text:
Does the middle way apply to objects as well as the skandhas?
Does the middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way?

The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of
  practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and
  self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the
  extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism.

That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'.
Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

The middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- does apply to objects. Objects are neither existent nor not existent. They are interpretative imputations made on the basis of multiple causes and conditions temporarily coming together in their non-stop motion, transformation, and interaction.
Objects we have consciousness of are not "made of" substance, according to Mahayana Buddhists. Objects are interpretative imputations made by the observer. The so-called material substance is but a small part of all conditions, combination of which leads to arising of this particular delineation and designation.

Middle Way is described as:

avoiding the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification, where one does not seek pleasure or pain, and follow the middle way which is the Noble Eightfold Path. [Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta]
avoiding extreme views like “all exist” and “nothing exists”, and follow the middle way which in this case is Dependent Origination. [Kaccā(ya)na,gotta Sutta]
avoiding the extremes of greed and hate, and follow the middle way which is the Noble Eightfold Path. [Dhamma,dayada Sutta]

For inanimate objects naturally above is excluded, as 1 deals with lifestyle and behaviour, and 2 & 3 deals with thought and philosophy, both of which only an animate object can have.

This definition is based on the Pali canon by the way -- not specifically Mahayana.

It applies to objects in the sense that they would both exist and exist-not, depending on whether we are speaking conventionally or ultimately. There would be no such thing as 'substance'. As Kant notes objects reduce to the 'thing-in-itself', which is not a substance. All things would be void, as stated in the Upanishads. This is the 'Two Truths' doctrine as applied to the existence of objects.

According to Abhidhamma:

Everything is Non-Self (Anattā).
Some Anattā are Aggregates (Khandhas), one is the opposite of Aggregates (Nibbāna),  and others are conceptual (Paññatti).
3 noble truths are Aggregates, 1 is Nibbāna. The left super-mundane-aggregates are not noble truth, however, either noble truth or non-noble-truth are Anattā.
First 2 noble truths, both are Upādāna-Khandha, are clinging (Upādāna) by Craving (Ṭaṇhā). The last 2 noble truths are not clinging by Craving.
The last 1 noble truth has 2 steps, the ordinary middle way for the beginner and  super-mundane middle way for the noble ones.   The ordinary middle way is not the last noble truth actually, it is the first noble truth. The high-skill-insight-practitioner needs to do the insight-comprehension on   The ordinary middle way as well at the end of all insight-comprehension.
The super-mundane middle way and the left super-mundane-aggregates are not for the insight-comprehension, although they are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. Why? Because they never and ever be Clinging by any Craving. Why? Because Nibbāna is the cessation of Clinging, Craving, and future Clinging-Aggretgates.  The left super-mundane-aggregates know Nibbāna, so every arising  of  the left super-mundane-aggregates are never clung by any Craving.

The Middle Way, or The Way Down the Middle, works this way:
When you take on the working hypothesis: "This is Pain." What you have done is to have set up a point of view concerning things that avoids the issue of existence altogether.
When you abstain from lies, what have you 'done'? Nothing. You have abstained from an act. That is the same thing as saying you have abstained from making kamma, or you have abstained from creating an experience by way of thought, word, or deed.
When you let go of sensual pleasures and unskillful things and with an appreciation of the peace that comes from solitude and enter and habituate the first gnosis, what have you done? Nothing. You have let go of something. That is not 'doing' that is 'no longer doing'.
These are illustrative of what is meant by 'middle'. It means abstaining from any act that would end up creating the experience of self-indulgence or self-torture.
What the Middle Way does not imply is that there is any sort of existence (whether of man or mountains or mole-hills) in the middle. When you have abstained, that is the end of it. You have avoided the two extremes and by that have walked the middle path. Do not then go further and postulate a physical middle - that would be a new kammic act that went in one or the other of the two extreme directions.
What we are trying to do here is to bring samsara to an end. That is the same thing as saying that we are trying to bring our kamma-making to an end or, stated still another way we are trying to stop identifying with acts of thought, word and deed that are intended to create personal sense-experience (own-making for short). Since kamma is 'doing' it should be obvious that any sort of doing short of intentional not-doing (the result of which is to end a kammic stream, and is experienced as neither painful nor pleasant - the two extremes in terms of experience) is going to make kamma. Making kamma is contra-indicated in the effort to end kamma.

I do not know how middle way is related with the question whether mountain will exist forever or will be destroyed?
But I will try to answer your question.
Sabbe Sanskar Annicca meaning  all conformations are transitory meaning if mountain or any object are result of coming together of things (like consciousness , elements etc) then they are bound to change and vanish over a period of time.
Practically nothing is permanent. Mountains to nucleus to universe , nothing is permanent. Hope I have answered your question.

yeah i dunno why everyone has missed that.

There is not one iota of difference in the manner and extent with which objects exist and the manner and extent in which the skandhas or any other existent exists. And of course objects exist! They do so provisionally and conventionally without even the smallest amount of 'real' or 'true' or 'substantial' existence. Some things utterly do not exist... such as the son of a barren woman. But nothing whatsoever exists in a 'real' or 'true' or 'substantial' manner. This is the middle way.

i like your first sentence, and it is helpful, but i'm not sure i agree with it or not... any reference / citation?

What I've said above is my own imprecise paraphrase of what I understand as the standard treatment of Je Tsongkhapa following Candrakirti, Aryadeva, Nagarjuna and the Buddha.

@sorta_buddhist
(commenting on @SacrificialEquation's statement that inanimate objects are conformations
(presumably his translation of sankhāra, but meaning "the shape or structure of something", where sankhāra means the making of something or the doing of something, and specifically with regard to the middle way, the making of one's identification with experiences by way of ones acts of thought, word and deed). The term is a partial synonym for 'kamma' with greater emphasis on the idea that this is where one is injecting individuality into the making of the world.
and because of that are transitory, which does not in fact answer the question as asked, which is two-fold: "Are inanimate objects permanent, and do inanimate objects walk the Middle Way".)
You say: "yeah i dunno why everyone has missed that."
The original question being:
"Does the middle way — between annihilationism and eternalism — apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way?"
I read my own answer as having answered your qeustion, but the question as written makes no sense as the middle way has to do with what is or is not suitable conduct for a human being.
See the Dhamma-Cakka-p-Pavattana Suttaɱ where the term "middle way" is first defined:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/05_mv/idx_56_saccasamyutta.htm#p1
Two, me bhikkhus, are ends
not to be gone after
by one embarking on the seeker's life.

What two?

At the one end:
whatever is desire,
is yoked to desire for the sweet-life,
inferior,
peasant-like,
of the common man,
not aristocratic,
destitute of character.

And at the other end:
whatever is yoked to causing self-torment,
is painful,
not aristocratic,
destitute of character.

It is by not attacking either end, beggars,
that the Tathāgata woke up
to a way to go down the middle;
eye-opening,
instructive,
smoothing the way
to higher knowledge,
self-awakening,
Nibbāna.
Where next the Middle Way is defined as the Ariya Angika Magga.
Rocks do not walk the Magga.
So understanding your original question as being a confusion of two ideas, my response was an attempt to separate out the issues of existence and non-existence and the understanding of the Middle way.
If all you want to know is if inanimate objects are walking the middle way, the answer is certainly: No.
The others responding to you have also been trying to straighten you out. If they have misunderstood the question, it is because you have constructed your question badly. Then you compound (sankhāra) the error by suggesting that the fault is not yours but theirs.
Asking questions is good, but should be based on an understanding of the terms used. So before asking how a term should be applied, one should ask what the term means.

there's no need to talk about "errors" in this context, though i don't understand what's difficult to understand about my question -- i have highligheted in bold what i mean if that halps?

"And I, Ānanda, will not proceed with you
as does a potter with an unbaked (vessel), not fully dry. I will speak, Ānanda, constantly reproving, constantly cleansing"
-MN 122
@sorta_buddhist
Apologies for allowing my frustration with the English of your question and your remark to show itself in the tone. But you should overlook tone and focus on whether or not what was said was well-said or not.
I completely understand how it can be that you do not understand what is difficult to understand about your question. Your clarification does not help. But I will give it another shot.
I did not, in answering your question, and in responding to your comment, intend to emphasize your misunderstandings, but to point them out was necessary in order to correct them.
You apparently have a misconception concerning the nature of the middle way. That is clear because there is no way a person who understood the middle way could think that it could possibly, in any way, apply to innanimate matter. You are either inventing the meaning of the term yourself or you have followed the invention of someone else that does not understand. That misunderstanding should have been cleared up reading the definition in the link I supplied. The link leads to several different interpretations by different translators, you can take your pick.
The Middle Way is describing an attitude to take with regard to taking action.
It is an instruction to not take even one step either towards self-indulgence or self-torture. That is the Middle Way.
It does not involve any sort of state or movement between annihilationism or eternalism.
It, itself, is not a point of view between annihilaationism and eternalism.
In so far as the Middle Way is defined as The Four Truths, it is a point of view. But it is one that avoids the issue of existence and non-existence, thus:
Whether or not there is no self and death is the end or that there is an eternal soul, there is dukkha (pain, ugly-uk-ukky-k-kha), and the Middle Way is the way to the end of that dukkha.
It is a way to interact with kamma such as to bring kamma to an end.
Folowing the Middle Way, one avoids the consequences of acting from the points of view of annihilationism or eternalism.
Example: You can only get a date with the most beautiful lass in the land if you lie. So considering the Middle Way, looking in the Magga under Sammā Vaca, Consummate Speech, you see that lies are to be avoided. You abstain from that lie. You have just followed the Middle Way.
What did you do? Nothing. Where are you between annihilationism and eternalism? Not between! If you must characterize it by location, it is 'apart from'. You didn't go anywhere. You intentionally 'not-did'. The result is not something somewhere, it is the ending of the kammic stream which presented itself to you in the form of the pleasant sensations at the eye of the most beautiful lass in the land and the thirst for her that resulted.
You evaluate the results. The result is a negative. You will not, because of that intentional not-doing, ever experience having to live with an old hag that has lost her beauty, doesn't put out and does nothing but eat, spend money and argue with you in the old age which you can now enjoy in peace.
So next time you will have less difficulty abstaining, walking the Middle Way, in a similar situation.
That explains the meaning of The Middle Way.
Now please explain how a rock could fit into this picture? Somewhere in your thinking you have constructed the Middle Way into both a point of view and an actual state between annihilationism and eternalism... one in which a rock could be found. Not so!

because one sutta is not always exhaustive of the meaning of any "phrase"

In response to @sorta_buddhist's comment:
"because one sutta is not always exhaustive of the meaning of any "phrase""
complaining of the fact that I only gave one citation as an example. Never mind that this was a citation to the first sutta ever spoken by Gotama and which was the initial point where the Middle Way was introduced.
Also, I would flag @Andrei Volkov and @Yeshe Tenley, and ask them, after they have reviewed the following additional citations, how they justify the idea that the Middle Way in any way could possibly apply to inanimate objects. Do rocks walk the Magga? Is it necessary for a rock to eliminate ignorance in order for it not to attain consciousness, form, sense experience, thirst, grasping, becoming, birth and pain?
Further references defining the Middle Way:
Most of these links are to the Sutta Index which lists the Pali and the various translations that are freely available. This is only a selection, I have 60 links to this issue.
SN 2.12.35
Defining the Middle Way as the Paticca Samuppada = the Four Truths
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p35
SN 2.12.36
Defining the Middle Way as the Paticca Samuppada = the Four Truths
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p36
MN 3
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p3
What is this Middle Way?
Why, it is naught but the Noble Eightfold Path of
right outlook,
right aims,
right speech,
right action,
right means of livelihood,
right effort,
right mindfulness,
and right concentration;
this, Almsmen, is the Middle Way.
MN 139
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_3.htm#p139
Explaining how the Miccle Way avoids conflict with those holding the extreme views.
Wording identical to SN 56 11
SN 4.42.12
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/04_salv/idx_42_gamanisamyutta.htm#p12
Not following after these two extremes, headman,
is the Middle Way of approach,
fully known by the Tathāgata,
which giveth vision,
giveth knowledge,
leading to calm,
to supernormal knowledge,
to wisdom,
to Nibbāna.
And what,headman,
is that Middle Way of approach,
fully known by the Tathāgata,
which giveth vision,
giveth knowledge,
leading to calm,
to supernormal knowledge,
to wisdom,
to Nibbāna?
It is this Ariyan Eightfold Path, to wit:
Right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
SN 2.12.18
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p18
Timbaruka asks the Buddha a series of questions about the source of pain and pleasure and to each of his questions receives the response, 'it is not such as that.' When Timbaruka asks for an explanation, The Buddha teaches him the 'Doctrine Going Down the Middle': that is, the Paticca Samuppada, the chain of interdependent factors giving rise to the experience of individualized existence and the resulting pain.
SN 5.54.10
Linked to the Bhk. Bodhi translation. In a footnote Bhk. Bodhi explains the result of following the Middle Way as being the ability to observe detachedly.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/05_mv/sn05.54.010.bodh.wp.htm#n310
He is one who looks on closely with equanimity: one is said to look on with equanimity (at the mind) that has fared along the path [Spk-pt: by neither exerting nor restraining the mind of meditative development that has properly fared along the middle way), and by the presentation as a unity [since there is nothing further to be done in that respect when the mind has reached one-pointedness]. "Looking on with equanimity" can apply either to the conascent mental states (in the meditative mind) or to the object; here the looking on at the object is intended.
... and many others

so the middle way is never between annihilationism and eternalism?

@MikeOlds Please see SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta. Also, please avoid posting multiple answers as a way to have a conversation. If you would like to converse, you can open a chat room.

Here is one I just created for you.

@AndreiVolkov I suspect that Mike Olds can't use a chat room with an unregistered account (or more specifically, using an account with no "reputation") -- and perhaps (depending on whether and when his browser cookies are cleared) cannot comment, nor edit a previous/existing answer.

Riiiight, that makes sense now! Thanks for pointing that out.

In response to:
so the middle way is never between annihilationism and eternalism? – sorta_buddhist yesterday
They are two different things and they are not equivalents. The Middle Way is a way to behave, annihilationism or any other point of view indicating a position with regard to existence is an opinion as to the real nature of things.
Our behavior is dictated by our point of view. Our behavior is not our point of view.
The Middle Way is a code of behavior based on The Four Truths; "This is pain; This pain originates with thirst; to end the pain, end the thirst; the Way is the eightfold way.
By behaving in accordance with the Middle Way, you avoid the consequences that would have resulted if you had behaved in ways indicated by either the point of view of annihiliationism (self-punishment) or eternalism (self-indulgence).
Both annihilationism and eternalism result in behavior that leads to rebirth; following the behavior indicated by the Four Truths and the Magga results (sooner or later) in no rebirth.


text:
Theravada and Nagarjuna
I appreciate that various aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings are rejected by Theravadans but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. For some of his teachings I can see room for scepticism, but what about his central argument? Four questions...
In his Fundamental Verses Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound?
Do they accept its result, which is the logical absurdity of extreme views?
If they do accept this logical result, do they also accept the falsity of such views?
If they do not accept N's argument, on what grounds do they not do so?
EDIT: Perhaps I should have asked just this. Is it possible to endorse the logical result of Nagarjuna's argument in Fundamental Wisdom and remain a Theravadan?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I added an edit to make the question clearer and maybe prevent unnecessary side-arguments. I'm asking ONLY about the argument made in Fundamental Wisdom and its result.

You are referring to a full book comprising of 27 chapters, with at least ten different translations. That makes it hard to know what the "positive or extreme metaphysical positions" are for someone unfamiliar with his writings, so the question may be difficult to answer without specific references.
Anyway, with all due respect for Nagarjuna, from a fundamentalist approach here are some suggestions for demarcation criterias from the nikayas.
AN 4.77:

Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?
The scope of the Buddhas …
The scope of one in absorption …
The results of deeds …
Speculation about the world …
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/sujato
MN 63:

These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
MN 2:

'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past? In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?'
Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?'
In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive non-self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through non-self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, he has the view thus: 'That self of mine speaks, knows and experiences the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions. That self of mine is permanent, stable, durable, incorruptible and will be eternal like all things permanent.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html

Excellent points - I suppose the question is whether Nagarjuna went beyond using philosophy for a practical purpose of explaining Dhamma, to just intellectualising it. Personally some days I agree, some days I don't. He claims no difference between samsara and nibbana, but he doesn't claim no equality (in the absolute meaning of the terms). I don't believe he thinks that statement is implied, but if there is no absolute difference, there is no absolute equality. It is a little ott imo, relative to the suttas, but still worth consulting.

Thanks. You're quite right about the question. I was hoping for answers only from those who already know Nagarjuja because otherwise they won't be able to answer, so didn't see much point in explaining further. If Theravadans don't know this much about him then they'll have little reason to argue with him. I expect it's my fault but I cannot see the relevance of the body of this answer other than that it suggests agreement with Nagarjuna.

PS - An extreme metaphysical position states of Reality in some case that it is 'this' or 'that'. For instance, that the Cosmos is infinite or not-infinite etc.

What's a "demarcation criterion" (and how does that relate to the OP's question)?

@ChrisW It's a term borrowed from Popper to hint at Buddhas delineation of which questions that are possible to answer in a helpful way (or not). Many of the questions he deemed acinteyya regards metaphysical ponderings. Again, i'm not sure which one of Nagarjunas metaphysical analyses that are referenced in the original question, but regardless it seems that Buddhas distinction didn't apply in this case according to the OP.

@Erik - It's a subtle issue and I like your idea that it's a demarcation problem. Sometimes I wish we could chat here.

@PeterJ You can always chat for s long as you both want to. If two people  post enough dialog back-and-forth in a comment thread then the system will offer to create a chat room for you. Or I can create a chat room, or this room is always open (though almost never used).

@PeterJ Not sure i have too much opinions in the matter, but just hit me up for a chat and we'll take it from there.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Of course traditionally Theravada Buddhism has regarded Nagarjuna as not one of its own.  He has too long been claimed by Mahayana to expect otherwise.  But  some relatively recent scholarship regards him as a transitional figure, with close affinities -- as you suspect -- to Early Buddhism.  In fact, a very strong case can be made that he regarded himself as a defender of Gautama as recorded in the suttas. His opponents were not in the suttas, but in the Abhidharma philosophy that dates from several centuries after Gautama and several centuries before Mahayana.
A.K. Warder's rather monumental Indian Buddhism argues that Nagarjuna was closer to Gautama than the Mahayana, and blurs the distinction.
David Kalupauhana's  Nagarjuna: Philosophy of the Middleway is an eminently scholarly translation and commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika which argues that Nagarjuna was not Mahayanist at all, and in fact makes the case that the Karika itself is a commentary on the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, upholding Gautama's view of the middle way between "eternalism" and "nihilism."
You can find Velez de Cea, “Emptiness in the Pali Suttas and the question of Nagarjuna's orthodoxy.” (Philosophy East and West 55(4) October 2005) on line. Here, parallels between Nagarjuna and the suttas are gathered, and Nagarjuna's roots in the suttas is demonstrated.
In the Sunna Sutta, Gautama is asked: “In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" and answers; "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.” This is pretty much Nagarjuna's view. In the Sunyatatasaptati (Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas),  he writes that “since the intrinsic being [self-nature] of all entities does not exist . . . therefore they are empty."
The reason I have this at  my fingertips is because I've been spending my time in COVID lock-down writing a piece on Nagarjuna that argues that he believes he is upholding Gautama's Dharma.  Although it's dressed up, it was really written just to pass the time, but I'll put it on line for you, and in fact would be pleased if you read it, and comment if you wish. It will be at
Reading  Nagarjuna -- A rendition of Chapters 1, 24, and 25 of The Mulamadhyamakakarika for Students of the Buddha's Dharma
You are right that Nagarjuna and Gautama both reject the unanswerable questions" about Ultimate Realities (and N. warns that only fools confuse emptiness with the Absolute), believing, in distinction to almost every religion,  that answers to metaphysical questions are not necessary for "salvation." As I suspect you know, the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta  asks "did I ever say to you . . . live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal . . . [etc.].   The final chapter of the Karika, “Examination of Views,” is concerned entirely with  the unanswered questions contained in this and other suttas. The last verse of the Karika states:  “I reverently bow down to Gautama who, out of compassion, has taught the true doctrine in order to relinquish all views.”  The "views" he refers to are the unanswered questions of the suttas. No more no less.
I think it is clear from the suttas and Karika that there are 2 reasons for rejecting the unanswered questions -lst because they are improper questions in the sense that they have no answers, they are metaphysical speculations 2nd because they do help --- and N. echoes G. on both counts.
You can certainly, IMO, like me, be a follower of the Buddhism of the suttas and accept almost all of N.'s Karika. But whether a strict Theravedan would agree, I cannot say.

Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda, a Theravādin monk, did mention him from time to time. From Questions & Answers On Dhamma :

“The five ascetics were given a teaching based on the ethical middle
  path, avoiding the two extremes of kāmasukhal- likānuyoga and
  attakilamathānuyoga. But the middle path of right view is found in the
  Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the
  Theravadins got engrossed with the Abhidhamma they forgot about it.
  The Mādhyamikas were alert enough to give it the attention it
  deserved.
(...)
“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna sermons,” he
  says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already
  found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was
  already there but was hidden from view. Unfortunately his later
  followers turned it in to a vāda.”
He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven. Nāgārjuna’s
  Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Śūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ, yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis
  tān asādhyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8] The Victorious Ones have declared
  that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are
  possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.
Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat, anukampam upādāya taṃ
  namasyāmi gautamaṃ I reverently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion,
  has taught the doctrine in order to relinquish all views. – [MK 26.30]
Bhante doesn’t bother translating the verses; the ones provided above
  are by David Kalupahana.;
“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven. Nāgārjuna’s
  sanity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be understood in the
  context. He was taking a jab at the Sarvāstivādins. To be honest, even
  the others deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by
  using Sarvāstivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgārjuna must have
  been, to compose those verses so elegantly and filling them with so
  much meaning, like the Dhammapada verses. It’s quite amazing. This has
  been rightly understood by Prof. Kalupahana.”
Prof. David J. Kalupahana is an eminent Sri Lankan scholar who stirred
  up another controversy when he portrayed Ven. Nāgārjuna as a reformist
  trying to resurrect early Buddhist teachings. He had been a lecturer
  during Bhante Ñāṇananda’s university days as a layman at Peradeniya.
(...)
“Ven. Nāgārjuna was right: at the end, all is empty. We are not
  willing to accept that existence is a perversion. Existence is
  suffering precisely because it is a perversion.”

See also this, this and this (from a more Early Buddhist Texts perspective than Theravādin, however).

+1 Thanks. This is helpful. Interesting that Kalupahana sees N as resurrecting earlier (purer?) teachings. My view also. I assume that Kalupahana accepts N's argument in Fundamental Verses. Is he a Theravadan, albeit a controversial one? Is it possible to accept N's argument and remain a Theravadan? (This is probably the question I should have asked in the first place)..

I don't know about those questions, unfortunately.

OP:

In his Fundamental Verses Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of
  positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound?

Personally, I am not familiar with Nagarjuna's works regarding the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Theravadans generally accept the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions, because they accept the absurdity of all metaphysics, due to the following statements in the suttas.
So, I suppose we can say that Theravadans agree with Nagarjuna?
From Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

From Sabba Sutta:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range."

To the Buddha, pragmatism was more important than metaphysics. Please see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

Hmm. You bring up a relevant complication, which is that Theravadans reject metaphysics as absurd. However, this is not at all what Nagarjuna does so this would be a point of disagreement. He proposes rejecting positive views, not metaphysics. But there is an overlap between these views and they would be easily confused, so the answer is helpful.

Officially the Theravadans means the people who like the vinaya & suttas in pali, and sometimes their parallel in chinese and so on, and also the same for their abiddhama. Sometimes theravadans are just the people who like the suttas (and the vinaya?).
So for people who like the suttas most, philosophy is useless to reach nibanna. And the fantasy that there is a ''proof of nibanna'' and a ''proof of the wrongness of wrong views (ie not buddhism)'' is  complete non-sense, ie only a fantasy.
At best it will be the people who like the abidhamma, who enjoy mental gymanistics a bit more, but then reading another book from some indian intellectual wherein he wrote his speculations on whatever was buddhism at the time and trying to ''refute'' whatever the Shravakas had written in their own abidhamma is usless to them, since they think their abidhamma is already good enough to reach nibanna.
More generally, what is even a ''proof'' in philsophy? In maths they use ''proof'' too, but in philsophy people keep saying such claim is an ''argument'' and such string of arguments is a ''proof of some other claim'' but so far intellectuals do not even agree on what a proof is in philsophy. And how a string of sentences in some language would even be a proof of nibanna?
The buddha said that the only good use of ''mano'' is yoniso manisakara , which just means thinking a lot about the dhamma, but in this way : ''thinking about what is the fuels the arising of sensual desire'' https://suttacentral.net/sn46.51/en/sujato and so on, so just dependant origination. And in Mahyana, they confuse dependant origination with interconnectenedss already, so they struggle a lot on the dhamma.
And it is this proper attention, ie comparing your life with whatever the buddha calls the good life, that is supposed, sooner or later, to get you into samadhi, and then it is right samadhi which will get you to nibanna.
https://suttacentral.net/sn9.11/en/sujato

Thinking about the Teacher, the teaching, the Saṅgha, and your own
  ethics, you’ll find gladness, and rapture and bliss as well, no doubt.
  And when you’re full of joy, you’ll make an end to suffering.”

Officially, the ''proper attention'' has faith for condition

And what is the fuel for mindfulness and situational awareness? You
  should say: ‘Proper attention.’ I say that proper attention is fueled
  by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for proper
  attention? You should say: ‘Faith.’ I say that faith is fueled by
  something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for faith? You
  should say: ‘Listening to the true teaching.’ I say that listening to
  the true teaching is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what
  is the fuel for listening to the true teaching? You should say:
  ‘Associating with good people.’

https://suttacentral.net/an10.61/en/sujato
So none of the mental proliferations of indian intellectuals fit in the dhamma.

Thanks but...this appears to be an attack on a straw-man.

PS To explain my comment - I feel that philosophy is valuable (albeit of limited value)  and do not agree with the view that it should be ignored - unless one is already a serious practitioner. It's a view I fight against, so I cannot share the sentiment expressed in this answer.  . .  .

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Basic readings and references: where to start
Although I have read some basic articles and book about buddhism, they are all written by modern western sources, and I would like to get to know the foundations. Even when reading this site, I sometimes feel at a loss because I miss so many of the particular terms, and all the names of the classical texts are kind of mixed in my mind, I don't even know where to start. My question is then: What would be a good "programm" to introduce myself in buddhist (foundational) readings?
I am aware of other questions dealing with introductory texts to Buddhism, but, as I see it, that is easy to find. What I want is sort of a guide to start navigating the important foundational texts of which I keep hearing/reading a lot, but that I cannot grasp.
Also, I would love to learn at least a bit of the languages (Sanskrit, Pali) to improve my understanding of what I read, and some references in this sense would also be much appreciated.

Highly recommend Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" which will lay a solid foundation to all the important key concepts of the Buddha's Teaching.

See also "Reference lists" -- it's a list of other topics on this site, which ask for lists of books and so on. And you might find the "Useful resources" listed on this page helpful. The Dhamma lists page mentions and provides a simplified translation of many of the most important Pali words, for example dukkha and tanha etc.

You can use the book by bikkhu Nyanatusita to learn the vinaya. It has the pali, then the english translation, then the definition of all the pali words. The draft from 2008 is here
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books14/Bhikkhu_Nyanatusita-Analysis_of_the_Bhikkhupatimokkha.pdf
the book from 2014 is here
https://books.google.com/books?id=6s3iBQAAQBAJ
For a list of suttas and a super short summary, there is always
An Analysis of the Pali Canon and a Reference Table of Pali Literature By Russell Webb and Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp607s_Webb_Analysis-Of-The-Pali-Canon.pdf
which has also a huge catalog of texts on buddhism, as of 2011, and it has also  A Reference List of Pali Literature, which is also found here separately
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Nyt008__Nyanatusita_ReferenceTableOfPaliLiterature.pdf
The course by bikkhu bodhi for Pali is a good introduction
https://bodhimonastery.org/a-course-in-the-pali-language.html
and the little help for Pali Verb Conjugation and Noun/Pronoun Declension Tables, by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita (2005; 486k)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatusita/index.html
For the suttas themselves, you can begin with the short ones, so DN which is some copies of suttas form SN and AN, MN, dhammapada, sutta nipata, then SN and AN
Also do not forget the parallel suttas. Scholars already know about this since the 80s, like lamotte says in HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDHISM (Peeters Press, 1988, page 156):

However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in the Ekottara [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's Anguttara],
  which are easily discernable, the variations in question affect hardly
  anything save the method of expression or arrangement of the subjects.
  The doctrinal basis common to the agamas [preserved in Chinese and
  partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] is remarkably uniform. Preserved and
  transmitted by the schools, the sutras [discourses] do not however
  constitute scholastic documents, but are the common heritage of all
  the sects.

THere is a short book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutranga Portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama by Mun-keat Choong
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Fundamental%20Teachings%20of%20Early%20Buddhism_Mun-keat.pdf
and of course lots of work by Bikkhu Analayo
A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol1.pdf
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol2.pdf
Madhyama-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/mastudies.pdf
Saṃyukta-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sastudies.pdf
Dīrgha-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/dastudies.pdf
Ekottarika-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ekottarikastudies.pdf
Vinaya Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/vinayastudies.pdf
Early Buddhist Meditation Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ebms.pdf
Perspectives on Satipaṭṭhāna
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/perspectives.pdf

Thank you for your complete answer

"DN" isn't the "short ones" -- aren't they the longest.

I found the https://www.buddha-vacana.org/ site an interesting introduction to Pali -- see for example https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-011.html -- use a mouse to hover over Pali words to see a popup with a translation and a link to a dictionary definition.
Another site with Pali and English on the same page is https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ for example https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001
And all of Ven. Sujato's translations on suttacentral have side-by-side or line-by-line copies of the Pali -- see for example https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato -- click on the Settings icon near the top of the page, and activate "View original text with translation" and "Activate Pali word lookup", then again use a mouse to hover over the words of interest.

Pali nouns have "case" -- i.e. nominative, accusative, ablative, etc., which show what place they have in a sentence -- that's instead of word-order being significant, and using conjunctions -- so it's like Latin or Greek.
There are several online resources for that -- grammar and dictionaries -- an introductory one is https://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox.html
And there are compound nouns, often you might guess how a word is compounded in order to look up each portion individually -- for example "manopubbaṅgama is a Pali compound consisting of the words mano and pubbaṅgama" (with mano being one of the words for "mind").

Thank you! those resources look amazing

My advice is to stick around where people quote and recite texts known to be true.
You can learn effectively just by following the public discourse and asking questions.
What will be most important is the self-study of the referenced texts and remembering them. This is more important than how other people interpret it.
Eventually you will learn many texts, various interpretations and controversy.
Reading about the pali sutta is not as important as reading the sutta and the public discourse is more or less an introduction because questions repeat themselves quite a lot.
As you study the Buddha's pali discourses you will also learn a bit about commentary and pick up on things here & there from the public discourse.
As for Pali language you will eventually learn many technical terms from the public discourse and comparing pali translations.
If you want to learn the grammar and to expand your vocabulary you can attemp reading stories from jataka, vinaya and dhp commentaries.
For grammar one can find some course.
One can also memorize pali for recitation, ie the patimokkha. One will learn some this way but it's rather negligible in & by itself.

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


text:
How would a Buddhist advise on this subset of problems of motivation?
Some call Buddhism psychology, so maybe it can help -- me.
This sense that doing something -- let's take a difficult but generic example, learning sanskrit -- is a wonderful, exciting idea; but one never gets started with it, because there is no tangible psychological or material benefit from it -- for whatever reason [you won't find anyone new to talk with, most texts are in translation, no-one will care, etc.].
What remedy is there for this?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking about a remedy for lack of motivation?

yes, but i am also describing exactly what sort of lack of motivation i mean @Erik

or at least framing it

Nyom likes to know reasonings for learn worldly skills, maybe languages, right?

You seem to be thinking clearly. What are you trying to find a remedy for? Is there some part of you that thinks you should learn Sanskrit? .

@PeterJ motivational problems [both apathy and -- mild -- depression] are not limited to people who can't think straight

From the article "Two Exercises for Turning Intention into Motivation" by Thupten Jinpa on Buddhist site tricycle.org, we see some useful tips on how to motivate yourself to do a task that you set yourself to do.
He states that "parents who have struggled with their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything changed the moment the child began enjoying it." Basically you need to find a way to enjoy what you're doing - this is intrinsic motivation. When you enjoy it, the rest comes naturally.
You can try the two exercises on this page.

The question of how we motivate ourselves to pursue our deeper
  aspirations has been a major interest in the long history of Buddhist
  psychology. In Buddhist thinking, motivation is a matter of desire,
  more specifically the desire to act accompanied with a sense of
  purpose. Say, in the case of being more compassionate, it’s by making
  emotional connection with compassion and its objectives that we arouse
  in ourselves the desire to act. And it’s through seeing the benefits
  that we acquire a sense of purpose in being more compassionate.
Contemporary psychology has only relatively recently come to
  appreciate the role of emotions in motivating our behavior. For a long
  time, the Western theory of action was dominated by rational choice
  theory, and emotions were accused of clouding the process rather than
  being an integral part of the system. To articulate the dual dimension
  of our motivation—cognitive awareness of and emotional connection with
  our goals—Buddhist psychology uses a term that is almost impossible to
  capture in any single word in English. The Sanskrit term shraddha
  (depa in Tibetan) has a broad range of meaning, the important ones
  being “faith,” “trust,” “belief,” or “confidence,” connoting
  “appreciation” and “admiration” as well. Shraddha is a felt sense like
  trust, rather than a cognitive state like belief or knowledge.
  Experientially, shraddha feels something like attachment or attraction
  to our goal, like being inspired to play guitar when you see a rock
  star do it. It’s this quality, shraddha, that primes our heart and
  mind to roll up our sleeves and play.
How do we tap our emotional reservoir? Cognitions play a critical
  role, which the early Buddhist texts characterize as seeing the value
  of doing something. Through cognitive engagement, such as seeing the
  benefits, we connect intention with motivation. So, within this causal
  nexus, the crucial link to watch for is the one between our awareness
  of the goal and why we would go for it, our feelings about the goal,
  and our desire or will to pursue it.
Then, again, it’s the joy we take in our efforts—the courage to try,
  the dedication to stick with it—and their results that helps sustain
  our motivations over the long run. Or, in other words, makes us want
  to keep trying and keep doing it. Parents who have struggled with
  their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything
  changed the moment the child began enjoying it. This is called
  intrinsic motivation, as opposed to the extrinsic motivation of, for
  example, the parent rewarding the child with more screen time for
  practicing her instrument. From decades of motivation research, we
  know that intrinsic motivation is far more stable and enduring. The
  process of setting intentions and joyfully reflecting on them in
  dedication is how, over time, we transform extrinsic into intrinsic
  motivations, and thereby sustain the energy and purpose to live true
  to our best aspirations.

incidentally, my mother suggested lower your expectations -- it won't be as motivating as you think. thanks

@sorta_buddhist My music teacher told me he wanted me to practice for five minutes every day -- that 5 minutes a day of practice is better than half an hour once per week -- and I can't say "I don't have time" to practice for just 5 minutes. He also set me to learning (enjoyable) tunes rather than (boring) exercises like playing scales. When I did, then I found my skill improved, not day by day but week by week -- and that (success) enables motivation to continue.

just to add -- might it be and the answer link to something about the need for shared -- rather than personal -- meaning?

According to Buddhism, faith in something is the foundation of motivation.

he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html


text:
What's the role of mother-day in regard of a blessed life?
Being broad celebrated mothers-day today, my person thought to give this question space so that many might share reflections on it and pissible give others good inspirations:
What role does a day like mothersday play for a blessed life, for a follower of the Buddhas Dhamma, and how would it be good spend by mind words and bodily deeds?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for escape from this wheel)

I would like to paraphrase Luang Por Viradhammo, who cared for about 10 years for his elderly mother, in saying that it is good to have formal ways of bringing up and maintaining gratitude for ones mother lest we become complacent and let the importance they have in our being here fade from our minds.
With that in mind, I would say that exactly how you would internally use the formal occasion of mother's day is something only yourself can piece together. I hope the two links I am sharing can help give you a good starting point for reflection.
Dhamma talk by Luang Por Sumedho about gratitude to parents
Article by Ajahn Amaro

Sadhu, Sadhu Here are some reads as well, for inspiration and maintain right view, gratitude: Withou gratitude no success

This is how u have a good day
Waking up as the third [last] watch of the night begins one gets up quickly thinking 'i will not indulge in the pleasures of sleeping, reclining and lazy stretching'.
Definitely not sleeping until sunrise snoring...
During the last watch of the night, sitting & pacing back & forth, one cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the day, sitting & pacing back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the first watch of the night, sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the second watch of the night, reclining on his right side, he takes up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with his mind set on getting up.
Practicing moderation in eating, guarding the senses and being devoted to wakefulness, that's how one cleanses the mind and has an auspicious day.

You shouldn't chase after the past
  or place expectations on the future.
  What is past
      is left behind.
  The future
      is as yet unreached.
  Whatever quality is present
  you clearly see right there,
         right there.
  Not taken in,
  unshaken,
  that's how you develop the heart.
  Ardently doing
  what should be done     today,
  for — who knows? —  tomorrow
      death.
  There is no bargaining
  with Mortality & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,
      relentlessly
      both day & night,
  has truly had an auspicious day:
  so says the Peaceful Sage.
  "'Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html

Not only on mother's day should one do this.
If possible one can spend the mother's day absorbed in meditation, preferably nirodhasamapatti.

While living in a house and eating mothers off... Good to work on raw abounding first and get there most debt-free, since the bills come also if one maintains and trains household-equanimity.


text:
Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions?
Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]?

I do not think this is a mere "metaphysical" question in the pejorative, because it may say something about birth and death: whether or not samsara -- karmic conditioning -- and so nirvana -- its termination -- are empty of essence; what the nature of first and third noble truths are.

I find it impossible to answer as it is very difficult to understand what you mean by "conceptual construction".
Can you give examples of construcs which you would class as conceptual and which aren't included?

I was very impressed by your question. From my perspective, your question is one that only arises when you are very near Awakening. If you want someone to talk to or any guidance, feel free to reach out to me. My email address is on my profile. I think you are very close to the end of the path.

err thanks for the encouragement @w33t i'll see a teacher again at some point, ha

Well, obviously the notions of production etc are dependent on having the notion of a finite, spatially/temporaly/qualitatively bounded entity (phenomenon) that is being produced etc.
Since the bounds determining the identity of any such entity (phenomenon) are necessarily a product of an act of analysis aka imputation, its production etc. is an empty conceptual construct.
As you correctly supposed, suffering, cessation of suffering, samsara, and cessation of samsara are conceptually constructed notions in the same vein. Hence all the Mahayana talk about transcending the duality of Samsara/Nirvana, liberation from even the concept of liberation, entering true emptiness, the groundless ground etc.

The four characteristics are indeed empty conceptual constructions. It certainly makes the four, as well as impermanence and other characteristics illusion. But such is the case from the ultimate point of view. From a conventional point of view, impermanence is not a illusion, it is the very characteristic of reality. Likewise the four characteristics you mention, from the conventional point of view, they are not illusory- they are very much real- things break, things are produced and so on.
It is important to keep in mind that to be empty is to be empty of an objective existence, an independent existence. To be empty is to be dependent on other phenomenon.
From the conventional point of view, all phenomenon are dependent and this is synonymous to all phenomenon being empty, from the ultimate point of view.

Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions?

Ultimately speaking, yes. I find this a difficult concept to explain so please bare with me.
Ultimately, Nirvana is the only thing that exists. Nirvana is both ever present and infinite. It is free of the four concepts of which you speak. For the sake of explanation, one could say Nirvana is the only thing that exists, and everything else we believe to exist is simply a conceptual construction or interpretation of Nirvana. Belief in those conceptual constructions is what causes the illusion of samsara to arise.
Here is a small example of how I would break this process down to explain. I know it doesn’t conform to the standard understandings of some Buddhist concepts like Nama and Rupa, but please just take this as a simplified explanation.
Imagine you see a tree. It looks as if it’s dying and will soon pass. You think how the four characteristics are present in the tree. But then you take a step back and realize that is not a tree. It is sight, which you have conceptualized to be a tree. You now think about how the four characteristics are present in sight. But then you take a step back and realize that it is not sight. It is Nirvana, which you have conceptualized to be sight. Upon observing Nirvana as the source of all conceptualization, conceptualization ends and the false self has nowhere to persist, and you become free.

Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]?

Yes. They are illusions, but they are helpful illusions. When studied, they can assist in guiding us towards liberation. But their usefulness comes to an end once they are observed to be illusions. This is why the Buddha says once liberation is reached, even the Dharma itself must be let go of. It no longer becomes helpful and only ties to to more conceptualization, which will pull you from the freedom you have just achieved.
Build the boat to cross the river, but don’t try to bring it with you when you reach the other side.
That being said, if you haven’t directly experienced Nirvana yet, don’t try to pretend you aren’t observing the four characteristics. It’s important not to ignore them and use them as tools to get a glimpse of the other side. Once you see Nirvana for the first time, the illusion will naturally break down, as will the understandings.
I hope this was helpful to you. I pray for nothing more than your success in your endeavors.


text:
Did the Buddha himself say anything about 'greater good'?
The phrase comes up -- especially when discussing 'militarism' -- in the secondary literature; e.g.

that “one must sacrifice the lesser good for the greater good”; so too
  must “our heroes sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the naition...

Buddhism and Politics in Thailand, p154
Did the Buhddha say anything like this? The closest I know of is "be a lamp unto yourself", but in effect that could legitimize all sorts of errors.
Specifically I mean examples analogous to serving in the military: when some wrong doing is permitted due to "the greater good".

this may be a duplicate

If this is the lesser good:

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.

Then this is the greater good:

AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

If this is the lesser good:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Then this is the greater good:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice in particular that "heroes sacrificing themselves for the nation" is only third best. There are two practices better than that. Indeed, one reads that practicing to benefit oneself is better than being a hero. But to understand this fully, one must also know that practicing to benefit oneself requires one to make progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. The first step of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View. And that Right View includes the direction to perform good deeds.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?  Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.  And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

The greatest good, however, is to practice to benefit both ourselves and others. And how do we practice to benefit others? We teach them Right View.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two?  The words of another and proper attention.  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

"is only third best"... actually akusala, deluded, straight to hell,  and possible not of use and something if slight to encourage, but sure, it might have been sais, thinking it's a greater benefit to still maintain hold on, good householder. And whats the use of right view for one on the path if that to enter isn't established yet? To be able to act further for a higher good?

Something similar is said in the Dhammapada

If by giving up small pleasures great happiness is to be found, the wise should give up small pleasures seeing (the prospect of) great happiness.
Dhammapada 290

https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=290

"There are these four types of brightness. Which four? The brightness of the sun, the brightness of the moon, the brightness of fire, and the brightness of discernment. These are the four types of brightness. And of these four types of brightness, the foremost is the brightness of discernment." An4.144

There are other similar comparisons of pleasant abidings, ranking various classification of pleasure & happiness ìn the pali texts of early schools.

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.
"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'"

The difference between these classifications and the saying "that “one must sacrifice the lesser good for the greater good”; so too must “our heroes sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the naition..." is that the Sutta classification is precisely expressed & it's meaning is easily here drawn out, sun is brighter than the moon obv. The quotation about "hero sacrificing life for the nation" is far from precise because the words 'hero, nation' are very abstract terms and open to interpretation. It can easily be argued against as not being 'the greater good' and one can argue about what constitutes a real hero. It's kind of typical of politians&poets to use language in this way.


text:
Do you know of ways to financially support the Sangha?
I wonder what people, groups and projects one can support?
Both monastic and lay fields are on topic.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The easiest approach would be to find a temple/monastery in the tradition you want to support and go to their website or visit them in real life if possible. Their website often contains details on how to to support them, e.g. via Paypal with a single or monthly donation. Some places also have a "wishlist" with items they need such as toiletpaper, gardening tools, food supplies etc. Other places have projects that they need help with such as a library project or physical buildings that need to be build. Manual labour can be a great way of helping out too.
Many monasteries have a social media page as well, e.g. Facebook where they allow people to make donations.

Its hard to know which monks to support if one can't visit them


text:
Why these skandhas?
(Not sure if i should break this down into two questions. Let me know if that's better.)

Is Gautama Buddha the originator of the idea of skandhas?
The suttas provides multiple accounts of the skandhas characteristics, and their foundational role in dukkha (For instance SN 22.86). But does the suttas provide a rationale for the taxonomy into these five particular skandhas? (To clarify, i'm not asking what the skandhas are, or how they function).

In other words: why rupa, vedana, sanna, sankharas and vinnana? Are the reasons detailed in any sutta? Or should this question be deemed acinteyya?

Because those skandhas cover everything which may cause suffering. Yes I think Buddha is the originator of the ideas of skandhas. (there were many Buddhas )

Well some scholars say that the hindus (and jains?) already talked about the various skandhas.
Ex a famous article  "Playing with Fire: The pratītyasamutpāda from the perspective of Vedic thought, by. Joanna Jurewicz. Journal of the Pali Text Society 26 (2000)" https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba71/8e6966ab946ebb5138a06b13ed6762a809fe.pdf
and the famous book Nama-Rupa and Dharma-Rupa: Origins and Aspects of an Ancient Indian Conception https://books.google.com/books?id=w9M-z-JVSa0C
But the Vedists do not understand them. For instance the hindus do not understand that the contact is the condition for the arising of appealing-unappealing like in the dependant origination in the suttanipata https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.11.than.html . In buddhism, it is only through this direct knowledge that disillusion occurs and letting go happens which is full enlightenment https://suttacentral.net/sa60/en/analayo

If there were no gratification in the ear … nose … tongue … body …
  mind, sentient beings wouldn’t love it. But because there is
  gratification in the mind, sentient beings do love it. If the mind had
  no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it. But
  because the mind has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned
  with it. If there were no escape from the mind, sentient beings
  wouldn’t escape from it. But because there is an escape from the mind,
  sentient beings do escape from it.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.17/en/sujato
The skhandas are the way they are because they are ''the all'' and what has to be abondoned as in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html and
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html

I think It's because it is the most appropriate way of classifying everything by grouping of five.
Grouping by a singlefold classification would be "all" as is defined in sabba sutta. It is from that a matter of inference.
In that you infer elements that are not included in the previously inferred one's until it is no longer possible to name an element that isn't included in the five fold classification.
The Sabba Sutta also gives  a twelvefold classification.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Here one can't name an inferrable element #13 that is rightly inferred and isn't included.
It is the same principle but the grouping is by five for khanda.
The 5fold classification is  needed to delineate rupa, arupa and the genesis of those. The five are otherwise rupa & any other of the two because the 4 are conjoined but need delineation to explain genesis and factors of the rupa and the arupa states.


text:
Evil Buddha, anyone?
If a person practices mindfulness and concentration with great success but doesn't care about Noble Eightfold Path, is there a possibility of creating so to say "Evil (or at least immoral) Buddha"?
Were there any historical examples of such people?

I'm not trying to be rude but what do you think an "evil Buddha" is, or does, or says etc., what are their characteristics? It sounds like "dry water" to me, an oxymoron. -- I don't understand what the question is asking/describing.

There are forms of Buddhism which do not focus on the eightfold path, but other things like six paramitas. Are you talking about the eightfold specifically, or do you just mean the buddhist path in general? Even if you meant the latter, the concept of an evil Buddha makes no sense as all Buddhas are lacking self delusion and are incapable of immorality.

An example could be Buddha's own cousin who was highly accomplished in meditation and the path but had jealousy and ill will left over. He tried to kill the Buddha multiple times.

Even if the history calls a Buddha, evil , there is no self in it ,only ignorance.

Buddha means the person who has already eradicated attachment, aversion and ignorance. Hence there is no evil Buddha's. The Buddhist term for them is the "Mara" the opposite of Buddha.
The people who practice mindfulness and concentration without the backing of Noble Eightfold Path is called "wrong mindfulness" or "Miccha Sati and Miccha Samadhi"

Well, these people can be not religious at all. ;) But I understand your point.

This is highly anecdotal, but... Behring Breivik allegedly had a great interest in mindfulness meditation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation
It is no coincidence that Sila is such a central aspect of buddhism. You can't reach buddhahood without it:

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

I am from the Theravada perspective.
There is only one Buddha who opened the path, everyone else is a follower.
Without the 8 fold path, You can go all the way to 4th Jhana and beyond (which is worthless) if you want.
Reaching the 4th you create enormous power and ability to do great things.
In the ancient times there has been many great sages who did amazing good things as well as some has destroyed whole cities with the population with their single thoughts(according to the scriptures).
Yes, they can be Evil.
However, here is the catch, if you are naturally a bad person you can never reach a Jhana. Because the “mechanism” works in the opposite direction.
You need to have a well disciplined and purified inner mind to reach a Jhana.
If you do any evil things after your skills development, it will automatically undo everything what you have achieved. How fast it happens is depending on the level of achievement and severity of the evil deeds.
Almost always, if someone knows the 8 fold path and reaching this Jhanic level, will never miss the chance.
It is like you practice throughout your whole life for Olympic gold medal and you are reaching the finishing line ahead of everyone else. But you turn back a couple of feet before and go shoot your legs.

Just so it's said, the concepts 'good' and 'evil' in the Western world don't translate well to the Buddhist worldview. What Westerners consider 'evil' and 'good' Buddhists see as 'karmic': caught in a pattern that is deleterious (in the first case) or beneficial but un-liberated (in the second). Fully awakened beings are neither good nor evil. Such people are merely free of the compulsions and aversions that would drive them to commit acts others might find problematic.
Remember that the assertion of good or evil is always subjective — people we call 'evil' will almost certainly consider themselves 'good'; the eternal misunderstanding — but being awake means losing the subject that makes such assertions.

'Right mindfulness' ('samma sati') in Buddhism is defined as follows:

‘I will protect myself,’ bhikkhus: thus should the establishments of mindfulness be practised. ‘I will protect others,’ bhikkhus: thus should the establishments of mindfulness be practised. Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, one protects oneself.
SN 47.19

mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure towards the world
MN 10

One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

Just as a citadel has a gatekeeper who is astute, competent, and intelligent, who keeps strangers out and lets known people in, in the same way a noble disciple is mindful. They have utmost mindfulness and alertness, and can remember and recall what was said and done long ago. A noble disciple with mindfulness as their gatekeeper gives up the unskillful and develops the skillful, they give up the blameworthy and develop the blameless, and they keep themselves pure.
AN 7.67

Therefore, in Buddhism, it is impossible to have Right Mindfulness and perform evil actions because the word 'mindfulness' in Buddhism means to remember to not perform evil.


text:
Does/did Buddhism assert that everything that is/was important to know about the world is/was already known?
Harari (2011) claims:

Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism.
I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

The buddha said that some people found the truth before him, but of coure most people didn't

“In the same way, I had now arrived at the ancient way of the noble
  ones, the ancient path of the noble ones, the ancient way trodden by
  the noble ones, along which passed the noble ones of ancient times,
  and which I should now follow, namely this Noble Eightfold Path: right
  view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  skilful means (effort), right mindfulness, right concentration.

https://suttacentral.net/sa287/en/choong

I would say that Buddhism asserts that everything that is important to know about the world (including the body and the mind), with regards to suffering and freedom from suffering, was already known.
These are known as the three marks of existence (tilakkhaṇa):

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are suffering"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

But outside of the context of suffering and freedom from suffering, Buddhism does not make the claim that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

The above is missing an important context: known by whom? Regarding worldly knowledge, this is what the Buddha said:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. ~~ SN 56.31 ~~

Yes, everything IMPORTANT to know is discovered and realized by Buddha and Arahants.
It is like a skillful engineer or scientist have no secret in any type of machine from past present or future, he/she knows the basics philosophy behind it and how it works.
As an Arahant you know what created everything and you don’t need details of everything to understand it.


text:
Any manuals on the development of "sympathetic joy" and or "gladness" apart from Visuddhimagga?
As titled. I wonder if there are other methods of development outlined elsewhere?

There're quite a lot of essays on the Brahmavihara written by Vens. Thanissaro, Buddharakkhita, Siriwardhana, Nanamoli, etc. and of course in the Nikaya suttas themselves. See various links here and here


text:
What are the relevant vinaya guidelines if a bhikkhu was to find a likely abandoned dwelling?
Suppose a bhikkhu living in the forest was to come across an abandoned shelter not frequented for several years. Dwelling is clearly in decay and not maintained, with spider webs & hornet's nest etc.
Suppose it's natutally assumed to be an illegal structure by law of the land.
Can he make use of the dwelling and appropriate the requisites if those are otherwise allowable, to do with as he sees fit? Can he dismantle the dwelling? How long does it take for requisites to be considered forsaken and fit to make use of in general?
Im looking primarily for relevant guidelines & anecdotes from the vinayas & commentary of early schools, not interested in mahayana/vajrayana answers.

It's not a matter of how long, since you can't know for certain anyway. If you perceive it to be abandon, then you can go ahead and use it as deem fit.

I remember reading a sutta regarding Buddha told Bhikkus to be mindful of King's will (law of the land) ..  this event was from when king Pasenthikosola (if I remember correctly) wished to move planting season in his kingdom (sooner or later, I don't remember), Buddha then instructed Bhikkus to observe rainy retreat accordingly.  This is a quick answer as to monks need to be mindful of the local laws.
Sorry if I can't find a reference at the moment .   Maybe someone remembers it better than I do.


text:
How to rebuild a relationship after a breach of trust?
What are the Buddhist norms & guidelines for rebuilding a relationship after a breach of trust?

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong might give first ideas. Details depend on the kind of relation (between whom), and Mahavagga has parts on teacher/Studend ones, and Nyom Ruslan would know proper place to ask.

talk to them with honesty. this isn't a specifically buddhist answer

In a non-Buddhist relationship (such as described in AN 4.53), either one or both parties don't follow the five precepts and other Buddhist principles (such as the principles listed in DN 31). Obviously, the non-Buddhist relationship is a "doomed" relationship, where, per AN 7.63, one party is the killer of the other party or the killer of the relationship.
Where as in a Buddhist relationship, since each party has the intention to follow the five precepts and other Buddhist principles, any transgressions are willingly reconciled using honesty (sacca), training (dama) & patience (forgiveness), per SN 10.12.
Also, Buddhists make confession to the Triple Gem, as found here at the top of page 21, middle of page 23 and bottom of page 25.

Suggest replacing "is a doomed relationship" with "can be a doomed relationship".  My wife was my friend before I became a Buddhist. AN7.63:13.1: But the kinds of wives here called

AN7.63:13.2: ... friend...
AN7.63:13.3: steadfast in their own morality, restrained for a long time,
AN7.63:13.4: when their body breaks up they set course for a good place.

I can't think of any instances where the Buddha specifically addresses your question. However, you may find the Patience chapter in Santideva's Bodhicaravatara (Way of the Bodhisattva) quite helpful.
Of course, the whole chapter is profoundly useful (as is the entire text), but you may want to have a look, starting at verse 38 of chapter six. Here's a link: https://www.tibethouse.jp/about/buddhism/text/pdfs/Bodhisattvas_way_English.pdf


text:
Buddhist take on parents staying together for the children?
How would one go about figuring out if it is wise to stay together for the sake of the children or if it is time to split up?
What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.
Prefer answers based on Vibhajavadin traditions and texts held to be true by those schools.

"Based on Buddhist principles"? That would be difficult to talk about. It seems as though you needed to add that to make the question acceptable here. That's unfortunate. Besides, which Buddhism are we referring to?

I think it should be clear now. I am inquiring on how to best advice one who is facing these difficulties and wants to reevaluate one's strategy and priorities based on the Buddhist logic and values inferable from the texts.

What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.

As others already mentioned, the teaching is mostly for monastics with some small portion just giving generic advice to the lays. However, one can always use logic and common sense to come up with the best solution for everyone. A common mistake is the automatic assumption about the benefit of sacrificing oneself for the sake of the children, while in reality, there're instances where it's even more harmful to them. Imagine staying with your spouse, but engaging in constant back and forth arguments using harsh, abusive language, Or, on the other extreme, remain completely silent and let the spouse spewing all the nasty words all day long. Both of those stay-together scenarios would actually do more harm to the children than good. So, use one's own intelligence and common sense to evaluate the situation. While it'd obviously be best for parents to try to work things out and stay together, but if that means it'll create a living hell for both parties, and/or it doesn't actually benefit children, or even does more harm to them, then one might have to consider the idea to go one's own separate way, for the sake of everyone involved.

The suttas are mostly (not all) by and for monks, less detailed on the subject of married life and so on.
Buddhism & Divorce implies there's not a lot of explicit doctrine on the subject -- perhaps little more than that "lay life is confining and a dusty path".
You might be interested in a book The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness. from which I summarised this answer -- it's based on the author's finding suttas that are relevant to lay life -- unfortunately I don't own a copy so I can't tell you now what it says about children.
This article -- A Happy Married Life -- might be helpful. It includes a section "Parental Responsibilities" (I'd suggest you read first only the first sentence of each paragraph to get an overview).
Again I imagine that the situations vary and that you could use some proper (personal, in-person and perhaps professional) counsel.
When I tried to answer your question What's the advice for dealing with an abusive partner? I did so without considering that there might be children involved, in the house. In my limited personal experience I think that children are better with one parent who loves them than with two who don't, and personally I always imagined that if I were a parent myself then I might be less willing and less able (because it would be less moral, less dutiful) to tolerate (condone, perpetuate) an abusive or less-than-ideal partner, even or especially "for the children".
But this is me describing or generalising from my personal experience, not yours -- so for that and other reasons I suggest you find a counsellor to discuss this with. Like if you were ill you should probably talk with a doctor in person, not self-diagnose nor read a book of pharmacology.


text:
How to deal with difficult in-laws?
What are some "skillful means" of getting through holidays, birthdays, graduations and etc. when your in-laws are constantly making passive aggressive statements about you or the way you raise your kids.
Are there Buddhist techniques one can use to aleviate the anxiety and the irritability associated with these situations?

I first encountered the Buddhist perspective on resentment with DN33. It quite startled me because no action was required other than letting go. The day I read this, a car tried to run me over in the crosswalk. So I tried what the Buddha said and it worked. Very puzzling!

DN33:3.2.15: Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

Another sutta provides more specific help in letting go of resentment:

AN5.161:1.1:“Mendicants, a mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone. What five?  You should develop love for a person you resent.  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person.  You should develop compassion for a person you resent. …  You should develop equanimity for a person you resent. … You should disregard a person you resent, paying no attention to them. …  You should apply the concept that we are the owners of our deeds to that person: ‘This venerable is the owner of their deeds and heir to their deeds. Deeds are their womb, their relative, and their refuge. They shall be the heir of whatever deeds they do, whether good or bad.’  That’s how to get rid of resentment for that person. A mendicant should use these five methods to completely get rid of resentment when it has arisen toward anyone.”

May you and your family find peace and an end to suffering.


text:
Which discourses list the factors needed for becoming successful?
I want help tracking down two discourses.
First discourse is where The Buddha is asked how long it takes to complete his training and he answers posing a counter question, then lists an amount of flawed qualities in a learner. It ends with him saying that if a disciple is of good quality the teaching can be reslized in 7 years... or in a day or so (this part similar to satipatthana sutta). I think this one is in the Anguttara Nikaya.
The second discourse i've heard claimed to list factors which lead to success in one's pursuit and the two;

Thinking about the thing one is developing
surrounding oneself with people who are into it

are included in that list iirc.
Thanks

Found the first one of them https://suttacentral.net/mn85/en/horner

"And what is meant by admirable friendship?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kalyanamittata.html


text:
According to Tendai, is karma an illusion and all there is
I think the conventional, mundane, truth in Tendai is the claim that karma is an illusion, for a number of reasons, such as the identity of the perfect mundane truth with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth. Zhiyi  -- importantly -- quotes Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise:

All things that arise through causes and conditions, I explain as
emptiness, Again, this is a conventional designation. Again, this is
the meaning of the Middle Way.

I believe that in Tendai the conventional truth is just a different means of asserting the ultimate truth, that each of the three truths are both one truth, and different

although three [phrases], they are one [in meaning]; although one,
this is three; [they are] not mutually exclusive.

means of verbally falsifying reality

The three types are all empty because they are beyond verbalization
and conceptualization. The three types are all conventional because
they merely exist as [provisional] verbal [con- structs]. The three
types are all the Middle, because they are identical to the true
aspects [of reality]

So I wondered if the Buddhist law of cause and effect all there is to Buddhism -- and Buddhahood and reality -- according to Tendai, yet also an illusion.

Things are neither merely nominal, nor merely real

Ziporyn, 2012, 60
Inescapable, but unreal.

any feedback on the downvote? it's not a tricky inference

"This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear"? Why are you asking? Why do you think Tendai's "middle way claim" is about karma? Maybe add some quote of what you're asking about? Or don't bother -- I think I've understood now what your "inference" was but it isn't especially obvious at first reading.

i've already said haven't i? cos the equate causation with the ultimate truth @ChrisW

I read this recently -- usually I might upvote a question (from a new user) just for being on-topic -- but I thought, "maybe we could start to ask that more experienced users could ask questions well".

right so i need references? @ChrisW ? i guess i'm too lazy, sorry

Something like references might make the question more interesting and/or easier to answer.

ok i'll get back to it later, cheers @ChrisW

Thanks for the edit. Is the title right too, a good summary of the question? If I tried to summarise the text I might try, "Does Tendai's Middle Way merely assert causation, without assuming its reality or non-reality?". Is that the same as the current title, which asks about "karma" and whether that "is" and "all there is"? And (apart from the title) do you want to mention why you're asking the question, or do you reckon that's obvious or unimportant?

it's unimportant. cheers @ChrisW i'll add another edit

i appreciate the help with the question. an answer may have made it more readable @ChrisW

i'll get back to this