actions that harm others, that lead them, through their weakness, to the hell realms.

The point here is that there is no honest wiggle-room here for any sincere buddhist, ‘lay’ or ‘ordained sangha’. If you make excuses for your behaviors—liberal interpretations, versus conservative, as you phrased it well—you are hurting yourself over the longterm, along with others who suffer due to your weakness of spirit.
Anyway, that’s my interpretation ☺

i'm not sure i understand. what do you mean by "make excuses": if i took the precepts knowing i would almost certainly continue to eat meat, vs eating meat thinking the precepts don't count or matter this time?

Not exactly that; I assume that someone who makes an effort to keep the precepts will also make an effort to absorb the teachings of Buddha, so it’s the wider context of Buddhism and reconciling the theme of compassion for the suffering of all sentient beings, culminating in the selfless dedication of merit to the benefit of all other sentient beings, which I feel would cause such a discordance when eating the flesh of those sentient suffering beings, that one would have to change, or fall into making excuses for why one is doing it.

i get what you mean, and it's eloquent: true karma comes from within?

Precepts serve two purposes:
Purpose One is training the mind by changing your behavioral/emotional habits.
Purpose Two is improving one's karma by not creating turmoil in one's future that comes from the misdeeds.
In the long run One and Two help each other to get stronger. Together they gradually propel one further and further into Liberation.
Even if you take a liberal interpretation of the precepts you will train your mind and improve your karma.
In any case you should start from the most coarse offenses creating the biggest problems before proceeding to the subtle mental habits and misdeeds creating more subtle forms of trouble and suffering.
For example, being easily irritated and getting into fights all the time is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than killing mosquitoes or eating chicken and fish. So you should start with the first.
For example, craving sex to the point of rapping someone or seducing someone's spouse and breaking their family is a source of far coarser and more obvious problems than indulging in observing people of the opposite gender at a beach, so again it makes sense to start with the coarser one.
For example having a fragile ego and pathologically lying to cover up one's mistakes is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than not phrasing one's statements precisely enough to make sure they are absolutely true.
And as you correctly assumed, having a complex emotional trauma leading to a drug or an alcohol addiction is a source of much coarser and more obvious trouble than intoxicating one's mind with videogames, not to speak of indulging in an occasional beer.
From this it should be obvious that Buddhist path should be approached from coarse to gradually more subtle - by anyone and everyone, monk or lay.
If you think about it, the Eightfold Path gets into more subtle matters than mere Five Precepts, and the Four Jhanas get into more subtle matters than the Eightfold Path (i know they are included but you get the point). Within the four jhanas, the first jhana deals with coarse issues the second is more subtle etc. Entire Path is structured like that.
Obviously, someone who professionally pursues Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi is more likely to go all the way to perfection of practice, while someone engaging with Buddhism casually among other things will probably stop at preventing the most obvious troubles. How far to go is entirely up to an individual. The benefit is proportional to implementation, to whatever degree one eradicates potential causes of dukkha - to that degree one is liberated from it.
To summarize, it's not about liberal vs strict implementation of precepts, it's about coarse vs subtle causes of dukkha - similar concepts but not the same.

It's basically for laypersons to reduce suffering, even if not to eliminate suffering altogether.
The Vera Sutta below states that the five forms of fear and animosity are stilled through the observance of the five precepts.
Interestingly, the sutta does not say that the five precepts lead to stream entry. Rather, it says that reaching a certain state of mind i.e. the stilling of the five forms of fear and animosity (which correspond to the five precepts) would lead to stream entry.
If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also result in a state of mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).
From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
headed for self-awakening!'
"Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?
"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
animosity is thus stilled.
"When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...
"When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
that fear & animosity is thus stilled.
"These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.

AN 5.57 (below) teaches that a lay person or even a monk or nun should take responsibility for their actions, and this will diminish their misconduct. This is related to the five precepts too.

“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.’

nice answer if slightly at a tangent. sorry can't upvote

@anon It's basically for laypersons to reduce suffering, even if not to eliminate suffering altogether.

yeah. i meant specifically the difference between liberal and conservative interpretations of the precepts

@anon You have misunderstood. The five, eight and ten precepts are very clearly defined by the Buddha. There is no room for liberal and conservative interpretation. The five precepts for laypersons, for example, never requires celibacy. Celibacy is only for monks.

can you include a quote that shows that "celibacy is only for monks" and that there is no room for interpretation in the precepts?

i think it would be foolish to claim that there are no conflicting interpretations of the precepts. perhaps not for the laity?

@anon The precepts are clear, but their application to modern conditions are up to interpretation. Please see this answer on sensual misconduct for the canonical description, and commentary by Ven. Yuttadhammo on whether it applies to polygamy, legalized prostitution etc. As you can see from this answer, the canonical description is clear. And this question discusses whether piracy of movies or software would be considered stealing or not.

however, there is a history of debate and conflicting interpretations of the precepts.

@anon Where is this so-called history of debate and conflicting interpretations? Can you provide more evidence of that?

you could try google?

@anon For e.g. the precept on intoxicating substances is clearly referring to any intoxicating substance (alcohol, drugs etc.) and is about the substances causing heedlessness. That's very clear in the Pali Canon. But the modern situation of whether a half liter glass of beer can cause heedlessness or not, is subject to interpretation. The precept's definition is clear. The modern application of it is subject to interpretation.

define modern? yes if you mean after the buddha's death

@anon I mean the interpretation of the application of those precepts to living conditions of today. The precepts and their purposes are clear. The application of it may not be.

cool, that works for me too

I think if "application of precepts in [some conditions]" is not clear then we definitely can't say that "precepts by themselves are clear and don't require interpretation". Precepts don't exist in vacuum, they are always enacted in context of some real life situation, so there's always a need for interpretation - 2600 years ago, today, or 2600 years in the future.


text:
Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"?
Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"?
I'm asking because I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.
Because that's how I'm thinking about the rebirth doctrine, for now.

I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.

In the oldest texts mn43, it says that what one perceives that one also feels & cognizes. That which is spoken of as perception can be explained as something cognized by that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.
Creation, feeling, consciousness, perception are thought of as conjoined by Theravada.
Therefore the way you express it, i think would not be agreeable with the sutta expression.
It seems as you would separate consciousness from perception not by context but in a way that one can come before the other. If this is so then imho it is disagreeable in meaning as well as expression.
Consciousness is to be understood and intellect is to be developed.
The semantics of how you hold the doctrine in mind are very important to get right. If this doesn't occur then it is like a mistake in forming an algebraic equation. The term mind is to be thought of principally unlike anything else much like multiplying two negatives is a pretty unique principal seen by intellect so the function of mind is much more difficult to see and is to be comprehended for the doctrine to be properly carried.
It is said in the Sutta: 'it arises as one thing and ceases as another', 'it preceeds all things, all things are mind made', it is called 'the world' because it is that in the world which perceives & conceives the world.
Consciousness is a general term which is thought to include past, present & future instances of such or such consciousness thought to be coming into play as one thing and ceasing as another.
One can't think about consciousness as something in time. It is like the philosophy of measuring the position of an electron, it is not something you can observe as being here or there because that which is thought of as an electron is principally such that will have moved by the time you perceive it's location. With consciousness you likewise infer it's demonstrable coming into play and only think about it's function. You will see then that it's semantically tied up with conception & perception of all kind.

Hidden is the mind

I think this would be an inappropriate translation. 'Suchness' is a quick way of saying "that which actually is, as it actually is", but not everything that 'actually is' is immediately perceptible to the senses. You'd have to begin with a Western empiricist assumption that everything which 'actually is' is ultimately accessible to the senses. I'm not certain that's a reasonable assumption...
In particular, the conditioned nature of karmic action — the metaphysical relationship between cause and effect — is not immediately perceptible. We can see the first (the 'cause'), and we can see the second (the 'effect') but the relationship between the 'first' and the 'second' has to be understood. It can't be seen in any simple, sensory manner, any more than we can directly 'see' the force of gravity.

'Suchness' certainly manifests as 'directly perceptible by the senses' because the mind is not discriminating or judging something. The mind is merely experiencing or perceiving, without judgment.
The word 'consciousness' ('vinnana') in Theravada Buddhism does not mean 'divided knowing', as it does in Hinduism.  The Buddha used old terms such as 'vinnana' & 'namarupa' differently to the Brahmins (Hindus).
In Buddhism, consciousness merely means experiencing or knowing via the six senses. In Buddhism (MN 43), consciousness (experiencing) & perception (recognizing) are 'co-joined' and cannot function without each other.
Therefore, when the a Truth (such as the truth of impermanence or not-self) is directly recognized (perceived) and not judged as 'bad' or 'good' but merely merely recognized as 'just the way nature is', this is 'Suchness'.


text:
Relationship between truth and compassion
Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism?
What is the relationship between truth and compassion? e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

One can cling to the idea of truth without any truth or compassion
One can cling to the idea of compassion without any truth or compassion.
Compassion  is a mental attitude that is against suffering. To be clear, it's not a belief or theoretical idea.
You don't have to be a "me"  and they don't have to be a "them" for compassion to arise.
The idea that there is a "you" or that there are "other people" is not admitted of by actual non-conceptual ultimate truth. If you are close with this ultimate truth then you are also close to compassion. You know, "You" and "other people" have no apparent separation that isn't assumed.

there is no compassion without truth
when the truth is not beneficial for another person, what is practised in 'equanimity' rather than 'compassion'
how can something be 'altruistic' if it is not the truth?

Love is a one sided affair... compassion is a one sided affair... you love no matter whether you get love in return or not... you show compassion no matter whether you get compassion in return or not .... why so? because you believe in the truth this is suffering... everyone is going to suffer... why show cruelty towards those who are bound to suffer...???

By tending to your own renunciation, you may become dispassionate (which is a way to deal with your own suffering), but by cultivating compassion, you can create the balance needed in dealing with others. Renunciation and equanimity is how you deal with your own suffering. Meanwhile, compassion is how you deal with others' suffering.
In fact I would say, in order to get closer to the truth, you need to deepen your renunciation and compassion.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

If I understood right, I think Samana Johann suggested that acts of generosity help to counter-act one's own clinging and desires -- so to the extent that generosity and compassion are related, maybe those aren't just two (the other being "renunciation") separate wings, but mutually reinforcing.

The 'truth' (such as it is) is subtle, transcendental, and wordless. The best we can do is see it and point at it; we cannot own it. Unfortunately, the word 'truth' has come to imply a kind of absolute intellectual property. When someone says "I know the truth", the implication is that the person 'owns' a piece of information that cannot be questioned or evaluated, and this can lead to loss of compassion as the person struggles to maintain his 'truth' against any contestation or alteration.
The truth — in that subtle, transcendental, wordless sense — is neither compassionate nor un-compassionate. It's merely factual. Compassion or its lack are qualities of our attitude towards that truth. Human suffering is a part of truth; what we think we know about human suffering — those little pieces of information we own and try to apply — is something else. If we see that higher truth we will always (unavoidably) act with compassion, regardless of what we know. However if we cling to the little truths we know... Well, clinging is poisonous to compassion.

Only if they think that one's lies can prevent other people from having bad experiences.
Ie one lies to save another from a painful circumstances but one is heir to his own actions. Lying just confuses the one being lied to and corrupts the liar.
Basically when a person lies to save another thinking it is a refuge, it doesn't work because what is due to be experienced will come into play even if in future lives.

The conditioned truth is the smallest elements which is possible to arise and vanish by conditioning.
The conditioned wholesome truth can think of either living beings or lifeless things.
Non-anger, adosa is a conditioned wholesome truth only which conditioning each other with every each other wholesome elements.
Only non-anger on living beings is called loving kindness, compassion, metta when focusing on giving happiness to them.
The other non-angers is called patients, khanti.
When the practitioner can see through  the truths and their processing by seeing dependent origination, they are automatically enduringly trust on karma and can't break 5 precept through that life.
This is the perfect basis of the compassion, an elements of 3 SammaSankappa (right thinking).
After really getting seeing the dependent origination, the non-angers must growing up only until the end of that life.
It is impossible for a practitioner who gotten seeing the dependent origination to say "I want to kill living being" even for keeping the truth because this is perfectly broken by automatically enduringly trust on karma.
Meditate Jhana with Pa-Auk Tawya and see Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga for getting in detail.

I'm not sure there is "truth" and "the truth".
Perhaps like other things in Buddhism, there is the arising and cessation -- e.g. of ignorance, including falsehoods and wrong views, and cessation of ignorance.
There are truths or observations -- "that pot should be washed" -- transient though, right?
So I'm not sure you can "pursue truth"; only cessation or non-arising of ignorance.
That isn't antithetical to compassion, I think we're told that Gautama Buddha was motivated by compassion -- compassion remained -- before and after his enlightenment.
I don't know what happens with a "private Buddha" -- why they don't expression compassion in the same way (e.g. by teaching) -- I don't know whether that's some absence of compassion; absence of skill (e.g. of teaching); or some other necessary condition. I think that "by definition" though, that doesn't apply to a "bodhisattva".


text:
How do I slow down and start living according to my values? How do I change the direction of my life?
For some time, I have been practising different types of meditation and yoga, and I have also tried to study a bit of Buddhism, from which I have got the main values that guide my life (I cannot say I am a Buddhist, but I believe the teachings of the little Buddhism I know have been my main source of well-being, together with the love of the people around me).
Still, I live trapped in my particular little daily samsara in which my work determines the shape of my days, and I don't see a way out of it. I live in Madrid, I am finishing my PhD in a university and planning to move for a post-doc abroad very soon. Ever since I started studying at the university, I feel like I have been in a continuous race, always moving to new goals. This has not been my decisions, but rather what I thought best at the moment to make a living. I have never had other options or I have not known how to see them. I do not have any professional or academic ambition (which makes me feel peaceful), my needs are very simple, I do not spend much money -but yet, one has to pay rent and food, and for me the PhD and now the postdoc have been the best options for a work which seemingly offered the best way to harmonize my work with my personal life. My work, however, eats away a big part of my days, and I haven't had real holidays in years. I am not unhappy, but I do not wish to be doomed to more years of this meaningless cycle of pursuing goals, working on projects and then get home drained of energy from working on something "competitive", as is academia. I do not want to earn more money, I just want a more simple life. I have no idea, however, which work could I look  for, or what changes should I try. I just want to have my horizon depleted of projects and plans. I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food, which is not entirely easy on a small apartment on a city, but even so I have to pay housing, which is expensive, and forces me to keep working. I don't see to have a way out, I do not have the resources to "start a new life", and the only thing I want is to find a way to restructure my life and live a more simple life, in accordance with the Buddhist teachings I have so far gathered, not having always new projects to fight for, not having my life defined by my work. The Buddha, apparently, just went out there "into the wild", so as to speak, which is unthinkable for me. I do not even have the resources or knowledge to survive if I give up my job and house, but I would do the closest thing to that that is possible.

I'd take it with a grain of salt that a prince living inside a palace his entire life up and left and survived in the wilderness with no help.

You might think this facetious and in fact, it's vital; prolly more vital than dropping the value-based comparisons in your final sentence.
Start by taking the very same Question above and breaking it down into paragraphs.
Having done that - even if you keep exactly the same words and "merely" add spaces - apply the same technique to everything else in life.
If you doubt me, ask your meditation and yoga teaches what they think…

"I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food" for you, is this a goal, a wish or a method?

That's an interesting question :)  I would say that, actually, it is three times at the same time: It is a goal (something I am approaching), a wish (something I want / I consider desirable and enjoyable) and a method (a method for the greater goal of a simpler, more peaceful and more sustainable life)

My answer is small. Despite the many insightful suggestions I think there is one thing you may still need to consider. The solution is to do it. After much analysis and asking of advice you have all there is . Whether it is starting a new garden or a new life, all that remains is for you to do it. Of course I'm not saying it's easy. I'm still hoarding advice and looking for more. But at some point you will need to take steps, small or large, and make some changes. . Blessing on you.

Beautiful question, one of the best questions I ever encountered on this site - at least for me, because I can relate to it in my own life, too.
Without going into too many personal details, aren't most of "successful" people in the modern "West"-style society defined and driven by their jobs and careers? And wouldn't it be nice if life were simple and pure, oh dear.
For me, an answer to this most important question of "what are we living for", an answer I was seeking for years, an answer  I slowly matured into, is that the pace, the color, the overall atmosphere and the very meaning of our life are not defined by our job or location but only by our attitude, our personal mental/emotional stance so to speak.
You see, I have studied Buddhism for a quarter century now, and to my surprise what I came to realize is that being in authentic harmony with one's own values and indeed with one's heart - is the unquestionably highest pinnacle of the most advanced parts of the Buddhist teaching.
In other words, if you live contrary to this principle, no matter how successful your outward life and career is - you will be unhappy. It's a mathematical law, there's no happiness when you are in conflict with yourself. And vice versa, if you don't have any inner conflict at all, which is to say if your every step and every word and even every breath is an expression of your true authentic being, then no matter what shape your external life takes, your actual living reality will be peaceful and harmonious.
In other words, the answer to your question is already right there in the title. Slow down and live according to your values, there's nothing else that you need, you just have to find the guts to live like that every second of every minute of every hour of every day, regardless of circumstances. You don't need to move to the Himalayas, you must create Himalayas in your life by being who you really are in the midst of your current situation.
In practice this means that when you face a choice between living according to your authentic being and bending over backwards to satisfy a requirement of the samsaric flow - you must choose the real thing, even if it means failing on an external commitment or losing your job or whatever other "scary" thing that could happen. The circumstances will change accordingly, the things you don't need will fall-off, and what is left will be in harmony with your being - because that's what you'll keep on choosing.
I swear I spent years scrutinizing every Buddhist teaching I could lay my hands on and this is what I came to. I mean, there's being a good person, good karma and all, there's non-attachment, there's emptiness - all of these things are valid and true. But being fearlessly True and Authentic despite the constant pressure of everyday things is the real Enlightenment I have found.
If I could do it, you can do it. I promise you won't regret :)

This is a very raw, honest and human answer to a question that shares the same qualities.

And one last thing: it's not something you can/should expect to be able to achieve in just one moment. To get that level of consistency and character requires practice and more practice, just as with any other excellent skill.

Thank you for a beautiful hope-giving answer :)  It is not only helpful and wise, it is also kind and warm. I think (I hope) I am on a path towards what you describe, and for that I feel peaceful.

My work, however, eats away a big part of my day...

Try viewing your work not as something that takes you away from a peaceful life but as part of that peaceful life itself.  Your work is the work.  Try living your slow, peaceful life while you are working.  Notice what your breathing is like while you're working.  Notice anything that takes you away from that peaceful feeling.  Meditate before you begin work for the day so that you have a baseline with which to compare.

The Buddha was a monk, which means he went on alms round for food. His society allowed him to do this because he could live in forests and because there was a culture where people offered food and other requisites to monks. Therefore, the Buddha did not actually "go into the wild" because there was always a safety net in terms of receiving material requisites from the religious society.
The Buddha also advised laypeople to develop a profession to earn a living. You should finish your studies to prepare yourself to earn a living. Surely, your studies will end in the near future rather than go on forever. They will not be permanent. Earning a living is part of the Buddha's noble eightfold path.

"Vast learning, skill in handicrafts, well grounded in discipline, and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.

"To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
highest blessing.

Maha-mangala
Sutta

Andrei's answer is wonderful & spot on and I'd like to elaborate on it by sharing my own interpretation:
You describe a sense of meaninglessness, which over time can easily turn into depression and a great deal of pain; You've learned that the fast paced, achievement oriented nature of much of the world does not interest you and so in some sense, you seem bored/uninterested/disgusted with it. Similarly, you've learned that you would rather live a simpler slower paced life.
But essentially you are trying to find out what to actually do about this, how to make it happen - It's difficult to just get up and make that lifestyle change, seemingly impossible from where you currently stand.
It's good to have this goal in mind and if that is really what you want, you can try to make it happen, all the while, you need to learn how to make peace with your current situation, otherwise it will drag you down and hinder your ability to do what you want in your life.
How to actually make peace with it? You need to make space inside yourself for your current lifestyle. Welcome it, see the positive in it, learn to love it in every way you can. If you find yourself making conflict with something in your life, see if you can immediately welcome it instead, welcome that conflict, accept it, play with it and see if you can make friends with it.
Make a home inside you for all this meaningless stuff and see how long it wants to stay; It won't stay forever.
Those feelings of meaninglessness are coming up to bother you, to try and get you to do something about it, to go live that simpler life, which fine, if you go do that, you might be happier and you might be happier for some time, but there's no guarantee that life there won't become meaningless too... it's a gamble. There's a phrase - "Wherever you go, there you are".
So, welcome those feelings instead, try not to them bother you, and just watch and see how over time, those feelings don't stick around for as long. They aren't getting from you what they want, so they will just leave and try again another time. After a while, those feelings will be so starved from your lack of being bothered, that they will have no reason to keep arising and will eventually just fade away.
If you practice in this way towards your feelings, making peace with them, making peace with your living situation, you can still live that simpler life somewhere else... or maybe at that point you'll realize that you are already living it.

The point is to learn how to feel.
You are aware of your values but find it hard to live them, in a difficult world, because you cannot feel those values, you only know them.
Once you have taken your values into you feelings, you will have no choice, but to find a way, because your feelings will react against anything that is not coherent with your values.
However, learning to feel is not easy, it means turning to face all the idiosyncrasies, peculiarities, insanities and difficult things about yourself - the things you probably started meditating to try to overcome - getting to know you, in the flesh, the impure, as well as you in the purity of the mind's ideal.
The mind is a contradiction, to realise your ideal you must face in yourself what is far from ideal, in fact probably intolerable.  The nature of the mind is contradiction, and the mind finds those contradictions intolerable, which is why we must face them.
We must face the intolerable contradictions to be able to feel, and most importantly, live, the true beauty we are looking for.

Some tips from my own experience (somewhat in similar shoes, though I am a few decades past your point in life):

First of all, what you are trying to describe seems to be Secular Buddhism, i.e. the techniques and philosophies, but without the more traditional eastern religious aspects. This is useful and good - even just the meditation and mindfulness techniques from Buddhism are great without any kind of religious beliefs at all. That stuff works, period, no matter what you believe (and you can prove/experiment with that for yourself easily to verify it).
Unless you find a way to live without money, make it so that what you are doing to get money is something that you like to do. This might mean finding something out of academia, but it might also just mean to change your mindset a bit. Meditation can help with that. It should not be the whole semester that is weighing you down, it should be just the situation right now that should be on your plate.
Find ways to be, well, relaxed, even when you are pursuing a goal. For me personally, whenever I feel that I am getting hectic, I start writing things down, so I can forget them. In the distant past, we had something like "getting things done", which was a science in itself, but these days you can just get a beautiful fountain pen and nice little booklet, and keep a "bullet point journal". That's beautifully low-tech and relaxing and can be almost meditative in itself.
The main point of the previous hint is to only have very few items that you need to have in mind "now", which directly leads into the Buddhist/meditative idea of caring about the now, not the past or future. And ruthlessly strike away things that are somehow on your TODO list but not something you want to do.
You complain about the circular way of things, the endless cycle of pursuing goals. That's literally life. The goals are only "heavy" for you because you give them more meaning that they need to have. The problem is not that there are goals, but that you are worrying about them all the time. The goal is to not worry, but just do what you are doing right now. As soon as you let go of the idea that goals have any meaning, you can be much more happy, while still eventually ending up at them. Even the purest solitary monk deep in the Thai forrest needs to have the daily goal of finding something to eat; his mind will be in a state where that does not matter at all, but he will still do whatever needs to be done.
Finally, there are jobs out there which are mindless and rote, where you can punch in and out, and never worry about anything. Nobody keeps you from looking for one like that and switching careers. Many of them have a bad image but are not actually that bad, which makes it not unlikely that you might actually get a position... look around a bit.

I have to give you a contrarian answer.
The orthodox Buddhist path diverges into the lay householder path, and the path of the renunciate (anagarika / "homeless ones", samanera / novice, bhikkhu / monk). Please see this answer.
The path of the lay householder is in accordance with the five precepts and Right Livelihood (AN 5.177). It involves working in a profession or doing business, growing wealth and may include having a family. Please see the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?".
The renunciate typically joins the monastic community (which typically is not in the "wild", but usually a suburban or rural monastery near civilization) and observes the eight precepts (as a anagarika / "homeless ones"), the ten precepts (as a novice monk / samanera) or the monastic rules of the Vinaya (as a full fledged monk / bhikkhu).
The renunciate is like a full time professional practitioner of the teachings. The "holy life" is basically the monastic life focused full time on the study and practice of Buddhism, aiming to reach enlightenment.
From the Dhammapada XI:

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.

Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.

So crafting an easy and relaxed lifestyle of your choice, which is neither the holy life, nor the productive lay life, is not in accordance with orthodox Buddhist principles. Beware not to mistaken an idyllic, relaxed, retired life for Buddhism.
Please see this advice by Ven. Ajaan Fuang from "Awareness Itself", to a lay person:

Another student disappeared for several months, and on her return told
Ajaan Fuang, "The reason I didn't show up is that my boss sent me to
night school for a semester, so I didn't have any time to meditate at
all. But now that the course is over, I don't want to do anything but
meditate — no work, no study, just let the mind be still."
She thought he'd be pleased to hear how intent she still was on
meditating, but he disappointed her. "So you don't want to work —
that's a defilement, isn't it? Whoever said that people can't work and
meditate at the same time?"

My answer is small. Despite the many insightful suggestions I think there is one thing you may still need to consider. The solution is to do it. After much analysis and asking of advice you have all there is . Whether it is starting a new garden or a new life, all that remains is for you to do it. Of course I'm not saying it's easy. I'm still hoarding advice and looking for more. But at some point you will need to take steps, small or large, and make some changes.
. Blessing on you.

@Elliot Did you intend to write this as a separate new answer instead of as a comment to my answer?

Yes, I did. I just joined to put this in but did not have enough points(?) to make an answer. I missed that it was a comment to your answer. Thanks

I'm not a Buddhist but, for me, it is the best of religions. In my twenties (I'm now in my mid-seventies), I found myself in a similar situation to you. I had permanent muscle tension around my neck and shoulders and rushed everywhere. By luck, one of the professors was a Buddhist and held informal weekly lunchtime chats for about half a dozen interested students.
I came up with a solution for myself: Whenever I had a coffee break, I would change mode. If I had fifteen minutes I would see it as a long holiday. I would relax at the start and drift through the time. I don't mean being lazy, I mean I would remove all pressure and simply do the things I wanted to do as though unhurriedly drifting along a river that happened to be going in the direction I wanted. I found that, subjectively, a 15 minute break could seem like an hour of almost bliss. With practice I could switch this state on and off almost instantly.
I would urge to to learn how to do this. Step in and out of the river at will, even for a few seconds at a time.
Now that I'm retired, I can look back and see that, although I never had the desire or even the willpower to sit and meditate, these periods of moving meditation made a huge difference.
Important: The best parts about my retirement are
(1) I used some of my earnings to build up a modest pension. My material wants are not huge but I can buy things and get things repaired easily when needed. I constantly see homeless people on the street who have not provided for their old age. I'm glad I didn't go that way.
(2) I have overcome my fear of death. This would take more than a paragraph to explain but it is very much related to understanding that "I" am living now - not in the future, not in the past. I die every second and am reincarnated every instant.  This relates back to the lesson I derived from those informal Buddhist sessions 50 or so years ago. Nevertheless be compassionate towards the future you and make sure they will be able to have a comfortable life.
Advice?
You don't have to have a high-pressure job. You can do something mundane 9-5 with no out-of-hours working or responsibility. Then you can leave it behind at the instant you leave the premises. Live simply and put a bit away each day for old age and in case of sickness.


text:
What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations?
What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?

A very broad question...

I don't know, but it produces a noteworthy factor that consists of endless squabbling about those translations.

it produces Right View explained by DD.

I think that the question has some merit in that searching out answers would lead to increasing Right View (@Dhammadhatu), but I agree more (@Andrei Volkov♦ & @NeuroMax) that it is too broad to be a useful exercise to try to answer. It is unclear there is an obtainable, definitive answer when applied to all of the Sutras. Perhaps limiting the question to a specific teaching or Sutra would avoid these problems?

From Dhp 282 translated by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so
conduct himself that his wisdom may increase.

The same was translated by Ven. Thanissaro here:

From striving comes wisdom;
from not, wisdom's end.
Knowing these two courses
— to development,
decline —
conduct yourself
so that wisdom will grow.

The word "meditation" in one translation is the same as "striving" in the other. The Pali word here is "yoga" as seen here, which also translates it as "meditation".

Ven. Thanissaro's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated "sankhara" as "fabrications" and "dukkha" as "stress".

When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

Ven. Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated "sankhara" as "conditioned things" and "dukkha" as "unsatisfactory". I feel this is more accurate.

"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" or "consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that some people imagined to be a permanent consciousness of sorts, which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana. I've also explained this in detail in this answer.
Ven. Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

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

It should rather be:

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

Ven. Sujato translated "jāti" in SN 56.11 as "rebirth".

Now this is the noble truth of suffering. Rebirth is suffering; old
age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering;
association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked
is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief,
the five grasping aggregates are suffering.

In SN 56.11, Ven. Bodhi translated "jāti" as "birth". This is quoted below. Ven. Thanissaro also translated it here as "birth".

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.

To begin, any Sujato translation related to Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination is best ignored where "ponobbhavikā" is wrongly translated as "future rebirth"; "punabbhavo" as "future lives"; "jati" as "rebirth" and "abhinibbatti" as "reincarnation".
Starting with Dhammapada:

Dhp 1 has Thanissaro engaged in solipsism by translating "dhamma" as "things" or "phenomena". Buddharakkhita's is the reasonable translation of "dhamma" as "mental states"; although I would translate "dhammas" here as "modes of conduct".

Dhp 203; probably all translators have translated "saṅkhāra" wrong. I would translate it as "mental fabrications".

Dhp 278 is correctly translated by Buddharakkhita; where dukkha is translated as "unsatisfactory" for the characteristic and "suffering" for the mental state.

Moving to the Majjhima Nikaya:

MN 1; Thanissaro is close to solipsism; translating "conceives earth" rather than "conceives self in earth".

MN 9; probably due to Nanamoli, correctly does not translate sankhara as "volitional" formations and correctly translates namarupa as "mentality-materiality"; which Bodhi does not do in his SN.

MN 38; Thanissaro and Sujato misguidingly translate sambhavoti in  in a way that refers to the arising of the functioning of consciousness rather than the origination of consciousness into suffering.

MN 38; Bodhi, probably due to Nanamoli, correctly does not translate sankhara as "volitional" formations; which Bodhi wrongly does in his SN.

MN 62; Thanissaro translates "makes the earth property fade from the mind", which sounds wrong, since DN 11 says the four elements cannot cease without remainder.

MN 118; all translators translate sabbakaya, kayasankhara and cittasankhara wrongly. Sabbakaya, per the Paṭisambhidāmagga & MN 118, means "all bodies", referring to the breath-kaya, rupa-kaya and nama-kaya. Kaya and cittasankhara means "body & mind conditioner", although this is not literally correct, which is literally "condition for the body & mind".

MN 135; all have worldly translations of upapajjati, āgacchati & paccājāyati; which an examination of the suttas (examples AN 4.197 & AN 7.64) shows can mean differently than mere "rebirth".

MN 148; Thanissaro uses "obsessions" for "underlying tendencies"; which while not fatal; is exaggerated. There is a big difference between an underlying tendency and an obsession.

In the Samyutta Nikaya:

SN 12.19; all translate "kaya" to infer "physical body", where Bodhi used to bracket "conscious body". This appears wrong. "Kaya" here appears to refer to the "grouping" or "collection" of the five aggregates. Also 'external namarupa' here refers to "external minds & bodies" rather than the nonsensical "external name-form".

SN 12.25 and everywhere else in this kamma context (such as AN 3.61) wrong translate "sukhadukkhaṃ" as "pleasure & pain", which implies "vedana"; rather than "happiness & suffering", which implies the end result of kamma.

SN 13.1; all translators falsely translate "sattakkhattuṃparamatā" as "seven more lives at most remaining"; where the Pali only says: "seven times at most".

SN 22.59; similar to Buddharakkhita above, N.K.G. Mendis has translated "dukkham" accurately as "unsatisfactory'.

SN 22.79; Bhikkhu Bodhi most appropriately translates "pubbenivāsaṃ" as "past abodes" rather than "past lives" because SN 22.79 is most obviously not about "past lives".

SN 23.2; Bhikkhu Sujato most ridiculously translates "satto" as "a sentient being" because "satto" only means "a being" and because "sentient being" is completely contrary to the intent of the text, being the same as the view of Mara in SN 5.10.

SN 38.14; Bhikkhu Bodhi has the proper translation of "suffering due to pain... formations... change (vipariṇāma)". The others are wrong. SN 22.1 makes it clear "vipariṇāma" ("change") only leads to suffering when there is attachment; just as MN 44 makes it clear the "vipariṇāma" of feelings is painful when they are underlied by underlying tendencies.

In the AN:

AN 10.58; generally all internet translations are wrong; however this was correctly explained here by Piotr & Deele.

General issues:
samparāyikā is translated by all three majors as "lives to come" however samparāyikā is found in Iti 44 and appears to not mean "lives to come" but, instead, merely "the future", as follows:

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known By the Seeing One, stable
and unattached: One is the element seen here and now with residue, but
with the cord of being destroyed; The other, having no residue for the
future (samparāyikā),

namarupa madly translated now by all three majors as the Brahministic "name-form"


text:
In any Buddhist Context, is there a Necessary Existent
I'm asking this ontological question as in the context of, e.g., an Aristotelian Prime Unmoved Mover, or some other first cause.
My guess is that there isn't, probably based on Dependent Origination or maybe even the Heart Sutra. (I hope I have not misconstrued those.)
Thanks

Yes, you have misconstrued.
Dependent Origination is about the origin of suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair) rather than about the origin of the physical universe (refer to SN 12.2).
Dependent Origination says the 1st cause for the origin of suffering is ignorance; for which no preceding cause can be found (refer to AN 10.61).
In addition, DN 11 clearly says the question: "where do the 4 physical elements cease without remainder?" is an invalid question. This means the ending and also the beginning of the 4 physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) cannot be known.

Thanks for the much needed correction. Can anything be said regarding a source for physical things or occurrences.

no. not in original buddhism. DN 11 clearly says the question: "where do the 4 physical elements cease without remainder?" is an invalid question. This means the ending and also the beginning of the 4 physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) cannot be known, at least from a meditative point of view. DN 11 is here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

The relevant conception you are looking for is “Buddha Nature.” But the Buddha himself didn’t answer questions like yours, seeing no profit in them.
Aristotle’s “first mover” was a necessary logical outcome of his assumption that there was a state other than motion, leading him to see that he then needed an explanatory device to put things in motion. Buddha Nature is not that. It’s not an explanatory device created to ‘wrap things up’. It’s not the result of speculation.
As Parmenides pointed out before Aristotle’s time, talk about nonexistence and nonexistent things is empty of meaning. Aristotle began with an incorrect assumption and then found himself painted into a corner. So he gave that necessary logical device a name “First Mover” (which he acknowledged was like “God”), and ‘solved’ his problem. This was the kind of outcome the Buddha suggested was a feature of such speculation.
Buddha Nature is the closest to what you are looking for. I prefer “naturing” myself because “nature” is a noun in English, and thus names an independent self-existing thing or idea about them, and the Buddha pointed out that there are no independent self-existing things, which is something you can verify yourself through meditation practices.  The word in Buddhism is  “Dharmata” (not to be confused with  “Dharmadatu”), and is better understood as “naturing”.
If you’re interested, I have written more on this specific question in an article: “A First Mover Is Not Needed” it might reset your thinking about this.

Really nice, and the article as well. Ironic that you assert "Still" v. motion. And I would give you substantially more credit than "Just." Unless you mean unbiased, or maybe a fleeting temporal connotation. Regardless, very cool. Best regards,


text:
How does the path according to Sheng-yen compare with scholastic Buddhism?
Sheng-yen was an important Taiwanese Buddhist, with I believe Rinzai and Soto tranmission.
When describing the Buddhist path, he says that the 10 faiths are reached only after extensive success with koans, and adds that this is equivalent to stream entry. All very reasonable. However, I think it shows relative humility, compared to zen, about Theravada Buddhism.
I also believe that the formless realms are essential for advance to the 10 abodes in the Tientai model of the "complete" teaching.
So I wondered:

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?
and is the stage of dry wisdom - form the Surangama Sutra - the same as
the 5 grades in Tientai?

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?

Sheng-yen taught Chan which is a synonym for Zen meaning something like meditative mind. This is comparable to meditative absorption in Theravada.
Juxtaposing how the two traditions fragment their understanding of those states is a little tricky, because Theravada shreds the meditative absorptions into miniscule details even going as far as detailing step-by-step the precise instructions needed to attain meditative absorption. Not my forte, but the Theravadins seems to like it!
Chan on the other hand takes on a more natural and organic approach. Flexibility, suppleness and malleability come to mind. In my view, this approach is much more in-keeping with suchness. There is little to no emphasis on moving through the jhanas and the arupa ayatanas. The exertion to reach those states is generally seen as a hindrance. The aim - if we can call it an aim - is that Zen realises meditative absorption in every waking moment; it is not seen as a practice confined to a zafu cushion which is more favoured in Theravada.
I know this doesn't answer your question, but instead points out how it is difficult to level the two schools such that they meet harmoniously.