text:
"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe.", true?
Ven. and good Buddha-Parisatas,
A statement from a commercial Website here says:
"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe."
Is that right, or wrong and how to understand such right?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Two suttas come to mind.
Assu Sutta (SN 15.3)

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1):

"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

Canonically the Buddha is credited with [re]discovering the Dhamma, and (I presume) with creating the Sangha and the Vinaya.
But I think the statement "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe" was meant to be viewed in context, where the content was, "Difference From Other Religions":

There are, other religions which teach e.g. that "God created heaven and earth" or perhaps that "God created human's souls".
Conversely I think that Buddhism doctrine is that the origin of samsara is "an unanswered question", and even that people inherit their own karma. The Buddha acted as a teacher, a leader, a worthy example.

The Buddha is one who discovers the 4 Noble Truths with one's own efforts unguided by a teacher or previous teachings. The Buddha does not create any creatures or the universe.
Creatures and the universe is created by cause and effect. This is a self-sustaining law this does not need a lawgiver or mediator.

Sure? Where does Upasaka arises from?

According to the Dona Sutta (quoted below), the Buddha does not play any role like a creator or sustainer or even as a creature in the universe.
He is simply awake.

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'

the Buddha does not play any role like a creator or sustainer, if so the quote has probable causeless arised...

Ven and good Buddha-Parisata,
In the case on whould say that the "Maha-Brahma Buddha" did not create existances and worlds, one would speak wrongly about the Tathagata.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things... iti 100

He of course did not address those not related to him, outsiders, being still children, relatives of Mara.
And in this way he is also regarded by those in relation to the Tripple Gems. Without relation to him and his heritage, the Dhamma carried by the Sangha, one can never be helped by the Tripple Gems, having the Buddha as it's origin.
Other then ideas of people thinking they can just use what comes along, people of ingratitude, of no integrity, unrelated, the Buddha taught depended origin and right view, never denying duties in relations, parents, Brahmas, giver, goodness ...

He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action." ...(AN 10.176)

Depending "creation":

It is in dependence on me (the Buddha) as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.  (Upaddha Sutta)

Feel given to ask for further explainings if still doubt and wishing to erase it.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

The Buddhist universe is cyclically created and then destroyed, a process which has no beginning. In the era of creation a "primordial wind" is said to generate the universe

The Vivartakalpa begins with the arising of the primordial wind, which
  begins the process of building up the structures of the universe that
  had been destroyed at the end of the last mahākalpa. As the extent of
  the destruction can vary, the nature of this evolution can vary as
  well, but it always takes the form of beings from a higher world being
  born into a lower world. The example of a Mahābrahmā being the rebirth
  of a deceased Ābhāsvara deva is just one instance of this, which
  continues throughout the Vivartakalpa until all the worlds are filled
  from the Brahmaloka down to Naraka.

In a similar way to how fire usually destroys the universe.
Obviously, the processes of rebirth themselves (rather than the world they inhabit) are driven by karma.
There is no "creator God" in Buddhism. There are many gods, but these gods are not self subsisting, and will be reborn as something else.
I'm not very familiar with the idea of "primal Buddhas", but because ignorance is beginningless it would be wrong to say phenomena are created by, rather than emanate etc., from them.

Maybe good householder takes a look here.

i think you're equivocating on 'brahman'...

That's what one might think, but the topic is on Buddha-Dhamma.


text:
What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him"?
What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"?
Is said to be one of the three things a/the Buddha can not do. How should that be understood? And what is needed to become one that a Buddha could help? Who is a relative, are the relatives, of the Buddha?
[Related and given in tiven sphere: Buddha can not help one not related to him? Buddha kann keinem "Fremden" nicht helfen?.
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

I think I found explanations online -- they were in Chinese, and so I didn't reference them, but I read several (with some difficulty) via Google Translate and tried to paraphrase or summarise what I understood in this answer. I think it's described as meaning, "someone who won't relate with him", won't have a relationship with him, dislikes him.

"What is meant by" and source are two different questions, aren't they? If coming along in this way 70% of questions here are to be closed, even more serious.

btw. householder Chris answered both... and not at all equal.

It's possible to guess a meaning, or to fabricate a meaning which matches your preconceptions, but I think it's useful to know the source (the context, the commentary) before you decide "what is meant by". My answer below was based on a guess and on comparing it to the Pali suttas. But this answer, which tries to identify the source, also explains "what is meant by" -- that was based on "research" i.e. using Google to find and read Chinese-language pages.

As wishing... my person knows where the usual answers come from.

Related in this case does not mean by blood. Rather it is in terms of belief in the shared Buddhist philosophies, or at a minimum maintaining an open mind on the subject. Someone not related has no interest in attaining liberation, and such a person cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, they cannot be helped.

It is said the Monks as the Buddha's children. Likewise, it can be considered that someone adhering to the dhamma becomes his relative. In this context, if you do not fall into the path of Dhamma ("become a relative of the Buddha") one does not achieve liberation.
Also if one gives his children for monkhood then one becomes related to the Buddha and Sasana. This is considered to accelerate one's goal of becoming enlightened, but this is not a must to get enlightenment.

At a festival for the dedication of the Great Pataliputra monastery called the Aśokārāma as well as the other viharas built by Ashoka, Moggaliputta-Tissa, in answer to a question, informed Ashoka that one becomes a kinsman of the Buddha's religion only by letting one's son or daughter enter the Sangha. Upon this suggestion, Ashoka had both his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta ordained (Mhv.v.191ff.).

Moggaliputta-Tissa

The context, good householder, is liberation from Suffering, and all beings incl. Upasaka Sirinath, desiring for such.

Adhering to his Dhamma: how is that possible without being related to the Buddha? It would be just one own perceided teaching, not in relation to him.

And if the is "the Dhamma" (something unrelated, inherent) no Buddha would be required for liberation, would it, good householder?

Suminda, I think the context was this answer though that answer isn't referenced (and appears to be from a Chinese source, I don't know if it might be Pali too).

It is related to the teachings of the Buddha, even found in the Tipitaka, Nyom @ChrisW.  - if one gives his children for monkhood then one becomes related to the Buddha and Sasana, worthy another question, this traditional idea, good householder Sirinath.

@SamanaJohann Can you "reference" it in the Tipitaka?

As if my person would be scholar or googler... :-) lets see, of cause my person could, good householder.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Source: direct literary origin of "three things a Buddha can not do"?
Householder "?? English research institute" quoted:

The three things a buddha can't do (如來 三不能 Buddha's three incapacities)
  1.不能免 定業衆生 He cannot destroy bad karma for anyone.
  2.不能度 無緣衆生 He cannot save the people unrelated to him.
  3.不能盡 衆生界 He cannot save the whole world of all living things

rightly answering here.
For the increase of faith and as possibility to make merits in such (as well as asked by ChrisW in a comment):
Where can this statement be found literary in the basked of the heritage of the Buddhas teachings?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

So far as I can tell these "three" are attributed to a Chan monk named Yuangui 元珪 (date 644 through 716).
An example story to illustrate  the first ("can't destroy karma") is his being unable to stop a king destroying the Sakyamuni clan.
I think the second means "can't save people who refuse to relate with him". The example story is of an old woman who disliked him when she saw him. He used his supernatural ability to miraculously show her everything, and she disliked that too. But she liked or had an affinity for Ananda when she saw Ananda, and so learned from Ananda instead.
The third is explained as something like, the people are (at least in part) saved or not saved through their own effort (their own understanding etc.).

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


text:
Metaphysical Contemplation and Speculation
There are many parables and stories from the Buddha's life suggesting he valued above all what is practical and conducive to virtue. He discouraged metaphysical speculation and musings.
Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically get a definite answer?
For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to what is immediately accessible?
I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

It's an odd question. I can't see how we could be speculating and not know it. Perhaps I'm missing the meaning of the question.

Well, I said that thinking that people generally hold beliefs that are supported by different degrees of evidence. I feel sometimes we contemplate subjects for which the evidence is shaky, not entirely certain, and sometimes the line between knowledge and hypothesis becomes blurred.

All very true. If it weren't true the illusion might not work.

OP: Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically
  get a definite answer?
OP: For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in
  Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to
  what is immediately accessible?

The Buddha certainly valued pragmatism and discouraged metaphysical speculation.
Does this mean that ALL speculation is discouraged?
The answer to this is NO. Only speculation that is not useful towards the ending of suffering is discouraged.
For e.g. when did samsara first begin? How did the universe originate? What's the range of the Buddha's abilities? How do the consequences of karma work precisely? You can find some of these in Acintita Sutta and also the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. Speculation on topics like these were strongly discouraged.
As for topics that are useful towards the ending of suffering, speculation is not discouraged. Without investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation, it's impossible for a learner to learn and understand new things. Correcting your mistaken speculations is a great learning method.
Over time, as you learn and understand more aspects of the Dhamma and gain more insight, your speculations would be replaced by wisdom. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of which you do not know how the final picture looks like. But it gets clearer over time.
Also, in the suttas, asking difficult questions based on speculative thinking was not just allowed by the Buddha but also used by him as a tool to convey teachings.
For example, from SN 12.46:

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What now, Master
  Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results
  of the act]?"
[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is the same one who
  experiences,' is one extreme."
[The brahman:] "Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other
  than the one who experiences?"
[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is someone other than the
  one who experiences,' is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these
  extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by means of the middle:
  (explains dependent origination)
When this was said, the brahman said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent,
  Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what
  was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one
  who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
  could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many
  lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for
  refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Gotama
  remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day
  forward, for life."

And there are many more such examples in the suttas. In the Attakari Sutta, we find someone speculating that there is no self-doer and he was corrected by the Buddha.
Of course, one also needs to practise the teachings (through the Noble Eightfold Path) and not just contemplate it. But, investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation forms part of the journey of learning the Dhamma, in order to foster Right View, which is the forerunner of the path.

OP: I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

If you have doubt (vicikiccha) in your mind, then you're most likely speculating about the Dhamma. The explanation of doubt in Buddhism from this Wikipedia page is:

The reality of vicikicchā is not the same as what we mean by doubt in
  conventional language. Vicikicchā is not doubt about someone's name or
  about the weather. Vicikicchā is doubt about realities, about nāma and
  rūpa, about cause and result, about the four noble Truths, about the
  “Dependent Origination”.

Another sign of mistaken speculation is that it may lead you towards the three poisons of lust/ greed, aversion and delusion. A good example of this is the Vesali Sutta - in which some monks who misunderstood the Dhamma committed suicide.

Did I understand correctly that you could speculate about topics (i.e. contemplate them) in a good way IF they're related to the cessation of suffering?

Yes. Over time, as you learn and understand more aspects of the Dhamma and gain more insight, your speculations would be replaced by wisdom. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of which you do not know how the final picture looks like. But it gets clearer over time.

Kesa,puttiya Sutta (Kālāma Sutta) encourages free inquiry but this may also lead to misinterpretations due to erroneous reasoning. Even experiences can be miss identified and miss interpreted. [Brahma,jala Sutta]
In the context of Buddhism, it is best one's questions and speculations are best geared towards understanding the 4 Noble Truths which gives rise to the right view.

"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22

Right View
Ultimately one's understanding would be based on:

learning of the dhamma (pariyatti)
put it into practice (patipatti)
verification of what was learned at the experiential level (pativedha)

If one tries to interpret empirical experiences by oneself one may be miss led. What is wise or praiseworthy if to look for the theory that explains the experience.
Ultimately only the fully enlightened Buddha has the know-how to correctly infer every experience. One speculation may be right or wrong. To find what is right one might need to consult the dhamma.
For part of the dhamma, ones hs not experienced the best cause of action is to learn the theory and practice. Put the practice into action and verify both theory and practice.

As a side note, the 1st few Jhana's are accessible if one practice the technique properly. It is a matter of putting in the time and effort to do it

Speculation is the rumination on any topic that can only be truly apprehended through direct insight.  Unfortunately, about the only way you'll ever figure out if you're guilty of that is by asking your teacher.  I know this sounds like a flip answer, but it's the only safe way (at least until you're enlightened to some degree) to ensure that what you're coming up with isn't just flabby philosophizing.  Let me give you an example.  There's a koan that goes like this:

Case 29 from the Mumonkan: The Sixth Patriarch's "Your Mind Moves"
  The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks started an argument.
  One said the flag flapped, the other said the wind flapped; they
  argued back and forth but could not reach a conclusion. The Sixth
  Patriarch said, "It is not the wind that moves, it is not the flag
  that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were
  awe-struck.
  Mumon's Comment
  It is not the wind that moves; it is not
  the flag that moves; it is not the mind that moves. How do you see the
  patriarch? If you come to understand this matter deeply, you will see
  that the two monks got gold when buying iron. The patriarch could not
  withhold his compassion and courted disgrace.
  Mumon's Verse
       Wind, flag, mind, moving,
       All equally to blame.
       Only knowing how to open his mouth,
       Unaware of his fault in talking.

When I was working with this koan, I was convinced that Master Mumon was talking about something along the lines of how the wind is karma, we're flags, and that our mind moves as a result of that.  If only we could suspend karma and escape that, we'd be liberated.  My teacher told me I was full of shit.  Next I told him that everything exists in the mind; that experience isn't real and that only our minds are producing it.  He proceeded to throw the meditation bell at me and asked if it was all in my head, why did I flinch when he threw the bell!
I eventually answered the koan (and just an FYI - it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with anything I wrote above), but without my teacher there to reject my ridiculous ideas, I'd still be working on it today.  So to answer your question - you never know if you're speculating or not.  Only your teacher can tell you when you've gone off the rails.


text:
Any pantheist Buddhists?
I know a lot of the Kyoto school were / have been defined as being as panentheists: but were there any pantheist Buddhists? And, has any comparative religion scholar defined it as pantheism?

Incidentally, there are also atheist Buddhists

yeah i had heard of him! @Codosaur

I was not aware that any Buddhists were theists of any sort. But if they are it would have to be panentheism since Reality would transcend space and time.

A "pantheist Buddhist" would be a Hindu, specifically an Advaitin.

@user14119: As I see it Buddhism should be described as agnostic, specifically not in terms of being uncertain about deity/ies existing but as declaring the question irrelevant to highest spirituality and how to live. See the discussion of Pali versiin of the Brahmajala Sutra, 'Teacher Of The Devas' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html wherein Buddha educates even Maha-Brahma on the history and nature of the cosmos.

Samuel Beal (1825-89), in his translation of the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha), has defined the Vaipulya stage of Northern Buddhism as a pure form of Pantheism:

Northern Buddhism, again, may be divided into two, if not three, distinct periods of development, or epochs.
...
Thirdly, the 'indefinitely expanded' form, known as Vaipulya, which is founded on the idea of a universal nature, to which all living things belong, and which, by recovering itself in each case, secures for the subject complete restoration to the one nature from which all living things have wandered. This is evidently a form of pure Pantheism, and denotes the period when the distinctive belief of Buddhism merged into later Brahmanism, if indeed it did not originate it.
Source: The Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King (A Life of Buddha)

The following Sutras are commonly defined as Vaipalya Sutras:

The nine Dharma Paryaya texts are otherwise named vaipulya sūtra, because vaipulya literary means 'extensive'. Nine Dharma Paryāyas are generally enumerated as follows:
Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra
Saddharma-puṇdarīka-sūtra
Lalitavistara-sūtra
Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra / Saddharma-Laṇkāvatāra-sūtra
Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra
Kāraṇḍyavyūha-sūtra / Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra
Tathāgataguhyka-sūtra / Tathāgataguṇa-jñāna-sūtra
Samādhirāja-sūtra
Daśabhūmīśvara-sūtra.
Source

According to the Dictionary Of Chinese Buddhist Terms:

Vaipulya is extension, spaciousness, widespread, and this is the idea expressed both in 廣 broad, widespread, as opposed to narrow, restricted, and in 等 levelled up, equal everywhere, universal. These terms suggest the broadening of the basis of Buddhism, as is found in Mahāyāna. The Vaipulya works are styled sutras, for the broad doctrine of universalism, very different from the traditional account of his discourses, is put into the mouth of the Buddha in wider, or universal aspect.

Yes, householder, the Buddha explained it to some of his monks who had been of Brahman origin. If remembering right, it is retold in Aggañña Sutta (DN27).
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

If I might ask, please don't attach labels to people without a particular purpose in mind. The OP may not consider h'erself a 'householder,' and may not even know what the term means (since it isn't commonly used in Buddhist circles). The label adds nothing to the discussion, and sows seeds of confusion and discord. Thank you for your answer, though; I'll have to go back and reread that sutta.

I share Ted's view of this matter.

Being "of brahman origin" does not mean the person is a pantheist. Leaving aside the
question of whether brahmans were pantheists , your argument can be extended to say that there are a lot of "christian buddhists" because they are "of christian background"

I feel pantheism is a bit of a slippery term, especially when applied far outside of it's monotheistic original context. There, it started as a kind of monotheistic non-dualism, drawing on monistic and mystic traditions. But it got widely used to describe animist traditions in the 19th century, and also -I'd say unwisely- to describe Hindu thought. And in modern usage, also now to describe the idea that consciousness somehow pervades everything, and is only concentrated in minds.
Taken as immanence of the highest principle, the Mahayana doctrine of the dharmakaya is a kind of pantheism.
In the sense of coidentifying the world with deities, Japanese Buddhist thought does not put itself in contradiction with Shinto practice which is called pantheist, and as I understand it many or most Buddhists in Japan also observe Shinto practices. See also tsukumogami, for how in a polytheistic context animism and pantheism are not fully distinguishable.
Yogacara or 'mind-only' thought can I think be understood as the idea that subjective experience and mental processes like thoughts are the most fundamental way to understand reality.
But at root, pantheism as a term is not a good fit outside of a monotheistic context, and the mix of uses is prone to creating confusion. I prefer not to use the term.


text:
How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?
Ven. and good Buddha-Parisata, touched, and who ever interested and willing to give into the matter to get it minded,
Who doesn't know the case where another is perceived as arrogant, either because of having the view "all are equal" or by the feeling to be put on a place which one does not deserve.
What ever the situation actually requires, might be different form ones perception and possible very wrong to give into disapprove or even dislike. Remember the effects of being a person not honor of what is worthy to.
So how to handle such "I can not..." situations for oneself? What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level? (Of course in measures of the good Dhamma asked. Related topic: Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it?)

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

It would help to have definition of arrogance. It tends to mean different things to different people.

Ven Sirs, Readers,
Arrogance is that one considers oneself better than others. If one finds this is not the case an arrogant person becomes averse. The way to overcome is as follows:

(1) “Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(2) When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, consider
thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(3) When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(4) When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(5) When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to
change, consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality

(1) Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory [painful] or satisfactory [pleasurable]?”15
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”16
“No, bhante.”

(2) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is feeling permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(3) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is perception permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(4) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, are formations permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(5) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(1) “Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near18—all forms should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(2) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all feelings should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(3) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all perceptions should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(4) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of formations whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all formations should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(5) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all consciousness should be seen as
they really are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Seeing thus, Soṇa, the learned noble disciple is revulsed [disenchanted] with form, is revulsed
with feeling, is revulsed with perception, is revulsed with formations, is revulsed with consciousness.

Through revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, his mind is liberated.
When he is liberated, there arises the knowledge: ‘Free am I!’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth.
The holy life has been lived. What needs to be done has been done. There is no more of this state of
being.’

(Māna) Soṇa Sutta

That, householder Sirinath, is a total improper answer in an assemble merely void of those having left home, but live in dependency, nurishes householder-equanimity and destroys good communities. So best regarded as the answer of the leader of a herd of cows. A learned and instructed teacher, wishing to appear as such, and suggesting in such way, should know that the path is one of discrimination.

look at the "fool" there, he answers with "No, bhante.”... understand? The stand here is on level learn generosity, not even on the level sila, and yet an advice between homeless... saying then even "Bhante" and approaching with only name (disregarding).

Maybe I did not understand the question. I am answering at my best effort basis, both to understand as well as writing the answer.

Especially because good householder comes from a cultural background that has long time trained basics, he surely would have a lot of good advices in regard of respectful and secure. It's a real gift if he shares such rather to try to serve wishes of modern/western world. What is the daily practice to get ride of honor-stinginess and to avoid social overstepping which can be very of disadvantages for one?

After Dana, Sila, the answer is total great, yet still there remains "no Bhante" (Sila).

How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance?
I understood this answer as saying that there are two types of "conceit" -- conceit includes "comparing one person with another". The two types are "true conceit", and "false conceit". I'm not sure how either of these -- a right comparison or a wrong comparison -- might be a good cause for "aversion".

What he is referring to is that fact that of the nine types of conceit, only three can arise in a sotapanna

Someone with a false conceit might be difficult to relate with, though, difficult to converse with usefully.
There are also the "four great references" -- i.e. if someone says something (e.g. about dhamma, which is what tends to be the topic on this site), then you shouldn't "scorn" it -- but instead, consider and compare it.
If you were someone's teacher then perhaps you might want to help the student see "arrogance" -- there are examples in the literature of teachers doing that.
Maybe it's better if people don't try to do that on this site though, perhaps this was appropriate advice:

In general, unless you actually are the questioner's teacher, don't assume a teacher's mantle

What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level?
Perhaps you're expecting a specific answer, I'm not sure which one. Perhaps it's "equanimity" in this case, remembering that "I am heir to my actions" etc.

The answer parallel given by Nyom ChrisW "Also try not to get offended if he calls you "householder" or "nyom", I would. Perhaps you're not used to it -- and who knows whether it's representative of Buddhism, other Anglophone monks aren't so formal in their conversation online -- I read it as partly a German mode of speech, like even if he weren't a monk he might be addressing you conversationally "Herr Doktor Peter" or whatever the formal title should be, you can read it as polite. :-)", allthought one could call him arrogant, seeming "teachering" was by far more useful, as teaching good is.

If someone wishes to follow and investigate a stream in action: here

Speaking of "stream" -- if I try to answer a question it can help me to imagine I know "what" a person is asking about, what "caused" or "triggered" the question -- if it's a general question (like this was), what specific "case" is it a generalisation of? And to answer your questions it might be helpful to know what you posted recently elsewhere on the site. That knowledge ("what comments were posted recently?") isn't obvious to most users, and quickly becomes obsolete. It might make every question clearer, if you were careful to add "... for example, [hyperlink]" when you write a question.

Good questions, good answers, fit to many, best all, cases. It's a huge hindrance to wish to sort out perfection in a subject-object case, judge mind without being able to read even the own, good householder. So approach of questions best in and of itself and taking own experiances as sample how to release from akusala, and approach the Dhamma (a the wise) for approve to get sure ( Kalama Sutta). Tomorrow nobody would know particular ensnares involved at the case of origin.

@SamanaJohann General answers and general questions are rare and valuable -- and difficult to produce. I think the suttas are an example of that kind of literature, and I'm not sure we can write that sort of thing here! Stack Exchange was originally meant for this: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. So I do try to understand what the OP is asking and not only how I might answer from my own experience.

Double case, even, and that's the point where useful for all "thing here! Stack Exchange was originally meant for this: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.", driven direct into here & now. Don't say that my person gives no chance to face the cases right away :-)

The very question of how to handle, indicates an interference in your being ,and in that very interference ,aversion arises.
Weather you perceived a person correctly or incorrectly as arrogant,is not the problem ,because thats what your being had perceived already,what your being had understood already,Its neither good nor bad,only an indication of your being's wisdom .The only problem is intervening in the development of your being.There is no need to perceive the situation correctly ,whatever was perceived by your being is the reality ,till further notice.
If no intervention occurs your being will develop naturally and act more wisely next time .

Ignorance the path to awakening. Well, good householder, take care.

Yes,if there is attitude towards ignorance then aversion is bound to arise ,it indicates attachment to knowledge.Accepting ignorance is also a path..


text:
Automatic Habit of Meditation
In psychology, a habit is defined as a behaviour done automatically, requiring little conscious effort. I have meditated recently pretty much every second day, but I fail to see any automaticity; its incredibly effortful to sit and meditate for me still.
Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)?
Here, I mean the frequency which would enable consistent and automatic sitting and meditation.
Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all?
Any information is welcome, thank you.

IMO, yes, it does. :) Many meditation programs and retreats are organized around this principle. It takes the average person somewhere between 20 and 30 days to form a solid habit. The more often and more regular the repetition, the more solid the habit. It is the same with sports, gym, eating, etc. The more you practice meditation, the more of an automatic habit it will become.
Just like with working out, set a specific time every day to meditate. Set a progressively longer series of sit times, so you start out light and work your way up to an hour at a time. You can also try maintaining mindfulness throughout the day, retreading the neural pathways as often as you can, even if just one minute each hour. Once mindfulness and samadhi become habitual, you are on your way.
And remember, it's only heavy if you pick it up. It's only hard if you don't want to be there. Observe your mind when you feel it hard to sit. Why is that? Are you craving snacks, sleep, or entertainment? Exhausted by pain or striving? Remember at those times why you are meditating, and remember to relax and take it easy. Make it fun and rewarding. Make it a game, how many breaths can you observe without mental interruption? Set a high score board of Stillness if it helps. ;)

Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)?

I realize you are asking about forming habits, but sometimes the road to effortless habits goes through eliminating hindrances. If we're talking satipatthana, a big deal is actually investigating hindrances to overcome these obstacles, as it is also conducive towards further cultivation of your meditation regime.
Generally speaking (vitarka), the five hindrances are:

Sensual Desire
Ill-will
Sloth and Torpor
Restlessness and Remorse
Doubt

Insights regarding hindrances are most likely not only beneficial for your meditation practice, but can likely be generalized to life as a whole.
More reading, and not least suggested antidotes to the hindrances:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all?

You may benefit from looking at prolonging the time for meditation rather than increase the frequency or timing during the day. It will expose you to important observations for deepening dhyana.
I'd argue that the more overall time spent in dhyana the better.

Start with one second.  Do it every day for a week.  Move up to 15 seconds.  Do it everyday for a week.  Keep adding 15 seconds until you hit two minutes, then start adding thirty seconds.  Keep adding thirty seconds until you hit a half an hour.  What you do after you hit 30 minutes is up to you.  There are only two things you need to do - sit everyday and don't exceed the amount of time that you are supposed to sit.  If a sit goes well, end it, and let those positive feelings kindle your desire to sit again the following day.
The only other recommendation I would make would be to find a group to sit with..  Having people to whom you are accountable makes it much easier to maintain a practice.  If you do join a group, it's perfectly OK to sit more than your allocated time for the day.  There is no magic formula to establish a habit.  Right effort is karmimcally recursive - like a spiritual, centripetal engine.  The initial excursion is hard, but once established, the amount of effort required to keep things going is greatly reduced.
But you first have to try.

Firstly, you do not specify in your question how long you have been doing "every other day" meditation or how long your sessions are. Meditating for 5 min ever other day will NEVER develop "automaticity" nor can one expect that meditating for 90 min every other day will develop automaticity in a matter of weeks(if ever). Also of note- the momentum generated by SUSTAINED "informal" mindfulness/meditation during daily activities plays a big role in developing automaticity. In my experience, some genuine pervasive automaticity can be experienced by a couple months of daily sits of approx 1 hr, followed by a retreat of a week or so which has you primarily in sitting and walking meditation for 5+ hrs per day.


text:
Mental Release from Breath Versus Metta
I asked a friend who is a meditator about my practice of compassion, and he suggested I do breathing meditation because it helps liberate the mind from overthinking, as well as relaxes the person. However, I'm slightly skeptical because metta typically is also considered a concentrative meditation. Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?
Thank you

Hi Eggman! Here's a video with  Ven. Sujato speaking about this topic. The revelant part for this question starts at 14:34. Kind regards!

Someone practising metta meditation can make one's mind concentrated easily but metta meditation does not in itself result in deep absorption as the object of concentration is changing and vittaka vicara is needed think "so and so be happy", etc.
Breath meditation, on the other hand, helps develop concentration and studies ones mind from overthinking.
Breath meditation with a bit of metta meditation will help deepen the concentration.

According to at least the Visudhimagga (chapter 9), you can reach jhana when practicing the Brahmaviharas of which compassion is one.  Yeah, good luck with that.  Practically speaking, it is far, far more difficult to develop concentration to the point of absorption when using a complex, abstract concept as the object of meditation.  The mind is just too easily given to vacillation.  In a Brahmavihara meditation, you are imagining people, their mental state, your feelings for them, and so forth.  There's a ton of potentially moving parts.  Samatha meditation requires stability.  Think of dropping a hunk of uncooked meat on a table.  Hear that slap, feel the weight of it, see that piece of roast beef kinda relax as it settles.  It ain't going anywhere.  Your attention has to drop on it's object in much the same way (at least initially...eventually you ease up on the gravity).  You can do that with compassion meditation, but man, if you're looking to develop the same amount of relaxation and absorption as say, breath medtiation, you are setting yourself up for a pretty rough go of things.

Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?
Yes. Absolutely.
If you could meditate about walking to the gallows after being unjustly convicted and do so spreading a heart full of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity limitless in all directions, then your metta meditation is rock solid and well developed.
That would be the painful practice with swift insight discussed in AN4.163:

And what’s the painful practice with swift insight?
  It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions,
  and has well established the perception of their own death.

You might prefer instead the pleasant practice with swift insight meditating on the breath:

And what’s the pleasant practice with swift insight?
  It’s when a mendicant … enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption …

Both are effective.


text:
Splitting Up Meditation Time
I'm wondering simply whether there is a difference between two thirty minute sits daily and an hour long sit daily? Which is more advantageous?
Thank you

The single, one hour sit.  The other option is far inferior.  There's some apocryphal story going around...I think Ajahn Brahm might have talked about it.  Or maybe it was Thich Nhat Hanh.  Essentially, imagine yourself sitting beside a forest pool.  You sit there in stillness, quietly.  At first, there's a horde of mosquitoes buzzing and biting.  But yet you remain motionless.  Eventually, they get bored with you and fly off to trouble, I don't know, a water buffalo or something.  Yet you remain, still and quiet.  Next, some sort of song bird lands in the tree next to you.  At first, he was a little shy.  You came in making all this booming racket and you scared the bejesus out of him.  But now that you've been quiet, he lands nearby and starts singing his song.  After a time, he leaves.  Next, a deer comes and starts drinking at that forest pool.  Deer are skittish and there is no bloody way this animal would have gotten within 50 yards of you in the state you were in when you first arrived at the pool.  The damn thing could feel your agitated energy from across the forest.  But now, as you sit still and quiet, he barely notices your presence.  And now you wonder...what other creatures are still waiting in the forest, undiscovered, that might emerge as you continue to sit, still and quiet?
This actually works in the woods, by the way.  If you've ever gone hunting, there is a spectrum of creatures that you will see dependent on how much of a disturbance you're making.  Once you pick your spot and sit down, it takes about a half hour for animals to start ignoring you.  The same goes for meditation.  The first thirty minutes is just a warm up.  Nothing interesting happens during that time.  The next 30 minutes, productive things start to occur.  But really, it's not until you've sat for 90+ minutes that the real meditation happens.

Since for now I kinda lose concentration after 30 min, would I ideally then just sit for 1h again and again, even if the quality subsides, until I manage to have a stable attention the whole 1 hour?

Honestly, when people are just starting out, I don't even recommend that they try to meditate.  It's better just just to sit.  Simply the act of getting your butt on the cushion (even if that's a couch cushion) and not moving is going to be far more productive than any gross, volitional attempt to concentrate your mind.  Do this consistently over time and concentration will start to occur automatically.  So to answer your question, yep!  Don't worry about quality.  In fact, I can assure you that your judgments on what constitutes "quality sitting" are probably off any way.  ;-)

For longer session:

when practising for longer hours one can get more concentration. Also, initial few minutes one might be struggling will take a while for the mind before one starts in earnest, therefore, longer hours are better.

For 2 sessions:

where are times the mind is restless. So on of the session may not be as productive. Dividing the session into 2 ensure at least one session is more productive than the other in case one struggles through one of the sessions.

Now 2 half-hour session vs 1 one hour session is difficult to say, but generally, a half-hour is not long enough to be productive and with only one session, on the other hand, it is difficult to say if there will be a productive session during the day.
The best is to organise one's session as:

5 minutes after waking up
1 hour in the morning
1 hour in the afternoon, evening or night
5 minute before going to sleep


text:
Subjectivity Along the Buddhist Path
I noticed that when I meditate on breathing, which I've done about as long as the four immeasurables, I tend to nevertheless hear sounds such as a television or sounds outside my house. When I meditate on the four immeasurables, I don't hear the sounds in the environment. I'm not distracted at all unless I get quite tired.
And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?
I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?

When doing breath meditation your mind is relatively more passive where you watch the breath. When doing the four immeasurables your mind is more active contemplating.
Therefore you can maintain your concentration and blocks out distraction as you refocus on different being.

I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

This knowledge is only available to the Buddha. But through trial and error, one may find practices hard and some more easy and fruitful.

The Tathagatha Buddha has realized in the exact way how a person’s abilities develop, how they deteriorate, and accordingly their potential to realize the Dhamma. This is His Sixth power.

Source: The Supreme Buddha with His Ten Powers
Also one can use the following as a guide:

The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
Faithful: the first six recollections.
Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Kammaṭṭhāna

How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

The dhamma preached by the Buddha does not need anything to be added or taken out. (Svakkhato) Therefore, there is nothing peripheral of not important.

The meditation where you are hearing the sounds is actually better.  Meditation isn't a removal from the world, it's an openness to it.  Sounds don't disappear, at least not until you've reached an extremely refined state of concentration (think 10+ years of practice, day eight of a ten day retreat where you've sat for 10 hours a day).  For much of our practice, rather than sound disappearing, we are simple less affected by them...or affected by them in a entirely novel way.  What it sounds like to me is that you are ruminating, not meditating.  You are probably getting caught up in a cycle of thoughts that is actually alienating you from the outside world, your breath, even your very self.  It's kind of like driving.  I think we've all experienced those times where get caught up in this kind revelry.  Minutes and miles fly by without us being aware of them.  The same thing can happen on the cushion if we are not careful.
Concentration practice is concentration practice.  It doesn't matter if you are using a kasina, a koan, or a brahmavihara.  Believe it or not, when it comes to concentration, our personal obstacles are nearly as unimportant as the object we take up.  Just keeping bringing your mind back to that object.  Every distraction you recover from is one more repetition that builds your meditation muscles.  The reps are what matter - not your individual temperament.


text:
Applied Meditation
I noticed that in the case of metta bhavana, I seem to generate a lot of compassion while sitting, but as soon as I am in the real world I sometimes react impatiently or with irritation. The same goes for mindful breathing, where I act in daily life without much mindfulness despite effective sessions.
What is the best way to bring the benefits of meditation into every day experience?

The purpose of a sitting meditation session is that one continues the practice for the rest of the day.
Following 4 factors, though used in a slightly different context in the quoted text, may help in trying to extend your practice to daily session:

Concern (ābhoga): you pay initial attention to the breath, you apprehend the breath, you advert the mind towards the breath, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Reaction (samannāhāra): you continue to do so, i.e. you pay sustained
  attention to the breath that way, do it again and again, keep the
  breath in the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
Attention (manasikāra): literally ‘deciding to make the breath tranquil’.
  Attention is the mental factor that makes the mind advert towards
  the object. Attention makes the mind conscious of the breath and
  know the breath.
Reviewing (paccavekkhaBa): you review (vīmamsa) the breath, make it
  clear to the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’

p35/36 Knowing and Seeing by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw
In the context of your question:

Concern - one should be concerned to retain the object of meditation may it be breath or metta
Reaction - one should see if one's mind is with the object and if not bring it back. Even if not periodically are apply your mind to the objects by trying to see the meditation object (in the case of breath / ) or be with the meditation object.
Attention - one should pay attention to what the mind is doing, i.e., wandering off or staying in focus
Reviewing - periodically are checking if you are at it

Also, you can try extending to other Brahmavihara meditation to remove impatient reaction and irritation as they can be not only due to ill will but due to other factors like cruelty, discontent and aversion. E.g. one sees someone with a better car which might be irritating. Something being better than mine give arise to discontent.

(1) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of lovingkindness. For when you cultivate lovingkindness, any
  ill will will be abandoned.
(2) Rāhula, practise cultivation of compassion. For, when you cultivate compassion, any cruelty
  will be abandoned.
(3) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of gladness. For, when you cultivate gladness, any discontent
  will be abandoned.
(4) Rāhula, practise the cultivation of equanimity. For, when you cultivate equanimity, any
  aversion will be abandoned.

Mahā Rāhul’ovāda Sutta

One can think of any sitting practice as though it were preparation for using those skills in daily life. One way of translating Mindfulness is "to remember", so practice remembering to return to the present throughout the day, via a chosen object of attention.
Some set a clock to remind them once an hour, others put little notes around the house to remind them. Certain activities lend themselves to easy extensions of your sitting practice, like walking to your car, washing dishes, walking the dog, exercise, etc. - all can be done with mindful awareness. Just be with the sensations of whatever you're doing fully, without letting the mind wander. Be aware of the mind and things you know will trigger unwholesome formations, like getting cut off in traffic. You know it will happen, be ready for it and arm yourself with a mindful and compassionate response beforehand.
It's a habit, and takes time and effort to develop. Every little bit helps, and don't be discouraged at first if you forget. Don't make it stressful, keep it light and rewarding. Relax and release.
Maintaining this mindfulness or compassion throughout your day will increase the benefits of your practice many-fold, and you'll find your sitting practice reflecting that by having deeper sessions with sharper mindfulness.
Good luck!

The following chapter from Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How to Meditate" should answer your question very well. It applies to lay people.
TL;DR
I will summarize it below:

Practise the five precepts heedfully
Eat in moderation
Consume entertainment in moderation
Social networking and socializing should be done in moderation
Sleep in moderation
Avoid any kind of addiction
Practise some amount of mindfulness in daily routine activities and motions
Practise some amount of mindfulness of sensations i.e. acknowledgement of sensations

Quote:

Chapter Six: Daily Life
At this point, instruction in the basic technique of formal meditation
  practice is complete. The teachings in the previous chapters is enough
  for a new-comer to begin on the path towards understanding reality as
  it is. In this final chapter, I will discuss some of the ways in which
  the meditation practice can be incorporated into daily life, so that
  even when one is not formally meditating one can still maintain a
  basic level of mindfulness and clear awareness.
First, it is necessary to discuss activities that are harmful to one’s
  mental clarity; activities one must avoid in order for the meditation
  to bring about sustained positive results.
As I explained in the first chapter, “meditation” is the mental
  equivalent to “medicine”. When taking medicine, there are certain
  substances one must avoid; substances that will either nullify the
  positive effects of the medicine or, worse, combine with the medicine
  to create poison. Likewise, with meditation there are certain
  activities that, due to their tendency to cloud the mind, have the
  potential to nullify the effects of the meditation or, worse, pervert
  one’s understanding of the meditation, causing one to cultivate
  unwholesome mind states instead of wholesome ones.
Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome: [Note1]

One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.
Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess. [Note2]
One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.
Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.
Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.
The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.
Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.
Once one has put aside activities that interfere with clarity of mind,
  one can begin to incorporate meditative awareness into ordinary life.
  There are two ways in which one can meditate on ordinary experience,
  and they should be practiced together, as follows.
The first method is to focus one’s attention on the body, since it is
  the most clearly evident aspect of experience. As in formal
  meditation, the body is always available for observation, and thus
  serves as a convenient means of creating clear awareness of reality in
  daily life. Since the body is generally in one of four postures –
  walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one can simply become aware
  of one’s posture as a meditation object to bring about clarity of
  mind.
When walking, for example, one can note either “walking, walking,
  walking, walking” or “left, right, left, right” as one moves each
  foot. When standing still, one can focus on the standing position and
  note “standing, standing”; when sitting, “sitting, sitting” and when
  lying down, “lying, lying”. In this way, one can develop clarity of
  mind at any time even when not practicing formal meditation.
Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
  body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
  “bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
  turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
  practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
  chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
  swallowing” and so on.
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.
The second method is the acknowledgement of the senses – seeing,
  hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Ordinary sensory experience
  tends to give rise to either liking or disliking; it therefore becomes
  a cause for addiction or aversion and ultimately suffering when it is
  not in line with one’s partialities. In order to keep the mind clear
  and impartial, one should always try to create clear awareness at the
  moment of sensory experience, rather than allowing the mind to judge
  the experience according to its habitual tendencies. When seeing,
  therefore, one should know it simply as seeing, reminding oneself
  “seeing, seeing”.
When hearing a sound, one should likewise note “hearing, hearing”.
  When smelling pleasant or unpleasant odours, “smelling, smelling”.
  When tasting food or drink, instead of becoming addicted to or
  repulsed by the taste, one should note “tasting, tasting”. When
  feelings arise in the body, hot or cold, hard or soft, and so on, one
  should note “feeling, feeling” or “hot”, “cold”, and so on.
Practicing in this way, one will be able to receive the full spectrum
  of experience without compartmentalizing reality into categories of
  “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, “us”, “them”, and so on. As a result,
  true peace, happiness and freedom from suffering is possible at all
  times, in all situations. Once one understands the true nature of
  reality, the mind will cease to react to the objects of the sense as
  other than what they truly are and be free from all addiction and
  aversion, just as a flying bird is free from any need for a perch on
  which to cling.
This then is a basic guide to practice meditation in daily life,
  incorporating the meditation practice directly into one’s life even
  when not formally meditating. Beyond these two methods, one can also
  apply any of the objects discussed in the first chapter – pain,
  thoughts, or the emotions. The techniques discussed in this chapter
  should be thought of as an additional means of making the meditation
  practice a continuous experience whereby one is learning about oneself
  and about reality at all times.
This concludes the basic instruction on how to meditate. Remember that
  no book, no matter how detailed it may be, can substitute sincere and
  ardent practice of the teaching itself. One may learn by heart all
  wise books ever written and still be no better off than a cowherd
  guarding the cattle of others, should one not practice accordingly.
If, on the other hand, one accepts the basic tenets included in a book
  like this as sufficient theoretical knowledge and practices sincerely
  in accordance with them, one is surely guaranteed to attain the same
  results as countless others have likewise attained – peace, happiness
  and true freedom from suffering.
Notes:
[Note1] These five behaviours correspond with the five Buddhist moral
  precepts.
[Note2] The following is in accordance with the eight meditator
  precepts normally taken by Buddhist meditators on holidays or during
  intensive meditation courses, adding the three precepts below to the
  five above and undertaking total celibacy.


text:
Social Media and Right Speech
I seem to have a lot of consideration for others in person, but on social media -- where non-verbal cues are lacking -- I react more easily with irritation and impatience. Since such communication was not existent in the Buddha's time, I wonder:
Are there Buddhist tips or remedies specifically linked with such online types of communication? Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?
Thank you

The conditioning main component of speech is thinking and pondering.

Thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
So I believe regardless of if you speak it or write it the results are the same.
If you just think it and do not follow through with the communication then the effects will be less as this is purely mental karma. If one follows through, more people come in contact with what you have said and comprehends what has been said more the karma. E.g. if you lie and 2 people get deceived this is worse than 1 person. If you lie and nobody understands this is less bad than one person understanding what you said.
The guidelines would be the same for both online and non-online interactions, namely. abstaining

from lying,
from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, and
from idle chatter.

See: Sacca Vibhanga Sutta
For further guidelines see: Right Speech

So are you saying that even only the mental act has karmic consequences?

Physical and verbal action which is followed through has more karmic consequences as doing something requires a lot more mental activity. Ultimately volition is what decides karma.

In the Buddha's time, people would still have communicated remotely through envoys. Social media is much like writing a letter to someone, except that receiving the information is instantaneous (hence, "instant messaging").
This should be reason to make careful consideration regarding the words you use, since you have plenty of opportunity to correct errors, grammatically and ethically, before sending information. Unfortunately, in an age with people born into an expectation of instant gratification, this is not so common. Emotion can run rampant and a single keystroke can send a barrage of letters that may invoke hate, lust, ignorance, etc. I would imagine that the karma for unethical writing is similar to wrong speech. The time it takes to communicate those words may vary among persons, allowing wholesome or unwholesome mental states to fester.
In the digital world, what you write has a higher chance of being kept on record, and used against you. The ways in which karma comes to fruition may be what has changed in the present age, which makes it even more important to be heedful and mindful of your choice of words. The best you can do is keep trying to improve your mode of communication.

You might like to read Ekamsena Sutta (AN 2.18), on the consequences of good and bad conduct.
There's a famous (non-Buddhist) saying, in English, for children

"If You Can't Say Something Nice About Someone, Don't Say Anything at All!"

Following that advice that might be even easier on social media, because you have time to think before you post.
Is there a good way to use "reputation", too?

Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done: One can fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, criticize one; one's bad reputation gets spread about; one dies confused; and — on the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done.

I've been conversing online since the earliest 1990s. I don't remember being mean to people but there were times I got into silly (friendly) chats and conversations with people, using a pseudonym.
Since then I tend to post, instead, with a username that's more-or-less identifiable as a real person
I'm not saying that you need to investigate which person I am -- but, "I" recognise what I post as being "my" username and "my" post and so on -- maybe you don't want to post stuff that you ought to feel ashamed of ...

Given that I have declared, Ananda, that good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct should be done, these are the rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn't fault oneself; observant people, etc.

... so adopting some kind of "identity" -- as if this were in public, not in private -- might help to "take responsibility".
And since you asked for Buddhist advice, how about No Attachment to Dust:

Even though alone in a dark room, be as if you were facing a noble guest

Karmically speaking, would online communication be a lesser consequence than actual in person wrong speech?
Perhaps it's greater consequence:

Read by more people
Remembered for longer
Less immediate consequence

If you're talking in person and (for example) you offend, there's immediate consequence -- they reply -- and you might correct was said and why you said it.
Whereas with fewer immediate "consequences" to what you post online, there's less feedback or correction -- and maybe what you do, say, and think are more likely to become "habitual".

The best thing to do is re-read the comment you typed to post at least twice before sending. While doing this your mind will calm down & bring you to right mindfulness. This way you can minimize the amount of wrong speech you perform. Continually practicing, you'll be able to stop thinking the sentence as soon as it starts coming up to your mind.
Always remember that what you post on social media has much greater influence than what you say in actual speech. What you type in is read by millions of people around the world. All the people reading it will get the same emotion you got while typing it. This will emit a large amount of hated rays to the universe which will have bad impacts. This is the scientific reason why Lord Buddha chanted us to always be mindful about our speech & speak only productive & nice things.
You've done a great work by identifying that you are impatient while using social media. Now it's only the easy part left. Wish you luck in accomplishing it. May the noble triple gem bless you!