text:
Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary?
Supreme Buddha once mentioned…

“These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118

1. So my question to you is should Gratitute be on a par with Loving Kindness?
In other words, asked from another view point...
2. Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?
Or even otherwise asked...
3. Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?
4. Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?
5. What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas? (References of Dhamma-Dana in this regard)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

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

Btw.: Sadhu @Saptha Visuddhi , for the effort to prevent the question from decay. My person looks forward an auspicious answer on the topic.

Teaching on gratitude & “duty” is not necessary for Nibbana. MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit. In MN 56, Upali's stream-entry resulted in independence from the teacher. In the Vakkali Sutta, Vakkali was rebuked for wrong gratitude. Dhammapada 294 states to "kill the mother & father to attain Nibbana". In MN 86, the arahant Angulimala, ate his alms food without debt (obligation). Gratitude is a moral teaching for worldlings (puthujjana) but is unrelated to the goal of Buddhism, namely, Nibbana. Dhp 43 says:

Na taṃ mātā pitā kayirā, aññe vāpi ca ñātakā; sammāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, seyyaso naṃ tato kare
Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do greater good than the well-directed mind.

That last sounds scandalous, doesn't it. The commentary says it's a metaphor: with Mother meaning Craving, and Father meaning Conceit.

Not scandalous. Most Dhp commentaries I have read sound ridiculous. The idea of "mother" & "father" is "jati", i..e, the creation of self-views of "beings" that bring suffering. That is why SN 13.1 is about how ignorant minds suffer over the "death" of a "mother" & "father". Killing the mother & father seems to mean killing the idea of "mother & father". In lokuttara dhamma, there is no mother & no father but only dhatu (elements). I suggest to give reasoned consideration to my answer rather than rebel against the Dhamma by clinging to self-views of "mother" & "father". With metta

What foolish answer, like always. No shame no fear of wrongdoing, endless selfoverestemating and a source for falling off for many... "Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude.

Buddha-Dhamma is for liberation & truth. There is nothing but elements (dhatu).

Certain minds are not possible be well-directed, even will all effort and goodwill... since there are just elements, that will be the reason why certain people take what is not given, steal, cheat, kill, and display samples of ingratitude. "Great" Dhamma, comes possible before every elementary "communist" re-volution.

Thank you for the added explanation. I think it does (did) sound scandalous at face value, like the dictum about "If you meet the Buddha on the road".

Perhaps there's some parallel in MN 117 where "There is no mother, no father" is "wrong view", and "There is mother & father" is "right view with effluents".

i posted it is right view with effluents; which means it can be a hindrance to liberation & a generator of suffering.

Oh, so you did (post that): "MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit". I didn't recognise the quote, where I think you're equating "mother and father" with "gratitude and duty".

Yes. There is "mother & father" appear to mean "there are benefactors", which implies the "good action" of gratitude & obligation. All of this is wholesome but is also wrapped up in "self-views" and an obstacle to anatta & Nibbana.

Should Gratitude be on a par with Loving Kindness?

“These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118

Here the Buddha advises us to treasure people with Kindness and gratitude when we find them, and for us to become such rare persons ourselves.
Kindness and gratitude are virtues that needs to be cultivated together to be genuine and heartfelt.
Gratitude teaches kindness as you’ve benefitted from another person’s actions, and as you trust the motives behind those actions. Only if you’ve been kind to another person will you accept the idea that others can be kind to you. At the same time, if you’ve been kind to another person, you know the effort involved. You sense that the other person had to go out of his or her way to provide that benefit. So, when you’re on the receiving end of a sacrifice, you realize you’ve incurred a debt, an obligation to repay the other person’s trust. Therefore, the Buddha always discusses gratitude as a response to kindness, and it is more than an appreciation in general.
Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?
AN 2:31 - Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude tells us that one should treat one’s father and mother with great respect and never be remiss in one’s filial duty.

“I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.
“But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.“— AN 2:32

Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?
Acts of kindness and gratitude teach you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. The debt you owe your parents for giving birth to you and enabling you to live is immense. The only true way to repay your parents is to strengthen them in four qualities: conviction, virtue, generosity, and
discernment. To do so, you must develop these qualities in yourself, as well as learning how to employ great tact in being an example to your parents. These four qualities are also those of an admirable friend, and thus you become that admirable friend to yourself. Thus it is this very same admirable friend within you that will help you to to gain path and fruits.
Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?
As I have said before, these four qualities (conviction, virtue, generosity, and Discernment) are what makes you become that admirable friend to yourself. Thus, it is this very same admirable friend within you that will help you to gain path and fruits. You become a person of integrity, who has learned from gratitude how to be harmless in all your dealings and to give help with an empathetic heart: respectfully, in a timely way, and with the sense that something good will come of it (MN 110 - Cūḷapuṇṇama Sutta; AN 5:148 - A Person of Integrity's Gifts Sappurisadāna Sutta); MN 103 - Kinti Sutta.
Gratitude also gives practice in developing qualities needed in meditation. The practice of concentration centers on the power of perception. Training in gratitude shows how powerful perception can be, for it
requires developing a particular set of perceptions about life and the world. If you perceive that the
goodness in life is the result of cooperation, then the give and take of kindness and gratitude become a pleasant exchange. Gratitude requires mindfulness. In Pali, the word for gratitude— kataññu—literally means to have a sense of what was done.
In SN 48:10, the Buddha defines mindfulness as “remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago.” Our parents’ instructions to us when we were children—to remember the kindnesses of others—are among our first lessons in mindfulness. As we develop our sense of gratitude, we get practice in strengthening this quality of mind. When these qualities are not found in the practitioners , the  path and fruit too are seldom reached by them.
What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas?
Buddha cited gratitude as the quality defining what it means to be civilized. AN 2:31 - Kataññu Sutta. -Gratitude
In SN 15:14-19 - Sukhita Sutta Buddha said:

“A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find…. A being who has not been your father … your brother…. your sister…. your son…. your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration.”
“Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

The above sutta shows that not all the lessons taught by gratitude and empathy are of a heartwarming sort. Instead, they give rise to a sense of samvega. You know that not all your past intentions have been skillful, and yet these are the things that will shape the conditions of your life now and into the future. This understanding make you want to find a way out even of the network of kindness and gratitude that sustains whatever goodness there is in the world.
To identify yourself as a being means having to find food—both physical and mental—to keep that identity going. Therefore, when you’re a being, you need to depend on a network of kindness, gratitude, and sacrifice. That is why you are advised to think thus:

“We will undertake & practice those qualities that make one a contemplative… so that the services of those whose robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites we use will bring them great fruit & great reward.” — MN 39 - Maha-Assapura Sutta: The Greater Discourse at Assapura

At the same time, the example of your behavior and freedom of mind is a gift to others, in that it shows how they, too, can free themselves from their debts. This is why the Buddha said that only those who have attained full awakening eat the alms food of the country without incurring debt. They’ve even paid off their debt to the Buddha for having taught the way to release.
The only homage he requested was that people practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma — i.e., to develop the disenchantment and dispassion that lead to release (DN 16 – Maha Parinibbana Sutta; SN 22:39-42 Anudhamma Sutta. In Accordance with the Dhamma) — so that the world will not be empty of awakened people. In this way, attaining full release is not a selfish act; instead, it’s the highest expression of kindness and gratitude.

Sadhu, Nyom Saptha Visuddhi. To add with "unseemingly" gratitude.: Two importand pints seems to be missing: the realization of the overwhelming debt and connection to develop samvega, since it was not so, that the Buddha at least pointed to the deep relation to all being to just feel obligated in the world but to see in this manner that what was pointed out at the end: awakening to pay "pay" of all depts. Not feeling obligated there is never a drive, since there is just obligation to the senses, felt as guṇā ("benefical" giver). And sec., that ungrateful is act. one of 4 reasons for hell-state

It's ggod and proper to feel obligated toward a person who makes one certain proplems with indebt and a way out realiceable. Maybe Nyom finds inspiration to give it good additional sign for the way out and certain drive in addition. Understandig goodness and obligation means to see the first noble truth and carries the understanding of right view. Mudita! And Anumodana!

Just remember, in regard of stinginess, a person ungrateful, is incapable even to reach Jhana, not to speak of paths and fruits.AN 5.265-271.


text:
Demotivation and Nihilism
I am curious as to how Buddhism deals with demotivation, in the sense of lacking goals and aspirations, and with nihilism, in the sense of feeling things are dissatisfactory and devoid of reasons to crave them.
I am aware the second aspect of my question is intimately tied with Buddhism, but I am somewhat asking: for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?
From the Mahayana point of view, I feel compassion is a noble aim, but I have trouble developping compassion. From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency.
How does Buddhism deal with lack of motivation about mundane, every day things? What should one do in the worldly sense, when one isn't practicing?
Thank you.

This is what happens when you try to lead a monk life without leaving lay life.
Why not ask yourself the question "what am I doing in lay life if I'm not motivated to achieve the goals of lay life?"
This isn't the fault of Theravada Buddhism. It's the fault of the individual who cannot pick one lifestyle. Lethargy or laziness is one of the five hindrances and there's no place for it in Theravada Buddhism, whichever lifestyle you choose.
If a certain goal does not interest you, stop bothering about it and work towards the goal that appeals to you. If no goal in lay life appeals to you, get ordained and practice diligently towards attaining enlightenment.

Sure Eggman. No joy, no progress an the path. To seek for joy doing merits, raw or fine are suggested.
Merits can be made all time and everywhere:

Merit: A Study Guide, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2005; 61pp./184KB)
Often misunderstood in the West as quaint and irrelevant to serious practice, the Buddha's teachings on puñña (merit) actually play an essential role in the development of a wise sense of self. This anthology explores the meaning of merit and how it functions to instill in the practitioner the qualities necessary to carry him or her to stream-entry and beyond.
"Of all the concepts central to Buddhism, merit (puñña) is one of the least known and least appreciated in the West. This is perhaps because the pursuit of merit seems to be a lowly practice, focused on getting and "selfing," whereas higher Buddhist practice focuses on letting go, particularly of any sense of self. Because we in the West often feel pressed for time, we don't want to waste our time on lowly practices, and instead want to go straight to the higher levels. Yet the Buddha repeatedly warns that the higher levels cannot be practiced in a stable manner unless they develop on a strong foundation. The pursuit of merit provides that foundation. To paraphrase a modern Buddhist psychologist, one cannot wisely let go of one's sense of self until one has developed a wise sense of self. The pursuit of merit is the Buddhist way to develop a wise sense of self.
The following readings show how this is done...."

Not for all practicioner, especially for householder, asubha or reflecting on "demotivating" things are useful to walk on in higher states.
Making merits bring joy, joy is the fundation for benefical concentration. Therefor one should seek for company of people delight in making merits, sharing merits and invite. Less are the possibilities for doing such, so be not lazy and do joyful sacrifies. They are the foundation for a benefical practice and the great field of merits has just one purpose, giving people the possibility.
See: Ten Ways of Making Merits

"We, Lord, are laymen who enjoy worldly pleasure. We lead a life encumbered by wife and children. We use sandalwood of Kasi. We deck ourselves with garlands, perfume and unguents. We use gold and silver. To those like us, O Lord, let the Exalted One preach the Dhamma, teach those things that lead to weal and happiness in this life and to weal and happiness in future life."
read further: Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare

Philosophy and mind-entertaining by seeking short cuts, does not help anybody. Just the deeds, take part an enjoy the fruits. There is no practice more destructive as the populat "Uposatha of the Jhains" given by the most, talking about emptiness and anatta and sitting right next to the refrigerator.
Even if celerbrating the Uposatha of the cowherds, which is done in many traditional Mahayana-areas or those then in wordily directions by laypeople, it still does not cut of the path.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count) --

Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and said:
  -- As much as I, friend Shariputra, look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind".
  -- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.
  And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered" -- this is your pathologic restlessness.
  And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your remorse.
  You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three thoughts abandon; To these three thoughts not attending, the deathless assemble with mind.

From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism and the requirements for the achieving the full benefits from the practice of mindfulness meditation, both demotivation and nihilism would be viewed as hindrances to gaining upacara samadhi, an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Nihilism, as you define it, is most certainly not “intimately tied with Buddhism,” except in the sense that Buddhism explicitly denies its truth. Question: “for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?” Answer: He or she must heal the catatonic state that causes such wide-ranging indifference. There has to be some profoundly tragic event or trauma, perhaps in early childhood, that would cause such a profound withdrawal from reality. The practice of meditation while in such a state may only deepen the withdrawal. In other words, its seems to me that you are suffering from a mental disorder. Traditional Buddhism does not deal well with mental disorders. Traditional Buddhist teachers simply lack the expertise needed to treat them. However, there are mindfulness centers that offer MBSR and psychotherapy that may meet your needs. Otherwise, I recommend to find a fully qualified psychotherapist or psychiatrist to diagnose your situation and provide relevant treatment. There is no doubt in my mind that you are in a profound state of suffering even though you may not be feeling much pain. I truly hope that you will find the loving and wise help you need.

for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?

Everyone has craving, except Arahats and the Buddha of course. You need to look more closely. May be your craving is for a state of no responsibility, perhaps?

From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency.

There is suffering, that is the first noble truth. May be you can contemplate on that, see how it applies to you?
Also I'm curious, based on this and your other questions as well, have you diagnosed yourself for ADHD ? I suspect you might have a mild case of ADHD, based on what you have reported - lack of focus, lack of interest in mundane things etc. (If that is the case, I see only two options - you have to find some innermost passion or obsession and use that as a fuel or use stimulant medication)
Hope this helps!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Asking questions a "childish" way to learn, to teach?
In modern world it's often regarded as "poor" if asking questions. "What, you don't know?", others would fast lower others, yet forgeting that they have been given before as well.
It is also the subtil fear to be obligated, fall into debt, that people "force" not to ask or on wrong places, wrong people and so the tendency goes in direction "steal" thinking not causing debts.
The times of google and more or lesser anonymos exchange places make it even more common that people seek, if even, for places to gain, where they believe not to accumulate debts.
It's not seldom, out of this, that "asking questions" is estimated as childish, the way "unwise" and "poor", "people of less skill" come to gain Dhamma.
What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning? Is asking questions, asking for things childish?
(A maybe useful reflection that might make some parts understandable for answering the question: Giving, taking and the "new" world - "Labour makes (you) free!?")
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Is asking questions, asking for things childish?
Asking question is something that children do, but adults can do it too.
If I'm working with someone and (for example because I have worked there longer) if I know more about our work than they do, or if I know something about our work that they don't know but should know, then I want them to ask me questions. I want them to have good judgement (skill) too, in deciding how much to ask and how often, I expect us to weigh and find a balance between their spending too long (too much of their own time) trying to figure everything out for themselves, when instead I could have told them easily; or on the other extreme, their asking me too many questions (taking too much of my time), instead of reading the answers for themselves.
I am not a formal teacher, teaching someone else would be a part-time job for me, and the subject (which is, knowledge of the software that I might develop with co-workers) doesn't have a specific curriculum. But in general it's good if someone asks me questions: it's easier for me (and better for everyone) if they tell me they don't know something, than for me to have to supervise them and for me to have to try to guess at what they don't know. Also I distinguish between things they ought to know already compared with things they couldn't know already.
Anyway for these kinds of reasons (i.e. my experience at work) I think it's normal for adults to ask questions.
Children do sometimes ask questions to avoid work (for example, asking questions instead of putting on their shoes to go to school). It's a bit irksome when an adult asks insincere or unnecessary, unhelpful questions ...
On this site I'm grateful that people are willing to reply to my questions. I usually try not to waste their time, and try to only ask questions which will help to me, and whose answers I can't easily discover by a little work of my own (research and reading already-existing text).
The purpose of this site isn't to be a question-factory, keeping people busy  answering endless unbeneficial questions.
What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning?
At university we had lectures, with hundreds of students in the room. The lecturer would talk, students couldn't ask questions, we had books to read ... and some individual tutors/tuition, perhaps an hour a week, to talk about home-work.
Or sometimes there's learning by following (emulating) other people; or waiting to be told.

Comments on the paper you referenced in the OP.
So there was a neighbour who was hardly ever able to accept a gift, for example some fruits from the garden.
In the society I live in now I've never known anyone refuse such a (small) gift.
The benefactor, "the mother", is little by little devoured
Apparently that can happen in abusive (so-called codependent) relationships.
Everything is easier nowadays
People have been saying this kind of thing since ancient Greek and Roman times, at least: especially, saying that the younger generation is lacking in courtesy.
We cringe, usually, when we hear someone say "Labour makes (you) free"
I was amazed to read "Arbeit macht frei" as the title of the page. Because of the phrase's historical usage I consider it a phrase which "no longer means what you think it means" i.e. it has (historical) "meaning" that's not evident from its overt form. It's not the plain meaning I cringe from but the association with Auschwitz et. al., which makes it difficult for me to even consider the phrase, which evokes horror (or pity for the victims, to whom the phrase was a lie) as soon as I read it.

Anyway this was kind of a vague answer, I'm not sure whether it answered your question (because I don't understand the intent or motive behind your question).
If you refer to the suttas you can see that it's full of questions and answers: students asking question (which teachers answer), and teachers asking Socratic questions.

The last passage actually carries most in regard of the question in relation with Dhamma, the rest is merely if talking about current common sense and opinions, Nyom @ChrisW . Maybe he likes to put effort into the answer and put it under a more Dhammic point of view, where he actually is not unskilled normally. Just a suggestion.

At least Nyom Chris is a «leader" of a question&answer undertaking under Dhammas-flag, so it might be thought that there are more thoughts about it, more in the sphere of what is the Dhammikas standard.

"because I don't understand the intent or motive behind your question" the thought "I will remove the arrow only if I know who shot, which clan, what material..." might be a hindrence also to assume an intent. Better to simply relay on what is there. No matter who, and why it came to be. Simply guess it is an "skillful intent". That makes it easier.

The parable of the arrow says to avoid asking silly questions about the Tathagata (the "surgeon") instead of concentrating on the Dhamma and the Way. But it might be important on this site to understand something of the OP's intent, the motive behind the question: it's better treatment (a better answer) if whoever tries to answer can perceive or understand the wound (the pain or motive for the question) -- see also dhamma about what makes a good patient: they can accurately describe their disease...

Shoshin, "beginner's mind" (aka "child mind") is an important concept in Zen in particular.  "Child's mind is Bhudda's mind", as they say.
Adults often don't like to ask question because it displays ignorance, but Socrates, considered most wise, said that he himself was only wise in knowing he knew nothing.  Fear of looking unwise is rooted in the ego, and is an obstacle to advancement.
Which finding answers can be useful, one only find answers by asking questions.

In my experience, the best teachers don't provide answers, but guide the pupil toward asking the right questions

Questions of Skill
The Buddha wasn't the sort of teacher who simply answered questions. He also taught which questions to ask. He understood the power of questions: that they give shape to the holes in your knowledge and force that shape — valid or not — onto the answers you hope will fill up those holes. Even if you use right information to answer a wrong question, it can take on the wrong shape. If you then use that answer as a tool, you're sure to apply it to the wrong situations and end up with the wrong results.
That's why the Buddha was careful to map out a science of questions, showing which questions — in what order — lead to freedom, and which ones don't. At the same time, he gave his talks in a question-and-answer format, to make perfectly clear the shape of the questions he was answering.
...
...The only remaining questions are bonus ones: how best to take whatever skills you've developed along the way and use them purely for the benefit of the world.
And what more could you possibly ask?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

The best way to ask a question in "Childish" way.  Why?

It's a philanthropist way to convey things to lower knowledgeable person to higher knowledgeable person.

It's a best way to make comfort both parties questioner and answerer bring into one place.  So that the both easily get done their work.

If we wants to get the best answer also better way to ask that question in a childish way.

People may think or look at different way.  Who cares if i want to succeed it should be in my way.

Also it shows the questioner's simplicity.  I have seen lot of eminent scholars asked questions for the sake of others in a childish way by keeping his scholarliness aside. Why they know well if they asked the same question using his knowledge no one may understand it.

We cannot stop others thinking pattern.  This is comparative world. the Best thing is to sort out our matter by asking it in a simple childish way.

Your Question 100% perfect. Because All in Lord buddha's questions and answers in a very simple way that can understand everybody. Even a small child. But he is the one and only supreme Mundane Wisdom intellectual in this world who follows this.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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


text:
From Buddhas point of view, is what is common called preaching unskillful not benefical?
Food for thought:
It's in modern or western world common regarded and even broadly taught that such as preaching, in more dhammic words, giving a sermon, is unskillful, not the way Dhamma is taught.
Now my person like to ask if that actually is really true?

Is preaching to be regarded as the wrong way?
If not generally, where would be the point that preaching, teaching, giving a sermon might turn out to be not of use (either for giver nor for receiver)?
What might be a possible "psychological" reason, or cultural reason for aversion in regard of sermons?
Under which circumstances a possible gift turns out to be a kind of red flag?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about Buddhist philosophy but about Western culture.

"Preaching" in the sense of "proselytizing" is kind of unpopular among Buddhists (see also How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism?).
In the suttas I think that the Buddha tended to teach people who asked him a question or people who challenged him (and didn't try to impose his views on strangers), and he often taught by asking questions.
But "preaching" in the sense of "giving dhamma talks" is normal; and (Dhamma) is I think defined as one of the proper topics of speech for a monk.

It depends if it's the appropriate time and the appropriate place and the appropriate intention.
Red flags? Like the teacher smoking cigarettes or the teacher who drinks regularly and calls it crazy wisdom or the teacher who only knows the Dhamma through just studying books and no experience? It is possible that an unexperienced teacher could lead one to liberation while missing out on it themselves, yes?


text:
Is shame and remorse unskillful?
I read this in another answer on this site:

"and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion.

my person thought it's worthy to lift the question if shame and remorse (before, while and after a deed be mind, speech or body) are generally unskillful, therefore to be abandoned, or if certain shame and remorse is actually skillful and very needed, therefore to develop and relay on it.
(Note that remorse/kukkucca, as a hindrance, falls by abounding sense-desire, end of reason for ill-will)
Feel invited to reflect, and possible share even Buddhas view on this mind qualities: An invitation of shameless making merits, so that one might not feel remorse, having not done, later.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

In a now-deleted comment, you quoted MN 61, "If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it.".

The other answer on this site was fine in its essence, spirit, purpose & intent.
There is the unwholesome 'remorse' or 'guilt' (kukkucca), which is a hindrance; and there is the wholesome 'sense of shame' (hiri), which is a virtue and one of the five gates to Dhamma.
As the other answer on this site implied shame towards unskilful deeds is for a Buddha a means of learning a lesson and moving beyond guilt & remorse.
The Lord Buddha said:

He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble
  ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.

The last verse is one of your little jokes, isn't it. I kind of wish you wouldn't do that because IMO it risks misleading people.

:) You are always welcome to moderate & edit any of my posts. There is no need to ask. Thank you again Chris for your service, here. With metta

I suppose it's part of a skillful response to unskillful action.
Conversely, "shameless" is usually portrayed as undesirable.
The response to skillful virtue is said to be "lack of remorse".

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the circumstances.
Sometimes shame and remorse can guide you to do skillful actions.
Sometimes it can guide you to do unskillful actions.


text:
Appreciating Nature Aesthetically
I recall reading somewhere that beauty is a lure within Buddhism, and causes attachment towards the external world. However, I've come to think beauty may be positive in certain circumstances. This site which deals with mindfulness and other such topics suggests witnessing nature mindfully allows greater connection.
My reasoning is that if compassion is put forwards in Buddhism, especially with the Mahayana, then attachment isn't necessarily all bad. I recall reading the Dalai Lama explaining how compassion propels karma, but towards positive rebirth. Attachment towards others through compassion can benefit the individual in the present or future.
QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
And, in line with this, I wonder if within compassion meditation one needs to experience feeling during the meditation itself. I remember the Dalai Lama saying one should generate compassion with reasons, then focus upon the feeling. It's difficult for me to do so, so I wonder if compassion-meditation can work without immediate feeling.
QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
Thank you.

By saying “attachment isn't necessarily all bad,” you are somewhat timidly suggesting that “beauty and love are not (necessarily) forms of suffering.” The truth, of course, is that both Enlightenment and the path to Enlightenment are valuable because they profoundly enhance the experiences of and capacities for love and beauty (and insight). The fact that you are placing this profound truth in question is the result of a popular misunderstanding of Buddhism.
This common misunderstanding concerns the notion of detachment (upekkha) in Buddhism. A person practices detachment only as a preparation for achieving upacara samadhi in mindfulness meditation. Upacara samadhi is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Hence, the only reason a monk may contemplate the stages of decomposition of a corpse is to temporarily suspend any attachment to the body in order to reach upacara samadhi more easily. To practice detachment as a way of life has no value, because it does not generate insight. People who practice detachment without practicing a lot of meditation are merely increasing their suffering and delaying insight for another lifetime!
QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: While the contemplation of beauty does not lead directly to insight, it is an indicator of progress for those people who value the experience of beauty.
QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: In the practice of the brahmavihara, the practices of loving-kindness (metta) and joy for others (mudita) can be sources of great joy and happiness. Of course, the contemplation of the suffering of others (which arouses compassion or karuna) is painful. The practice of upekkha (usually translated as equanimity, but better translated as objectivity) is, well, objective. There is no equivalent to “emotion” in the Pali language. In Pali, vedana merely means feeling, which is not always emotional.

Eggman, are the homework assignments done? The basic works? If not, there is no base to build on.
To get attached to aesthetic, to beauty of nature, is very needed, since one starts to practice that what gives cause to: long life, beauty, happiness and strength: Dana, Sila, Bhavana.
The contemplations for that, after having the items understood, having developed the objects of contemplation, are this six found here:
[Q&A] What should one meditate upon as a beginner? (Bhavana for Laypeople)
As for the nature (plants animals), which is really not a ground for joy to contemplate, but a place to see how poor certain existances can be, to understand the confusion, its worthy to understand The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism. To see beauty in the ugly, good in bad... to even train such is a foolish practice of the fool.
That is why real aesthetic objects are chosen. Not such without any generosity, virtue and even wisdom... nature is good to be wise reflected to develope samvega, "fear".
(Seems to be redundant questioning of yours... there is no way aside of simply putting firts generosity and then virtue just into practic, Eggman.)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
Attachment and Aversion Continuum
When we consider attachment as something we want to stay present with, and aversion as something we try to push away, can we say there is a continuum present?
More specifically, does reducing attachment simultaneously reduce aversion, and vice versa? I have diminished a lot of attachments lately, and I still dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks and engage in effort.
Are they completely unrelated?
EDIT: Also, what is the best way to tackle aversion?
Thank you.

From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, which views mindfulness meditation that generates insight to be the only way to Enlightenment, detachment has a very specific purpose. It is viewed as a preparation or enhancement of upacara samadhi, which is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering and achieve Enlightenment). From this point of view, the only kind of attachment that needs to be temporarily suppressed is one that prevents the meditator from gaining upacara samadhi. This kind of attachment cannot be equated with pleasure. For example, some people experience the physical world and the physical presence of their body in that world as the only reality. This experience can be pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, depending upon the circumstances. Such a person is “attached” to this physicality because he or she experiences it as the only reality. When such a person practices mindfulness meditation, the only insights that make sense to him or her are those that make sense in the context of this experience. The kind of insights needed for Enlightenment are beyond this frame of reference. Such a person may be advised to practice the contemplation of the stages of decomposition in order to detach from this frame of reference. Perhaps surprising to the person who has no understanding of the psychology of this contemplation is the fact that often results in a blissful state of mind. If not practiced correctly, it can result in a morbid state of mind. In contrast to this sophisticated understanding of detachment, there is the common, ignorant, and false view that all forms of pleasure are forms of attachment and that progress towards Enlightenment consists of suppressing (becoming detached from) all forms of pleasure. Unfortunately, the suppression of pleasure does not generate the psychological insight needed to make real progress. The same can be said for the suppression of aversion. There is no continuum between attachment and aversion because they are not opposites. If by “diminishing attachments” you mean the avoidance, suppression, or reduction of pleasure, then you are not practicing any traditional form of Theravadin practice. And, if you “dreadfully struggle to engage in effort” to meditate, then you may be undermining your capacity of upacara samadhi. But, in all fairness, I would need to know a lot more about your situation to offer you any advice.

When ignorance is present, from attachment as a condition, only two results can arise:

Suffering or
happiness that ends in suffering.

There are many ways in which we suffer.
One of them is being aversive when we don't want to be aversive.
You stated in your question that you "dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks". From this, I assume, you're being aversive when you don't want to be aversive. Thus, this aversion that you have is creating a kind of suffering for you. Or lets just say that this aversion is not pleasant for you ... you want to get rid of it.
The aversion you're experiencing is because of your attachments.
To get rid of aversion, you must destroy attachments.
How?
Totally calm your mind. Empty your mind.
From total emptiness, make an effort to arise any thought you wish.
Observe how the thought arises.
Once the thought arises, observe it. Look at it. Note it.
Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the thought ceases.
Do the above many many times. Don't do it just with thoughts. Try it with anything you can feel with the mind sense.
Do it with sounds. Listen to a sound in your mind. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the sound ceases.
Do it with any mental formation, like a visual or sensation of smell or sensation of taste or an idea or a concept ... anything that you create in your mind. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the mental formation ceases.
Do it when you're hungry and you crave to eat something delicious. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the craving for food ceases.
Do it with your emotions, like fear or anger or sadness or nervousness. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the emotions cease.
Do it when you're bored to death. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the boredom ceases.
Then, do it with aversion. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how aversion ceases.
If you can do the above successfully, as described, you'll see why aversion arises and why it ceases. You'll see it. You'll see it. Seeing it, you'll know. You'll know.
Knowing why it ceases, you'll make it cease whenever you wish. And no, you won't need to go in meditation in order to make it cease. You'll just do it. Like moving a finger.

I am offering this response from personal experience.
I feel craving and aversion to both belong under the term 'attachment'. If we are trying to hold onto anything or push anything away, we could say we have become attached to it. We are not allowing the continual rise and fall/coming and going of all experience to be as it is.
When working with aversion, I have found it helpful to use mindfulness of my body. When I notice aversion, I can usually feel a 'closing off' or a contraction in my body. I now know when I feel this, aversion is present.
The most helpful practise here has been to simply observe these sensations without reaction/judgement. When I do this, I allow aversion to be there, and I allow it then to go. Just as all experience does. It has taken time, but having a visceral understanding of this process has allowed wonderful insight!
Note: At the present I believe all attachment to arise from judgement of sensation. With awareness, all experience can be felt, therefore when we judge/label what we feel as good or bad, we plant the seeds for craving/aversion to arise. By being with/feeling all experience without judging, we allow whatever is there to simply be. No attachment, just peace.
I hope this is helpful!


text:
Buddhism and Procrastination
I have two simple questions.
1) What is the Buddhist view on procrastination, and its solution ?
2) What is the solution to a specific lack of motivation, e.g. school work ? Something not related to an overarching goal, or even linked with spiritual values. In other words, how does one prime oneself to do something ?

You get a lot of support and nobody has an inherent duty to give that suppot. All is given by others. It's a matter gratidute at least to care about you duties timely.
To say "oh it's not of great value" is fine, but than one should also stop to receive for that paticula task. And it's for sure not so, that at times one does not work on "low" duties, one is actually practicing for the higher.
If not able to manage simply tasks which are given with generous exchange of all requisites for life-maintaines, even including certain sensual pleasure, if that lazy, if lacking that much on persistance, how would you like to be able to master the Dhamma?
Those high and noble aims require people with effort who master the hindrances. If not able to master them even on this level, being busy with doubt, sensuality, lazyness, ill will... all this "spiritual-monster-ego"-things, how to master anything?
It would be certainly good to get known the sacrifies need to be done, which are done, by one self and others, to get the value of that understood.
There is for sure no problem in living a live of a "beggar" but are you sure that you might receive enough to maintain a life for higher purpose? Would a live of required arosen persistance, effort and no wordily rewards at all be possible to be lived by one constantly giving improper attention to feelings, thought... what ever leads to be astray?
It's good to be very honest to one self and do not misuse high truth for low aims and leave a lane build on defilements cheating.
As for the case that one really takes on the "burdens" of a special beggar, is really willing, than there are always aims.
Don't become one in big debts, don't be or become a so called "(derogative) welfare parasite". It brings joy if free of debts. It is a "hopeless" way if just accumulating debts. So work where you are and what's you duty for now and even a little more.
Having, having enjoyed rightly gained wealth it not only a joy to share it but also to let go of it later, out of wisdom, without any remorse and not based on possible excusses.
See: "AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless" for more on that.
"(only skillful) labor makes free", and only if done Voluntary.
So good to stop certain "ego-trip" and start to work at the actually state and place where one is, because:

"These two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools. (AN 2.98)

On procrastination and delay:
What ever is not done at proper time, what ever has not been made suddenly, one will later be very sad having not done this merits. What is gone, chances, are gone... just think of how less beings have that much "luck" you have and now, what do you do with that?
See also (especially the later part of the topic: Delayed deeds
"In the youth not managed whealth, in the age not renounced, such is indeed a wasted life", which does not mean that it's not even the best to renounce the fist part in the youth, if honestly. Today many accumulate debts by pseudo-renouncing and feeding on given in the youth and when older they have become really burdened slaves.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]
(Possible extended and modified answer, als well as place for discussion and questions here: [Q&A] Delayed speech as right speech (delay of skillful deeds))

The reason for procrastination can be you really don't know for sure what YOU want to do.
You should have a clear vision of your future. You should know exactly what you want to do in your life. You should know what type of life you want to live. You should know your goals in every detail. You should know how you'll achieve what you want. You should have a clear plan how you'll do it. You should know the necessary steps to achieve what you want. When you know all this, lack of motivation and procrastination vanish.
Because you don't know what you want to do, you lack motivation to do things you do.
If you want to do things without procrastination, you must know one hundred percent what YOU want to do.
If, on the other hand, you know one hundred percent what YOU want to do, but you still don't do it, then the reason for not doing it can either stem from:

suffering or from
wisdom.

If it's from suffering, think about fears, doubts, lack of self esteem, lack of self worth, depression, craving for sensual pleasures, and similar. If this is the case, you should learn to minimize your suffering. You should read and listen to great people who have overcome their suffering and realized all their goals. You should learn the teachings for achieving your goals. Read books about how to motivate yourself and achieve your goals. Find role models that you respect and listen to. Read read read study study study and learn how to achieve what YOU want.
Once you'll achieve whatever you want or during your learning period while striving to achieve what you want and if you'll not become lazy or indued so much in sensual pleasures to stop thinking about suffering and its cause, sooner or later you'll learn so much about life, that meditation will come naturally, which is a clear path towards final liberation.

When it comes to motivation or the lack thereof, Theravadin Buddhist psychology is based upon the concept of sankhara, which equivalent to the philosophical concept of schema. That is to say, motivation is determined by past experience in a way that makes sense. Hence the solution to a specific lack of motivation is to find a new motive that makes sense to you.


text:
Ideal Experience in Buddhism
Sometimes, I tell myself that a moment wherein I'm devoid of craving, ignorance and aversion is a moment inherently good. I tell myself that if I remove the addictive (and aversive) states within myself , then the right choices within my experience will naturally be made.
So, with the example of social media -- which is addictive for me -- I cannot easily pay mindfulness while doing this activity. However, I view every other moment free of affliction as naturally and effortlessly conducive to mindfulness. While doing almost anything that is not afflicted in terms of mental state, mindfulness and curiosity towards experience leads to diverse virtuous results.
Oddly, however, I do not get attached to such virtuous experiences, but return to addictive and pleasurable states. It's like an irony: what is detrimental is naturally addictive and what is wise and virtuous more difficult.
QUESTION 1: Is this view of a 'normal' affliction-free state -- i.e. not a meditative absorption or compassion filled state -- as virtuous correct? Just normal awareness?
QUESTION 2: Wouldn't virtuous states, perhaps in time, become addictive in themselves? For now, they are more akin to equanimity, whereas I'm neither drawn or averse to them. Or, would they remain like equanimity?
Thank you.

Eggman,
One starts to get free of addiction simply by keeping Silas: abstain, if there is no real penetration to right view (stress, cause, cessation, path).
It is pointless to try again and again a "short-cut". And there is no such as gaining world and Nibbana together. All undertakings to build equanimity around the cause without removing it, lead to even bigger unpleasant results.
Do the work to be done! and keep precepts.
It has it's cause, it's reason, why one falls in bad realms, becomes a hungry ghost.
If caught there, in the realm of hungry ghost, in internet: Use the practice of Mindfulness practice and meditation in Googlyana, starting with Silas.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
Upekkha and Non-attachment in Buddhism
I have read on Wikipedia, after an enlightening answer on here, that upekkha signifies not total indifference, but that:

The "far enemy" of Upekkha is greed and resentment, mind-states in obvious opposition. The "near enemy" (quality which superficially resembles Upekkha but is in fact more subtly in opposition to it), is (cold) indifference or apathy: one is not neutral after having engaged deeply with the wordly winds, but due to having closed oneself off to many emotions related to these worldly winds.

Can anyone expand on this paragraph, and especially on that last part?
Thank you.

I don't understand the whole quoted text, because my english is terrible, however I understand upekkhā-brahmvihāra's enemy, so I will explain just it:
Near enemy = fake-upekkhā = unwholesome mind that acting like upekkhā, but it is just a lazy and a fool mind that don't has any knowledge to manage that situation, so fake upekkhā just acting like upekkhā, but the real mind is difference.
Far enemy = appeared enemy = antonym of upekkhā. upekkhā mind factor is in the middle way between unwholesome mind especially lobha and dosa. So lobha and dosa are an opposite of upekkhā.
I am not sure that you already knew this:
In path of purification, visuddhimagga, said that there were 10 difference phrases that upekkhā is used in tipitaka.
Your quoted text is upekkhā-brahmvihāra, tatramajjhattatā mind's factor. It is not upekkhā-vedanā mind's factor.

“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means stability in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

We can experience the Upekkha stage in meditation.
At this stage, our mind is very clear and it is neither disturb nor attach to the arisen of the phenomenon, no matter how painful is the phenomenon of the body, the mind is still very peaceful and unshaken.  The mind knows that the pain is only on the body but the mind is not disturb by the pain.

Good question. This appears to be talking about the distinction between indifference and Equanimity. When one has engaged deeply with that which arises, one sees it for what it truly is - impermanent, incapable of truly satisfying, and Not-Self. However, if one is simply indifferent, one is not seeing things clearly but is remaining in a subtle state of aversion and ignorance. One who is indifferent to an arising state, feeling, thought, etc., will not be motivated to use wisdom or mindfulness in regards to the arisen object. One then may become subtly affected with this cool aversion and ignorance, proliferating into the fruits of such.
The Buddha taught to be mindful of feeling - the basic charge of any arisen object - to be mindful of if it is pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant (neutral). The neutral, when one isn't mindful of it, leads to ignorance, the unpleasant to aversion, and pleasant to clinging. Equanimity comes when one sees them all as equally unsatisfying/impermanent, conditioned by seeing them deeply, without judgement, the moment they arise.
Feeling can be difficult to see directly, as it happens so fast. Getting the mind still in meditation, sharpening one's mindfulness, one can come to actually experience this and know this difference between true Equanimity and indifference. Good luck.

Again about the "upekkha" of people not having done their homework, Eggman:

An Analysis of the Six Sense-media
"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results of action [2] & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye. Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
[2] A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.
[3] A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

The eight Winds (loka dhamma) are:

"These eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
"For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?" ...The Failings of the World

Wolf keeping Uposatha or The Fox and the Grapes are sample-stories to "having closed oneself off to many emotions related to these worldly winds"
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

You want to know how later Theravada understands upekkha, or how upekkha is understood according to EBT (early buddhist teachings)?
Detailed collection of EBT passages here:
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/upekkha/book/index.html

Emotions are difficult, not least strong emotions. A common tendency (and also a very human way) of dealing with emotions is to distract oneself from them, or trying to ignore them entirely (vibhava-tanha). It results in a seemingly calm state of mind - that can be mistaken for upekkha -  but only for so long.


text:
Did Siddhartha Gautam become Buddha using Vipassana alone?
I am an old student of S.N. Goenka Vipassana treat. I want to know whether Vipassana alone is sufficient to achieve Nirvana or not? Did Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha using Vipassana alone? Or If he employed some other techniques what were those?

See also Does samatha practice always come before vipassana practice?, and, What is dry insight?

It's  unlikely.
It's reported that Gotama spent 6 years training all sorts of things before he achieved Nirvana. This training involved studying under other ascetics and practicing austerity. Presumably he learned a lot during these times, though emphasis seem to be on things he learned that weren't fruitful.
But things that aren't fruitful aren't the whole story of this period. For example, he found some teachings of his previous teachers useful and kept teaching and exercising them even after Nirvana (e.g. meditation on nothingness/suññata) -- though these practices, by themselves, were remarked as insufficient for realizing Nirvana.
Another example of useful practice is the time when he decided to divide his thoughts in two classes:

“Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.
[...] “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of cruelty  arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty  has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty  arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
-- MN 19

An insight (no pun intended) on the kind of person Gotama was before Nirvana can be seen from the following passage, where he was training severe ascetism:

“I would make my bed in a charnel ground with the bones of the dead for a pillow. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears. Yet I do not recall that I ever aroused an evil mind of hate against them. Such was my abiding in equanimity.
-- MN 12

That is, even in extreme circumstances he already had some extraordinary domain over his mind or such a virtuous persona that unwholesome states of mind would not invade him in these circumstances. Also, the whole narration of the ascetism period shows how deeply dedicated he was.
That much can be read in the suttas from the period pre-Nirvana.
Many buddhists believe that this is due to his many previous lives acquiring merit and becoming such a person that would be able to, by himself, become the Buddha -- the Jataka stories illustrate that.
A complementary point of view could be to take the Dharma that he started teaching. As far as we know, he didn't taught vipassana for some 40 years, he taught the eightfold path. He also implied that the eightfold path is intrinsically the path Nirvana -- seeing one is seeing the other. In other words, this same path was discovered by all Buddhas.


text:
Is equanimity more sublime that an excellent act?
What might be more or real "cool"?
For example (in practice), seeing a spelling error or a typo:

Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

In summary, is equanimity more sublime that an excellent/skillful and beneficial act?
Side question: if beneficial help is more sublime, to what extend would a seemingly beneficial help be actually unskillful, lower than equanimity?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

'Equanimity' is the last of the four brahmavihara (metta, karuna, mudita & upekkha) & is practised together with the other brahmavihara. For example, if there is good-will (metta) & the wish to help (karuna) but no possibility to help then equanimity (upekkha) is practised.
Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as practising equanimity as an alternative to performing a beneficial act. Equanimity is only practised when a beneficial action cannot be performed due to another person not capable or not willing to change or benefit.
For example, AN 4.100 says speaking praise &/or blame in the right situation is more advanced & exalted than equanimity. However, as said, the situation must be the right appropriate situation. For example, preaching & proselytizing dhamma when not asked & to people who don't want to listen is not a "right situation" to perform unwanted "beneficial acts". AN 9.5 says Dhamma, as a gift of benevolence, is only taught to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.

Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

My two cents:
It is not easy to come to a conclusion from the behaviour alone.
Consider:
A1. Ignoring the error due to indifference/apathy, not caring for whatever the outcome or result.
A2. Not interfering with it, because there is good in everything and allowing the natural process to evolve - not siding with push or pull to change the outcome one way or the other, but staying with it, observing one's reactions as well as accepting things as they are.
And:
B1. Correction being done because one cannot accept the presence of an error, a reaction to correct things based on one's view of how things should be.
B2. Correcting because of compassion, in-order to benefit all the beings that may chance upon this.
To me, both A2 and B2 are equally good, as they are a display of true equanimity and compassion, respectively. A1 and B1 are not actions without demerit, but B1 is slightly better in a sense because there is a greater chance to learn from it than A1 (going ahead and committing even a mistake is better than totally ignoring it, in my opinion).
Of course, in a community managed site like this B1/B2 are the better options, but in regards to right action for mindfulness practice/self development both A2 and B2 should rank equally.


text:
Recurring Lack of Compassion
I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation.
I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion.
Thank you.

Is it reasonable to excpet that you can escape your karma and walk such a path?  Your reactions sound like karmic reactions.

Compassion is the willingness or wish to help others therefore I suppose compassion can only be practised when others need help when it is obviously they want help.

I like that answer, I think that unless people want help compassion will be very very limited.

I think the practise of emptiness & compassion is to not neglect compassion when emptiness is realised, i.e., to not allow emptiness to generate indifference.

These six properties (dhātus/elements) are means of escape. Which six?
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still viciousness keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — viciousness would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from viciousness: compassion as an awareness-release.' (AN 6.13)

Karuna (compassion). See also Brahmavihara.
  As a factor leading to liberation: AN 6.13
  Systematic practice of ~: SN 42.8
  Practicing ~ as a way to deal with annoying people: AN 5.161
Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (Harris)
  "Educating Compassion"

It's not possible to develop compassion, understand it even, if one is after certain elements, follwer of certain dhatus, holding on wrong views and disregard the tripple gems. Such are no means. So fist real refuge is generally the only refuge.
Such answers like

Compassion is the willingness or wish to help others therefore I suppose compassion can only be practised when others need help when it is obviously they want help.

might give foundation for defilements to regard there ideas for right, but such does not cover what is called skillful or path contuctive.
The wish to help other beings has nothing to do if one is actually able or not, regardless of lack in oneself or by handicaps of others: boundless, meaning that all beings are to be included.
Of course such as to develope karuna requires such as compassion or pity toward one self first. This requires the understanding that one actually need to be helped, misses certain things for having no kind of suffering.
If one does not see dukkha, one does not see ground for help. Not knowing dukkha in one self, not spoken about the cause, how can one develop even desire to help other?
There is no being that is not subject to suffering, knowing it or not.
To be able to develope conductive compassion it is required to have right view, without right view, the following parts of the eightfold path, which are in fact deeds of compassion, starting with virtue outwardly, can not come into be.
Developing right compassion, even to expand it torward all beings is therefore not possible for a wordily mind, person, but might be so fare, "just" a training.

One who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with compassion. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Such is impossible for a person with giant ego, totally overestimating one self. Such a person will of course, guided by his defilements, prefer to dwell in his "emptiness" (e.g. in his ignorance).
At least, one IS able to help every being - to pull away the ground of such foolish ideas: even if one might not see certain lack, does not know certain mind, in keeping precepts, being without intention to harm, has threefold rght intention, one helps all beings.

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life/taking what is not given/illicit sex/lying/use of intoxicants, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans... (AN 8.39)

Taken on such on high level, this is by the way the reason why monks and certain brahmans are often addressed as "lord of compassion", because of the gift of virtue and then the other trainings and for teaching possible the way to end suffering.
So compassion in action on the eightfold path helps actually every being, and ideas, like even favored by deluded minds here, giving cause to be corrected for those able to see through defilements, have no rightous ground at all.
Since this is actually a place that gives much reason to face the suffering of beings, caught in wrong views, here is planty place to spread compassion, pity for them, since that grave hopeless situation no one can directly posible help, is indeed a field that "cries" for compassion and may lead later to righous equanimity "beings are heirs of their kamma", that's then dwellingin emptiness, not possible to gain without having done the right deeds in body, speech and mind befor.
So the matter in short, incl. act-ually all being:

And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice: e.g. stating with developing right view by practicing silas], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.
"And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy (e.g. developing a mind, thoughs of compssion). This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself. (BaMboo-acrobats)

So, right here where this is, there is, at the point of a wordling, no better act of compassion as to strive for right view by practicing generosity, precepts and reflecting the Dhamma and let go of certain ego-trips:

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path
"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."
— MN 117
Cultivating skillful ways of thought
"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
— AN 10.176

With much karuna! (and mudita) and as a "Bodhisatta" once explained: "How few understand what love (goodwill & compassion) really is,... : Wisdom and the work for it.

Sabbe sattā sabba-dukkhā pamuccantu.
May all living beings be freed from all stress & pain.

For those more interested in how to develop the Brahma Viharas: The Sublime Attitudes: A Study Guide on the Brahmaviharas
Beware of the manifold extrems of Mohayana-Compassion, leading to pain for many and oneself in wandering on, feeding on the "beloved"...

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

They say, on hinayana path you overcome desire and on mahayana path you overcome aversion. Maybe that is your problem, aversion. Maybe you should sit down and try to take a very careful look at this aversion for a few hours? Aversion is often rooted in fear of (emotional) pain, or in some old stereotypes / prejudices based on painful experiences... or, generally speaking, in mental attachments to some conceptual ideals of some kind... Try and understand the source of your aversion.
Now, you have to realize, compassion is not really a pleasant feeling by any means. It is actually quite painful. After all, you empathize other people's subjective situations, including their confusion and dukkha - how can it not be painful? Therefore, in order to open oneself to compassion, one must open oneself to pain. This is the fundamental diff. between Mahayana and others, because in Mahayana we don't shy away from pain, don't try to trick it away - we live with it.
So once you have enough emotional strength to fathom the depth of Samsara and amount of dukkha in the universe... and you're up for the infinity of helping sentient beings... all of which want happiness, but none want your help - so you have to trick them to help them - and this too is painful - then we can call this real Mahayana compassion.

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

Maybe try some loving-kindness guided meditation and  compassion guided meditation. Ajahn Brahm, Pema Chodron and Joseph Goldstein among many other great teachers have free guided meditation mp3 downloads. Just Google the teacher and "guided meditation".
I like guided meditations because it's a way to meditate with someone other than yourself:) Metta.

One google query consumes energy (=live) of about 15Wh. Food to consider, when after compassion vs. "dislike" seclusion. Not to speak about audio and even video sensual pleasure. Soon as much as cookng food for a whole family for one day.

I've been at an energy low so forgive me.

Beings propaby forgive, law of cause and effect, Self, not. Compassion with such?

Your “general detachment from people” is probably due to a childhood that lacked a lot of love. Buddhism does not do a very good job of dealing with such family conditioning. Modern psychotherapy has a lot more insight into the causal relationships between family conditioning and adult suffering. Neither Theravadin Buddhism nor Mahayana Buddhism provide the kind of healing that a good psychotherapist can provide. The recent development of MBSR and MBCT centers that provide a community of therapists and clients are far more attuned to the needs of practitioners of mindfulness meditation who have suffered from dysfunctional families. In Buddhist cultures, becoming a monk or a nun is more of a calling than a pursuit of psychotherapy. A good way to develop compassion is to be part of a community of friends that are sensitive to your emotional needs.


text:
Unity of Wisdom
I'm curious as to whether wisdom is truly united as a mental factor, or whether some people can be very wise, yet very ignorant in other aspects. Basically, my question is: is wisdom a single entity, or made up of parts?
I feel like the answer needs to be both, to some degree. As, if it were completely divisible then there would be no such thing as wisdom, there would be nothing unifying these parts. And, if it were completely indivisible and unified then it would never change, increase, etc.
Perhaps the real issue is whether wisdom aggregates into a collected mental factor.
Any thoughts?
Thank you.

See especially last part on answer on What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?

Wisdom can certainly gather into a collected mental factor or it can be a result (byproduct) with becoming ONE with another's wisdom.  The main issue, I'd suggest, is a difference between Western minds/souls/destinies and others.

In Buddhism, wisdom or special wisdom or omniscience, is direct and deep understanding of principle (principles?) behind all phenomena.
In one sense, this wisdom is universal and applies to all problems and situations. This, however, does not mean that Buddha would necessarily know how to change the tire or pilot a helicopter without training.

As a mental faculty, wisdom is one thing. It is the capacity to discern how things contribute to suffering or, otherwise, contribute to freedom from suffering. The suttas say:

And what is the faculty of wisdom? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment of
  arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right
  ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This is
  stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
  of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  stress.' This is called the faculty of wisdom. SN 48.10

However, there are many aspects to suffering because suffering or disharmony is both internal & external therefore the wisdom faculty may not have every possible wisdom that is available. For example, a stream-enterer may have the wisdom to resolve basic internal suffering but may not have the wisdom to help other people or deal with social conflict.
In conclusion, the wisdom faculty is one thing but the types of knowledges that can form part of the wisdom faculty can be many; similar to how a cabinet can store many medicines but not include every medicine.

I'd lean toward wisdom being divisible. It's common knowledge, not limited to Buddhism, that wise people tend to know what they don't know.  The wise are usually humble and know their limitations.
I'm new on this StackExchange site so apologies if this is not an appropriate response.

Wisdom (pannindriya), of course, is a form of knowledge, a very important form of knowledge, but knowledge nonetheless. When wisdom is viewed as a mental factor (cetasika) of a moment of consciousness (citta), then that citta has a certain quality and not necessarily a simple quality. Indeed, I would suggest that none of the 52 cetasika are simple. All belief and knowledge are generated or caused by sankhara (schemata, in the terminology of Immanuel Kant). It does not make sense to say that knowledge or wisdom can be “united.” Nor does it make sense to say that knowledge or wisdom can be a “single entity.” A sankhara is a set of mental dispositions that makes it possible for us to make sense of experience, including meaningless experience. Only by means of sankhara do we make sense of anything. We cannot perform an action unless it makes sense to us. Wisdom does not “aggregate” and cetasika do not “collect.” Knowledge of any importance is necessarily complex.


text:
Object-based Meditation Versus Objectless Meditation
I notice I have practised meditation in a very biased way, in the sense that I contemplate my experience in a neither focused, neither supported way. Here, by support, I mean a contemplation supported by an object.
So, basically, I am aware of my consciousness and the interaction of thoughts and impressions within it, although without a specific support.
To me, a focused meditation would imply moments of consciousness unified by some specific centring focus.
Similarly, supported meditation implies sensory, perceptual focuses rather than experiences which are bound to alter and vary.
An actual object, whether material as a physical object or perceptual as the breath, would fulfill both these aspects.
QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?
QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

Objectless meditation is my preferred approach, which might qualify as 'cultivating the empty field'. You speak of 'focus', but objectless meditation is not about narrowing ones focus. I would suggest a meditation object is an aid to practice that eventually has to be abandoned. Just some thoughts.

QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Consequences might be that unity of mind cannot happen since there is no object to focus attention on, meaning e.g. Vitakka and Vichara, cannot happen.
Insight-meditationally speaking, without an object to attend to, I don't see how insights could arise.

QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

It might block the (seven) Enlighenment Factors from arising.

Mindfulness on mind, in that case on consciousness, "knowing mind" is actually part of good vipassana objects, one of the four frames of references. Only that object would be great, hight talented, uprooting quick everything. Of course the answer fits good to the asking/ers mind, but if just taking the text in account, like most would, properply good to discriminate in this regard, Nyom Lanka.

OP: QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Meditation requires an object to focus on which is real (Paramattha) or conceptual (Paññatti).
Also, consciousness does not arise without form or faculty as these 3 constitutes contact which is one our senses register. Therefore there cannot be consciousness without and object.

Dependent on _____ and _____,
  ____-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

Cha Chakka Sutta

the eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the ear, sounds, ear-consciousness, ear-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the nose, smells, nose-consciousness, nose-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the tongue, sounds, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the body, touches, body-consciousness, body-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self.

Cha Chakka Sutta
The object of Vipassanā are real objects (Paramattha Dhammas) corresponding to the classification as nama (mentality) and rupa (materiality) or the classification as citta (a moment of consciousness or a moment of experience), cetasika (mental factors accompanying consciousness), rupa (material phenomena) and nibbana (the unconditioned reality) or the classification as rupakkhandha (all rupas), vedanākkhandha (feelings), saññākkhandha (remembrance or perception), saṅkhārakkandha (all cetasikas, except feeling and remembrance) and viññāṇakkhandha (all cittas).
The object of Samatha in most cases are conceptual like people in case of Metta, coloured discs in case of Kasina.
One can develop choiceless awareness, especially when doing daily activities, i.e., you are aware of the object which comes to your attention and any sensation resulting from it. There is a danger in this though that you keep jumping from the most intense object which catchers your attention to another. The drawback in this is that there are a lot of other subtler objects in the background which one might not develop sensitivity. Therefore, for a reasonable time, one should systematically change the objects so one is even sensitive to the feeling the subtlest object creates.

OP: QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

Since there cannot be consciousness without and object of focus, let me assume this is choiceless awareness where one does not direct one's focus to a particular object.
Less effort may be needed as one is not redirecting one's focus.
This comes at a cost as one is not putting effort to see and experience more subtler objects. Ultimately one must try to see reality of all phenomena.

I have practiced Objectless Awareness for years, an expansion of traditional Mindfulness of perceiving the breath, sensations, thoughts and so on.
Its major advantage is that you are aware of the entire space around you and its objects. Over time my comparison is to have your mind in the center of a balloon with all its space occupying the rest, no room for casual thoughts to come in. It is completely effortless so you can abide in this state endlessly.
The opinion stated previously that insight could not occur is furthest from the truth. Instead the minds power is increased tremendously since it is not stained by passing thoughts and emotion. The passive focus builds equanimity and readiness to truly accept the reality around it. Compare it to the instant that you reach an Aha moment, everything is cleared, now you get it. This is the state continuously experienced in an objectless state.

If the wisdom faculty appears with sufficient intensity and the hindrances are resolved; at that time the path can arise and one then attains to absorbtion by which defilements are eradicated.
Othertimes one might abide far removed from hindrances, gladdened and percepient of pleasurable feelings; thinking thoughts connected to knowledge, development and the goal; or not thinking.
It may well happen that one will attain to various distinctions and become percepient of lights & forms. Eventually attaining all way up to cessation of perception & feeling by which defilements are destroyed; the attainments depend on the faculties, inclination and intentions.

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


text:
What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views?
Maybe a challenging questions for the scholars and literary Abhidhamma-fans, with much possibilities for great merits:

What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views?

Deatal explaining of each would be a great gift of the deathlessness.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Extracted from Ten Bases of Meritorious Actions (Ten Punnakiriya-vatthus):

There is a good result in an act of alms-giving, charity giving.
There is benefit in veneration.
There is benefit in offering gifts.
There is the Law of Karma and Its Results which teaches that moral and immoral deeds have respective consequences, in this life and the next.
There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own mother, while neglecting her means an evil deed.
There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own father, while neglecting him means an evil deed.
There are unseen worlds of hell, hungry ghosts, demons, devas, Sakkas and brahmas. Existence of such beings should be accepted as a fact.
There is this present world.
There is the next world or lives to come.
There are holy persons who have subdued their thought, word and deed. There are persons with jhanic insight or concentration who see this world and the next clearly. They teach such sights, views and visions in a correct way. We should have confidence in such samanas and brahmanas.

This is puthujjana samma ditthi from MN 117: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

@Dhammadhatu What is that supposed to mean? It's right view for anyone, isn't it? This isn't what the OP was referring to?  I wonder if someone is reacting to #7 because I didn't' make this up and what was I supposed to do, leave it out?  This is either the right answer or it's not, I don't understand how I could be both voted up and voted down by a sane system.  The truth MATTERS but this system has leaves THE TRUTH to a schizophrenic democratic process. If this is the wrong answer then I will delete it, it's that simple.

That, the answer, is a good and proper approach, deriving from right view, Sadhu!

There are two levels of Samma Ditthi (right view). One is the puthujjana (ordinary life) samma ditthi and the other is the lokuttara samma ditthi (with direct aim to realize Nibbana i.e. understanding the Four Noble Truths). First we have to begin with practising the puthujjana samma ditthi to shed the more coarse defilements of the mind, and then we can more easily make progress with the lokuttara samma ditthi (understanding of the Four Noble Truths).
May you realize Nibbana!
Sadhu!