text:
Publication of written texts involving the dhamma
I have bought in my life many works written by the Dalai Lama. I know that as a monk, he forgoes material possessions. Yet, I recognize money is still being made with those texts, from the editors and publishers and so on. Am I to understand that it would only be wrong to sell such texts if the author gained money directly?
What considerations are involved in the sale and publication of dhamma-related works?

In case this answers the question:

Books & Publications
The Gaden Phodrang Foundation of the Dalai Lama manages and coordinates in close cooperation with the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama copyright-related matters for books and other publications authored and co-authored by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.
By assigning rights, title and interest in His writings and other publications, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has graciously donated all royalties from these publications to the Gaden Phodrang Foundation of the Dalai Lama. The royalties are one of the major income sources for the foundation’s fund.
The Foundation also commissions major translations throughout the world, which are in the context of preservation of Tibetan Buddhist culture, science and philosophy.

The Tibetan Vinaya including commentaries is apparently pretty large -- now I don't know it, but I assume it's believed that this kind of setup is compliant with it.
Instead of quoting the Tibetan Vinaya, consider these two paragraphs -- from The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu -- which explain why money donated to help the upkeep of a monk is donated to a steward (a monastery attendant or lay follower).

The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are
quite complex—much more complex than even this long training rule
would indicate—and require a detailed explanation. What follows is an
attempt to make them clear. If it seems long and involved, remember that
the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from the even more
bothersome worries and complexities that come with participating in
buying, selling, and monetary matters in general.
This rule is one of four nissaggiya pācittiya rules covering a bhikkhu’s
proper relationship to money. The others are NP 18, 19, & 20. Although
they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus precisely on the two
acts involving money that are most burdensome to a sensitive mind: In the
act of accepting money, or having it accepted in one’s name, one is
accepting all the cares, responsibilities, and dangers that come with its
ownership; in the act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility
for the fairness of the trade—that it undervalues neither the generosity of
the person who donated the money nor the goods or services of the
person receiving the money in exchange.

I'm not saying this is that same kind of donation -- e.g. for that purpose -- but it does seem similar in being an arm's-length transaction.
I guess your concern may be not that at all, but the rather the idea of "selling Dhamma"...
Incidentally aren't a lot of the Dalai Lama's books co-authored? His name is on the jacket, but the way it happens is that he talks to an author who does the work of turning it into a book.
Personally it seems to me better that it is popularised or published, sold in book-stores, than that it isn't. It isn't the only way to spread Dhamma, but without books many people in the West would have no access at all.

Please see "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Ven. Ariyesako.
According to the Vinaya (monastic rules), monks are not allowed to receive, give, keep (for their own sake), or deal with money (including buying, selling, trading, investing, exchanging) etc.
However, lay persons acting as stewards, can handle financial affairs for monks and monasteries.
Hence, the financial transactions associated with publication, sales and handling of the proceeds of sales of books and other information media should be handled by lay stewards. Publication transactions include registration of web domains etc.
If needed, exceptions or modifications to minor monastic rules can be made, based on The Great Standards.

One should not make an effort everywhere, should not be another’s
hireling, should not live dependent on another, should not go about as
a trader in the Dhamma.
Ud 6.2

I am not sure about Dalai Lama's books, wouldn't hold them on par with Sutta.

Do you understand Dhamma to be limited to Sutta?

No but it has to generally align and be inferable from the Sutta.

I didn't want to put down his holiness and i am not familiar but works of disciples in general one has to analyze & cross reference to see if it's Dhamma or not, that even if they are leaders of a guild or have a large following.


text:
How should Buddhism be introduced to a country?
What has historical precedent to teach and what is your opinion?

Good householder,
By generosity, respect and goodwill toward the Gems, through the carrier (or vehicle) which is the Sangha of Monks, this Dhamma-Vinaya would have foundation to get introduced and maybe established within the country.
The teachings of the Buddha, and its spreading deeper into a certain community in the world, would always have to be introduced by the Sublime Buddha's disciples, the Sangha.
Establishing of the (Re-)legion requires foremost the Sangha of Bhikkhus and could take place when invited by the reigning King of the country, or leader of a certain community. Such would mean: There is Dhamma-Vinaya present in this country or community.
As for the current situation, there are for the most part, no more Kings, leader, really in charge and as far as I'm aware, while having or doing die off in old countries, Dhamma-Vinaya hasn't been established anywhere else in the world.
And as far as I'm aware, there is only one country left where a dhammic King still reigns, where most laws are still in harmony with the Dhamma-Vinaya and no disputes over its sublimeness have yet arisen. However, it might also end after this generation.
Soon, if negative tendencies continue, there will be no more Sangha present, no more Dhamma-Vinaya, but just a worldly attempt at an inferior copy: Buddhism.
One, seeing still an opportunity, should, if wise, go to join the holy life within an institution that will soon decay and one will less likely be able to go forth without such support.
Hurry up, whenever an opportunity is found. Those heading for liberation shouldn't wait.

which country is that ?

@Letsbuddhism I can only guess Bhutan is the country where, at least until quite recently, the monarchy was absolute.

One doesn't introduce Buddhism to a country. One introduces Buddhism to people, and people carry it with them where they go.
Spreading Buddhism is like spilling water; it goes where it will, without much regard for borders, and nourishes those it touches.

cheeky, i like it

The Vinaya says:

Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of
the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the
good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way.
Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in
its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its
purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter. There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are ruined because of not hearing the Teaching. There will be those who understand.
Mahākhandhaka

To avoid ambiguity about the above, suttas such as MN 95 say:

Here, Bhāradvāja, a bhikkhu may be living in dependence on some
village or town. Then a householder or a householder’s son goes to him
and investigates him in regard to three kinds of states: in regard to
states based on greed, in regard to states based on hate, and in
regard to states based on delusion.
As he investigates him he comes to know: ‘There are no such states in
this venerable one. The bodily behaviour and the verbal behaviour of
this venerable one are not those of one affected. And the Dhamma that
this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and hard to
understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning,
subtle, to be experienced by the wise. This Dhamma cannot easily be
taught by one affected by greed, hate & delusion.’

In summary, if our facial complexion looks as though we are depressed, not pure and not joyful, we cannot spread the Dhamma effectively to gods & men.

Also, about the phrase: "There are beings with little dust in their eyes...", MN 26 says:

I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in
their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties, with good
qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach, and
some who dwelt seeing fear and blame in the other world.

For example, those on the internet who watch porn and endorse sex with prostitutes dwell not seeing fear and blame in the other world. They have dust in their eyes.

Such concerns have obliviously resulted in the degeneration of Buddhism over the past 2,600 years.
Simply teach the Dhamma; starting with DN 31 as mundane and SN 56.11 as supramundane.
The scripture say the Dhamma is taught primarily to people who are gods & humans rather than to people dwelling in the hungry ghost, animal & hell realms.

And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that a being not liable to delusion has arisen in the world for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare and happiness of gods and humans, it’s of me that this should be said.
MN 4

Being unaware of these three fires, This generation delights
in personal existence. Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, Existence in the animal realm, Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts. Iti 93
This generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.' MN 26

The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are
established within the person teaching. Which five?
[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
step-by-step.'
[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of
compassion.'
[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
for the purpose of material reward.'
[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
without hurting myself or others.'
AN 5.159

It’s when in different localities the same thing is known as a ‘plate’, a ‘bowl’, a ‘cup’, a ‘dish’, a ‘basin’, a ‘tureen’, or a ‘porringer’. And however it is known in those various localities, you speak accordingly, thinking: ‘It seems that the venerables are referring to this.’ That’s how you don’t insist on local terminology and don’t override normal usage. - mn 139.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning of the word 'Emptiness' as it was used in the oldest texts?
Want references/excerpts and inference pertaining to the references & etymology for the designation[s] of "Emptiness" as it is used in the Pali Sutta.

The article on Wikipedia seems well-referenced. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Early_Buddhism

Our friend Samana Johan used to advertise a book on this exact topic: "The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature" by Dhammajothi Thero, available for download on his community website.

This is well explained by Ven. Thanissaro in his commentary to MN 122:

This sutta gives many valuable lessons on practical issues surrounding
the attempt to develop an internal meditative dwelling of emptiness,
to maintain it, and to see it through to Awakening. Some of these
issues include the need for seclusion as a conducive setting for the
practice, types of conversation and thinking that are beneficial and
harmful for the practice, the dangers of being distracted by visitors,
and the proper attitude to have toward one's teacher. However, for an
explanation of emptiness in and of itself, it's necessary to look
elsewhere in the Canon.
There you find emptiness approached from three perspectives, treating
it (1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and
(3) as a type of awareness-release. The first approach is obviously
the most immediately relevant to the discussion in this sutta, but in
fact all three approaches play a role here.
Emptiness as a meditative dwelling is most fully discussed in MN 121.
Essentially, it boils down to the ability to center the mind in a
particular mode of perception, to maintain it there, and then to
notice the absence and presence of disturbance within that mode. The
process starts with perceptions of one's external surroundings —
village, wilderness, the earth property — and then moves internally to
the four formless states, the "themeless concentration of awareness,"
and finally to release from all mental fermentation. Each step is
compared to the one preceding it to see how its more refined
perception engenders less disturbance. For instance, if you move from
a perception of the wilderness to a perception of earth, the first
step is to settle and "indulge" in that perception. Then you notice
what types of disturbance have been abandoned in the move from the
perception of wilderness to the perception of earth — for example, all
thought of the dangers of wilderness are gone — and then to see what
disturbances remain based on the latter perception. Then you abandon
the perception causing those disturbances and move on to a more
refined level of perception. This process is pursued until it arrives
at the "themeless concentration of awareness." When noting that even
this refined level of concentration is fabricated, inconstant, and
subject to cessation, one gains total release from all mental
fermentations and the disturbances that would arise based on them.
This is the level of emptiness that is "superior and unsurpassed," and
is apparently what the Buddha is referring to in this sutta when he
says that by "not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in
internal emptiness."
Notice that in every step along the way of this process, the emptiness
is the lack of disturbance experienced in a particular mind state.
This means that the mind state is to be perceived simply as an example
of the presence and absence of stress. In other words, emptiness in
this sense relates directly to the second of the three characteristics
— stress or suffering. The pursuit of this emptiness relates to the
four noble truths, as it looks for the causes of stress and uses
tranquility together with insight to abandon those causes in a quest
to put a total end to suffering.
Emptiness in its second meaning, as an attribute of objects, is most
fully discussed in SN 35.85. That sutta describes emptiness as meaning
the lack of self or anything pertaining to a self in the internal and
external sense media. Whatever sense of self that may surround these
objects is not inherent in them, and is instead simply the result of
one's own penchant for "I-making" and "my-making." Seeing the
artificiality of "I-making" and "my-making" in this way helps lead to
a sense of disenchantment with these "makings," thus helping to
abandon any clinging associated with them.
Thus emptiness in this sense relates directly to the third of the
three characteristics: not-self. However, just as the three
characteristics are not radically separate from one another —
everything stressful is for that reason not-self — the practical
application of this sense of emptiness is not radically different from
the first. As SN 12.15 points out, when one no longer latches onto any
idea of "my self," one sees phenomena within and without simply as
examples of stress arising and passing away. To practice meditation
from this perspective — seeing each state of concentration as an
example of stress arising and passing away — is to develop emptiness
as a meditative dwelling.
Emptiness in its third meaning, as a type of awareness-release, is an
application of emptiness in its second. MN 43 describes this state of
concentration as follows: "There is the case where a monk — having
gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty
dwelling — considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything
pertaining to self.'" It adds that this awareness-release is different
from the awareness-release that results when one doesn't attend to any
themes. Thus this state of concentration cannot be entirely equated
with the emptiness as a meditative dwelling mentioned in this sutta.
MN 106 further adds that if one frequently abides in the emptiness
awareness-release, one may either attain the dimension of nothingness
— one of the formless states — or be committed to the discernment that
will lead to Awakening. The first of these two alternatives is another
way in which emptiness as an awareness-release differs from emptiness
as a meditative dwelling as defined in MN 121. However, because the
standard definition of discernment is seeing phenomena in terms of the
four noble truths, the second alternative — being committed to
discernment — would apparently follow the same pattern suggested by SN
12.15, above. In other words, as one no longer perceives phenomena in terms of self, one tends to view them simply as examples of stress
arising and passing away. So, again, this third meaning of emptiness,
like the second, eventually leads in practice back to the first. As MN
43 notes, when one attains full awakening, the themeless
awareness-release and the emptiness awareness-release come to differ
only in name, and not in actuality.
In reading the following sutta, you will notice that the various
meanings of emptiness will fit some contexts better than others.
Still, it is important to remember that in the course of practice, all
three meanings are related and all will inevitably play a role in
Awakening.

added an answer for comment

I have nothing to describe endlessly?

This is a low quality answer. Please see this page for advice on how to write a good answer.

Transcending form, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to space:

MN121:6.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of wilderness and the perception of earth—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.

Transcending space, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to consciousness:

MN121:7.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness.

Transcending consciousness, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to nothingness:

MN121:8.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of infinite space and the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.

Continuing thus, beyond signs, beyond even the signless, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to emptiness, without defilements:

MN121:12.4: They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

That is a summary of how emptiness is understood per MN121. Everything else is simply stressful commentary.

A lengthy comment on Ruben's answer;
I think Thanissaro wasn't necessarily wrong in meaning but is rather sloppy there saying;

"This process is pursued until it arrives at the "themeless concentration of awareness." When noting that even this refined level of concentration is fabricated, inconstant, and subject to cessation, one gains total release from all mental fermentations and the disturbances that would arise based on them.

The meaning should be close to this for it to be an agreeable expression to me;
The release is conditioned in as far as there is a conditioning of aggregates leading to the release but the truth & reality of the release itself is unconditioned.
A person does not become unsatisfied with the release but he becomes disenchanted with the aggregates that are grasped with wrong view as personal and are that from which there is a release.
It is the prior development of the aggregates that conditions emergence from the sannavedananirodha and these are only fully exhausted at parinibbana.

"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"
"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

How the Blessed One Passed into Nibbana

And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.

And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."

"No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."[59]

Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
first jhana.

Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
the Blessed One immediately passed away. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Until Parinibbana the yogi will be said to be entering into & emerging from the percepience of extinguishment, whereas at parinibbana the faculties are scattered and life-force extinguished, therefore there is nothing left to be grasped as a person and one therefore does not say that a person is abiding in parinibbana or is going to be emerging from it.
In regards to the following;

"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven. Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, how many contacts make contact?"
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the
signless, & contact with the undirected."[3]

Theravadin comy says;

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness

I think it is appropriate to say that signless release removes taints in regards to this excerpt

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

In that sense it is on the treshold of nibbana

“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the
removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The
destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”
When this was said, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Venerable
sir, it is said, ‘the Deathless, the Deathless.’ What now, venerable
sir, is the Deathless? What is the path leading to the Deathless?”
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction
of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path
is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view … right
concentration.” https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi

Nibbana and other words are sometimes spoken of in a qualified and sometimes in a definitive sense;

“Reverend, they speak of a person called ‘personal witness’. What is the personal witness that the Buddha spoke of?”
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. They meditate
directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the
Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, enters and remains in the second
absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption. They meditate
directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the
Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement,
not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is
infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. They
meditate directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this
extent the Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who enters and remains in the dimension
of infinite consciousness … the dimension of nothingness … the
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains
in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with
wisdom, their defilements come to an end. They meditate directly
experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the Buddha
spoke of the personal witness in a definitive sense.”

or here;

“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of extinguishment in the present life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the
cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom,
their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of
extinguishment in the present life in a definitive sense.”

Here another relevant part of the mn43 that should explain how it is prior development that is the cause for attainment, a cause for persistence and a cause for the emerging from and not the release itself or something released that upholds the truth of the release;

"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven. Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "Now, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the
cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has
previously been developed leads him to that state."
"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven.
Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk is
emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, which things
arise first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental
fabrications?"
"When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling,
mental fabrications arise first, then bodily fabrications, then verbal
fabrications."
"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven.
Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk has
emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, how many contacts
make contact?"
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling,
three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the
signless, & contact with the undirected." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

And this;

"How many conditions are there for the attainment of the theme-less
awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the attainment of the theme-less
awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes and attention to
the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the
attainment of the theme-less awareness-release."
"And how many conditions are there for the persistence of the
theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less
awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the
theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three
conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release."
"And how many conditions are there for the emergence from the
theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the emergence from the theme-less
awareness-release: attention to all themes and lack of attention to
the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the
emergence from the theme-less awareness-release." -mn43

The word 'extinguishment-cessation-element' means something close to an end of the burning things there; it doesn't mean that it is something that is literally left in the ashes and is in that sense not to be construed as a thing among the cessant conditioned elements that were burning and it is likewise with the extinguishment-cessation of that which is discerned to be changing as it persists [the conditioned: sankhata].
That state being the Asoka-state [sorrowless; without suffering], which is also an attainment of the deathless; and that seeing with wisdom is said to be a destruction of taints for a person.
This doing eventually makes it so one emerges an arahant, without defilement, this is said to be the foremost release and as a completed destruction of taints

venerable sir, whenever we want, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom. Venerable sir, this is another superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a comfortable abiding, which we have attained by surmounting the preceding abiding, by making that abiding subside. And, venerable sir, we do not see any other comfortable abiding higher or more sublime than this one.”

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


text:
I have a question, but feel it's far to sensitive to share here
I have a question about my current practice, but feel it's far too sensitive to share here. I do not personally know any person, teacher or guru who I could ask this question. What could I do in this instance?

StackExchange allows you to post questions anonymously when you sign out, if that helps.

What's a sensitive question, why it's a question ashamed to ask? And might asking it oneself honest lead fast to a very insightfull answer? Didn't, does't it, as, in cases of reading selfchosen texts or approach those one current feels secure, would in most cases be just food for ones defilements to hide themself up, good householder. Would he ask it now, this sensitive question?

in summary, a sotappana has no doubts therefore the question can't be about if you are a sotapanna, once returner, non-returner or arahant.

Remarkably, for every single question I would have asked the Buddha or the Sangha, I've always found an answer in the suttas. There are a lot of suttas, so searching them can be overwhelming.  The internet provides many ways to search the suttas. For example, for Early Buddhist Texts, Suttacentral.net has a prolific search engine that returns a massive number of results. For a more targeted search of a subset of the EBTs, Voice.suttacentral.net presents up to 50 directly relevant sutta results for arbitrary search strings. But these are only two examples--there are many other ways to find and search the Teachings.
However, for personal practice questions, it's also very helpful to talk with others as you've indicated. Personal practice question should really be directed towards a specific Sangha familiar with the nature of your own practice.
Buddhism StackExchange is not really designed for private chat exchanges. Although it does have chat rooms, these rooms are more for extended discussions about a specific topic of public interest. Nor is Buddhism SE intended for opinions and recommendations. Questions about personal practice should really be answered directly by the relevant Sangha for that practice. For example, Zen practice questions should be directed towards appropriate teachers or communities (e.g., Soto vs. Rinzai).
Instead of Buddhism StackExchange, which has a strict Q&A format, consider posting your question to more conversational Buddhist forums such as SuttaCentral Discuss and Discover. Such forums will support extended public conversations as well as private conversations held in confidence. Folks on such forums will often be quite happy to help direct you to Sanghas that may be able to assist you.

Thanks. The suttas are nearly always my port of call, but I haven't find anything in there. I'll look into your other suggestions.

Ah, yes. I found it thanks to your suggestion. ;-)

Would you mind if closed this question?

Second thoughts, it may be quite helpful to others, so I'll just leave it.

Most Monastics/Temples/Meditation Centers have a Youtube channel these days - especially in the West. They often have a weekly "Monk Chat" where people can ask questions in the chat and the monastics answer them live.
If you go to Buddhist Insights’ Youtube channel they have a weekly Monk Chat every Friday. You could try and ask your question there. A little tip is to be there at the beginning so you can type in your question as one of the first.


text:
Are the Five Precepts a gradual training?
In this answer it's said that the Five Precepts are not a form of gradual training.
Are they are a gradual training? If not, why?
Thank you for your time.

The five precepts are not a gradual training. Buddhists undertake it as the most minimum training in virtue (sila).
Followers of Buddhism are expected to undertake the training in the five precepts mindfully (i.e. keeping it in mind) with right effort.
If they lapse, they should continue to try their best the next time, without feeling remorse, as this is a voluntary training and not divine commandments.
What might be gradual is the degree of perfection of the practice of the five precepts. This is not strictly required for lay persons, but it is definitely expected of monks and nuns.
Here's the sutta stating the expectation on monks to practise perfection in virtue.

"And how is a monk consummate in beauty? There is the case where a
monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
slightest fault. This is how a monk is consummate in beauty.
AN 3.94

For e.g. you may avoid killing humans and most animals, but you may occasionally kill mosquitoes or house pests intentionally. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of the first precept means not causing the death of any sentient being at all.
You may not steal or take what is not given, but you may occasionally park illegally when you are not able to find legal parking available, and you may get away with it without getting a parking ticket. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never parking illegally. Please also see this answer.
You may not drink alcoholic beverages till you become drunk and heedless, but you may drink a little occasionally for social reasons. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never recreationally consuming any intoxicating substance at all, even a little.
You may not have a sexual and/or romantic relationship or fling with anyone who is not in a mutually exclusive long term relationship with you, but you may occasionally mildly flirt with someone other than your exclusive long term partner. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never engaging in a flirtatious manner with anyone who is not your exclusive long term partner (should you have one).
And what about the precept of not speaking untruth?
Well, you should try to practise it to perfection, even as a lay person. The reason for this is explained below.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."
The person who lies,
who transgress in this one thing,
transcending concern for the world beyond:
there's no evil he might not do.
Iti 25

There are many suttas that say merely transgressing one of the precepts leads to a bad outcome. For example, if you keep the four precepts but not the 3rd, this won't stop your spouse divorcing you; or if you keep four precepts but not the 1st, those won't stop you being imprisoned for murder.
For example, imagine being a strict moralist about not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying and not taking drugs & alcohol; and therefore you go around executing (killing) people who transgress these four precepts. Keeping four precepts won't protect you from the repercussions of killing others.


text:
Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?
Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths?
Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means?
An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence.
An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha.
An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.
An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact.
Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.”
Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.

Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?

This sutta basically says that if a person rejects rebirth then he is going to a bad rebirth.

A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is no this world, no next world
[...]
if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the
breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

Whether they can still develop good qualities, i think of course and they will rehabilitate faster if they do.
As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.

Do you think they can rehabilitate while still clinging to a denial of rebirth? This is great btw.

As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.

What you call "conventional right view" is just skillful means to help one adopt a skillful or wholesome mindset. It's just a helpful tool. The following is an example.

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth (upapatti), are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

What you call "profound right view" are universal truths. Whether anyone is there to know them or not, they remain true.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

What about the fully enlightened ones? What views do they hold?
The answer is that they have let go of all views.

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them
as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of
that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from
contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in
ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by
laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless.
Those skilled (in judgment) (i.e. the Buddhas and their disciples who
have realized the goal). say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying
on it, one regards everything else as inferior.
Therefore a bhikkhu
should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual
observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine
himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the
views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does
not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is
certainly not one to take sides.
He does not [have] recourse to a view
at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for
becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there
does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines
assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized
he does not form the least notion.
That brahman (i.e. a perfected one)
who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the
world?
"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on
views."
Snp 4.5

I have asked your questions in a different way before. I asked: Why the view “I am the owner of my karma” not contradict anatta?
The best answer for this question, by Sankha Kulathantille, has answered it very well.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced
practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone
regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many
will end up being more confused than they already are. That's why there
are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a
conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is
important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate
reality.

That means views like "I am the owner of my karma" and rebirth are simply used as skillful means, as crutches to help one who hasn't overcome the fetter of self-view (sakkaya ditthi) and who hasn't understood anatta yet.

Hi Ruben, while this is interesting it is not really answering the questions is it? The questions are pretty straightforward I think…

I’ve edited the questions to use your conventions… does that make it easier to answer?

@YesheTenley I have updated the answer. I hope it's clear now.

Sorry, I still don’t know whether or not you think unskillful means can lead to liberation or whether skillful means are in accordance with profound truths or not… perhaps you think unskillful means can be skillful for some or that skillful means can be unskillful for some?

Is the denial of the conventional truth of rebirth ever a skillful means for some? Is such a denial ever in accordance with profound truth?

@YesheTenley I've added a second answer. I think that will be a more accurate answer to your question

TL;DR
Denying rebirth view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is the noble right view.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see this answer.
Long answer
It appears that the most accurate answer to your question is found in MN 117.
Denying rebirth, while holding self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism.
Rebirth appears to be part of the right view with effluents/ taints. That makes sense because rebirth is only skillful means according to AN 5.57. It's not absolute truth. It's just a tool to inspire one towards liberation.
The noble right view appears to be concerned with the ultimate truth. When self-view is discarded, rebirth view will be discarded too.
I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. The rebirth puzzle is solved.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as
right view. This is one's right view.
And what is wrong view? 'There
is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly,
proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized
it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? '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 contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
MN 117

This is much better and I am getting an idea of your answer! Thank you. I have a few uncertainties with your answer though… do you regard right action also as skillfull means? And the fruits of right action are also skillful means? In that same sutta it describes refraining from killing as right action with effluents. So is “refraining from killing” like rebirth as you described? Not true, not false, just a skillful means? And karma? Is that also: “not true, not falsehood, etc”

And I still don’t know whether you think it possible to achieve liberation while holding wrong views or practicing unskillful means… can someone achieve liberation while denying rebirth or denying right action eg., killing living beings?

Are skillful means or "right view with effluents" in accordance with profound truths or "right view without effluents? Vice versa? Are skillful means for some unskillful for others?

the buddha defines right view with effluents as right view but ok sure,  its discarded by right view without effluents,  cos that is a logical and coherent thought that obviously validly follows after the others

I'd note that the problem with right action with taints is the reason for the behavior: it's doing things for reasons involving the self -- to get a good rebirth  (that's the "siding with merit" part). Also note that in the descriptions, the higher "right anything" is listed as being a factor of the path, whereas the tainted "right anything" is not.

@LindaBlanchard Reading the whole sutta, it looks to me that the right anything with effluents is for lay followers e.g. sexual misconduct, right livelihood in trades. The noble right anything is for monks and noble disciples. Hence, a belief in kamma and rebirth affecting all beings may generate the path and cause a shift from the version with effluents, to the noble version.

@ruben2020 I agree.

@YesheTenley Denying rebirth view while holding on to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism. Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is right view. Rebirth view can be used as skillful means to remove misconduct and generate the path to liberation.

No, I don’t think that is right. Refraining from killing living beings and not stealing and not lying is good in the beginning, the middle, and the end.

The Dharma is good in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. You are still seeing discord between the profound and the conventional.

@YesheTenley There's no discord. It's just like in school, we teach Newtonian law of gravity to high school students, then later physics postgraduates learn Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Similarly, accepting rebirth view is like Newtonian gravity, while not-self is like Einsteinian Relativity. It's just more accurate.

“And what is the right action with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? Abstaining from killing, from taking what is not given, & from illicit sex.“ -> this should be given up? No longer practiced? After achieving right action without effluents the killing of living beings is fine?

@YesheTenley The precept on sexual misconduct is for lay persons. It's right action with effluents. For monks, they have to follow the noble right action which requires celibacy as part of monasticism.

And refraining from killing and refraining from lying? Also only for lay people??

“Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is right view“ this is wrong. Affirming rebirth while not acknowledging it as a real and genuine fact was the example of the Buddha.

Affirming existence of people while not acknowledging them as real and genuine facts was the example of the Buddha.

@YesheTenley The idea of rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness

People exist, people wander from life to life. The Buddha affirmed this many many times and he never refuted or denied it. The teaching of anatta does not deny this. The Noble right view does not deny this. To believe otherwise is to see discord between the profound and the conventional.

@YesheTenley If by "people", you mean a chain of dependent processes, then that's right.

Yes, there is the rebirth of people and this is suffering. There is wandering on and the Buddha described his own past lives many times. This was never denied or overturned by Noble right view. It cannot be overturned as it is the truth. Neither the Buddha nor his past lives are to be seen as real and genuine facts. There is no contradiction.

events are not all disembodied arisings and stoppings. the 5 heaps are the parts of a person,  as the buddha explained,  not merely 5 more disembodied events to be added to a mass collection of planetary events.  the lack of an unchanging,  independent partless self is a fact about yourself and ur parts.  it does not mean or imply the lack of the person who realizes notself.  that is a conceptual object you are conjuring artificially which u should have caught onto by now.  perfect ur concentration find the self which required great skill and then u are set to perform the full investigation

no,  liberation and right view occur simultaneously the way access concentration/shamata occurs along with the cessation of desire for sense objects ie. food and sex
worth noting that incomplete right view is different than wrong view.  wrong view is complete detachment from reality and instead operating within an illusion of knowledge  that it is mistaken as reality eg. physicalists who deny rebirth thru holding the nonempirical metaphysics of a physically mechanistic universe

From this I understand you to be saying that skillful means of acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth is in accordance with profound truths and that unskillful means of denying conventional rebirth is not in accordance, right?

@Yeshe Tenley mere acknowledgement is trivial and anything on that level will change like the wind.  i was talking more about actual conventional reality and the realization of it which brings about nirvana not mere acknowledgement which has nothing to do with nirvana by definition.  maybe im just getting distracted by the unfamiliar words

Yeah, acknowledging is just the antonym of denying. Despite the strange words I think I understand you :)

There are several times in the Sutta where Sariputta or Ananda would say wrong things and be corrected.
Iirc,
Once when Ananda said that this Dhamma is clear as clear can be and Buddha told him not to say that because the Dhamma that is taught is difficult to see as is dependent origination.
Another occasion was when Sariputta said that the Buddha Gotama was foremost of all and Buddha told him not to say that because he doesn't know the past Buddhas.
I recall another instance where he said something akin to a dispute about vinaya being a trifling matter whereas if monks were to be in a disagreement about path & fruition it would be detrimental to many beings.
Buddha often talked about pernicious views as those that lead to hell and said that the foremost wrong view is that 'maybe it is true and maybe it is otherwise' one does not come to a definite conclusion 'only this is true & everything else is false', his statement 'this is my conviction' safeguards the truth either way.
Being fixated in wrong view like annihilation of an existent being or an eternal persistence of a personal element are among the worst kind of wrong views it seems

Ananda wasn't an arahant right, until later. Might you happen to be able to add a reference for the second-last paragraph, about the "foremost wrong view"?

I couldn't find it but i am sure it exists, the point was that the foremost wrong view was the better wrong view to hold. Canki Sutta also supports this explaining how one safeguards the truth.

Id ask around for a reference but i don't use other boards

@Letsbuddhism: I wonder if you are thinking of MN 74 "To Longnails"?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.074.than.html

no, i looked long and hard but couldn't find it. I think i probably got it confused with inference of the canki sutta which pretty much the same thing if one thinks about it. There is another discourse comparing holding the body to be a self to be better than taking mind to be a self because the former lasts for a short time. I think maybe i mixed the two discourses and inferred that not being fixated is the foremost.


text:
How to reconcile the "right view" in the Noble Eightfold path with Snp 4.5?
The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path.
However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost:

“Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best,
supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by
this he does not become free from disputes.“

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path??
If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path?
It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5?
Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

The four noble truths are a tin opener. If you held onto a tin-opener like a child holds a Teddy bear, if you worshipped the tin-opener, studied the tin-opener and its finest mechanical intricacies, how would you get to enjoy your food? I guess your mind is looking for some academic playfulness.

Actually AN 3.136 only talks about the three marks of existence.

@neuromax answers should be put in answers not in comments, thanks

@ruben2020 right, but you asserted in your other answer that the Four Noble truths were the same type of thing as was discussed in AN 3.136 ;)

@YesheTenley I changed the answer.

I've edited this OP appropriately given your edited answer.

Enlightenment is important for reading Sutta, or at least memorizing. Actually, the noble one in love with memorizing Sutta, so it's same ^.^

It’s been asserted that the Four Noble Truths were profound universal truths as described in AN 3.136. The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path.

In DN22 SammaDitthi of SaccaPabba, right view is professional understanding of the four noble truth.
The right view is a factor of knower, 4 noble truth is the object.

However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost:
“Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by this he does not become free from disputes.“

Holding means clinging, craving, addict.
Holding  on View means DitthUpadana.
Upadana must arising with  Delusion, Shamelessness, Fearlessness, Restlessness and having clinging-object which receive via 6 doors by  contact, feeling, perception, intention, one-pointedness, life,  attention, thinking, keeping thinking, decision, keeping trying, (sometime maybe conceit or wrong view or Sloth (mind) and torpor (body)).
But the right view can't arise with above factors. The right view must arise with wholesome Nama.
sobhana-sadharana cetasika
(Beautiful Ones - 19 which arise with all whole some mind)

saddha = faith, confidence
sati = mindfulness, attentiveness
hiri = moral shame
ottappa = moral dread
alobha = non-attachment, greedlessness, generosity
adosa = hatelessness, goodwill
tatramajjhattata = equanimity, mental balance
kaya-passaddhi = tranquility of mental concomitants
citta-passaddhi = tranquility of consciousness
kaya-lahuta = agility or lightness of mental concomitants
citta-lahuta = agility or lightness of consciousness
kaya-muduta = elasticity of mental concomitants
citta-muduta = elasticity of consciousness
kaya-kammannata = adaptability of mental concomitants
citta-kammannata = adaptability of consciousness
kaya-pagunnata = proficiency of mental concomitants
citta-pagunnata = proficiency of consciousness
kayujjukata = uprightness of mental concomitants
cittujjukata = uprightness of consciousness

virati cetasika
(Abstinences - 3)

samma-vacca = right speech
samma-kammanta = right action
samma-ajiva = right livelihood

appamanna cetasika
(Illimitables - 2)

karuna = compassion
mudita = sympathetic joy

pannindriya (1)

pannindriya = wisdom or insight

1.phassa = contact or mental impression
2.vedana = feeling
3.sanna = perception
4.cetana = volition or intention
5.ekaggata = one – pointedness, concentration (samadhi)
6.jivitindriya = vitality or psychic life
7.manasikara = attention or advertence
1.vitakka = initial application or thought conception
2.vicara = sustained application or discursive thinking
3.adhimokkha = decision or determination
4.viriya = effort or energy or exertion
5.piti = rapture or interest
6.chanda = wish, desire or will
So, you can notice the difference of your mind by analysis it's factors. However, it is hard for people who have no skill in wholesome meditation especially concentration meditation because it is the base of soft analysis (first step of the insight meditation).
See https://www.bdcu.org.au/bddronline/bddr12no5/bddr12no5.html

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5?

Yes.

If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons a profound universal truth which is true whether a Realized One arises or not??
If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path?

Yes, in meaning "abandons clinging on a profound universal truth".
No, in meaning "thinking of  a profound universal truth".
The noble one can know both wrong view and right view, but they understand the truth of them without addict, clinging, craving on the wrong view.
To analysis them see above factor list to analysis each mind whether wholesome or unwholesome by checking it's factors.

Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

It is about 4 bias. When one is clinging on a view and deny other views without understanding the truth, they may decide the right as wrong.
For the example, one decide to cling whether "there is no next life" only, but if it is possible, he miss the truth. Or one decide to cling whether  "there must be next life" only, but if it is impossible, he miss the truth. Then when they meet each other, they will argue and fight each other "all me right, all you wrong" without trying to understand the truth.
This is basic explanation. It is more very complex and advance for the insight meditation. We study and practice each mind moment in trillion times arising per second whether "which is wholesome? which is unwholesome? Which is 3 characteristics". And for this very big data analysis, we practice advance concentration meditation.

That you for your straightforward answer!

Even today, in English, there are two distinctly different, even opposite meanings of the word "view". In one view we see with our eyes -- in other words, gaining direct knowledge through an experience. In the other view we see only with our mind's eye -- in other words we think something. The first is literal, the second uses the literal as a metaphor to describe something figurative. I would suggest that the suttas you cite are using the word diṭṭhi in the same way.
It is possible for the second kind of view to equate to the first. We can see, with the mind's eye, something we have experienced directly. If we literally saw something, we later have it in mind. Or maybe we literally felt something or tasted something -- still direct knowledge -- and later we imagine that experience. In all those cases we would still have the first kind of view, drawn from direct experience, as long as we don't overlay the experience with opinions about it.
It is also possible for the second kind of view to have no equating to the first kind. In this case we can also call it 'an opinion'. It is not based on actual direct experience, but it is based on imagination alone, concocted from things others tell us, or what we have read, or -- as in the Kalama Sutta -- what seems logical to us, or even what our teacher told us.

by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical
conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering
views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our
teacher."

The "right view" of the path is the first kind: drawn from direct experience. The "view" in Snp 4.5 is the second kind: an opinion. It is easily distinguished by the sign the Buddha provides in the lines you quoted: the holder of the view tells others their opinions are low, and those views result in disputes.
But also note that, according to MN 117, there is more than one kind of "right view":

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There
is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

As for "the foremost" I think we might need examples of suttas where you think the term might relate to "views".

This is great! Thank you :) Regarding the “foremost” question, I was not asserting that when the Buddha used foremost as an adjective to describe a thing that those things were “views” as described in Snp 4.5. Rather, I was asking a question if this is what others believe :)

Voting this up as there is much to like even though I disagree with some parts and would phrase others differently, but I think it correct that “right view” of Noble Eightfold path is not the type of “view” as discussed in Snp 4.5.

I think the two types of right view in MN 117 is excellent information. The right view that is noble is the type of right view that Anathapindika had in AN 10.93 because he said "Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."

@ruben2020, I agree. The Buddha speaks of it in a different format -- with no direct reference to merit -- in MN 78.

Yes, the description of right view with effluents as “opinion” is one of the things that seems troublesome

I take this answer as saying that it is the Right View with effluents that is subject to Snp 4.5 and this I also disagree with.

Right View with effluents is clearly not a Good Thing -- it comes with those effluents/taints, and brings about another round of "acquisitions" leading to becoming. Could it be that, back then, the most common view of karma-merit-rebirth tended to make one cling to ideas of the self? It may be then it was different from the way you understand it, Yeshe Tenley.

I disagree with this and updated my answer. Based on the raft simile of MN 22, I believe the fully enlightened ones have stopped clinging to ALL views, including noble Right View.

@Linda Blanchard how about right effort with effluents? that is also not a Good Thing? “And what is the right action with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? Abstaining from killing, from taking what is not given, & from illicit sex.”

Not killing living beings and refraining from lying are not Good Things? They should be given up by non-lay people?? After achieving Noble right action we should abandon refraining from lying???

@Yeshe Tenley. It is the one aspect that is not a Good Thing -- that which I pointed out. Interesting, the strawmen arguments you come up with that distract from the point I'm making.

IMO, it is not a Good Thing to say that Right View with effluents is not a Good Thing. Just like it is not a Good Thing to say that refraining from killing is not a Good Thing. That phrase would better be reserved for Wrong View and Wrong Action.

Clinging to ideas of the self has been going on since time immemorial. If anything I would say that modern people are even more mired with such clinging compared to the people of Buddha’s day.

@Yeshe Tenley. So are you saying that the people in general back in the Buddha's day understood rebirth and its relationship to self/not-self with the exact same clarity you do now?

It is a major downfall to claim realizations that one has not actually realized and so with this in mind: I claim no direct knowledge of rebirth, yet what miserly insignificance I've known is not through faith alone nor easy to come by.

Yes, I believe the people of Buddha's day - generally speaking - had much less dust in their eyes than modern people. Many were liberated. Of course, many more were not and still had views of all kinds of real and genuine facts and so they've migrated down through generations to comprise us: modern people, animals, hungry ghosts, hell beings and probably a number in the heavenly realms.

"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the
purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen
& pay close attention. I will speak."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done
with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over,
would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in
dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I
have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having
dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I
like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the
raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a
raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding
onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you
should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

MN 22

The noble eightfold path is a fabrication.  The arahant has gone beyond. But he might still use it as its evident from this sutta :
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five
clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness,
not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do,
and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when
developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the
here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

Snp 4.5 is describing someone who has gone beyond :

A brahman not led
by habits or practices,
gone to the beyond
—Such—
doesn’t fall back.

I take this to mean that you think the "right view" of Noble Eightfold path (both with/without effluents?) is the type of "views" described in Snp 4.5?

This answer is definitely the right one. A fully enlightened one has stopped clinging to all views and even the Dhamma itself. He has nothing further to do.

Excellent and correct answer.

Both statements can be valid, if you consider that the statement regarding realization is non-dualistic. Otherwise said:
AN 3.136 is an upaya, a dualistic description of reality to direct the practitioner in the right "direction".
SNP 4.5 is the perspective of a "realized one", meaning that he/she no longer sees a separation between him/her and the world.
Otherwise said: all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature, and since a "view" requires an observer and something to be observed, the concept of "view" in itself is dualistic and therefore cannot be a non-dualistic expression. This is expressed in SN 4.5 as taking a view not making oneself free of "dispute", since taking a view inherently creates a separation between "my" view and "other" views (e.g. duality).

This is very good, but it doesn’t quite answer the question. Is the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is discussed in Snp 4.5?

As Bonn has explained, "holding a view" means clinging to a view (ditthi-upadana). The fully enlightened ones no longer have clinging (upadana).
The fully enlightened ones see things as they truly are (yathabhutam pajanati).
The fully enlightened ones see the universal laws (the three marks of existence from AN 3.136) as they are, without having to cling to them as a view. They do not have papanca, meaning they do not objectify and classify what is sensed and perceived, relative to the self.

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened,
directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth,
he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in
earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not
conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is
that? Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water… Nibbāna as Nibbāna… Why is that?
Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.
MN 1

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

I read with interest the answers by Linda Blanchard and ChrisW, in which they suggest that the "view" of Snp 4.5 is about mere opinions, or conceited opinions, and this is not the same as the noble Right View, unless correct knowledge and understanding of the Dhamma is used for conceited disputes, as shown in the snake simile of MN 22.
I disagree with this, because the same statement appears elsewhere too, like Snp 1.8:

By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Snp 1.8

I feel that the noble Right View of MN 117 is good and correct, and is a factor of the path for noble disciples who are still striving for Nibbana.
However, the fully enlightened ones (arahants and Buddhas) have let go of all views as in they have stopped clinging to views, even the noble Right View.
This is explained by the Buddha using the raft simile of MN 22.

“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great
expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose
further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat
or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this
great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and
whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no
ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect
grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft,
and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet,
I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected
grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a
raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands
and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got
across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This
raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an
effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.
Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and
then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing
so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that
raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the
far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to
me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet,
I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto
the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I
want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing
what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma
is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for
the purpose of grasping.
“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you
should abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to
the teachings.
MN 22

After writing this, I noticed that Arkaprava Paul quoted the same sutta.

After reading this I still don't know whether you believe the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path is subject to Snp 4.5 and/or if the "right view" is the same type of thing as the "views" of Snp 4.5.

@YesheTenley I have updated my answer to make it clear.

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5?
Snp 4.5 is describing conceit, associated with disputes.
Wikipedia

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride.1 It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
I guess it -- disputes about the Dhamma -- was a common problem among monks or other wanderers, see also the famous Ud 6.4.
If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons a profound universal truth which is true whether a Realized One arises or not?
Part of the message I get from MN 22 is to avoid reading too much into, avoid inferring too much from, the buddha-vanaca -- it says what it says, and that's what it says. Note the Translator's Introduction:

Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.

So the point is to understand what the Noble Truths are -- not to pose a dilemma, question whether they should or shouldn't be held -- apparently the point is to grasp them (as in the Water-snake simile), and not to use them "both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate" (back to the topic of disputes).
I find Piya Tan's a fairly detailed analysis, 50-odd pages, of what the Four Noble Truths are or what the Buddha says about them. Here is an excerpt:

There is something there about what "Realised" means, i.e. the objects become "perfect" or past-tense: "has been"...
You seem familiar with the doctrine that the Buddha is trackless, so... and I guess that "abandoning" truth might be one extreme, and that that extreme might have some opposite extreme, and neither extreme description is applicable to the Unbound.
Another sutta (in terms of what the suttas actually say), SN 6.2 describes what the Buddha says is his attitude towards the Dhamma.

After reading this answer I still don’t know whether you believe the right view as taught in the Noble Eightfold Path is the same kind of thing as the “views” described in Snp 4.5.

I guess there are two aspects to "view", i.e. objective (e.g. something we share) and subjective (one's personal relationship to it) and you're not making that distinction whereas Snp 4.5 is -- it's not so much criticising views, it's criticising using (or having) views as objects of conceit and dispute.

Another thing is I think that a view is a habitual or trained or learned response to a situation -- like I have Physics formulae which arise in the context of various specific problems, so I've a "view" that gravity has an inverse square law -- and it might be misleading to say that I've abandoned that view, but I find the view doesn't arise because I no longer work with Physics problems.

I disagree with this and updated my answer. Based on the raft simile of MN 22, I believe the fully enlightened ones have stopped clinging to ALL views, including noble Right View.

@ruben2020 I'm not sure it's fair to say that I cling to the view that "gravity has an inverse square law" -- because it doesn't even occur to me in daily experience -- yet I'd depend on it for solving or for teaching solutions to a certain narrow type of problem.


text:
Can long sits be easier than short sits?
I tend to write down when I meditate, and also note the length of the sessions. Observing my notes, I had the impression that when I sat for longer times (40m - 1h), I also was paradoxically more consistent.
Is such a thing ever mentioned in Buddhism? Usually, in habit formation psychology, it is the easiest habits that develop the most. Could lengthening meditation sessions also establish greater consistency?

If you have already established a robust meditation practice, it would be far more advantageous for you to bring those meditative qualities into everyday living, rather than look to increase your time sat on a useless zafu cushion. Entertaining the longevity of meditation sessions are egocentric motivations - in other words: it's easier to not want to face the reality of the world and instead choose to firmly root yourself within the identity of a practicing Buddhist.

In the suttas, the night is broken up into three watches that can be devoted to practice. For example:

AN8.20:1.4: “Sir, the night is getting late. It is the first watch of the night, and the Saṅgha has been sitting long.
AN8.20:1.5: Please, sir, may the Buddha recite the monastic code to the mendicants.”

From the above, one may infer that a watch is quite some time and that monks consistently meditated extensively. But it's not a Spartan marathon where one drops dead after gasping out the news of a victory. Indeed, in DN34, we have:

DN34:1.2.5: What one thing should be developed?
DN34:1.2.6: Mindfulness of the body that is full of pleasure.

So the monks meditated consistently and happily throughout the night, taking good breaks now and then. Personally, I tend to nod off at night, and therefore choose an earlier time to meditate mindfully.

AN7.61:2.1: “Are you nodding off, Moggallāna? Are you nodding off?”
AN7.61:2.2: “Yes, sir.”
AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.

Meditating consistently at the proper time tends to favor longer meditations. If we are pressed for time, that can be difficult.

Immediately the longer sitting is more difficult. Sitting for a second is generally easier than sitting for two.
However if one trains then one will enjoy sitting longer and his longer sittings will be easier than the earlier short sittings but is really not a fair comparison because the longer were sat up by the shorter.
If one master's meditation then the longer sitting is definitely easier and is infinitely more pleasant in the circumstance when one enters & remains in manifold attainments for up to 7 days & 7 nights percipient of pleasure.
Eventually dwelling in the world as not percepient of the world becomes the inclination of the mind and a person might at that point emerge only due to necessity as there is no passion associated with the perceptions of ideas, sounds, colors & etc.
That person will be equanimous upon emerging, pleasing to good people as his good qualities because those have been perfected in course of the attainment to those peaceful liberations.

Can long sits be easier than short sits?

Sometimes yes, and other times no.
It's more about quality of mind than quantity. If you sit for 1 hour but are only mindful 10% of the time it's better to have a shorter and more "productive" session and do many of them daily.
Quality of mind is always above everything else. The time one is not mindful the defilements can really get their hooks in.
Also, very importantly, we're not trying to make the practice easier. It is what it is. If one sits in meditation and thinks the practice is difficult then that mindstate should be noted with mindfulness. If aversion towards the practice arises then that mindstate should be noted - and so forth.
In short; it's about quality over quantity and it's about being mindful of the present moment, i.e. what has arisen at this very moment. That is the practice and you don't have to sit on a cushion to do that - bring it into daily life. That's where the practice really lies (and the key to consistent practice).
Hope this helps.