text:
What motivates a fully awakened person in a loving relationship?
Loving relationship here is meant specifically as a mutually intimate partnership like husband and wife and boyfriend and girlfriend. There would be the case where one would become fully awake and therefore abandons all teachings but whilst still in a relationship. Would this change the dynamics of that relationship in some major way?
What do the Suttas say about this if anything?

Not sure what you mean by "unfolding", but it's nearly impossible if not impossible that an Arahant has any interest in an intimate partnership. Even a non-returner has no interest because they enjoy the pleasures of Jhana. Also, both have ended sensual desire, so there is i) no interest in a partnership, and ii) one has much higher pleasures than that derived from a partner. Unfolding into Arahant while being in a relationship is very hard, because one must abandon all craving, and if past sankharas are with craving due to being in a relationship, I fail to see the connection to Arahantship.

Val you can write that as an answer

@Val - I don't know how to term it - unfold, fall into, fall out of...

You made two changes: "fully enlightened" instead of "arahant", and "personal-experience" instead of reference-request". Three problems: 1) ask this as a new or follow-on question instead, and leave this one as-is, to avoid "invalidating" the existing answers? 2) not clear what "fully-enlightened" is compared to "arahant" (maybe less exclusive to Theravada and more inclusive of Mahayana); 3) implies/requires that to answer it people be (or have personal experience of being) fully-enlightened - maybe ask "what's an enlightened motive" or "what motive might a relatively enlightened person have".

Thanks Chris. I think I understand that you're asking me to define a group - implicitly. Also, I'm not content with the other suggestion of rephrasing the question as a separate question. I'm not comfortable in doing either or both of these and so in this case I would request that you take the question down to avoid the confusion that you anticipate.

I'll leave it as-is; but people who have already answered might not change their existing answers to reply to the new question -- also IMO the new question is difficult to answer if (as I assume they may be) people are reluctant and/or unable to speak from personal experience of a "fully awakened" person and in a loving relationship at that (I thought that "relatively" might possibly be more answerable from personal experience than "fully", though apparently such comparisons might be seen as conceit by definition).

Remark: This is not (yet?) a full answer, but more an extended comment.
For one impression of how might a loving relation be revered see  "A.IV. 55 Nakulapitá und Nakulamátá" ; although the couple is not called arahants they are mentioned as "top on lay disciples" (see "A I.24")  "The foremost of my laymen ...(...) ... who are intimate is the householder Nakula’s father.”
So there's no right-out disregard of being a loving couple.
Next it might be interesting a story about the (later) arahant (Maha) Kassapa about the problem of being married and having a desire for ascetic life at the same time. Hellmuth Hecker has compiled a story about this which I found some time ago at the access-to-insight site (I think) . Here is a part of that text on the biographic tale about Kassapa:

(...) Like the two chief disciples, Sariputta and Maha Moggallana, Maha
  Kassapa too descended from the brahmin caste, and again like them, he
  was older than the Buddha. He was born in the Magadha country, in the
  village Mahatittha, as the son of the brahmin Kapila and his wife
  Su-manadevi.
(This account of Maha Kassapa's early life is taken from the commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya.)
He was called Pipphali. His father owned sixteen villages over which he ruled like a
  little king, so Pipphali grew up in the midst of wealth and luxury.
  Yet already in his young years there was in him the wish to leave the
  worldly life behind, and hence he did not want to marry. When his
  parents repeatedly urged him to take a wife, he told them that he
  would look after them as long as they live, but that after their
  deaths he wanted to become an ascetic. Yet they insisted again and
  again that he take a wife, so to comfort his mother he finally agreed
  to marry -- on the condition that a girl could be found who conformed
  to his idea of perfection. For that purpose he shaped a golden statue
  of a beautiful woman, had it bedecked with fine garments and
  orna-ments, and showed it to his parents, saying: "If you can find a
  woman like this for me, I shall remain in the home life."
His parents approached eight brahmins, showered them with rich gifts,
  and asked them to take the image with them and travel around in search
  of a human likeness of it. The brahmins thought: "Let us first go to
  the Madda country, which is, as it were, a gold mine of beautiful
  women." There they found at Sagala a girl whose beauty equaled that of
  the image. She was Bhadda Kapilani, a wealthy brahmin's daughter, aged
  sixteen, four years younger than Pipphali Kassapa.
Her parents agreed to the marriage proposal, and the brahmins returned to
  tell of their success.
Yet Bhadda Kapilani also did not wish to marry, as it was her wish,
  too, to live a religious life as a female
  ascetic. Such identity between her aspiration and Pipphali Kassapa's
  may well point to a kammic bond and affinity between them in the past,
  maturing in their present life and leading to a decisive meeting
  between them and a still more decisive separation later on.
When Pipphali heard that what he had thought most unlikely had actually
  occurred, he was -- unhappy and sent the following letter to the girl:
  "Bhadda, please marry someone else of equal status and live a happy
  home life with him. As for myself, I shall become an ascetic. Please
  do not have regrets."
  Bhadda Kapilani, like-minded as she was,
  independently sent him a similar letter.
  But their parents,
  suspecting such an exchange would take place, had both letters
  intercepted on the way and replaced by letters of welcome. So Bhadda
  was taken to Magadha and the young couple were married. However, in
  accordance with their ascetic yearning, both agreed to maintain a life
  of celibacy. To give expression to their resolve, they would lay a
  garland of flowers between them before they went to bed, determined
  not to yield to sensual desire. This young wealthy couple lived thus
  happily and in comfort for many years. As long as Pipphali's parents
  lived, they did not even have to look after the estate's farms. But
  when his parents died, they took charge of the large property.
  (...)

Now,  further after the death of Pipphali's parents, Pipphali and also Baddha took the yellow robe and left home, but walked together. Then this happened:

(...) When walking on, Kassapa went ahead while Bhadda followed behind
  him.    Considering this, Kassapa thought: "Now, this Bhadda Kapilani
  follows    me close behind, and she is a woman of great beauty. Some
  people -    could easily think, 'Though they are ascetics, they still
  cannot live    without each other! It is unseemly what they are
  doing.' If they spoil    their minds by such wrong thoughts or even
  spread false rumors, they    will cause harm to themselves." So he
  thought it better that they    separate. When they reached a
  crossroads Kassapa said: "Bhadda, you    take one of these roads, and
  I shall go the other way." She said: "It    is true, for ascetics a
  woman is an obstacle. People might think and    speak badly about us.
  So please go your own way, and we shall now    part."
  She then
  respectfully circumambulated him thrice, saluted him    at his feet,
  and with folded hands she spoke: "Our close companionship    and
  friendship that had lasted for an unfathomable past comes to    an
  end today. Please take the path to the right and I shall take the
  other road." Thus they parted and went their individual ways, seeking
  the high goal of Arahatship, final deliverance from suffering.
  It is
  said that the earth, shaken by the power of their virtue, quaked and
  trembled.

From: MAHA KASSAPA: FATHER OF THE SANGHA by Hellmuth Hecker
Revised and enlarged translation from the German by Nyanaponika Thera
Translated and adapted from //Wissen und Wandel// XXI, 6 (1975)
Wheel Publication No. 345
Copyright 1987, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society
                      BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
                      KANDY              Sri Lanka

So here we find something like "platonic love" between ascetics but in this instance much deeper, Hecker proposes the expression "karmic bond" for something which we might assume as an exotic example for a very deep arrangement of love over an already long chain of rebirthes...

This is a very interesting answer.

Thank you for the reference to Nakula's father

I think even an anagami would stop being interested in relationships because sensual desire is one of the fetter that is removed at non return. So an anangami and arahant are likely to leave the house and become monks. If the anagami has a wife or a husband before attaining non return then they will probably live as sister or brother and not as husband and wife.

Milindapanha III.19
"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."

So an arahant wouldn’t be able to live as a layman for long. I don’t remember which sutta but in that sutta the Buddha or someone said that arahant can only stay as layman for 7 days or they must enter Parinibanna.
Love is sensual desire and an anagami and arahant would completely be free of sensual desire so they won’t have a reason to stay in a relationship with his or her girlfriend. So love relationship is not possible for anagamis and arahants

Love is sensual desire -- But doesn't Buddhism identify any different kinds of "love"? Including metta ("loving-kindness") for example, or karuna ("compassion")?

Thanks. I'm not sure how this works for Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti both of whom have partners. Maybe they're in the stream still.

Metta is a different kind of love. Most ordinary wordings think that love is good. But it is attachment + sensual desire. Loving kindness is also impermanent. It is mentioned in a few suttas.

I don’t believe any layman who claim to be arahant unless they are planning to ordain asap

You don't really believe that tolle is enlightened, do you? Not to be rude, but who understands his talks? I believe he doesn't understands his talks either

I don’t even know him. Most wordlings think that “enlightenment” is becoming omniscience or something like that but in fact true enlightenment is fading of passion and 10 fetters. I also think that sadhguru only have worlding wisdom.

@Val - I don't know. How would one know? It seems he still has sense desires and that might be telling of a non-attainment.

I assume it would be karuna, compassion.
There's a Zen story, Is that so? -- probably not that "Zen master Hakuin" is counted an arahant, but I guess the motive displayed in that story is compassion.
Anyway I think we're told that the Buddha's own motive, per MN 26:

Then, understanding Brahmā’s invitation, I surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha, because of my compassion for sentient beings.
Atha kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, brahmuno ca ajjhesanaṃ viditvā sattesu ca kāruññataṃ paṭicca buddhacakkhunā lokaṃ volokesiṃ.

The motive presumably or by definition wouldn't be "sensuality", however.
And it's Theravada orthodoxy that any lay arahant must join the Order immediately.
Even if we assume no craving for sensuality, I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually intimate" in the question -- that phrase suggests to me some self-view (e.g. "I love you and you love me") -- perhaps these are part of a "thicket of views", which no longer bind an enlightened being.

Thanks. When you say "it's Theravada orthodoxy" do you mean it is unique to Theravada and thus a view not shared by the wider context of Buddhism?

Theravada Buddhism have the view that an arahant would be completely free of lust, hatred and delusion so they wouldn’t need to stay in their house anymore. I would say that an anagami would become an monk unless he has a mother or father who is old. If he has a mother or father then he might work simple jobs like selling pots. There was an anagami who sold pots. I don’t remember which sutta.

@Suchness I think I know [even] less about the orthodoxy of other schools of Buddhism than I do of Theravada's interpretation of the Pali canon. I suspect/expect there are some differences, but I'm ill-equipped to describe them accurately. Your saying "Arahant" in the question may imply you were asking for a Theravada-like view, perhaps Mahayana have (or some may have, or have had) a different view of what an Arahant is and what Enlightenment is, what the stages of enlightenment are, and so on ...

... I think the "stages of enlightenment" per the Pali suttas are as listed in an overview here and here -- which is why people answer "no sensuality" etc. -- and SFAIK that's not the same as the Mahayana-defined stages. I do think that the Buddha, though, might be considered (or defined as) an Arahant (and perhaps more than just an Arahant), so I think I'm not wrong to quote MN 26 in this answer.

@Chris & TheDBSGuy - I see. With regards to orthodoxy this is probably where I alight and have a rummage around inside using some sort of self-directed intuition. Thanks.

@Suchness We could chat if you wanted to, or ask another question. I guess the Buddha famously left his family (and they joined the Order later). Are there are Stream-winner states, as you mentioned, attainable to lay people -- Arahant might be quite usual. I'm not sure I agree (nor disagree) with all Theravada orthodoxy e.g. from my own experience, this for example and that kind of doctrinal detail. Mahayana also has some "Buddha nature" doctrine which might be relevant to your question but that I'm not well-informed to tell you about.

@Suchness More generally (per Theravada again), karuna (compassion) is one of the four Brahmaviharas, which are said to be the right attitude in (i.e. some solution for) all social situations -- worth investigating all four, probably, e.g. because an excess of one might be balanced by some of another.

@Suchness And/or if you were saying that don't want to ask what's orthodox but only hear from people's own experience, you might have to rephrase the question (because to answer that, someone would have to claim to be an Arahant or to know one). One of the guidelines for answering question on SE is that answers should be "backed up" either with references or from personal experience. Also you explicitly asked for references e.g. with the [tag:reference-request] tag.

@Chris - thanks for the invitation to chat. I read your answer to 'Can The Buddha ever be a women' several days ago which I found fascinating. Yes, references are helpful as general directional pointers but in your own words, they are all [somebody's] interpretations; somebody's views. It seems 80-90% of 'waking-up' comes from personal-direction or at least this is what I'm finding with myself. I will look at changing the question. Thanks.

It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. (AN 9.7)

What about sadness and displeasure regarding external events?

Arahant experiences pleasant and unpleasant sense contacts. Refer to Iti 44: https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland

I'm asking because Maha Boowa cried in one of his talks. I wasn't referring to sense contact. It is obvious that the body cannot circumvent pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

Apologies for the roundabout reference, I am searching for the direct text, but in a talk to Anathapindika, the Buddha is said to have said (this is a reference to a quote): "Anathapindika came a little closer to the supramundane reality, since the Enlightened One explained that the arahants were always well, for they were beyond all possibilities for suffering.", as found in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel334.html .. If anyone has the sutta reference, would be appreciated, thanks in advance!


text:
Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists?
Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists? I can't believe I don't know the answer to that question, the amount I've read about Buddhism.
Off the top of my head, some say it has svabhava, those that equate it with emptiness probably say it does not have svabhava, and some say it is the self.

Mahayana doctrine states that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens. Nirvana would have a conventional or dependent existence but for an ultimate analysis would not exist. This is the 'Two Truths' doctrine (or way of thinking about the issue). . .

Nibbana is an element (dhatu).

There are these two elements:
Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
saṅkhatādhātu, asaṅkhatādhātu.
When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements,
Imā kho, ānanda, dve dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
ettāvatāpi kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṃvacanāyā”ti.
MN 115

The Pali suttas use the term "sa dhatu" rather than "sabhava".

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this element
  persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
  natural principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva
  sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
AN 3.136

The term "sabhava" has a valid meaning in Theravada Commentary but because the term contains the word "bhava" (which has different meanings & can mean "ego"), the Mahayana misconstrue "sabhava" and use for for their propaganda. Also, the Mahayana teaches emptiness different to the Buddha. Mahayana exists because people have different ideas. In the Pali suttas, the term "emptiness" does not mean "empty of inherent existence". It means empty of "ego" or "I-thinking" & "my-thinking". Theravada does not concern itself with whether "things" exist or not. Theravada only concerns itself with ending suffering; which occurs with the ending of craving, attachment & egoism. If I believe a computer exists, this does not cause suffering. Suffering only occurs when I regard a computer as "my computer".

I like this answer although perhaps feel it doesn't entirely answer the question. I feel Mahayana denies the independent existence of Nirvana. Although Nibbana is given no positive description in the Abhidhamma it is said to be a dhamma but it would be an object of realisation, not of philosophical thought or mental fabrication, and if it is considered ultimate then it must transcend the existence/non-existence.distinction such that we cannot positively say 'It exists'. I like the way you try to reconcile the two traditions on this issue.   .

"If I believe a computer exists, this does not cause suffering. "... It does not exist! Suffer?

So again: "Buddha, Dhamma of his, does not concern whether "things(nama or rupa)" exist or not. One who understands that Dhatus "are" as such... might be able to go beyond ñāṇa. It's not possible to under-stand Nibbana.

I think all Buddhists say there is Nirvana.
It's true that in Mahayana Buddhism, Nirvana does not have svabhava. In this question, I tried to link Theravada emptiness to Mahayana emptiness. My understanding of this is that Nirvana does not have the inherent essence given to it by mental reification. This means Nirvana is not what you imagine it to be, but it does not mean that it does not exist. It means that the mental idea that I have of Nirvana is non-existent.
However, a disagreement between Theravada and Mahayana is on the topic of whether Nirvana and Samsara are the same, or completely different. This answer may have the right explanation to the fact that probably there is no disagreement after all. I quote it here:

Samsara is Nirvana in at least two senses:
Nirvana is achieved here, in this world (="samsara"). We don't fly to
  another planet or go to other dimension when we achieve Nirvana; our
  perception changes, and so does our subjective reality.
Samsara is Nirvana because we should stop trying to escape. Trying to
  escape "this" is what makes it Samsara. The idea of otherworldly
  Nirvana is exactly the kind of craving that leads to suffering.
  Samsara is Nirvana means one has stopped craving. That is called
  cessation.

So, ultimately, there may be no real disagreements between Buddhist traditions on Nirvana.

no no according to some mahayana sutras does have svabhava, i'm sure. we've been this before, i cited the nirvana sutra. have you read the nirvana sutra, or do you have a scholar that agrees?

I like this answer although perhaps feel it doesn't entirely answer the question. Mahayana denies the true existence of anything. Still, although Nibbana is given no positive description in the Abhidhamma it is said to be a dhamma. But it would be an object of realisation, not of philosophical thought or mental fabrication. .   .

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can Jiddu Krishnamurthy's teachings be considered Buddhist in nature?
There was a guy named Jiddu Krishnamurthy. He talked a lot about conditioning, awareness and to see the things as they are. One of the content from the hyperlink is

His aim was to set humanity free. He maintained that the individual is freed by becoming aware of their own psychological conditioning, and that this awakening will enable them to give love to another.

My question is

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?
Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be contrary to this policy.

@ChrisW I didnt share.  I found after asking.

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?
This is a quote from the page you referenced ...

Krishnamurti said: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."

... so, according to him, accoding to that, maybe not (not in name).
From the same page ...

Krishnamurti was raised within the Theosophical Society to become an incarnation of Maitreya, the messianic Buddha.

... so he was presumably (I don't know) exposed to some kind[s] of Buddhist doctrine.
Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?
Well I don't know about him in particular.
This answer says that the Theosophists (I think these were an early 20th-century European group) were trying to consolidate all religions into one -- to say that all religions were essentially the same or One in some way.
I think I've seen some people (who would call themselves themselves Buddhist) disagree with that doctrine, and disparage the Theosophists, so ...
See also e.g. this answer -- someone leaving the "Theosophical" society to found a "Buddhist" society

Actually, just simple google search gives so much material on 'Buddha and Krishnamurthy'. It seems there is indeed a strong association between the two.

When K visited Bodhgaya with Annie Besant (then president of the Theosophical Society) K pointed out to her that he remembered the place as he had been at this place in his previous births as a monk-a part of the Buddha Sangha.

The book 'Lives of Alcyone' by CW Leadbeater (Theosophical Society) which supposedly chronicles the previous lives of J Krishnamurti mentions that K was a monk in the Sangha of the Buddha in 2 previous lives. K took robes and learnt Dhamma at the feet of Lord Buddha.

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


text:
Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana?
Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana?
See e.g. the heart sutra

No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also
  no attainment with nothing to attain.

A beginning is one who set off the mind of attaining perfect enlightenment. It could happen right now, or it happened in the past life/lives but has been forgotten...  The quoted refers to the suchness. Realizing there is no learning then all the learning is completed, so to speak :)

The teachings that describe how there is nothing to attain can easily be misleading. I think, the answer to your question is twofold.

Nirvana is not something that can be attained. This is simply because when you experience the highest truths, you realize that there is no self.
Since there is no self, there is no one present to attain anything.

For the illusory self who has not yet experience enlightenment, it appears as if there is a path to walk. It begins as soon as you choose to learn who you are. The illusory self will learn things and practice meditation. Then, the illusory self will see itself as a farce.
Do not get caught up in the trap that some do when reading these quotes. The Buddha very specifically tailored his teachings to the level of understanding those listening had. These quotes are not useful for people who are still experiencing suffering. They are an arahants understandings, meant for other enlightened beings. They are very easy to be misunderstood.
Someone commented on your post and said something id like to clarify. When it is said "Realizing there is no learning then all the learning is completed", what is being referred to is not the path of the illusory self, but what occurs once enlightenment occurs. If you still believe you are this and not that, there is still more to learn. If you still feel suffering, there is still more to learn.
The bottom line is, be careful while reading some of these teachings. Know who they were meant for, because although they may be true from a perspective that holds specific knowledge, that may not be the readers perspective.

well i agree that these statements carry different meanings depending on their context. i disagree that all they mean is anatta, and i don't find that helpful. but thanks for returning to the question!

The way I understand you realise Nibbana. It is perhaps something like by realising the world is not flat and you are not fall off the edge if you walking straight on the ground.
Understanding Aniccca, dukkha and anatta are the main realisation hence you eliminate attachment aversion and ignorance.
Noble Eightfold Path is the way to realize Nibbana.

No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain.

It's important to see the full context by reading the full paragraph:

This is because in emptiness there is no form, sensation, conception, synthesis, or discrimination. There are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or thoughts. There are no forms, sounds, scents, tastes, sensations, or dharmas. There is no field of vision and there is no realm of thoughts. There is no ignorance nor elimination of ignorance, even up to and including no old age and death, nor elimination of old age and death. There is no suffering, its accumulation, its elimination, or a path. There is no understanding and no attaining.

So basically, all those "no's", like no eyes, ears, nose, etc. are attributes pertaining to that dimension of emptiness/suchness, which an un-enlightened being is yet able to experience. Sorta like us 4-dimensional beings are yet to experience what lies beyond our 4 dimensions. So in order to get there, there is a need for cultivation, there is a need for exerting effort, there is a need for practicing Sila, Samadhi, Panna. If there was "nothing to attain", the Buddha wouldn't have gone into great length teaching us all the details about cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path, the Four Noble Truths, the 37 Aids to Enlightenment, in which there's one key component called the Four Right Exertions

I'm going to answer the question creatively, and so not make a standard (scholastic) response.
One way of reading the phrase "nothing to attain" could be via the lotus sutra, which details the immeasurable life span of the buddha and time as a bodhisattva

In this way, since my attainment of Buddhahood it has been a very
  great interval of time. My life-span is incalculable asatkhyeyakalpas
  [rather a lot of aeons], ever enduring, never perishing. O good men!
  The life-span I achieved in my former treading of the bodhisattva path
  even now is not exhausted, for it is twice the above number. Yet even
  now, though in reality I am not to pass into extinction [enter final
  nirvana], yet I proclaim that I am about to accept extinction. By
  resort to these expedient devices [this skill-in-means] the Thus Come
  One [the Tathagata] teaches and converts the beings

If we take that to be an expression of emptiness, then, working forwards, nirvana is empty because it is not (coherently) final. And then, working backwards, the same is twice as true of beginning to attain nirvana!
In Tenadi Buddhism each of the nobles truths is just as empty as the other, the path is empty in the exact same was as extinction is. Though, interestingly, Tendai seems to claim the opposite of yoagacara Buddhism (that the path is not one and the buddha nature), straw man or not. I'll get a reference for that later.


text:
Diamond Sutra in Tibetan, Sanskrit, and/or Japanese
Does anyone know where I can find a version of the Diamond Sutra that is in one of these three formats:

Classical Tibetan with Romanized Tibetan and English

Devangari with Romanized Sanskrit and English

Japanese with Romaji and English

एवं मया श्रुतम् evaṃ mayā śrutam
एकस्मिन् समये भगवान् श्रावस्त्यां विहरति स्म जेतवनेऽनाथपिण्डदस्यारामे
  महता भिक्षुसंघेन सार्थं त्रयोदशभिर्भिक्षुशतैः संबहुलैश्च
  बोधिसत्त्वैर्महासत्त्वैः ekasmin samaye bhagavān śrāvastyāṃ viharati
  sma jetavane'nāthapiṇḍadasyārāme mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārthaṃ
  trayodaśabhirbhikṣuśataiḥ saṃbahulaiśca bodhisattvairmahāsattvaiḥ
अथ खलु भगवान् पूर्वाह्णकालसमये निवास्य पात्रचीवरमादाय श्रावस्तीं
  महानगरीं पिण्डाय प्राविक्षत् atha khalu bhagavān pūrvāhṇakālasamaye
  nivāsya pātracīvaramādāya śrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya prāvikṣat
अथ खलु भगवान् श्रावस्तीं महानगरीं पिण्डाय चरित्वा कृतभक्तकृत्यः
  पश्चाद्भक्तपिण्डपातप्रतिक्रान्तः atha khalu bhagavān śrāvastīṃ
  mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya caritvā kṛtabhaktakṛtyaḥ
  paścādbhaktapiṇḍapātapratikrāntaḥ
पात्रचीवरं प्रतिशाम्य पादौ प्रक्षाल्य न्यषीदत्प्रज्ञप्त एवासने
  पर्यङ्कमाभुज्य ऋजुं कायं प्रणिधाय प्रतिमुखीं स्मृतिमुपस्थाप्य| अथ खलु
  संबहुला भिक्षवो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसंक्रामन् उपसंक्रम्य भगवतः पादौ
  शिरोभिरभिवन्द्य भगवन्तं त्रिष्प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य एकान्ते न्यषीदन्
  pātracīvaraṃ pratiśāmya pādau prakṣālya nyaṣīdatprajñapta evāsane
  paryaṅkamābhujya ṛjuṃ kāyaṃ praṇidhāya pratimukhīṃ smṛtimupasthāpya
  atha khalu saṃbahulā bhikṣavo yena bhagavāṃstenopasaṃkrāman
  upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhirabhivandya bhagavantaṃ
  triṣpradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan
तेन खलु पुनः समयेनायुष्मान् सुभुतिस्तस्यामेव पर्षदि
  संनिपतितोऽभूत्संनिषण्णः अथ खल्वायुष्मान्
  सुभूतिरुत्थायासनादेकांसमुत्तरासङ्गं कृत्वा दक्षिणं जानुमण्डलं
  पृथिव्यां प्रतिष्ठाप्य येन भगवांस्तेनाञ्जलिं प्रणम्य भगवन्तमेतदवोचत्
  आश्चर्यं भगवन्, परमाश्चर्यं सुगत, यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन
  बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वा अनुपरिगृहीताः परमेणानुग्रहेण tena khalu punaḥ
  samayenāyuṣmān subhutistasyāmeva parṣadi saṃnipatito'bhūtsaṃniṣaṇṇaḥ
  atha khalvāyuṣmān subhūtirutthāyāsanādekāṃsamuttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvā
  dakṣiṇaṃ jānumaṇḍalaṃ pṛthivyāṃ pratiṣṭhāpya yena bhagavāṃstenāñjaliṃ
  praṇamya bhagavantametadavocatāścaryaṃ bhagavan, paramāścaryaṃ sugata,
  yāvadeva tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvā
  anuparigṛhītāḥ parameṇānugraheṇa
आश्चर्यं भगवन् यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परीन्दिताः परमया परीन्दनया| तत्कथं भगवन्
  बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन कुलपुत्रेण वा कुलदुहित्रा वा स्थातव्यं कथं
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं कथं चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् āścaryaṃ bhagavan yāvadeva
  tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ parīnditāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā| tatkathaṃ bhagavan bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena
  kulaputreṇa vā kuladuhitrā vā sthātavyaṃ kathaṃ pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ
  cittaṃ pragrahītavyam
एवमुक्ते भगवानायुष्मन्तं सुभूतिमेतदवोचत्साधु साधु सुभूते,
  एवमेतत्सुभूते, एवमेतद्यथा वदसि अनुपरिगृहीतास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परमेणानुग्रहेण परीन्दितास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वाः
  परमया परीन्दनया तेन हि सुभूते शृणु, साधु च सुष्ठु च मनसि कुरु,
  भाषिष्येऽहं तेयथा बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन स्थातव्यं यथा
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं यथा चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् एवं भगवन् इत्यायुष्यान्
  सुभूतिर्भगवतः प्रत्यश्रौषीत् evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ
  subhūtimetadavocatsādhu sādhu subhūte, evametatsubhūte, evametadyathā
  vadasi anuparigṛhītāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  parameṇānugraheṇa parīnditāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā tena hi subhūte śṛṇu, sādhu ca suṣṭhu ca manasi
  kuru, bhāṣiṣyehaṃ te-yathā bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena sthātavyaṃ
  yathā pratipattavyaṃ yathā cittaṃ pragrahītavyam evaṃ bhagavan
  ityāyuṣyān subhūtirbhagavataḥ pratyaśrauṣīt
भगवानस्यैतदवोचतिह सुभूते बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेनैव
  चित्तमुत्पादयितव्यम्यावन्तः सुभूते सत्त्वाः सत्त्वधातौ सत्त्वसंग्रहेण
  संगृहीता अण्डजा वा जरायुजा वा संस्वेदजा वा औपपादुका वा रूपिणो वा
  अरूपिणो वा संज्ञिनो वा असंज्ञिनो वा नैवसंज्ञिनो नासंज्ञिनो वा, यावान्
  कश्चित्सत्त्वधातुः प्रज्ञप्यमानः प्रज्ञप्यते, ते च मया सर्वेऽनुपधिशेषे
  निर्वाणधातौ परिनिर्वापयितव्याः bhagavānasyaitadavocatiha subhūte
  bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitenaiva cittamutpādayitavyam-yāvantaḥ subhūte
  sattvāḥ sattvadhātau sattvasaṃgraheṇa saṃgṛhītā aṇḍajā vā jarāyujā vā
  saṃsvedajā vā aupapādukā vā rūpiṇo vā arūpiṇo vā saṃjñino vā asaṃjñino
  vā naivasaṃjñino nāsaṃjñino vā, yāvān kaścitsattvadhātuḥ
  prajñapyamānaḥ prajñapyate, te ca mayā sarvenupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau
  parinirvāpayitavyāḥ

See the rest of the Sanskrit text here: http://ntireader.org/taisho/t0235.html (this source also has it in Chinese, in case you wanted it in that language).
Use this converted to generate Devanāgari script: Transliteration Tool -- ashtangayoga.info


text:
How do you meditate with a blocked nose?
I have a blocked nose and I can’t feel the breath sensations. Should I put my finger to feel the breath? Is it ok if I focus on other things like finger touching each other? How do I feel the breath sensations if my nose is blocked?

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

According to Chapter 2 "Sitting Meditation" of the book "How To Meditate" by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, you can try to observe abdomen movements, instead of nasal passage sensations:

The purpose of formal meditation is to limit our experience to the
  fewest number of objects in order to allow for easy observation
  without becoming overwhelmed or distracted. When sitting still, the
  whole body is tranquil and the only movement is when the breath enters
  and leaves the body. When the breath enters the body, there should be
  a rising motion in the abdomen. When the breath leaves the body, there
  should likewise be a falling motion. If the movement is not readily
  apparent, you can put your hand on your abdomen until it becomes
  clear.
If it is difficult to perceive the motion of the abdomen even with
  your hand, you can try lying down on your back until you are able to
  perceive it. Difficulty in finding the rising and falling motion of
  the abdomen when sitting is generally due to mental tension and
  stress; if one is patient and persistent in the practice, one’s mind
  and body will begin to relax until one is able to breathe as naturally
  sitting up as when lying down.
The most important thing to remember is that we are trying to observe
  the breath in its natural state, rather than forcing or controlling it
  in any way. In the beginning, the breath may be shallow or
  uncomfortable, but once the mind begins to let go and stops trying to
  control the breath, the rise and fall of the abdomen will become more
  clear and allow for comfortable observation.
It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our first
  object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the motion of the
  abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a default object of
  meditation for us to return to at any time.

Can I enter jhana by focusing on the abdomen?

Observing the sensation of the movement of the abdomen caused by breathing, is the same as observing the sensation of breathing. You can use it for both samatha (jhana) and vipassana, from my understanding. On the other hand, a kasina like earth, water, or the colour white can only be used for samatha (jhana) and not vipassana, because it is imagined and not real.

Maybe try to troubleshoot the causes to the blocked nose first. If it's just normal nose booger, gently blow your nose before the sitting to clear nasal passage. If it's allergy/inflammation, eat high vitamins fruits/veggies and maintain regular daily exercises. Anyway, usually once you've gotten into some relatively settled absorption state, the allergy/inflammation tend to naturally subside and you'll breathe better.

It feels like my nose is is clear but I can’t feel the breath sensations

I remember it said somewhere that if you can't "feel" the breath sensation, you can try maintain "awareness" at the location of the point of touch (nostrils or upper lip). Anywho, it's probably a good idea to try to identify the root cause to your blocked nose first though...

Most Buddhists interpret MN 135 to mean blocked nose is due to bad evil kamma performed in past lives, as follows:

There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
  he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
  reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms
  beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

According to the viewpoint of these Buddhists, it seems unknowable how many lifetimes, possibly billions, it will take to resolve such past kamma and attain jhana. It seems attaining jhana is very difficult, even impossible, with blocked nose. It would commence with cultivating metta towards all living creatures, large & small. Also, vegetarianism might help.

Well, now my nose is unblocked.


text:
Looking for Buddhist story on Nirvana after being abused
I am looking for a Buddhist story from scriptures or otherwise real life, from any tradition, where a person is mentally abused, in a sense insulted, humiliated, looked down upon, etc who achieves Nirvana or Sotapanna or anything substantial towards the direction of Nirvana.
I found the story of Milarepa which fits my need but Milarepa apparently took revenge using black magic and did not forgive his wrong-doers, later on, he understood the uselessness of what he did and he followed Dhamma and got enlightened.
Another story is from the Akkosa sutta but that happened with the Buddha Himself post-Nirvana. I want something with good moral of forgiveness for others, for the perpetrators.

In Theragatha 12.2, we read the story of Sunita the Outcaste, who became an arahant:

In a lowly family I was born,
  poor, with next to no food.
  My work was degrading:
  I gathered the spoiled,
  the withered flowers from shrines
  and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
  despised me, disparaged me.
  Lowering my heart,
  I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
  arrayed with a squadron of monks,
  the Great Hero, entering the city,
  supreme, of the Magadhans.
  Throwing down my carrying pole,
  I approached him to do reverence.
  He — the supreme man
  — stood still out of sympathy just for me.
  After paying homage to the feet of the teacher,
  I stood to one side
  & requested the Going Forth from him,
  supreme among all living beings.
  The compassionate Teacher,
  sympathetic to all the world,
  said: "Come, monk."
  That was my formal Acceptance.
Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
  untiring, I followed the Teacher's words,
  just as he, the Conqueror,
  had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
  I recollected previous lives;
  in the middle watch, purified the divine eye;
in the last, burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
  & the sun returning,
Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
  hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
  "Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
  Homage to you, O man supreme,
  whose fermentations are ended.
  You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
  the Teacher smiled & said:
  "Through austerity, celibacy,
  restraint, & self-control:
  That's how one is a brahman.
  He is a brahman supreme."

In Therigatha 5.2, we read the story of a prostitute named Vimala, who presumably people looked down at. She became an arahant:

Intoxicated with my complexion,
  figure, beauty & fame;
  haughty with youth,
  I despised other women.
  Adorning this body
  embellished to delude foolish men,
  I stood at the door to the brothel:
  a hunter with snare laid out.
  I showed off my ornaments,
  and revealed many a private part.
  I worked my manifold magic,
  laughing out loud at the crowd.
Today, wrapped in a double cloak,
  my head shaven,
  having wandered for alms,
  I sit at the foot of a tree
  and attain the state of no-thought.
  All ties — human & divine — have been cut.
  Having cast off all effluents,
  cooled am I, unbound.

The Therigatha might have examples of this. One I found was the verses of Sumangalamaata:

O woman well set free! how free am I,
  How throughly free from kitchen drudgery!
  Me stained and squalid 'mong my cooking-pots
  My brutal husband ranked as even less
  Than the sunshades he sits and weaves alway. (23)
Purged now of all my former lust and hate,
  I dwell, musing at ease beneath the shade
  Of spreading boughs–O, but 'tis well with me! (24)

Patacara is maybe another good example:

Wailing in her woe– 'My children both are gone, and in the bush
  Dead lies my husband; on one funeral bier
  My mother, father, and my brother burn,'
  she wandered around from that day forth in circles, and because her skirt-cloth fell from her she was given the name 'Cloak-walker.' And people, seeing her, said: 'Go, little mad-woman!' And some threw refuse at her head, some sprinkled dust, some pelted her with clods.

source
There's also the story of an old man who, after giving all his wealth to his children, is left destitute when they refuse to care for him in his old age, so he becomes a monk. I can't remember the name though.

(becoming a monk becauseof lacking fine livelihood would be ordaining by thief..not far from sg13 )Isn't the last story somehow Freud-ish confused... Wasn't there not the occassion that the Buddha encouraged the old man to blame his children public so that they come to mind? How ever, my person will leave you and the others alone in you ensnared firm bond relation over long long time. There is not much to provide for those up in turning arround, unattentive, with short lasting objectives and less proper fear. May you all find access to trace unsenseable, and it's path, for your self with ease.

Ven. Yuttadhammo, thank you for the answer. I was not really hoping to get an answer from you here. But this makes me happy. Some 7-8 years back I had left a potentially mildly-abusive post on one of your youtube videos. It's a strange way Karma works.

natthi loke anindito

You have chosen a difficult subject, literally a battle hard to win. The classic tale is of Bharadvāja, but the approach listed in the link applies for all of us targeted by anger.

When you don’t get angry at an angry person
  you win a battle hard to win.
  When you know that the other is angry,
  you act for the good of both
  yourself and the other
  if you’re mindful and stay calm.

Notably, the Buddha continues on with this somber advice that those who do not return anger for anger are healing both and will be counted a fool for their meekness. And that is what makes this a battle hard to win:

People unskilled in Dhamma
  consider one who heals both
  oneself and the other
  to be a fool.”

Notably, the Buddha spoke these words to Bharadvāja the Rude...after Bharadvāja rudely insulted the Buddha.
And Bharadvāja accepted the Buddha's words. This is perhaps the most startling thing about the sutta. Why did Bharadvāja accept the Buddha's words?
With a cycle of abuse, the abused often become abusers. Bharavadja was abusive because he had perhaps come to think that the only way to escape abuse was to be biggest abuser around.
Bharadvāja accepted the Buddha's words because even after being abused by Bharadvāja, the Buddha did not respond with anger. The Buddha won a battle hard to win. And he gave Bharadvāja the escape from abuse.


text:
How do you handle when someone tries to instill guilt in you?
From a perspective to hindrances to meditation this may fall under remorse and regrets, but not very apt in that sense.
Using Buddhist philosophy to get over and respond, how do you handle when someone tries to instil guilt in you, like trying to make you feel like you have done something wrong, you are a bad person, I am a victim, you are a perpetrator.
How to respond to such a person?
Sutta references are appreciated but otherwise, any workable answer adhering to keeping Buddhist precepts and practise is welcome.

The important thing to do is to have in mind that these people are puthujjanas, so they are bound to be awful, especially when they think something bad is happening to them.
now the puthujjana who receives this ''attack'' better have equanimity.
If this happens too much, then the solution is to no longer live around people who try to make you feel sad. It is hard, especially when it is people in the family, but separating yourself from bad puthujjanas in order to live with the meritorious puthujjanas and non-puthujjanas  who train for the noble path  is the way to have sati, and ultimately to be awaken, like the buddha tells Ananda in the Upaddha Sutta.
For the ''sutta reference'' you can read the Akkosa Sutta where the buddha is insulted by some puthujjana and the buddha replies that he does not take up the insults.

Then the Exalted One, realizing the turn their discussion had taken, entered the pavilion, sat down on the prepared seat, and
  addressed the bhikkhus: "What kind of discussion were you holding just
  now, bhikkhus? What was the subject of your conversation?"

The bhikkhus replied: "When dawn had broken, Lord, after rising we
  assembled in the pavilion. As we sat here, the following conversation
  sprang up among us: 'It is wonderful and marvellous friends, how the
  Exalted One, he who knows and sees, the Worthy One, the perfectly
  enlightened Buddha, has so thoroughly penetrated the diversity in the
  dispositions of beings. For this wanderer Suppiya spoke in many ways
  in dispraise of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, while his own
  pupil, the youth Brahmadatta, spoke in many ways in their praise.
  These two, teacher and pupil, followed closely behind the Exalted One
  and the company of bhikkhus, making assertions in direct contradiction
  to each other.' This, Lord, was the conversation we were having when
  the Exalted One arrived."

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to
  resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For
  if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would
  only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become
  angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able
  to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"

"Certainly not, Lord."
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the
  Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is
  false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason
  this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is
  not found among us.'

"And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to
  jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to
  become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would
  only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise
  of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you
  should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: 'For such and such a
  reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this
  is found among us.'

Brahmajala sutta
There is what people say, and how people say it. Concentrate on whether what they say is accurate or not, and act accordingly.
Past and present experience only offers two choices - suffering or learning. Guilt is mostly not useful in that it clouds a reasoned analysis of what the issue is - it embraces suffering over learning. Those that have learnt from their errors, don't feel guilty for their errors, as they have gotten all they can from them, and laid them aside.
If someone still demands guilt from you when you have already learnt your lesson, they likely need to learn that suffering is not permanent.

Householders,
may Venerable fellows, in front and behind, have the compassion for many to possible correct failures and also fill up graps if traced here.
After having put away foolish thought of believing that equanimity is the highest, even supportive, in such cases:
The first one may do in such a situation, when one gets touched unpleased, better feels that way, is to remind on the very importand Dhammapada stanza, that nobody is of more support as someone pointing out ones failure and in the case of even a wise person, one should stick and hold on such a person.
The second thought is possible given to remind oneself that there are actually very less how would tell one a fault, having other interests in the back and that it is also not so general possible to get the chance of a possible very releasing way for a even personal pardon of a transgression.
Being urged by those reminders one should take all his effort and capacity to reconstruct the case, piece by piece, and most importand, with sacca, ujju!, to get not cheated by ones defilement and miss a great opportunity. Possible ask an admirable friend to help in strong cross-questioning.
If, after real trought-full investigation, it is clear that it's either a missunderstood situation, a unlucky and not right blame, or what ever away from what was fact (done), one does not need to take the given and it will stay his/her's, or as a teacher here once told (a little to quick, on fb), "If someone calls you an ox, look if it is like that, inspecting your back" (retold in it's message, not sure if able to find the original, having been banned because of lifting certain critic on another "lost in short cuts").
The many proper approaches further and for each case, would require all detail case by case actions according the whole circumstances. But as already told by the Sublime Buddha to his son, good to clear such cases with an admirable (dhammika) friend/teacher/guide and it might be that the "insulter" actually is the proper one.
[Note: This here is not given for any worldly exchange, trade, stackes, commercial use, dirct or indirect, and may be needed to be deleted if the circumstances do not allow such gifts.]

You should respond with equanimity (upekkha), following the example of monk Sanghamaji in Udana 1.8.
This sutta is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son."
The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman.
Previously, I asked a question on equanimity related to this sutta.

You have to have the kind of pure objection and being no more householder, trader, to act taking this sample. It's most importand to know you self and where you are first... are you serious in assuming that either you or the questioner are pure? May your movie soon comes to an end where refuge can be taken.

The specific example may not be applicable to lay people, but equanimity or upekkha as one of the brahmaviharas is applicable to monks and lay people alike.

It's not the time for equaminity before having deep and honest investigated and it's not the time for any Brahmavihara if not firm in conduct and having cleansed faults and therefore first things first otherwise simple long journey in arupa realm or even right after straight upward. And this here is no place of upekka as well, as probably already traced, karuna ;-)

Speaking from experience: You will not feel guilty unless you have guilt or sense of obligation within yourself, so it is not the other person's fault; they cannot "make" you feel anything. If you are detached within, you can look on the other with compassion, since they are trying to manipulate you out of some negative emotion of their own. Or you can tell them in a neutral way, "You may be right." If through self-observation you see guilt in yourself, you need to work on that. There is healthy guilt that tells you you are wrong, and there is toxic guilt. Which is it?

I think it's like when someone tries to instil shame in you by insulting you -- i.e. don't accept it, don't participate. (Akkosa Sutta)
Or it's like when someone tries to tell you what the truth is, what the Dhamma is, like the The Four Great References ...

In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word

... i.e. try to determine whether it's true, whether what's said agrees with what you learned elsewhere. It may be that the criticism is well-deserved and worth paying heed to -- or maybe not, it depends, I can't tell from the question.
Someone saying "I am a victim, you are a perpetrator" might be an unreliable witness.
Some people are like that -- i.e. they blame others!
But the ability to feel shame and remorse is maybe a good thing, and lacking the ability to feel shame -- e.g. Āhrīkya -- not good.


text:
Did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists have non-cognition as a goal?
I have found a page in which a sravaka seems to object to a mahayanist that, if those that aren't ordinary people have no cognition, then it's ultimately correct to have sexual relations with a forbidden woman

If he says: Madhyamikas make statements such as the following:
  "[Cognition] is not in the eye, it is not in form, and it is not
  between them or in both of them. Wherever it might be present, it
  neither exists nor does not exist". So no cognition is apprehended.

The footnote says that the source of the quote is unclear, and not from MMK or Aryadeva. Bhavaviveka then seems to explain that the sravaka's conclusion, that forbidden women would then be ultimately correct to have sex with, is not proven, because it is no different to saying that all women can relieve desire: both are examples of improperly denying all things.
Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents p129
So, I think the general argument is that ultimate reality does not deny conventional reality. Even if distinctions do not ultimately exist, but do conventionally, that does not mean ultimate reality denies the truth of conventional distinctions. The difference is about being and not truth.
It may be worth noting that "non conceptual cognition" crops up a lot in the book, I think as the goal of Buddhist practice.

I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted the argument: did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists, such as Bhavaviveka, have non-cognition as a goal? And, would that mean they do not seek knowledge, or just that cognition is empty of svabhava?

Are you assuming that cognition is the only source of knowledge? It seems so. Emptiness might be a subject for cognition but knowledge of it would be a realisation. Buddhists seeks knowledge that is not available through pure cognition. To depend on cognition would be to fail to seek knowledge. .   .

It's difficult to answer a question about the phrase ("could the phrase only mean that...?") when you don't quote the phrase or find the book in which it's published. I'm thinking that if can find the book, then someone might explain what it's saying.

that's what i'm asking for, a reference that says that @ChrisW

Apparently that was Candrakīrti's position.
From Mario D'Amato's "Why Buddha Never Uttered A Word", quoting J.D. Dunne's study of Candrakīrti and Vose's study of Candrakīrti's commentator Jayānanda:

...As Dunne points out, for example, “Candrakīrti [c. 600–650 c.e.] holds strong views on the impossibility of a buddha having conceptual knowledge” (1996: 540). While, according to certain Buddhist thinkers, such as Dignāga (c. 480–540 c.e.) and Dharmakīrti (c. 600–660), perception is without conceptual construction, according to Candrakīrti’s view, “even raw sense data are in some sense conceptual,” so “at the highest state of understanding where one’s knowledge is completely nonconceptual, nothing appears at all” (ibid.: 544). Dunne goes on to specify that, according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased” (ibid.). Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind” (Vose 2005: 191–192). (Footnote: Jayānanda writes, “Since enlightenment is by way of not knowing  (anadhigama) at all, we assert that the activities of mind and mental factors— feeling and so forth—[all] having the character of experiencing, have ceased their engagement”.) But how can a mindless buddha teach the dharma? Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharma-kāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha . . . [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active” (1996: 549).
  Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

You can read the entire paper on academia.edu and it's included as a chapter in Mario D'Amato, Jay L. Garfield & Tom J. F. Tillemans (eds.), Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 41--55 (2009) - from where you can get the references to bibliography for Dunne and Vose works.
D'Amato has quite enough to say on "non conceptual cognition". If you are interested in that topic I suggest you check his this and other works. He provides interesting references too.

thanks for this!

i find the interpretation a bit problematic, just because "nirvana with remainder" is a standard term, in theravada at least, and i thought signifies some residue of the skandhas

Yeah, I suspect most real lineage Mahayanists would object to this idea, too.

yeah... i've read some scholarship on Jayānanda, and found it interesting at least

Venerable Nāgārjuna says that "all dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending."
(T1564.23c16)


text:
Feeling versus Analysis in Compassion Meditation
I believe I have read within the Dalai Lama's works that there exists (at least) two kinds of compassion meditation:

Generating the four abodes within oneself, in a more concentrative and affective way (metta bhavana).
Analyzing compassion through logical discernment, having compassion as meditative object.

I noticed my capacity to be compassionate with analysis seems very limited. The Dalai Lama suggests to focus on feeling after using reasons to generate compassion.
Is it possible that my mind functions more with feeling, and that analysis doesn't generate as much compassion in myself? What is the best course of action to generate compassion?

Sharing what you have is the best course of action to generate compassion.

The more you contemplate on the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukka) and understand the suffering in each plane, the better you will be able to spread loving kindness. Because when you say "May all beings in the Eastern direction be free from Suffering" and so on, if you have seen and contemplated on suffering in each of those worlds (hell, animal, peta, asura, human, all deva worlds & all brahma worlds) you truly feel compassion towards all living beings. The more you practice, it is as if you could replace each of those beings or worlds with the word "dukka" and you start to see without differentiating that everyone who is born is suffering. (And your mind will be fixed on Nibbana as well).
Also, when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. (metta sutta, vattupama sutta, mettakatha in patisambhidamagga, etc).
A good discourse to learn that will help practice loving kindness is the metta-sutta (in Suttanipata). Try this Metta Sutta Meditation You will learn in great detail how to practice loving kindness, all the way up to Nibbana.
With Metta

I wouldn't like to comment on exactly what the Buddha had in mind by this idea of generating compassion by analysis but it makes sense that if his view is philosophically sound then analysis will lead us towards it.
I believe this is the case, such that if we analyse the doctrine philosophically we will start to see genuine reasons and motives for compassion in the unity and shared identity of sentient beings. On a simpler level it is easy to contemplate the similar situation in which all sentient beings find themselves and thus be led to a compassionate view. Thus analysis would lead to feelings would lead to compassion.
But analysis may be a rather weak method in the end, just as you suspect, in the absence of feelings and the pursuit of insight. It seems best to use all the methods at our disposal. Perhaps the difference is that analysis and contemplation produces an object of compassion, whereas other approaches may be better at developing compassion as a phenomenon in itself. The former may see compassion as a relationship, the latter as a stand-alone feature of reality. (Rather as love can be seen in these two ways).
This is rather speculative and hasty answer and may meet some objections. In marketing speak I'll run it up the flagpole and see if it flutters.

there is a whole sutta on metta
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.054.than.html

Yes there's the sutta, but how does the sutta answer the question?

The sad truth is that far too few of the Buddhists in the present day know of the Compassion Meditation (metta bhavana) in its more archaic form. But the truth of the matter is that, that is how it was practiced at the time of the Buddha. If it can be understood in the true sense of its intended meaning, you will find that it stands up to sound and accurate philosophical analysis. Here I will refer to this as the Ariya metta bhavana, as it differs from the standard metta bhavana (loving kindness meditation) that we are more accustomed to. The guided meditation that we frequently use at our meditation classes goes something like…  “May myself and all beings be free of anger, ill will, jealousy, mental suffering, physical suffering… May myself and all beings live in peace. May myself and all beings live happily. However, the Ariya metta bhavana has a much more deeper meaning.
In order to cultivate true compassion and loving kindness one needs to feel the possible suffering of existence. In the four lower realms, the suffering is higher than at the human realm. In our realm greed, hate, and ignorance prevail. In the realms of the devas there is no hatred. In beings in the rūpa and arūpa lōkas that have very fine bodies - even less dense than devas - they do not have either greed or hate; but they still have ignorance.  The fact is that no living being, in any of these realms is free of future suffering unless the Sotapanna (stream entrant) stage of Nibbana is attained. When one attains the Sotapanna stage, one becomes free from the four lower realms for good.
In the Ariya metta bhavana, when we say be free of anger, ill will, jealousy, mental suffering, physical suffering etc. etc… it is meant to be free of these ailments forever.  Thus this is how the Ariya metta bhavana is formulated:
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from suffering in the apayas (the four lower realms) forever, and attain the Sotapanna stage via the inability of the mind to generate certain cittas with “apayagami” kammic power”
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from all mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions like kāma rāga (reduced) patigha (reduced), and attain the Sakadagami stage and be healthy forever”.
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from being bound to sense pleasures (āmisa sukha) that lasts only while one is satisfying the particular sense faculty, and experience nibbanic (nirāmisa) sukha that is of more permanent nature,  attain the Anagami stage and be content (attain peaceful happiness) forever”.
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from even a trace of defilements, and attain the Arahant stage and be free from all suffering and attain the full Nibbanic bliss”.
What matters is not the particular set of word used in the above explanation, but what is felt in one’s heart. In order to do that one needs to truly comprehend that there is real suffering that all living beings face in their present and future lives.  It is a simple concept, what was explained above, but the main difficulty is with the “Ariya” part; one needs to comprehend anicca, dukkha, anatta  for the bhavana to be fully effective.  All four Brahma vihara (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha) are cultivated with this bhavana if done right.

It might be useful to read Head & Heart Together: Bringing Wisdom to the Brahma-viharas, best the whole collection.

All too often, meditators believe that if they can simply add a little more heart juice, a little more emotional oomph, to their brahmavihāra practice, their attitudes can become limitless. But if something inside you keeps churning up reasons for liking this person or hating that one, your practice starts feeling hypocritical. You wonder who you’re trying to fool.

Neither can there be compassion without wisdom nor wisdom without compassion. Actually compassion act out of wisdom and wisdom acts out of compassion. One who has no compassion with himself will nothing but hurt himself by acting not withing right view, right resolve and right virtue till right livelihood.
That is why in Asia, where people respect virtue and compassion, monks are called "Lord of Compassion", having given up trade and taking what is not given.
As all progress starts with gratitude, it is the case for developing compassion as well. One who does not see the sacrifices of others, not knowing them by one self, how could such a person, although receiving compassion since having searched for another birth, ever develop compassion. So the point to start to get wisdom into compassion begins at: Without gratidute no success
[Since a matter of compasssion only: This gift is not for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds to the world but liberation, given.]


text:
How to cultivate Equanimity?
Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.
Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta.;

MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies "equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana.

As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana.
My question is, How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself?
The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as peaceful and exquisite, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

That's quite the complicated sutta!
MN137 has a very detailed and distinct progression. Thirty-six categories, with eighteen for non-renunciates folks and eighteen for renunciates. For both non-renunciates and renunciates, the path to equanimity leads from sadness through happiness to equanimity.
Let's take an example with non-renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon seeing a chocolate bar. They buy, eat it and the hunger is gone. The absence of hunger is seen as "happiness".  Then the candy companies realize that this is a good business and offer many many kinds of chocolate bar (technically, this is called "over-choice"). After eating many kinds of chocolate bars, one experiences a "meh-equanimity" to any particular brand of chocolate bar. This is lay equanimity.
Now let's take the same example for renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon the cessation of hunger after mindfully seeing and eating chocolate bar. They are aware of how hunger passes as food is ingested. They are also aware of a certain aftertaste and afterfeeling once the food is consumed. They are mindful of the changes to their body with each bite of every food. Mindful of the effects of sugar and its ill-effects, they become equanimous towards the sight of chocolate bars, accepting them when no other better food is offered. That is the equanimity of the renunciate in diversity.
The formless meditations lead to equanimity based on unity/singleness. Here one is not concerned about chocolate bars, since that is just a form of food. Instead, one establishes equanimity by the relinquishing of defilements by observing the origin, rise and fall of the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.
That is how I read MN137.


text:
Lovingkindness and Compassion of the Buddha?
In an effort to understand the concept of lovingkindness it would help me to see how the Buddha explicitly described lovingkindness and specific acts of his unconditional compassion. I've heard from secondary sources that he'd throw out his "net" of compassion to walk 200 miles to teach someone, but I'm looking for references to primary or well known secondary (e.g. Bhikku Bodhi, Analayo) sources, please.

Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha spent his whole life expressing loving-kindness and compassion to all living beings. You can understand this by reading about Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha's daily routine during his remaining 45 years of life after the enlightenment. There are many stories and incidents which highlight these spiritual qualities of Lord Buddha. Here I've mentioned few of them with references;

Story of Patacara

Born the daughter of a wealthy banker, Patacara fell in love with one of her father's servants and ran off to live happily with him in a forest hamlet. Then, through a series of tragic accidents, she lost first her husband, then two sons, and finally her parents and brother.
Wandering destitute, naked and mad with grief, she in time met the Buddha face to face, who showed her kindness when others would scorn her. She heard his teaching, joined the order of nuns, and went on to become one of the arahants, or worthy ones. Patacara helped many other women who were overcome by grief regain their sanity and quench the pain of their loss.
This tender poem of loss and recovery was (probably) composed by Patacara;
"My son!" you weep, for one whose path
  You do not really comprehend
  —Whether he's coming or going.
  From where has that son of yours come?
And yet for one whose path you know...
  For him you do not grieve at all
  — Whether he's coming or going.
  Such is the nature of creatures.
Uninvited, he came from there;
  Unpermitted, he's gone from here.
  And having come from who knows where,
  He lived for but a few short days.
But though gone from here by one (path),
  He goes from there by another.
  Departed, with a human form,
  He will go flowing on and on.
  As he has come, so has he gone.
  What is there here to grieve about?
My thorn, indeed, has been removed!
  Buried in the heart, so hard to see.
  That grief which had overcome me
  — Grief for my son — has been dispelled.
Today the thorn has been removed.
  Without hunger, I've become quenched.
  To Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha,
  I go to the sage for refuge.

Reference: Pañcasata Patacara (translated by Andrew Olendzki), Pañcasata Patacara (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
For more detailed story of Patacara, please read: The Story of Lady Patacara
Story of Sunita

In Savatthi there was a scavenger named Sunita. He was a road-sweeper and barely earned enough to feed himself. Sunita slept on the roadside, for he did not have a house to go to. He saw other people enjoying themselves but he could not mix with them because these people called him an outcast. Whenever a higher caste person went on the road Sunita had to run and hide so his shadow did not fall on them. If he was not quick enough he would be scolded and beaten. Poor Sunita lived a miserable life.
One day, as he was sweeping a dirty, dusty road, Sunita saw the Buddha with thousands of followers coming towards him. His heart was filled with joy and fear and finding no place to hide he just stood, joining his palms in respect. The Buddha stopped and spoke to poor Sunita in a sweet, gentle voice saying, "My dear friend, would you like to leave this work and follow me?"
Nobody had ever spoken to Sunita like this before. His heart was filled with joy and his eyes with tears. "O, most venerable Sir, I have always received orders but never a kind word. If you accept a dirty and miserable scavenger like me I will follow you."
So the Buddha ordained Sunita and took him along with the other monks. From that day forth no one knew what Sunita's caste was, and nobody treated him with disgust and cruelty. Everybody, even kings, ministers and commanders, respected him.

Reference: Sunita, the scavenger
Here's a poem composed by Sunita after he became one of the Arahants; [from the book Theragatha, Khuddaka Nikaya, Tipitaka]

In a lowly family I was born,
  poor, with next to no food.
  My work was degrading:
  I gathered the spoiled,
  the withered flowers from shrines
  and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
  despised me, disparaged me.
  Lowering my heart,
  I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
  arrayed with a squadron of monks,
  the Great Hero, entering the city,
  supreme, of the Magadhans.
Throwing down my carrying pole,
  I approached him to do reverence.
  He — the supreme man — stood still
  out of sympathy just for me.
After paying homage
  to the feet of the teacher,
  I stood to one side
  & requested the Going Forth from him,
  supreme among all living beings.
The compassionate Teacher,
  sympathetic to all the world, said:
  "Come, monk."
That was my formal Acceptance.
  Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
  untiring,
  I followed the Teacher's words,
  just as he, the Conqueror, had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
  I recollected previous lives;
  in the middle watch,
  purified the divine eye;
  in the last,
  burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
  & the sun returning,
  Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
  hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
  "Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
  Homage to you, O man supreme,
  whose fermentations are ended.
  You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
  the Teacher smiled & said:
  "Through austerity, celibacy,
  restraint, & self-control:
  That's how one is a brahman.
  He is a brahman supreme."

Refernce: Sunita, the outcaste (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Story of Putigatta-Tissa thera (Tissa, the thera with a stinking body)

On one occasion the Buddha was delivering a sermon to an assembly of bhikkhus/monks, bhikkhunis (nuns), upasakas and upasikas. That day a householder of Savatthi was listening to sermon. He realized that the household life was full of difficulties and that the life of a monk is peaceful. He subsequently entered the Sangha.
While training himself in the spheres of morality, concentration and wisdom, the bhikkhu became ill. There appeared on his body boils that became bigger and bigger until they burst and turned into ugly ulcers. When these sores burst, his upper and lower robes became sticky and stained with pus and blood, and his whole body was stinking. For this reason, he was known as Putigattatissa, Tissa the thera with stinking body.
His bones decayed and gave way. His body was rotting and even his relatives and disciples ceased to look after him.
As the Buddha surveyed the universe with the his Dibbacakkhu (divine eyes), the thera appeared in his vision. He saw the sorrowful state of the thera, who had been abandoned by his resident pupils on account of his stinking body. At the same time, he also knew that Tissa would soon attain arahantship.
So, the Buddha proceeded to the fire-shed, close to the place where the thera was staying. There, he boiled some water, and then going, to where the thera was lying down, took hold of the edge of the couch. It was then only that the resident pupils gathered round the thera, and as instructed by the Buddha, they carried the thera to the fire-shed, where he was washed and bathed. While he was being bathed, his upper and lower robes were washed and dried.
After the bath, the thera became fresh in body and mind and soon developed one-pointedness of concentration. Standing at the head of the couch, the Buddha said to him that this body when devoid of life would be as useless as a log and would be laid on the earth.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
“aciraṃ vat’ ayaṃ kāyo paṭhaviṃ adhisessati
  chuddho apetaviññāṇo niratthaṃ va kaliṅgaraṃ”
Before long, alas, this body,
  deprived of consciousness,
  will lie on the earth,
  discarded like a useless log.
At the end of the discourse Thera Tissa attained arahatship together with Analytical Insight, and soon passed away. The Buddha attended to the obsequies of the thera, and got a stupa erected to enshrine his ashes.
When the monks questioned the Buddha as to the next birth of the thera. He answered that he would no more be born, and that he passed away after becoming an arahat.

References: Story of Tissa (The thera with stinking body), Putigattatissatthera Vatthu
Story of Rajjumala

Rajjumala was a slave in the village of Gayá. Her mistress disliked her and ill treated her in every way. One day, in order to escape being pulled by her hair, she had her head shaved; but her mistress then had a rope tied round her head, with which she pulled her about; hence her name.
Unable to bear her life any longer, the slave went into the village near by, intending to commit suicide, but there she found the Buddha waiting for her, and he preached to her. Rajjumálá, became a sotápanna, and then returned to her mistress, who, having heard her story, visited the Buddha and became his follower.
The Buddha explained that the two women had had their positions reversed in a previous birth, and that the then slave, who was the mistress in the present birth, had vowed vengeance for the cruelty inflicted upon her.
Rajjumálá was freed and was born after death in Távatimsa.

Reference: Rajjumálá
For more details, please read: Rajjumala’s Mansion, Khuddaka Nikaya 4.12, Tipitaka
Story of Sopaka
Note: There are two versions of the story of sopaka mentioned in different sources. So please research further and find the one which is correct. Here, I've mentioned both.
Story 1:

Sopaka was the son of a very poor woman of Sāvatthi. While in labour his mother fell into a long and deep swoon, and her kinsfolk, thinking her dead, took her to the cemetery and prepared for cremation. But a spirit prevented the fire from burning with a storm of wind and rain, and they went away. The child was safely born and the mother died. The spirit, in human shape, took the child and put it in the watchman's hut, feeding it for a time. After that the watchman adopted it, and the child grew up with the watchman's son, Suppiya (q.v.). He was called Sopāka, (the "waif") because he was born in the cemetery. When he was seven years old he came under the notice of the Buddha, who visited him in the cemetery. Gladdened by the Buddha's teaching, he sought his father's consent and entered the Order. The Buddha gave him, as his subject of meditation, the thought of mettā, and Sopika, developing insight, soon attained arahantship.

Story 2:

Sopaka was born as the child of a cemetery keeper and was therefore called Sopāka. Others say that he was born in a trader's family and that Sopāka was merely a name. Four months after birth his father died suddenly and he was adopted by his uncle. When he was only seven years old, his uncle took him to a charnel field because he quarrelled with his cousin, bound his hands, and tied him fast to a corpse, hoping that the jackals would eat him. At midnight the jackals came and the child started crying. The Buddha, seeing Sopāka's destiny for arahantship, sent a ray of glory, and, by the Buddha's power, the boy broke his bonds and stood before the Buddha's Gandhakuti, a sotāpanna. His mother started seeking for him, and the uncle telling her nothing, she came to the Buddha, thinking "The Buddhas know all, past, present and future." When she came, the Buddha, by his iddhi-power, made the boy invisible and taught her the Dhamma, saying that sons are no shelter, blood bonds no refuge. As she listened she became a sotāpanna and the boy an arahant. Then the Buddha revealed the boy's presence to his mother, and she allowed him to enter the Order. Some time later the Buddha, wishing to confer on him the higher ordination, asked him the questions which came to be known as the "Kumārapañhā" Sopāka answered these, and the Buddha, satisfied, gave him the upasampadā.

Reference: Sopāka Thera
For further reading: The Story of Poor Sopaka
Story of Mattakundali

Maṭṭakuṇdali was a young Brāhmin, whose father, Adinnapubbaka, was very miserly and never gave anything in charity. Even the gold ornaments for his only son were made by himself to save payment for workmanship. When his son fell ill, no physician was consulted, until it was too late. When he realized that his son was dying, he had the youth carried outside on to the verandah, so that people coming to his house would not see his possessions.
On that morning, the Buddha arising early from his deep meditation of compassion saw, in his Net of Knowledge, Maṭṭakuṇdali lying on the verandah. So when entering Sāvatthi for alms-food with his disciples, the Buddha stood near the door of the Brāhmin Adinnapubbaka. The Buddha sent forth a ray of light to attract the attention of the youth, who was facing the interior of the house. The youth saw the Buddha; and as he was very weak he could only profess his faith mentally. But that was enough. When he passed away with his
  heart in devotion to the Buddha he was reborn in the Tāvatiṃsa celestial world.
From his celestial abode the young Maṭṭakuṇdali, seeing his father mourning over him at the cemetery, appeared to the old man in the likeness of his old self. He told his father about his rebirth in the Tāvatiṃsa world and also urged him to approach and invite the Buddha to a meal. At the house of Adinnapubbaka the question of whether one could or could not be reborn in a celestial world simply by mentally professing profound faith in the Buddha, without giving in charity or observing the moral precepts, was brought up. So the Buddha invited Maṭṭakuṇdali to appear in person; Maṭṭakuṇdali then appeared in his celestial ornaments and told them about his rebirth in the Tāvatiṃsa realm. Only then, the listeners became convinced that the son of the Brāhmin Adinnapubbaka, by simply devoting his mind to the Buddha, had
  attained much glory.

Reference: The Story of Maṭṭakuṇdali

Great answer. Thank you

You've asked about metta.
The deepest example of metta does not use the word metta.
In SN6.1, we hear that Brahmā Sahampati kneels and asks the Buddha to teach the Dhamma.

Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!

To which the Buddha humbly replied:

Thinking it would be troublesome, Brahmā, I did not teach the sophisticated, sublime Dhamma among humans.

The Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching. Now that is the very definition of metta.

It's well established that the Buddha spent 45 yrs of his life teaching.. looking for more specific references to his love and compassion, either in his actions or words.

You have a hidden unvoiced constraint, a judgment of the Buddha's actions and words. Every sutta that records the Buddha's teaching is another example of his Metta. For example, in MN86 he says, "I have stopped, now you stop!" Nobody else had the love and the compassion to do that. Would you have done what the Buddha did?


text:
Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I?
Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I?

Quoted in T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p110
I've not read the original material, so am not sure where Chih-I makes these points (about the four alternatives) from. But they do seem to make sense to me, and (potentially) be what matters most about meditation etc.. But I have no means to really study tendai, only some local zen schools.

I can't see why they wouldn't agree. The quote seems to cover the Three Turnings with the Buddha's view as the third for which all distinctions are denied. .  .

The voices of torrents are from one great tongue,
the lions of the hills are the pure body of Buddha.
"Isn't that right?" he said to the teacher.
"It is," said the teacher, "but it's a pity to say so."

that's pretty @Codosaur

I think Zen Buddhists would agree. Tiāntāi had been hugely influential on Japanese Buddhism especially through it's Tendai iteration. Consider: Venerable Shinran was a Tendai seminarian, as were Venerables Nichiren & Eisai. Venerable Hōnen was also ordained as a Tendai priest. As we can see, many later schools/sects of Japanese Buddhism actually sprout from Tendai as their mother.
The above quote is from Mahāśamathavipaśyanā T1911.38.661c-662a.
A lot of this discourse is to-do with identification, suchness vs differentiation, real vs unreal, ultimate vs provisional, nirvāṇic vs worldly.
The book you are quoting from compares Venerable Zhìyǐ's round fusion with the Madhyamaka's teaching. it seems.
This seems relevant in light of that, from the Sinitic recension of Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:

All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.  All dharmas’
  true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.  All
  dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken
  language’s ending.  There is no arising and no cessation, there is
  calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa. All is real, all is unreal, all is
  both real and unreal,  all is neither real nor unreal: this is called
  all Buddhas’ dharma.

(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)
Compare the above with the Venerable Vimalākṣa's commentary on that section, for his or her Mādhyamikaśāstra, one of the three theses of East Asian Madhyamaka (三論宗 Triśāstravāda, "the School of the Three Treatises"), which would have been well-familiar to Venerable Zhìyǐ:

Reply: Those who are attached to dharmas classify dharmas into two
  kinds, some being worldly, some being of nirvana. They say that the
  nirvana dharmas are calm and extinct, but do not say that the worldly
  dharmas are calm and extinct. In this treatise it is taught that all
  dharmas are empty in nature and have the characteristic of calm
  extinction. Since those who are attached to dharmas do not understand
  this, nirvana is used as an example. Just as with your assertion that
  the characteristic of nirvana is emptiness, with no characteristics,
  calm extinction, and no vain thoughts, so it is with all worldly
  dharmas.
Question: If the Buddhas do not teach self, non-self, and the
  cessation of all mental activities and the cutting-off of ways of
  verbal expression, how do they make people understand the real
  character of dharmas?
Reply: All the Buddhas have unlimited powers of skilful means, and
  dharmas have no fixed characteristics. In order to save all living
  beings, they may teach that everything is real, or they may teach that
  everything is unreal, or that everything is both real and unreal or
  that everything is neither unreal nor not unreal. If you search for a
  real nature of dharmas, you will find that they all enter into the
  ultimate meaning and become equal, with identical characteristics,
  which is to say no characteristics, just like streams of different
  colour and different tastes entering into a great ocean of one colour
  and one taste, which is to say no taste. At the time when one has not
  yet penetrated into the true character of dharmas, each one can be
  contemplated separately as unreal, existing merely by the combinations
  of conditions. There are three levels of living beings; superior,
  average and inferior. The superior person sees that the characteristic
  of dharmas is that they are neither real nor unreal. The average
  person sees the characteristics of dharmas as either all real, or all
  unreal. The inferior man, since his powers of perception are limited,
  sees the characteristics of dharmas as a little real, and a little
  unreal, regarding nirvana, because it is an inactive dharma and does
  not perish as real, and regarding samsara, because it is an active
  dharma, empty and false, as unreal. Neither unreal nor not unreal is
  taught in order to negate ‘both real and unreal’.

(Āryavimalākṣasya Mādhyamikaśāstre Ātmaparīkṣāparivartaḥ T1564.24a15: 有人說神。應有二種。若五陰即是神。若離 五陰有神。[etc.], translation Brian Christopher Bocking)
Furthermore, returning to the source text of the commentary above, we later have this, a passage Ven Zhìyǐ would have been very familiar with:

Between nirvāna and
  this world there is not even a slight disparity. Between this world
  and nirvāṇa there is also not even a slight disparity. From nirvāṇa’s
  true apex towards this world’s apex, like this, there are two apices,
  like this, there is not the smallest sliver of disparity between them.

(Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Nirvāṇaparīkṣā, T1564.35c27: 涅槃與世間 無有少分別 世間與涅槃 亦無少分別 涅槃之實際 及與世間際 如是二際者 無毫釐差別, section 25)

this is a difficult answer, but probably good. i'm going to have to read it a few times, thanks...

i'm going to accept it as an answer, even-though all three of its quotes woosh over my head entirely. maybe you could provide more commentary on them?

I think for the terms of service for this forum we're supposed to keep conversation to a minimum and mostly answer questions. What about the above was confusing? It's mostly a "yes, and look at some similar quotes the author would have been very familiar with". What particularly went "whoosh"?

A Rinzai monk might simply grab the book being read and knock the monk on the head with it, asking, "what Realm is this?" wack

not gonna upvote, but i agree, thanks!

I studied Zen for many years. However, Zen is more effective with the suttas, especially the EBT's. The most important consideration I have found is not actually the realms. It is Identity View. The illusion of identity fuels so much suffering. Desire, forms and non-form are all bound up to lesser degrees in identity.  This is why the wack is important. It cuts to the chase and points out the core conflict. Identity. wack

What does "Zen is effective with the suttas" mean? Does studying Zen include studying suttas? Does it typically exclude the study of suttas? Do you find you're better able to explain Zen's mission if if you study the suttas 'on the side' (i.e. not as part of but as an adjunct to the Zen curriculum)?

I studied Zen to be rid of suffering. It didn't work. I read the suttas. They work. Now I understand how I should have studied Zen.