text:
Merits and Credit Point In Buddhism
I was taught that studying and practices in Buddhism should not keep a mindset that a good deed action to expect a good return of credit points to be used afterlife.
Anyone has article explaining more on this. These are my personal thought why should not have such a mindset

Buddhism is not a bank afterlife
That is a trading mindset which i believe contradict or mislead the rule of thumb of Buddhism
Should focus on why a good deed "cause and action" and how to do it better on the good deed?

Yes. Those who want good things to happen them should be heedful in doing meritorious deeds.
From the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
the wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.

Those who do not want bad things to happen to them should be mindful of their conduct.
From the Themes Sutta:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

So, who says there is no bank account of kamma in Buddhism?
Yes, there is. But where does it end?
Everyone works to earn money to fill their bowl with food. Then they eat enough to have sufficient energy so that they can go back to work, to earn more money.
Similarly, everybody is busy running on the kamma hamster wheel to ensure that the periodic kamma bank balance (hopefully) looks positive.
Don't you get tired of that?
Also from the Themes Sutta:

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

If you're tired of running on the hamster wheel, well, that's suffering.
Suffering, not because you did past bad kamma and have bad things happen to you.
But rather, suffering, because you have to struggle to keep going. And despite struggling and working hard to have a good future, it never permanently satisfies you. Good outcomes don't last forever and bad outcomes cannot be avoided forever.
Congratulations! You have just stumbled onto the first noble truth. Next, go on to the second, third and fourth noble truths, to find your way out of suffering.

P.S. Please note that not everything that happens to you is due to kamma. Sometimes it's due to other reasons like weather, bile, phlegm, clumsiness, harm done by others etc. - please see Sivaka Sutta and Devadaha Sutta for details.

great answer. i had to google "heedful" cos i was unsure you meant "mindful" and vice versa haha

@sorta_buddhist Thanks. Please see Appamāda - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits?. Appamāda is the Pali term which is translated to heedfulness.

Let's say you give 'something' to someone thinking that you will receive something(or the same thing) in return one day. This can happen in this life or even several afterlives later; until the condition is satisfied, which is 'you' receiving something in return for the thing you gave, 'you' will be reborn. This will keep you from achieving Enlightenment.
Rather if you give without the intention of receiving, you will be filling the Dana Paramita which will help you to achieve Enlightenment.
It is your intention that will either lead you towards or away from Enligthenment.

In some persons, the eye of the intellect is entirely covered by the thick cataracts of inferior theories that are mistaken about the unreality of the Self and the Selfless.
Hence, they do not see the various things of the world, even though those things are not beyond the scope of pure worldly vision.  While established within just conventional  reality,  they  are  intent  on describing the names, elements and measures of “earth,” “water,” “fire,” and “wind.” They thus say that minds have just arisen from the mere ripening of the elements in the embryo and so on, like the perceptions that come from an intoxicant with a special intoxicating and stupefying capacity that is caused by its production from the mere ripening of certain substances, such as roots, grain mush, a leavening agent, and so on.
Doing so, they deny what has come before and what will come next, and denying that, they reject the next world and the Self by saying things such as, “This world does not exist,  nor  does  the  next.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  the  maturation  of  the  results  of  virtuous  and nonvirtuous deeds. There is no such thing as spontaneously born beings.” Through these denials, they reject what leads to a certain kind of result, namely, the distinctive and desired result that is heaven or emancipation.  As  such,  they  are  always  and  constantly  engaged  in  conditioning  themselves  with nonvirtuous karmic acts. Thus, they are headed for a fall into the great chasm of hell and so on.
In order to eliminate those beings’ false view, the buddhas conform to the mindset (āśaya) of each world  of  beings  which  are  of  eighty-four  thousand  different  kinds  in  terms  of  beings’ minds  and behavior. Doing so, the buddhas are intent upon fulfilling their promise to uplift every world of beings, and they do so fully equipped with wisdom, method and great compassion. The peerless friends of many worlds (jagad), the great kings among healers, they entirely cure the enormous sickness that is the negative mental states.
These Buddhas desire to care for disciples of inferior, middling and great capacities. Hence, for the inferior disciples who are engaged in nonvirtuous karmic deeds, the blessed buddhas in some cases make it known in the world, “It is so—there is a Self”; they do this so as to turn those disciples away from nonvirtue and so on.
Some disciples, however, are like birds bound with a cord that is tough—due to the difficulty of the belief in a real Self—and very long—due the love of “I” and “My.” Even though they fly far, and even though they engage in positive karmic acts and shun negative ones, being bound with that cord they are still unable to pass beyond the Three Dimensions and obtain peaceful nirvāṇa, where there is neither decay nor death. For these middling disciples—so as to cool their attachment to the belief that the transient collection of mind and body is a real Self, and so as to engender within them a yearning for nirvāṇa—the blessed buddhas, wishing to take care of those disciples, taught, “There is no Self.”
There  is,  however,  a  seed  that  is  an  intense  aspiration  for  the  profound  dharma—an  interest obtained through the distinctive qualities that come from previous habituation. In some disciples, that seed has ripened and they have drawn close to nirvāṇa. These excellent disciples are devoid of Self-love,  and  they  have  the  capacity  to  plumb  the  depths  of  the  actual  meaning  of  the  king  of  sage’s highest, deep words. Having determined that these disciples have that distinctive aspiration,  so too, the buddhas have taught, “There is neither the Self nor the Selfless at all.”
...
Chandrakirti

I see you ask for an article, so perhaps you had something in mind other than the suttas. If not, Lokavipatti sutta deals with the topic of gain/loss, among other phenomena.
The gist is that "the eight worldy conditions" are, well... conditioned. They have the characteristics of anicca - non permanence - like any conditioned thing, and consequently is not worth holding on to, as long as we consider merit something that only has to do with ourselves.

Gain arises for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person. He does not reflect, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is.
[...]
Now, gain arises for a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones. He reflects, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it actually is.
[...]
He does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html
Regarding good deeds and merits they can pertain to different things in buddhism. Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes that merit - generally speaking - builds on three broad categories: "giving, virtue, and meditation".
Apart from the three categories above it's interesting to look at proper merit as beneficial concequences for others first. That way we avoid the risk of settling for merit solely based within ourselves ("underground"), since the self is fickle, and - again - subject of anicca (as stated in the sutta above). We may forget good intentions, become angry or even hateful towards others, or we change for other reasons:

But no matter how well it's stored,
deep underground, at the water line,
it won't all always serve one's need.
The fund gets shifted from its place,
or one's memory gets confused;
or — unseen —
water serpents make off with it,
spirits steal it,
or hateful heirs run off with it.

Acting in relation to others is instead described as having a more long lasting quality, not only for your surrounding, but yourself as well:

But when a man or woman
has laid aside a well-stored fund
of giving, virtue,
restraint, & self-control,
with regard to a shrine,
the Sangha,
a fine individual,
guests,
mother, father,
or elder sibling:
That's a well-stored fund.
It can't be wrested away.
It follows you along.
When, having left this world,
for wherever you must go,
you take it with you.
This fund is not held in common with others,
& cannot be stolen by thieves.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.1-9.than.html#khp-8

What you heard was probably based on this Sutta;

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html
"Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit?"
"Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Or, instead of thinking, 'Giving is good,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family custom be discontinued'... on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Hours. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Or, instead... he gives a gift with the thought, 'I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off'... on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Contented Devas. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Or, instead... he gives a gift with the thought, 'Just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past — Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, & Bhagu — in the same way will this be my distribution of gifts'... on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas who delight in creation. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Or, instead... he gives a gift with the thought, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise'... on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas who have power over the creations of others. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Or, instead of thinking, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death,'
" — nor with the thought, 'Giving is good,'
" — nor with the thought, 'This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family custom be discontinued,'
" — nor with the thought, 'I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off,' nor with the thought, 'Just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past — Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, & Bhagu — in the same way this will be my distribution of gifts,'
" — nor with the thought, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,'
" — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."

The lesson i infer is that it's optimal to be intent on the highest good.


text:
Why are they called "old kamma"?
The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma.
Why are these called old kamma (purāṇakammā)?
Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons?
If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple.
From SN 35.146:

And what is old kamma?
The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and
intentions, as something to be felt.
The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen
as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
This is called old kamma.
And what is new kamma?
The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind.
This is called new kamma.

(I replaced "action" with "kamma")

Piya Tan says, though I'm not sure this is clear,

“Old karma”
here refers to the six senses. The theme of “old karma” (purana,kamma) is applied to the body (synonymous with the six senses) in the (Kaya) Na Tumha Sutta (S 12.37/2:64 f), where the Anguttara Commentary explains that the body is not “old karma” but because it arises from old karma, it is referred to in
terms of its conditions. It is seen as “put together” (abhisankhata) since it is created by conditions. It is
“thought out” (abhisañcetayita) because it is based on volition (the will), rooted in volition. It is “to be
felt” (vedaniya) because it is basis for what is to be felt [ie the basis and object for feeling] (SA 2:70,
402).

Perhaps the idea is that people are born of (heir to) their kamma.
The summary on this page (I'm not sure who's the author, perhaps Ven Sujato) summarises this sutta as,

The six interior sense fields are not yours, but are old kamma, generated by choices in past lives. This is explained in terms of the four noble truths.

Why are these called old kamma (purāṇakammā)? Is it because of rebirth?

No. It appears to be the very opposite. The sutta appears to be dismissing the ordinary common view about 'rebirth', similar to AN 3.61, which dismisses the common view that happiness and suffering are due former kamma (pubbekata).
The suttas SN 35.136 & SN 12.37 literally say this kaya (group of aggregates) or these six sense organs are to be viewed as old kamma. These suttas do not say this kaya or sense organs are the result of old kamma. The group & sense organs themselves are old kamma.
Ordinarily, it is believed old kamma are actions a person personally does in the past. These suttas are actually ending this idea. These suttas are saying this present moment body & sense organs are to be viewed as old kamma and the noble practitioner should not trace further back to the past.
The above is particularly clear in SN 12.37, when it is said: "This kaya is not yours". Here, the ordinary common doctrine of personal old kamma is abolished.
In summary, SN 35.136 says three things:

The present moment sense organs are the oldest kamma, which is or can be something constructed & willed and which should be felt. This description is completely impersonal, namely, the sense organs are constructed from elements and from mother & father (per AN 9.15), the sense organs can be (wisely) subjected to the will if necessary and are to be felt without generating craving & self-view.

When these present moment sense organs are not merely felt, then new kamma is generated by craving, becoming & self-view via body, speech & mind; which is called 'new kamma'.

When the noble eightfold path is practised, no new kamma is created. Therefore, there is the cessation of generating or willing new kamma.

In summary, SN 35.136 & SN 12.37 appear to reject ordinary common ideas of old kamma from 'rebirth' & 'past lives'. It appears SN 35.136 & SN 12.37 are a supramundane (lokuttara) doctrine of 'old kamma'.

People are born from their karma: that is what dependent origination teaches anyway, the abhidhamma version at least. Similarly, traditions that incorporate the 'alayavijnana' see every moment of our life as a ripening of a seed generated by past karma.
If you struggle to see how that can make sense in a scientific world view, then why not think of it as the eye that you see with, rather than some dead man's eyes, being generated by past habits and so kamma.

I think I've found one possible answer, so I will answer my own question, but I will not accept it.
The sutta quoted in the question states that the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma, but it doesn't say WHOSE old kamma it is.
The sutta below answers that question.
So, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind definitely arise due to old kamma, as stated in ChrisW's answer. After all, they cannot arise spontaneously - they definitely arise due to old kamma. But we cannot ask WHOSE old kamma it is. It is dependently originated - with ignorance as the condition.
This is in line with sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self).
From SN 12.17:

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself
and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created
neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know
suffering, I see suffering.”
“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” “Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”

Suppose I have a bullet mark on my shoulder, what would we call it ? A result of old kamma. Something which happened in the past but has now ceased happening. The wound has healed. In the past the bullet injury was the source of my suffering but it no more can be called a source of suffering.
Similarly when looking at eye we say it is due to an old kamma. In the past the eye had a beginning..generated and fashioned by volition ,as something to be felt.
Now the eye has settled to shape and size and has a defined function. It is no longer evolving like it was when it came into existence.
Same applies to all the other senses. All the six senses are old kammas.
New kamma are the deeds which are still affecting our evolution(whether we will be rich or poor , man or woman , animal or human in the next rebirth).It is done by body, speech and mind.
(This is my interpretation of the sutta mentioned above.)

Chris has given the answer the way I expected. However, I thought I look into it from a different angle. You can look at this in a Dependent Origination model as well.
Vinnana paccay Namarupa : Due to old Kamma (Sankhara) vinnana create the Namarupa of this life. (say fetus) Then the fetus grows into six senses base. (as Chris noted) With the aid of six sens base (old Kamma), we create new Kamma.(ie: Namarupa Paccaya Vinnana) In a nutshell the whole Dependent Origination explains how the old Kamma become new Kamma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Desire root cause is Suffering, isn't Nirvana the goal of Buddhism is a Desire?
Subject refers, any short good answer here with an article supports? This is for in case somebody asks me this?

i think collins touches on this in his book nirvana and other buddhist felicities... i can't for the life of me remember the answer, but i would recommend the book, it is a quite excellent piece of scholarship.

Does this answer your question? Attainment of enlightenment without desire

Does this answer your question? Four Noble Truths contradicting?

Desire is abandoned in dependence on desire. Nutriment is abandoned in dependence on nutriment. There is nothing special, desire is not something you hold on to after fulfilling it, one may want to reach the other shore, having reached the other shore that desire, that fuel & motivation is abandoned.

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


text:
Buddha is a God or different God's level misconception in Buddhism System
Subject refers, many people from other religions might think Buddha is a God or Buddhist is serving the lord of Buddhism (God alike) whom is the Buddha. This is creating discomfort feeling from them, i think somebody from Christian or Muslim background will understand this. Or they will think i am challenging /against what is written in Bible/Muslim Quran that they believe is written truths.
I am seeking for an "short/wisdom or effective answer" to purify their feeling. Longer explanation will trigger the discomfort/challenging/anxiety feeling from them.
These actions below may trigger discomfort where it has nothing to do with religion base on personal common sense and they will think i am serving God of Buddhism.

Practicing vegetarian -> A way of compassion practicing and just simply being healthy?

Yoga/Acupuncture has history relationship with Buddhism/Taoism -> This is just simply a good health exercise but they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions from them self. Well, many Christian has also allowed even performing Yoga in Church but some had banned it.

Visit a Doctor with strong Buddhism belief --> they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions.

They might have all these misconception from the link below?
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue
Well, i answered Mr. Gautama is not God, a human being like us and just a superior teacher? Mr Gautama doesn't need my service or "worship". I would rather think Mr. Gautama served me more than i serve him as i always used to go temple to eat free vegetarian or getting smart answer/solution (i.e. this forum) --> correct my statement if i am making un-wise or false statement.
Or can i call him Doctor Gautama? Sound better to others? Or Something more purifying?

the buddha is "above" god in a way yes, because he has achieved the fruit of the holy life and will not be reborn, same as an arahant. he's still located on earth, so i suppose you could think of him as in some sense less than gods. there's stories about the gods rejoicing etc.. but anyway, it's important to remember that there is no permanent, self caused or unconditioned God in Buddhism. that's a huge difference with the Abrahamic religions: does it make sense to say that one day you'll take God's place?

Yoga comes from Hinduism and not Buddhism.

quite right, and i believe yogacarins deny the existence of their own buddhas @Christian see e.g. bhavaviveka's arguments for more on brahma

You can portray Gautama Buddha as an ordinary man who lived 2500 years ago, who found the way to end suffering and attain true happiness.
He discovered that suffering is mostly a mental condition. Thus, Gautama Buddha became history's most illustrious psychologist.
To support this claim, you can quote the first 6 verses of the Dhammapada. Part of these verses sound similar to Jesus' turning the other cheek, thus making Gautama Buddha appear compatible with Jesus in just this way.
Also, statues of Gautama Buddha are just for inspirational purposes, similar to statues of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

You might call him a "philosopher", and a great one. There are debates about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy -- if it's a philosophy then he's a philosopher. SFAIK most mainstream Christians are OK with studying secular philosophy -- like Socrates, and who knows who else.
He was also a "teacher". And arguably "a holy man", both according to the form of the time (i.e. a homeless monk) and IMO by contemporary standards too according to the ethics he taught and practised.
He's earlier than Jesus, passing away approximately 400 BCE. I believe that Muslims for example are permissive of other people who were never Muslims, but, less tolerant people who were Muslims but who then left the faith (i.e. apostates).
You could say that Buddhism doesn't claim to be the Word of God in the Christian sense -- it's a study of human life, culture, wisdom.
You don't "serve" the Buddha -- you learn Buddhist doctrine and practice it because it's common-sense (it's practical, beneficial, well-explained, and so on).

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue

So that's written by a Southern Baptist, eh? Oh well. Yeah apparently they're not keen on statues -- they are low church.
Do you want to say which sect/denomination your girlfriend is, in case that helps to know?
Anyway I guess you're talking about this sentence in it:

“What the pagans sacrifice is to demons.” Every golden Buddha in your city is a statue to Satan, as well as every Hindu idol.

Do you "sacrifice" to the statue, worship it? People do, or seem to, in temples and with Buddhist shrines. I think the early Buddhist texts (the suttas) don't mention that kind of practice. There were lots of people being polite (reverential) to the Buddha and other monks socially i.e. when they were alive and having conversations. Maybe "sacrifices" in Buddhism tend to be not to statues, but instead or also donations (e.g. of alms food and other necessities) to the Sangha.
Possibly even Christians could approve of that: it's "Christian Charity" and the "Great Commandment" (love thy neighbour), which (see also the "Good Samaritan") Christ teaches one should love to give to any human, any neighbour, who needs it -- I'm pretty sure Jesus praised that kind of behaviour...
Still beware of trying to teach them their own theology. Jesus got into a lot of trouble himself, by doing that. Try to be more low-key about it, for example, "This isn't 'sacrificing' -- it's being 'charitable', and learning not be avaricious...".

Also I'm not sure that Buddhism is "an opponent religion". Read SN 7.2 again -- the Buddha doesn't get involved with opposing the brahman. Similarly I don't know that Buddhism has to be "opposed to" Christianity. In fact Buddhism (unlike some Christians) tends not to proselytise, isn't that so? Without there being opposition or competition, perhaps there should be no enmity.
I fear a lot of arguments come from "black and white thinking", "you're either with us or against us" -- which I don't think is sensible but I'm not sure how to solve it (ruben2020's answer already referenced the Dhammapada). Buddhism might teach a middle way -- avoiding the mistakes associated with extremism -- and warns that people get into sectarian disputes because they hold to specific views and so on (see the parable of the blind men and the elephant -- Ud 6.4)
See also:

To debate or not to debate? and When to debate? and How to debate?
How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism? (where the accepted answer argues that the doctrine is spread, but not via "in-your-face Christian style evangelism", another suggests it's taught "by example")

Well, i answered Mr. Gautama is not God, a human being like us and just a superior teacher?

Maybe beware of using the word "superior". That's in your title as well -- "above God".
Having read this answer I associate comparisons with conceit (and "superior" is a comparison).
And "conceit" is associated with disrepect etc. -- read about Māna.
(I think "pride" is also the "original sin" according to christianity, even the reason for Satan's own fall from grace).
It may be safer (less confrontational) to say that he's "a teacher" not "a superior teacher".
Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that Christians seem to me to put a lot of emphasis on the person-hood of Christ (and the Trinity).
That's almost the opposite of what Buddhism teaches, e.g. that person-hood is mere convention. I think the Buddha also taught in various ways that what's important is the Dhamma, moreso than the Buddha -- see Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior" -- see also this from DN 16, nearly the Buddha's last words:

Now, Ānanda, some of you might think: ‘The teacher’s dispensation has passed. Now we have no Teacher.’ But you should not see it like this. The teaching and training that I have taught and pointed out for you shall be your Teacher after my passing.

IMO "Who is superior, is it Christ or Buddha?" is not a sensible question. It's better to focus on "What is the Dhamma?" and "What is good about the Dhamma?" -- or "What qualities, practices does Buddhism consider virtuous, skilful?" --  I think that's more beneficial, not a "my Dad is greater than yours" kind of argument.

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

There is no single god-almighty-creator in buddhism. So neither is Shakyamuni Buddha, period.


text:
Why did we first incarnate?
Our Number of births going into the past has to necasserily be finite not infinite.an infinite number of births without a first is logically infathomable.so why did we first incarnate?

just go with 'ignorance'... also, if we're talking about the desire realm, i guess something to do with hunger

Most suttas in SN 15 like SN 15.1, have the following ending:

Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of
sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone
suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite
enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
regarding all conditions.”

From a different translation of the Tears Sutta:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

Please also see this answer.

I would agree and suggest further that the answer also relates strongly to some of the answers to the Unanswerable Questions which are presented as "unwise reflection" into the eternal/finite existence of the self.

In the ultimate Truth there's no birth, past , present and future. birth is illusion.
That is why the Buddha said there is no apparent beginning. As there's no beginning for the rat horn or a sky flowers.

In commentary, we born by avijjā. Avijjā arises by Kāmāsava, Bhavāsava, and Avijāsava. These 3 Āsavā originate Avijjā. It's non stop loop.
I can see only stronger and stronger unwholesome in the loop. And I don't think we can find the beginning.
Ignorant > Old and Death > Doing (Managing) > Old and Death > Nāma Rūpa Arise > Old and Death > Senses Arise > Old and Death > Meeting > Old and Death > Feeling > Old and Death > Remembering > Old and Death > Managing > Old and Death > Craving > Old and Death > Craving again and again > Old and Death > Doing (Managing) for New  Nāma Rūpa Arise as in Memory > Old and Death > Born as Managed > Old and Death > Arising Old and Death >  Arising Old and Death >  Arising Old and Death > Unlimited.


text:
Can you explain how cessation of existence is known to be possible?
People from other sects may argue against Buddhism on the following grounds.
I invite the community of BSE to explain by reasoning or analogy how cessation of existence, which is known as the Nibbana-principle, as it is explained in Buddhism, isn't a philosophical fallacy of "something turning into nothing" in order to refute those arguments.
I call the idea of "something turning into nothing" a fallacy because it can be explained to contradict the law of conservation of energy or simply put; supposedly no existant thing known to a man is known to simply disappear without a trace and thus destroyed without being somehow transformed into some other state, in particular neither matter, nor energy or information can be deleted without a trace, afaik this has been experimentally established as a truth.
If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable?
You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that.
Extra points if you substantiate your answer with EBTs.
Put shortly the problem here is such that a person says; 'Buddha Gotama teaches annihilaton and it's impossible, it cannot happen that existant things can be annihilated.'
It's a strawman argument.

What's the source for your "something turning into nothing" quote? And how did you make the conclusion that "cessation of existence" means "an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future"?

"When delight and existence are utterly exhausted,
when perception & consciousness are both destroyed,
when feelings cease and are appeased - thus, O friend,
do I know, for them that live
deliverance, freedom, detachment."
Saṃyutta Nikāya 1.2
Nimokkha Sutta

“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’”
Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.7
Sāriputta Sutta

The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.
Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being. Itivuttaka 44

Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world." Loka Sutta Sn12.44

Those are the passages that may be argued to be the basis for that question As to the  source for "something turning into nothing" quote, it's the position i presented, not a quote.

I understand. I won't be able to answer this without going off-topic. Perhaps someone else can.

You can go off-topic if you want mate. I welcome answers in whatever terms possible.

@Erik If you were willing to answer in chat, no topic is off-topic there.

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

i find this question confusing, and feel you may be asking too many things at once

@sorta_buddhist i am so sorry :) anything in particular you want clarified?

not really, i mean i understand the phrases

It is a confusing question for sure. One needs not to argue against a strawman argument in general because it is a misrepresentation of the doctrine that is criticized. Here however i was looking for a good expression to address the confusion which promts the question. Another way to pose the question, would be; 'How is Buddhism not annihilationism?'. I wsn

Answering that would establish the argument "buddhism is flawed because something turns to nothing" as a misrepresentation. I wanted to narrow it down a bit to get some good ideas for the expression to address the confusion and explain the doctrine.

This question, although seemingly coherent, is a Category Error at its foundation. The “cessation of existence” in Buddhism refers to manifestations of mind, not the ‘dematerialization’ of things inhabiting the objective reality of Science to which the law of conservation of energy can be applied. Whether, or not, there is any relation between the two is an entirely different question.
The added quotations that you gave, all refer to perceptions, not the ‘things’ perceived, and specifically, perceptions that manifest in mind, or disappear thereby.
The difficulty for one inhabiting a scientific (reduced) frame, is that “mind” in that frame has no correlation to the semantic target of that word’s usage in Buddhism. This is an irreconcilable divide between the two domains.
For example, in Quantum Physics, quanta have various qualities, two of which are “color” and “charm,” neither of which has anything to do with being charming or colorful, and yet, their incongruous uses do not cause any difficulty because they are still being used as “qualities.” With “mind” it is a completely different situation.

I'll use the analogy of the Lute Sutta.
You hear beautiful music coming out of a lute, a stringed musical instrument. If you break it down into its constituent parts, you cannot find music anywhere.
Similarly, reification (papanca) creates the idea of the self, and also the idea of all the non-self things and their relationship to the self. When the existence of the self i.e. the mental idea of the self ("I am the thinker" - from Snp 4.14) ceases, then suffering ceases.
The music in the analogy is the self. The lute in the analogy is the being or satta (Vajira Sutta), an assemblage of the five aggregates.
The different parts of the lute are like the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness. Similar to how different parts of the lute work together to make music, the five aggregates work together according to dependent origination to build up and keep functioning the existence of the self, which is just a mental idea.
By cultivating wisdom, one eventually attains Nirvana, uprooting ignorance. Dependent origination is like a row of cards, the first of which is ignorance. When ignorance falls, the five clinging aggregates (SN 22.48) cease, hence the tainted version of mental formation, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases, contact and feeling, all fall. However, the (non-clinging) aggregates remain, which is what is meant by the Nibbana element with fuel remaining in Iti 44. With this, craving, clinging, becoming / existence, birth (the idea of a self) and suffering (aging, death and this entire mass of suffering) all fall and cease.
So, in this case, the lute remains, but no music comes out of it anymore. It may make sounds (i.e. the operation of the five aggregates), but it does not make sweet music (the self) any more. The arahat can feel the physical sensations of pain and pleasure, but does not suffer from them. The arahat can also have intentions and plans, without being tainted with defilements and the three poisons.
When the arahat's physical body dies, it's referred to as Nibbana element without fuel remaining in Iti 44. Here, the lute is broken into pieces and no sound comes out of it anymore. The five aggregates are no longer experienced. Also, the appearance of a being (satta), the assemblage of the five aggregates ceases. This is an emergent phenomena.
Back to the original analogy of the lute - when you break down the lute into its constituent parts, you cannot find music. There is no single thing or object such as music. It is simply an emergent phenomena that appears when different parts of the lute work together.
Upon Nirvana, what disappears is the emergent phenomena of a self - a mental idea, and also the rest of the reification of non-self mental ideas that relate ideas of the world to the self. Nothing concrete gets destroyed. No single object or thing that can be isolated gets destroyed.
Upon the physical death of the arahat, what disappears is the emergent phenomena of a being (satta), the assemblage of the five aggregates.
What is an emergent phenomena? If you arrange pebbles on a beach to look like a human face, then from the sky you can see the emergent phenomena, which is the form of a human face. But if you look closely, it's just an arrangement of pebbles.
To say that there is a concrete object called music or in this case the self - is eternalism. To say that there is no music at all or in this case, no self at all - is annihilationism. Instead, we explain the emergent phenomena of music by way of how it emerges from the inter-working of the different parts of the lute. Similarly, we explain the emergent phenomena of the self by the inter-working of the five aggregates, by means of dependent origination. This is discussed in the Acela Sutta.
Just like music, the lute is also an emergent phenomena - it is composed of various parts. Similarly, the self and the being are also emergent phenomena.
The self understood as an emergent phenomena, is the concept of anatta (not-self). The self and being understood as emergent phenomena that is objectified and classified by the mind into concrete things, is the concept of papanca (reification).
"Turning something into nothing" combines eternalism (something) and annihilationism (nothing). Instead, the explanation above takes the middle way of dependent origination and emergent phenomena.

Another analogy similar to the lute analogy is that of the scent of a flower in Khemaka Sutta.
A similar discussion occurs in the Yamaka Sutta on whether the Buddha ceases to exist after death. There it is proven that Buddha as a person is also an emergent phenomena that is not something concrete or something that can be isolated as a single object or thing.

Addendum based on discussions in the comments:
As answered by Andrei, "existence" in "cessation of existence" refers to bhava. Sometimes also translated as "becoming".
This is on the chain of dependent origination after clinging and before birth (the mental idea of the self). Cessation of existence is really cessation of the mental idea of the self, which is a reification, along with the reification that objectifies and classifies things into non-self objects according to their relationship to the self.
It's the cessation of the mental ideas that lead to suffering, which is next on the chain of dependent origination after birth. "Cessation of existence" is not cessation of the non-clinging aggregates. Of course, when ignorance ceased, the clinging aggregates ceased.
For e.g. a piece of cooked meat. To a non-vegetarian, it's delicious food. To a vegan, it's a disgusting thing.  If the vegan becomes a arahat, he drops thinking "I am a vegan", "this is my car"  and he sees cooked meat as what it really is, rather than associating with his self-identity.
These mental ideas are reification of emergent phenomena, that leads to suffering. The cause of it leads back down the chain of dependent origination all the way to ignorance.

Can you explain this part "Here, the lute is destroyed completely." The argument in the OP is that this is impossible, otherwise you aren't answering the question lest i am missing something or am mistaking.

@Ruslan I've changed it into "Here, the lute is broken into pieces and no sound comes out of it anymore. The five aggregates are no longer experienced."

@Ruslan Updated further. Not just the self. The being is also an emergent phenomena.

@Ruslan I have added a conclusion: "Turning something into nothing" combines eternalism (something) and annihilationism (nothing). Instead, the explanation above takes the middle way of dependent origination and emergent phenomena.

I like parts of your answer but i think it's not clear how you tied things together to answer the question. In particular i like the part explaning how there is a perception of things that are not there, as an abstraction of what is but i just fail to see where you were going with it.

I think the point you were making is that existence of objects can't be pinned down and therefore there is nothing to annihilate. The argument is that existence of form, feeling and consciousness can very much be pinned down tho, it may not be a self or a being but their existence and coming into play is undeniable.

@Ruslan As answered by Andrei, "existence" in "cessation of existence" refers to bhava. Sometimes also translated as "becoming". This is on the chain of dependent origination after clinging and before birth (the mental idea of the self). Cessation of existence is really cessation of the mental idea of the self, which is a reification, along with the reification that objectifies and classifies things into non-self objects according to their relationship to the self. It's the cessation of the mental ideas that lead to suffering, which is next on the chain of dependent origination after birth.

@Ruslan "Cessation of existence" is not cessation of anything else like form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness. I'll add these to the answer as an addendum.

@Ruslan In any case, form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formation are all sankhara - conditioned and compounded things. They exist, but they don't exist standalone - they either depend on other things or are composed of other things. In a sense, these are also emergent phenomena that can be objectified and classified by the mind into concrete objects. Just because they are emergent phenomena, does not mean they are unreal.

'I have attained this path to Awakening, .. from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. ... " https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html sounds like cessation of consciousness is very much a thing...

Anyway no need to discuss further, this is not a good format for discussion.  thank you for answering.

@Ruslan Yes! That's the cessation of the tainted version of the nidanas - which are part of the five clinging aggregates, which also ceased. The non-clinging aggregates did not cease, however. Please also see Burden Sutta.

Let's assume for the sake of entertaining of the idea that the claim is correct, still. What about not tainted version, is an arahant without consciousness? Obviously not. Is the arahant's consciousness permanent? Obviously not. How is it then not subject to cessation? Obviously it is subject to cessation.

@Ruslan This is where Iti 44 comes into the picture. The arahat's non-clinging consciousness ceases completely at physical death. But even when he is alive, it conditionally rises and ceases from moment to moment.

The question i was all along asking is how this cessation of existence to be explained. Now i am even more confused as to why you said; ""Cessation of existence" is not cessation of anything else like form, feeling, perception, mental formation and consciousness. I'll add these to the answer as an addendum."

@Ruslan I understand the confusion. Ignorance ceased at Nirvana. Thus the next on the chain of dependent origination also ceased - mental formation, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases, contact and feeling - all ceased, but only the tainted version of them, because they are part of the clinging aggregates.  The non-clinging aggregates did not cease. When clinging feeling nidana ceased, then the next on the chain - craving, clinging, existence, birth (mental idea of self) and suffering ceased.

@Ruslan Updated: "Cessation of existence" is not cessation of the non-clinging aggregates. Of course, when ignorance ceased, the clinging aggregates ceased.

I understood your point. What about parinibbana then, quoting from iti44; "The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease." Clearly this is a cessation of existence of "non-clinging aggregates", or do you disagree?

@Ruslan "Existence" is a technical term that applies to the nidana after clinging and before birth. It doesn't refer to existence of everything. It refers to "I want to exist", "I want to become"

Do you mean bhava? The iti44 quote i referenced; Anupādisesā pana samparāyikā,
Yamhi nirujjhanti bhavāni sabbaso. So it would be fair to say that cessation of "all modes of being" implies cessation of non-clinging aggregates.

@Ruslan The word "bhava" means "exist". Yes. But in the context of Nirvana, "cessation of existence" refers to the nidana of bhava, not to other types of existence. Other words have additional contexts too. Like "clinging" can also be a monkey clinging to a tree branch.

But that is just false because the Iti44 quote talks about the breakup of the arahants body and uses that very term, according to yourself an arahant has already abandoned all being tied to the clinging (hence is called an arahant), so what other being is there left to abandon? You yourself admit that the consciousness of an arahant is impermanent, so why do you have a problem saying that it ceases to exist?

@Ruslan Yes. In that context, the non-clinging aggregates cease to exist. But the reason for that is physical death, not Nirvana. Even for unenlightened people, their form will cease to exist at death, isnt it?

But ordinary people do not abandon all being, there is a picking up of another body, causes for a future are not extinct, so there is dependent origination of consciousness etc, furthermore normally consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another. For an Arahant this doesn't occur, all modes of being utterly cease and there is no future existence. Aggregates utterly cease.

@Ruslan At Nirvana, suffering ceases. While Nirvana is not attained, suffering continues. But it's just suffering that continues. Not my suffering or your suffering or his suffering or her suffering.  Remember the story of monk Sati in MN 38 - there's no permanent consciousness that wanders through life and becomes reborn onto another life. Consciousness is always dependently originated. It's not my consciousness or your consciousness. This is about "anatta".

My question was how can this existence utterly cease. For an ordinary person at death contact is one end, origination of contact is another end, cessation of contact is the middle and craving is the seamstress; for an arahant contact ceases and thats the end of all suffering because all impermanent phenomena are sankha-dukkhata and all impermanent phenomena cease at parinibbana. My question was in regards to philosophy of this exact cessation, not about the doctrine of a self. I don't mind your answer i just think it's unclear to me, maybe i am stupid or your answer isn't very good:)

@Ruslan Understand. You're thinking about the rebirth linking consciousness of the Abhidhamma, but this is not found in the Pali suttas. The closest I can find to it is in SN 44.9 - "when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time." But what is a being? In this context, it probably comes from SN 23.2. But there's no soul in Buddhism, so what is that?

@Ruslan From SN 23.2 - "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'" This can only be a mental idea of a being (similar to what is in Snp 4.14 - "I am the thinker").

I think it's off-topic but there is also reference to beings looking for birth in the metta sutta; 'Those born and to-be-born — May all beings be at ease!'. There is also the Gandhabba involved with conception. I've never thought much about it, seems kind of clear that consciousness doesn't normally cease altogether to arise a new in the next moment but arising as one thing it ceases as another, past is one end, future is another end,  present is the middle and craving as seamstress. Nothing else is like that, so it's not fair to say that consciousness arises and ceases every moment.

If one says that consciousness arises and ceases every moment, that can be misunderstood as if it arises as one thing and ceases as the same thing, then arises and ceases as another thing. The difference is very crucial, afaik there has historicall been a lot of controversy and harsh criticism on this basis.

@Ruslan The theory based on Ajahn Buddhadasa's writings may be unorthodox but it is of interest - from this sutta "When a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained". The word for "body" here is "kaya" which can be interpreted as "collection" or "heap" instead of "body", referring to the five clinging aggregates. This is consistent with the Burden Sutta.

@Ruslan This means that the being (a mental idea) defined in SN 23.2, puts down its five clinging aggregates in one moment, and is craving sustained, till it picks it up again in the next moment.

@Ruslan Thank you for introducing me to the seamstress - AN 6.61. "“Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is the middle. And craving is the seamstress" - that's the first sutta I have seen connecting name (mind) and form (body) with consciousness

@Ruslan "Moment" above refers to birth - so the birth of the idea of the self.

That (buddhadasa assertion )makes no sense to me because it would imply that something which can be grasped with wrong view as personal for this or that being is apart and elsewhere than aggregates and is otherwise sustained when inbetwen their cessation and arising. These kind of assertions even tho denied as; 'the person here cannot be said to be identical to the aggregates or different to them'. This looks very similar to pudgalovada views which were criticized by Vibhajavadins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudgalavada

@Ruslan Yes. Pudgalavadins say there is a being who is literally born, dies, born, dies and attains nirvana. But based on Buddhadasa's ideas, this being is just a mental idea, that dies and is reborn from "moment" to "moment" i.e. dropping and picking up the five clinging aggregates from "moment" to "moment". And in between, it is sustained by craving.

@Ruslan that means dependent origination occurs from "moment" to "moment", causing the birth and death of the mental idea of the self, and in between is sustained by craving.

Well ideas do not exist apart from aggregates, that which is vinnana is also called mano [mind] and citta [intellect] and ideation is dependent on contact on the mind base. Therefore there can be no ideation without mind-base contact, when there is contact there is feeling etc

@Ruslan Well, it's not that the being (mental idea) literally drops and picks up the five clinging aggregates. It's more like the five clinging aggregates rebuilds the mental idea of the being (and self) from moment to moment. Recall Dhammapada 154 - "O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving."

Whether it literally drops it or is rebuilt by them, what matter is if it is one thing and aggregates are another, if it is produced by aggregates or one among them and does it exist in the context of the aggregates, is it included or is it repudiating the aggregates,  and on what basis it's existence is postulated. I prefer setting this question aside because it's way too difficult to pin this doctrine down here in the comment section.

@Ruslan - ok, we will stop here. The moderators will probably move this to chat.

If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable?

You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that.

There's no proof needed because the premise was already wrong to begin with. There was never really "something" to begin with! It's ignorance and delusion that cook up a concept or a label of "something" from a bunch of nothings, ie. due to ignorance, there's notion of a "Ruslan" entity, a "something" other than just the Five Aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. So, no, Buddhism never proposes "something turning into nothing" for the simple reason that that "something" was never really truly exist. Once ignorance, delusion, and craving have been removed, the law of conservation of energy won't be violated, for the Five Aggregates would simply be returned to their natural entropy state. They just won't come together to form subsequent bundles of Aggregates called Ruslan, or Peter, or Jane, or whatever in the future simply because the glue and the bonds (ignorance, craving, hatred, etc.) were completely broken.

This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:

“Form is like a lump of foam,
Feeling like a water bubble;
Perception is like a mirage,
Volitions like a plantain trunk,
And consciousness like an illusion,
So explained the Kinsman of the Sun." ~~ SN 22.95 ~~

In the original Pali, the word usually translated as "existence" is "bhava".
Bhava means individual existence, that is, existence as something or someone, existence in a particular way. Bhava means identification with certain form of existence: "this is how I exist, this is my way of being, this is my form, this is my bound".
Cessation of bhava is exactly cessation of this small-minded thinking. It is cessation of attachment to a certain mode, cessation of identification with it, cessation of self-limitation, cessation of bounds.
When you no longer define yourself, you no longer demand the world to be a certain way. When you don't expect the world to be a certain way - there is no basis for suffering to arise.
What remains is the bliss of suchness.
The experience is somewhat similar to the bliss of reciprocated love: just like when you abandon your fears of being who you are in front of your beloved, and for the first time can be deeply authentic and spontaneous with the person you love, whose judgement is important to you - similarly, when you abandon any and all definition of self and (its mirror reflection) the wishing for the world to be a certain way, in other words when you drop the deeply rooted fear of something going a wrong way, then, for the first time in a long time (and maybe the first time ever!) you can be completely and perfectly free from second-guessing yourself, free from the fear of judgement, free from all comparison and categorization, free to spontaneously express the sheer vast open precious immovable unmistakable unshakable joyful truth of being what you truly are.

Toss a pebble into (or, "a frog jumps into") a pond. That creates waves on the surface of the pond. Those waves may eventually disappear again.
I'm not sure what the physical explanation is, for that physical phenomenon of (relative) stillness returning -- is it Turbulence, becoming Heat? Surface Tension? Entropy? Dilution? -- but that (i.e. waves disturbing the surface of a pond) seems to me an analogy of something's "appearing and disappearing".
Even then the analogy may be too ideal or invented, made-up. Is a real pond ever really still? Or is that an invention, an idealisation, the sort of simplified assumption which physicists are accustomed to working with?
I once read a joke about a post-scientific society understanding Newton's inverse square law of gravity -- the "attraction between two objects is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them" -- as being a statement about young love (i.e. "lovers close together are attracted to each other"). That's a joke because it's really meant to be a law of physics, and completely unrelated to psychology.
I'm not sure that Physical principles (e.g. "Conservation of Energy") or analogies translate well to the realm of Buddhism. For example if you have a fleeting desire, where did it go? Does a desire have any energy, i.e. as measured in Joules -- can a desire move mountains, anything like that -- or cause a rock to float, perhaps?
Part of what disappears in Buddhism is "ignorance", isn't it? Where does that "go" or cease to exist? It's not a physical thing.
The other thing is, that what "ceases" are sankharas. It's not that they "cease to exist" entirely, exactly, but they come apart, they're unmade. What happens when you burn a wooden cart -- where is the cart then, and where is the wood?

Doesn't the existence of water in a mirage cease to exist when one approach near and investigate? In the same way ignorance disappear with the light of wisdom.
The Buddha teach annihilation of ignorance to end suffering.

i'm not saying it was sky flowers haha

The Buddha does speak about an end of the world;

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world. Sn12.44

The world here is defined thus;

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one. Sn35.116

If this is reconciled with the definition of All;

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."sn35

Then he is here shown talking about an end of All, given that the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & the intellect are explicitly called a world and the seen, heard, smelled, tasted, sensed & ideation are conceived & perceived by that which is explicitly called the world.
I think at this point it can be inferred that as far as the conception & perception based on the six senses goes that is as far as the law of conservation goes.
Therefore one only has to show that conception & perception based on the six senses is dependent on requisite causes & conditions and that it does not occur without causes & conditions to show that All can cease if the causes cease, one who argues that it is impossible & it cannot happen that the causes would cease would have to prove otherwise if the dependent origination is shown.
Therefore even if the All is conceived & perceived as indestructible due to causal requisites it can be explained that with the exhaustion of causal conditions the conception & perception of All would cease no matter how it is conceived.
Sutta gives this analogy for the dependent origination  & cessation;

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."an4.174

The meaning of this imo is made quite obvious in the context of Einstein's thought experiment of the moving train and two lightnings which makes it quite obvious that as far as objectification by senses goes that is as far as conception & perception of the world goes.
In the thought experiment  we conceive & perceive two conceptions & perceptions of the world occuring in the world and the two are not the same & are occurring independently of one another.
It can be reasoned that if one did not occur then perception & conception of the worĺd would not occur for this or that person but the world would not be destroyed in as far as it is still perceived & conceived by another, thus laws of conservation would be obeyed and a cessation of a world in a definitive sense would've occurred.
It can also be inferred that postulating an ultimate frame of reference that is independent of an observer would objectify non-objectification.
When requisite conditions for that in the world which conceives & perceives the world are extinct, then the world is extinct and it does not matter if it is conceived as indestructible due to laws of conservation because these too only go as far as conception goes.
Therefore this shows that there can be a cessation of a world in a definitive sense in as far as the requisite conditions for a consciousness are extinguished, there being no consciousness established there is no interference-observation & no collapse of the wave function can occur.

SN22.55
"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.

Conditionality is a fundamental to the Dhamma because, among other things, it allow us to explain the kind of questions you're making.
In order for emergent phenomena, entity or property to arise, all its necessary and sufficient conditions have to be in interaction in a specific way. If those conditions are not interacting in this manner, the particular emergent phenomena, entity or property would not come to be.
What the Dhamma does, among other things, is the change in the type and content of the information that constitutes a person's worldview. With sufficient training in the Eightfold Path, that change in information will result in a change perception, and naturally, the taints of greed, aversion and delusion will cease to have its informational conditions that allowed them to be. With the cease of the taints, there comes the cease of dukkha.
As you can see, nothing of the above implies a miraculous vanishing of nothing, but a gradual change of kinds and content of information and of the effects that information has on a person's thoughts, speech and bodily deeds.


text:
Why would the Buddha refrain from instructing?
Namo Buddhaya
In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2
The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers

Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.

And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views.
I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ?
Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views.
With metta.

i read this as "a" buddha, which could be anything really. turning the lotus sutra and all that. silence can be helpful, though

I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ?

It's difficult to exactly know what was going on without being there ourselves to see the specific context and background situation while they were talking. One thing we do know is that the Buddha was not only a master of Dhamma knowledge but also a master of how to best convey the idea to his audience in the most effective way that which brings real radical transformation in the listener. Maybe this three-attempts approach had something to do with that, to rouse up the actor's curiosity, his persistence, his attention, etc. to a degree sufficient enough to receive and absorb the Teaching in the most effective and beneficial way.

+1 and You can support this answer with these phrases from MN 58: "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." and "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

Sadhu! Sadhu! /\

+1 from me as well. The fact is that I'm sure that the Buddha was approached by many  who were not serious about their questions and were merely 'baiting' him for answers which they might ignore or make fun of. His approach here was perhaps a method to determine the Actor's sincerity before spending time in a response. As he taught, one does not waste efforts teaching those who are not truly open to instruction.

Such an answer would generally be painful for the person. The Buddha does not want to cause pain.
However, the person continued to persist asking the Buddha, which proved to the Buddha the person had faith in him and the capacity to accommodate the teachings.


text:
Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free?
Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free?
If it is bound, then its essential nature of "non-knowing" cannot depart, and, therefore, liberation is not [possible, or] if the essential nature departed, the mind would cease to be a Mind, i,e. it can no longer not-know.
If it is free, the meditation and other means enjoined for the sake of liberation are of no use.

If you wanted an answer based on any specific doctrine or school, you should identify that in the question -- possibly using a tag, like [tag:tibetan-buddhism] or etc.

Don't get infatuated with the word "essence" and "essential". Some people talk about "the essence of the mind" and try to make the mind the ultimate reality. What matters is that the mind is the chief of sukha or dukkha -- bad births and good births -- like in the Dhammapada:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

And you still have to "do" the non-bright and non-dark karma, to get fully enlightened.
All this means is that you do have to work on your mind, on your actions through speech, body and thoughts -- to get a good births and/or be fully enlightened -- (not doing rituals or clinging to sensual objects).

When asked does a rock come down when thrown upward? Do you also answered saying throw the rock?

Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free?
If it is bound, then its essential nature of "non-knowing" cannot depart, and, therefore, liberation is not [possible, or] if the essential nature departed, the mind would cease to be a Mind, i,e. it can no longer not-know.

There's no issue here since the premise was wrong to begin with. Yes, to unenlightened beings, the mind is pretty much bound to ignorance, but it has nothing to do with the "essential nature" of things here. The only inherent/essential nature of conditioned phenomena is the Three Marks: Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta. And since it's exactly because of Anicca, even Ignorance and Dukkha are not permanent, hence there's always the possibility for total final liberation to take place, if one so chooses.

If liberation is [knowing] and  ignorance [not-knowing], and if, as you say, ignorance is [not-permanent] and thus there will be [final liberation]. Then where comes ignorance? To begin with there should not be ignorance, if [knowing] is permanent. Or do you think after the [final liberation]  the cycle start again and ignorance appear?

Again, you wrongly assume that liberation/knowing is permanent, while in fact nowhere in the suttas it was described as such. The best one can infer is that total final liberation means that the duality of permanence/impermanence is no longer "in scope" or have been completely "transcended".

What do you mean by "bound to ignorance"?
If here by 'being bound' you mean a default state to which it will inevitably revert to, a default state of being ignorant, then that is one thing. If you mean that the starting configuration is the default which can be non-reversably modified, that is another thing.
I don't know which of the two is closer to the meaning of your question.
When i started out in my profession  i sucked at it, there was ignorance which was more or less replaced by acquired knowledge and this replacing resulted in profits.
I think it is all-around evident that mind is one thing and ignorance is another thing.
If they were bound as in conjoined then overcoming ignorance would not be possible.

Not a default state, rather an attribute. In you example is the knowledge of your profession permanent or do you regress in time to ignorance when you're not taking heed?  However, the question goes beyond that when you relate it to ignorance which hinder liberation..

"What is essential they regard as essential, what is unessential they regard as unessential - they who entertain (such) right thoughts realize the essence. - dhp verse 16. " this realization is explained to be non-reversible and leading to complete liberation from ignorance.

Your using the word "essentially" reminded me of Tibetan doctrine -- for example What is the Mind? By His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
I highlighted bits which I think address your question.

Buddhist literature, both sutra and tantra, contains extensive discussions on mind and its nature. Tantra, in particular, discusses the various levels of subtlety of mind and consciousness. The sutras do not talk much about the relationship between the various states of mind and their corresponding physiological states. Tantric literature, on the other hand, is replete with references to the various subtleties of the levels of consciousness and their relationship to such physiological states as the vital energy centers within the body, the energy channels, the energies that flow within these and so on. The tantras also explain how, by manipulating the various physiological factors through specific meditative yogic practices, one can effect various states of consciousness.
According to tantra, the ultimate nature of mind is essentially pure. This pristine nature is technically called "clear light." The various afflictive emotions such as desire, hatred and jealousy are products of conditioning. They are not intrinsic qualities of the mind because the mind can be cleansed of them. When this clear light nature of mind is veiled or inhibited from expressing its true essence by the conditioning of the afflictive emotions and thoughts, the person is said to be caught in the cycle of existence, samsara. But when, by applying appropriate meditative techniques and practices, the individual is able to fully experience this clear light nature of mind free from the influence and conditioning of the afflictive states, he or she is on the way to true liberation and full enlightenment.
Hence, from the Buddhist point of view, both bondage and true freedom depend on the varying states of this clear light mind, and the resultant state that meditators try to attain through the application of various meditative techniques is one in which this ultimate nature of mind fully manifests all its positive potential, enlightenment, or Buddhahood. An understanding of the clear light mind therefore becomes crucial in the context of spiritual endeavor.
In general, the mind can be defined as an entity that has the nature of mere experience, that is, "clarity and knowing." It is the knowing nature, or agency, that is called mind, and this is non-material. But within the category of mind there are also gross levels, such as our sensory perceptions, which cannot function or even come into being without depending on physical organs like our senses. And within the category of the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness, there are various divisions, or types of mental consciousness that are heavily dependent upon the physiological basis, our brain, for their arising. These types of mind cannot be understood in isolation from their physiological bases.
Now a crucial question arises: [etc.]

That says that afflictive emotions are states of mind but are not intrinsic qualities of the mind.
I think in other words that means that the mind is not "essentially bound" to them.
Also it says explicitly that meditation etc. are "of use" -- i.e. to cleanse the mind of conditioned afflictions.
It also mentions that the nature of the mind is "knowing" -- not "ignorance".
Speaking of "afflictive emotions", "ignorance" is considered to be one of the afflictive emotions -- both in Tibetan Buddhism, and according to the Pali and so on.

If it is free, the meditation and other means enjoined for the sake of liberation are of no use.
I'm not sure I understand the question, to me it sounds like a specious argument i.e. a bit like saying, "Is the body essentially sick, or essentially healthy? In either case medicine and other requisites are useless, because they're either ineffective (impossible) or unnecessary." -- which reminds me of the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) again.


text:
What is the meaning of "O Laso"?
Alan Wallace says this regularly, for example, at the beginning of this lecture: http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2012/13-loving-kindness-1/
Is it Tibetan? What is its direct translation?

From this transcript, it doesn't really have a meaning. Full quote:

Q: What does o laso mean?

That’s one of the great secret teachings I give out only to people who’ve achieved 8 weeks of retreat first. It’s very secret, have you received Tantric empowerment? O laso, you ready? Because once I have said it you won’t forget it, it’s one of those really, pointing out instructions - O Laso doesn’t mean anything at all. But it is Tibetan, so it is hard to find a phrase in a language that is definitely part of that language, because O Laso is definitely part of Tibetan, it’s not Hindi, or any other language that I know of, it’s definitely Tibetan, and it doesn’t mean anything at all. But it’s Tibetan and I don’t know quite how you translate it into English without losing its meaning, but it’s something like UM or how about this – WELL THEN , what does that exactly mean, “well then”? Well then, Ladies and Gentlemen. What exactly have I just said that imparted some information to you? (45:42) ‘Well then’ as opposed to ‘ill now’? O laso is kind of like that. It comes up a lot and it’s just become part of my speech pattern, and I haven’t seen any reason to break it, and also it sounds nice. O laso, o laso, and very often, because I have received many teachings from lamas, at the beginning they often say o laso, and that lets everybody know, hey, we’re about to begin, folks. O laso, so it’s a nice way to begin, it’s so smooth, almost like a mantra, o laso. And then when you finish, when you’ve finished something – o laso. Like that, okay? It’s a way to begin and a way to end.

It is probably related to the Water Lamp of the Far-Reaching Lasso (rgyang zhags chu'i sgron ma) used in Tögal practice in the Dzogchen vehicule of Tibetan Buddhism.


text:
The Buddha and the Cycle of Life
What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon? Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

samsara is a cycle, that is true.

Where did Buddhism get this from?
Why, it got from the Buddha's direct experience, of course.
The Buddha spoke in MN 4:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
manifold past lives in their modes & details.
"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the
night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was
destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, &
resolute.
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
— who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the
influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good
conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who
held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right
views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared
in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of
the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing
away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma.
"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the
night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was
destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, &
resolute.

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

What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon?

From SN 15.2:

At Savatthı. “Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would reduce this great earth to balls of clay the size of jujube kernels and put them down, saying [for each one]: ‘This is my father, this my father’s father.’ The sequence of that man’s fathers and grandfathers would not come to an end, yet this great earth would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this sa˙s›ra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving."

Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

No, the concept of Samsara already existed in other religions before Buddhism.

Dependent origination includes death and rebirth:

DN15:2.1: When asked, ‘Is there a specific condition for old age and death?’ you should answer, ‘There is.’
If they say, ‘What is a condition for old age and death?’ you should answer, ‘Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’

The sutta continues:

DN15:3.1: So: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

In SN6.1, the Buddha thinks about the difficulty of teaching what has not been taught before:

SN6.1:1.5: But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it.  It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination.  It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.  And if I were to teach this principle, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”  And then these verses, which were neither supernaturally inspired, nor learned before in the past, occurred to the Buddha...

The cycle of life and death was understood before the Buddha. What was not understood before is the concept of dependent origination and the escape from the cycle of life and death.

The Bhavacakra (the "wheel of becoming") is associated with the 12 Nidanas -- i.e. with paṭiccasamuppāda -- as well as with the Three Poisons, the various realms of existence, and so on.
I think the "cycle" is a graphical representation or summary of several elements of doctrine.
Wikipedia says,

The Theravada-tradition does not have a graphical representation of the round of rebirths, but cakra-symbolism is an elementary component of Buddhism, and Buddhaghosa's Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga) contains such imagery:

It is the beginningless round of rebirths that is called the 'Wheel of the round of rebirths' (saṃsāracakka). Ignorance (avijjā) is its hub (or nave) because it is its root. Ageing-and-death (jarā-maraṇa) is its rim (or felly) because it terminates it. The remaining ten links (of the Dependent Origination) are its spokes (i.e. karma formations [saṅkhāra] up to process of becoming [bhava])

I'm not sure whether it's true, that the graphical representation doesn't exist within Theravada -- an older version of Wikipedia used to include this diagram. Though it's easy to believe that Theravada scriptures are primarily textual not graphical.


text:
How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing?
How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? The sorts of things that are not about being offended, not insults, but the exact opposite: are atrociously evil or wrong, so one would feel appalled if it had happened to anyone. On the one hand, one may be happy to let karma do its job, but -- on the other -- bodhisattvas must be impelled to save every sentient being.
Is the answer to seek material / earthly justice, and work to enlighten them, within the limits of Buddhist ethics?

one may be happy to let karma do its job
Recalling the brahmaviharas, I think that that -- i.e. "remembering that beings are heir to their own karma" -- is recommended as a recipe for "equanimity".
That's possibly not "good will" though -- i.e. if you're "happy" about someone's misbehaviour, that sounds like the opposite of mudita -- and good-will is important, see e.g. the parable of the saw (as an example of Buddhist doctrine that's relevant to what you're asking).
There's also the Dhammapada verses 3 through 6 -- which recommend against "he hurt me!" and "not stilling your hatred"...
There are other topics on this site though, about social justice -- e.g. if a person lies then you might not want to believe them in future; if they steal you might tell the police...
Or one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple

I gave him the money and he thanked me for it.

"Where is anger for one freed from anger,
Who is subdued and lives
perfectly equanimous,
Who truly knowing is wholly freed, Supremely
tranquil and equipoised?
He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse
than the angry man;
Who does not repay anger in kind, He alone wins
the battle hard to win.
He promotes the weal of both,
His own, as well
as of the other.
Knowing that the other man is angry,
He mindfully
maintains his peace And endures the anger of both,
His own, as well as
of the other,
Even if the people ignorant of true wisdom Consider him
a fool thereby."

Akkosa Sutta: Insult

we're not talking about insults though? anyway, i asked about buddhists not aryas

Sure the Arya will perfect what is quoted, and those weak spiritually imitate as much as possible.

maybe. but you're quoting "insults" -- so either accept it's a poor answer, or edit it

i say maybe because the spiritually naive will surely imitate the perfections, and only the last sentence mentions 'wisdom' -- rhetorically tho, i agree

So be it. But perhaps you should edit your question, where in your question did exclude insult as wrong doing?

anyone who is more than offended at an insult is just a fool. i'd like to think i am not

He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man? Why is one worse than the other?