text:
Body Scan Versus Feeling Breath Overall
Upon reading this post, I realized I always focused on the tip of the nose rather than the whole body, which may be less effective (for me). I was reminded of my Buddhist college teacher who said that meditation upon the body may cause psychosis or a mental breakdown for some.
Hence, I wonder: Is there any difference between mindfulness of the body (e.g. body scan) and focusing on the breath as it arises all across the body?
My teacher specified he believed focusing on the tip of the nose would avoid any such problems. Is meditation on the breath as it arises across the body a variant or even partial form of body meditation?
Thank you

What do you mean by "arises across rhs body."?

Based on my study of Buddhist texts, the guidance of my teachers, and my own experience - the most effective meditation (of this type) is to maintain awareness of the entire breath AND feelings, while releasing any mental/emotional blocks that you notice thanks to this awareness.
First of all, there is no magic in merely holding your attention - whether it is the tip of the nose or the diaphragm or abdomen or anything else. There is no magic button somewhere that will open some door if only you keep pushing, nothing like that.
Instead the key principle is to stop creating/maintaining trouble in your mental continuum. This is called "samatha". In order to stop creating/maintaining trouble we must notice it first. This is called "vipashyana". The better you see, the better you stop, the better you see.
When you watch the entire "body" of your inner experience, it is likely dominated by thoughts. This is expected in this era. There is another type of meditation for working with thoughts. But for this meditation you need to tune your awareness to predominantly watch everything but thoughts. This includes sensations of the body, the somatic components of emotions (the part of emotions felt in and around the body), and the emotional aspect of your mindstate (colloquially known as "the mood"). Sensations of the body include the muscle tonus, posture, and any acute neuroses manifesting in body shaking, tensions, or blocks. In the very center of this entire body of non-discursive experience is the cluster of sensations connected with breathing.
The breathing sits right on the intersection between physical and mental, which is what makes it special. If you center your awareness on the breathing, you will naturally include most of the bodily sensations on one side and most of the emotional aspect on the other side. This makes breathing a perfect focal point.
Specifically, it is the muscles involved in breathing in and breathing out. Because, if you watch carefully, you will notice that these muscles are extremely sensitive to all emotions. Any change in emotional "weather" results in the change of tension and affects the speed with which these muscles contract and relax. So by watching the state of muscles connected with breathing you can very clearly see your emotional state.
Once you learn to see the emotional state, you don't really have to focus on breathing. The point of all this exercise is not breathing, after all, it is perfection of samtha and vipashyana.
So the entire exercise of meditation is to watch all that, and to trace these blocks and neuroses to their emotional roots, so you can uproot them. This process of tracing may involve a little bit of thinking, but for the most part your job is to dwell on the feelings. The hangups are something you discover by seeing, not by reasoning.
Once you see them, you let them go, release them, dismiss them - whatever you want to call it. As said in the sutta, you watch your breathing in long, you watch your breathing out long, you watch your breathing in short, you watch your breathing out short, you watch your breathing while paying attention to the whole experience, you watch your breathing while relaxing the mind, you watch your breathing while gladdening the mind, you watch your breathing while liberating the mind.
This is not all there is to Buddhist meditation, and not all there is to Buddhism - but this is a big chunk. Just practicing this for a while (months? years?) will be of great benefit to most anyone.

Whatever you make the spatial focus point for breath meditation, nose, middle of skull, belly, feet, all focal points can have pros and cons. In general, breath meditation is very safe to do, but people can have all kinds of unique and strange physical/mental health problems, so really any kind of meditation can 'cause', induce, or aggravate psychosis.
In general, people with hypertension, prone to headaches, by focusing on the nostril area, to the exclusion to the rest of the body, is going to tend to exacerbate those problems. Focusing on the entire body, every cell in the body, is in general going to be much more conducive to relaxation, pacification, bliss, leading into deeper states of meditation. And that's what the Buddha teaches in steps 3 and 4 of the 16 steps of breath meditation.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Contents.html
With Each & Every Breath
A Guide To Meditation
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
(Geoffrey DeGraff)
The same site also has the book in various ebook formats (epub, mobi, etc.).
This is the best book available for a comprehensive guide on the topic of breath meditation, an authentic interpetation of the EBT (early buddhist texts).

If you overlook mindfulness of your body you run the risk of missing out on a lot of important self observations regarding the rupa and vedana skandhas (your bodily sensations and/or emotions). For that reason i'd recommend widening the scope of investigation.
The consecutive tetrads in anapanasati meditation provides a suggested framework for this, going from examining your breath, and further on to your body and so forth.
The full scope is covered in the anapanasati sutta.

The topic of Karma is only understood by a Buddha, but having said this I think if you have the karma to have a breakdown most probably this will happen if you meditate or not. The type of meditation may not play much of a factor as both are Vipssana type meditation. The probability can be lessened if you meditate.
There is some belief that doing Samatha meditation without a teacher and proper guidance may lead to breakdowns.
So finding a good teacher and having access to a teacher to clarify would diminish any possibility of break downs.
Part of breath meditation is mindfulness of the body. So is scanning the body. In this aspect, there is no difference in term of what frame of mindfulness (the type of sathipattana) is used.
In case you do not have a proper guide it is best that you take a course:

http://dhamma.org
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org

Just breathe.  If you spend your meditation time worrying about how you are breathing, then you are not meditating.

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications[sn41.006].
“On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, breathing in long, knows, ‘I breathe in long’; or breathing out long, knows, ‘I breathe out long’; breathing in short, knows, ‘I breathe in short’; or breathing out short, knows, ‘I breathe out short’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole (breath) body’; trains thus, ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the
whole (breath) body’; trains thus, ‘I shall breathe in calming the bodily formation;’ trains thus, ‘I shall breathe out calming the bodily formations’—on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world. “I say that this, bhikkhus, is a certain body among the bodies, namely, the breath. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world. [modified by me to make clear my preferred interpretation of mn118]
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. (Satipatthana Sutta)
Person consists of 6 element; one of the six is wind element, in & out breaths are wind element.
"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind. (Mn140)


text:
Detachment in breathing meditation
I read this answer, and it made me wonder something deeply; the answer seemed to imply strenuous or volitional attention was inferior to watching the mind for breath meditation, and that merely observing was more effective. I have heard such a statement many times elsewhere, that too much 'expecting' or 'grasping' inhibits concentration.
If this is so, how does a practitioner loosen their grip on the mind? How does one observe the breath with detachment?

Put this into one of your other questions. But here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kY4zVThpro
From experience I can only say that any 'forceful' or strenuous attention implies wrong concentration, leading to things like dissociation and other stuff. Hope this helps.  :)

Hahaha! Excellent question! What if the body did the breathing for the mind?
The biorhythm attached to the breath has its own tempo, as does the heart, the viscera, etc. When you exercise, fatigue accrues when there are disharmonies in those biorhythms - you don't get tired from being at rest.
The premise is enveloping one biorhythm in another, centralising your potential constant energy output. In other words your breathing is a result of your actions, therefore taking the conscious energy input (the mind) is on the action and not the breath.
To help wrap your head around this here is a practical exercise:

Find a quiet place.
Plant your feet comfortably wide apart, parallel.
Knees and hips remain stationary.
Tighten the belly.
Hands in 'prayer' comfortably above your heart (doesn't need to be touching the chest).
Following the movement of your latissimus dorsi muscles compress one side of your spine as if you were attempting to make your shoulder and your hip meet.
Gently shift that compression to the other side, and then back and forth. This will lead to a rocking motion which imitates two accordions working in tandem.
For those who know how to open the throat doing so may result in being able to hear your breath while your diaphragm remains stationary...
If you you do not know how to open your throat, continue the exercise while you think of other people yawning.
Listen for the gasping sound and experiment with the amount of movement required keep yourself going.

I have called it Bi-valve breathing and the benefits of the technique would be more clearly useful for martial artists however there are many applications.
Cultivate in harmony

Granted and agreed that too much expectation or grasping (investment in results) inhibits meditation.
Loosening the grip on the mind involves entering into a state of repose with respect to what is observed: Not reacting to what is being observed, not trying to influence of control it in any way, accepting it as it is or becomes and letting go of all ideation, interests, or accidental affects one has had on it.

"investment in results", does housholder Troll likes to go more deeper into it without much expecting results at the same time?

Connecting the lack of expectation, return to meditation, and expenditure of effort with valuable results is a combination of difficulty, but insight may yield it.

In contemporary practices, some control was exerted over the breath. In Anapanasatti you are just aware of the breath without trying to control or change the nature of the breath. This is the detachment one must exercise towards the breath.

Don't forget; Volition is not only a free ride into Yama's mouth from the nidana link called volition; But also a skandha... kinda like the Monopoly card that says: Do not pass go, Do not collect two hundred dollars, Go straight to jail.
Best to think of the Ox Herding pictures when getting the ol' mental elephant out of the mud. The Buddha just sat there as his "friend" lamented about what his "family" was doing to his house not getting a clear drink or bath... not seeing himself; Being the only one churning the great ocean and thrashing about in such attachment, in that very moment of recollection.
Breath is not an easy thing to hold as meditation; without noticing it? You may have not breathed in forty kalpas, and on noticing it? Pow right in the kisser.
Tactile sensation is an easier one; and breath thought of as a last resort... Zen meditation posture where the tips of the thumbs are lightly touching is my suggestion as a better grip... breath arouses different states of mind to notice arising and passing away... basically in seeing the rising and falling of the three poisons. As soon as one releases all three? Who knows how long has passed... an aeon in a moment. First glimpse of Nirvana... Which ever of the three attaches greed, hate or delusion at that bubble bursting? Never you mind as all three have returned like a council of Anagamin expecting you to be their new sacrificial lord and savior; to wallow and thrash about in their greed craving and desire.
Oh and you will thinking you have attained something other than letting go is an even worse attachment; as it only mires one in delusion. Eventually you'll come out on top of that animal be it greed, be it hate, or be it delusion. Keep on sitting and they will just eat each other out of house and home.
Jhana states and siddhi/riddhi are their biggest attachment and failings on the path... having grasped at one feeling and equating it to nirvana/nibbana thinking it attainment? Yours, mine, and countless others too.
Chasing jhana states and the siddhi/riddhi is the downfall of every meditator at some point.
After that point; One sees the truth of: "No god no brahma can be said to be the maker of all of this."
~Visuddhimagga
I have no problem saying that; that book is poison on the path to Buddhahood/Dakinihood from direct experience of it as a path and result. That quote above; Is really the only thing to be learned from it.

When meditation, observe your meditation object and not anything else.
Put effort in mind cultivation and dhamma cultivation, there is no short cut.  Be patient as the fruit will come if we continue to garden the tree well, our job is to garden (the process) not to attach to the fruit (end result).
Quote from here, by Ajahn Chah:

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do
not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it
be. What you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does an Arahant yawn? Or: What are the characteristics of the Noble Ones: Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi and Arahant?
The Abhidhamma seems to talk only in terms of eradications. According to the Abhidhamma the following defilements are eradicated (different list than the fetters):

by Sotāpanna: wrong view, avarice, envy, doubt;
by Sakadāgāmi: nothing; He 'just' eliminates grosser forms of lust, hatered and delusion;
by Anāgāmi: sensual greed; hatred and worry;
by Arahant: delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrong, restlessness, greed (other), conceit, sloth and torpor.

With other words: once eradicated those emotions will never ever show up in ones mind. So far, so good.
I'm interested now in the following:
What doe the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones?  The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.
Are there more? What are noticeable characteristics of the other stages?
So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?
So, I'm not really interested in the list of the fetters. But more in the characteristics by which Noble Ones could be recognised. Like the not breaking of the 5 precepts by the Sotāpanna.
This answer, for instance, is not what I'm looking for.
Edit:
In case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for characteristics noticeable by others. So, not internal ones only noticeable for the person in question.
Thanks. :)

What does the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones? The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.

It's from Sutta, not Abhidhamma. Sutta Pitaka Vol 10 : Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. pāṭaliyaSutta...

“Gāmaṇi, I know the destruction of living things, results for the destruction of living things, I know the method by which the destruction of living things after death lead to loss, to birth in hell.

...

“Here, Gāmaṇi, the noble disciple gives up and abstains from destroying the life of living things, gives up and abstains from taking the not given, gives up and abstains from sexual misbehavior, gives up and abstains from telling lies, gives up and abstains from slandering, gives up and abstains from rough talk, gives up and abstains from frivolous talk, giving up the coveting mind abstains from coveting, giving up the angry mind abstains from the defilement anger, giving up wrong view develops right view.

So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?

In short you can see this search result.
In detail, Sotapanna has the powerful craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings, but he understood the dependent origination (right relativity of five aggregates) already, so he clearly realizes the result of all unwholesome formations. However, he can completely decide to cease only the craving in the actions which caused by wrong view, such as the five precepts because he still has the powerful craving in five strings.
Sakadagami has the weak craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings. Sotapunna is just at the beginning to cease craving, but Sakadagami is at  more than half of the cessation way. It's similar to a fresh man and a senior because both of them still not graduate, but they are completely different from each other because of their experience in the university. Sakadagami is seasoned.
Anagami has no sexual feeling any more. He has no craving in any five strings. He still has only the sleepiness in meditation, the forgetfulness in meditation, the craving in being, the craving in not being, and the craving in the difference of own being and the others'.

A stream-enterer has become free from the identity-view, but s/he is not free from attachment to things. There are different phases for a stream-enterer in the process of the development of the mind and the most important one is the last(end) phase. A stream-enterer can have short or long periods of bliss but the defilements would start to effect his/her mind again. That's why it's not complete enlightenment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w
A once-returner has continous bliss and contentment and the mind states are not seriously effecting him/her anymore. Which means neither the external world nor the internal forms(thoughts, feelings, emotions) are not damaging the person's inner peace and stability anymore. But as there is no limit of development of the mind, even this stage is imperfect in comparison of non-returner etc. But some people (outside of Buddhism) refers this stage as "attaining enlightenment". Also there are different phases in each enlightenment stages so a "10 years old once-returner" would be definitely be different than the "few days old once-returner"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRquhvbfVp4
Non-returner is the stage that sensual desire and ill-will is completely purified from a person's mind. This is a very blissfull stage. But the weak intentions of "wanting to be something" or "wanting to do something" still exists in this stage.
Arahant stage is complete and permanent purification of the mind. There is no "karmic intentions" left in a person's mind. And "not yawning" or any other physical characteristics are not necessary to exist in a fully enlightened being. Also, old habits can continue to exist even in a fully enlightened being, but that old habits would not connected to greed anger and delusion for an Arahant. Here is a speech of an Arahant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Isd8tSOXw
These talks about the enlightenment stages are also helpful:
Once-returner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn-xKG2zP4w
Non-Returner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ELXPFD0t4

I assume that you're trying to find ways to correctly identify a person's level of attainment.
The problem with this approach is that the expression of anger is proof that one is not an Arahant. However, the absence of anger is not proof that one is an Arahant. The same applies to the other levels.
In fact, "expression of X is proof that one is not an Arahant" is easily applied to an Arahant, but not easily applied to the other levels, because it gets fuzzier due to the presence of one or more fetters. A stream enterer can get angry but he would not kill anyone. But not killing someone is not proof that he is a stream enterer. Meanwhile, getting angry doesn't have any relevance to stream entry in particular.
In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant.

Nice answer, thanks.
I guess that leaves us with just one certainty: the not-Arahant.
Meaning that an Arahant cannot: have anger in his mind, lust, sleepiness and so on and therefore can't react angry, with lust, get tired (yawn ;)) etc. So, if one would spot that in someone one could be certain that said person is not an Arahant.
On the other hand, one could ask question to get a hint of the level of wisdom and understanding. That should do it, or not?

A good collection of how to recognize an admirable person can be found in I: The Way to Stream Entry.
Keep in mind:

"'It's through ... ... that a person's ... may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning': Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

And one fact, seldom pointed out, Ariya puggala are free of the five kinds of stinginess, signs which help one probably most, i.e. generous people and never traders.
Feel given to get deeper into in a sphere given for such.
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining one but as a tiny door to escape)

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


text:
Compassion's Unity
My question is two-fold.
First, I believe that metta is classified as a meditation object involving concentration. Yet, in this study, researchers suggest it is a mixture of focused attention (e.g. shamatha) and open monitoring (e.g. vipassana). Does Buddhism suggest in certain passages or teachings that compassion is dual in this way?
More so, from my experience, compassion meditations deepens insight. Theravada involves a mixture of shamatha and vipassana, and the Mahayana involves (more so) a union of compassion and wisdom recognizing sunyata. I feel the depth of metta might occur from its union of concentration and insight (as suggested in the previous paragraph) and from metta itself and the realization of sunyata (implied by their merging promoted by the Mahayana). I feel all these things occur with metta in my experience.
When talking about metta a researcher described the occurrence of gamma waves:

Davidson found their brainwaves showed never-before-seen levels of gamma, one of the strongest types of brain waves,  theorized to appear when the different regions of the brain harmonize.

In Buddhism teachings and texts, is metta said to unite a variety of mental factors together?
Thank you

You are always a perfect subject for training metta, Eggman, yet it wouldn't unite other then wisdom very individual, if. In the case Eggman is giving other such possibilities consciously he might even gain some merits by it.
Maybe Eggman likes to perceive hungry small beings running around bind in search for food and even if given are not capable to grasp. When certain sense of samvega, reflecting ones own situation, comes along with it, you possible got the right "wave", possible gain even a first taste of food.
(note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining by joint-adventures but to escape from that very wheel)


text:
Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?
Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?
I do not, I suppose, mean because the "bodhisattva" enjoys life. I am trying to ask about "compassion" for some group or even individual, if that is possible?
I don't mind if the answer ignores the alledged universality of Buddha-nature, but would prefer if it was from that perspective.

just curious, not about to try to actualize that!

first karuna is not compassion. the pali word for compassion is anukampam.
second the buddha does not even claim he reached nibanna out of karuna, nor out of anukampam. The buddha claims that he taught out of anukampam though.

"Yes", the Buddha, since he thought of the best way for all in a non-naive way, compassionate (=wise) and naturally also didn't encourage anybody to such as "Bodhisattva-hood", as it is popular this days... for peoples livelihood and to justify their eating and harms.
If more interested in what the Buddha act-ually taught and what his way was, it's good if turning toward the "good teachings"

"Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to aging, not beyond aging, sees another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is aged, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely dropped away. (equal with illness and death)...

You may not like it since it would take away all of your excuses that you do no efforts for a better where it would be possible. The Buddha and wise can "live" with this normality of beings.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but to become free of "Buddha-nature"... an exit)


text:
Gratitude, Movement and Compassion
I noticed all the emotions mentioned in the title have a certain similarity. Does Buddhism talk about movement or gratitude?
Similarly, movement seems to occur spontaneously, but gratitude and compassion may be practised. Is movement more of a reaction, and less constructive on that basis?
Finally, movement seems akin to sympathetic joy. Would feeling sympathetic joy in itself -- i.e. the feeling or experience of it -- be constructive independently of practice, or is the implementation more constructive? In other words, would practise like meditation or action bring benefit much beyond merely feeling moved?
I guess I'm somewhat implying the question as well: Do experiences without effort (e.g. merely feeling compassion) have any potential for spiritual growth?
Thank you.

It seems to me that 'feeling moved' is just an emotional reaction. Meditation and practice are not about creating emotional reactions but about transcending them. The idea would be to establish who is moved, who is compassionate, who is emotional and so forth, as well as to engender compassion.
I suspect gratitude is just what happens naturally but maybe this should also be practiced. Perhaps this would be the same as practicing 'being moved' but such a practice would also require establishing who is being moved and even what 'moved' really means.
Experience without effort is not a practice but examining those experiences would be one. In short, I don't think there's anything in Buddhist practice one could call a free lunch.
All 'in my opinion' of course.

No, "experiences without effort do not have any potential for spiritual growth..." since you never really experienced the freedom of letting go, the first stages in doing merits and then even share it. How can you ever trace merits of others and even rejoice with them? So all your perceptions are defiled and intellectual constructed and as always told, no way at all to gain samadhi if not having practiced Generosity, Sharing merits... You need to come in a borderland first (access concentration) and to do so, you need to leave home first. If you have no base for remembering your goodness, never did such, how to remind, how to make anussati? The same with Budddha, Dhamma, Sangha. Never met, what do you call in mind aside of your defilements?
You are hopeless lost with your "Dhamma-friends" and "teachers" who do not even know the path themselves (never trained even generosity and goodness by themselves, having much lack of gratitude as well, devoted to materialism) are there not capable to teach what to do to reach samadhi. It's a product of precious actions and not something you can be taught.
One may hope long on the possibility to gain freedom without work, effort and starting by the gross things.
And Nyom ask redundant, always the same question with other words. Skepic-nature (similar to moha charita) is said to be incapable or hardly to ever gain anything. Yet think if even lazy and greedy in addition...
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment which keeps you bond here but as a door to exit if wished)


text:
Theories and Doctrines
It is common practice to speak of Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness and Doctrine of Two Truths.
Why do we call one a theory and the other a doctrine?

Per Google they seem to be used about the same: doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results), theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

@ChrisW - Aha. I seem to have gained a false impression of the way these words are commonly used, perhaps a quirk of what I happen to have read. Common practice is not what I thought it was. All is explained. This seems a very satisfactory answer.

Should I repost it as an answer instead of a comment?

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though. I wonder whether "two truths" is a doctrine because it's saying something about doctrine (i.e. that there are two different kinds of doctrine); whereas "emptiness" is a theory in that it might be saying something about "things" even regardless of doctrine. Maybe the former is analogous to studying "Eng. Lit." (perhaps unfalsifiable), and the latter analogous to studying "Physics" (perhaps requiring proof), but I don't know.

@ChrisW - If you post it as an answer I'll mark it as a satisfactory one. The difficulty for your second comment may be that both 'emptiness' and 'two truths' explain Reality regardless of doctrine and are mutually dependent. (if one is true so is the other). After all, the 'two truths is also called the 'two worlds'. I feel your first comment nails it. Perhaps 'theory' is used more by those who suspect Nagarjuna was speculating, I would prefer to use doctrine in both cases since 'theory' in the sciences indicates merely a conjecture.or likely story.  .

This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term. See also Laws and theories -- and note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic).

I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference (between "theory" and "doctrine"), or perhaps not one which every agrees on.
Per Google these seem to be used with the same frequency/popularity:

doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results)
theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though.
If you use the Ngram viewer (which I think only searches books), then "doctrine of emptiness" is the more popular.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=doctrine+of+emptiness%2C+theory+of+emptiness&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3
So published (book) authors tend to call it a doctrine.

As an aside -- not about Buddhism but about the way the word "theory" is used in English -- the word "theory" isn't necessarily pejorative (e.g. meaning "speculative , unproven, and wrong"): especially when scientists used that word.
For example it tends to be called "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", not because that's wrong or unproven, but apparently because it's an explanation (perhaps even akin to a doctrine) not just an observation.
This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term.
See also Laws and theories explained on Physics.SE.
Also note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic) -- a "law" needn't be "more true" than a "theory".
But the shades of meaning are a bit subtle, perhaps you can't infer much about why people might use or the other.
Certainly "doctrine" though, anyway, right?

Thanks Chris. I think this deals with the issue. It seems we're free to choose how to use the words. I wonder why 'theory of two truths' is never used. .  .  .

A Theory may refer to any group of hypothesis or facts used to explain some aspect of nature.
The concept of Doctrine may overlap with the definition of theory, with the difference that the former might contain some prescriptive ideas or principles to guide some actions. In your question, the Doctrine of Two Truths might understood as a guide to study the Dharma, telling you how to interpret some of the teachings.
Kind regards!

Thanks Brian. This doesn't quite answer the question though. What would be wrong with calling them the doctrine of emptiness and the theory of two truths? .

Great question! I have no idea. That's why I used that many 'might's and 'may's. I just felt that my answer may (again) complement another future answer. Kind regards!

Why are the labeling of these ideas important? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic, it’s a sincere question).

@Erik - I write about this stuff and want to say something quite bold.  I'm checking my facts. .

@PeterJ Fair enough!


text:
Interspacing Meditation Practice
I have been practising breathing meditation for some time. Now, I feel compassion meditation would benefit me more. I was thinking of practising 30 min of each every day.
Would such interspaced practise (one session breathing, one session compassion, etc.) be beneficial, or discouraged?
In other words, is it better to stick to the same practice on the long term?

It is said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mood. I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on.

@brothereric I'm not trying to complain, and thank you for posting, but FYI When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead? Generally a "good answer" is based on something -- perhaps a reference to literature, and/or personal experience -- so I think what you posted might be better posted as an answer instead of a comment.

While it is sometimes said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness. While I think compassion practices are a good idea, translating the mentally felt compassion is more of a problem. Personally, I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on. (Chris edit as you like)
Here is a study concerning mindfulness meditation not making a difference in terms of prompting compassionate actions:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/17/mindfulness-training-does-not-foster-empathy-and-can-even-make-narcissists-worse/
Here is an article saying more empathy isn't what we need:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40483014/actually-we-dont-need-more-empathy


text:
Mindfulness of Action versus Perception
I noticed that when I'm mindful of what I'm doing, it seems different and even more helpful than merely paying attention to the senses, i.e. vision or sound.
Are there any noted difference between these two practices?

In the beginning the practitioner is generally learning the mindfulness practise. And this happens to everybody who starts this path. All of the mindfulness objects are valid and when the practitioner becomes trained in the practise, all of the mindfulness objects would be ok. for him/her.
Also in the beginning all kinds of thoughts can come to the practitioner's mind. "I'm not practising right" or "I must do something different" etc. Learning to live in the now is challenging because human mind is opposite of the "now", it is always running to the future or to the past. So it is better to be patient and insist on the practise. Seeing, hearing, washing the hands, walking, wearing the socks, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, driving the car, sitting on the bus, observing the feelings, emotions, thoughts, doing the job, listening to a dhamma talk, doing formal sitting or walking meditation etc. Every moment of life is a big opportunity to be in the now. The practise must be done all the time and If the practitioner forgets the practise, s/he must return to the practise any time in daily life. This is the only way to learn mindfulness and eventually realize Nibbana. Ofcourse becoming free from the physical and mental addictions, staying away from the crazy parts of the life and "being a good person" are parts of this process. The Buddhist precepts and principles are very helpful for a person to have these qualities so the mindfulness practise can be really fruitful.
It is better to not differentiate the mindfulness objects but keeping on the same mindfulness object/doing simples things(like just being mindful of "walking" instead of looking all around) makes the practise easier. But a practitioner must be ok. of all of the mindfulness objects.
So it is gradual process and learning to be mindful in daily life takes time. With practise and insistence mindfulness practise would become a learned habit for a practitioner.

Mindful action is more common to walking meditation, where coordination of senses with activity is required. If one is distracted, one runs into a tree or trips. When walking slowly, one must balance on one foot, etc.
Mindful perception is more common in sitting meditation, where subtler perceptions are involved.
Both are important. When the subtler mindful perception is overcome with drowsiness, active walking meditation helps. When the coarser active walking meditation prevents subtle study, sitting meditation helps. Adapt your practice according to circumstance as needed.

Actually those 2 practices are only parts of a much bigger and more comprehensive system of mindfulness training as detailed in MN 10, which divides into 4 main domains:
1. Body: 14 sub-domains: the breath, the 4 postures, 4 great elements, foulness of the body, etc.
2. Feeling: 1 sub-domain
3. Mind: 1 sub-domain
4. Phenomena: 5 sub-domains: Five hindrances, Five aggregates, Six sense bases, etc.


text:
Looking for a Buddhist Monastery in UK, Ireland, Scotland or Australia - All traditions are welcome
I have a friend from Sri Lanka who is a Theravada Buddhist monk. He is 36 (soon 37) years old and have been a monk for 19 years.
He resides in SL and has just finished an english language course and have asked me if I could help find a Buddhist monastery, where he could stay for 2-3 years. His goal is to practice and improve his language skills to eventually be able to give a full Dhamma talk in english.
It must a non-Sri Lankan monastery. Bhante would like to work with all Buddhist traditions. If you want to know more about him he has a FB profile. He has also written a short description of himself (this description is part of an email that Bhante himself has sent to monasteries - I have taken the self-description-part and put here):

"Dear Venerable sir/madam
My name is Venerable Buttala Samithawansha and I am 36 years old. I currently reside in a monastery in Colombo Sri Lanka. I am a fully ordained Buddhist monk.
I grew up as a poor farmer's son and was not able to get my formal education particularly English, however I managed to join the British Council where I completed pre intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3, intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3 and upper intermediate levels 1 and 2.
I stopped school at 17 years old and was ordained at 18 years old.
I would be very grateful if you know of any scholarships or funding to facilitate people who are in my situation.I am keen to improve my English skills under guidance on the native English speakers. I would like to share Buddhist teachings in English language in the future.
My most humble gratitude .
Yours faithfully,
Reverend Samithawansha"

Does anyone know of a Buddhist monastery, where that would be possible?
Thank you.

Forest Sangha United Kingdom branches - Amaravati, Cittaviveka, etc.

Thank you. Will look further into it.


text:
Perfectionism in Meditation
When I first started metta bhavana, everything went very well and I generated a strong feeling. Ironically, I am now anxious in doing this meditation (i.e. I skip some) because I feel I might not recreate the same quality as before. I feel this is definitely the wrong way of seeing, but I can almost not help it.
Are there any suggestions towards this type of anxiety/perfectionism?

Metta bhavana's supposed to be a selfless dedication practice, ie. there's just metta flowing without "I", "mine", or "myself" as the source of generation. As long as there's the notion of "I" am generating this metta, there'll be anxiety/perfectionism there. So, when there's metta, there's just metta, not "I am generating this metta".

I can only recommend looking up Ajahn Jayasaro's Dhamma talks. Some videos on meditation & wholesoms intentions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuBCCPJDWE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MNnxLmKe0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoWjDEmIO6k
As you will notice, he explicitly points out that Buddhism is not just meditation. Buddhism is a holistic training, where Conduct (Sila) & what you are doing outside of the meditation cushion, shouldn't be neglected.

Ironically, I am now anxious in doing this meditation (i.e. I skip some) because I feel I might not recreate the same quality as before.

I can only recommend to be aware of ideas with "should", "must", "got to" etc. Usually we're not conscious of these rigid rules, but by seeing our thoughts (which are largely spawned by these rules), we can clearly see that every extreme emotions has a rigid "must". This is craving.
If "I must feel pleasant feelings in the next meditation session" doesn't happen, people often evaluate this as awful, that is, they think this is 100% bad &/or they say that THEY CANNOT STAND IT, but they can stand it if they are being honest with themselves, although it being a struggle.
You better stick to an attitude such as: "I would like to experience pleasant feelings, but it doesn't have to be the way I want. I can live perfectly without it".
Also, have an attitude of learning (from experiences). Meaning, see feelings and thoughts as transient phenomena.

Can you explain what you mean by things such as "musts" or "must nots" are linked with extreme emotionality? I feel I experience a lot of such extreme ways of approaching situations, but I never related this to emotion before.

If these musts get violated then you will experience 'extreme negative emotions', such as depression , anger, unhealthy jealousy, shame, guilt, hurt, anxiety.

If you want to know more about this let me know.

Yeah, I'd be curious to know

You can look up 'Windy Dryden' on Google Book. There are a lot of previews there. His ideas are all based on Albert Ellis, founder of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT), the pioneering Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). What it all comes down to is the ABC, A= Activating Event (mentally or externally), B= Belief (either rigid or flexible), and C= Cosequences (in thinking, feeling and behavioural tendencies). Disputing irrational beliefs is one of the central techniques in REBT.

The perfectionism is required to attain Jhana.
The anxiety/worry can be ceased by the memory and understanding in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th(15th,16th,17th) of the path of purification. In short, the professor of Jhana at Pa-Auk can advise you.
People often worry about what they don't proficiently know the way to manage. It's called Vicikiccha and Uddhacca hindrances.


text:
Mindfulness of Watching Youtube
I noticed that upon watching Youtube videos, I seem to become sucked into merely watching stuff online. I almost 'forget' to do other things. Oddly, this doesn't happen while reading online, or creating something.
Can one directly relate this to lack of mindfulness? Is any such instance of 'forgetting' usually linked with mindfulness?
More so, why might reading not generate this type of absorbed state?
Thank you

The technology/internet makes things more complex, makes the mind more active. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter other social media platforms or other internet sites etc.(and now with digital things people is able to engage in these things all the time because internet is not only in computers but now it is in people's "hands" all the time). One thing after another arises in the mind and people identify with everything that arises in their minds.
So people are in the mode of "This is important, another evil coming in!".."A text message..It must be important".."Somebody just posted something in facebook"..And the attention is completely absorbed by these things. It was bad already before the digital things but now it is amplified. It causes more stuff in the mind. One thought after another, one text message after another, one facebook post after another, one unpleasant memory or anxious thought after another. And imagine living like that for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. What kind of "person" would that life-style and mind state produce? Angry or anxious..Continuously dissatisfied..Continuously needing desperately the next thing. And life becomes permanently "never enough".
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/86df2c99/dms3rep/multi/mobile/Internet_addicts_suffer_from_withdrawal_symptoms_Camino_Recovery-500x462.jpg
And it is same for the music as well. In the cafes they generaly play the same songs that becomes famous in the last times. I heard a song recently in a cafe that had this words: "I would not stop the blood that would shed for the sake of you". And I opened the youtube clip of the song and I saw that the singer is smiling with deep "joy" while saying these words. And I read the comments under that video-clip and countless of people wrote(and ofcourse still writing) praising, glorifying things about the singer and the song.
To give another example of the internet's effect on the human mind: I saw that an important character in another internet platform(And that person is the "idol", "guide", "teacher", "leader" admirable person for that group of people) had a picture that gives the message of glorifying and advocating killing.  The picture is no longer on that profile(in my computer I can't see a picture in that profile anymore) but we all know that these things exist in all of the internet world.
That's the reason why watching youtube, social media and many other things in internet makes people more absorbed than simple reading of harmless things.
The Buddhist path leads it's followers to realize that humans are not the reference point. Most areas of internet leads people to the opposite direction. While accepting and realizing this (humans are not the reference point) is the hardest thing for the meditators(but it is necessary to find permanent peace and freedom), it is not a useful thing to engage in internet too much. One of the best solution for these things is to have a sangha(living or spending a lot of time with meditators). As Thich Nhat Hanh said:"Don't be a drop of water". In many places of the world this is hard but in Western and Buddhist countries plus Australia this is possible. With having a Sangha a person can more easily save the mind from these things or at least diminish the time that s/he spends in the craziness of the internet world.
And yes it is about lack of mindfulness but internet world naturally leads people to unmindful state. So the solution is try to be mindful while spending the time internet and gradually spend less time. So the mindfulness would not diminish and replaced by the internet world's effects.

Apparently web sites like that are designed to be engaging -- to keep your attention -- and to give a short-term reward (a "like", a bit of news, half-a-spoonful of friendship, a selection of "recommended" videos which adapts according to what you've chosen to watch in the past).
I've blocked them on my computer as a bad habit -- an "ex" habit now -- and have been happier and more productive, less distracted, more self-control, since I've done that.
I also enabled "Hide Hot Network Questions" in the Settings/Preferences/Sidebar section of my user profile here on SE, so now I see more or less what I want to see -- not advertising for other "interesting" topics -- when I visit this site.

Reading isn't the same, I guess for for a few reasons:

It doesn't "attack" the senses in the way that colour, moving video, sound, and a busy UI do.
It's static, there isn't a feeling of, "if I don't experience this now it will be gone and I'll miss it and be the poorer for having missed it". Whereas "reading the internet" is famously "like drinking from a fire-hose".
You have to use your mind to read, e.g. to engage with a book, to understand or get something out of it -- it isn't as easy to read mindlessly (though I have read for entertainment or to "pass the time" when I was younger, e.g. when travelling or waiting for something).

There many are "editors" (i.e. software applications which are designed for authors writhing text) which are described as having a "zen" presentation style -- see e.g. ZEN editors for distraction free writing -- they hide the UI clutter so you see what you're writing and aren't (visually) distracted by other things on-screen.
I found this little blog entry helpful too -- ADHD Organization/Disorganization -- it's not very long. It helped me become aware of the effect of seeing untidiness, the importance -- or benefit or pleasure, maybe sukha -- (e.g. mental hygiene) of cleaning up after yourself, of keeping your environment "zen", as you go along.

Maybe some of the "getting sucked in" is only the "medium cool" effect as per Marshall McLuhan:
"McLuhan coined the expression "the medium is the message" and the term global village, and predicted the World Wide Web almost 30 years before it was invented. He was a fixture in media discourse in the late 1960s, though his influence began to wane in the early 1970s. In the years after his death, he continued to be a controversial figure in academic circles. With the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web, interest was renewed in his work and perspective." - wikipedia entry titled Marshall "McLuhan"
The addictive effect of TV, and in particular here, TV content on computers and cell phones, have a strongly addictive effect. McLuhan calls this "the medium is the massage" - and in Buddhism we call addiction what? Attachment, craving, clinging. It is most powerful in the most passive, cool media, but it is powerful effect in interactive media such as gaming. It is still media however, and its important to note, like any other addiction, it reprograms the brain.
The purpose of many Buddhist interventions is to reprogram the brain, so be careful around toxic media.


text:
Mental Factor which Unites Other Factors
If I think of the Noble Eightfold Path for example, or even the Abhidhamma traditions, I feel mental factors are clearly related, but noted as separate.
In sum, my question mainly is: What conditions cause mental factors/qualities to aggregate, i.e. lead to the development of others, and what conditions cause them to remain separate? Is there a unique condition (e.g. a mental factor) that unites others in the mind?
In non-Buddhist sources, strong pleasure as in addiction seems to channel the mind towards doing but one thing, to exclude in a way causing shame. But positive emotions such as joy tend to broaden one's perspective and capacity of action. A researcher on this says:

But as the sun rises in the sky, things begin to change. Your blinders
  around your face begin to open and your world quite literally expands.
  You can see more. Your world is larger.
Just as the warmth of sunlight opens flowers, the warmth of positivity
  opens our minds and hearts. It changes our visual perspective at a
  really basic level, along with our ability to see our common humanity
  with others.

Can this be related to this question?
Thank you

Your questions sounds somewhat similar to Visākha's question to the nun Dhammadinnā in MN44:

“But ma’am, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”
“That grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

In summary, desire and greed perpetuate the five grasping aggregates as identity. The dissolution of identity (your "condition that causes them to separate") is another one of visakha's questions later on in the sutta:

“But ma’am, how does identity view not come about?”
“It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view does not come about.”


text:
Is continuity just causation?
Is continuity just causation?
When a fire is caused by a spark, is that the same kind of continuity as there is in the dependent origination of the skandhas, just with different causes and effects?

When we speak about causation we're used to thinking in terms of discrete entities interacting and causing distinct events. This is normal in materialistic view, ever obsessed with discreteness. However, when we speak about continuity, we are in the analogue world - where everything morphs and flows, and where individual "things" and "events" are more like the sums of the amplitudes of multiple intersecting waves rather than truly isolated entities.
Also, in Dependent Origination we are not as much talking about causation as we're talking about what Charles Sanders Peirce called "the habit formation", or the tendency of tendencies to self-perpetuate and grow.
You know how in men toilets there is a self-perpetuating tendency for the floor under the urinal to get wet? (It self-perpetuates by causing men to stand further away.) The same exact principle is behind Dependent Origination, and, according to Peirce, behind Evolution at large.
Mind is integrated information, regardless of media. Accumulation of regular patterns leads to development of mind's faculty of recognition, and mind's tendency to form habits and to seek comfort in familiar experiences. This in turns leads to emergence of purposeful activity towards comfortable experiences. This tendency self-perpetuates and develops into a full-blown Umwelt, complete with "objects", "other living beings" and "I".
So yeah, continuity and causation are two alternative descriptions of essentially same thing, but the tendency for habit formation is the real key in D.O.

Hi Andrei! What do you think about considering that habit-formation process as a material event as well, since what is perceived as a mental, subjective experience has a correlate (and some may say a cause) in the brain with its molecular and cellular changes? According to our current understading, every thought or mental process occurs due to previous neuronal activity. What is your opinion on this perspective? Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

Well, material is part of it, of course. Matter is media for information (loosely speaking; strictly speaking they are same thing). But mind is not limited to brain, information is everywhere.

Generally yes, but the simile might be not the best, since spark can easy be taken as beginning point (which drives one back to confusions of "science") and it's causality of a wheel might not expected. So better take fuel or nourishment of an long ongoing fire here, the wandering on, a point of beginning can not be seen.
By uprooting the cause, the effect does not arise. By, or with the, total uprooting, destructing of this very avijja, not-knowing, ignorance, without remaining, birth, aging, sickness and death, all the suffering... comes to an end.
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or other wheel-binding undertakings and entertainments, fuel, but as a means for lighten and release only, an end of continuing)

Dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) does not mean "causation"; even though dependent origination is an example of "causation"; just as a "poodle" is an example of a "dog". In Pali, the word for "causation" is idappaccayatā.
A fire from a spark is a purely physical causal phenomenon. Whatever continuance of the original spark that exists in the fire is the subject matter of the laws of physics; which are idappaccayatā but are not paṭiccasamuppāda.
Paṭiccasamuppāda definitively refers to twelve mental conditions that result in the origination of mental suffering (dukkha). The Pali scriptures say:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mind-&-body. From mind-&-bodyas a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes attachment. From
  attachment as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes (self-identity) birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Since "continuance" is the impression of a period of "permanence", it appears unrelated to "causation", which refers to the causes & conditions that result in "continuance" rather than "continuance" itself.
Two Pali words for "continuance" are "ṭhiti" & "ṭhita" (both apparently derived from "tiṭṭhati"). In the most extreme permanent case, ""ṭhita" is used for the eternal nature of the Laws of Nature, which are permanent (for example, in SN 12.20 about the law of how suffering arises and AN 3.136 about the three characteristics).
Below from chapter SN 26 is a (rarely discussed) modified teaching about the dependent origination of suffering, which includes "continuance".

Yo kho tejodhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti
  abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso uppādo, rogānaṃ ṭhiti,
  jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo
The arising, continuation (ṭhiti), production and manifestation of the
  fire element,  is the arising of suffering, the continuation of
  disease and the manifestation of old age and death.
SN 26.9

Most Buddhists would interpret the verse above as referring to the arising of physical phenomena however the meaning is mental. All of the relevant words, such as "production" and "manifestation" are generally used for mental phenomena.
Thus, the manifestation, production, arising and continuance of the fire element means, for example, the mind gaining a period of pleasure from eating a delicious hot food and producing self-clinging or self-identity from this attachment & delight towards this delicious warming hot food.
Or enjoying & indulging in lying in the hot sun or in a hot bath; or complaining about hot weather or screaming about a burn on the skin. This is the meaning of arising, continuation, production and manifestation of the fire element.
The arising, continuation, production and manifestation of the fire element does not refer to a bush fire caused by the sun or lava flowing from a volcano.
It refers to the dependant origination of craving, attachment, self-becoming and suffering towards the fire element. The suffering occurs due to the aging-&-death of the self-identifying attached to that fire element.


text:
Can an Icchantika make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?
For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas, do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?
All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

Wikipedia says that all schools -- except the Fanxian school, and one version of one sutra -- say "yes, all beings can." Is that not what you were asking?

i'll edit my question, thanks! @ChrisW

Can Mickey Mouse make any form of progress along the Buddhist path? :)

Bodhisattvas vow to liberate all sentient beings, so????

"Possessing" grave wrong view (niyata micca ditthi) is one of the 6 reasons why one is, better does (since holding a view is an action) incapable to grow in Dhamma, incapable in reaching even paths or fruits, yes. But! ...to think that the view of a being is something inherent, lasting, not conditioned, for it's own, is already near niyata micca ditthi. So beware of Mohayanas.

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:
(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

Those who hold such views are for the most already on the "highway to hell".
Those views are actually not seldom, even under "Buddhist" and therefore it's very importand, even if having tendency toward such views, to do an effort and seek out for people with right view to assosiate with. See How to address wrong view?
To be incapable to change one view has to do with "stupidy" or mental defect, and as such is also a root reason that no grow in Dhamma can be attained for the time such may last, arises.
Thinking that being have such as a inherent Buddhanature or not, the current potential to awakening, or not, such is also grave wrong view. And it's mostly the case that things which one makes himself busy outwardly are very related to ones own case and so take care.
Whether there are being generally not able to gain way out, how many beings would reach awakening... all such answers the Buddha did not gave into, using to teach "simply" cause and effect, "from this comes that", "with the arising of this, that arises", and it's good to watch out simply this, giving much faith into focus just on causes, for effects of them come by themself.
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment supposed to bind but as an exit out of the wheel here.)

An icchantika is a person with a dark mind who change when Good circumstanses appear again.And the buddanature who can never be destroyed will be shown in that person,and he will be om the path to liberation. Nirvana.

In Swedish. En icchantika är en person med ett utplånat samvete,dock ej evigt då buddanaturen och nirvana är det enda bestående.


text:
In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions?
In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions? Or is it always the same and independent of causal conditions?

Yes consummate nature is inflected by past present and future conditions but it is not inflected by time. Do any other mahayana object?
If something is composed of multiple parts and one of those parts is timeless and not inflected by time. Then the whole cannot be inflected by time even if it is composed of another part that is inflected by karma (including past present and future conditions).
My advice: become enlightened and try to prove whether or not you are existing in reality as we know it, or not.

It's good (though not required) if an answer is "based on" something -- perhaps a "reference" (to scripture), and/or personal "experience". A simple yes/no answer isn't very informative -- e.g. it doesn't tell the OP how to "know for themselves" whether something is true.

All conditions are impermanent. Consummate nature arises due to conditions created by conditioners. Because conditions change in future therefore consummate nature is inflected by a sense of future time when new conditions will arise and old conditions will decay.
Therefore not getting involved with sanskharas of consummateness , one should seek cessation of craving by breaking the chain of dependent origination.


text:
Are these translations of the Sutta Nipata correct?
A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas:

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:
Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.
Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.
Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.
Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.
Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.
Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.
Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't
  opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like
  animal sacrifice, caste system

Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

Please refer to the Introduction to the Sutta Nipata given here -  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/introduction.html

The Three Vedas were ancient religious texts that constituted the core of the brahmanical education. A person who had memorized these texts was called an attainer-of-knowledge (vedagū) or a three-knowledge person (tevijja). The Buddha adopted these terms and applied them to himself on the basis of the three knowledges he had gained on the night of his awakening: knowledge of previous births, knowledge of the passing away and re-arising of beings through the power of their actions, and knowledge of the ending of the mental effluents (āsava). He also asserted that the brahmanical use of the terms vedagū and tevijja was illegitimate, and that these words found their legitimate meaning only in a person who had mastered the same three knowledges that he had (3:9).

Also, this -

Arahants are also given the title vedagū—attainer-of-knowledge—as a way of asserting that their knowledge is superior to that of the three brahmanical Vedas (2:8, 3:4–6, 3:12, 4:9, 4:15, 5 Prologue, 5:4).

You're on this site as well? :)

Yeah, I am dissatisfied with vedAnta. I also find anattA more appealing. :)

Interesting, very curious to know about your story.
Back in 2012, I read the book What the Buddha taught just after reading a translation of the Bhagavad Gita, which I found impressive. The part when Anatta was explained really shocked me at the core. I sat in meditation and I realized suddenly, that my craving for meditative bliss was also suffering and stopped making things happen. Suddenly, my whole body was encompassed with bliss. That is how my Dhamma journey started.

The quotes may be real, but their translation is probably not.
Sanskrit (and Pali) root "ved-" stands for gnosis, knowledge, understanding. The name of Vedas comes from the same root, they are supposed to be collections of (religious) knowledge. Using this coincidence, it looks like instead of translating the words such as vedehi, vedagu etc. as e.g. having known, expert/erudite etc. - they left them untranslated and made it look as if they were referring to the Vedas.
For example in the first phrase they have quoted

...Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ...

probably means something like

...having known and having learned, thanks to encountering Dharma...

There is no way vidva and vedehi can refer to Vedas, because these are clearly verb forms, not nouns.
And so on.

As people have commented here, the Buddha used the same term prevalent at that time but gave his new interpretations. In these cases too, he was using brahmanical words setting a new bar for them from the point of view of his own Buddhist teachings. Try to check some of the recent translations done by Bhikkhu Bodhi or Thanisaro. You can also check these two excellent cites for any such issues in the future: (1)  sutta central (2) www.accesstoinsight.org.
Veda comes from the sanskrit or pali root "vid", which simply means to know or experience etc. There are many sanskrit or pali words constructed out of this root. Veda is one, which could mean "brahmanical text" but also could mean "knowledge" in general. In the case of these verses, it is more like knowledge, that is related with the fourfold paths such as stream-enterer upto arhathood.
I will give one example among the verses (mis)quoted. The translation is garbled, of course. This is often done in the "Hindu" sites to show that "Veda" is the foremost source of knowledge and there couldn't be anything in this world, including the teachings of the Buddha, which would not be related with their "almighty" Veda.

Suddhaṭṭhakasuttaṃ
798. Sayaṃ samādāya vatāni jantu,
uccāvacaṃ gacchati saññasatto;
Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ,
na uccāvacaṃ gacchati bhūripañño.

The second paada is glossed in the commentary in the following way:

vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammanti paramatthavidvā ca arahā catūhi maggañāṇavedehi catusaccadhammaṃ abhisameccāti.

It can be roughly translated as "A wise who knows the ultimate, an arahat, penitrates four noble truths by the knowledge of fourfold paths i.e., srataapatti etc.


text:
Fearful of Compassion
I started practising compassion meditation, and initially it worked very well. Yet, I feel more averse to it than initially, and when I meditate I sometimes experience a kind of distorted facial expression, almost as if I experienced pain. Part of my psychology-related background leads me to think this is either fear of compassion, or even repressed contents surfacing to consciousness.
1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?
2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?
3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?
Thank you

Study and listen to J.K. You will get your answer. Not that J.K. will answer your questions, but he will inspire you to think and by cross questioning yourself you will arrive at a answer which will be your answer. Not spoon feded by others. Question is whether you are interested in solving your problem or do you want a ready-made solution.

Compassion starts with self-compassion so fear seems an odd reaction. Perhaps you could have more compassion for your fear.  .  . . .

what are you thinking in this meditation? Is it about a person? And also where Buddha has adviced to practice this meditation.

1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?
2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?
3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?
Beginning with the third question, the most effective meditation to start with is that which brings up repressed or subconscious thoughts and feelings and gets rid of them. (Bodhidharma called this cleaning house.) Anything thought that makes you uncomfortable can help you to identify these negative feelings. Once you identify a negative feeling towards someone, use Lester Levenson's Release Technique to let go of it, and then change it to a feeling of love. While the Contemplation on the Four Sublime States has you begin with people you care about, I think it's better to do the opposite. Make a list of everyone you dislike, beginning with those you dislike the most. Go down the list and work on loving each person in order; don't move on until you feel only love for each. Do this daily until you feel love for everyone. Jeffery Martin calls this the Lester Levenson Love Exercise.

Brahma Vihara (Metta, Karuna, and Mudita) should be practiced in conjunction with Upekkha.
There is a near enemy and far enemy of Karuna. Generally, you should contemplate on Anicca Dukkha and Anatta. Please read the following article.https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/4_Brahma_Viharas#Near_enemies_and_Far_enemies_of_Brahma_Viharas

If we were to spread a bucket of clean water (i.e., metta) about the garden, it would bring joy to all. If we were to spread a bucket of filthy, smelly, contaminated water about the garden, we would hestitate, hold back the harm.
Or if we had resentment in our hearts towards some people, we would struggle to aim the bucket of clean water that way but not this way. We would exhaust ourselves in our stingy dispensation of clean water, struggling in resentment.
Resentment, ill-will and anger are toxic. If we hold these unwholesome things in our hearts, then we can't really invite others into our hearts without a little house-cleaning.
Consider the mildest of these, which is resentment. AN9.30 explains how to get rid of resentment.

Nine methods to get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me …’ … ‘They will do wrong to me …’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike …’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike …’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

This list of considerations is remarkable in its opposition to commonly held world views that uphold retribution as justified (e.g., witness the proliferation of revenge movies.)
Suppose we are driving with metta and someone cuts us off in traffic or honks their horn at us. At that very moment, metta tends to fly out of our hands as they clench into fists and our hearts fill with resentment. If we have any "chips on our shoulders", metta meditation is impossible. First we have to get rid of the resentment.


text:
Forgoing Enlightenment
On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

It's a dangerous question, because it invites potential arguments between supporters of particular sects, but I will try to answer in good faith anyway.
The goal of Buddhism is attainment of Nirvana. For simplicity, let's characterize Nirvana as "unconditional peace". As per the Noble Truth such unconditional peace is only possible when there is absolutely no craving. Now, what is craving? Craving is an obsessive desire for something other than what is present here and now. The absence of craving then is 100% satisfaction in the here and now. Such satisfaction can only be unconditional if craving is absent regardless of circumstances. In other words, unconditional peace is the absence of craving for the circumstances to be different than they are now.
Achieving this level of absence of craving and thus mastering the unconditional Peace is the culmination of the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, if someone has attained this Peace, would they have an inner reason to stay away from society? If we think logically, the answer must be a firm and resounding "no!". For one, because in the absence of craving there can't be aversion to society. Second, unconditional peace is, by definition, imperturbable. Finally, staying in society creates possibilities for teaching Dharma, which helps reduce global level of suffering†, something a true self-less Buddhist would be happy to facilitate.
So, as it turns out, an already Enlightened mind would absolutely choose to stay in society to keep helping others.
Now, if an Enlightened mind (~"a Buddha") would lead such lifestyle, why wouldn't we, his students, model after our teacher and lead the same lifestyle even now, before we are fully enlightened? Especially if working on our own Enlightenment, it turns out, is not in conflict with "staying behind"! In fact, upon a closer examination, dropping our aversion to society and our craving for a trascendental escape, is exactly the kind of "letting go" that is required for attaining the unconditional peace of no-craving.
So if we can drop our aversion to society, accept everything in its imperfection, and help other sentient beings reduce the level of dukkha, by abandoning craving - turns out we are de-facto living the state of Buddha that we have supposedly forgone! But if we abandon society and work on our own Liberation, it turns out we in fact are acting out of our selfish aversion and selfish craving! So the path of a Bodhisattva is logically consistent with Dharma while the path of an arahant hides a logical contradiction. Or perhaps the path of an arahant may be a valid provisional training, but at the advanced stages if one were to truly abandon craving, the switch over to Mahayana would happen anyway.
And this is roughly the line of reasoning that led to emergence of Mahayana's ideal of Bodhisattva. I may have made some minor mistakes in connecting the chain of ideas, but the overall argument is more or less valid, I think.
I can't speak for edge cases though. There's obviously a possibility that someone would use this logic to cover up their laziness and complacency. They may even have false views regarding the self, and engage in dukkha-creating activities such as stealing. This is not out of question. But this does not negate the core idea of Mahayana, which is based on the valid understanding of The Goal, The Second and Third Noble Truths, and their real-life implications.

__
†note how this says "global level of suffering" without mentioning any "sentient beings" - although suffering (dukkha) is, of course, a subjective phenomenon.
P.S.
As for the Right Intent (defined as intent directed away from Three Poisons and toward dispassion) and Right Effort (defined as effort to stop mindstates conducive to dukkha, and cultivate those conducive to Enlightenment & Peace) - I don't think they are in any conflict with the Bodhisattva's vow. You can perfectly practice both while living in society, and the subject of your practice doesn't even have to be limited to yourself. You can perfectly cultivate dispassion and wholesome mindstates in everyone, without artificially separating other people from yourself.

Is the premise of the OP true -- i.e. that "choosing to be a bodhisattva" implies "a person chooses to forgo enlightenment" and "intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened"?

In one sense, yes - in another sense, no. As I showed above, forgoing (a craving for) nirvana is in fact an act of cessation that serves as a factor of the path. As for the efforts and srivings... It depends what exactly we're talking about. Maybe OP had something specific in mind, some real-life case, but I don't know.

I imagined that forgoing the view that there's an "individual" to be involved in "individual liberation" might be an act of cessation too. But the idea of someone's saying "I could be enlightened but I won't be" -- like "I could study and pass the exam, graduate and leave school, but I won't, I'll stay behind to help the other students" -- sounds like a caricature or a (very) common misconception, or isn't it? And maybe an outsider's view of what the choice is.

Yeah, I think it's a typical case of not-enough-understanding turning into a caricature image. Another example of what I call "reification" (grasping at an invalid generalization out of partial knowledge). Correct about the "individual", too.

Is there something in the bodhisattva vow, or something like that, which suggests that aspirants intentionally try to forgo enlightenment? Is it only an implied choice, or an explicit one -- e.g. implied in that it (e.g. helping beings in the future) is) logically contradictory to the doctrine that enlightenment will stop future rebirth, and so whatever extent "bodhisattva" is associated with "rebirth", it's incompatible with that doctrine of enlightenment?

The traditional vow does not mention forgoing enlightenment or nirvana, it just says "sentient beings are numberless - we vow to save them" etc. It even says "the Buddha's way is incomparable, we vow to attain it". So, not forgoing explicitly, no. But I think in some other early Mahayana texts if I remember correctly there is an explicit assertion. Ahh, interesting, I see what you're saying. No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that attaining the no-rebirth would make one useless to others. Moreover, I think Mahayana sees arahantship more like temporary hiding than the final attainment...

... As for the Buddha and those who attained full Enlightenment, the official position I heard Tibetan lamas expressing is that these enlightened folks are "present in another way" and still helping, even if not incarnating in an individual way. (In my own interpretation, these are folksy references to the continuity of information, which is the actual ontological layer underneath the "entity-centric" perception that gives rise to both the naive materialistic notion that we are our bodies as well as the naive religious notion of reincarnation.)

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my question. What I am really asking concerns 2 of the 8 elements of the Noble 8fold Path; that is, right intention and right striving. I am referring to versions of the Bodhisattva vow (because I have many different descriptions of it) that specifically state that someone is forgoing enlightenment so they can work for the benefit of others. Does such a vow violate those 2 elements of the path (create wrong intention and wrong effort/striving) in that individual?

Enlightenment (bodhi) was never said to be the goal in "early Buddhism", there it was called liberation or nibbana. Enlightenment is a quintessentially Mahayanistic concept, attaining a full-blown Buddhahood. So Bodhisattvas forgo"entering Nirvana" (=the isolated peace of an arahant), not "attainment of Enlightenment" (=the knowledge of all modes & non-abiding Nirvana). Which means you still keep on working, just not for your own personal quiet peace anymore. You go "to the marketplace" and there keep working on the enlightenment, by dealing with everything and helping others, that's the idea.

In Theravada, stream-enterers, once-returners & non-returners have eradicated the view the five aggregates are a real self. However, they may have the ridiculous impossible aspiration to save others. While the Pali suttas say it is not possible to save all sentient beings, the Pali suttas also refer to "rebirth by aspiration" (MN 120). While the meaning of MN 120 may not be absolutely clear, it provides some doctrinal support that a Mahayana Bodhisattva can choose their future course.

Within the Hindu context of the Buddha's teaching it was common to worship Gods and intend to live with those gods after death. MN120 addresses that type of intention, I believe. My question involves someone also resolving on something other than complete destruction of the taints: continued efforts to help others and improve the world. Does such a choice fall under Wrong Intention & Wrong Effort/Striving?

My question involves someone also resolving on something other than complete destruction of the taints: continued efforts to help others and improve the world. Does such a choice fall under Wrong Intention & Wrong Effort/Striving?
I think that Mahayana doctrine is that there are two or three types of "obscuration" ...

Obscuration of disturbing emotions. The emotions of the five poisons: anger, desire, stupidity, pride and envy

Obscuration of habitual tendencies

Obscuration of conceptual knowledge. The subtle obscuration of holding on to the concepts of subject, object and action.
The final obscuration of dualistic knowledge preventing the full attainment of buddhahood.

... or four types if you add karmic obscurations.
And I think that the first two of the above are what you called "the taints".
Anyway I think that the Theravada doctrine is that the Buddha is or was an arahant but -- more than that -- also able to teach.
So I assume that someone who would aspire to be a bodhisattva isn't doing that "instead of" the destruction of the taints -- i.e. that they're motivated/intending to destroy the taints, and (as well as, not instead of) the karmic and cognitive obscurations.
And -- as outlined in these comments -- that it's not about "forgoing enlightenment".

My question only refers to those who choose to "forgo enlightenment or nirvana" so that they can "help others." Is that a choice the Buddha supported?

I think your question was about the bodhisattva vow, and that the question misunderstands or misrepresents what that vow is -- i.e. I think that it isn't a vow to forgo enlightenment. I realise it's a popular belief (that it's a vow to forgo enlightenment) but I think it's a misbelief.

So you are saying that one who chooses to forgo enlightenment for any reason is not supported within the Buddha's dispensation? That's what I'm asking. I know that the original formulations of the Bodhisattva vow in no way involves such a choice to postpone one's personal enlightenment but I know many people personally who practice this vow in the way I'm describing: choosing to work for the betterment of others instead of putting all their energy into gaining their own personal enlightenment.

A problem with labels like “is a buddhist” or “is not a buddhist” is that it can mean different things to different people. All you’re quantifying is how accurately a specific word pertains to the “being” of a Buddhist. If they are mostly Buddhist, then they are mostly Buddhist.
My problem with religion is that people take them too literally. First of all, knowledge and truth is a physical construct, and life is rather irrational if you think about it. Logically, it is illogical, but why would there be no purpose? I think life is an irrational gift, and that we should all respect the garden we’re grown it! Whether or not you are technically a Buddhist is irrelevant :)

Buddhism is grounded in the Teachings of a single man. What conforms to those Teachings is Buddhism and what does not, is not. I understand that many spiritual seekers today are not concerned with this but this forum assumes that there are some that do.

@KilayaCiriello I agree, just saying labels are human and physically comprehendible, and that basing spiritualism on reason seems flawed, from a logical standpoint.

Your questions, householder Kilaya Ciriello, seem to be very serious to get a release from doubt, so my person tries to answer them for this purpose:
On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist?
Taken the modern word "Buddhist" as Upasaka, lay follower, one can be considered as such if having gone for refuge to the Tripple Gems:

from the Mahanama Sutta
"Venerable sir, in what way is one a lay follower?"[1]
"Mahanama, inasmuch as one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, has gone to the Sangha for refuge; in that way, Mahanama, one is a lay follower."

It's necessary to note that the refuge does not require the desire to gain Arahathood, but can be for a good wandering on in Samsara, birth, aging, sickness and death, as well. No such needed to "be" a Upasaka.
(Worthy to note that actually less western, modern, those far away from Sangha, ever really having taken refuge, yet subsisting on something they assume as such.)
If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected?
There is no such base, but independent, say one has taken refuge, yet holds wrong views but does not "renounce" the refuge, one is still considered as follower as long as one, having taken the Dhamma as refuge, aware of it, not actually renounces in doing on knowingly. By rejecting deliberatly the Dhamma, one can hardly be expected as follower. One who merely sticks in wrong views would be, as an action by the community (spoken here form the monks, which has been given tools for such), suspended, send away, yet still part, still member (just in short mentioned as example)
Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others?
The same here like before. One, as a layperson, would simply be recognized as a "unvirtouse" Upasaka. As one who has left home under the tripple Gems, certain actions could lead one to be expelled from the community, even to an amount of no more able to rejoin. Note that householders, following, are not really considered as carrier and so do not underlie certain "justice", considered as being not that harmful for the religion as homeless, monks, could.
I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit.
"bodhisattvas", at large, can seldom be considered as refugees, seldom have gone for refuge. Do seldom anything the Buddha adviced, are seldom after such.
Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?
Bodhisattas, by it's nature, would fall out of their aspiration if having heard the good Dhamma, gained right view, wisdom. There can be no encouragement for such aspirations outside the heritage walking, be found, yet, as told at the beginning, if one is not really aware of ones wrong view, such a person can still be considered as "Buddhist", known as one holding on wrong views, if actually having gone to the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma, his Sangha, for refuge.
Some further food for thoughts on "Can a Bodhisattva be considered as 'Buddhist'", here, incl space for discussion: Is it possible that a Bodhisttva is a member of the Sangha?
More on what is called a Dhammika (Buddist by heart and deeds): Dhammika Sutta: Dhammika.
It's, how ever, possible good to note, that the Buddha did not expect all his follower to walk the most staight way. One after a good life here, a life dedicated merely to the world, the doing of merits, the increasing od Paramis, perfections... all this does not necessary, rather less, contradict the refuge and what is praised by the wise. So there is in now way something to blame on generosity, help... in harmless ways and in accordiance and following actually the Buddhas advices, of the Dhamma. It's btw. posible the best access to the path n t's whole to go after the aspiration seeking to help all beings an get on the way thing good and better understood, foremost the 1st Noble Truth, suffering and soon it's cause.
Sadhu for your ways, as displayed in your persons introductions, btw. and may they soon lead householder gain paths fruits and highest liberation.
(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange and entertainments, holding one in this wheel, but as a means for release from it)