text:
Doubts and Ungathered Mind
I have asked questions many times here, and I have come to the conclusion that my mind easily tricks me. I speculate and doubt to a very great extent, and feel aversion to fear and effort; I will easily try to avoid such states.
I feel these are all symptoms of an ungathered mind. For example, I often feel afraid of getting hurt from running as exercise, or just that it is too effortful; the consequence is that I avoid it. Similar with meditation, wherein I find sitting too effortful.
But with meditation, there arises another problem: I also doubt, but I doubt all aspects of meditation. I doubt mostly the breath, and whether it is the right object, and whether I am meditating correctly. Ironically, I have read in meditation texts that the breath is the object best used against speculation and delusion.
But, no matter how I examine the matter, I'm still uncertain that breathing meditation is right for me; I always tell myself "Maybe it represses my emotions," or "Such a person advised against it," or even "Maybe I'm meditating all wrong."
Are these obviously just doubts which, despite seemingly seeing this, I cannot shake? Does anyone have other advice on this?

I don't see how sb can answer this question when truly you are the one who needs to examine himself,I would suggest to listen to your thoughts not control them

It seems pretty clear to me that your mind is divided. There is a conflict between a superficial mind and a deep mind. The superficial side is the hunting dog mind that gets excited about ideas it gets from the world of people: "Oh! I should exercise!", "Oh! I should meditate", "Oh! They say this would be good for me!", "Oh! They say this is the right thing to strive for!". While the deep mind is not so gullible and does not want to run around like a hunting dog chasing pigeons. As a result of that, you get this sense of fighting between something you think you "should" do on one hand, and not really feeling like doing it, on the other.
This happens when we lose touch with our deeper mind and identify with the superficial. In fact, our deeper mind is always the closest, but we tend to learn to suppress it. Nevertheless, it makes its presence felt by resisting the efforts of superficial mind. Good news is, the fact that it can resist so well, means that it is strong - despite you not giving it a chance to live and express itself.
What my teacher recommended in this case, is to take a step back and see at what point you have alienated a part of yourself. What usually happens is, we want to get something we really want (a job, a girlfriend, a particular place of living), that happens to be incompatible with the deep part of ourselves. At this point we make a deal with our deep mind and ask it to step aside and shut-up for a while, which it kindly does out of its spirit of all-acceptance that is its main characteristic. Deep mind is a mind of great love. So it agrees to step aside, like a good dog, or a favorite childhood toy, or a magic creature from the fairy-tale which used to be our best friend and now gets completely forgotten. The compromise grows and grows, until our life turns into a city without [dogs|toys|magic], but the feeling of something missing remains, and something forgotten reminds of itself through that resistance and doubts.
What my teacher recommended in this case is to sit down and ask yourself: "what do I want?", "what do I really-really want, that I had put aside and forgotten?" - getting into this mood of asking yourself what you want helps re-unite with the deep mind. There is nothing better than getting it back. It is like getting your life back. From that point on it becomes a matter of cultivating this "being truly yourself" mind until it grows strong again. Cultivating deep mind is cultivating energy of your spontaneous fundamental goodness, your own spontaneous Buddha nature, that always knows what's right.
The truth is, you don't have to meditate. You don't have to run. Running was meant to be a way to refresh your body and stir the energy, not a way to torture yourself. So ask your deep mind, and listen to your body - it will tell you how it wants to refresh its energy. Same with meditation. It was meant to be a way to experience peace, to experience suchness - with no judgement, no pressure to reach some target state, to come back to your deep mind - and instead we are turning it into its opposite, some sort of dukkha-hell.
Makes sense? It's a matter of switching perspective. When you get the right perspective, you start working towards the peace of being fully yourself, instead of endlessly frustrating yourself with superficial conflict. It may be scary at first, to be authentically yourself, and may lead to changes in your life situation - and to temporary trouble - but it is endlessly better than trying to do something you don't really believe in.

This guide by Ajahn Brahm on doubt, one of the five hindrances, may be helpful to you:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
  should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
  "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
  even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
  that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
  at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
  clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
  map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
  territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
  one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
  teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
  team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
  will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
  follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
  also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
  is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
  the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
  highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
  trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
  Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
  trust in the driver.

Here is my thought from studying and practicing.  Doubt is one of 5 hindrances, and to deal with it, Buddha said to let go.  doubting about something keeps you tied down to that subject you cant get away from.  You might even create an internal dialogue about the subject.  This is mindfulness comes into help.  To be mindful of breathing, you need to interrupt that "internal dialogue" to be mindful of breathing.  Even just a briefest moment, you see that when you focus of something else, you are free from that subject of doubt.
It is a thin line between "letting go of doubt" and english expression "ignorant is a bliss".
Buddha taught us to be liberated from 5 skandha, and doubt is what keeps you tied down to the subject.
have you ever noticed that to focus on breathing, you have to drop (or let go) doubt about any subject?  even if it is just a flash of light, then you try to extend that briefest moment a little bit longer.

Meditation is effortful in general; it is tough to sit still in one place and get rid of restless mind. Restless mind would try to find all kinds of excuses and aversion toward sitting for it seeks pleasure and reward. But this kind of mind has to eventually become tranquil with training. It takes substantial amount of effort to do so, but this is training nonetheless.
It is not easy to achieve tranquility at first, it is also not easy to practise at all. It is probably the hardest task you will ever have to accomplish in your whole life.
As for doubts, every practitioner has such doubts that you mentioned. We wouldn't be humans, but plankton if we had no doubts at all. Such is the way of our conceptual mind, the restless mind, the monkey mind.
Worth mentioning is the fact that meditation and seeing things as they are is not a conceptual thing to understand. It is not in the intellectual layer to realise. No matter how you try you will never truly acknowledge this only by intellectual reasoning, the only conclusion will you ever get by this is more internal quarrel and chatter.
All of the cessation and happiness that Buddha spoke of, is to be experienced; only there you will fully acknowledge it. Remember what Buddha said, Buddhism is heading against the stream all the time.
Let Go, Let Go, Let Go (Ajahn Sumedho)


text:
Can knowledge of suchness or emptiness be achieved through cessation of conceptualization?
Inspired by this comment and this answer I wonder, can the first bhumi be gained via the complete cessation of conceptualization? ie, if one achieves the complete cessation of all concepts is this equivalent to the direct realization of emptiness? If so, then what of someone who arises from meditation and continues to have no conceptions... is this a Buddha?
Is the complete cessation of conceptualization equivalent to complete and perfect enlightenment? If not, then what has been achieved with the complete cessation of conceptualization? Anything?
It is my understanding that at least Je Tsongkhapa does not agree that this is equivalent to realizing suchness. From the Lamrim Chenmo Volume 3 page 16:

It is said that the Chinese master Ha-shang (Hva-shang), having seen
  this sutra’s very clear and undeniable explanation that insight is
  discerning wisdom, exclaimed, “I don’t know how this can be a sutra!”
  and kicked it. He did this because the sutra’s statement did not agree
  with his claim that since all conceptualization of any sort involves
  an apprehension of signs, you should dispense with discerning wisdom
  and meditate on the profound meaning by not bringing anything to mind.
  This approach has a great number of adherents.

There are many other places where Je Tsongkhapa points out sutras that seemingly do not agree that the complete cessation of conceptualization is the same thing as discerning wisdom or the direct realization of emptiness which is said to unlock the first bhumi.
In my understanding, the direct realization of emptiness is a mental direct perception that does not involve conception. Perception is defined in contrast to conception where the latter is elaboration, proliferation of an object that generally takes place subsequent to perception. Still, it is said in my tradition that even with the complete cessation of conception and engaging only in direct perceptions that the appearance of inherently existing objects persists in sentient beings. It is said that other than a Buddha, only in an Arya being's meditative equipoise on emptiness does the non-perception of inherent existence occur.
Is this a matter of disagreement within modern traditions of Tibetan Buddhism? What are the other viewpoints?

"Thought" is a rather vague concept. When two people say "cessation of conceptualization" they could mean two completely (or partially) different things.
When I wrote that comment and that answer, I did not mean that one has to stop all thinking. My teachers and my books all agree that complete suppression of thinking is not the target state nor the path to the target state. One Lama said: "we're not training to be a rock or a donkey".
Instead, cessation of reification is more like going from "discrete" thinking to "analogue" thinking. Meaning, you no longer have a notion of particulars, everything becomes fluid and somewhat ambiguous but also multidimensional and "quantum". As Dogen said: "Enlightenment is ambiguity".
Something like this (in different words) is described in e.g. "Mahamudra: The Moonlight" by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (Chapter 3).

The idea that cessation of conceptualization is enlightenment occurs to minds that are flooded by conceptualization. Its like a very poor & hungry man believing ordinary food & housing is a luxury.
The cessation of conceptualization is merely samadhi and unrelated to enlightenment, apart from being a very helpful & vital part of the path.
The Lord Buddha did not teach cessation of conceptualization is enlightenment. Since most animals & insects & rocks & trees do not have conceptualization; how could most animals & insects & rocks & trees be enlightened?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What weight has the kamma when forced to do bad things as a child?
Example: A child (+/- 8yrs old) is forced to kill an animal. It doesn't want to, but has to because it is threatened by abusive adults.
Wanting to kill or not doesn't, I think, matter when it comes to the bad kamma performed here. And yes, since it is the child that performs the killing, the bad kamma is done by the child and the child will bear the negative results of that kamma.
But, what about the weight of that kamma? Since the child had no option but to obey. How heavy is that kamma? How heavy can the results be?
Does anyone have an idea (preferably with source to text in the Pali canon)?
(Related: What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse? . Except that that question was about the cause, mine is about the weight of kamma.)

Good question. Do you welcome answers from perspective of Mahayana as well?

Sure, every bit of info helps. :)

I don't think it possible for sentient beings to objectively quantify the weight of karma. In other words, there is no objective answer to this question that will properly quantify the weight of negative karma relative to other acts.
What is clear is that negative karma will almost certainly accrue. How do we know this? Because being forced to kill is unsatisfactory. It is disturbing to the mind. It will leave a negative imprint.
Now, is it possible that some child is actually an advanced Bodhisattva or Buddha manifesting as a child and what appears to us mundane sentient beings as a child being forced to do harm could in actuality be an enlightened being manifesting and doing acts that are ultimately beneficial motivated by compassion? Yes! This is possible. In such a case, no negative karma will accrue for that manifesting being. That being's mind will not be disturbed even the slightest bit.
However, if the child is an ordinary sentient being then the predicament is negative and the fruits of it are going to be at least in part negative. Why do I say at least in part? Maybe the child also has a thought of compassion for whatever sentient being it is forced to kill. That compassionate thought is virtuous and will without a doubt manifest positive fruit. Nevertheless, negative thoughts most certainly will also arise and give negative fruit.
Anyway, I don't think we can quantify it. I think we can say it is most likely some negative stuff going on and children forced to do this type of thing are going to be negatively impacted both in the moment when they are forced into a negative act and in the future as negative fruit ripens.
One thing to keep in mind is that karma is not justice. It is not like there is some court or bank that is keeping tally of our good/bad deeds and doling out consequences accordingly. It is not like that. Karma and the law of karma just are the way things work. Children don't deserve this kind of thing happening to them. On the other hand, they don't not deserve it either. Deserve / not deserve, does not apply. Karma just is.

I do agree, deserve/not deserve doesn't apply, kamma has nothing to do with deserving. I will give some thought to the role of the compassionate thought in this situation. You've raised an interesting point with this. Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer this somewhat difficult question. It's appreciated. :)

Karma is something very complected to fully comprehend and Buddha advice not to attempt comprehending it as a result.
Remember that Karma is intentional action.
In this example the child does build up Karma for killing. But did he enjoy or be happy about it. Will this lead to further killing by him compared to someone who killed on his/her own free will. All this are part of the equations. There is a difference in reluctantly killing, which can be done even by a stream entered person.
People who forced him/her to kill will also build up  karma from it. And they are more likely to repeat the pattern and build up more karma as a result compared to child.
Also the karma of the animal that was killed also played a part in it. But non of it is an excuse.
Also child might regret his action and live in guilt. Which is also bad karma. In Theravada buddhism at least, I have heard a story about a monk who became a snake after death as a result of indulging in guilt of breaking off a leaf of a tree (This original action of breaking a leaf was not even intentional nor bad karma but the guilt was).
One important thing to take here is that it is incorrect to say the child had no choice and he had to obay. This is incorrect. Every human being is free and can choose to disobey if they want. Such action may have consequences, so is killing.
This thinking of we had no choice, is a result of years of conditioning our minds to be obedient, conformatives instead of being free.

"There is a difference in reluctantly killing, which can be done even by a stream entered person." <-- Have you a source for this? That would be much appreciated. It would help me a lot if I could read about this.

Dont have a direct canonical reference. But cording to my teachers the relationship between killing and a stream enterent is described as "panathi patha pativirathi hothi". Meaning not interested in harming a living being. Which does not mean he/she will not take a life ("veeramani"). Only sins that a stream enterent will absolutely not commit are five heinous crimes.
Found this link. But not a direct canonical reference. https://blog.nirvanadhamma.com/2010/06/lets-understand-about-real-sila.html

Very long post. I'll read it with care. Thank you. :)
Also, I thought about the 'no choice' thingy. I think it would have been better to say : a child sees no other choice than to obey. An adult has a better position to see more options. And even adults have difficulty in that. Which would fit your argument of conditioning.

What will be the case when child kills a butterfly or caterpillar or ants, out of curiosity or ignorance or pure fun? Here he or she doesnt have an intention to cause delibrate suffering as the child is not advised in dhamma or is ignorant of suffering.

@BodhiWalker I like to think that a child who would do that isn't very conscious of an insect's being "a living being" (and so the kammic effect of their action may be less) -- but, I don't know, I think that it's difficult in general to assess or to predict the effects of kamma ... being able to do so is a supernatural ability -- something which the Buddha could do.

I killed a lot when I was young. I now regret doing so. On that basis, my regret serves as a condition for my abandonment of killing in the present and hopefully in the future.

@CrisW and BodhiWalker. Being ignorant does not really free you from consiquances. Remember that ignorance is the root of suffering. Iradicate ignorance and you iradicate suffering. While a child will not hurt a butterfly out of anger he will do that out of greed/desiar. Only action committed with alobha (non greed), adwesha (non anger), amoha (no ignorance) are void of karma. But ofcourse not all karma are created equal. But as you might already see this is very complicated and not something a buddhist is adviced to think too much about.

@YesheTenley Another good point: regret as a condition for different behaviour now. :)

@Medhiṇī Indeed, there is a documentary that just popped up on Netflix where a former nazi skinhead expresses such regret and says something bordering on real understanding and compassion in the present: https://www.netflix.com/title/80994804

Buddha has said "intention is kamma". The action done without any intention to do so is not binding. Here the child is not having any kind of intention ,so with this as the base ,action done by him is not burdened upon him. It is burdened upon the person making to do so. The intention is governed by the sankharas . If at all physical action does not happen but still anyone has intention to do so is binding.  The intention itself is governed by the greed,hate etc. If intention is there and you do not do physical action . For not doing physical action there might be several reasons. Not getting proper situation, mind controlling it by saying no this is not good etc . But the arisal of intention can only be dispensed with when observing it equanimously. Not by controlling it through mind. It only suppresses it for the time being, again to crop up on receipt of  stimulating inputs from sensory bases. There are n number of intentions (seeds of kamma) stored . So one is always under misconception that though bad intention aroused  ,i have not done any physical action upon it ,i have controlled myself. But this misconception does not relieve from the burden of the same. Buddha has said there are kaya kamma,vacha kamma and mental kamma. Behind all of these are the volitions/sankharas, which are generated by us only out of the avijja/ignorance of anicca,anatta. Sometimes our actions/response are so involuntary that after happening of that action we come to know of it. Here again there comes into play the reacting habit/conditioning of the mind ,strongly in that particular type of sankharas. The conscious even does not know it. But as the buddha said all arising is to pass away,it is not permanent. But this happens in our case only when  the wisdom of anicca develops within us at experiential level. But once it develops, no bothering of  arising of whatsoever. In hinduism there is a nice nomenclature about this .that stage is called upon as 'avdhoot/paramhansa". Then there is no bothering of rules/regulations of scriptures etc bcs whatever action happens is not causing any burden to repay.

"The action done without any intention to do so is not binding. Here the child is not having any kind of intention.." <-- I've said almost the same thing when talking about this to a monk (unfortunately only briefly). But he said that that is not true. There was intention there the moment the child decided out of fear of harm and fear for his own life to kill the animal. And I do except that answer. That's why I'm wondering about the weight of that kamma.

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


text:
are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?
Did the Buddha say anything of the value of mundane acts of generosity which may temporarily alleviate the suffering of others in a temporary, worldly way, but do not free others from from suffering?
For example, helping someone get what they desperately "need" will not free them from craving, nor will curing a disease free someone from old age, sickness, and death. The following quotes support this point, i.e. how  mundane work or acts of generosity - which give material comfort but are not the gift of the dhamma - do not free anyone from the causes of suffering.
Dalai Lama:

Science and technology have contributed immensely to the overall development of humankind, to our material comfort and well- being as well as to our understanding of the world we live in. But if we put too much emphasis on these endeavors, we are in danger of losing those aspects of human knowledge that contribute to the development of an honest and altruistic personality.
...
No one can deny the material benefits of modern life, but we are still faced with suffering, fear, and tension— perhaps more now than ever before.

Bhikku Bodhi:

The pāramitās begin with dāna-pāramitā, the perfection of giving. Social engagement can certainly be included under this category, as it involves giving others material gifts and the gift of security. But these gifts, as worthy as they are, do not equal in value the gift of the Dharma, for the gift of the Dharma leads to the permanent extinction of suffering.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

How many scientists do you know who have become enlightened? Have you heard of any? Well, if a scientist trains in this, he becomes enlightened. That’s pretty neat, isn’t it? These days scientists are praised as being the most eminent people in this world, because they make devices through which you can instantly talk to someone on the other end of the world, or you can fly through the skies. Well, with this practice you can go beyond being a scientist. Actually, what science can create is pretty amazing, but still, all science is on this side of the shore of knowledge. The profound samadhi means the other shore of knowledge, having transcended dualistic mind. Right now, if we compare ourselves with a scientist, a scientist seems to be better, right? But once the scientist arrives on the other shore, any mental doings is of no use at all! At that point, as far as we are concerned, it is much better to arrive on the other side at transcendent knowledge. Here’s a question for all of you: exactly how much benefit is there from scientific knowledge the moment you are in the bardo? Think about it well. When a scientist is in the bardo he no longer has any gadgets to help him, no spy satellites or jet planes to move around in. In the bardo isn’t whatever one created of absolutely no use? Scientific knowledge is not transcendent. The knowledge that we are supposed to train in is transcendent knowledge, prajnaparamita.
Honestly, whatever mundane, unspiritual actions we do show themselves to be a total waste at the end of this life. They are good for absolutely nothing. Any work that one bothers to complete is pointless unless it is connected with a virtuous outcome.

Upasika Kee:

Don’t think that you were born to gain this or that level of comfort. You were born to study pain and the causes of pain, and to follow the practice that frees you from pain. This is the most important thing there is. Everything else is trivial and unimportant.

What acts of compassion and generosity were considered worthwhile to the Buddha?

I would argue that no act of compassion is mundane.

Are you only asking "which acts were meaningful/worthwhile to the Buddha?" (i.e. a reference request), or are you also asking people for their own experience/understanding as implied by the question in the title?

Yes, certainly asking for references, but not excluding others' understanding of what the Buddha said.

There will be confusion over your use of the term 'mundane acts'. What you said as 'for e.g. helping someone get what they desperately "need" ' this I won't consider mundane. 'desperate need' isn't mundane, I would appreciate if you can give a literal example of what you are asking by mundane.

@BodhiWalker I guess the OP's definition of "mundane" includes giving food, money, and/or medicine or other necessities ... and that "supramundane" could only be the gift of dhamma.

Yes. Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful to the Buddha, however small.
From Vaccha Sutta:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Sangaha Sutta:

"There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."
Generosity, kind words, beneficial help,
  & consistency in the face of
  events,
  in line with what's appropriate
  in each case.
  These bonds of fellowship [function] in the world
  like the linchpin in a moving cart.

From Sigalovada Sutta:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

From Dullabha Sutta:

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The
  one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a
  kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are
  hard to find in the world."

From Itivuttaka 75:

"And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.
A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

From Itivuttaka 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

The quote from Itivuttaka 100 really gets to the question, doesn't it :) Any suggestions for further reading on how, in the Buddha's words, to be compassionate or of service to others?

@avatarKorra You may find this question interesting.  These articles may also be of interest: Educating Compassion (Thanissaro), Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (E. Harris), The Balanced Way (Bodhi), The Four Sublime States (Nyanaponika)

@avatarKorra I also updated my answer to include a quote from Itivuttaka 75.

Thank you @ruben2020, although I don't know how many of us here are on the path to amassing wealith. But a quote about the value of doing good, worldly deeds for people (e.g. service moreso than giving out wealth or food) would be highly relevant and appreciated.

The quotes for which compassion indirectly supports the spread of the dhamma make sense to me, but for the others, similar to Ananda's line of questioning, I ask 'what is the reward/function/purpose'  of fellowship (Sangaha Sutta), or hard to find people (Dullhaba Sutta), or friends (Sigalovada)?

Are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?

They certainly are. All actions based in the 3 wholesome roots are of great value. They will lay the foundational work (Sila) for meditation practice and move the practitioner closer to Nibbana.
The 10 Paramis (Dāna pāramī), are often described as "bowls" that are filled with one droplet a time. It may take a long time to fill the bowl but small droplets will eventually create a river.
Acts of compassion/generosity will slowly fill the bowl. One droplet a time, until one has perfected the Parami.

So you're saying that of mundane acts of generosity are meaningful not so much because the material help will end the causes of suffering for the recipient, but really because the practice of generosity is meaningful towards the giver's inner cultivation - is this correct?

I'm also thinking of dana. It's the first of the parami (10 perfections).
You could check these sources: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#dana
One thing that I experience when practicing parami, what I can notice, is that the inclination of the mind changes towards the wholesome. So, mundane acts of generosity might not help out the receiver a lot in the sense that this generosity will not get rid of this persons suffering permanently. But it will help a bit, for a moment. Plus the mind of the giver is aligned towards the wholesome.
Therefore I do think it counts for something.
Also, it will increase your happiness. That, in turn, will lead to concentration and more stillness in the mind.
Note: This is from Theravada point of view and practice.

Yes the mundane acts are good as pointed out by other answers, but you took a narrow view of the Tulkus following words,

Honestly, whatever mundane, unspiritual actions we do show themselves to be a total waste at the end of this life. They are good for absolutely nothing. Any work that one bothers to complete is pointless unless it is connected with a virtuous outcome.

Here, he is pointing at something much profound than a trivial intrepretation that mundane acts are unimportant.
The good deeds leads good karma, that good karma leads to a better life...and so the cycle of samsara prepetuates. You have been doing such useless mundane acts lives after lives...with no avail.
Contemplate on the story of Bodhidharma and the Emperor. When the Emperor asked Him, does his act of generousity produce any merit, Bodhidharma said 'Mu' and left the palace.
So I will say the Tulku is right, and I will disagree with the above answers and say those mundane acts are not meaningful, given that you are considering the bigger context of Nibbana and Human suffering.

Doing good or bad things brings good or bad results, and perpetuates samsara, so stop doing anything new that is not neutral and hasten the burning up of all previous karma - this is the Jain view that was refuted by the Buddha in MN 101.

To Buddha it was absolutely critical to do good and avoid evil as selflessness crushes Self.

@ruben2020 [1/3] I know of the Buddha's insistence on 'Dana' and overall Buddhist approach towards Compassion. You misunderstood my answer, I am not advocating becoming 'neutral' or 'inaction', I am taking the context of the question into consideration. The questioner has quoted the Tulku, that is where the question might have been aroused in his mind. I will consider a 'mundane' act of compassion as unspiritual, and hence siding by the Tulku, 'a total waste'. Of course there will be a confusion here unless we define and agree upon 'what is a 'mundane act''.

@ruben2020 [2/3] If you indulge in mundane acts, the merit acquired will not be as such of any huge value. It will on the other hand bloster your ego of doing something for someone. This is where I see the Hindoos around me stuck into, they build temples, donate to priests and make offerings all inorder to acquire merit to gain higher birth which will get them Moksha (a hindoo version of Nibbana). It takes them nowhere. You have to understand the emphasis here is on the word 'Mundane'. On the bigger context of atainment of Nibbana, mundane is useless.

@BodhiWalker If relevant and supporting your answer, you can put your explanation directly into your answer, instead of having it in comments.

@ruben2020 [3/3] He has asked, is it 'meaningful' not 'useful'. If he would have asked useful, then may be its useful, but the term meaningful changes the gist of the question given the context here is Buddhist where the supreme goal is to eradicate the suffering through Nibbana. Our time here in one life limited. Nibbana is not mundane. Mundane acts are meaningless.

@dhamma4life the word is 'mundane acts' , that changes the vantage point.

@BodhiWalker: Does Buddha make difference anywhere? No acts are meaningless, its as if you claimed that volition of and kammic outcome is meaningless.
I don't know, maybe we should better define what exactly "mundane" means in this context as well.

@dhamma4life yes its required to define what constitute 'mundane'.

In the suttas,  THe usual order of dana, from most beneficial for the person who gives to the least beneficial, is first gives to the buddha, then to what some people call ''solitary buddhas'', then to arhants, then to puthujjanas who want to stop being puthujjanas [those are the typical bhikkus] then to other puthujjanas and other living beings.
Of course, what is given matters a bit but not that much, typically, it is usual food, some basic goods for hygiene and that's all for the puthujjanas who want to stop being puthujjanas and the people called ''aryas''.
Yes toxic puthujjanas have faith in materialism and feeling compassionate to appease conflicts. THose puthujjana crave an abundance of goods and what they call ''opportunities'' and what they call ''meanings'' to please themselves and people and they think once puthujjanas are fed, they will be nice to each other.
Those toxic puthujjanas love to give materials goods to craving puthujjanas and once they are satisfied with their fantasy of being good puthujjanas by giving material stuff and telling other puthujjanas and themselves that they are good people, they stop here and leave the craving puthujjana with the given good.
To be clear the fantasy of being compassionate as being a good behavior is natural for any puthujjana. It is part of their nature of fantasizing the negation of what they despise has being good. For instance, they love to claim ''that caring for oneself and one's desires all the time is bad, therefore it must mean that trying to cater to other people needs and worrying about other people is good''. Some even claim that dying for other puthujjanas or animals is a good thing... . Those people cannot stop caring about needs, about desires, about senses. Those people cannot think beyond the present suffering.
For instance, a puthujjana wants a blanket to spend the night with warmth and some compassionate  puthujjana comes along, hear about this  claim ''I know not having a blanket at night sucks, god poor little you, I totally know your plight and I am sadden by your situation'' and gives the other puthujjana a blanket. The other puthujjana accepts the blanket and will delight in it, thinking warmth is good and there is nothing wrong with delighting in this blanket,  which pleases the toxic puthujjana who stay at the level of loving to think a beneficial action has been done.
These people even speculate about the ''origin'' of this lack of goods and opportunities and they usually come up with their fantasy of ''lack of money'' and ''lack of respect'' and ''discrimination'' or ''lack of equality''.
These people do not understand pleasures nor consciousness nor death.
Of course, once you learn about the dhamma, you learn that this caring about ''needs'' is the recipe for bad karma, for being more obsessed with goods, for more suffering and even more dramatically, trying to satisfy the desires of puthujjanas is not the way to stop their suffering.
The little quoted rant about scientists is not relevant to this and it is badly phrased, so there is nothing wrong about forgetting it.

This seems quite negative: I think it says "worldly so-called 'compassion' is selfish and toxic and worse than useless." It might be easier to understand if you added something about the opposite: when is dana good (or what type of dana, what circumstance, what mind-state associated with dana) -- and why, what's the difference in cause or intention or effect. Or maybe distinguish between generosity (dana) and compassion (metta) if that's important.


text:
What are the six sense Indriyas?
Are the six sense faculties just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person?
Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?

it may be that here it just means "sense organ"...

why was this downvoted, weird?

can i pls have some explanation of the downvotes? question seems perfectly legit

I can't tell what caused the downvote. It might possibly be that people thought that "how to think of 'ourselfves'" didn't sound like a good question I think it's likely though that it's a bit unpopular/unwelcome to ask a question in order to answer it yourself -- see for example May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them? (or Asking fundamental “beginner” questions).

oh i had no idea of the answer until i researched it cos i realised no-one wuld upvote. thanks @ChrisW

correction "no-one would answer" @ChrisW i think it makes a worthwhile addition to the site! cheers

Are the six sense faculties the sense organs, sense objects, and sense
  consciousnesses, considered all together?

There seems to be, in Theravada Buddhism, differences between

sense faculties (control of the eye)
internal sense bases (the material of the eye necessary for vision)
sense doors (how consciousness gains access to visible objects)

See the The Abhidhammattha Sangaha, By Bhikkhu Bodhi, p144

Is there anything else that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional)
  person?

The internal sense bases, along with the external sense bases, make up all that there is. But this isn't, it seems, the case for the sense faculties and their objects.
See The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p1122

What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six
  sense Indriyas?

Enlightenment seems to involve understanding

as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape of
  these six faculties

Connected discourse 48 III.
Furthermore, an arhat understands they are beyond training by knowing that

the six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder

ibid p1697

what difference does it make if we think about "ourselves" in terms of
  them

Aside from stressing the active nature of the senses, as opposed to the more passive internal bases, the Buddha in the Pali tradition said different things in different terms. Concerning the six sense faculties

ibid p1241

I believe that e.g. ch'an Buddhism treats the faculties no differently to the internal sense bases.


text:
How do your thoughts appear to you? (asking for mechanics)
Since a couple of weeks I'm stuck in meditation with something that's unclear. I hope that answers will help me get some inspiration and ideas.
So, how do the thoughts appear to you? As words, as pictures, as a far away voice? Is it always the same way, or do they sometimes appear as pictures and sometimes as words?
I have asked a couple of people already, and nobody seems to be able to tell me. Everyone responded with 'I don't know'. Which is kind of weird, since we all think.
Anyway, in my case: thoughts appear to me as a distant voice. Just to share my bit of experience. :)

To me, thoughts appear as relationships or associations. When I think of something, I remember something else related to that, and then the next thing, or several next things. All these memories are at first very vague - more like feelings - and then if I give one of them attention, it becomes more specific. Now, if I look more carefully at a single thought - it is not a solid thing, it is just a pointer to more memories related to it. So to me all thoughts are empty connections with one another.
I can also visualize objects as images, and sometimes these visual images float from memory all by themselves - so some of my thinking is visual. Or sometimes I remember sounds or tactile sensations. But those are more like "memories" than "thoughts".
I also have inner dialog at times, but by now I have mostly learned to stop it when needed. So when I think I mostly don't think in words, but in those connections I described above. When I do have an inner dialog it sounds like memory of my own voice, i.e. like I'm talking very quietly to myself, or rather remembering how my voice would sound if I said those words.
When I think about something complex, organically (i.e. not reasoning step by step), I may have some kind of complex interconnected structure appear in my head. It's like a mesh of interconnected wires, each wire being a thought connected with other thoughts. Sometimes I look at the entire mesh from afar and try to see high-level patterns, or a particular way seemingly unrelated things are connected. This entire structure is multidimensional, not 3D. Sometimes two thoughts may appear as two separate thoughts, but if you trace them into another dimension you will see that they are in fact two projections of the same one thought and that's how you see they are connected.
Working with these thoughts-as-connections requires using feelings. Feelings are like queries you can send to the mesh, to find relationships, or to find a particular thought.

To me, thoughts appear as a constant monologue. They are words, but it's as if someone is talking in my head. That somebody I had accepted as me but of late I know it's my mind. It's not a distant voice for me, it's a very close voice, in my head. For sure those thoughts do not appear as images of words, they are verbal. And I think only a musician must be capable to think in musical notes, for rest of us, they must be verbal words.
Sometimes if I am daydreaming or imagining, that also appears as images, like a movie, the sound and dialogue is also provided by my mind.
Most importantly the thoughts are flavored and affected by my emotions and vice-versa. If I am happy, I have good thoughts about future, mostly desires, if I am sad, thoughts are sad. But I have dealt with it, most of it.

Very helpful. Thank you so much! :) If I understand you correctly, you are able to make a clear distinction between thoughts, daydreaming and story creating/imagining. I'm not sure whether you practice vipassana. If so, do you see the 'noting' as thoughts or voice of the mind as well (not sure how else to describe it)?

I have done the Vipassana retreat few times but I find it difficult as the moment I use my mind to concentrate it flies off. So I learnt zazen and Samatha, which now I practise. So, during Zazen 'nothing' occurs to me not as thought but hightened awareness of senses. Something what Ajahn Brahm calls Present Moment Awareness. But that is not Shunyata or anything, its just few seconds without thoughts.

Alrighty. Again, thank you. It was really helpful. :)


text:
From which text is the quote by Buddha “My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment” taken?
I was reading an article on Tricycle written by Thich Nhat Hanh, in which he quotes Buddha as follows:

“My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.”

From which text is this quote taken?

Here it says, its from the Sutra of 42 Chapters.

Thank you, it was Chapter 18 of the Sutra of 42 chapters

My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.”

Well, the above is a rather clumsy and misleading way of rendering it. Actually it's even dangerous especially for those who've just got preliminary exposure to Buddhism. The practice is the nonpractice? So much for the Buddha's earnest admonishment to cultivate moral virtues, meditation, and wisdom! Here's the full translation from Chapter 18:

The Buddha said, "My Dharma is the mindfulness that is both mindfulness and non-mindfulness. It is the practice that is both practice and non-practice. It is words that are words and non-words, and cultivation that is cultivation and non-cultivation. Those who understand are near to it; those who are confused are far away, indeed. It is not accessible by the path of language. It is not hindered by physical objects. If you are off by a hairsbreadth, you will lose it in an instant." ~~ Sutra in Forty-Two Sections ~~


text:
Do arhats exist after death?
I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said

Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer
I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats.

If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

"The state of Nibbana after the death of the arahant is nowhere discussed in the Paali Canon. " -- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
BTW please do tell me how pursuing this further may make me a better person?

incredible, thanks @OyaMistAeroponics good luck!

If you want to see what the authoritative figures have to say on the topic, here's a quote from What Happens to an Arahant at Death? A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace:

BB: The problem then is how nibbāna after the death of the arahant can be a real element (a real entity, a real dimension, a real state, whatever term one uses) describable as “ultimate bliss” etc. yet without being identifiable with viññāṇa. [...] I take such terms as “unborn, deathless, etc.” to be referential, not mere metaphors for absolute extinction. The problem is how to bring together this ultimate reality of nibbāna, conceived as a state that (even post-mortem) is “peaceful, blissful, auspicious,” etc., with the denial that consciousness or mind is present. It’s a problem I haven’t been able to solve.

If you want to know my opinion, here it goes:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world lives by duality, that between existence & non-existence. [...] Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

What does this mean? When we say something exists, we assume that something is a distinct object that goes through time. We say, in some way it changes but in some ways it stays essentially the same. And then when it falls apart we assume that essence is irretrievably gone. But in reality that's a huge simplification, rather like the mythical geocentric model that people have learned to carry on without questioning. The geocentric model used to posit existence of "celestial sphere" to which the stars are attached, because that's how it looks indeed.
Entities are abstractions, simplifications. Not just sentient beings, but even relatively static objects like chairs are cross-sections of multiple streams, if you trace their lifecycle and the lifecycles of their parts. And when chairs are not used as chairs they are strictly speaking not even chairs, they are just oddly shaped stuff. Things exit in a certain way only in relation to processes they participate in.
So entities are a simplified way to talk about what really is a bunch of dynamic processes and many, many nested contexts. Matter, energy, and information are always in flux, on many levels.
When we say Andrei, there's this rice and milk, there are these books, these questions, these squirrels and birds, this heat, this job, these people, this country - and tomorrow these will continue in similar combinations. Andrei is not something static and concrete. It has never been something static and concrete. Because it's not something static and concrete, the labels like existing and not existing do not apply. Since labels like that do not apply, birth and death do not apply.
Mind is not "inside". My awareness is not mine. You asked a question - it became my thoughts for a day. Now as you are reading this answer, my thoughts are your thoughts. Then you'll read a tweet, then you will watch a movie, then you will hear some news about Trump. Get it? Our thoughts come from the environment, our memories come from the environment, our feelings come from the environment, our choices come from the environment, our bodies come from the environment. There is nothing you can pinpoint and say "this is an arhat". Or I guess you can of course, but doing that is exactly the framework that leads to suffering. And when you stop pinpointing you see that in fact it has always been rather loose. Then you transcend the framework that operates in terms of "entities", "exists" and "death" and by doing that un-base all passion, aversion, confusion, and suffering associated with that. That's what's called "an arhat".
Because mind is not "inside" (and life in general is not inside) - it will go on "like a rolling stream", just not always going through this particular scull. Hopefully one day, with all the efforts put in making Buddhism mainstream, the bad habit of reifying entities and identifying with them will be outgrown.

So, in your opinion, is it the reification of entities and identifying with them what creates a particular scull/scope of identity which accounts for the experience of separateness? And when the habit of reification & identification (within that scope) are eliminated, you are instead left with what remains? And with what remains no habit of reification/identification applies and so no separate-ness applies. And with no separate-ness, there is no discrimination of this or that or here or there and therefore nothing for craving to arise?

Umm yeah I think that's pretty accurate

Great, Thank you!

This is one of questions left unanswered by the Buddha.
Read here
All of the following are amongst incorrect views.

A Buddha (read Arahant or Enlightened being) does exist after death.
A Buddha does not exist after death.
A Buddha both exists and doesn't exist after death.
A Buddha neither exists nor doesn't exists after death.

In my opinion, the problem being whatever happens to the energy/consciousness/entropy/field of the Buddha must be such that it cannot be expressed in words and not even be able to be grasped as an idea or any kind of mental construct. So the Buddha left it unanswered.

yes that's what the discourse said, the question is what you have perfunctorily assumed

The question can't be answered because the question itself is already wrong. The premise assumes the existence of someone or something that simply isn't there. Since the premise is wrong to begin with, nothing else has or can be said.

I once read a story (perhaps based on a Sutra) and Lord Buddha used this analogy when asked about existence after death of enlightened beings:
Fire exist due to air, burning substance, etc. As in lives are being born and therefore exist.
When the substances are lacking, Fire are extinguished. As in you your attachment and ignorance are the substance fueling your existence. By reaching Nirvana, your substance are "gone" and you will no longer be born once your body fails to function.
Does that mean Fire doesn't exist? Does that mean the consciousness doesn't exist?
Ultimately, it not a matter of Yes or No. Nor a matter of Yes and No. Nor a matter of not Yes not No.

this is a repeat of the answer i said was poor because it assumes the question at hand :)

Buddha said that it is not possible to  understand 4 things, one of them was where a Buddha or Arahant goes
However, my feeling is that an Arahant state is like a child, pure in his heart, not identifying himself with a self, loving and feeling one with the whole universe, ready to help others without greed, aversion or craving...
Like a child taught to see the truth and the virtue, taught about suffering and compassion, that learned the path to wisdom and understanding of everything in the universe... a child that, being Dhamma, can use what he learned and achieved to stop the roots of suffering, his own changement

The word "death" ("marana") does not apply to Arahants. There are many suttas about this, such as Dhp 21, SN 22.85, MN 140, MN 38, etc.


text:
Harmlessness as the highest form of generosity?
Somewhere I thought it was said that the practice of harmlessness was praised by the Buddha as the greatest form of generosity. (I don't remember where I read this.)
Has anything like this been said in the Buddha's teachings or in any Buddhist texts?

i.e. the non-doing, non-harming of an arahant vs. the doing of a political activist.

Dhamma-dana, the gift of the noble teachings, is said by the Buddha to excel all other gifts:

The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. ~~ Dhp. 354 ~~

and one who practices harmlessness is giving the gift of the Dhamma through living it, are they not.

And what are the manifestations of living the Dhamma if not through all 3 gateways of body, speech, and mind.

Dhammapada 270 has been translated in several ways, some of which use the word "harm".
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya
In terms of "greatest", it is notable that generosity is the first Paramita.
Focusing on "greatest" alone is problematic, because it may lead one to ignore other considerations. For example, standing by to avoid risk of harm to oneself while others are being harmed might not be generous.

in Overflowing Merit.
Reasons for people to observe precepts.  some might do so for self benefit, self generated peace .. or in case of incorporating with gift giving, people observe precepts so others may benefit from it.  such as no killing, stealing etc.
IMO, observing precepts for benefit of others is highest form of generosity.

...Mendicants, these five gifts are great, original, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. They are uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What five? Firstly, a noble disciple gives up killing living creatures. By so doing they give to countless sentient beings the gift of freedom from fear, enmity, and ill will. And they themselves also enjoy unlimited freedom from fear, enmity, and ill will. This is the first gift that is a great offering, original, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. It is uncorrupted, as it has been since the beginning. It’s not being corrupted now nor will it be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on it. This is the fourth kind of overflowing merit …

Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the mind-release of loving-kindness.
(It §27)

For It §27, loving-kindness is said to be the most merit-producing form of generosity.
Next, for Satipatthana Samyutta, No. 19, loving-kindness is described as protecting others, together with harmlessness and compassion.

And how does one, in protecting others, protect oneself? By patience and forbearance, by a non-violent and harmless life, by loving kindness and compassion."


text:
Are there any higher education opportunities in Buddhism?
I am searching if Buddhism can be studied in Universities academically.
I searched for PhD positions, most are in US with ambiguous postings. There are programs in Thailand but most of the postings look expired.
So, can you help me know if there is any way to be an Academic Buddhist scholar? Are there any universities you know offering Buddhist studies? Any other suggestions in this direction.

In United States, the ones I have heard something nice about, that offer a professional program in Buddhist Studies:

University of Virginia - Department of Religious Studies. Very strong Indo-Tibetan Buddhism school.
University of Hawaii - Department of Religion. Very strong Chinese/Japanese Buddhism school.
Columbia University (New York) - Department of Religion. Strong Indo-Tibetan and Chinese/Japanese Buddhism school.
Rollins College in Florida - Department of Philosophy and Religion. Buddhist Ethics.
Naropa University, Colorado. Undergrad school for kids aspiring to grow in Buddhist Studies.

Many large universities in US offer a program in philosophy (or "comparative philosophy") with concentration in buddhist studies. See for example this list from the Tricycle magazine. Buddhist studies further specialize into Early&Theravada Buddhism, Indian-Tibetan Buddhism, and Chinese/Korean/Japanese Buddhism.
In my understanding, the way this (the choice of school for PhD) is usually done is: you find yourself drawn to one of those subfields of buddhist studies and realize that you keep enjoying online articles and published books by a particular professor from a particular college. Then you go to that college and study under that specific professor or one of his/her students. Like, you're definitely supposed to know much of the professor's work before you even show up as potential PhD candidate.
Also note that since studying Buddhism academically involves studying texts, the student at PhD level is expected to know a couple of primary languages (Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese) and a secondary language (usually French, since most early 20th century study of Buddhism was in that language, or perhaps Japanese or Korean if that's what you study).
Which is why you can't simply jump from a Master's in Engineering to a PhD in Buddhism. You need to start at the grad level and get the basic background in languages, history, culture, and philosophies of the geographical area corresponding to your preferred type of Buddhism.
A slightly less academical and more pragmatic approach is to pursue a degree in "Buddhist Ethics". I believe this usually helps avoid getting pigeonholed into a specific geohistorical tradition, and gets a more "applied" perspective on Buddhism, relevant to the real life in the modern society. Buddhist Ethics is something you'd get if you want to practice Buddhist leadership as opposed to doing research and translation.
Finally, if you dream of becoming a professional Buddhist Chaplain (a "priest"), you may want to consider pursuing the Master of Divinity degree. There is one now offered by the Harvard Divinity School and a number of less famous schools such as University of The West in LA and Maitripa College in Portland.

There's an Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies in the UK.
There are other Centres for Buddhist Studies in Toronto, Hong Kong, Bristol, London, Denmark, India, Kathmandu; also Hamburg; similarly an Institut d'Etudes Bouddhiques in France; and so on.

In the west it's most of the time part of a more broad study, I believe. In the country where I live you can become Buddhist Spiritual Guidance Counselor.
And then there are studies like this one, fi.: https://religiousstudies.mcmaster.ca/graduate/graduate-program
Sri Lanka has an university:
http://www.bpu.ac.lk
Another idea might be studying the autobiographies of monks. Especially of scholar monks. Most of the time it is mentioned where said monk has gotten his degree. This could give you some opportunities.
Hope this helps.

You can consider the Doctoral Program in Buddhist Studies of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich) in Germany.
According to the DAAD page for this course, there are no tuition fees. You can get funding from The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies (please see this answer). You can also get some funding from the University of Munich's "Global Cultures – Connecting Worlds" program.
The guidelines for this program state:

The prerequisites for admission to the doctoral program are proof of
  completion of a Master of Arts or Magister Artium degree in a relevant
  field, knowledge of at least one Buddhist source language and
  outstanding qualification in the subject.

A Buddhist source language is presumably one of these: Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese.

Wow @ruben2020 I can't thank you enough for finding this out...this is precisely what I been looking for. Thank you so much dear friend.


text:
Lying In Expression
I had previously asked a question about lying in fiction, but I feel I had omitted some important elements which I recently realized. I often write theoretical statements I am unsure of.

Does writing (not fiction) something untrue in itself, even if not shown or deleted, cause one to have uttered a lie?
Does speculation about something, where ideas are asserted without certainty, consist in lying as well?

I am mainly asking because I had recent intuitions that the way I wrote could be a form of lying, and that symptoms in myself -- such as inconsistency and great uncertainty -- could perhaps be linked to this form of false-like expression. Since the Buddha advised against lying even in jest, I wonder if my expression's closeness to lying is detrimental.
Thank you.

Does writing (not fiction) something untrue in itself, even if not
  shown or deleted, cause one to have uttered a lie?

Writing fiction and non-fiction text is not bad if your intention for writing is pure and with accordance to Buddhist ethics and precepts. Example, if your end goal isn't deception of the audience or personal gain, or lust - writing is fine. There is Buddhist art, poetry, stories and many architectonically beautiful temples which are also pieces of art. You shouldn't get carried away by signs in Buddhism, but you should also use them skilfully. There is the Chinese phrase of seeing the mountain, not seeing the mountain and then seeing the mountain again.
There are statues of Buddha and paintings that arouse great joy when needed, and that is definitely not negative. Ajahn Sumedho in his Four Noble Truths wrote that we shouldn't be those nagging old people that deny woman's beauty because its the fruit of conceptual mind - instead, we should marvel in women's beauty, there is vast ocean of multitude of shapes and that is joy.

Does speculation about something, where ideas are asserted without
  certainty, consist in lying as well?

If you presume that there will be no rain today, your are not doing anything strictly negative. So, speculation is not per se negative, but it is not the idea of Buddhism. Lack of complete knowledge is not lying, it is unintentional. There is in fact, numerous Buddhists among Physics community. All we do in Buddhism in the end is spiritual pursuit born of not knowing and wanting to find out. We do not know how it is at the end of the road, we can only guess. On absolute truth, Buddha said that any speculation of finding the absolute is not within the scope of Buddhism. Also, Buddhism doesn't have a take on standards and political organisation of society either, or crime and punishment in society, etc. Such speculations and ideas are beyond Buddhist's scope, though many Buddhists embrace feminism, vegetarianism - and many not.

'On absolute truth, Buddha said that any speculation of finding the absolute is not within the scope of Buddhism', can you please reference this? I think He didn't say that.

From Questions of King Milinda: "Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!"
Also in Tevigga Sutta, Buddha says that given none of the brahmins ever seen Brahma face to face, the whole pursuit of the absolute is futile, i.e. "foolish talk".

...and that symptoms in myself -- such as inconsistency and great uncertainty -- could perhaps be linked to this form of false-like expression
Not an answer to your exact question but an answer to your overall dilemma. I see you are worried that, there are some karmic repercussions to your possible act of lying.
I would like to point out that Buddha advised,'Samma Vacca' if you read the whole page you will know that outright 'lying' is not advised but mainly the gist of Buddha's words is 'beneficial and wholesome speech which do not cause harm and suffering to others as well as your self'.
Now an imaginary scenario which I read in the book 'Buddhism: Plain and Simple', suppose you have your friends hiding in the basement of your house and an SS officer knocks at your door and asks if you have anyone hiding in your house. Now, what will incur more bad Karma on you? outright lying to SS or handing over your friends by telling the truth?
The ways of the Karma are very complex, it's not a linear cause-effect relationship.
In summary what I am trying to say is, don't worry about the trivia, the path to Nibbana has to be balanced between many things 'Right Speech' being one amongst them.
Remember Buddha advised 'Middle way' above all, so don't get paralyzed by travelling to extremes of moral behaviour.


text:
How to chant the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
I am a Hindu by birth. I am a huge devotee of Lord Buddha as he is considered a god in Hinduism. I wanted to know more about the Buddhist mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. What is the best way to chant it? Can I chant it anywhere and at anytime? I have previously been chanting the mantra at least 108 times a day for the past 4 months but I have yet to see any of my desires fulfilled. Is there a specific count when desires are fulfilled? I apologise, I am new to Buddhist methods of worship, but I want to do so with Buddha. How can I have my desires fulfilled by that mantra?
Thank You.

Devotion can permit focus and accrue kamma, but I would imagine one place to start would be to have some foothold on what the words you're saying mean. It's uncommon to have Hindus speak fluent Japanese; while the mantra may be helpful, it's likely more helpful to understand (and express in your own native language) that you're devoting yourself to the Lotus Sutra and to dwell upon its lessons as you chant your devotions.

Using Buddhism as a form of magic to fulfill one's desires also seems rather self-defeating. Most of its leading practitioners abjure all desires and certainly wouldn't be disappointed (or even surprised) if those they still held were not satiated. At minimum, you'd need to push towards a selfless direction with your wishes.

@lly I guess that what the words "mean" may include what you've been told about them, what you've read about them (e.g. here). I think that practitioners will explain it if you ask them.

@lly There are other views. Notably Tiantai's (T'ien T'ai) teaching that "earthly desires equal enlightenment." Nichiren used many of Tiantai's teachings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTld8JlC83E do this prayer 2 times  day for 40 days, there is a pdf that explains the meaning. And chant for 10-30 minutes a day. You will see a difference after 40 days. https://www.sgi.org/about-us/president-ikedas-writings/gongyo-and-daimoku.html

As a longtime practitioner of chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo and as a member of SGI, I will attempt to respond to some of your specific questions. My responses will be based as much as possible on the words of Nichiren, the 13th century buddhist monk and scholar, since he established the practice of chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Organizations, both temple and lay based, that promote chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, all derive from his teachings. I also recommend ChrisW's answer.

What is the best way to chant it? How can I have my desires fulfilled by that mantra?

Nichiren wrote, As a lay believer, the important thing for you is to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo single-mindedly and
As you crave food when hungry, seek water when thirsty, long to see a lover, beg for medicine when ill, or as a beautiful woman desires powder and rouge, so should you put your faith in the Lotus Sutra. This quote is usually understood to refer to Nam Myoho Renge Kyo since Nichiren often used Lotus Sutra and Nam Myoho Renge Kyo interchangeably.

Can I chant it anywhere and at anytime?

Yes, you may chant anywhere and anytime. Nichiren wrote, This passage implies that we ordinary people, whether we are walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, should chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Most of the time chanting is done at an altar in someone's home.  Many people chant other places, for example, while driving a car or while walking. Nichiren even wrote that chanting during sex is okay. "Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo during the physical union of man and woman is indeed what is called “earthly desires are enlightenment,” and “the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.”"
Normally chanting is done out loud in a normal voice. However, to avoid bothering other people, chanting quietly, or even silently within, is acceptable.

Is there a specific count when desires are fulfilled?

No, there is no specific count. Sometimes Nichiren chanted once. I immediately placed it as an offering before the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law, the single vehicle, and chanted Nam-myoho-renge-kyo just once. I have done this so that your beloved son may “assuredly and without doubt”1 be escorted to the pure land of Eagle Peak.
Other times he chanted much more. For the sake of your son’s repose, I have recited the entire Lotus Sutra once and the verse section of its “Life Span” chapter several times, and chanted the daimoku hundreds or thousands of times.
At all times Nichiren emphasized that chanting is powerful. For example, he answered yes to the following question. Question: Is it possible, without understanding the meaning of the Lotus Sutra, but merely by chanting the five or seven characters of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo once a day, once a month, or simply once a year, once a decade, or once in a lifetime, to avoid being drawn into trivial or serious acts of evil, to escape falling into the four evil paths, and instead to eventually reach the stage of non-regression?

What is the best way to chant it?
I think that:

Chanting that mantra is a characteristic of a form of Buddhism (a school, a tradition of Buddhism) called "Nichiren" (see Nichiren).
There aren't many users on this site who know about Nichiren, so it might be difficult to answer your question.
The most widespread Nichiren-oriented society outside Japan is called SGI
(Soka Gakkai International) -- I expect you can find more from their web site and/or by finding a group of SGI people near you.
For example:

Daily Practice
The core Buddhist practice of SGI members is chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and reciting portions of the Lotus Sutra (referred to as gongyo), and sharing the teachings of Buddhism with others in order to help them overcome their problems.
The practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo was established by Nichiren (1222–82), a reformist Buddhist monk who identified the Lotus Sutra as the core teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha.
Applying the Teachings
Practice is supported by faith and study. SGI members study the teachings of Nichiren in order to deepen their understanding of the principles of Buddhism and the processes of inner transformation. Study strengthens faith and conviction, which finds expression in practice.
Faith, in Nichiren Buddhism, is grounded in  the experience of applying Buddhism and seeing improvements in the quality of one’s life. Faith could be described as the ongoing effort to orient one’s heart toward the ideal of Buddhahood—the continual unfolding of one’s inherent potential for good, the ability to transform any negative circumstance into a source of growth and benefit, and a life dedicated toward helping others do the same.
(etc.)

Their web site in India seems to be https://www.bharatsokagakkai.org/
My experience (in Canada) was that they are happy to have you join them their group, to meet to chant with them, and to explain their doctrines to you.

How can I have my desires fulfilled by that mantra?
I'd like to (but I'm not sure I can) explain that, in a way that's simple and accurate -- perhaps someone else will, who knows more about that form/school of Buddhism than I do.
I suppose it's easier to practice than it is to teach.
Or you may find an answer by reading the web pages I referenced -- see also for example Buddhist Concepts.
I'm referencing SGI's web site, because I think they're the biggest organisation of practitioners outside Japan whose practice depends on the mantra that you asked about.
There are other forms or schools of Buddhism too, which don't use that mantra. It's said there's a unity, that all schools of Buddhism have a lot in common with each other, perhaps it is all relevant to the "Buddhist method of worship".
I also recommend these topics, on this site:

What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
Question about Nichiren Buddhism
What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?
How does chanting work in Nichiren Buddhism?

I suppose that it's important to hear, understand, and practice Buddhist doctrine (i.e. "dhamma" or "dharma"), possibly with other Buddhists -- and that mantra is connected with that, part of that.

As a long time member of SGI, I wish to compliment you on your answer. I would only add that specific instructions and examples on how to chant are on the SGI website and on Youtube in both audio and video. One place to begin on Youtube is with the singer Tina Turner chanting and this will lead to other helpful videos. Also the Tina Turner biography movie, What's Love Got to Do With It?, shows her beginning to chant. It is particularly well done since the director was also a Nichiren Buddhist.


text:
Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out?
Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out?
I thought there was, but can't find it. Sounds like Vacchagota mashed up with the fire sermon.
I'm asking because I like the image, and it almost appears in some modernist poetry.
Failing a sutta, any zen discourses.
Failing that, anywhere in the canon.
Failing that, any important Buddhist, living or dead.
Failing that an academic.

You're probably thinking of Itivuttaka 44:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)
Note1 and Note2 (commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still
  alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not
  burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else.


text:
Two types of satipaṭṭhāna - which has jhana?
In Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond,  Ajahn Brahm writes -

The Buddha taught two types of satipaṭṭhāna. The first type is supported by jhāna and leads to enlightenment in a short time.

Which satipaṭṭhāna is the first type, and where can it be found ? (By "two types" does he mean the two versions DN 22 and MN 10?)  Please reference both types and specify which is the "first type".

There is some explanation here, as in Jhanas of the present moment mindfulness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAt3J3-wEOI

Which satipaṭṭhāna is this, and where can it be found?
This is the direct path for purifying of beings, for overcoming sorrow and distress, for vanquishing pain and distress, for attaining the right approach, for realizing Nirvana – namely, the four applications mindfulness’
Was this the satipaṭṭhāna which led to the Buddha's awakening?
My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

The idea of Ajahn Brahm sounds strange to me. I imagine there is only one type of Satipatthana, which means to "establish mindfulness". What this means is whatever body, feelings, mental states or Truth/Reality is/are experienced; the mind 'remembers' ('sati') to not have covetousness & distress towards those bodies, feelings, mental states or Truth/Reality.
Jhana (Appanā Samādhi) is merely a higher level of feelings (2nd satipatthana) and mind (3rd satipattana) than experienced with the lower Neighborhood Concentration (Upacara Samadhi) of Anapanasati. Therefore, mindfulness is established towards jhana the same as towards any other experience, as explained in many suttas, such as below:

Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana... he remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
  detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers.
MN 111


text:
Would a true Buddhist engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy?
The No true Scotsman fallacy is a rhetorical trick to avert criticism of a generalization by appealing to the impurity of counterexamples i.e., "no true Scotsman would do such a thing!"
My question is whether or not a true Buddhist would ever appeal to such a juvenile rhetorical trick?
I'm thinking that no true Buddhist would ever do this as I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation. What's the community think?

As in no true Buddhist would do such a thing?

Correct. That's the question...

I think in this particular case given the code of ethics that would be valid in some cases.

I see The True Scotsman Fallacy as a joking illustration of reification. There is obviously no such thing as THE TRUE Scotsman. It's an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Every Scotsman is different and not all of them even live in Scotland! How can we possibly say that some of them are "true" and some are "fake"?
Similarly, "TRUE Buddhist" is an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Believing that True Buddhists actually exist or that someone is a true Buddhist while someone else is not, are two examples of reification.
So to ask "would a true Buddhist engage in The True Scotsman Fallacy" is akin to asking whether a reification would engage in reification. And of course it happens all the time! Someone considering himself a "true Buddhist" (I don't want to name any users here but I can think of a few) is by definition rather prone to engaging into a "no true Buddhist would do or say X, Y, Z" line of argument. Not to say that, even more generally, someone considering himself a sentient being is probably rather likely to have an unconscious predilection for engaging into all types of reifying views that lead to quarrels and arguments.
In fact the entire Buddhist path (according to Mahayana interpretation) can be seen as growing up from naive reification and into the "wisdom" (wisdom or prajna being a short word for "a skillful modus operandi based on special insight into the nature of phenomena with awareness of the rewards of, the dangers of, and the escape from - reification"). In this sense of course, a "true Buddhist" (from streamenterer and above, or from 1st Bhumi and above in Mahayana) would NOT engage into naive reifying definitions like "the true Buddhist" or "the true Scotsman" etc.
Which is why "a true Buddhist" would never ever consider him or her self "a true Buddhist". If this sounds like a paradox, welcome to true Buddhism ;)

So your answer is that a true Buddhist would not engage in this fallacy and further would not consider the term “true Buddhist” to signify anything more than a mere label? Also, can you elaborate on the part about considering oneself a sentient being? I didn’t get that...

@YesheTenley http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html

The "Scotsman" type of generalisation consists of trying to formulate a rule which links two pre-existing definitions. In the example you referenced ...

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

... there's a pre-existing definition of what "a Scotsman" is, and there's a pre-existing definition of what "porridge" and "sugar" are.
I get the impression that Buddhist dhamma avoids this, by (explicitly or implicitly) inventing new definitions or redefining existing definitions.
And so for example when Buddhist dhamma talks about kamma or etc. you can't assume that's a new statement about a predefined already-well-known thing, instead it may be a new definition.
Thus, to learn dhamma you need to learn (to understand) new definitions of existing words: what does "dukkha" mean when that occurs in Buddhist dhama, for example? What is considered "skilful" versus "unskilful", and so on?
I think there's an obvious example of that in the Dhammapada, e.g. in the last chapter -- the following is an example of a statement that might seem like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy:

"Holy men don't get angry."
"But uncle Angus is holy -- you can tell he's holy, by his matted hair -- and he gets angry."
"Well Uncle Angus isn't truly holy then."

... but the Dhammapada is quite clearly intending to redefine holiness:

Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body — him do I call a holy man.

See also Sat-Dharma: Buddhism is an (arguably successful) attempt to invent new generalisations which are always true.
I think that Buddhists (even true Buddhists -- who would I be to call anyone a fake Buddhist?) are inclined sometimes to test the limits of these generalisations, for example I've seen questions like:

If dharma is meant to be evident and here-and-now, then what about the doctrine of "rebirth"?
If lying is breaking a precept, what about a white lie told to save someone's  life from a villain?

Perhaps this question is another example: trying to define (and assert) what a "true Buddhist" is.
I'm sure the Buddha would not have approved of such illogical argumentation
Also I somewhat doubt that the Buddha was a slave to logic -- "Do I exist, or don't I?", or, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature, or not?".
It wouldn't surprise me if logic can be viewed as a example of "skilful means".
It's somewhat up to the audience to make sense of what's being said.
And I think that Buddhism isn't necessarily about making well-defined, legalistic statements of a type that can be tested and disproven; it's not like, "here is a picture", where you might ask, "does this picture match a photograph in every detail: or is the picture wrong?" It's more about providing frames of reference, compass directions, doctrine to help evaluate, structure, classify, and make sense of experience -- this answer is an example of de-emphasising the supremacy of the logical/rational (calling it "fruitless quasi-intellectual speculation").

Do you believe there is one true meaning of dukkha that is valid for all Buddhist dhama?
I'm not sure whether it's that ("one true meaning of dukkha") or the opposite.

For a start, they say there's no single English-language word that's a worthy translation ("suffering? unsatisfactoriness? stress") -- so instead, for an anglophone, it's a new word to be learned (with a meaning of its own).
It seems to be defined (in the first noble truth), or maybe the 1NT is merely using it (as a then-well-known word) to characterise other experiences
It seems to be broad or all-encompassing, for example:

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress."

and:

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā

This sounds like Buddhism as a form of perfected dogmatism... you really think that's what it is about?
Google defines "dogmatism" as ...

the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence

... so no, I don't think that (though I suppose I'm more willing than some are, to consider dogma).
I see it as more of a science, e.g. it identifies experienced characteristics of things, and makes generalisations about relationships between things and between characteristics.
Part of what I find welcoming (about the dhamma as explained in the suttas) is that it claims to be "inviting inspection":

Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti

... and, "good in the beginning".
It's more useful (practical, beneficial, applicable) than some other forms of science.
In particular I see it as a set of (personally) useful (helpful) collection of tools (observations, views), rather than an abstract (impersonal, only-theoretical) set of dogma.
Note that in science it's alright to use logic to predict reality -- that's not called "dogma", it's called a "(working) hypothesis" (see also "faith" -- Andrei's answer maybe suggests that "dogma" is more a character of later forms of Buddhism).
And there's another sense in which it's not dogmatic: i.e. it allows for two forms of right view (mundane and supramundane).
can you give an example of the virtues of illogic
Here's a strawman example:
"Either you love me, and you'll let me skip going to school and stay home; or, you hate me."
I think that's a fictional example or illustration of childish logic, which an adult needn't accept.
SN 7.2 is a sutta about not accepting an insult. I think that in a similar way the Buddha wouldn't necessarily accept someone's logic: for example, "either practice austerities and self-mortification, or backslide into abundance" (instead of which, the Buddha taught a Middle Way).
Logic (as I understand it -- I was taught maths rather than logic or philosophy) is no better than its premises (its axioms); and tends towards black-or-white statements ("Are you logical, or illogical?"); and a closed system of logic is somewhat incomplete.
Other examples of what you called "illogic", and which I'd prefer to call "not constrained by logic":

The unanswered questions
The paragraphs which describe A thicket of wrong views
More generally, views and "attachment to views" can be a type of hindrance or fetter (partly because that becomes a cause of disputes; see also the simile of dhamma as a raft)

Identifying and avoiding the "thicket of views" and characterising it as a "fetter" is an impressive and useful achievement IMO (and an example of not being a slave to logic) -- comparable to cutting the Gordian knot (except kinder and everything).
Finally my personal opinion is that the Buddha described as trackless needn't care to be constrained by logic. Not that the dhamma is self-contradictory, but I once read the following aphorism described as a prière païenne ...

Faites que je me contredise souvent : afin d'être simple et vrai.

... which says that if you have a choice between saying something logically self-consistent, versus saying what's simple and true, prefer the latter.
Also my physics teacher for example taught me to see "first and second order approximations" as useful (practical, admirable, true, and appropriate), rather than as inaccurate.

Thanks @ChrisW! "what does "dukkha" mean when that occurs in Buddhist dhama, for example"... Do you believe there is one true meaning of dukkha that is valid for all Buddhist dhama?
"Buddhism is an (arguably successful) attempt to invent new generalisations which are always true."
This sounds like Buddhism as a form of perfected dogmatism... you really think that's what it is about?
"doubt that the Buddha was a slave to logic" ... can you give an example of the virtues of illogic?

@YesheTenley I edited, to try to answer your questions.

First, be careful with the word logic. It is easy to see oneself as ''logical'', but for anybody who does not want to pass for a boob, there is no relevance in  using the word logical,  before any learning about formal logic and natural logic, typically by talking to logicians.
Second, only rationalists claim that logics matter and they fantasize that some of the products of their imagination connect them to ''true reality'' which is some fantasy of going beyond ''appearances'' and ''emotional biases'' and that the various logics is a way to ''communicate clearly'' and a way of ''justifiable knowledge'' which would be a realization one of their deepest fantasy of labeling as knowledge something that is something else that the consciousness of whatever ''objects'' (to speak like the realists) is felt through the 5 senses.
This is for the ''secular'' rationalists. For the ''religious'' rationalists, the ''justifiable knowledge'' also include the scriptures that they claim ''are true'' or, let's say, ''are authentic, meaning authoritative'' or ''not altered'' by bad people.
In natural languages, their fantasy of ''arguments'', inside a ''debate'' are there to ''support a thesis'' and they claim that, somehow, the adversaries are supposed to changed side once they ''understand the arguments''. When they do not like a statement qualified as an argument, they are quick to label the statement as ''fallacious''.
All those quoted words are theirs and mean absolutely nothing.
Third, since you care about what rationalists do and that those people write books, you ''learn'' (to speak like a them) that the various indian buddhisms that you have today have been created by indian puthujjanas, then later on taken by the chinese and the tibetans who created the Mahayana and the vajrayana whose followers -- being puthujjanas -- are bound to love to use bad words to express their bad ideas.
The buddha did not create any buddhism. IT is the puthujjanas who created buddhism as their natural tendencies to fantasize a system out of any doctrine they hear or read. Some of those people go even further and try to create, or rather mix, their system with the organization of people, which is typically called a society.
Those people love to fantasize that the buddha would worry, or even worse, would agree with their views about some current social issues.
Yet, Typically, the only system created by the buddha is the called the vinaya.
Now puthujjanas love to fantasize about what a ''true something'' would be, like you who want to follow your natural tendency of puthujjanas to fantasize about ''what is a true buddhist'', you could say it is the one who at least follows the 5 precepts, but most people are not able to follow those for more than a few days or weeks.
You can even be more severe on your ''criteria'' (as if you -- as a puthujjana -- are able to discriminate among people) declare that such a person would be someone who has sati and restrain the senses all day long like a good fortress, day after day avoiding ''the 3 poisons'' of ignorance of the right view, of the path, of the 8 fold path, and, of course, of the lack of engaging in the ''middle way'' which is the presence of aversion and avidity towards the pleasures and pains, (by enjoying the senses or being such an ascetic that even the joy of the jhanas would be seen as inappropriate), like mentioned here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.063.than.html
. In one word, a true buddhist is a student of the buddha.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It looks like just a lot of word salad. BTW, I am very familiar with true formal logics.

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

The statement above assumes existence of two kinds of Scotsman ,true Scotsman and untrue Scotsman. It assumes people are struggling to be called true Scotsman. True Scotsman is a highly coveted title.
The statement silently encourages the person be a true Scotsman. Applying that to Buddhist Sangha, it perfectly makes sense. The statement appeals to conscience. I think the statement can be used to make a  valid and wise appeal to both true Scotsman and true Buddhist.