text:
What arguments are there for "karma" -- that the agent inevitably experiences the result of their actions?
There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy.
What about karma?

And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter.

Or again:

He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is
  karma; and the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of
  that performed karma. Without karma, an agent is not established.

The Inner Kālacakratantra, unknown page.

The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview.
  In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have
  consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact,
  it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of
  karma as another manifestation of dependent arising
  (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything
  that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law
  of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally
  followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But
  they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably
  to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic
  consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has
  presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing,
  lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an
  unpleasant human situation or in hell.

Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness?

I was looking at the wild fox koan here, and this part struck me:

Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny
  causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one
  cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and
  effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they
  are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this.

I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect.
But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience cause as effect. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: karma.

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

i'm baffled by everyone else's bafflement. karma is a pretty basic doctrine @ChrisW any better?

So the question is about Karma as defined in that sentence/definition in the Standford Encyclopedia -- so I might read the question as, "what's the Buddhist argument for karma as it's defined here?", or possibly, "what's the argument for saying that this is the Buddhists definition of karma?". That (added definition) might be "better", e.g. Yeshe Tenley commented, "I don’t know what part of your own personal definition you find difficult".

returned the original title; the proposed one was too far away from the OP's

the hostility to academic analysis doesn't surprise me

Personnal experience is a good way to learn. From what i understand, buddhism isn't based on blind faith, so experience is an excellent teacher in that sense.
Although i won't quote any buddhist text, i don't think you need to see past lives to understand karma.
Anyone has experienced hatred, selfishness, and the following results on the mind. Actions born out of these mental states have immediate consequences on the doer.
Remorse is an obvious form of rapid karma, very destabilizing physically and mentally. Some people canno't survive remorse or live painfully for years or their whole life, altough it might seem some people are able to go without remorses.
On a mental level, the thought and energy you cultivated in the past are now defining your present experience. It is impossible to escape your present condition which is the result of past actions/toughts.
By reflecting on your life, you can be able to trace back some of the present elements to their past causes.

UPDATE based on the edited question with a suggested definition of karma.
While it is true that the Buddha taught that each and every volitional action has specific consequences this is most definitely not in opposition to the fact that repeated actions based on volitional thoughts can be habit forming. Indeed, consequences of a karmic action can be that it leads to further such actions.
If I were to tell you right now not to think of a pink elephant the chances are likely that you will do so in the immediate future. What's more, it is likely that many beings reading this will be thinking of pink elephants in a more distant future as a consequence of the pink elephant they are bringing to mind right now. I invite you to observe your monkey mind at work with its discursive thoughts and see if you can't trace the cause and effect consequence of each thought leading to others in a more or less continuous process. One moment of mind gives birth to the next and on and on.
Surrounding the definition in the Stanford Encyclopedia is a discussion of how karma and rebirth are in some tension with the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. I believe the correct conceptual understandings of emptiness, karma and rebirth resolve this tension.
This whole notion of the fruits of karmic action being delayed as some sort of puzzle is itself somewhat puzzling to me. In my very life I have observed that my actions can have far reaching consequences. Far reaching in time and space. What I have done or failed to do when I was young (decades ago) has manifested in the situation I am in now. Isn't that just obvious for you as well?
Asking where the consequence of a karmic action (that has ceased) is stored in time and space betrays the wish for a metaphysical explanation. And this metaphysical explanation leads to the doctrine of emptiness as it explains how things exist and how they do not. In what manner they exist and in what manner they do not. Asking where the consequence is stored (in time and space) betrays the idea that phenomena (including karmic actions) have substantial inherent own-being. They do not. That is explained and reasoned through by the teaching on emptiness that Nagarjuna has expounded.
The sutra below explicitly lays out that the Buddha says that the consequence is not stored in time and space. And it goes on to show that actions, consequences, death, birth, karma, are all void of own being. This is the teaching on emptiness.
Believing that the teaching on emptiness somehow is problematic for dependent origination or the law of cause and effect is just wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite as Nagarjuna has said in his famous treatise! Without emptiness - that is if things had their own-being - then actions could not be performed and there would be no cause and effect or dependent origination.
Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Although I am not certain about what your question actually is about I thought I'd share this passage from a rather obscure sutra that may help your mind:

THE NOBLE SUTRA OF THE MAHAYANA DENOMINATED - "THE PASSAGE THROUGH
  EXISTENCES"
Homage to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvaas. Thus have I heard. Once
  the Bhagavant stayed in Rajagrha, in the Bamboo-Forest, in the place
  of the kalandakas, in the company of a group of one thousand two
  hundred and fifty bhiksus and of very numerous great Bodhisattvas.
  Then, the Bhagavant, while he was surrounded by many hundreds of
  thousands of his followers, looking at them, expounded the Dharma and
  expounded in its integrity the Brahmacarya beautiful in its beginning,
  beautiful in the middle, beautiful in its end, fair in its meaning,
  fair in its expression, without confusion, completely fulfilled,
  completely pure, completely immaculate.
Then Sreniya Bimbisara, King of the Magadha country, going out from
  the town of Rajagrha, with great royal pomp, with a great royal force,
  went to the Bamboo-Forest where the Bhagavant was. On arriving, after
  bowing down at the feet of the Bhagavant and turning (around the
  Bhagavant) the right side towards him three times, Sreniya Bimbisara,
  King of the Magadha country, spoke thus to the Bhagavant : "O
  Bhagavant, how do actions, (a long time) after having been done (and)
  accumulated, a long time after having ceased, (re)appear in the mind,
  on being near the moment of death? All conditioned things (samskara)
  being void, how do actions pass without being annihilated?"
So (the King) spoke, and the Bhagavant to Sreniya Bimbisara, King of
  the Magadha country, said thus : "O great King, just as for instance a
  man, in a dream while he is sleeping, dreams that he extremely enjoys
  himself with a beautiful woman of his country and, when he awakes from
  his sleep, remembers that beautiful woman of his country (he has seen
  in his dream) - what do you think, O great King : does that beautiful
  woman of the country, (seen) in the dream, (really) exist?"
(The King) said : "O Bhagavant, she does not exist."
The Bhagavant said : "O great King, what do you think : that man who
  ardently desires the beautiful woman of his country, (seen) in his
  dream - is he a wise man?"
(The King) answered : "O Bhagavant, he is not - if it is asked why, O
  Bhagavant - because that beautiful woman of the country, (seen) in the
  dream, does not exist at all; and although he does not perceive her,
  (nevertheless) he goes on thinking of enjoying himself extremely with
  her. Thus that man, being deprived of her, has a destiny of sorrow."
The Bhagavant said : "O great King, in the same way, an ordinary man,
  foolish, ignorant, on seeing with his eyes lovely forms, ardently
  desires those forms which are agreeable to his mind. While ardently
  desiring them, he becomes attached to them. On becoming attached to
  them, he feels a passion for them. On feeling a passion for them, he
  performs with his body, speech and mind,, actions that are born out of
  desire, hatred and error. And those actions, after having been
  performed, cease. And after having ceased, (those actions) stay
  neither in the east nor in the south nor in the west nor in the north
  nor up nor down - nor in any region of space. But, at any other time,
  at the moment near the instant of death, when the karma corresponding
  (to the life that is being concluded) is exhausted, at the (very)
  moment the last consciousness ceases, those actions (re)appear in the
  mind (of the dying man) - just as for instance the beautiful woman of
  the country (in the mind) of the man that wakes from his sleep. O
  great King, immediately after the first consciousness has ceased,
  there arises the series of consciousnesses, which corresponds (to the
  life that is beginning), and in which the ripening (of actions
  previously performed) will be experienced. O great King, although no
  element of existence (dharma) passes from this world to another world,
  nevertheless death and birth take place. O great King, the last
  consciousness which ceases is called 'death'; the first consciousness
  which arises is called 'birth'. O great King, the last consciousness,
  at the moment it ceases, does not pass to anywhere; the first
  consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth, at the moment it
  arises, does not come from anywhere. If it is asked why, (I answer:)
  because of their lack of an own being. O great King, although the last
  consciousness is void (of the own being) of death, action is void (of
  the own being) of action, the first consciousness is void (of the own
  being) of a first consciousness, birth is void (of the own being) of
  birth, (nevertheless) actions do not perish. O great King, immediately
  after the first consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth,
  has ceased, there arises without interruption the series of
  consciousnesses, in which the ripening (of actions previously done)
  will be experienced."

This sutra speaks directly to karma and how it ripens from moment to moment and life to life even though actions previously arisen have ceased and exist no where whatsoever in space or time and yet they ripen at later times and continue to produce fruit. The important point is that the manner and way this happens from moment to moment in this very life is the same manner and way it happens from life to life. There is no difference in extent or manner.
And note that the doctrine of emptiness is very definitely tied up with this ripening of past karma. Karma could not function without emptiness. Were things not empty, there could not be actions and the ripening of those actions. Understanding emptiness is indispensable in understanding how actions ripen and bear fruit and that is why it is said that emptiness and dependent origination go hand in hand.

they don't say that it's "in opposition" they say that the two are not identical. maybe it's not the "western notions of philosophy" that are mistaken, but your understanding of "western notions of philosophy". i should have asked on philosophy stack, dwai

I have removed the disparaging remarks about western philosophy and the entry in the encyclopedia as they are unnecessary and harmful to the answer I was trying to help with. Also not against academic analysis. Indeed, academic analysis is highly highly valued in my tradition.

haha, that's really nice of you thanks. metta :-)

Looking at the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs), we see:

AN4.233:1.1: “Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, kammāni mayā sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā paveditāni.
AN4.233:1.1: “Mendicants, I declare these four kinds of deeds, having realized them with my own insight.

We can verify the effects of kamma(Pāli) / karma(Sanskrit) personally and see causes and effects. For example, if we ignore cause and effect and steal, we cause harm and that harm rebounds on us as jail.

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results;

And if we acknowledge cause and effect and are kind in heart and action to others, then we see smiles and gratitude:

AN4.233:1.4: bright deeds with bright results;

These are personally verifiable in this very life without recourse to past lives. We can understand the koan ourselves with simple experiments and simple intentions.
Yet doubt remains because sometimes people who do bad things get wealthy and sometimes people who do good things are burned at the stake. These apparent conflicts arise from mixed intentions and circumstance. The story of Frank Abagnale comes to mind:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; ...

Most importantly, there is the fourth case not discussed in the quoted koan:

AN4.233:1.6: neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

The fourth case is quite different. The first three cases deal with the generation of kamma. The fourth case deals with the ending of kamma, the laying down of craving, and the full release of the heart. This too is personally verifiable and experienced by means of the Noble Eightfold Path. It does take practice and effort. Fortunately, walking the path does not require recalling past lives. For all practicing the path, we let go of the craving that drives our deeds and thereby lessen the suffering of kamma. For some, the escape will be complete.

AN4.233:5.2: It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

According to emptiness, there is only cause and effect.  Emptiness has nothing to do with it.  A fully enlightened monk falls down a well.  How is this possible?
To appease the mods - the koan cited in this question has nothing to do with what’s asked and should be redacted from the original text.

nice thinking, but i'm not studying koans!

Then why use one in your question?  The koan you posted has nothing to do with emptiness and is only tangentially related to karma.  In fact, it is explicitly not about emptiness.  That’s why it directly follows the Mu koan in the Mumonkan.  Now beards?  Tails?  Falling down a well?  That’s an appropriate thread of discussion!

why do you think it has nothing to do with the question?

The koan has more to do with personal obstacles - obstacles that someone who, experiencing mushin or emptiness (or even kensho) for the first time might mistakenly believe they have gotten past.  This koan is grounding.  It’s pushing the student back to form after investigating emptiness.  Pedagogically speaking, it’s laying the groundwork for all the koans that follow (assuming the teacher goes in order; not all do).

I should also add that those obstacles are specific to the particular student.  He has to identify his own “falling down the well”, his own tail, or his own beard.  The koan is asking him to kiss his own elbow or see the back of his own head, existentially speaking.  That’s only possible with a mind prepared by emptiness (I.e. Mu).


text:
Why are so many Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?
Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?

Are you hoping for answers based on references, or based on personal experience?

why not both? i'm interested in any explanation @ChrisW i might just delete my account, i'm not sure stackexchange is a useful resource here

I'm not sure this hostility is any greater in the West than elsewhere, but one reason might be that in the West much of the analysis has been muddled and wrong. There is a lot of nonsense published in the academic world and Buddhism is not let off the hook.

(Meta:) Do you mean "some" or "so many" actually? Seems it is somehow arbitrary here?

You have strayed from the direct path free from [reified concept of] intrinsic being, and wandered down the wrong path of strict rationalism. And as you apply yourself to the labors of your own imagination, the obstructions to the correct path mount ever higher. What do you derive from this constant accumulation of words?

~Candrakirti, as quoted in "The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Madhyamika" by C. W. Huntington & Geshe Namgyal Wangchen

I highly doubt that this quote is authentic because Candrakirti owns his opponents using rationalism and I can't imagine him ridiculing strict rationalism. Although the quote above is mentioned in the book "The Emptiness of Emptiness", when I tracked down the quote in the original source i.e. MAB 6.172, I didn't find Candrakirti saying this.

Perhaps this question was inspired by my answer to another where I disparaged some western philosophical notions applied to Buddha Dharma. That was not helpful nor was it meaningful. I’m trying to sincerely answer these questions with a mind of generosity and the sincere wish to benefit others, but unfortunately I don’t always succeed.
As to this question I don’t know that there is a general pattern. My particular tradition - gelugpa - descends from Nalanda university which was a worldwide center of exactly what we might call “academic analysis” of Buddha Dharma. Moreover, the modern inheritors of my tradition study at monastic universities like Sera Je for literally decades in a rigorous academic environment to earn what is the equivalent of a PhD in the Buddha Dharma.
Many western academics have done invaluable work in translating the sutras and commentaries. Many more have invested heavy thought and years of study to trying to truly understand the subtlest aspects of Buddha Dharma and I have nothing but profound respect and gratitude for them.
All of this said... it is important to remember that Buddha Dharma is not just an academic exercise, but one with a profound and world shaking soteriological goal. And if I let my impatience and frustration get the better of me it is with those times when I perceive some western academics who do not give respect to this goal or to the depth of intellectual insight in the Buddha Dharma, but rather paper it over with somewhat lazy analogies and a cultural bias that regards western philosophy and logic to be superior. There have been times when I have read what appear to me to be cursory reviews of Buddha Dharma that do not respect the subject matter and the deep thinking that has generated it. It might just be my own karmic mis-perceptions though.

do you not think, though, that evidence for karma (just think rebirth if my analysis is a struggle) would be insanely valuable? as good as any purported miracle etc.

Evidence for karma is readily available and can be seen in my own experience on a daily basis. It is obvious to me and I tried to express that with examples, but have apparently failed. It is not mystical or moral judgment or anything like that to me. It is simple cause and effect of the actions I take the repercussions I see in my own life.

personal evidence is not what i meant. it never stands up to analysis for anyone else

If not empirical evidence, then I fail to understand what you after. Do you mean for rebirth? Or the ripening in this very life? If it is still about rebirth, then as I’ve said my belief in rebirth is founded by the logical inescapability of emptiness as expounded by Nagarjuna.

ok, well same. does it matter if i frame it in different terms? i would add that i think part of that is rational, and part empirical. having one without the other doesn't get me (anyway) anywhere

Your last paragraph seems much too kind. Poor scholarship is common-place and it seems to be the name of the game in the typical philosophy department. .  .  .

Thoughts dashed off before while waiting for the rice to cook -
Several particularly pernicious things happen when you try to investigate Buddhism intellectually or scholastically.  For one, you short change yourself.  Yeah, it's fun to ruminate about these things, but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere.  It is utterly impossible to make any kind of spiritual progress in this way (and don't even get me started on that "dry insight" hogwash).  The more time you spent pondering these ideas, the less time you're spending on the cushion investigating your own obstacles.
The next things that can happen (and these are going to be listed in order of danger), is that when you treat these things academically, you run the risk of convincing yourself that you've actually learned something.  The thing about Buddhism is that it can make some degree of sense to us intellectually.  That koan about the fox?  On the surface, who wouldn't think that was about karma?  There's another koan about two monks arguing over whether a flag blows in the wind or in their mind, or where ever.  I forget which because, frankly, the flag, monks, wind, and the mind have nothing to do with that koan either.  If you sit there spinning ideas about either of those two koans, or the nature of mindfulness, or what the Heart Sutra means, you're missing a chance to investigate your own shortcomings and even the very nature of reality.  I don't think I need to add this, but it's like eating a picture of a cake instead of the actual thing.
Next, intellectualism gets in the way.  Oh does it get in the way!  Say you've finally made it to the cushion and are trying to reach jhana or some other useless state.  You'll sit there plugging along shoving every experience and phenomenon into the little jhana box that you built with all of your reading.  A little happiness?  Oh that must be piti!  I'm concentrated!  Ekaggata!  You sit there filling that little box with all of these fragments experience meanwhile missing the honest to goodness reality that just smacking you in the face trying you to get you to notice it.  Things that are far more important, things that you would never have expected (that's key) that have nothing to do with the jhana factors or the four foundations of mindfulness.  Worse yet, you may even try to create these phenomenon within your field of perception.  Man, if you do that, you're just plain lost.
Worse yet, an academic Buddhism completely neglects the body.  Meditation is a bodily practice.  What we learn by sweating and aching on the cushion is infinitely more important than anything we can learn in the sutras.  This is where you meet yourself face to face and really learn who you are.  Are you a coward who runs away from a challenge?  Do you get frustrated when you can't sit as long as the person on the mat next to you?  Pissed off that you haven't slept enough?  Can you lay yourself out on the edge of a sword, let yourself be cut in two, and give every iota of yourself completely over to your breath?  Questions like that are the very basis of Buddhist practice.  Questions like that never get answered through scholastic pursuits.
Lastly, academic Buddhism misrepresents the dharma.  Unless what you're reading is firmly couched in a long enduring practice (and there are some pretty fine books out there, let's be clear), you are undermining what the Buddha was trying to teach.  The Buddha's task to us was the complete transformation of our very being.  Anything that doesn't aid in that pursuit is not Buddhism.

i'm not sure about the last paragrpah (and it's why i asked the question). i guess it's horses for courses? personally, i don't see thoughts in zazen, including the ones you describe, as no different to any other. same as pleasant feelings. if i sit, it's because i felt the need to, for some reason -- often for my sanity -- and doing so does seem good for that (unlike, perhaps, reading). a token gesture? maybe we are just going different ways

You can sit to feel better.  That’s fine, but it’s strictly palliative.  When you can sit when you don’t need or want to, when you can sit when nothing is happening, when your legs hurt, and the whole matter seems futile, then you are no longer sitting on the closer shore.  You’ve gone beyond the where the academic and personal can reach, where only the foaming billows wash the sky.  In that maelstrom, you’ll meet the Buddha face to face.  And that one, you don’t kill.  ;-)

i don't mean sanity like "feeling better" what do you mean "strictly palliative"? isn't that all buddhism?

So the kind of meditation you are doing right now "keeps you sane" or "does [you] good". It's helping you cope with your life and deal with suffering.  This kind of meditation is like taking a holiday from a stressful job or having a drink to calm your nerves.  That's not what the Buddha is asking of us.  Buddhism is about completely transforming your life, your relationship to suffering - even who this "you" is.  It's about uprooting the deeper structures that keep us bound to our small minds.  This takes work.  This kind of practice is also often frustrating.

But it's the only kind of practice that leads to liberation.

This answer (and question) might be a little off-topic -- "too subjective" and "a polling question".
I don't think I'm hostile to academic analyses -- I am a bit indifferent to them, if that makes sense. I even think that an "academic" question can be helpful, in that it might help me to get an introductory or beginner's (student's) overview of a topic.
If I were hostile it might be for two reasons:

Not accurate
Not beneficial

I reckon "beneficial" is something to do with soteriology -- also ethics (sila) -- to whatever extent that's not the goal of academics, to that extent I'm maybe not so interested in academia.
As for "accurate", there's this quote from the suttas -- The Four Great References

Take a mendicant who says:

‘Reverend, I have heard and learned ...: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’

You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training. If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion:

‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ And so you should reject it.

... If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’ You should remember it.

When I read a sentence like the first one quoted in this question, i.e. ...

each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues

... then that is a chore, maybe merely a chore -- to try to see how, where, whether that "clearly is the word of the Blessed One".
Instead of that chore (i.e. reading that analysis) then if I am reading I might prefer to read something closer to the original texts.
Or prefer to read an analysis written by a monk (I don't know whether you'd call that "academic").
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ for example is full of paraphrases -- i.e. one-sentence summaries -- of the Buddhist doctrine.
Maybe you see a sentiment resembling this one in Yeshe Tenley's answer, i.e.:

Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Plus I am interested in academic analyses.

There's this one for example which compares two versions of an early Buddhist text -- I find the scholarly argument interesting (my dad was a historian and academic, of roman history, which I'm not) -- plus the subject seems to me consequential (a matter of soteriology and ethics, where better-understanding e.g. as provided by the academic it might give better insight in the nature of early Buddhism).
Or for example I find Piya Tan's analyses helpful if I'm trying to understand a sutta -- it's sort of carefully referenced and footnoted. Piya Tan had been monk and is now a scholar.

But then again why would you be interested in "academic" anything -- no matter what the skill or discipline or "body of knowledge" you might want to learn, people typically learn that from the practitioners or professionals. There are ways to teach Buddhism -- curriculums and sequences -- but maybe reading encyclopedia articles isn't quite the thing.
I once had a boss who retired from the army and wanted to become an entrepreneur and sales-person. He went to university and I think took a degree in "economics" -- and was very disappointed in that, that wasn't useful to him at all!

Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the
religion?

What makes you think so ?  If any Buddhist says that academic analysis of religion is prohibited then he or she is going against Dhamma. Buddha says come ,analyse and test the Dhamma by yourself and follow it only if you are convinced. Why does Buddha says so ? He says so out of deep compassion for well being of humanity. Some people try to absorb Dhamma selectively but that won’t help. One must walk the path as told by Buddha and undoubtedly it will involve some suffering.

From reading the answers, I think it's about different conceptions of what "thinking" amounts to. No-one is saying that reading academic analysis is a substitute for seated meditation or chanting.
There is a long history of debate in Buddhism, both with other Buddhists and e.g. Hindus. Whether or not you think reading its history is helpful, probably depends on whether "you" are the sort of "person" (sorry for the quotes) are the sort to decide upon your beliefs (about points of controversy) based on the need for rational analysis or conformism to an accepted norm.
Do you not slander the sutras because no-one else does, or because the texts conform to what you already understand? The alternative, e.g. the divine eye, is of course preferable.

Given there are four ways of answering questions, this medium may be suitable for only of these four. Trying to answer the other three on this site (i.e. using this Q&A format) may be an exercise in frustration -- although see also also this meta-topic.

But debate isn't the norm. In my experience the kind of debate (conversation) some academics have for fun might start with a sweeping generalisation, to which the reply might be "What do you mean by that?" or "What about X counter-example?" and so on.. But that doesn't work in this Q&A format which was originally means to  be "no chat" -- so instead someone has the burden to ask a lucid and self-explanatory question, about practice or doctrine. And if it's a question about doctrine IMO it should quote or reference the specific doctrine which it's questioning

are you saying my answer is poor? i'm not feeling frustrated at all; only when i asked the question. i do not see what's wrong here?

No, I was treating the answer as a continuation of the question, and as a meta-question about this specific site -- i.e. that although, "There is a long history of debate in Buddhism", that's true to an extent. But there's also a history of people disengaging from (e.g. sectarian) argument. And there's question about the extent to which (two-way) "debate" is possible on this site.

oh right well i wasn't trying to debate, only say what i've learnt @ChrisW

It is said that the Buddha was a like a doctor, a soul healer, so to speak.
What do you think: when there is a certain person who is overwhelmed, burdened, ruined etc by stress, possibly to the extent of being categorized as a lunatic, psychiatrically ill, mentally disordered. Which is better: either a presumably noble being with an academic degree, with lots of students and published papers, and many formal references to his work by scholars and researchers and medical doctors? Or a presumably noble (possibly even enlightened) being, coming to rescue that certain person, with infinite selfless compassion, holding the hand of that certain person, being a caring mother to him for as long as he needs, without even the ability to attach any scientific or medicinal/psychiatric labels to the relationship? Without even the ability to view those without degrees as less educated or insightful, relying on the fact that they lack a degree?
So, Enlightened Doctrine being centered around the notions of infinite compassion and self sacrificing help and caring towards others, as well as completely self reliant wisdom, insight and knowledge, I would definitely go even as far as saying that an enlightened person with a degree in Buddhism/Religion/Psychiatry is less useful than an enlightened being without a degree. If the degree, however, were in some more "mundane" science such as physics or math or chemistry, how could it interfere with the purity of compassion, humility and wisdom of the helper as perceived by the "patient"?
Or layman's terms: a wise man with a pure heart and no self-interest, you know the kind that the modern world has mostly forgotten, is much more likely to bring light and solace into the minds of those with wounded hearts, than a professional shrink with his unshakable mountain of references, books full of diagnoses, and drawers full of pills. A wise man with a pure heart and no self-interest is more likely to spark self enlightenment in those who previously thought of themselves as uncapable, whereas a proper academic/scholar will never ever give up his formal "edge", will never admit that the patient is also a doctor in disguise, an equal waiting to be awakened to that truth, just as a rich person will never reach heaven, will never want to sleep on the same floor as the homeless man, will never invite to the board of directors one who is not addicted to gold like the rich man himself.
Here is something relevant from the Dhamma:

So, out of compassion, the Buddha visited the two bhikkhus to prevent the scholar from questioning the other bhikkhu. The Buddha himself did the questioning. He put questions on jhanas and maggas to the master of the Tipitaka; but he could not answer them because he had not practised what he had taught. The other bhikkhu, having practised the Dhamma and having attained arahatship, could answer all the questions. The Buddha praised the one who practised the Dhamma (i.e., a vipassaka), but not a single word of praise was spoken for the learned scholar (i.e., a ganthika).

reference: https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=019

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Emptiness in mind and in reality
Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor)

Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate
Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.
If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths".
Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness
So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing.
I don't think it's a normal interpretation?

For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical.

Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics
  especially : separating something into component parts or constituent
  elements.
Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I cannot understand the question. You ask some good ones but often they take some untangling. Perhaps others will know what you mean.

The linked question on philosophy stack exchange is helpful in untangling it. I think I understand the arguments in the linked scholarship, but still have not understood the leap from that to this particular verse and the connection to karma and rebirth. Will answer if/when I do.

i very much look forward to your reply @YesheTenley

What are things empty of? What is the actual object of negation? In my understanding, this is very clear and has a definite answer. It is a very specific thing that Nagarjuna and Buddha has in mind when they says things are empty of it. Emptiness is not to be interpreted as a general sort of emptiness. Is that the way you also see it?

clearer now @YesheTenley

@user2512 maybe this answer will also help. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/44639/13375

Subtleties... The concept of emptiness is a mental object that is predicated on other things. We only get to the concept of emptiness by seeing through and negating the fullness (meaningfulness) of other concepts.
The experience of emptiness in not predicated on the concept of it. To experience emptiness is to see that 'emptiness' is no more real than 'fullness'.
If one holds the concept of a thing-in-its-own-right (an 'own thing'), one must hold the concept of its negation (that which is 'not-such'). If one holds the concept of a negation, one must hold a concept of that which has been negated (a thing-in-its-own-right). So what lies beneath those concepts?

The argument -- for karma -- is that causes have essences in the exact same way as they bring about their effects

The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on... Since there is no effect, what could [be its] non-conditions or conditions?

One answer -- to the rhetorical question -- is that the essence of things is their conditions and so on. The essence of things do not exist in conditions, fire is not fire because it burns leaves, but are those conditions (what births another thing): fire is fire because it burns -- leaves in the same way as itself.
I don't think that's anti-Buddhist. As long as we're clear that's only conventionally, and ultimately there is no causation and I am not the same thing before and after I am reborn.

I've asked a question about philosophical reasoning from this phrase.
  Suffice to say I was wondering if it can be read as an argument for a
  karmically conditioned rebirth

Its the opposite. When there is no essence of things nor in conditions, there can be no "rebirth".

that's nihilism -1

i mean it's not an awful reply, i'm being dogmatic really. but yeah

its not nihilism. you do not know what annihilationism means in Buddhism

Ajita Kesakambala followed Gosāla as the third teacher mentioned by Ajatashatru. Kesakambala followed "ucchedaditthi" (often translated as nihilism or annihilationism) and is frequently understood to be a materialist. Kesakambala held that all in existence was merely the process of natural phenomena and vehemently denied the existence of any life after death; "A man is built up of the four elements', when he dies, earth returns to the aggregate of earth, water to water, fire to fire, air to air, and the senses vanish into space."

don't think too much :).
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.
It simply means "there is no self or eternal-self within and behind causes & conditions".
For eg. sometimes when a meditator sees everything with non-existence(wave nature) eye, perception of there is nothing occurs but the seer itself is having a materialistic aspect also, so meditator might develop an essence of eternalism or self as view.
Another simple eg. Considering buddha to be as immortal_existing_being as god; considering dhamma to be immortal_existing_being as child of god.

nice idea ha... sorry i didn't upvote

I presume you equate emptiness with analysis because on analysis things are empty, and non-emptiness with 'empirical' because to our senses things are non-empty. Is that it?
Thus our senses lead us into naive realism, while analysis leads us out again.
The complication would be experience, which some folk classify as 'empirical' and some don't. Thus we could say emptiness is an empirical discovery.
You ask - Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness
Nagarjuna is clear. Nothing really exists. The words after the colon here seem a muddle to me. Emptiness is not a thing that exists.
The discussion is tricky because emptiness may be an ontological term applied to phenomena or meditative states, or in Theravada may be a term for non-self.
In Mahayana it is the idea that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, or it may refer to the emptiness of original awareness. For the former it may be helpful to consider Kant's 'thing-in-itself', and this may be the 'emptiness of analysis' you speak of. By analysis Kant concluded things are empty of inherent existence and consist only of perceived attributes. I see him as providing a bridge between 'Western' and 'Eastern' or 'non-dual' thinking in this respect.
I'm just pondering the issues generally because I still cannot quite understand what's being asked. I wonder if the question is assuming emptiness is a phenomena.

ok. that's a shame, because to me my language is clearer than nagarjuna's and garfield's. i guess that's normal

I find Garfield unsatisfactory and much too wordy. I would recommend 'The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way' by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso. It's short and clear.

On the contrary: "To think ‘it is,’ is eternalism,
To think ‘it is not,’ is nihilism:
Being and non-being,
The wise cling not to either." Nagarjuna rejects positive and negative assertions about whether things exist.

That is a highly eccentric use of analytic and empirical, that can only cause confusion. Analytic truth typically means truth by definition, or from definition. Empirical, from observation, or events. Both depend on causes and conditions, and their results lack inherent nature.

"To think ‘it is,’ is eternalism,
To think ‘it is not,’ is nihilism:
Being and non-being,
The wise cling not to either."
-Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15:10

Emptiness is, of inherent nature. Nagarjuna is refuting metaphysical speculation about identity and essences, using the four corners of the catuskoti. This is pointing at the insufficiency of our intuitions, of our terminology, such  as to 'not even be wrong'. Another term for emptiness is inter-being. And a powerful metaphor is Indra's Net.
This article draws comparison between what Nagarjuna is doing & other philosophers, which I think helps clarify how he is 'using words to escape words'. What Dogen drew attention to in the Shobogenzo fascicle 'On the Vines That Entangle: the Vines That Embrace' (available here), as words and thinking not as arguments to create a 'thicket of views', but as a practice: dedicated to awakening.

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


text:
King Siddharta, his wife Jasodhara, and other buddhas
What happened to king Siddhartha after he left the palace after renouncing the duty of King?How many days queen Jasodhara remained in the palace with his son?A king is not so weak minded so that he he will give up kingdom.This is hard to believe he forsook every kind of luxury after seeing a Deadbody and a blind person or leper.what occured to him,many learned writers have written.After king siddhartha,there were other Buddhas which include Ananda and other Buddhas who took over preaching and practice.since king Siddhartha was king of a kingdom he did not live the life of a sage for a long period.This is obvious. Queen Jasodhara also left the palace with his son.My question is what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king and his ministry.Buddhism existed even before king Siddhartha Gautam. And what happened to Queen Jasodhara and his son?I request answer what I can believe because the history is about 5000 years old.BUDDHADEB IS ALSO KNOWN AS SHAKYAMUNI.

Is this several questions? The first question ("what happened?") sounds like you're asking for a reference e.g. to the Titipaka? And then several sentences, which say "It's hard to believe" but which aren't phrased as a question? Then you ask a question "what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king" where I don't understand the grammar? Lastly, about Queen Jasodhara and his son -- the suttas say that they ordained and that the son at least (named Rāhula) became an arahant -- is that what you're asking? And what are you asking about Shin and Zen Buddhism?

@ChrisW-it is hard to believe -the phrase means this is not believed or believable."In the sight"-the use is common and found in many sentences such as"He was good in the sight of GOD.I am sorry about grammar and phrasal use.

I'm sorry I didn't understand and that my English isn't always clear. So that part of the question is, "how did the new king (of the Shakyas), who became king because Siddhārtha didn't, how did he view Gautama Buddha (i.e. what was his opinion of, or how was his relationship with, the Buddha)?"

@ChrisW-During  long 80 years,King Siddhartha,Gautam Buddha,and other Buddhas left handing over charges to other Buddhas many times.This post might seem to be opinion based.Is it to believed that same Siddhartha and other Buddhas meditated for eighty years  sometimes roaming sometimes under a tree? .Was King Siddhartha and Gautam Buddha was of same identity?The history is 5000 years old.In my post I used IMAGINATION a little.and the posti  is not opinion based.I don't want want to distort the facts BUDDHADEB WAS "LIGHT OF ASIA".Ant factual error is regretted.

@ChrisW-This is no wonder that about 30 percent of world population are Buddhists.People are greatly.influenced by teachings of Buddhadeb  and Buddhism as a whole.

That seems to be several questions -- I'll try to answer them all but only briefly.
What happened to king Siddhartha after he left the palace after renouncing the duty of King?
He was never "king". He was son of a king -- or, Wikipedia says,

Shakya
Gautama Buddha (c. 6th to 4th centuries BCE), whose teachings became the foundations of Buddhism,[note 2] was the best-known Shakya. Known in his own lifetime as Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha was the son of Śuddhodana, the elected leader of the Śākya Gaṇarājya.

After he left the palace he tried to gain enlightenment (liberation). He studied with several teachers, eventually succeeded when he was alone (thus becoming an "arahant"), decided to teach what he learned (which a Buddha does: teaches). This is summarised in Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26).
He then taught for the rest of his life, leading the "Sangha" (i.e. Buddhist monastics) and passing away at about the age 80.
How many days queen Yaśodharā remained in the palace with his son?
I don't know exactly. She eventually left the palace to join him, with the son who was named Rahula -- they both became monastics too, joined the Sangha -- so did Mahapajapati Gotami, who was Siddhārtha's step-mother and who asked that the Sangha be expanded to include nuns as well as monks.
Rahula eventually became an arahant too (which I think, from memory and without looking it up and so I might be wrong, was when he was a young man); and so did Yaśodharā.
A few suttas include the Buddha's teaching Rahula. I think this is an early one, -- Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone (MN 61) -- and that sutta was when Rahula was age 7 or something like that.
That implies that the princess and son didn't stay more than a few years in the palace after Siddhārtha left, possibly (I don't know) just long enough until Rahula was old enough to survive without nurses etc.
Wikipedia's biography of Yasodharā suggests it was 6 years before the Buddha returned to near where they were living, and it was then that they joined the Sangha.
A king is not so weak minded so that he he will give up kingdom. This is hard to believe he forsook every kind of luxury after seeing a Deadbody and a blind person or leper.what occured to him,many learned writers have written.
If you say so. Bhikkhu Bodhi for example sounded a little skeptical too when he wrote this essay -- Meeting the Divine Messengers -- you might like to read that.
After king siddhartha, there were other Buddhas which include Ananda and other Buddhas who took over preaching and practice.
People like Ananda are called "monks" (if and when they joined "the Sangha" i.e. the community of monks).
There are different degrees of liberation -- Four stages of enlightenment (Wikipedia) -- and though many other monks became Arahants through the Buddha's teaching-and-discipline, Ananda himself didn't reach that last stage (Arahant) until after the Buddha death (though Ananda too was teaching even before then).
None of them are called "Buddhas" though -- there is only one Buddha at a time (called 'Sammāsambuddha'), that Buddha then teaches others.
The monks teaching each other and practising wasn't "instead of" the Buddha teaching and practising (it was, "as well as").
The Buddha wasn't a king. The story is that it was prophesied that he'd become either a Buddha or a World-ruler, which was why his father tried to keep him isolated in a palace.
since king Siddhartha was king of a kingdom he did not live the life of a sage for a long period. This is obvious.
He never became king (not in that lifetime anyway) -- left the palace before he became king.
My question is what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king and his ministry.
I don't know -- don't remember whether that's said anywhere, i.e. the relationship between the Buddha and the rulers of his former nation (including his father)?
One thing that is written is that that nation (the Shakyas) was destroyed by or conquered in a war.
Was King Siddhartha and Gautam Buddha was of same identity?
They're the same person (except, as I said, Siddhartha wasn't a king).
I'd tend to say "Siddhārtha" to refer to him before hist enlightenment, and the Buddha afterwards (or another translated title like "the Blessed One" -- bhagavant).
BUDDHADEB
I think I've never heard this word being used. Wikipedia says that was the name of a 20th century Indian politician.

it was at Mahapajapati Gotami's request that the Sangha was expanded to include nuns as well as monks

Rahula's arahantship is in MN 147

Thank you for those edits.

Thank you for your good work in offering a comprehensive answer. With metta

Buddha's full life story is found in this book with his family tree.
Buddha and his teaching by Narada
============
One glorious day as he went out of the palace to the pleasure park to see the world outside, he came in direct contact
with the stark realities of life. Within the narrow confines of
the palace he saw only the rosy side of life, but the dark side,
the common lot of mankind, was purposely veiled from him.
What was mentally conceived, he, for the first time, vividly
saw in reality. On his way to the park his observant eyes met
the strange sights of a decrepit old man, a diseased person, a
corpse and a dignified hermit.18 The first three sights convincingly proved to him, the inexorable nature of life, and the universal ailment of humanity. The fourth signified the means to
overcome the ills of life and to attain calm and peace. These
four unexpected sights served to increase the urge in him to
loathe and renounce the world.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddha-teachingsurw6.pdf


text:
Is uncertainty incompatible with the doctrine of emptiness?
For purposes of this question I define “uncertainty” as a willingness to entertain doubt or acknowledge incomplete knowledge with regards to the truth of the matter about what one knows of a particular question of subject. And I define “the truth of the matter” as an objective fact about some aspect of reality which is independent of observer or context and is not contingent in any way.
For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge. To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in thinking of as beneficial.
However, I recently realized that a lot of what I define as “uncertainty” presupposes an objective fact of the matter that is not contingent. And that it handcuffs me at times in that I can be of two, three, or more minds about something and unsure of the proper course to take.
Moreover, it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter.
So with that...
Is uncertainty as defined above incompatible with emptiness?
If so, how? If so, what repercussions can be seen as occurring with this misunderstanding? What is an appropriate definition of uncertainty or one that is compatible with emptiness or how things really exist?
If not, why not? Where is the error in my thinking?
A question that might be related, but different is Is lack of doubt a form of self-cherishing?

I'm struggling to understand the question. Either we are uncertain or we are not - it's not a choice - and the connection with emptiness is unclear to me. Are you thinking that we choose to have doubts and be uncertain? In what way is this a choice? .

Hi PeterJ, yes it is apparent to me that the question is mystifying or at least if is not well understood what I am actually asking. Sorry for that. I am saying that uncertainty as defined presupposes an objective answer. An ultimate truth of the matter. And my understanding of emptiness does not include that there exist objective truths of the matter. All truths are relative.

So insofar as uncertainty presupposes an objective truth of the matter it seems to me incompatible with emptiness. I guess in order to answer the question you first have to understand emptiness conceptually the same way that I do and I am not sure others do.

FWIW, I am not sure anyone else on this forum shares my conceptual understanding of emptiness which is informed by Nagarjuna. That may be just because I am wrong of course. There are times when I have felt others have come close, but of course it is very hard to verify that someone else shares your conceptual understanding especially with a concept so subtle as emptiness. I have the most confidence that Ruben - interestingly a Theravada practitioner - has an inkling of what I (mid)understand. We have had some beneficial dialogue.

So Ruben, if you see this, would love to hear your answer and if you understand my question...

my two cents is that you need certainty -- but in what you're doing, not the trappings of it

@YesheTenley - Your comment adds much clarity. I'll post an answer.

I found the question tricky to understand but this comment made it clear.
"I am saying that uncertainty as defined presupposes an objective answer. An ultimate truth of the matter. And my understanding of emptiness does not include that there exist objective truths of the matter. All truths are relative."
I note you're a student of Nagarjuna, as am I. Interpretations vary wildly.
Nagarjuna proves there is a truth of the matter, viz. that all positive views are logically indefensible thus by implication false, and genuine Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. These would be demonstrable truths true in all universes.
The way I see it the absurdity of positive theories is a relative truth, an outcome of logical analysis. Their falsity would be an objective truth for him, verified in experience or by identity, but would be a relative and uncertain truth for those who infer their falsity from their absurdity.
Nagarjuna shows that we need not be uncertain. He refutes all false views to reveal the correct one. So I'm not sure how uncertainty comes into his.
You say " it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter."
This would be because Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. In this case every conception we have will be wrong. But this is a certainty! We can be certain that all extreme views are wrong and certain that all our ideas are wrong. After this there's not much room for uncertainty.
So I see Nagarjuna as giving us certainty, or at least showing how it may be acquired. We can know with certainty that all positive or extreme views are logically indefensible, and in this case Reality must be either absurd or beyond conceptual fabrication. The first idea would seem redundant when there's a better one available.
This is a demonstrable result and as such a certainty, but the demonstration depends on the rules of logic and reason so produces only relative knowledge. Nagarjuna does not depend on demonstrations but on experience and realisation so for him this would be certain and absolute knowledge.
So I'm wondering what uncertainty has to do with this, or why you would doubt there is an objective truth of the matter. This is not what Nagarjuna proposes. He proposes there is an objective truth and he knows it, and it is the falsity of all extreme views and the truth of emptiness.
Have I grasped what you're asking or is this off-topic? It's a fascinating issue.

You are close to the heart of my question, but not quite there yet. Not wanting to concentrate on Ultimate Truth or the non-deceptive non-conceptual direst perception emptiness. This is not what I have in mind when I say, “there is on objective truth of the matter.” I am rather wanting to talk about mundane conceptual truths. In particular, the truth about what is going through the minds of other people and my interactions with them. Often times I am uncertain and do not act with conviction or confidence as a result.

And the thought occurred to me that this uncertainty causing my lack of conviction is based implicitly on the idea that there is an underlying objective, non-contingent, fact of the matter, about what other people are thinking or what is going through their minds. But this is incompatible with my understanding of emptiness. Therefore, perhaps this way of acting with uncertainty and a lack of conviction is incompatible. What do you think?

i don't yet see how an understanding of emptiness can be incompatible with the idea there is an objective truth as to what others are thinking. Your way of acting with uncertainty looks like common-sense to me. You assume there is a truth of the matter and concede you do not know it. This causes what you call uncertainty but what the Desert Fathers would have called discretion and caution. One thing though, I don't yet understand why you doubt there is a truth of the matter.

Because all truth is utterly contingent. There is no objective - non-contingent - truth of the matter. Never was and never will be.

@YesheTenley - Now you've flummoxed me. Are you saying the Buddha did not know know or teach truth? Are you saying there is no fact of the matter as to the nature of Reality?

No. Of course there are truths. Conventional truths. Utterly contingent truths. But there are no independent, objective, non-contingent - fact of the matter -conventional truths.

@YesheTenley - It seems we disagree on this issue. No worries. I may ask a question on the topic to explore it further.

Hi PeterJ, did you ever ask your question? If so, I have not seen it.

@YesheTenley - I'm not quite sure what the question should be. It seems I'd have to ask whether the Buddha knew the truth and this would an odd question. I decided we are at cross-purposes in some way.  .

I think you misunderstood. I am not and was not saying there are no such thing as truth. Rather, that there is no such thing as independent, objective, non-contingent truth.

@YesheTenley - I'm struggling to reconcile your view of truth with Buddhist teachings or indeed the Perennial philosophy in general, so presume I'm still misunderstanding something. I'll get to a question eventually.   .

I think I was the one who misunderstood and was very wrongfooted in this exchange. Your answer was extremely helpful and I believe I see it clearly now.

Case 5 of the Mumonkan
  Kyõgen's "Man up in a Tree"
Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branch
  with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb.
Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of
  Bodhidharma's coming from the West?' If he does not answer, he fails
  to respond to the question. If he does answer, he will lose his life.
What would you do in such a situation?"
Mumon's Comment
Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail.
Though you can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no
  use.
If you solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has been
  dead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up to
  now.
Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him.
Mumon's Verse
Kyõgen is truly thoughtless;
  His vice and poison are endless.
  He stops up the mouths of the monks,
  And devil's eyes sprout from their bodies.

So this part of your question struck me:

For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or
  comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the
  gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge.
  To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own
  viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity
  that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in
  thinking of as beneficial.

I can't help but wonder if you've ever been truly uncertain.  Every shade of gray you see, every conflicting idea, is just another manifestation of certainty.  You can hold it in your mind, consider its merits, and weigh its value against what you already know.  Nothing here is really uncertain as all that you take to be uncertainty depends on preexisting conditions.  Every novel idea is just showing you what you already know albeit from a different point of view.
What answer can you hope to hear when all of the Buddhas of past, present, and future have hung their mouths on the wall?  What words will save your life when you are hanging from a branch by your teeth?
Real doubt leaves us dumbfounded.  There is nothing comfortable about it.  The kind of doubt that stops up your head with cotton and hits you in the forehead like an unseen cabinet in a dark room is the kind of doubt that is truly productive.  There are no edges to hold onto.  Your previous ways of engaging the world won't help you move real doubt a single inch.  In that doubt, we are helpless and begging for our life.  We are desperate and unsure of which way to turn.  In the midst of such great doubt, we are also completely empty.
To see doubt is to see emptiness.  To see emptiness, we have to begin with doubt.  With faith and determination, both can resolve into wisdom. Only on the other side of great doubt can we hope to learn anything new.

When fish move through water, however they move, there is no end to the water. When birds fly through the sky, however they fly, there is no end to the sky. Fish and birds have never once, since antiquity, run out of water or run out of sky. When their need for water or sky is great, its availability is great, and when their need for water or sky is small, its availability is small. Acting this way, fish and birds realize their limitations yet at every moment somersault freely through their realm; but if a bird leaves the sky it will die at once, and if a fish leaves the water it will die at once. So we understand that water is life and that sky is life. Birds are life, and fish are life. It may also be that life is birds and that life is fish.
The experience of our own existence is also like this. If a bird or a fish decided to move through the water or the sky only after getting to the end of water or utterly penetrating the sky, it would never find its way or its place in the water or sky. When we have found our own place in our own realm, we have arrived at potential. When we maintain our own true way, our action is potential itself.
Our own way and our own place are neither great nor small; they are neither subjective nor objective; they have not existed in the past nor do they arise in the present; they are just as they are. In maintaining our own true way and abiding in our own place, to consider one thing is to explore only that one thing, and to perform one action is to fully participate in that one action. In this state, we exist in our own space and practice our own way, and awareness of ourselves is not conspicuous. The reason this is so is that our own thoughts and actions and the realization of potential appear together and are experienced together.
Do not assume that we can be conscious of potential, or that potential can be recognized by the intellect. The experience of potential is not necessarily a cognitive realization.
Realization is the state of ambiguity itself [kahitsu -- how can it be convulsively decided that]
Dogen

i think this may be a misreading of the translation -- it's asking how we can be conclusive about realization. not, then, that uncertainty is realization. hth

There's a quote from the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi that reads (my phrasing):

Call those people whom the universe aids 'the favored'. Those who
  reach for that state through learning seek what learning cannot grasp.
  Those who reach for that state through effort seek what effort cannot
  achieve. Those who reach for that state through reason seek what
  reason cannot fathom. The favored know to stop reaching where reaching
  is pointless. Those who do not, break on the lathe of heaven.

Uncertainty is a product of the mind: it is a solution to a problem of partial knowledge in complex contexts; an attitude in which we measure and calculate with what we do not know as well as with what we do know. It's perfectly normal and natural, and when cultivated it's a powerful intellectual tool; every philosopher, thinker, scientist, and academic builds a close relationship with uncertainty, at least within their own fields.
In emptiness there is no uncertainty, because the active mind — the part of the mind that reasons, anticipates, plans, seeks alternatives, etc — is put to rest. It's like floating in a boat in the middle of a lake, where questions that might provoke uncertainty — e.g., "Is it better to float here, or should I float over there? — are completely irrelevant.
Of course, in emptiness there is no certainty, either.  Emptiness transcends dualisms...
Certainty is authentic: it is natural for us to be certain of what we believe we know. Uncertainty is honest and conscientious: it keeps us from the pitfalls of dogmatism and zealousness. We need both, until we reach that state where we need neither. Just don't cling to them.

The answer to your question is No, uncertainty is not incompatible.
I dont believe you could possibly find something that is not “compatible” with emptiness? To quote your definition: emptiness is
“Ultimate Truth or the non-deceptive non-conceptual direst [sic] perception” right?
This is also how i perceive emptiness and might i add that for me it is a fixed point in space that i “go to”.
So whether i am uncertain or not it is there. Whethere i am ignorant or not it is still there. Wether i am too lazy or tired to go there (because it is cold scary lonely and taxing to go there makes me VERY HUNGRY) it is always there.
I like this question. The uncertainty of which you speak is particularly entertaining. The problem you give us is that you believe that you appear to other people as uncertain/unsure of yourself when you in fact are. And the people who you appear uncertain to this is so vague. Are “the people” in question women?
It sounded to me like the problem your having takes place in time. You obviously know ultimate truth if you experience emptiness. So youre not uncertain. But u fear to be seen as such (probably not so much by people you arent sexually attracted to).
I get it it the uncertainty ur referring to is your own. You dont know for sure that you appear this way to women but the possibility is there and u dont like that. The true problem is that women may or may not see u that way u dont know because oestrogen is so radically different than your world.
And when you asked if uncertainty is incompatible you meant with your attainments? Like how can i be perceived by women as being uncertain when i am does this mean i am not who or what i believe myself to be/identify with?

You wrote, The problem you give us is that you believe that you appear to other people as uncertain/unsure of yourself when you in fact are -- I don't see that the OP says that -- nothing about how the OP appears to other people; and nothing about "women". It's about whether "uncertainty" is good when people's "views" or "statements-of-fact" contradict each other, especially about complex topics -- whether it's good and especially whether it's compatible with emptiness.

In the comments on feb 9 specified “and others”

Emptiness is simply nothing,not even the concept of nothing ,but really nothing , including all your concepts and ideas about what it is or what is compatible with it .Just drop All that and emptiness remains .
Uncertainty is simply a manifestation seen in emptiness . Anything can be recognised ,including your definitions about uncertainty .And your idea of incompatibility is also seen from that place .

Something more everyday (less esoteric) for you: Dogen's wholehearted way

The concentrated endeavor of the way I am speaking of allows all
  things to come forth in realization to practice going beyond in the
  path of letting go. Passing through the barrier [of dualism] and
  dropping off limitations in this way, how could you be hindered by
  nodes in bamboo or knots in wood [concepts and theories]?

You need certainty in what you are doing. So you need conviction in right view, if you're practicing in Theravada Buddhism. But you can practice zazen with conviction only in zazen (though quite what that amounts to I'm not so sure).
So don't worry too much! You're in a good place if you can drop -- all -- the rest of it.

This answer is helpful and crystallizes for me part of what I am getting at. That this uncertainty causes a lack of concentration and conviction in my actions that I think is unhelpful and often finds detrimental to myself and others.

go to a zazen retreat -- no-one will be mad :) ? @YesheTenley

oh i guess that zazen is the buddha dharma :) ? @YesheTenley


text:
Did Buddha explain Dependent Origination as an upaya or skillful means? If so, why?
Inspired by this answer...
Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means?
If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it?
If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago?
Is it different today?
Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original?
There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better?
If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced?
To be clear I am not indicating that skillful means involve intended deception.
Thanks!

Thanks for the reference. I provided another answer to that question. It may apply.

It's taught in Tibetan Buddhism too, or isn't it? Tibetan illustrations of the Bhavacakra include the 12 Nidanas.

Yes, for sure it is. But usually it is taught as the law of cause and effect and not so much the specific formula at least in my tradition/experience.

Let's put it this way. Dependent origination is the noble Right View.
The noble Right View of dependent origination leads to liberation.
The wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism lead to suffering.
The Buddha was only concerned with soteriology and he did not teach metaphysics or ontology. Physics is not his concern.

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’. How is right view
defined?”
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence
and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right
understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding
the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with
right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding
the world.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and
insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation,
insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp,
and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or
uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what
ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is
independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle
way:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices
cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this
entire mass of suffering ceases.’”
SN 12.15

Thoughts about whether "I existed in the past" or "will I exist in the future" will lead to suffering. Dependent origination, when realized by the noble disciple, will lead to liberation.

When a noble disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this
dependent origination and these dependently originated phenomena as
they are, it’s impossible for them to turn back to the past, thinking:
‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in
the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become
in the past?’ Or to turn forward to the future, thinking: ‘Will I
exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in
the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I
become in the future?’ Or to be undecided about the present, thinking:
‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it
come from? And where will it go?’ Why is that? Because that noble
disciple has clearly seen with right wisdom this dependent origination
and these dependently originated phenomena as they are.”
SN 12.20

Also, as seen in SN 12.4-10, past Buddhas all rediscovered the same dependent origination on their own. So it's not skillful means (upaya) but it is a law of nature.

Amazing answer. Thanks!

MN 28 says:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
  origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.”

Obviously dependent origination is not skilful means.
SN 12.20 says dependent origination is the sabhava or sadhatu law of nature about how suffering arises, as follows:

Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā  tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
  vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
Whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas,
  that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed
  course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to
  this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches
  it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it,
  elucidates it.

Thank you. This is an honest answer... do you have another answer on this forum that you think best explains how you understand D.O.?

If so, how approximate is it?
If by "DO" you mean "the 12 nidanas", I found the exposition of that in the suttas barely intelligible -- little more than a dry list of the 12 items, saying that each depends on the previous.
So for that and other reasons I think of those as like chapter titles (without the text), or items on a powerpoint -- i.e. I expect they're the topic or outline of (innumerable) more-or-less detailed dhamma talks.
This site (for one) has many questions about what each nidana is and how it relates to others.
And doctrine about specific nidanas and their near neighbours, is of course important (e.g. the four noble truths).
I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.
If not, in what way is the original better?
I think of "earth" for example as representing "solidity".
Physics analyses that in more detail -- "why and when and how and to what extent is a substance solid?"
IIRC the context in which it's taught in Buddhism is to have some understanding of what form is -- just enough of an understanding to not get enchanted by it.

“ I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.” - I think this is more or less how I see it and think this is what Nagarjuna suggests as well. But it appears to me others disagree hence my question. Interestingly, I see a pair of Theravada and a Mahayana practitioner who see D.O. as more than this and not necessarily an upaya and I also see a different pair who more or less think it is upaya and that the point of it is the law of cause and effect.

In other words, it would seem that the answers to this question do not break down neatly among various traditions including both the Theravada and Mahayana.

conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease One of the "formulae" (i.e. stock phrases) in the suttas is, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye arose within him, "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." So I take it that, that is not a bad summary. I think  SN 5.10 is a good summary too. practitioner who see D.O. as more than this  I suppose people concentrate[d] sometimes, to see (have in mind, study) a more complicated/detailed doctrine: even the whole Bhavacakra. various traditions My answer might not be orthodox.

Perhaps the "more than this" is to identify what a thing originates from, how it arises.

The question wrongly states that skillful means is not true.

There are three vehicles, but there is also just one.
Similarly, dependent origination inevitably leads to rebirth, but no-one is reborn.

The former is more Mahayanist, the latter more Theravadin.
How that the true is different from the false will differ among people. Some can claim that there's no fact of the matter, others that the truth can be unpacked via language, others that any expression is deficient to reality, others that the apparent contradiction  is reality itself. And so on!

I don't think I have stated this.

In my opinion, it is Niyama Dhamma.
I think it is the explanation of Citta Niyama.

Dhamma Niyama is not Citta Niyama. Dependent Origination is not Citta Niyama. To think Dependent Origination is Citta Niyama leads to rebirth in hell because the arising of dukkha and how to end dukkha is never understood. Regards


text:
Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?
Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?
I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent

The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty"

I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

It's impermanent.  That's kind of the point.  You're supposed to empty your store house consciousness or, practically speaking, at least try to stop perfuming the seeds.

4
The store consciousness is clear and undefinable.
  Like a great river, it is always changing.
  Neither pleasant nor unpleasant, when one becomes fully realized, it ceases to exist.
...
29
That is the supreme, world-transcending knowledge
  Where one has no mind that knows
  And no object that is known
  Abandoning twofold grasping
  The storehouse consciousness is emptied
30
That alone is the pure, primordial reality
  Beyond thought, auspicious, unchanging
  It is the blissful body of liberation
  The dharmakaya nature of the enlightened ones
From Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses

What's "left" when you've abandoned the karmic conditions of the store-house consciousness and the two fold grasping (i.e. grāha-dvaya - the grasping of the grasped and the grasper himself) is ultimately all that is truly unchanging or supramundane.  That said, I think it makes more sense to call what's left simply "unconditioned".  It isn't subject to the negative influence of ordinary defilements.  When you call it "permanent", I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of seeing it as a "thing" or a "self".

good answer, thanks

The Buddha Dharma is based on the Three Universal Characteristics
Anicca,  Dukkha,  Anatta
Anicca -Change or impermanence is the essential characteristic of all phenomenal existence. We cannot say of anything, animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, “this is lasting”; for even while we are saying this, it would be undergoing change.
“Impermanent, subject to change, are component things. Strive on with heedfulness!” This was the final admonition of the Buddha Gotama to his disciples.

thanks! it's a fair answer


text:
How to decrease crave in daily-life?
In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion.
What about practical life?
During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain.
Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one".
Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society.
Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay disconnected to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question!
If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally behind from others.
One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma.
(If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants)
i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma!
Edit::
Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

In Canada the "poverty line" is defined as "almost all income is spent on necessities -- e.g. shelter, food, clothing, daily travel, plus e.g. telephone and toilet paper, and school supplies" -- which (i.e. being able to buy necessities) I find is comfortable. When you write, this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, I guess you're probably referring to family -- e.g. your wife or husband and children.

A "good answer" is said to be based on something: a reference to scripture or personal experience. If I tried to answer this only based on personal experience then I worry that the answer wouldn't be Buddhist enough. What is it about this question that makes it Buddhist -- what about its answers which only a Buddhist could answer? Because a lot of non-Buddhist families too have arguments or different goals, different attitudes to money and spending -- why couldn't you equally ask this question on a non-Buddhist site for relationship advice?

I don't want to be unwelcoming of the question -- I'm trying to figure out what you're asking or how to answer -- but from an explicitly Buddhist perspective? And some standard answer from scripture like "choose a partner with goals and attitudes to money which are like yours" -- e.g. here -- might be Buddhist but not especially helpful to your situation.

You mentioned "nearby ones" twice in the question and again in your comment to OyaMist's answer. From that I get the impression that their feelings -- and your relationship[s] with them -- is central or important to the question, and/or to whatever personal problem or uncertainty you might be asking about. If it's "not about anyone's partner or relationship" then I'm not sure what it is about -- if it is "family" but is not "partner", is it a question about your relationship with your parents then, and their morale?

Question has been edited in such a way that it is off topic

From Mahayana perspective, your problem is self-centered (egotistic). Either when participating in society or when being BPL, in both cases your target is yourself, your concern is about yourself.
If you don't think about your own benefit, but focus on the benefit you can bring to any situation you are in, to anyone who surrounds you - then this problem does not exist. When your goal is to help others, you can either make millions / use technology, or be poor - it does not matter, what matters is that everything you do is altruistic as opposed to egoistic.

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

Dhammadinna once approached the Buddha asking about life balance and progress on the Noble Eightfold Path.

SN55.53:2.4: “Sir, we live at home with our children, using sandalwood imported from Kāsi, wearing garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and accepting gold and money. It’s not easy for us to undertake and dwell from time to time upon the discourses spoken by the Realized One that are deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness. Since we are established in the five training rules, please teach us further.”

And the Buddha answered:

SN55.53:3.1: “So, Dhammadinna, you should train like this:  ‘We will have experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha …  And we will have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion.’  That’s how you should train yourselves.”

Following the five training rules (i.e., refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drinking alcohol, which is a basis for negligence) is an important step in dealing with craving and aversion. It is important because it involves restraint. We don't steal what we want and we don't kill what we don't like. We restrain ourselves.
With restraint, craving and aversion diminish but we still suffer. So we study ethics to understand and deal with our cravings and aversions. MN8 has a long list of things to consider. For example:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Yet as our body, speech and mind abide in ethical behavior, we still suffer from craving and aversion. So we study further to understand how craving and suffering arise. We might, for example, learn about dependent origination, which helps focus our restraint where it most matters.

SN12.23:4.3: I say that suffering has a vital condition. And what is it? ...

The Noble Eightfold Path ends with Right Immersion. Before that are seven other steps: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort and Right Mindfulness.
Note that Right Livelihood does not require us to be impoverished.

DN33:2.1.48: Firstly, an ethical person gains substantial wealth on account of diligence.

Right Livelihood requires that we give up Wrong Livelihood:

MN117:29.1: And what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions.

Living ethically is quite important. It is also not easy. Living ethically we learn and practice restraint. Practicing restraint, craving and aversion decrease along with our suffering.
Established in Right Livelihood, we can then face the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Immersion.  At that point we are back at meditation, which you asked to not discuss.
Regarding money and material goods, although monastics do not deal with money, householders do. So what is a householder to do with the madness of craving for more money?
Long ago, a king sent Ghaṭīkāra the potter five hundred cartloads of rice and other wonders. And what Ghaṭīkāra said is simply this.

MN81:22.6: I have enough.

Ghaṭīkāra sent the carts back to the king telling the messengers that the king worked very hard and was very busy and therefore it made more sense for the king himself to have such wealth. Ghaṭīkāra was Kassapa Buddha's chief attendant and was a non-returner.
Let others grasp at money and material wealth. Here let us have enough.

Ah thank you. I had misread your question. I think perhaps Ghaṭīkāra's story may be closer to what you asked. He was quite a remarkable householder.