text:
Why do many Buddhists hold on to views?
I am not very experienced with Buddhism, but I do think I have read several suttas teaching that it is not good to hold on to views, and that the Buddha doesn't teach what the universe is like, but rather about the mind. I think this makes sense, since I experience that any clinging, even the mildest one to a view, causes discomfort.
Still, I see so many Buddhists cling on to views like rebirth or karma: Many Buddhists that I know make it an important part of their lives, and I see many analyses about Buddhism describing it as central to the belief. Is this just the natural human desire for certainty putting forward these views, or are there any teachings that actually promote it? If so, what arguments do they use? (I am not precisely asking for the psychological factors behind this clinging, but rather the ground; the teachings, that are behind it)
I am asking for teachings that imply that these views (rebirth, karma etc.) are important and that it therefore is skillful to hold on to these views.

I have edited the question, since it was badly written and included a lot of irrelevant opinions. I hope it will be better received now.

Do you mean to ask something like "is it skillful or wholesome to hold on to or cling to views like rebirth and karma, or is it better to let go of such views?"

@ruben2020 I am asking for teachings that imply that these views are important and that it therefore is skillful to hold on to these views.

FYI on some SE sites you might as well "accept" an answer as soon as one is posted which solves your problem. On other SE sites it can be a good idea to wait a couple of days before "accepting" one, in order to encourage or welcome a variety of other answers too.

Sometimes, views related to karma and rebirth can be used skillfully by someone with self-view.
Please see the two paragraphs below.
The first paragraph states that someone should reflect that he is the owner and heir of his own karma, and would inherit the results of his karma. Reflecting on this will cause him to reduce misconduct.
The second paragraph states that when a noble disciple reflects on the fact that not only him, but all own their karma, are heirs of their karma and would inherit the result of their karma, then reflecting on this will cause him to get on the path to liberation.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

There are two sorts of Right Views - with and without effluents.
The view about a person being the owner and heir of their karma, is such a Right View with effluents, that sides with merit. Another is rebirth.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
MN 117

Thank you. Added "twofold" to examples.

Also added "the owner of" to examples

@OyaMist  Where did you add the examples to?

by "examples" I mean the examples used by Voice.suttacentral.net. We add examples to https://github.com/ebt-site/ebt-data/tree/published/examples
Examples connect suttas mnemonically, allowing us to recall particular suttas with a few key words. This facilitates practice and study.

It is crucial because it is one of the 4 primary fears necessary for proper motivation.

“Mendicants, there are these four fears. What four? The fears of guilt, shame, punishment, and going to a bad place.
And what, mendicants, is the fear of rebirth in a bad place? It’s when someone reflects: ‘Bad conduct of body, speech, or mind has a bad result in the next life. If I were to do such bad things, when my body breaks up, after death, I’d be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’ Being afraid of rebirth in a bad place, they give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of rebirth in a bad place. - AN 4.121

It is most fundamental to how The Buddha trained people;

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.' - Kesi Sutta

Being without this fear is closest to trying to train without fear of shame, guilt or any fear of punishment. What do you think, is it important?
Added;

that the Buddha doesn't teach what the universe is like, but rather about the mind.

These can not be separated because The Buddha clearly taught about the origin on the world as well as mind eg DN27 Genesis.
The whole notion of escaping samsara without rebirth is pointless without rebirth because one can just wait to die as death makes equal.

In the famous Parable of the Raft, the Dharma, as well as that which is not the Dharma, is something that is discarded at the far shore. The Dharma is for crossing, not for clinging. Some, when they hear that the Dharma is for crossing and not for clinging, wish to discard their raft so as to not cling to it. What is your raft? The teachings of the Buddha are your raft. The threefold training is your raft. The eightfold path is your raft.
If we discard the "view" that there is a threefold training, if we discard the training before the crossing, then how will the raftless swimmer cross, rhetorically speaking? The point of the Parable of the Raft is not to swim raftless to the far shore. Swimming raftless, swimming "Dharma-less," swimming "viewless" isn't presented as a possible solution to the problem posed by the parable, namely the problem of a "great expanse of water" that is "dubious & risky" at the near shore (from MN 22 as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro). The raft is needed in the parable because forgoing it is simply not a viable option. Otherwise, IMO the point of the parable becomes obscured.
This addresses the issue of "all views" and whether we need to discard "all views" in order to reach the far shore. The Parable of the Raft, to the extent that it can be construed to refer to dropping "all views," has this happen once the far shore has already been reached.
What about other views?

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

(Mahācattārīsakasutta MN 117 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
What about in the Abyākatasutta, where spiritual progress is associated with "the cessation of views" ("diṭṭhinirodhā")?

Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn’t arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues. The view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t exist after death’: The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern view, doesn’t discern the origination of view, doesn’t discern the cessation of view, doesn’t discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

(Abyākatasutta AN 7.54 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
This sutta, complete with its section on the "cessation of view," is dealing with particular views ceasing. In particular, it deals with four views that it outlines in the body of the sutta. 1) That ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ 2) that ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ 3) ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after death,’ and 4) ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t exist after death.’ It is due to the cessation of these views that "uncertainty doesn't arise," to use the language from the sutta directly. So we can see that the Abyākatasutta does not actually instruct the followers of the Buddha to abandon all views in toto, including the right ones. This is, however, a common way to read the sutta in my experience even if it is mistaken IMO.

So are you implying that karma and rebirth do not exist or even function but are just tools that the Buddha used to encourage people to seek liberation?

No. I think that karma and rebirth are what the Buddha sought to end. I think that those Buddhists who insist that we must discard all views before engaging in any Buddhist training are putting the cart before the horse.


text:
Why is it called "Nama" as in namarupam?'
Nama, as in namarupa, the designation
of 'feeling, perception, attention, intention & contact', why do they call these 'Nama'?
Some clues or points to keep in mind;

intention (cetana) is kamma

six classes of intention are sankhara

sankhara fabricates the conditioned

contact has 6 sense media as cause

feeling, perception and sankhara are 'aggregates', are conjoined & are conjoined with 'consciousness' aggregate

4 aggregates have objects

3 aggregates always accompany consciousness

consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another

same consciousness doesn't go from one life to another

consciousness is said to be inbetween two ends, 'form' on one end and 'name' on the other end

both 'the eye' and 'the form visible by the eye' are included under 'form [rupa]'

consciousness meeting rupa is a meeting of the three, is 'contact'

feeling is born of contact

feeling is requisite for craving

everything comes into being through attention

with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be

with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be

from sankhara as a requisite condition comes consciousness

sankhara has ignorance for cause

rupa isn't always generated as in arupajhana, formless perception attainment

What a exellent collection to contemplate togather

Name refers to mind and form refers to body. Together, name-and-form refers to the mind-body system, according to SN 12.2.
The body is called form because it is a form and also because it is the form-sensor.
The mind is called name because it is the name-assigner or namer. It assigns name to the sensed form and then forms intentions on it.
So name(-assigner) and form(-sensor) describe mind and body by their functions.
Of course, this is my deduction and I don't have sutta references to support this.

It's a difficult question that i'll sleep on for a while but i do have some thoughts as well

it seems to me that 'nama' names as consciousness cognizes, it names things therefore it is called 'name'.

If we have 'vinnana' & 'rupa [eg eye & visible form]' on one side and 'nama' on the other side, then we can see that one side does the meeting and the other side names this meeting 'contact', it names 'feeling' born of contact as 'feeling' & etc.

I can see a person's form with the eye, i can hear their voice with the ear, iow i can know a person's form by means of my form.

On the other hand i can only know by 'name' due inference the feelings, contact, perception, intention & attention of another, these things are invisible & untangible to me, like a person's name eg 'Adam' is not tangible like the visible form of the body.
In this sense a person is then merely that which one knows by name and that which one knows otherwise.
As to why those exact terms for 'nama' and why cetana & manasikara instead of sankhara. I think this should be possible to deduct but i haven't gone that deep and it's not essential obviously.

In my opinion, it is called 'nama-rupa' because it was a certain term from the Samaveda (later called the Chandogya Upanishad) the Buddha decided required debunking & redefining.
In the Chandogya Upanishad, there is the great deity that exercises their will/intention to  multiply the three basic deities of earth, fire & water into a multitude of names & forms. The impression is the Buddha took this superstitious notion & used it to describe a certain reality when intention gives attention to the basic three sankharas (in Dependent Origination) and decides to multiply their presence & impact by pursing them via the six sense bases.
The Buddha was not concerned with literal 'name' or 'naming'. The Buddha was concerned with ending craving. Too many Buddhists, such as Katukurunde Nyanananda, engage/d in too much papanca about 'nama-rupa'.

nama = name
nama (following) = mental element which could tend to do it's duty on an object.
nama (is followed by) = nibbana

Could you explain what is meant by 'follow' in this sense

It's tending to the object to do it's duty on an object like a boy follow a butterfly to catch it. But Nibbana is tended by Nama to done Namas' duties on Nibbana-object.
Because Vinnana is Mano, which is like  the leader and the Nama is a follower of that Vinnana, Mano. https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Who first claimed that "Gautama Buddha gained enlightenment"?
Some people said to me that , Gautama Buddha never made claims about himself that he had gained enlightenment and on the other hand, some people say that's not true.
Some people have also said to me that this news of enlightenment was probably initiated by one of his disciples after his death.
Here is my question:
Who claimed that Lord Buddha said that that "he obtained enlightenment"?

One reference is Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26).
The Translator's Introduction says,

Some scholars have suggested that, of the many autobiographical accounts of the Buddha's Awakening presented in the Pali canon, this is the earliest.

It is "autobiography" i.e. a quote of the Buddha's own words.
It doesn't say "enlightened" but then again "enlightened" is an English-language word.

Wikipedia: Enlightenment (spiritual)
Used in a religious sense, enlightenment translates several Buddhist terms and concepts, most notably bodhi,kensho, and satori. Related terms from Asian religions are kaivalya and moksha (liberation) in Hinduism, Kevala Jnana in Jainism, and ushta in Zoroastrianism.

("Bodhi" is also translated "awake" as mentioned in OyaMist's answer).
What MN 26 does say is (translated):

Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

That i.e. "reaching the unborn", "unbinding", "release", and "no further becoming" are descriptions or paraphrases of an Arahant -- i.e. the final stage of awakening.
In summary it is the Buddha's own assertion -- which the people who met him sooner or later agreed with.
There's a more explicit version in MN 85

The Realized One is Perfected, a fully awakened Buddha. Listen up, mendicants: I have achieved the Deathless! I shall instruct you, I will teach you the Dhamma. By practicing as instructed you will soon realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life. You will live having achieved with your own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’
I was able to persuade the group of five mendicants. Then sometimes I advised two mendicants, while the other three went for alms. Then those three would feed all six of us with what they brought back. Sometimes I advised three mendicants, while the other two went for alms. Then those two would feed all six of us with what they brought back.
As the group of five mendicants were being advised and instructed by me like this, they soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life.

The Buddha once said:

MN85:49.2: While I was traveling along the road between Gayā and Bodhgaya, the Ājīvaka ascetic Upaka saw me
MN85:49.3: and said,
MN85:49.4: ‘Reverend, your faculties are so very clear, and your complexion is pure and bright.
MN85:49.5: In whose name have you gone forth, reverend? Who is your Teacher? Whose teaching do you believe in?’
MN85:49.6: I replied to Upaka in verse:
MN85:49.7: ‘I am the champion, the knower of all,
MN85:49.8: unsullied in the midst of all things.
MN85:49.9: I’ve given up all, freed in the ending of craving.
MN85:49.10: Since I know for myself, whose follower should I be?
MN85:49.11: I have no teacher.
MN85:49.12: There is no-one like me.
MN85:49.13: In the world with its gods,
MN85:49.14: I have no counterpart.
MN85:49.15: For in this world, I am the perfected one;
MN85:49.16: I am the supreme Teacher.
MN85:49.17: I alone am fully awakened,
MN85:49.18: cooled, extinguished.
MN85:49.19: I am going to the city of Kāsi
MN85:49.20: to roll forth the Wheel of Dhamma.
MN85:49.21: In this world that is so blind,
MN85:49.22: I’ll beat the deathless drum!’
MN85:49.23: ‘According to what you claim, reverend, you ought to be the Infinite Victor.’
MN85:49.24: ‘The victors are those who, like me,
MN85:49.25: have reached the ending of defilements.
MN85:49.26: I have conquered bad qualities, Upaka—
MN85:49.27: that’s why I’m a victor.’
MN85:49.28: When I had spoken, Upaka said: ‘If you say so, reverend.’ Shaking his head, he took a wrong turn and left.

An opportunity for spiritual practice was lost here...

DN34:2.1.138: Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world.
DN34:2.1.139: And a person is reborn in a central country. But they have wrong view and distorted perspective:
DN34:2.1.140: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
DN34:2.1.141: This is the sixth lost opportunity for spiritual practice.

Focusing on attainments is often an obstacle to practice. Indeed, Buddhists frown on claiming attainments and the Buddha himself is only recorded as saying "Ekomhi sammāsambuddho" (i.e., "I alone am fully awakened") once, to Upaka.
The past is gone. Yet right now, right here, we can all practice together the Noble Eightfold Path.

Is this line I alone am fully awakened....means that Buddha claiming that he is enlightened?

I think awakened and Enlightenment are different things

I propose to take MN 12 as his selfdeclaration. It contains his "Lion's roar", in which he gives characterization of the focus and of the depth of his understanding and knowledge won in the phase after his life-threatening ascese. This example (long!, explicite!) is in the Pali-canon, in the "middle-length discourses" ("Majjhima Nikaya"), Sutta No. 12.

A good resource for the pali-canon in english (and many parallel translations) is at suttacentral.net.
The Majjhima Nikaya index is at MN and the episode/sutta has the name "Mahāsīhanāda Sutta" /"The Longer Discourse on the Lion’s Roar" (direct link to translation by Bhikkhu Sujato, see as well many parallels in various translations there).

But note: what is described there is more the/a complex concept of "awakening"; I wouldn't give it a term like "seeking for enlightenment" - this latter term seems to me to be an absurdely narrow-fenced effect-/event-thinking compared with the long and detailed report of the whole process of "awakening".

In the following sutta the Buddha clearly says he is not a human, deva etc. Rather, he is awakened.
Although we have the term "enlightenment" in English, the more precise term based on the Pali original is "awakened" (Buddha).
The phrase "and so, brahman, I'm awake" (Ven. Thanissaro) also translated as "and so, brahmin, I am a Buddha" (Ven Sujato) comes from the Pali "tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇā”ti".
The suttas are discourses, spoken either by the Buddha himself or by his most senior disciples and, was kept alive and recited in full by his senior disciple Ven. Ananda, after the Buddha's passing, in the First Buddhist Council. Then later, it was passed down through generations of monks through memorization and chanting.
Also: deva is god or angel, gandhabba is fairy, yakkha is native spirit.

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a
certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness
established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's
footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident,
inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having
attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses
restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said,
"Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
brahman, as 'awakened.' (Buddha)

"The fermentations by which I would go
to a deva-state,
or become a gandhabba in the sky,
or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
Those have been destroyed by me,
ruined, their stems removed.
Like a blue lotus, rising up,
unsmeared by water,
unsmeared am I by the world,
and so, brahman,
I'm awake."

Dona Sutta (AN 4.36)

The Buddha also described himself as a "fully awakened Buddha" (sammāsambuddha).

If you’ve gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an
empty hut and you get scared or terrified, just recollect me:

‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha,
accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world,
supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans,
awakened, blessed.’
“itipi so bhagavā arahaṁ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno
sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṁ
buddho bhagavā”ti.

Then your fear and terror will go away.
SN 11.3

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


text:
How do bodhisattvas, and those who would emulate them, respond to tyrants?
How do bodhisattvas, and those who would emulate them, respond to a tyrant or despot, e.g. a Hitler or Stalin?
Are Buddhists / Bodhisattvas suggesting a "non-resistance to evil by violence" (Tolstoy) and some strange notion of absolute forgiveness, practically or otherwise?
To have someone preach that we all forgive tyrants, as they may go for our throat, seems like a peculiar and sadistic form of madness.

A bodhisattva is one who has trained for lifetimes to perfect a sense of compassion for any and all sentient beings in an unbiased and equal way. With this in mind, how about you take a stab at answering your own question? Try to imagine having an overwhelmingly perfect sense of compassion and ask yourself: what would you do when confronted with Hitler? Would be interested to hear your answer…

Imagine working for eons solely for the benefit of others. Being faced with unimaginable situations and horrors, but always working to relieve the misery and suffering of others. How would such a being react when confronted with Hitler and his intentions to harm countless others?

Is a good thought experiment to try and develop a sense of intuition for what a perfect sense of compassion might be like! :)

I can't answer your question except facetiously @YesheTenley suggest he try harder at painting etc..

Is that because you view compassion as a form of weakness or that someone who has trained themself in such a perfection of compassion would be incapable of dealing with the likes of a Hitler?

it's not, I think, the former @YesheTenley I suppose it is a lack of familiarity with compassion of that sort

Very well, I've added an answer that is directly related to your question. See what you think.

Here is a Sutra that directly applies to your question. It is recognized in both the Tibetan and Chinese Mahayana canon.
From the The Skill in Means (Upayakausalya) Sutra as translated by Mark Tatz. The Tibetan Buddhist canon project has a new translation in progress.

Murder with Skill in Means: the Story of the Compassionate Ship’s
Captain
132 .
Then the Lord again addressed the Bodhisattva
Jñanottara: “Son of the family: Once upon a time, long before the
Thus-Come-One, the Worthy, the fully perfected Buddha Dīpaṁkara, there
were five hundred merchants who set sail on the high seas in search of
wealth. Among the company was a doer of dark deeds, a doer of evil
deeds, a robber well-trained in the art of weaponry, who had come on
board that very ship. He thought, ‘I will kill all these merchants when
they have completed their business and done what they set out to do,
take all their possessions and go to Jambu Continent.’
“Son of the
family: Then the merchants completed their business and set about to
depart. No sooner had they done so, than that deceitful person thought:
‘Now I will kill all these merchants, take all their possessions and go
to Jambu Continent. The time has come.’
133 .
“At the same time, among
the company on board was a captain named Great Compassionate (
sārthavāha mahākāruṇika ). While Captain Great Compassionate slept on
one occasion, the deities who dwelt in that ocean showed him this in a
dream:
“‘Among this ship’s company is a person named so and so, of
such and such sort of physique, of such and such garb, complexion and
shape—a robber, mischievous, a thief of others’ property. He
is thinking, “I will kill all these merchants, take all their
possessions and go to Jambu Continent.” To kill these merchants would
create formidable evil karma  for that person. Why so? These five
hundred merchants are all progressing toward supreme, right and full
awakening. If he should kill these Bodhisattvas, the fault—the
obstacle caused by the deed—would cause him to burn in the great
hells for as long as it takes each one of these Bodhisattvas to achieve
supreme, right and full awakening, consecutively. Therefore, Captain,
think of some skill in means to prevent this person from killing
the five hundred merchants and going to the great hells because of the
deed.’
134 .
“Son of the family: Then the captain Great Compassionate
awoke. He considered what means there might be to prevent that person
from killing the five hundred merchants and going to the great hells.
Seven days passed with a wind averse to sailing to Jambu Continent.
During those seven days he plunged deep into thought, not speaking to
anyone.
“He thought, ‘There is no means to prevent this
man from slaying the merchants and going to the great hells, but to
kill him.’
“And he thought, ‘If I were to report this to the merchants,
they would kill and slay him with   angry thoughts and all go to the
great hells themselves.’
“And he thought, ‘If I were to kill this
person, I would likewise burn in the great hells for
one hundred-thousand eons because of it. Yet I can bear to experience
the pain of the great hells, that this person not slay these five
hundred merchants and develop so much evil karma . I will kill this
person myself.
135 .
Son of the family: Accordingly, the captain Great
Compassionate protected those five hundred merchants and protected that
person from going to the great hells by deliberately stabbing
and slaying that person who was a robber with a spear, with great
compassion and skill in means. And all among the company completed
their business and each went to his own city.
136 .
“Son of the
family. At that time, in that life I was none other than the captain
Great Compassionate. Have no second thoughts or doubt on this point.
The five hundred merchants on board are the five hundred Bodhisattvas
who are to awaken to the supreme, right and full awakening in
this Auspicious Eon.
“Son of the family: For me, saṁsāra was curtailed
for one hundred-thousand eons because of that skill in means and great
compassion. And the robber died to be reborn in a world of
paradise.
137 .
“Son of the family, what do you think of this? Can
curtailing birth and death for one hundred-thousand eons with that
skill in means and that great compassion be regarded as
the Bodhisattva’s obstacle caused by past deeds? Do not view it in that
way. It should be regarded as his very skill in means."

A couple points I think are interesting and relevant here:

The Great Captain killed the robber out of immense compassion for the robber himself and the suffering he foresaw would follow the robber if he achieved his evil aims.
The Great Captain did this while completely understanding and accepting the personal consequence of burning in the hells for one hundred-thousand eons.
The Great Captain had sure foreknowledge of the outcome of the robber's intended actions and after a great deal of introspection and objective analysis that there was no other way to prevent the robber from accomplishing his evil deeds.
The Great Captain was a highly advanced Arya being. The Great Captain was no ordinary samsaric being acting out of regular egotistical thoughts or anger. The Great Captain had trained for immense numbers of eons to perfect
great compassion and wisdom.
It was only by virtue of the Great Captain's incredibly advanced training and pure intention resolving to personally suffer the consequences as well as sure wisdom correctly analyzing the situation that allowed the Great Captain to accomplish this skillful means without actually suffering the resultant terrible consequence of burning in the hells for one hundred thousand eons.
Most of us are nowhere near capable of this level of compassion and pure intent combined with wisdom. We'd best keep training.

deep, thanks. I appreciate it.

I am more used to stories about aryas praying (I think?) for assistance and a miraculous escape.

What really peeves me off is when I first heard this story, I was told it by Buddhist monk/nuns and they said that it was Buddha who killed the person. Essentially this is a Fable, not an actual event from history.

The account of this captain was told by Buddha Shakyamuni recounting a past life. At least that is what the Sutra says. So in this sense the Monks/Nuns were speaking the truth. Whether this is a fable or an actual event from history is a belief that can neither be confirmed nor denied by any evidence that I know of. Believe as you will or however seems most prudent to you.

Monks, who are professional practitioners of the Dhamma are expected to be completely pacifist.

"Well then, Punna. Now that I have instructed you with a brief
instruction, in which country are you going to live?"
"Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live
there."
"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they
insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta
people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with
their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I
will think, O One Well-gone."
"But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."
"But if they hit you with a clod...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."
"But if they hit you with a stick...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."
"But if they hit you with a knife...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."
"But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"
"If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are
disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and
disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but
here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' 1 That is
what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One
Well-gone."
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
fit."
Then Ven. Punna, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's words,
rising from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One and left, keeping
him on his right side. Setting his dwelling in order and taking his
robe and bowl, he set out for the Sunaparanta country and, after
wandering stage by stage, he arrived there. There he lived. During
that Rains retreat he established 500 male and 500 female lay
followers in the practice, while he realized the three knowledges and
then attained total (final) Unbinding.
Then a large number of monks went to the Blessed One and on arrival,
having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there,
they said to him, "Lord, the clansman named Punna, whom the Blessed
One instructed with a brief instruction, has died. What is his
destination? What is his future state?"
"Monks, the clansman Punna was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in
accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related
to the Dhamma. The clansman Punna is totally unbound."
SN 35.88

The Buddha when faced with the bandit and murderer Angulimala, employed psychic powers apparently, in addition to his wisdom in the method of teaching.

Carrying his robes & bowl, he went along the road to where Angulimala
was staying. Cowherds, shepherds, & farmers saw him going along the
road to where Angulimala was staying, and on seeing him said to him,
"Don't go along that road, contemplative, for on that road is
Angulimala: brutal, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying,
showing no mercy to living beings. He has turned villages into
non-villages, towns into non-towns, settled countryside into unsettled
countryside. Having repeatedly killed human beings, he wears a garland
made of fingers. Groups of ten, twenty, thirty, & forty men have gone
along that road, and even they have fallen into Angulimala's hands."
When this was said, the Blessed One kept going in silence. ....
Then Angulimala saw the Blessed One coming from afar and on seeing
him, this thought occurred to him: "Isn't it amazing! Isn't it
astounding! Groups of ten, twenty, thirty, & forty men have gone along
this road, and even they have fallen into my hands, and yet now this
contemplative comes attacking, as it were, alone and without a
companion. Why don't I kill him?" So Angulimala, taking up his sword &
shield, buckling on his bow & quiver, followed right behind the
Blessed One.
Then the Blessed One willed a feat of psychic power such that
Angulimala, though running with all his might, could not catch up with
the Blessed One walking at normal pace. Then the thought occurred to
Angulimala: "Isn't it amazing! Isn't it astounding! In the past I've
chased & seized even a swift-running elephant, a swift-running horse,
a swift-running chariot, a swift-running deer. But now, even though
I'm running with all my might, I can't catch up with this
contemplative walking at normal pace." So he stopped and called out to
the Blessed One, "Stop, contemplative! Stop!"
"I have stopped, Angulimala. You stop."
Then the thought occurred to Angulimala, "These Sakyan contemplatives
are speakers of the truth, asserters of the truths, and yet this
contemplative, even while walking, says, 'I have stopped, Angulimala.
You stop.' Why don't I question him?"
MN 86

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a bonafide ruler or government ("wheel-turning monarch") to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

This generally applies to lay persons and not monks.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.
DN 26

Since you're asking Buddhists, taking our point of view into account is important. According to the Buddha, we've all suffered brutal, grisly fates beyond count.
'Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html
The Buddha also describes the amount of time we've been suffering these horrendous fates.
'“Suppose there was a huge stone mountain, a league long, a league wide, and a league high, with no cracks or holes, one solid mass. And as each century passed someone would stroke it with a fine cloth from Kāsī. By this means the huge stone mountain would be worn away before the eon comes to an end. That’s how long an eon is. And we’ve transmigrated through many such eons, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundreds of thousands."'
https://suttacentral.net/sn15.5/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
What I take away from that is that no matter how horrendous an experience we or someone we know have/has in this life, similar things have been happening to us for a truly indescribable amount of time.
Another aspect of this is the Buddha's simile about being dismembered and how you should feel toward your attackers.
'"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching."'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html
The main thing to take away from this in my opinion is that Buddhist thought is a reaction to experiencing suffering over a duration that's not something we can truly comprehend. When we hear about someone being murdered horribly, part of the offensiveness of that is the idea that they had their "one chance" at life taken away horribly. The Buddha's word does not agree with that and describes a world where we've all experienced that countless times.
The Buddha prescribes loving kindness to LITERALLY everyone, no exceptions. That sounds like saying you should accept people doing horrible things to each other, but you can oppose them while still having empathy for any aggressors. You can oppose people non violently and still not harbor hatred or animosity toward them.

I'm reminded of the story of I think one of the aryadevas finding some maggots and letting them eat his body to stay alive. one may ask whether we could compassionately allow someone to commit genocide etc., for them

I see what you're saying and think it comes down to how much you've achieved in your practice. As a layperson I can honestly tell you I would commit violence to spare my loved ones from a genocidal person, but I do believe that that's not skillful or helpful for me OR them in the long run. If we're all "doomed" to suffer countless horrors, and the Buddha specifically says that generating bad kamma to avoid that is not in accordance with his teaching, that's a bad course of action to take. One of the "fetters" you need to unburden yourself from is aversion, and I think that applies here.

By the way I don't think your question should be downvoted the way it is. I think it's a very important question with subtle implications and it's something most people exposed to Buddhism will come to at some point. "Should you accept people committing evil?"

I'm a huge proponent of Tonglen practice, which captures the heart essence of Bodhisattva action.
When we witness the actions of despots, violence, and global atrocities— this is a call to practice.

“We must surrender our hopes and expectations, as well as our fears,
and march directly into disappointment, work with disappointment, go
into it, and make it our way of life, which is a very hard thing to
do. Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence. It cannot be
compared to anything else: it is so sharp, precise, obvious, and
direct. If we can open, then we suddenly begin to see that our
expectations are irrelevant compared with the reality of the
situations we are facing.” ― Chogyam Trungpa

How I have been personally practicing through the war in Ukraine, and the January 6 Insurrection, is described in this piece: https://sunyata.info/writing/2022/3/25/a-prayer-for-ukraine.


text:
Where did the Buddha say that Teachings that don't contain the Noble Eightfold Path cannot lead to Enlightenment?
Question is in the title. I remember reading that statement in a Theravada Buddhist book or PDF file but now I can't seem to find it.
Help would be much appreciated.

It's in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. In whichever teaching and discipline/ training the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, the four types of enlightened persons cannot be found also.

“Subhadda, in whatever teaching and training the noble eightfold path
is not found, there is no true ascetic found, no second ascetic, no
third ascetic, and no fourth ascetic. In whatever teaching and
training the noble eightfold path is found, there is a true ascetic
found, a second ascetic, a third ascetic, and a fourth ascetic. In
this teaching and training the noble eightfold path is found. Only
here is there a true ascetic, here a second ascetic, here a third
ascetic, and here a fourth ascetic. Other sects are empty of ascetics.
DN 16

Thank you so much for this.


text:
Jataka Story Request: Mindfulness, Radiant Complexion and Grass Simile
I'm looking for a story in the Jataka wherein the Buddha talks about mindfulness and the importance of not living in the past or future. He compares the mind living in the past or future to grass that has been cut off from its root. When that happens the grass will dry out and the same thing happens to the mind that does not live in the present moment.
It was asked how monks who only eat 1 meal a day or sometimes don't eat at all can still retain such radiant complexion. That's where the Buddha taught the above grass simile.
Here's a link to the video where Bhante talks about it. It's mentioned at 6:45 into the video.
Can anyone help me find the Jataka story?
Thank you for your time.

That was a fun search, thank you.
I found it in 538. Muga-Pakkha Jātaka, quoted below.

At that moment the queen Candadevi, surrounded by the royal ladies,
came up, and after clasping her dear son’s feet and saluting him, sat
on one side with her eyes full of tears. The king said to her, “Lady,
see what thy son’s food is,” and put some of the leaves into her hand
and also gave a little to the other ladies, who took it, saying, “O my
lord, dost thou indeed eat such food? thou endurest great hardship,”
and sat down. Then the king said, “O my son, this appears wonderful to
me,” and he spoke a stanza:

“Most strange indeed it seems to me that thou thus left alone
Livest on such mean food and yet thy colour is not gone.”

The prince thus replied:

“Upon this bed of leaves strewn here I lie indeed alone,—
A pleasant bed it is and so my colour is not gone;
Girt with their swords no cruel guards stand sternly looking on,—
A pleasant bed it is and so my colour is not gone;
Over the past I do not mourn nor for the future weep,—
I meet the present as it comes, and so my colour keep.
Mourning about the hopeless past or some uncertain future need,—
This dries a young man’s vigour up as when you cut a fresh green reed.”

Thank you so much.

I couldn't find the exact same simile. But there are two similar similes.
The first is about the contemplative being withdrawn or not being withdrawn from sensuality in body and mind.

"Then these three similes — spontaneous, never before heard — appeared
to me. Suppose there were a wet, sappy piece of timber lying in the
water, and a man were to come along with an upper fire-stick,
thinking, 'I'll light a fire. I'll produce heat.' Now what do you
think? Would he be able to light a fire and produce heat by rubbing
the upper fire-stick in the wet, sappy timber lying in the water?"
"No, Master Gotama. Why is that? Because the timber is wet & sappy,
and besides it is lying in the water. Eventually the man would reap
only his share of weariness & disappointment."
"So it is with any brahman or contemplative who does not live
withdrawn from sensuality in body & mind, and whose desire,
infatuation, urge, thirst, & fever for sensuality is not relinquished
& stilled within him: Whether or not he feels painful, racking,
piercing feelings due to his striving [for Awakening], he is incapable
of knowledge, vision, & unexcelled self-awakening. This was the first
simile — spontaneous, never before heard — that appeared to me.
"Then a second simile — spontaneous, never before heard — appeared to
me. Suppose there were a wet, sappy piece of timber lying on land far
from water, and a man were to come along with an upper fire-stick,
thinking, 'I'll light a fire. I'll produce heat.' Now what do you
think? Would he be able to light a fire and produce heat by rubbing
the upper fire-stick in the wet, sappy timber lying on land far from
water?"
"No, Master Gotama. Why is that? Because the timber is wet & sappy,
even though it is lying on land far from water. Eventually the man
would reap only his share of weariness & disappointment."
"So it is with any brahman or contemplative who lives withdrawn from
sensuality in body only, but whose desire, infatuation, urge, thirst,
& fever for sensuality is not relinquished & stilled within him:
Whether or not he feels painful, racking, piercing feelings due to his
striving, he is incapable of knowledge, vision, & unexcelled
self-awakening. This was the second simile — spontaneous, never before
heard — that appeared to me.
"Then a third simile — spontaneous, never before heard — appeared to
me. Suppose there were a dry, sapless piece of timber lying on land
far from water, and a man were to come along with an upper fire-stick,
thinking, 'I'll light a fire. I'll produce heat.' Now what do you
think? Would he be able to light a fire and produce heat by rubbing
the upper fire-stick in the dry, sapless timber lying on land?"
"Yes, Master Gotama. Why is that? Because the timber is dry & sapless,
and besides it is lying on land far from water."
"So it is with any brahman or contemplative who lives withdrawn from
sensuality in body & mind, and whose desire, infatuation, urge,
thirst, & fever for sensuality is relinquished & stilled within him:
Whether or not he feels painful, racking, piercing feelings due to his
striving, he is capable of knowledge, vision, & unexcelled
self-awakening. This was the third simile — spontaneous, never before
heard — that appeared to me.
Maha Saccaka Sutta (MN 36)

The second is about the mind being sluggish or not sluggish, agitated or not agitated, and which are the appropriate enlightenment factors for it depending on situation.

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time
to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of tranquillity, the
enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of
equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by
these factors.
"Suppose a man wants to make a small fire blaze. If he heaps wet
grass, wet cow-dung and wet sticks on it, if he exposes it to wind and
rain and sprinkles it with dust, can he make that small fire blaze?"
"No indeed, Lord."
"Just so, when the mind is sluggish it is the wrong time to cultivate
the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration and
equanimity, because a sluggish mind is hard to arouse through these
factors.
"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to
cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the
enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.
What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these
factors.
"Suppose a man wants to make a small fire blaze. If he heaps dry
grass, dry cow-dung and dry sticks on it, blows on it with his mouth,
and does not sprinkle it with dust, can he make that fire blaze?"
"Yes indeed, Lord."
"... a sluggish mind is easy to arouse through these factors.
"Monks, when the mind is agitated, that is the wrong time to cultivate
the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of
rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.
"Suppose a man wants to put a big fire out. If he heaps dry cow-dung
and dry sticks on it, blow on it with his mouth, and does not sprinkle
it with dust, can he put that fire out?"
"No indeed, Lord."
"... an agitated mind is not easy to calm through these factors.
"When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the
enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why?
Because an agitated mind is easy to calm through these factors.
"Suppose a man wants to put out a big fire. If he heaps wet grass, wet
cow-dung, wet sticks on it and if he exposes it to wind and rain, if
he sprinkles it with dust, can he put that big fire out?"
"Yes indeed, Lord."
"Just so, monks, when the mind is agitated, that is the right time to
cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration,
equanimity. An agitated mind is easy to calm through these factors.
"But as for mindfulness, monks, I declare that it is always useful."
Aggi Sutta (SN 46.53)

Thank you so much for the answer.


text:
Best Meditation for Stress
I've been meditating using different types of meditation for years now. I've been feeling a lot of stress lately, and I want to calm down in the ideal way. I've been reading neuroscience studies claiming that breath meditation is the most effective to calm down the amygdala, a key brain region in stress.
However, when I meditate on the breath, I feel somewhat tense. When I meditate openly (without object), I get shivers on my body as if I were getting calmer. During focused breath meditation, this doesn't happen. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out whether, on the long term, breath meditation is really more calming than an objectless meditation or even of loving-kindness.
How can one know what type of meditation is most calming and de-stressing long-term?

Unlike the modern "western" medicine, which often treats the symptoms and superficial causes, Buddhism is all about finding and removing the root causes of dukkha (~suffering) including its subtype we simply call "stress".
If you think about it, and as the Buddha himself said, all of the Buddhist path is about stopping suffering and arresting causes of suffering. Specifically, the group of teachings known as The Noble Eightfold Path is a collection of methods for preventing creation of the causes of stress at all levels, from coarse to subtle and from social to innermost.
It should go  without saying, but I will still say it, that you having lots of stress in your life is indicative of gaps in your practice of The Eightfold Path. Why don't you review it and see what you get.
Leaving that aside, when it comes to meditation, suttas explain that meditation goes in progression from basic to advanced. The goal of basic meditation is to learn to focus, because most people are rather scatterbrained and are easily distracted by their own thoughts. The goal of advanced meditation is to identify and resolve emotional and mental hangups that serve as inner causes of stress.
When I say "hangups" I mean a broad class of issues like prejudices, stereotypes, overgeneralizations, internalized misconceptions, and reifications.
The work of advanced meditation is to

notice there's something in the fog
feel through the fog until you can more or less clearly see the issue
focus on the issue and observe it until its inner workings are clear
find the abstract core of the issue - the metaphorical handle you're holding on to,
resolve the issue by letting go of the handle

This process is repeated dozens and hundreds of times, taking whatever next instance of stress that comes to mind and tracing it back to its source in your psyche.
By now it should be clear that basic meditation on single object cannot by itself undo your knots and tangles. You have to work with your actual feelings and their conceptual/preconceptual roots.
Now, what is the role of objectless open-ended meditation and where does it fit in this process. The way I was taught, its role is to serve as the base camp from which the exploration of hangups takes place.
In other words, the objectless meditation, and meditation on breath too, is where you start from, and where you come back to every time you get lost, and after every successful uprooting of a hangup. While having a basecamp is important, if you stay in the camp day after day, your vacation will be over before you climb that mountain and see that bear. LOL, today I'm all over the place with my metaphors :)
I'm sorry to disappoint you if you assumed you can just sit in meditation and it will work by itself. You have to make an actual effort to explore and process your crap. Otherwise you'll just keep churning the same stress over and over.

"There’s a story of a young American monk ordained in Thailand who went to study with one of the famous forest ajaans. He asked the ajaan, “What meditation object is going to bring calm and peace to my mind?” And the ajaan said, “I don’t know. You have to find out.” The young monk hearing, “I don’t know,” thought it meant that “I don’t know anything about meditation.” He ended up disrobing and going someplace else. But that’s not what the ajaan meant. What he meant was that each of us has to find out what’s going to work for us as we meditate. You have to find the object that’s most suitable for you, and the best way to relate to it. The whole purpose of developing concentration is to get the mind to settle down, and the way to get it to settle down is to give it a place where it likes to stay settled. What’s going to work for you is going to depend on your preferences, on your background, on all kinds of factors that are purely personal.

For each of us, the process of developing concentration is an individual thing. So you have to explore. There’s no telling exactly what kind of breathing is going to be good for you, or whether there are times when you need to focus on something else instead: like recollecting the Buddha, recollecting the Dhamma, the Sangha, contemplating of the body, developing thoughts of goodwill, compassion, empathetic joy, or equanimity. It’s really a personal matter which of these is going to work for you.

There’s no one-size-fits-all kind of meditation. Breath meditation comes the closest to a universal object because, after all, we all have a breath, and for all of us it’s an important part of our lives. Ajaan Lee recommends taking it as your home base. It’s the safest of all meditation objects. But there are times when you need to forage around in other areas. You may find yourself way off in left field and have to find your way back to home base. It may require thoughts of goodwill to get back there or it may require contemplation of the body. This is something you have to explore for yourself. You have to experiment. You have to learn how to observe to see what works."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "The Riddle Tree" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ePubDhammaTalks_v3/Section0018.html

In practice, stress relief usually comes from good physical habits. Are you eating well, exercising regularly, avoiding too much caffeine, drugs, and alcohol.
Meditation without those habits as a prerequisite is unlikely to do much for your stress levels. It's better than nothing, but you need to get your body right before you can get your mind right.
Once your health is taken care of, whatever type of meditation you find the most enjoyable is the one to go with.

Transcendental Meditation (TM) is shown by extensive scientific research to reduce stress indicators such as cortisol.  Numerous studies show reduced anxiety among TM meditators.  In a study by the American Heart Association TM significantly lowered blood pressure, indicating reduced stress.
Rev. Oshima, a Japanese Buddhist monk and teacher of TM, has taught it to thousands of Buddhist monks in Thailand and Sri Lanka, with good results.  Top Buddhist monks from Nepal and Tibet also practice TM and have said it produces unique and valuable experiences and benefits.

Well Samatha meditation will only cover up the defilements that cause you stress. It's a temporary way of being free from stress.
In the long run its ofc not suitable.
It would be better to start practicing vipassana meditation.

While the recommendation in this answer is good for the long term and solves the root cause of the problem, body sweeping or body scanning meditation as suggested below, can be a quick temporary fix.
From pages 17 - 18 of the book "The Art of Disappearing" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm:

I’ve found that body sweeping is a useful technique for people who are
restless. It was one of the meditations I introduced at a recent
retreat and the meditators loved it. They were mainly executives, very
busy people. They were so restless that giving them something to do
proved very beneficial. Slowly noticing the feelings in the body from
the toes all the way up to the head really calmed them down. It was an
active meditation but it was focused in the moment. There was not much
thinking that could go on, and so by the end of the sweeping they were
actually quite calm— surprisingly so. Of course, those who knew how to
go further carried on from there, and I was pleased that some people
got into very nice meditation for the first time.
It’s always a great joy as a teacher when students understand what
meditation is like for the first time. It is marvelous when someone
says, “It was so easy and I got so focused. I couldn’t hear anything.
I was just really inside myself. It was so nice.” The people who get
deep meditation are sometimes the ones I least expect it of. It’s
truly wonderful, and sometimes it all starts with body meditation.
Having seen those results, I want to encourage this sort of practice.
When you’re meditating, don’t just sit there and do nothing or fall
asleep. Don’t just sit there and say, “present-moment awareness,” and
then start thinking about all sorts of things. Try to develop the body
meditation. It’s not about understanding the nature of the body.
That’s a type of body contemplation that I don’t think is very useful
until after you get into deep meditation. Instead, just be aware of
the feelings in the body. Give yourself another technique in your
meditation repertoire to use during a long retreat day.

I found a Youtube video here on body sweeping meditation guided by Ajahn Brahm.

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. That's what gets results. Breath meditation, brahma viharas, those are very fundamental tools all good meditators should have and use regularly. That said, I don't think it's easy to find genuine instructions on how to practice correctly according to how the Buddha taught in the suttas. Most teachings I've seen are some combination of watered down and/or over complicated by LBT (late buddhist teachings) that tend to add more tension than relaxation.
If breath meditation is making you tense, you're almost definitely not practicing it according to how the Buddha taught, or you have some physical health problems that need to be addressed first or concurrently.

Expert - Breathing
Intermediate - Walking
Beginner - Walking with chewing gum

Starters - Lift weight - It will power you up.


text:
Sutta request: One should be fed before being able to listen to a Dhamma talk
The following quote can be found at this link:

On the farmer's arrival the Buddha ordered that some food should be given him, and when the man was comforted and his mind was ready the Buddha preached a sermon, at the end of which the man became a Sotāpanna (DhA.iii.262-3).

I'm interested in finding out what "DhA.iii.262-3" means. I looked up the Dhammapada Verse 262-263 and they are about something else entirely. Screenshot of these verses are attached.
So where is the above story found in the Sutta Pitaka?

The next line says,

On another occasion the Buddha came all the way from Jetavana to ālavī for the sake of a weaver's daughter. (For the story see DhA.iii.170f).

The story of the Weaver's daughter is on Access to Insight on a page titled:

Buddhist Stories from the Dhammapada Commentary
Part II
translated from the Pali by
E.W. Burlingame

So the "DhA" may be that, i.e. not the Dhammapada but rather Buddhaghosa's commentary.
"DhA.iii" is presumably Part 3 of 4 -- but different publishers or translators have different ways to number volumes, but anyway, I assume it's from that commentary:

In the fifth century the great Pali scholar-monk Buddhaghosa wrote an extensive commentary to the much-beloved Dhammapada. His commentary provides background stories that set the stage for each brief verse, giving them an expansive context that greatly enriches their meaning. The present booklet is the second in a four-part anthology.

This comment indicates it's the story to accompany verse 203.

Thank you so much.


text:
Looking for Dhammapada in Ebook format
I'm looking for a collection of the entire Dhammapada in Ebook format (not PDF-format) that can be read in the Kindle App. Free or paid.
I've been looking myself without finding anything. Maybe someone else has better luck than me. The book has to contain all Dhammapada verses.
Thanks.

Try these ones, mate!

Related: Freely available translations of the Dhammapada

Thank you guys:)

Here are three different free ebook with quality translations. Two are offered with English-Pali in addition to just English.

Dhammapada: The Buddha’s Path of Wisdom, Translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita, Kindle, Epub, PDF, MP3

Dhammapada: Translated by Ven. Narada, PDF, Kindle, Epub

Ebook Translations by Bhikkhu Sujato in Epub, Kindle, PDF

Thank you so much.

Here are three more:

Anandajoti Bhikkhu's translation of Dhammapada - epub, MOBI and PDF, includes Pali text
Buddhist Legends, translated by E. W. Burlingame - in epub, MOBI - complete stories of the Dhammapada
Dhammapada translated by Max Müller, MOBI and epub

Thank you so much.


text:
Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"
Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"? Is it metaphysical or ontological claim, that nothing that "exists" will exist forever?
Or is it a claim that nothing can always be (meaning having that nature, rather than 'exist') anything? If not that latter, does Buddhism universally agree that there is no awareness of something being what it is, without existence?

Can I be aware of, for example, a shape being red without existence and "permanently" in the standard way of using that word, even if "everything is impermanent"?

I think the assertion is that all sankharas are impermanent -- Three marks of existence -- more specifically "all conditioned things".
The idea is that most things are "conditioned" -- they have conditions in which they come into being, or are fabricated -- and they cease when those conditions cease to be.
So "a sight" (for example) is conditioned -- the conditions for seeing are an "eye" plus a "visual object" plus an "internal sense of sight" -- sight arises when these make contact, and any or every sight is impermanent (i.e. when that contact ceases). The same is true for other sense-impressions (including thoughts).
Physical objects are impermanent too, they're created from other things and eventually destroyed.
In summary, "all that arises, ceases".
Conversely whatever is "unconditioned" isn't impermanent.

This wasn't targeted enough to the question, but thanks for the thought/s

There were a lot of words I didn't understand in the question: metaphysical, ontological, "have nature" as opposed to existing, what "nothing" means in that context, and the whole sentence after that. And I don't understand what you could be calling "permanent"  or "permanently" in the last sentence.

@ChrisW I think they mean the in-and-of-itself quality of the red shape, the objective quality that is, e.g. the red shape will always be red whenever present

Well I don't understand the syntax or the vocabulary of the question. But I think this answer is a quick explanation or a summary of what the suttas say.

Anicca according to wisdomlib means:

anicca : (adj.) not stable; impermanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

From the AccessToInsight Glossary for A:

anicca: Inconstant; unsteady; impermanent.

This is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 17 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and
perished.
So impermanent are conditions,
Evaṃ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unstable are conditions,
evaṃ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unreliable are conditions.
evaṃ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.
DN 17

You may be happy and confident today, based on your close-knit family, dependable friends, good looks, fantastic health, abundant wealth, productive career or business etc. But all these will not last forever. They are impermanent (aniccā), unstable (addhuvā) and unreliable (anassāsikā). To peg your happiness or sense of self to these things will bring suffering. That's the relationship of impermanence to suffering. Also see SN 22.93 below.
The purpose of seeing conditioned things as impermanent, unstable and unreliable, is so that you can become disillusioned, dispassionate and free from clinging.
It's not metaphysics or ontology. It's pragmatism and methodological.

“Suppose, mendicants, there was a mountain river that flowed swiftly,
going far, carrying all before it. If wild sugarcane, kusa grass,
reeds, vetiver, or trees grew on either bank, they’d overhang the
river. And if a person who was being swept along by the current
grabbed the wild sugarcane, kusa grass, reeds, vetiver, or trees, it’d
break off, and they’d come to ruin because of that.
In the same way, an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble
ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble
ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor
trained in the teaching of the good persons.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self
in form. But their form breaks off, and they come to ruin because of
that. They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as
self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in
consciousness. But their consciousness breaks off, and they come to
ruin because of that.
What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or
impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is
no return to any state of existence.’”
SN 22.93

A red square will always be a red square. The term "red" defines a certain frequency range. The term "square" defines a certain geometrical relationship.  These are abstractions which we use to name what we see. So "red square" is a name.
Yet when we see a red square, we actually see only a form that matches the name "red square".  And these forms, such as a printed or painted red square are impermanent. The printing or painting of a red square is always impermanent. Printings and paintings fade and crumble away with time.
So we can talk and talk about red squares forever. But all that we see as a red square will crumble away. These perceived forms are impermanent. Understanding that these forms are impermanent leads us to question our restless grasping for such forms (as in "that's MY red square!").

SN22.157:1.10: Is form permanent or impermanent?”
SN22.157:1.11: “Impermanent, sir.” …
SN22.157:1.13: “But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would fetters, insistence, and shackles arise?”

Names are intangible. Forms are tangible yet unsatisfactorily impermanent. Grasping and holding on to impermanence is suffering.

DN15:3.1: So: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress

Even the concept of a red square is impermanent -- though you may imagine (at least temporarily) that what you're imagining is some eternal platonic ideal.

@ChrisW actually, in Ven. Sujato's translations, the Buddha does not (!) talk about permanence or impermanence with regard to "name". Instead, "form" is what is associated with impermanence. So we have to be very careful when talking about names being impermanent.  This was quite a surprise to me and led to this answer.

Everything is not impermanent. All composite phenomena are impermanent. It is an important distinction to be made. It is not a claim. It is an assertion about the nature of reality. That makes it an ontological claim. I am unaware of any such claim "nothing exists will exist forever".
But here are my two points about it-
If you are trying to understand the 'claim' within Buddhist perspective first, which is what I am assuming you are attempting to do (for you have posted a question on this site). Something which doesnt exist may come into existence at some point or it may not. There would be other conditions that determine that. The impermanence does not say anything related to anything that doesnt exist exist forever. YOu may find it useful to understand impermanence without such idea. Once you get what buddhists mean by impermanence, you may think about other problems as and how you like.

Your second question is also a question which is trying to understand something through buddhism but not understanding buddhism first. Your questions wil change.

As to answer you example question, yes we can and in fact that is how we live in the world. We are aware of a red apple as a red apple without thinking of it in terms of existence or permanence. These are conceptual categories that are applied according to specific rules. I again implore you to read about the concept of impermanence from reliable scholars and books of buddhism with wheich you can then think about particular problems.

Red can not always remain red. Everything is impermanent. Nirvana is neither permanent or impermanent.Sight is impermanent. Sound is impermanent. House is impermanent.Jobs are impermanent. All forms are impermanent. All feelings are impermanent.
Impermanent not only applies to existence but also to current state. Nothing can remain in its current state forever. It is bound to change and vanish. Similarly impermanence also means it is bound to arise again. All things, processes,feelings,perceptions,choices,consciousness  (all sanskaras) arise , change and vanish ; this is called impermanence.
Nirvana is a mystery it is neither stable nor unstable. It is extinguishment.Buddha even gives up extinguishment and says I am not extinguishment, extinguishment is not mine or myself.Except Nirvana all is impermanent.

By “quickly” I assume you mean an answer that does not take a lot of time to answer. One that is not TLDR; that goes on and on forever. But even overly long answers come to an end. Everything comes to an end. That’s neither metaphysical, nor ontological. It’s a fact. An event with a beginning and an end. We experience the start of the event and the end of the event. Some events are really short lived, others go on for millennia, like the erosion of a mountain, some even longer, like the Sun. But none continue ‘forever’ — not even the universe.
Do you grok the perspective here? It’s not some bullshit ‘objective’ conceptual view from nowhere, or a God’s Eye view overlooking all of metaphysical ‘eternity’. The Buddha wasn’t interested in metaphysics and he specifically eviscerated the ontological basis of Ontology.
And that is where there is a problem with your question: you are trying to twist impermanence into a metaphysical assertion, or an ontological one. It’s neither. It’s just the universal fact that no event lasts forever.
Emptiness is what you need to incorporate into your calculus, because impermanence and emptiness are two aspects of one truth. By not incorporating emptiness into your question, you are creating a golem out of impermanence.
Emptiness is a complex dialectical understanding about what “exists”, and different schools of Buddhism hold to varying applications of the doctrine. No ‘thing’ can be truly said to exist because no thing has an independent self-nature. You can say your fingers exist, but you’re really confusing yourself because fingers don’t exist on their own. I’ll leave it to you to expand on that.
I said “dialectical” because not even Emptiness exists as an independent thing.
And yet, though nothing exists in the naïve sense of that word, it’s not a void. It’s not nihilism. It is a plenum of events of varying durations. It is a fullness, rather than an emptiness. The point here being that Emptiness refers to the lack of independent selfhood, and that’s it.
It breaks ontology though.
“Exists” means being, in our common meaning of “to be.” And it implies that in being, something has an independent self-nature. It’s real. It’s material, etc., etc.
But that is just an illusion that happens because of our ignorance (lack of direct insight really).
So, can you experience “a shape being red without existence and "permanence"* in the standard way of using that word,” even if everything is impermanent? Of course! You do it anytime you look at something that is red.
Of course, the redness has little to do with the thing you are labeling as being red. (I’ll skip all the junior high-school physics lessons about why that is.) It has to do with the entire context of the moment, including the thing, you, and the light source, but also the time of day, the weather, etc. This is called codependent origination.
The crux of all this is that you have to distinguish between the common meaning of existence, and the Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness. Otherwise, you are just asserting erroneous interpretations of the very unique and very profound insights of the Buddha.
The End
See?!


text:
Questions about Chogyam Trungpa's unique presentation of the five skandhas?
I've recently begun reading the new book Cynicism and Magic - Intelligence & Intuition on the Buddhist Path by Chogyam Trungpa. This is my first book by this renowned teacher.
In Chapter 3 of this book I read an explanation of the five skandhas I've never seen before. The explanation mesmerized as it stirred memories of a profound experience long ago in my past. After reading this chapter I was struck by the seeming similarity to an answer I vaguely remembered reading on this site about dependent origination. With a little bit of search of the site and remembering it came from our Andriy - I've found it. This answer on D.O. (dependent origination) resonated deeply with me at the time although I was not really sure why.
Here is a small excerpt from Chapter 3, page 25-28 of the book:

The starting point for the skandhas is bewilderment. We are completely
bewildered. Not in the sense of stupidity or ignorance, but we are
bewildered in the sense of not having anything to lay our hands on.
Everybody possesses this bewilderment. Whether you call it emptiness,
openness, or groundlessness, it is always there.
THE FIRST SKANDHA: FORM
At some point, we try to make a home out of this situation. We would
like to build a secure home out of our bewilderment. We grope all over
the place, not having such a thing as ourselves. Though there is a
sense of flow, we make that flow itself an entity, a false entity.
That constant groping creates "you" and "other." A sense of duality, a
sense of separateness develops, which is a false notion. But that
falsity seems to be much more secure than the truth, which has no
substance and which we find somewhat overpowering. We don't want to
face reality -- it's too brilliant, too dazzling, too hot, too cold.
We would like to compromise and make ourselves comfortable.
You have no idea whether you have the right to do this or not, because
nobody's judging, and that groping process, trying to find a base of
some kind, creates a further sense of being lost. You begin to realize
that you have to provide your own ground, your own seat, your own rug,
your own chair, your own table, your own ceiling, and your own walls.
All kinds of things have to be created, otherwise there isn't anything
at all. That kind of basic panic, or perhaps you could call it basic
creativity, is the origin of the first skandha, what's known as the
skandha of form. You made everything out of nothing. There is a
dichotomy there: you haven't made it, but you have made it, somehow.
You made false out of true.
According to Buddha's teaching, this first experience of bewilderment
is called "basic bewilderment." It is basic to everything; it's a
constant experience in everyday life. It takes place in every
conversation, between activities, and during activities. Our life is
governed by this false notion of something that we are holding on to.
Traditionally this basic bewilderment is known as avidya. Vidya in
Sanskrit means "inner cognitive mind functioning," and the a at the
beginning means "non," so avidya means "ignorance." Avidya is not
cognition in the ordinary sense of the consciousness that functions in
daily life; it is the subconscious mind that has a sense of
double-ness, two-ness and duality. It has a sense of wholesomeness, a
sense of being. "I exist because the other exists. Therefore, I
could create my realm and have a sense of being." That experience also
becomes, ironically, very powerfully joyful to a lot of people. We say,
"Phew, we made it. We found it." We found what? We found it. There
is something, at least there is something. What is it? "I don't
know, but nevertheless there is something happening. Isn't that great?
Something is taking place." It is extremely hopeful. It's worth
celebrating. But at this point we are celebrating avidya. We are
celebrating that we are completely stupid.
And then stupidity replaces bewilderment. Of course, it is really
comfortable to be stupid. You could play dumb, as if nothing is
happening around you, as if everything's okay. You never look around
and you never ask questions. Questions such as "How?" "Why?" "When?"
"Where?" and "What?" are regarded as very dangerous to utter. We
simply say, "is," "am," and "I am." "I," if you just say it by itself,
feels somewhat shaky, unless you say "am," which qualifies the I-ness.
Then we need a further reference point and reassurance, so it becomes
"I am happy," or "I am sad," which qualifies the whole, stupid
statement. "I am happy," or "I am sad," or "I am such and such," is
the utterance of stupidity.
That's the basic form that we have created, which isn't to say -- and
I would like to emphasize this -- that this situation was created
"once upon a time," that there was a "fall of man" and then everybody
was bad and confused. This experience, this situation, takes place
constantly in our everyday lives. The basis of our operation, and
activity, is bewilderment and stupidity.
THE SECOND SKANDHA: FEELING
From there, we develop the second stage of ego's development, which is
the skandha of feeling. You feel piggish, dumb and you are growing --
now that you have created a solidified self. You have developed a big
head, a thick neck, and a swollen face. Your eyes are tiny, your mouth
can hardly move, and your ears are sinking in. You are almost a
cast-iron statue of "me" sitting there. You can't even turn your head
because your neck is stiff and swollen. You begin to feel that the
silence of the stupidity that you have created is somewhat suspicious.
There may be something wrong. You turn to look around, back and forth,
trying to develop some kind of feeling. From there, we grope around to
experience distinct feedback -- pleasurable, painful or neutral
feelings. It's like the traditional analogy of the pig exploring
piggery, trying to find food, trying to develop some kind of
discrimination. So if you come across a pebble, you reject it; if you
come across a piece of meat or fruit, you try to eat it up. It's a
very simple level of feeling, an animal or ape instinct.
Maybe you have developed an eloquent or beautiful style, as if nothing
is wrong. You try to hide your clumsiness and try to avoid letting
anybody else see it. We usually try to be very smooth and genteel.
However, that sense of animal-ness or ape-ness is still there, and is
particularly evident when we begin to deal with the sharp edges of our
experience, which we usually ignore. The sharp edges of situations
challenge our stupidity, and present the potential of nonexistence,
nonego. You try to be graceful, but never quite succeed. You feel as
if someone is watching over your shoulder all the time. You are being
extremely clumsy, but at the same time, you are inquisitive. You want
to explore the world outside. You want to give and take at a very
simple level. This is feeling.

I want to note a few points that I find unique about this presentation. Please let me know if you read this in the same way?

The emphasis on the fact what is described is a constant occurrence in every moment of life. Trungpa specifically emphasizes that he is not talking about a singular event, but rather "this situation, takes place constantly in our everyday lives."
In explaining form, Trungpa seems to be starting with the first link in D.O. of Avidya which he describes as basic bewilderment that comes about when primordial mind experiences a non-existent or groundless base. Groundless experience is described as overpowering and uncomfortable. This  uncomfortable-ness gives rise to bewilderment.
The description of the second skandha really comes across to me vividly as a description of how a baby might see the world. The other impression I get is of someone very confused or high trying to disguise the fact and play off like they are fine. Like someone freaking out or paranoid on weed, but acting as if - or not wanting to admit it to themselves - that everything is fine.

And now some questions... Is this presentation unique to Trungpa or can it be found in other dharma? Where can I find Trungpa laying out his presentation of D.O. explicitly? If you read the rest of the chapter he goes on to talk about the other skandhas and it all seems to me like a description of D.O. inline with Andriy's answer but he never mentions D.O. explicitly. Anyone else read this book yet? Any other impressions?

It seems like a fairly straightforward presentation of the skandhas.. I read his Shambala Warrior book, & the parts about using magic to get what we want made me uneasy, so I read up about him, & he does not seem a reliable person to follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa#Controversies

Hi, I am aware of the controversy around this teacher thanks.

I don’t find this presentation unique to CTR, though of course his style is unique.  He lays out the progression perhaps more clearly in The Development of Ego.  It’s the bit that starts with a grain of sand popping its head up.

Could you provide any quotes?

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-WB1Fzh_m8LjpIk16/Cutting%20Through%20Spiritual%20Materialism_djvu.txt
The chapter starts on page 121.

Also, you can hear him present this directly on talk 3 state of mind starting around minute 18 at https://www.chronicleproject.com/meditation-the-path-of-the-buddha/


text:
Looking for a historical text or a contemporary study of such text on how it is that this world is or isn't a "pure land"
Looking for a primary source (an actual historical text) or a secondary source (a formal study of a historical text or texts), on how it is that this world is or isn't a "pure land".
Presumably the Buddha Sakyamuni has or had a pure land? I've read a lot of Buddhist scholarship, so please don't be shy in recommending anything at all, in English or translatable somehow.

The bolded statements below show immediate birth into the Pure Land in this life itself.
The way I see this explanation is that the Pure Land is a "place of mind".
From Japanese Pure Land Philosophy on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Thinkers like Shinran and Shōkū, however, both understood the
utterance of nembutsu to be fulfilled practice because it arises from
the oneness of being and Buddha expressed as shinjin or taking refuge.
Further, because of this oneness, a person’s attainment of birth in
the Pure Land is completely settled in the immediate present.
The effects of the oneness are manifested not only in the occurrence
of birth in the Pure Land at death, but also in various ways in
present life. Shōkū speaks of a variety of benefits received in the
present by the person of the nembutsu, including the elimination of
the effects of past evil acts, extension of life, avoidance of various
calamities, protection of buddhas, seeing of Amida, and so on. One
should not pursue such benefits for their own sake, but they naturally
come about for the person of the nembutsu whose birth in the Pure Land
is settled. Thus, to express the condition of the nembutsu
practitioner, Shōkū even distinguishes two types of Pure Land “birth,”
“immediate birth” (sokuben ōjō) while remaining burdened with
afflicting passions in present life and birth into the Pure Land at
the time of death (tōtoku ōjō).

Yeah, that makes sense, and I already knew it. Maybe I'll just try some general pure land scholarship.

The question "how it is that this world is or isn't a "pure land". Presumably the Buddha Sakyamuni has or had a pure land?"
Thanks to your question and the fine answers I understood what "pure land" means. It is what some may call the  mind of peace, or the mind that does not vacillate.
Reading  SA 557 helps. Do not rely on its Pali counterpart AN 9.37, which has been modified to suit the Pali tradition.
The world according to Buddha is a person's individual experience. How is it brought about? It is done via data that enters through the six entry points, if any of those are touched, that leads to Impure lands. "Touch" has a specific meaning.
If the data enters via  these six places without being influenced by the signals the objects emit, then one has found the "Pure land"
An excerpt from SN 35.95
"Not impassioned with forms
— seeing a form with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind,
one knows
and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is seeing a form
— and even experiencing feeling —
it falls away and doesn't accumulate.
Thus one fares mindfully.
Thus not amassing stress,
one is said to be
in the presence of Unbinding"
Right mindfulness most succinctly stated in SN 47. 42 Sutta on Origination or Samudaya, offers us clues as to how to dwell in the pure land.
Based on this discussion "unbinding" in the above verse sounds to me like "Pure Land".
"Pure land" in other words would be a land without defilements, or a consciousness that is un-fastened.
When we begin naming the forms that arise in our minds, that leads to "Impure Lands"?.


text:
Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally
Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally. On the one hand, my question is a little facetious (if only because, at least within the laity, not doing so is impractical in the extreme: why would spiritual help be any different?). On the other, it may raise some interesting riddles.
What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that? And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells, at least if the suffering in them is, like I believe it kinda is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that virtue is loved, via granting us "free will" (don't quote me on that).

The riddles were too simple: Buddhas do not create hells and do not populate them (bodhisattvas aside), do not create the laws of karma; and the "one taste" of the dharmadhatu is about being free, not a lack of differentiation among moral agents. Right?

I guess you put "free will" in quotes because they claim that God is omnipotent which results in that paradox. Conversely, hell doesn't imply that the Buddha has no compassion.

well, I don't know if people are sad to be free to reject God's love and if that is equivalent to punishment, but it's one answer. But then I believe God can save anyone, so I dunno. Anyway, I"m not much of a theist @ChrisW

Do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas care and have compassion for all sentient beings equally.
Perhaps in practice the type of relationship varies -- see for example AN 4.111.
What does "the one taste of the dharmadhatu" mean except that?
I don't know about Mahayana, I think that from the Pali suttas "one taste" might be a reference to this (description of the dhamma-vinaya):

The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt.
In the same way, this teaching and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.
Ud 5.5

And, wouldn't that mean that a Buddha could in principle approve of hells
Imagine if someone who you love is in hell, I'd suppose it's difficult to approve of that.
Approving of someone's suffering sounds to me to be the very opposite of mudita (which is one of the four brahmaviharas).
like I believe it is in Christianity, to assure the good and beneficent that their virtue is loved (don't quote me on that)
There are different Christian sects with different doctrines, I heard one of them teach that hell is a self-imposed consequence of choosing to distance or to separate oneself from the love of God.
I imagine Buddhist doctrine is somewhat similar, i.e. that hell is a natural consequence of unskilful or unvirtuous actions and desires. Perhaps the definition of "skilful" is "eradicates suffering".
But the idea of Buddhas approving of suffering just sounds like anathema to me -- instead they would only approve of the skilful/noble ways that lead to non-suffering.
The closest I know of to the idea of suffering being good is this:

Is there anything like "positive suffering" for Buddhists?

And "wrathful" deities (from the Tibetan tradition):

What is a wrathful Buddha?

Thanks for the quote on "freedom", but the question was not quite insightful (which I do not mean except as an answer) enough to accept. e.g. the sutra you cited saying that the buddha "kills" people he cannot help: does that mean he violates the precepts or just that his teaching and compassion is lost to them (an absence of compassion is not necessarily malign)? Could use more discussion, yours or someone else's. For some reason, I always find your answers difficult in those terms.

The sutta explains what he means -- i.e. he stops talking with them. A bit like the American/English idiom, "to cut someone dead" which means to not converse with them socially. See also this answer, in which Channa fails to receive instruction. There's another longer answer here. But I just meant that the Buddha agreed to teach for the sake of those "who have ears to hear" and "little dust in their eyes" ...

Yes, I agree that's what the sutta says

Good householder, like a farmer would first work on best land, the Buddha and his good monks teach first to monks, second to devoted lay people, and out of compassion sometimes also wanderer of other sects. Why? Because even a single sentence, if they understand, would merit much for them. - SN 42.7
And, yes, monks aren't given to teach those showing disregard and stinginess.
Yet thoughts of compassion will in all ways remain toward all, incl. "hopeless" cases. There the most compassionate action is to leave them far.

“In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a person of conviction & confidence. Which three? One wants to see virtuous people. One wants to hear the True Dhamma. One’s awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, one lives at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. In these three instances, monks, one can be recognized as a person of conviction & confidence.”
One who wants to see virtuous ones,
& wants to hear the True Dhamma
—having subdued the stain of stinginess—
is said to have conviction.

And those with proper attitudes will be taught of course fist and possible all.


text:
Ven. Ajahn Chah's Teachings on Meditation practice as a westerner
For a long time I have wanted to ordain and I might be able to do it in 2-3 years from now. I read that as a westerner one can ordain in the Ven. Ajahn Chah tradition in Thailand. He went to great extends to create a monastery where especially westerners, non-thai speakers could ordain and learn the Dhamma.
My question is what kind of Meditation practice is being taught?

It appears that some teachers and traditions are more focused on samatha and jhana like Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Chah's disciple, Ajahn Brahm.
And then there are other teachers and traditions that are more focused on vipassana like Mahasi Sayadaw, Ledi Sayadaw, Sayagyi U Ba Khin and his student S.N. Goenka, Ajahn Tong Sirimangalo and his disciple, Ajahn Yuttadhammo.
Samatha is cultivation of serenity, and vipassana is cultivation of insight.
Ultimately both are needed.
From a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah entitled "Unshakeable Peace":

Meditation is like a single stick of wood. Insight (vipassanā) is one
end of the stick and serenity (samatha) the other. If we pick it up,
does only one end come up or do both? When anyone picks up a stick
both ends rise together. Which part then is vipassanā, and which is
samatha? Where does one end and the other begin? They are both the
mind.

Thank you so much for this! Really appreciate it.