text:
Avoiding debates & looking into Planes/realms
What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it?
Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by experience to understand them better?
I believe the planes, I just was curious about that.
Metta to all!

What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove
  Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, &
  I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the
  Poisons, but I keep getting into it?

First, you need to understand that Religion is not Science. Science proceeds step-by-step by verifying objective reality, religion proceeds as a subjective experience. It is easy to avoid the debate, just don't go into it. Understand that it is essentially your mind and not you who wants to debate and prove everything right. It is your ego which hankers for arguments because such things as debates strengthen your ego.
As you keep getting into it then simply watch how the mind acts. Next time do not react but respond. And the right response is to ask your friends to meditate and look for themselves the realms or planes.

Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a
  sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by
  experience to understand them better?

If you consider Jhnanas as planes of existence then there obviously is a proof of so many Buddhist meditators. But that proof is not like an objective proof of physics, that proof is a subjective experience.
It is very much verifiable through meditations.
So next time you end up in a debate, ask your friends to sit in silence for 5 minutes and just be aware of your mind or breath.

The planes of existence can known as psychological states of mind therefore it is easy to prove them to others. People have hellish suffering; people behave like animals; people can be ungrounded rootless ghosts & addicts; people can live a godly life of wealth, power, luxury or bliss; people can be humane.
Planes of existence are depicted below. An explanation is: The Wheel of Life by Barbara O'Brien.

I'm not sure i understand the images relation to the topic, could you elaborate?

The 1st picture is the classic (Tibetan) depiction of Dependent Origination including five realms starting clockwise: human realm, hungry ghost realm, hell realm, animal realm, godly realm (from here https://www.liberationpark.org/images/wheel200.jpg). The 2nd picture is my modern interpretation of the same realms, clockwise human, ghost, hell, hell, animal & gods. The link is one person's explanation: https://www.learnreligions.com/the-wheel-of-life-4123213

@Dhammadhatu Why are asuras missing? Are they absent in some traditions?

Asura are included in the deva realm but, yes, some traditions separate them from the good devas.

If the planes of existence are something to be taken literally (and not as a metaphor), and if one can only learn personally about such planes by developing psychic powers, then nothing we can say will be enough evidence for proving or disproving the existence of those places.
My personal view on this kind of matters is that I'll put aside (at least for now) anything that I cannot prove or disprove beyond doubts. Maybe my lack of experience and practice is an obstacle to know these things. In the meantime, I'll rather to focus on what I can know and verify personally: the training following the Noble Eightfold Path. Everything else might (or might not) eventually come; who knows...
Kind regards!

More on the planes of existence see: 31 Planes of Existence by Ven. Jinavamsa

anything verifiable by experience to understand them better?

This is possible. One has to do Samatha meditation to develop the 4 Jhana and then Abhinna. Then it might be possible to see other planes depending on how powerful your Jhanas are.

Your friends and family will never disprove Buddhist doctrine his way. They've exactly no chance of falsifying the planes of existence or impermanence. The only way would be to construct a falsification in metaphysics, and all a study of metaphysics will do is verify its plausibility.
Western philosophers have spent two thousand years trying to falsify the doctrine, albeit without knowing what it is, and haven't yet found another doctrine that even works.

Out of the 31 planes of existence, we are familiar with the plane of humans and the plane of animals.
Until the microscope was invented, we were not familiar with microorganisms. There is one possible hypothesis that the hungry shades or hungry ghosts are actually microorganisms (please see this question). So, it's possible that now we know this plane too.
In any case, the usefulness of Buddhism does not depend on other planes existing.
The Dhamma is useful in the here-and-now, to end the suffering that you are experiencing at this very moment.
Whether the 31 planes of existences are literal physical realms or metaphorical psychological realms, are not important to the practice and usefulness of Buddhism.
On the other hand, the usefulness of the religions your friends and family members belong to (based on your previous question), probably depends completely on the promise of going to heaven after death. If there is no afterlife, would those religions still be useful? If there is no afterlife, would belief in the tenets of those religions still be justified?
In comparison, if there is no afterlife, and if the 31 planes of existences are only metaphorical psychological realms, Buddhism would still be very useful in the here-and-now.
If you explain the usefulness and pragmatism of Buddhism in this way, it should put an end to your debates.
Also, ask them this question - could a religion or practice still be useful and meaningful, if there is no afterlife? And then prove to them that Buddhism will pass this test.

Unfortunately, even our most modern scientific instruments are still too primitive to capture concrete data to prove the existence of other planes/realms. Afterall, science still has no luck in capturing dark matter and dark energy. So the possibility of other planes and realms is made possible only by logical induction for now, sort of like the flat-landers analogy in Dr. Sagan's video (ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 )

What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it?
Why are they trying to do that?
I won't (and can't) debate Buddhism at all. If someone asks me about something I can try to explain what I've understood, but it often and quickly turns to "I don't know" if they ask me something -- I don't know how to explain it to them, partly because of the way they're thinking.
It doesn't bother me much though -- doesn't mean that Buddhism is wrong, or that I'm wrong, or that they're wrong -- I'm not a monk or a Buddha, a trained teacher.
Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence
I'm not very interested in that topic.
That doctrine -- not to mention the doctrine of rebirth generally -- is one of the more colourful doctrines of Buddhism, so it's not surprising if they "pick on" that as a doctrine that's hard to believe or to understand.
One way to see it is to say that humans and animals definitely exist, the other planes aren't so visible but don't other religions teach that doctrine too (e.g. heaven and hell)?
Another way might be to say that they are different states of mind.
You can possibly take them as being states of mind in the present.

The Gates of Paradise
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.


text:
Going to a Catholic School
Namo tassa bagavato arahanto samma sambuddhasa (Sorry, I am not fluent)
I go to a Catholic High School & I have a theology class that preaches only their truths & say it is the supreme truth above all & that if one does not believe so they will perish in the extreme notion of the eternal hell.
I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them, but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day, it can be hard to focus on my emotions toward other paths, as well as it can be hard for me to not get distorted by them & follow the Buddha's teachings.

What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching while at
  the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of
  so) towards other paths?

Metta to all! :)

I had the same doctrine when I was young (though at Sunday School, not at High School).
Eventually it seemed to me that "theirs is the only truth" was the most incredible part of the doctrine.
but when it comes down to being metaphorically hit in the face with them every day
Well, I hope that school teachers are not violent -- that "hit in the face" is only a metaphor now.
What would one offer as advice to not sway from the Dhamma by distorted teaching
There's some Buddhist advice about how to study Buddhist doctrine in DN 16, called Four Great References, which describes how to listen to someone who is trying to teach or to re-tell the doctrine:

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'...
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

So -- "without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying ...". You did say you're doing something like that, "I try my best to have no aversion toward other followings & I also take a genuine interest in them".
Learning more than one language can help you to better understand each language, the same may be true, that understanding Catholic doctrine (including how it's taught and practised) adds to learning Buddhist doctrine too -- including what they might have in common (both good and not so good), and how they're different.
How do their lists of virtues and sins compare, for example?
And this isn't the place to discuss Catholicism, but since you mentioned "if one does not believe so they will perish", there's a slightly different statement now in Lumen Gentium published in 1964 -- see e.g. "Possibility of salvation outside the Church" -- though you wouldn't know that from the way they teach Catechism.
while at the same time not have hatred in general (due to their delusions & spreading of so) towards other paths
There's any amount of standard advice, I don't know what to say.
Just "turn the other cheek", and "love thy neighbour".
Or tell yourself (SN 35.88) that,

'These ... people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands

Or try to find a better teacher, or to communicate better with the ones you have.
Or more practice and less theory, if that makes sense.
And "hatred in general" sounds like a mistake to me, I think there are forms of Christianity, and individual Christians, who can be good friends -- even if they're possibly not the ones teaching that theology class -- which it would be off-topic to talk about here, but maybe just try not to generalise.

Why don’t you instead use this as an opportunity to explore what they do get right?  Catholicism specifically can have tremendous similarities to Buddhism.  The writings of St. John of the Cross especially come to mind.  Rather than meeting them with aversion, why not curiosity and openness instead?

Christianity probably comes from Buddhism rather than from the traditional old tribal Judaism. There are some later books in the Old Testament similar to Christianity, such as Proverbs, but Proverbs was composed after Buddhism. The Old Testament Judaic religion has at least two periods: (i) before the Babylonian Exile; and (ii) after the Babylonian Exile. It seems obvious the later (post-Exile) Judaism (such as Proverbs) and particularly Christianity is heavily influenced by Buddhism.
You should try to learn the true meaning of Christianity; which comes from Buddhism, such as the Tevijja Sutta. In the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha taught the Indian Brahmins who believed in God (Brahma) that the Way/Path to God/Brahma is by radiating love & compassion in all directions. For example, Jesus said: "I am the Way to the Father" and "I am from the only True God". Jesus said: "Be perfect (in love) like your Father in Heaven (is  perfect in love)".
What Jesus said above is true because the "True God" of Jesus is not the old tribal Jewish God called 'Yahweh or 'Jehovah'. The True God of Jesus is "The Father" or what Buddhism calls "Brahma". "Brahma" as written in many suttas is "love". The Christians taught "God is love". Jesus is the way to The Father because the way of Jesus is love. The way Jesus leads to the Father, who is also love.
Please try to understand.

1 John 4:7-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
God Is Love
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love
  does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was
  made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so
  that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have
  loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation
  for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love
  one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God
  abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Therefore, if the Catholics teach their god is the only true god only because it is the "maker of heaven & earth", this is false. Jesus did not teach the Nicene Creed, which the Catholics preach:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.

The "One God" of Jesus is "love" or "Brahma Vihara".
If Catholics hate Buddhists or Buddhism, then they are not following the true god of "love".

Note: I went to a Catholic school for 5 years, from 13 to 18 years old but we rarely learned any religion.

Proverbs was composed after Buddhism Google suggests they were finished in about the 4th century BC.

yes. that is what i wrote

Hi DD! Is there any historical, documental or archeological evidence for these statements? There are a lot of scholar which believe that the sayings in John are ones probably farthest (in comparison to the the sinoptics) from what an historical Jesus might've said. Most of the sayings which have Jesus identifying himself as a god come, precisely, from John. Kind regards!

It seems possible that Jesus studied in India and very likely that he spent time a long time in his youth with the solitary monks of the tradtion that produced the Phllokalia, but to say his doctrine comes from Buddhism cannot be correct. It comes from direct knowledge. It would be surprising if he learnt nothing from Buddhism but a good teacher teaches from knowledge, not from previous teachings received as heresay.    ,

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Karma and Contact with Dharma
I'm wondering whether the knowledge of the Buddhist path and participating in it would be the fruition of good karma? I mean, since following this path implies virtue and further good karma, even if done temporarily, I would assume good karma is necessary to attain it.
I also wonder whether the adherence to the path -- e.g. stream entry, Bodhisattva bhumis -- occur as well from the accumulation of karma. In other words, does accumulating a certain level of good karma promote or even ensure that rebirths will generate good karma as well?
Thank you

Dhp 64-65 may increase faith for attentive.

I'm wondering whether the knowledge of the Buddhist path and participating in it would be the fruition of good karma.
First of all, it takes a lot of good Karma to attain human life, it is through human life only that one can work on oneself to attain Nibbana. Human life is a rare occurring. Then, of course, it takes a huge amount of intelligence, maturity and millions of lives of good karma to arrive at the true Dhamma and to arrive at the understanding that, 'desire is the root cause of sorrow'.
In other words, does accumulating a certain level of good karma promote or even ensure that rebirths will generate good karma as well?
This is something circumstantial. You might be reborn in brahma realm and you might do bad karma and then reborn in lower realms. There is no guarantee of rebirths generating good karma.

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


text:
Intention and Karma
When a text (e.g. Abhidhamma) lists 'wholesome' mental factors, is it meant that these are also likely to produce positive karmic consequences, or that these are just beneficial in general?
For example, in the Theravada tradition I read that sati, i.e. mindfulness, is a beautiful mental factor. In a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard explains how even a sniper may use mindfulness. So I am confused as to whether 'wholesome' and 'karmically positive' are synonymous or not.

As well, from this answer I understand that karma refers specifically to the ethical intention. So, when their compassionate action which lacks wisdom produces detrimental effects, is a well-intended, compassionate person still nevertheless generating positive karma? This possibility seems to imply that developing a compassionate intention almost negates completely the possibility of unvirtuous karma.
Thank you

Wholesome and unwholesome minds/types of consciousness, when ripen give rise to the respective resultant minds/types of consciousness. See: 89 / 121 types of consciousness
Sati in the The 52 Mental Factors (cetasika) is the Right Mindfulness. The mindfulness a shooter uses is Ekaggatā to concentrate the aim and Manasikāra as attention. These are universal factors which can appear in wholesome and unwholesome acts.

For example, in the Theravada tradition I read that sati, i.e. mindfulness, is a beautiful mental factor. In a discussion with the Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard explains how even a sniper may use mindfulness. So I am confused as to whether 'wholesome' and 'karmically positive' are synonymous or not.

This is where it's important to examine the root words in Pali. The English term 'mindfulness' is pretty broad and can carry different connotations depending on context, hence the need to look up its Pali terms to see the distinction. For example, in the case of unwholesome mindfulness of a sniper that Ven. Ricard was referring to, he possibly meant 'Manasikara'(or 'attention') instead of Sati. Manasikara is 1 of the 13 mental factors under the Annasamana(Ethically Variable) group; while Sati(or 'mindfulness') belongs to the Sobhana(Beautiful) group along with 25 other mental factors. All the details are pretty well-explained in Ven. Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma"
Regarding actions that was done out of good intention but ended up with terrible results, this is exactly why Buddhism emphasizes the cultivation of both compassion and wisdom, which have to go hand in hand. So for example, some well-intent action that resulted in many accidental lives lost cannot be expected to reap some exclusively good kammic fruit. At best it'd only result in what's called mixed kamma with dark and bright results (ref. MN 57).

When a text (e.g. Abhidhamma) lists 'wholesome' mental factors, is it meant that these are also likely to produce positive karmic consequences, or that these are just beneficial in general?

I'm not sure i understand your distinction between karmic consequences, and what is beneficial in general. They seem like the same thing to me.

As well, from this answer I understand that karma refers specifically to the ethical intention. So, when their compassionate action which lacks wisdom produces detrimental effects, is a well-intended, compassionate person still nevertheless generating positive karma? This possibility seems to imply that developing a compassionate intention almost negates completely the possibility of unvirtuous karma.

In theory, we can have the best of intentions and still make a mess. A favorite (non-buddhist) quote of mine is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Karma is a two sided coin. Our actions (karma) needs to be well meaning, as well as having good consequences (vipaka) in order to be considered beneficial.
(There are other aspects to take into consideration if one wishes to develop even more skillful karma-vipaka, but that's perhaps another topic).

Sati is mindfulness. It's keeping the mind on the task, without wandering.
From SN 47.20:

The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people
  comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty
  queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at
  singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging,
  saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!'
  Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring
  pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister.
  You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on
  your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a
  raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even
  a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you
  think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil,
  let himself get distracted outside?"
"No, lord."
"I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. The meaning is
  this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness
  immersed in the body. Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will
  develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it
  the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it,
  consolidate it, and undertake it well.' That is how you should train
  yourselves."

However, sati is not good enough. There is also samma sati - right mindfulness. Right mindfulness includes right view. Right view is the forerunner of the path according to MN 117.
From MN 117:

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

While sati or mindfulness is keeping the mind on the task, manasikara or attention is about directing the mind in the right direction.
Yoniso manasikara is appropriate attention and ayoniso manasikara is inappropriate attention. You can read the question "What is yoniso manasikara and ayoniso manasikara?"
From SN 9.11:

I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among
  the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's
  abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of
  sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

From inappropriate attention
    you're being chewed by your thoughts.
    Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
    contemplate appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
    the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues,
    you will arrive at
    joy,
    rapture,
    pleasure
    without doubt.
Then, saturated
    with joy,
    you will put an end
    to suffering
    & stress.

The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

So, what does this mean? Both are needed - samma sati or right mindfulness, and yoniso manasikara or appropriate attention. However, samma ditthi or right view has to come first. Without right view, every other effort goes the wrong way.
The sniper who aims, shoots and kills another person, may be mindful and have attention, but he doesn't have right view, because a person with right view will stick heedfully (appamada) to the first precept and not kill others, especially another human being.
The sniper who aims, shoots and kills another person, may be mindful and have attention, but it's not right mindfulness and not appropriate attention.

Relying on what the Dalai Lama and Matthieu Ricard say is not a good idea. Those people fail to understand that sati, sati sampajanna, satipatthana are not ''just knowing what is happening right now'' but knowing the vedanas, sanna and vitakka plus cleaning them.
The people who created vipassana mediation do the same mistake as the people who invented mahayana: they claim that tracking sense objects is ''living in the present moment'' and that tracking those stuff is meritorious, whereas the meritorious activity is actually cleaning vedanas, sanna and vitakkas (so this requires to actually track them in the first place). Plus you cannot clean rupa, kaya, the sense objects, the earth elements and so on, so tracking them and calling this meritorious is idiotic, that's the whole point of the buddha.
Then when vitakka is cleaned, there is the jhanas and the buddha calls this ''abiding in the here and now'' which is today called ''living in the present moment'' to use the word of the puthujjanas above. They confuse kāya-gatā-sati with tracking sense objects.
This is why those people are bad at ''sense restrained'', because they are bad at the cultivatoin for ''sense restrained'', which is sati, which makes them fail at jhanas, let alone right samadhi, let alone disenchantment, dispassion and all that.


text:
Metta's Intensity and Concentration
I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).
Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?

I noticed that in my meditation on compassion, the beginning is consistently potent (i.e. tears, strong feeling) and the ending is usually less apt (i.e. body agitation, distraction).
Most likely what is happening is when you think about different people

your perception of them
past incidents
their situations

Stir up emotions.
Would the emotional intensity of such a meditation depend highly on concentration? Or, perhaps, would some other aspect explain this, e.g. becoming saturated emotionally early in the meditation?
Emotional intensity most likely goes down with meditations as your concentration increases your mind becomes stable.

So would a more advanced type of metta produce less emotions?

I believe so. See when you do not distinguish among different groups and being reacting with like and dislike then you will be less emotional. It is this reaction which makes you emotional.


text:
Killer Neighbors
Namo Buddhaya!
My neighbor is a hardcore Christian & is a very nice man, the only thing is that he goes outside every once & a while with a water gun & kills insects (and even shoots rabbits with the gun). He also really pushes his religion on others and expects people to be Christians, otherwise, they will suffer eternally in Hell. This makes me concerned about the amount of bad Kamma he may be accumulating from his actions, thoughts, & speech.
I had 3 questions:

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?
Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

Metta to all!

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
If you wanted to, how about just saying, "Blessed are the merciful", see how he understands that?
I wonder if perhaps he'd understand better if you spoke from within the context of his (Christian) scripture.
I propose you shouldn't want him to perceive "conceit" however -- i.e. his perceiving you as comparing yourself to him, as your saying that you are superior.
See How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for some description of conceit.
Instead it might work better if he perceives "love" (or mercy, etc.) which he is inspired to emulate.
What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?
I don't know, how about -- "Jesus said to love God, and love thy neighbour".
I suggest that, not because it's a Buddhist dictum, but because I reckon you might want to speak using someone else's language in order to communicate with them.
Be careful not to lie, though.
Incidentally there are said to be four ways to answer a question

First the categorical answer,
  then the qualified,
  third, the type to be counter-questioned,
  & fourth, the one to be set aside.

For example:

"Yes" or "no"
"If when you say 'Good Christian' you mean 'X' then etc."
"How do you think you would recognise a good Christian?"
:-)

Anyway you might think you're required to give a categorical answer, but there are other ways to answer which might be better.
Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?
You asked about "skilful". One of the words translated "skilful" is kusala, try this essay for example, Kusala and Akusala (which seems to have been written for Christians, but anyway), one of the things it mentions is,

In the early Buddhist discourses, individuals are classified into four groups, in the following manner :

The individual who pursues neither his own (moral) well-being nor others’ (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues others’ (moral) well-being but not his own (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues his own (moral) well-being but not others’ (moral) well-being
The individual who pursues his own (moral) well-being as well as others’ (moral) well-being

I think that un-deluding another's mind is what a bodhisattva might aspire to.

The suttas say to teach Dhamma only to those who ask for it. Therefore, you are forbidden to preach Dhamma to your neighbour (unless he wishes you do).

Etadaggaṃ peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa punappunaṃ
  dhammaṃ deseti.
And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again
  Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.
AN 9.5

As for Christianity, Jesus taught people go to 'heaven' & 'hell' as a result of their actions rather than as a result of superficial faith or allegiance. Refer to Parable of the Good Samaritan.

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

I empathize with you, having grown up around such people.
My advice would be to show this neighbor the same love and compassion you feel towards the rabbits and others. You may think of him as just another creature, acting out his natural tendencies, much like a tiger or alligator. Reflect on his positive aspects. Be mindful of your own reactions, feeling, or aversion toward him or his actions, and let go of that which you can't control.
Teach the Dhamma through your actions, they speak louder than words. Be compassionate towards the creatures under your care, and therefore be a friend to him. Change comes from within, so trying to teach at him or argue against his beliefs will never bear fruit. Show kindness, wisdom, positivity, and equanimity through your actions and the visible benefits of the Dhamma will become apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?

You should tactfully intervene. One should point out animals also feel pain and one should not do to animals what one does not like done to oneself.

What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Chrisitan"?

You can point out it is good to love Jesus. Also to be a better Christian one can practice:

morality
mastery over the mind
wisdom

Whatever religion or faith system one can practice the above 3 trainings.
You can then direct him to a course which teacher these:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

You should not worry. One should just try and accept whatever outcome.

OP: Is it skillful to not intervene in his acts of killing, knowing he will not understand?
OP: Should I not worry about un-deluding his mind to help him understand the Dhamma?

Skillfulness applies to one's own thoughts, words and actions, and not those of other people. Of course the exception to this is that parents and teachers have the responsibility to correct their children, but this does not apply in your case.
In fact, if you think that you have to correct other people's actions, this is a slippery slope to feeling contempt for other people. Contempt is a type of aversion. I think we should avoid providing unsolicited advice to people who are not very close to us. Also see this question.
But if solicited, you can drop him a hint. For e.g. if he invites you to join him in shooting rabbits, you can decline by saying that you feel compassion for the suffering of harmless rabbits. (Luke 6:36)

OP: What is an appropriate response to him asking if I "love Jesus only" or if I'm a "good Christian"?

If he asks you if you "love Jesus only", you can reply "I love Jesus and all my neighbours too!" (Matthew 22:39)
If he asks you if you're a "good Christian", you can reply, "I try to be as good as Jesus wants us to be". (Matthew 5:48)
As ChrisW mentioned, it's important not to break the precept of not speaking untruth.


text:
Is "doing according to one's best understanding" a protection from wrong-doing?
A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing.
For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..."
Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve?
[Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption]

Please avoid asking loaded/rhetorical questions when you already have an answer.

Doing the best that you can, is not a protection against wrong-doing.
Why? Ignorance, or the lack of Right View and wisdom, may cause you to commit wrong-doing, despite doing "the best that you can".
Hence, gaining Right View, and gradually improving Right View and wisdom over time, through insight, will push the boundaries of your "best effort".
In the Salt Crystal Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), the Buddha taught:

'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And there you have it. For protection from wrong-doing, one should be developed in body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment and dwelling in the immeasurable.
The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here:

What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it
  in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a
  lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted,
  living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.

I cannot see how it would be possible to do any better than doing the best we can. If we do this but inadvertently cause suffering or harm then it would hardly be fair if this created bad karma.
Surely it is intention that matters, not the outcome of the action, especially since approximately all the outcomes of our actions cannot be known in advance.
The only proviso seem to be that 'doing the best we can' must involve the acquisition of knowledge, since ignorance is no excuse for wrong-doing where it is a choice.

Where is there no choice? 2. What about relaying of what's framed by sila as long no real view on mind, householder Peter?

@SamanaJohann - I meant that ignorance is no excuse where ignorance is a choice. That is to say, it would be an ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding and better inform our behaviour.  If we make no effort to acquire knowledge then ignorance ceases to be an excuse for wrong-doing.

May my person assume that "where ignorance is a choice" does not say: "I did it the best way I could", good householder.

@SamanaJohann - Exactly.

So understanding is always a choice, as not is?

@SamanaJohann - Understanding is not a choice. Seeking an understanding is a choice.

Sure? Does Householder Peter likes to understand?

@SamanaJohann - I like to understand, yes. I do not understand your comments though. Maybe it's a language thing.

Does he.......?

Doing the best one can is relative to what one knows. If what you know is the method described in the Dhamma, then 'doing the best you know how at the time', if followed-up with a little review of the results will move you steadily from higher to higher and on out.

There are several suttas addressing the necessity in reflecting over consequences - besides our intentions - for the sake of benevolence.
From the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta:

All those brahmans & contemplatives at present who purify their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions, do it through repeated reflection on their bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions in just this way.
Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.' That's how you should train yourself.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html
Also, one of the five rememberances from Upajjhatthana Sutta regards the consequences of our actions:

Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html
This is also addressed in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta:

Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
A more thorough description of consequences is detailed in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. At the end this is summarized as:

So, Ananda, there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result); there is kamma that is incapable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears capable (of good result); there is kamma that is capable (of good result) and appears incapable (of good result).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

Is this all according to householders best understanding and/or prevents him from bad effects on it?

@Nah, this is according to dhammas, with respect to your question. My personal understanding consist of other (off topic) stuff as well.


text:
Unconscious Nature of Craving
I understand craving involves a strong preoccupation component. I noticed that somehow, when I either use a dating site or anything similar, I often check whether I received a message or if anything happened. However, I noticed even when I'm not checking the site, there seems to be less virtuous activity, almost as if the preoccupation was unconscious.
Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
I'm also wondering whether, if craving takes up mental space, it is because the mind takes time to create a craving and because the conscious element is just the surface.
Thank you

Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
From AN6.63 we understand that:

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.

If one goes to dating sites looking to acquire, one is practicing greed as "I want this person. I don't want that person." We treat people as things to shop for. We acquire and discard. We become acquired and discarded. We treat each other like plastic bottles of water. Drink and discard.
If one goes to dating sites looking to find good spiritual companions who are generous, kind and ethical, then one may find more friends and perhaps some additional closeness may develop.
Search for good spiritual companions. Dating apps might or might not be the best way to do that. Good spiritual companions often are found doing things that help others. Find a way to help others and you will find good spiritual companions.
The Noble Eight-Fold path starts with Right View. Think about your view as you use that dating app. Is it right?

The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
  The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
  but a wise one removes desire for them.
  ...
The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
  right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

OP: ... Can this be explained by the nature of craving?
Craving is the reactive response of the mind to sensations. When one feels one craves:

with feeling as condition, there is craving;

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta
OP: Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
For an untrained person, craving is the reflexive response. It does not physically otherwise occupy any space.
When one is aware one can:

note the sensation experienced
know that it is implements in and detached manner

Doing so one does not generate craving.

Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?
That seems plausible.
I heard that people have done "functional MRI" imaging of the brain during focused activity, and found that when you're successfully concentrating on a task then fewer areas of the brain are active -- i.e. only the areas associated with the task -- I suppose that having other areas active too would only be distracting.
In the case you mentioned, perhaps it could be explained as the difference between seeking (or expecting) something satisfactory (or rewarding) from the outside (i.e. from checking a website) -- contrasted with the reward of virtuous activity.
There's a lot of (non-Buddhist) literature about how social media is addictive -- e.g. because it delivers small doses of satisfaction (e.g. people "liking" what you post, etc.).

If you're checking for messages often on a dating site, that's not just craving (tanha). That's clinging (upadana).
From the question "What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?", I quote this answer:

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?
To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's
  say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day,
  you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you
  "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied
  with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel
  a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that
  person. That's dukkha.
Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about
  the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you
  begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can
  remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person
  yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you
  will see him or her again. That's upadana.

When you give attention to a theme frequently it becomes an inclination due to that frequent pondering.
What one sees that one thinks about and that theme is explored as basis for happiness, equanimity or distress.
Forms can be based on the eye or they can be a memory or imaginary.
Having direct one's attention to an object one explores it and associated themes according to one's best knowledge of good and bad (discernment faculty).
This is where one needs to pay a lot of attention and not be careless in giving attention, as to condition the mind properly.
What one sees, that one thinks about. What one thinks about that one objectifies. What one objectifies one evaluates. Having directed one's thought and made an evaluation one breaks out into speech; therefore thoughts & evaluation are verbalized.
These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
As long as discernment remains undeveloped there will be ignorance on to that extent and on account of that ignorance what one sees and thinks about will be explored as basis for happiness on account of wrong views, and on account of these wrong views there will come into being wrong thoughts and resolves.
Therefore as you can see the discernment is to be developed and it leads to development of the path as it is a condition for right thought and resolves.


text:
Is understanding a "bring-debt" or "gain-debt"?
Having read "...is an ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding", my person thought to investigate the matter in frame of the Dhamma. Against this sentence stands the common public idea and advertising of "knowledge, info, is a common right".
What does the Buddha say, right view accounts, in relation whether understanding is a "bring-duty, debt" (Bringschuld, [Jura] debt to be discharged at creditor's domicile, duty to inform the colleagues)  or a "gain duty, debt" (Holschuld, [JURA] debt to be discharged at the domicile of the debtor /obligation to be performed at the place of business of the debtor)?
Does one with right view think "I have/would have a right for knowledge and understanding" or "I have/would have to make sacrifices to gain knowledge and understanding?
Of course one can use google to help investigating.
[Of course not at all given for trade and exchange, but as means for liberation from this corrupt wheel]

Please provide some support (evidence, reference, quote) for this generalizing assertion:  "stands the common public idea and advertising of "knowledge, info, is a common right"" - where does this idea stand? Is it really common?

I guess it's crossed wires -- in context, Peter might have been saying "we have a duty to understand" in order to avoid being harmful -- whereas the OP's idea when posting that topic was maybe about, something like, its being blameworthy to post answers which are merely well-intentioned but ignorant.

This means knowning the things that relate to the issues people are facing to get along.

If not knowing that "one gains what one gives" yes, householder @Yvain . Beings are not aware of their dependency, not aware of goodness and foolishness is the cause of suffering, may one be pride as one likes. Giving downward tends downwardly.

@Samana Johann your answer is really innapropriate. Not to say wrong. You call me a housekeeper and you just don't know. I have no time for this go and seek the ones you lost back in the days, i'm too far away from your misconceptions.

Householder are busy,  householder @Yvain . No problem and however he likes to perceive things. Else is a "gain-duty".

i'm on 'health program' that means take in babylon drugs that are raping my mind, if I don't do so they take me away and put me in a cell where they make a game of my games. My mother calls me a monster, I have cancerous and leucemic attacks by attack I mean that it goes back and forth and that I allways beat it untill now. My father treats me like a little girl despite of this and what I see is only justice and love forever, I'm not a housekeeper. Bless you.

There is no better medicine then goodwill, forgiveness and the healing power of precepts, householder @Yvain . Feel always welcome here if possible to leave.

In some cases it seems like a Bringschuld -- e.g. the "debt" (of gratitude) which you owe to your parents is apparently to be repaid "to" your parents (so, by analogy, "at the creditor's domicile").
I think that when the Buddha taught, it was out of compassion -- and the way to "repay" that was by practising properly and benefiting -- so for example the Buddha requested or advised (in MN 103) that the monks should not quarrel amongst themselves. Perhaps you'd call that a Holschuld, i.e. an action performed by the monks in their own place and time.
Finally, assuming that Rahula gained understanding as a result of "reflecting" on his actions as described in MN 61 -- I'm not sure I see any "debt", at all, associated with that.

The Buddha and his generations of noble disciples gave out of compassion would be a great and protective observation, indeed. No duty at all did they have.

'Sacrifices' is puthujjana dharma, as follows:

And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning
  in giving, sacrifice, and offerings...' MN 117
'Householders, if wife and husband want to see each other in both this life and the next, they should be equals in faith, ethical
  conduct, sacrifice (caga) and
  wisdom...' AN 4.55

'Sacrifice' is, for example, what a husband does so he can win the sexual favour of his wife.
If we think we are 'sacrificing' something, this means we still value the object of sacrifice.
Where as the Path is from dispassion. When there is dispassion & disenchantment towards all of the world (as the Buddha taught), there is nothing of value to sacrifice.
For example, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Issac to please his worldly God. Where as the Buddha left his son to attain Nibbana (freedom from the world).

I'm not sure that the caga in that context means giving to each other, i.e. trading among themselves for each other's sexual favour. I interpreted it as, a married couple or family being generous towards others in (and outside of) society. The "sacrifice" meaning of caga is more Hindu, isn't it, i.e. "offerings" to a God?

"ethical duty to acquire knowledge in order to improve our understanding" means, if we stay stupid, we will create bad karma (trouble) for everyone , therefore we must learn, in order to understand what to do.
"Must learn" - there is no debt here.
"Must learn" - there is no common right.
If we don't learn, we will keep getting everyone in trouble.
That's what this means.

"Acquire" means "get", not "share".


text:
Handling Poisons?
Please help with these questions! :)

What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is angry?
What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is deluded?
What is the most skillful way to handle someone who is greedy?
And what is the most skillful way to handle the Poisons within me as
well?

Metta to all!

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

Part of a definition of "skilful" might be "adapted to specific features of the actual situation", so perhaps this isn't a question which can be answered in general.
Speaking of "handling poison", in case you didn't know, there's a verse about that in the Dhammapada:

If on the hand there is no wound, one may carry even poison in it. Poison does not affect one who is free from wounds. For him who does no evil, there is no ill.

I think there's a detailed example of how to do that in Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2).

In honesty though you might find your ability to "carry poison" like that is existent, but temporary or finite. I for example used to find that if someone would trap me in a room and shout at me angrily then after about half an hour I'd begin to get upset (perhaps caused by ears being hurt by the sound pressure) and seek to escape. And at the time I wasn't skilful at alleviating their 'poisons'.

If sone one is ______, then there is so much you can do. Best is one some look inwards and if the situation is creating sensations (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) know the sensation and note it's implemented. If you get perceptions, thoughts and view that that is subjected to Vipallasa raise thoughts respective thoughts of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non/not-self, lack of beauty.
Also, if one can tactfully bring the person to Dhamma then one can try that also. 1st you are to make him receptive to learn the Dhamma.

Well you don't have to be around other people and you can destroy your own taints by following ie https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

Relevant Unbiased Influence = Natural Order/Dharma/Tao
Influence (education) is one of the best methods to pass on teachings, however... As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
Unbiased influences are the ones that make the most sense - why? Science is unbiased, Mathematics are unbiased and True Unadulterated Law is unbiased. Logic is what encourages appropriate action in those affected by the poisons.
Relevance should speak for itself as much as education and logic. Relevance is the appropriate application of unbiased influence with the right timing.
Here is an insight from Gautama Buddha that explains further:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html

OK, bear with me a moment... When we say "This person is angry; that person is deluded; that other person is greedy" we are expressing a craving: that these people should not be that way, and we don't want to deal with them because they are that way.
Each of these people is suffering under an illusion that that world should be different from what it is:

One, that the world should respect them
Another, that the world should conform to their fantasies
A third, that the world should give them its riches

And we are suffering under an illusion that the world should protect us from the illusions of all these people. See the mental tangle?
The only way to untangle that is to realize that illusions themselves are the problem, and that we cannot counter one illusion by opposing it with a different one. If we have one attitude towards every person — that every person is a buddha-in-the-making, warts and all — then we can start developing the compassion that might ultimately change the way the world is.


text:
I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say?
I'm fascinated by 'death': what would Dogen say? What about Rinzai zen?
I don't have any questions about it, but I'm sure there's answers I haven't contemplated at all.
Quotes would be necessary.

just for clarity: imvho when we die birth is over, and both our small and buddha self are aligned to whatever extent. that's probably a heresy, but i'm here to learn new things!

Possibly you could add some content to your question by reading these links: link 1: https://tricycle.org/magazine/birth-and-death/
link 2:  https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/fundamentals-of-dogens-thoughts/

thanks @Dhammadhatu a worthy starting point!!

Dogen quotes from Goodreads on the internet

Life and death are of supreme importance. Time swiftly passes by and opportunity is lost. Each of us should strive to awaken. Awaken! Take heed, do not squander your life.
This dew-like life will fade away; avoid involvement in superfluous things.
There is a simple way to become buddha: When you refrain from unwholesome actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate toward all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not excluding or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you will be called a buddha. Do not seek anything else.
One must be deeply aware of the impermanence of the world.
It's too late to be ready.


text:
Right Effort: Approach Versus Avoidance
Is there a difference in practice between approaching positive states and abandoning negative states?
I have tried for a long time to abandon the negative, which in my case is not  too severe (e.g. not drugs, nor physical violence, etc.), but seemingly the focus on abandoning seems less efficient than actually approaching constructive states, such as doing meditation or exercising. If one's problems are not too severe, should one prioritize doing virtuous behaviours (e.g. meditation) above trying to limit the negative?
I had read in psychological texts that an attitude based on approach can be superior to one based on avoidance. Is such a distinction made in Buddhism in any way?

They shouldn't be done in isolation. It should be a comprehensive approach which is exactly why the Buddha taught the Four Right Exertions:

There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent:
  1. for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...
  2. for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...
  3. for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and)
  4. for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. ~~ MN 78 ~~

The problem with santa100s explanation is that the definition of: "generating desire, endeavor, persistence, etc for the sake of the arising of skillful things" is the abandoning of unskillful things through not-doing.
Unskilful Things: lies, harming living beings, taking the ungiven.
Skillful Things: the abstention from lies, harming living beings, taking the ungiven.
One way of stating the goal of the Dhamma is that it is the ending of kamma. Kamma is intentional action.
Ending kamma is accomplished by abstention from the creation of new kamma while wearing away old kamma by intentional not-doings. E.g., faced with the desire to get that which can only be got by a lie, one abstains from the lie thereby bringing an old stream of kamma (the stream that resulted in the sensations that gave rise to the desire) to an end.
In the same way as we explain using desire to end desire, one uses intentional action to end kamma to end kamma.
There is here also a matter of stages. A very beginner would be well advised to intentionally create some good kamma as this will foster self-confidence. But it should be kept in mind that:
"The best course does not have a gains-honour-reputation-core,
nor an accomplishment-in-ethics-core,
nor a accomplishment-in-serenity-core,
nor a knowledge-vision-core.
But there is beggars, unshakable heart-release —
here, beggars the best course is for attainment of this.
This is it's hardwood.
This is it's encompassing end.
MN 29
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p29
MN 30
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p30
Another way to describe the goal which also points to not-doing, is:
This is it!
This is the culmination!
That is, the calming of all own-making,
the resolution of all involvements,
the withering away of thirst,
dispassion,
extinction,
Nibbāna.'
-AN 11.7:
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/11_elevens/an11.007.olds.bd.htm#p4


text:
Arahants, Precepts, Monasticism, & Worldly Things
Namo Buddhaya!
I had four questions pertaining to conduct & the Buddha:
(I am Theravāda Buddhist)

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?
Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?
How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?
(For example (to name one of many): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w )
"Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offense of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385)
Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#alone
How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Please help! Metta to all!!!

These are four separate questions. Also, if you came here to discuss Yuttadhamo's dirty laundry, this is not the best place.

@AndreiVolkov fair enough, I'll try to split up the questions better next time. :) Metta!

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants[-To-Be] can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?

The earliest scriptures depict a 'hearer' (such as Kondanna or Upatissa/Sariputta) attaining stream-entry and soon after attaining Arahantship.
The one or two suttas (such as AN 3.87) that more strongly infer a stream-enterer has at most seven more lifetimes appear to be illogical; given they infer a "same self", which is contrary to the stream-enterers destruction of "sakkaya ditthi" ("view of real self"). For me, these suttas appear to be later Abhidhamma, inputed into the suttas.
The most well-known sutta about stream-entry, namely, SN 13.1, is often falsely translated as including the phrase "seven more lifetimes at most" but the Pali actually does not include the words "lifetimes". SN 13.1 appears to say a stream-enterer has "seven more fetters at most to breakthrough".
Also, the phrase below about Non-Returners might also be questionable in its translations and interpretations. For example, two different translations and interpretations below:

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṃ bhikkhusaṃghe pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—
In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.
vs
Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are spontaneously arisen,7 who will realize perfect coolness in that existence and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.
7. Oppatika, born instantly and fully mature without going through the process of  conception, gestation, infancy, and childhood-that is, instantaneous mental birth (not necessarily "re-birth").

Also the suttas (eg. MN 123) about the Bodhisatta coming to earth from heaven seem mythological because in these suttas the Baby Bodhisatta walks and talks about 'himself' from childbirth, which is contrary to suttas such as MN 64, which say a new born child has no conceptions of self.

Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?

If there is an explicit understanding in the family these items are to be used for the whole family then it does not break the precept. But, yes, if you take your brother's things without permission, it is a breach of the precept. The precept is for the purpose of developing respect for the property & feelings of others.

How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?

Many of the Vinaya rules are about monks avoiding giving bad impressions to laypeople. Without knowing the specific rules exactly, in my opinion, there is a breach of the Vinaya because the videos looks like the monk & nun are together in a private place. Also, their posture & dress looks sloppy & undisciplined. Undisciplined looking monks & nuns will only attract similar undisciplined people to Buddhism, which is pointless when these converts cannot practise Buddhism due to their sexual obsessions and lack of sexual boundaries. Keep in mind sexual desire is the 1st hindrance to entering the Noble Path.

How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Lay people offer them. If lay people don't understand, I imagine the monk explains. For example, if a monk is on alms round in a non-Buddhist country, people, out of curiosity, will ask the monk: "What are you? What are you doing?". I imagine the monk would reply: "I am a Buddhist monk. I have vows of not using money. I go on alms round to collect food to feed myself for my spiritual practise. I place my trust & faith in the goodness of people to offer me food. In return, I teach them Dhamma, if they ask".
This famously happened to Ajahn Sumedho in England, who was offered land for a monastery by a non-Buddhist stranger. Read below:

In the spring of 1978, one of those small miracles happened that stop the mind's rational expectations. Keeping to the apparently pointless routine of going out for alms every day, as prescribed by Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho encountered a lone jogger on Hampstead Heath whose attention was arrested by the bhikkhus' appearance. This jogger had acquired an overgrown forest in West Sussex called Hammer Wood, out of the wish to restore it to its former glory – but he also understood that this was work for more than one man and one lifetime. Although not a Buddhist, he had the openness of mind to appreciate that an order of forest monks might be the perfect wardens for his woodland. Subsequently, he attended one of the ten-day meditation retreats that Ajahn Sumedho held at the Oaken Holt Buddhist Centre near Oxford, and later made an outright gift of the forest to the Sangha. This marvellous act of generosity...
How The Buddha Came to Sussex


text:
Can homosexual monks or nuns ordain, if not WHY?
Namo Buddhaya!
(I am a Theravada Buddhist)
The Vinaya says monks & nuns cannot be together in private (it would be an offense).

But what if someone is a homosexual, how would they go about
  ordaining, as they would not be able to technically be with men then (similar to nuns)?

I would have a hard time believing the Buddha would discriminate against someone who is a homosexual.
IF they cannot ordain,

what is the reason that they can't ordain as according to the Buddha? ( WITH SOURCE)

The Buddha chose to ordain woman, and homosexuals for sure can overcome their sexual urges just as a woman can towards men AS WELL, so why can't homosexuals ordain?
(Please, if possible, cite sources!)
Metta!

Possible duplicate of What is a pandaka?

@ruben2020 I am not asking what the debatable pandaka is, I altered my query to ask how homosexuals can ordain and if not, why explicitly can they not. I hope this helped clarify. :) Metta

Homosexuals may fall under asittaka pandaka. They cannot ordain.

asittakapandaka - A man who gains satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, and only becomes sexually aroused after ingesting another man's semen.

Source: Pandaka

According to this answer, āsitta-paṇḍaka and usūya-paṇḍaka can ordain. The others cannot.

Just a heads up: the original question was edited.

I don't want to spend time on this topic, but fyi ...
A partial answer from Wikipedia Buddhism and sexual orientation -- Paṇḍakas

The paṇḍaka is a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts. In the earliest texts, the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of trans-feminine and/or cross-dressing people, some of whom may have been sex workers. Paisarn Likhitpreechakul argue that these people are grouped together as special types of those suffering impotence due to seminal absence/deficiency rather than gender roles.
Paṇḍaka is categorized along with other stigmatized groups who are excluded from ordination as well; those with physical disabilities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes. "The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya claims that the ban is a response to the example of a paṇḍaka monk with a desire to have sex. Being refused by other monks, he had sex with animal handlers, who then told the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.

So it's from Vinaya commentary, apparently, if you like to research that.
So that's why topics like What is a pandaka? revolve around wonering what the word "paṇḍaka" even means.
"Are you a paṇḍaka?" isn't one of among the questions asked at ordination, so I don't know at what point in the process the question even arises.

This overview of the Vinaya says on page 100,

The twelve equivalent p›r›jikas include the eleven disqualified types who should
  not be ordained as bhikkhus in the first place. If they happen to be ordained,
  their ordination is invalid; once they are found out they must be expelled for life
  (Mv.I.61-68; see BMC2, Chapter 14 for details). They are—

a pa˚˜aka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter—see Saºgh›disesa
  2),
a “non-human” being, (this includes n›gas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
a hermaphrodite,
a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his
  status as a bhikkhu,
a person who has murdered his father,
a person who has murdered his mother,
a person who has murdered an arahant,
a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunı,
a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to
  bleed, and
a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saºgha, knowing or
  suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

These eleven equivalent p›r›jikas apply to bhikkhunıs as well.
  The twelfth equivalent p›r›jika, which applies only to bhikkhunıs, is the case
  where a bhikkhunı leaves the Bhikkhunı Saºgha and takes up the role of a lay
  woman (Cv.X.26.1). Unlike the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunıs have no formal
  procedure for disrobing. If they leave the Saºgha, they are not allowed to
  reordain for the rest of this lifetime.

A "parajika" rule is a rule for which the consequence is disrobing i.e. no longer being a member of the sangha.

Incidentally I'm not saying that "homosexuals cannot ordain", instead I was only trying to "cite sources" i.e. to cite what the source is and what it says.


text:
Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or always identical?
Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or identical?
So, when a sastra says "Since the essence of Mind is grounded on the Dharmakaya, it is to be called the original enlightenment", is the exact same the case for Buddha nature?
When a Soto monk says "manifest buddha nature", do they mean "manifest original enlightenment"?

Yes.  The difference in terms just highlights a difference in emphasis.  All zen teachings basically point to the same thing.  The difference is dependent on what obstacle the teacher is pointing too.  For someone who is always striving, a teacher might call it original mind to emphasize that he is already in possession of what he's striving for.  For someone who thinks zen is about rarefied states or accomplishments, a teacher might call it ordinary mind.  For someone who is caught up in intellectualizing, he might simply hold up a flower.
Its all the same shit - namely the shit you are caught up in.

You can answer "yes" based on the following reasoning:

Essence of Mind is grounded in Dharmakāya
Dharmakāya is the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect out of which Buddhas arise
therefore, Buddha Nature arises from Dharmakāya
therefore, Essence of Mind = Buddha Nature

However, you can also answer "no" based on the equally valid reasoning:

Dharmakāya is the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect out of which Buddhas arise
Essence of Mind may be grounded in Dharmakāya, but does not necessarily equate it
Buddha Nature may be grounded in Dharmakāya, but does not necessarily equate it
therefore, Essence of Mind is not necessarily the same as Buddha Nature

So linguistic/logical reasoning isn't helpful to answer the question. In Zen the answer would probably be: they are simultaneously different and identical.
The Chan/Zen schools (of which Soto is a branch) maintain a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a position-less position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot, however, be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”. This is expressed in Koans like:

Master Suibe was asked, “What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?”
Suibe said, “Wait until there’s no one around, and I’ll tell you.”
Later in the day the monk accosted him and said, “There’s nobody around now. What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?”
Suibe went into the garden with this monk, and he pointed at the bamboos, and the monk said, “I don’t understand.”
Suibe said, “What a tall one that is. What a short one that is.”

“What is the secret teaching of Buddhism?” is a stylized, literary way of asking "what's the essence of the teaching?"
Suibe's answer is to be realized from his "third perspective": he doesn't mean the inherent Buddha nature is manifested through the difference in length of the bamboos, nor does he mean that the difference in length is not a manifestation of Buddha nature. He means both.


text:
Anapanasati and Compassion
I'm wondering basically whether anapanasati can result in as much compassion as metta. Though the focus is different, can these two meditations have the same potential for altruism? Does meditating on the breath produce as much compassion?
Basically, I wonder if -- in order to become altruistic and compassionate -- one has to focus on compassion as a subject, or if that is not necessary.
Thank you

Anapanasati, when practised properly, arises from compassion towards onself.
Therefore, when Anapanasati is fulfilled, the defilements end, peace occurs & the original compassion towards oneself remains; which then manifests outwardly in one's natural state of being.
To practise the Dhamma and Anapanasati successfully requires a great act love towards oneself.
This love will remain when the task is completed.
However, Anapanasati cannot be practised & fulfilled if we continue to engage in behaviours (kamma) that defile, enslave & weaken our self and others.


text:
The Justice Thought & System & its Morals?
Namo Buddhaya!
Here are my questions regarding justice systems & their morals:

Would it be skillful & moral to report someone to a principle, a police
  officer, or any sort of authority when someone is being hurtful to
  others (such as killing, bullying, etc.), knowing that reporting them will most likely cause them suffering
  e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc?
And also is justice skillful, moral and is incarceration moral,
  skillful in terms of the Dhamma?

Metta!

Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness may be useful on this topic.

Justice system is driven by unskillful intentions, but a necessity to maintain society. Essentially any action rooted in hatred, greed or ignorance is not skilful. For many justice is a form of retribution for some action done by another which is based on hatred which and unskillful root.
If you are judge you are expected to judge justly.
Reporting crime one needs to weigh the karmic consequences one may willing to bear and impact or betterment it brings.
If you are a witness brought forward by subpoena then you have to tell the truth. In many cases of coming forward to report a crime may not be skilful if it is motivated by hatred, greed or ignorance. Generally when coming forward one has sympathy towards the victim and hatred towards the perpetrator.

'Dhamma' means 'that which upholds' society & individual minds.
Without law, there would be chaos & anarchy.
Therefore, it is proper to report criminals.
The Buddha appeared to take it for granted society punishes criminals. For example:

And what, mendicants, is the fear of punishment? It’s when someone
sees that the kings have arrested a bandit, a criminal, and subjected
them to various punishments—whipping, caning, and clubbing; cutting
off hands or feet, or both; cutting off ears or nose, or both; the
‘porridge pot’, the ‘shell-shave’, the ‘demon’s mouth’, the ‘garland
of fire’, the ‘burning hand’, the ‘grass blades’, the ‘bark dress’,
the ‘antelope’, the ‘meat hook’, the ‘coins’, the ‘acid pickle’, the
‘twisting bar’, the ‘straw mat’; being splashed with hot oil, being
fed to the dogs, being impaled alive, and being beheaded.
AN 4.121

Morality in Buddhism is not harming yourself or others. If you make the choice to not report a criminal, this is an act of mental kamma that harms another. The scriptures say:

If you, Rāhula, are desirous of doing a deed with the mind, you should
reflect on that deed of your mind, thus: ‘That deed which I am
desirous of doing with the mind is a deed of my mind that might
conduce to the harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of
others and that might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of mind
is unskilled, its yield is anguish, its result is anguish.’ If you,
Rāhula, reflecting thus, should find: ‘That deed which I am desirous
of doing with the mind is a deed of my mind that might conduce to the
harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of others and that
might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of mind is unskilled, its
yield is anguish, its result is anguish.’, a deed of mind like this,
Rāhula, is certainly not to be done by you. But if you, Rāhula, while
reflecting thus, should find: ‘That deed which I am desirous of doing
with the mind is a deed of my mind that would conduce neither to the
harm of self nor to the harm of others nor to the harm of both; this
deed of mind is skilled, its yield is happy, its result is happy’, a
deed of mind like this, Rāhula, may be done by you.
MN 61

Criminal reap what they sow, as the Buddha taught:

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed, and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
states:

138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or
derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
Dhammapada

Buddhism is not Cultural Marxism, which protects the sexual immoral, the creators of pornography, the destroyers of families, genocidal Communists and co-tribal imperialists/colonizers. A Buddhist should not be meek & timid in using whatever moral laws of society are available to them.

Protecting the victims
The justice system exists in order to reduce crime and protect victims. It's important to realize that not only our actions can harm others, but also our inaction can cause harm.
Yes, reporting a culprit will most likely cause them suffering e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc. However, not reporting a culprit will most likely cause other people suffering through your choice of inaction. Reporting a bully or thief or rapist is necessary to protect other, innocent people from harm.

You might reflect that "beings are heir to their own kamma".
Ideally too it wouldn't be the case in society that "the cure is worse than the disease" -- perhaps it's better, when you're at school, better for a bully and for their victims, that a bully might learn justice and mercy early than not.
Incidentally, one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple.
I'm not sure what you'd do, in a hypothetical case where you think that the "justice" is unjust.


text:
How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood?
Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is -  the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu)  and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?
I’d be grateful for a more detailed description  of their nature and relationship, and if possible the relevant suttas that mention these.

OP: Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is - the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu) and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

Here is a good explanation:

The element which is mano-dhatu or mind-element is nama. Mano-dhatu comprises the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness) and the two types of sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which are kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Thus three kinds of citta are mano-dhatu.
Dhamma-dhatu comprises both nama and rupa. Dhamma-dhatu is the cetasikas, the subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) and nibbana.
Mano-vinnana-dhatu or mind-consciousness-element is nama. It comprises all cittas which are not the dvi-panca-vinnanas and not mano-dhatu. For example, santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) and the cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-mula-citta are mano-vinnana-dhatu.
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (seeing-consciousness-element, etc.), the mano-dhatu (mind-element) and the mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element) are: vinnana-dhatu (consciousness-element).
Dhamma-dhatu is not identical with dhammarammana (mind-objects). Cittas are included in dhammarammana, but not in dhamma-dhatu, since dhamma-dhatu is: cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. When cittas are classified as elements they are the seven classes of vinnana-dhatu, namely:
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (which are five classes), mano-dhatu (mind-element), mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element).
Concepts and conventional terms (pannatti) which are included in dhammarammana are not dhamma-dhatu, because they are not paramattha dhammas. Only paramattha dhammas are classified as elements.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom, Chapter 18 - Elements

OP: if possible the relevant suttas that mention these

This is found in:

Vibhanga
Dhatukatha

A physical eye, similar to a mirror, may reflect an external image/object in it. However, the mental property/element of eye consciousness is require for the mind to experience/know the external image/object/sight.
Similar to the physical eye, the mano-dhatu is the sense organ required for the mind to know things/objects that can only be sensed/experienced/known by mano-dhatu. The things/objects that can only be sensed by mano-dhatu include:

Feelings
Perceptions
Thoughts and defilements (moods, emotions, drives)
Consciousness itself
Truth, such as Four Noble Truths, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, emptiness
Nibbana

While the Pali suttas do not explicitly define 'dharma-dhatu', obviously 'dharma-dhatu' are far more extensive than mere 'mental objects' (feelings, perceptions & thoughts) because they must include Truth (Insight) and Nibbana. Obviously, this is why the word 'dhamma' is used (rather than a term that is exclusively mental, such as "cetasika" or "nama-dhamma").
Originally, Bhikkhu Bodhi properly translated dhamma-dhatu (in Pali) as "mind-objects"; meaning "objects known by the mind". But recently, he has changed his translation to "mental phenomena", which is wrong (because Truth and Nibbana are not mental phenomena or nama-dhamma). The translations of Thanissaro and Sujato Bhikkhu of "ideas" and "thoughts" is also wrong.


text:
Are Good Qualities Proportional to Our Efforts?
I mused that clearly, certain efforts are necessary for the path. But, I can easily imagine a person exerting lots of efforts towards a detrimental goal, or a person exerting a bit of effort towards a wholesome goal. So, effort in itself seems not directly related to good qualities.
Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort.
What is the relationship in Buddhism of effort to its resulting benefit? Is it indirect?
Thank you

From MN 117, we read that Right Effort (samma vayamo) must go in the right direction:

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is
  one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve:
  This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right
  livelihood: This is one's right effort."

Not just the right direction, but also the right amount of effort - not too much and not too little.
From AN 6.55 (a vina is an indian stringed musical instrument):

"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too
  taut nor too loose, but tuned to be right on pitch, was your vina in
  tune & playable?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to
  restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you
  should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune the
  pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your
  theme."

Any action which requires more effort or planning requires more volitional thoughts. This compounds the karmic effort. E.g. killing a mosquito is quite reactive and requires little thought relative to going hunting for larger game. Therefore, killing a mosquito has fewer consequences. Similarly for meritorious deeds.
In meditation, when one is struggling this is either lack of concentration, mindfulness or defilements surfacing. An experienced mediator may experience only lesser about of such negative states and more positive states. Therefore, a more experienced meditator may accumulate more merit in the course of meditation.
Ultimately what matters is the times one generate wholesome/unwholesome volitional activities when taking action.
With regard to right-effort, one must put effort into the Four Right Exertions. More the effort more the merit. But one should aware that this effort is not excessive, in which case will make you stressed.

Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort.

There're many other examples we see in our daily life. Weren't you surprised and maybe even a little bit envious of that super genius friend of yours back in 4th grade who aced all the math exams without spending much time doing his homework assignments, while you only got a passing grade even after working your behind off on those homework exercises? How about that music kid in 6th grade who breezed thru Mozart's Concerto No.21 while you still struggled with your Yankee Doodle! So the key point is, unless you believe in complete sheer chance, a completely random rolling of the genetic dice, Or succumb to the idea of a God who, in his own mysterious way, made those friends of yours way smarter or way more talented, then you will have to question where all those potentials came from? If they weren't by chance, by some mysterious force, or came out of thin air, then there always exists the possibility that your math/piano buddies had already worked their behinds off at some point in their previous lives, while you, back then only spent most of your days fooling around, right? So bottom line is, think of efforts like the law of conservation of energy, as long as one invests in it in a good wholesome way, it won't be a wasteful investment.

One aspect of effort translates from the pali concept viriya. It is included in

the ten perfections (dasa pāramiyo)
the seven factors of awakening (satta bojjhaṅgā)
the five strengths (pañcabalāni)
the five spiritual faculties (pañc' indriyāni)

Just as you concluded yourself, viriya is bundled with the other perfections/factors since it isn't enough on it's own.
For instance, it is not a coincidence that equanimity (upekkha) appears alongside effort/viriya. Effort on it's own runs the risk of becoming unwholesome craving (tanha), and is more wholesome when tempered by the other wholesome factors mentioned above, especially equanimity. This is elaborated on in Visuddhimagga:

if the vigor faculty is too strong, the faith faculty cannot perform its function of convincing, nor can the rest of the faculties perform their several functions. So in that case the excessive strength of the vigor faculty should be reduced by cultivating (the enlightenment factors of) tranquillity, concentration and equanimity.