text:
SN 35.116 - Is "the world" ("loka") an objective reality perceived via the senses?
I read the following on the internet:

One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses
themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world
is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

Also:

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. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and
conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the
world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body …
mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN
35.116

Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

It is unclear to me how you derive the question from the text and i vote to close.

It says; that through which you perceive & conceive the world is called "a world". It is a definitive statement of fact. Why on earth would you ask whether that through which you perceive & conceive the world can only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī). It is like asking 'if x = yz; can x be y?' It is not a proper question and is absurd.

Also why are you littering the site by creating useless tags?

It depends on the context.
This sutta has a play on both meanings of loka - the objectively real world and the inner world of mental formations in this statement:

Mendicants, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of
the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of
suffering without reaching the end of the world.

This second meaning is explained in this statement (which also has both meanings of the word):

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.

The "world" in the training of the Noble Ones, refers to the world of mental formations through which we perceive (based on what is sensed of) the objectively real world and conceive the mental model of the world, which is the result of concept proliferation/ reification/ objectification-classification or papanca.
This is also found in the Rohitassa Sutta:

The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.
So a clever person, understanding the world,
has completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world.
A peaceful one, knowing the end of the world,
does not hope for this world or the next.”

So, the end of the world is the end of papanca (reification, objectification-classification, concept proliferation).
Piya Tan's commentary on the Lokantagamana Sutta:

2.1 In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta,the Buddha, in simple words with profound senses, explains what it really means to “save the world.” We
need to first understand what “world” really means. In the Sabba Sutta
(S 35.23), the Buddha declares that all that there is are our 6
sense-faculties and their 6 respective sense-objects: these are the
“all” (sabba). This is the world, the universe, we have created for
ourselves. Nothing is meaningful for us beyond this.
2.2  The Buddha has never exhorted us to “save the world,” as this ultimately refers to all our senses, from which we liberate ourself.
Even when taunted by the wanderer Uttiya, who asks, with all the
Buddha’s attainments and teachings, “Is the whole world liberated by
this, or only half of it, or a third of it?” The Buddha remains
silent, because the question is wrongly put.
2.3 In an important sense, we can say that the Buddha’s teaching is about
“saving ourself” from the world. The world is what we make of
it: we create our own world. Hence, it is within our power to change
our “world,” that is our own self. This is the spirit of “renouncing
the world,” of letting go of the world so that we are free of the
falseness and unwholesomeness we have created for ourself. The save
the world, then, we need to renounce it.
2.4  In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta 1 (S 35.116), the Buddha
declares what kind of “world” that we can really save or liberate. First, the
Buddha shows us what kind of world needs“saving”: Bhikshus, the end of
the world cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say. Yet,
bhikshus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there
is no making an end to suffering.8(S 35.116,2), SD 7.4 The first
mention of “the world” refers to the physical universe, which is with
neither beginning nor ending in terms of time and space
(okāsa,loka). It also refers to the world of beings (satta,loka),
simply put, the cycle of births and deaths (saṁsāra) itself, which
is external to us, so to speak. However, within us are the world of
formations (saṅkhārā,loka), the self-created and self-centred
“world”—this is our real prison of craving and ignorance, what we need
to awaken from and so be liberated.
2.5 The Lok’anta Gamana Sutta further records the Buddha as declaring,
“That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a
conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the noble one’s
discipline.”11(S 35.116,22). This refers to the workings of the 6
sense-bases. Then, the Buddha famously declares in the Rohitassa Sutta
(S 2.26):

In this very fathom-long body, endowed with perception and mind, I
declare the world, the arising of the world, the ending of the world,
and the way leading to the ending of the world.”12(S 2.26,9), SD 7.1

MN 43 says feeling and perception are cojoined (cannot arise without each other).
Iti 44 says Arahants have feelings therefore, by default, also perceptions (as affirmed by SN 22.1; SN 22.48; SN 22.85; etc).
MN 1 says an Arahant perceives (fully comprehends) but does not conceive (mannati).
SN 12.44 says an Arahant continues to perceive via the senses but has reached the "end of the world" by ending craving (and ending conceptions, such as attachment, becoming birth & death).
Therefore, on the supramundane level (rather than in terms of conventional speech), it appears "the world" is something "conceived" rather than merely perceived.


text:
Difference between Yoniso Manasikāra and Sammā sati with Sampajaññā
I would like a clarification regarding the terms Yoniso Manasikāra and Sammā sati with Sampajaññā. Is the meaning of these two:

the same,
totally different,
somewhat similar with certain differences, or,
are they used in different situations with contextual differences in meaning?

Yoniso manasikara is investigating or examining something for the purpose of either newly or thoroughly understanding it. For example:

SN 45.62 says yonisomanasikara is the forerunner and precursor for the arising of the Noble Eightfold Path; therefore yonisomanasikara is also the forerunner and precursor for the arising of the 7th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, namely, sammāsati.

Similarly, AN 10.61 says: "Hearing the good Dhamma... fills up careful attention; careful attention... fills up mindfulness and clear comprehension". Again, yonisomanasikara operates prior to sati-sampajanna.

Similarly, DN 18 says: "After some time they hear the teaching of the noble ones, properly attend to how it applies to them & practice accordingly. So aparena  samayena ariyadhammaṃ suṇāti, yoniso manasi karoti, dhammānudhammaṃ paṭipajjati". Then, later on, DN 18 refers to the four satipaṭṭhānā.

Iti 16 says: "in regard to internal factors, I do not perceive another single factor so helpful as wise attention (yonisomanasikaro) for a bhikkhu who is a learner".

SN 12.10 provides an example where yoniso manasikara was used to discover dependent origination. Since dependent origination remained unknown or undiscovered, sati-sampajana could not be used because sati-sampajanna only brings to mind preexisting knowledge

While MN 95 does not use the term 'yonisomanasikara', it provides a similar explanation when it says: "Next, they place faith in them. When faith has arisen they approach the teacher. They pay homage, lend an ear, hear the teachings, remember the teachings, reflect on their meaning (upaparikkhato) and accept them after consideration."

Sati-sampajanna is the bringing to mind and keeping in mind past learned or realised knowledge/wisdom to a specific present situation. This is indicated in SN 45.62 & SN 45.62 quote above or otherwise unambiguously explained in SN 46.3 & MN 117 quoted below:

When one has heard the Dhamma from such bhikkhus one dwells withdrawn
by way of two kinds of withdrawal—withdrawal of body and withdrawal of
mind. Dwelling thus withdrawn, one recollects that Dhamma and thinks
it over. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn
recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the
enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu; on that
occasion the bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness;
on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness comes to
fulfilment by development in the bhikkhu.

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right view.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right resolve.
One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
speech: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right speech.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
action: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right action.
One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three
qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run &
circle around right livelihood.
Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
knowledge, right release comes into being.  Thus the learner is
endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

In summary, SN 45.62 says yonisomanasikara is the forerunner for the arising of the Noble Eightfold Path. Where as MN 117 says sammasati is the 7th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path.
I will end with an example:

When the mind is ignorant, it does not understand not referencing quotes is not only theft (plagiarism), but it also causes trouble for others. Therefore, such an ignorant mind must examine & reflect repeatedly until it understands the harm, evil, sinfulness & wickedness of not referencing quotes. This is the use of yonisomanasikara.

Where as a mind with wisdom that knows referencing quotes is beautiful behaviour, may occasionally forget to reference a quote. Such a mind will quickly rectify this mistake using mindfulness & clear-comprehension. There is no need for this mind to use yonisomanasikaro because it has already understood the dhammic significance of the matter thoroughly.

Thanks a lot @Dhammadhatu. Your detailed answer with profuse quotes from the Nikayas has hewn the rough edges off my understanding. The nuanced explanations have helped me a lot. Thanks again for going to great lengths to help.

By the way the last example is rather mischievous. Hahahaha.

Yoniso Manasikara can be spoken of as giving attention based on a correct comprehension of the senses & what the senses present.
Samma Sati is a path-factor, it is a bearing in mind and is the opposite of obliviousness.
One can be distracted from Yoniso Manasika and switch to giving inappropriate attention due to being deficient in spiritual faculties ie lacking the power of concentration [non-distractedness]. At that point one is not bearing in mind the correct apprehension and is oblivious to the truth.
Alternatively or one can be deficient in wisdom and be unable to give appropriate attention due to that lack of understanding.

“From inappropriate attention
you’re being chewed by your thoughts.
Relinquishing what’s inappropriate,
contemplate appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, your virtues,
you will arrive at joy,
rapture, pleasure without doubt.
Then, saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering & stress.” - SN 9.11

One can give an analogy of steering a ship.
One who is attentively keeping the ship on the right course is not oblivious [sati] to what needs to be given aporopriate attention and attends to it appropriately [yoniso manasikara] in order to keep on course.

Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t understand to which things they should pay attention and to which things they should not pay attention. So they pay attention to things they shouldn’t and don’t pay attention to things they should.
Because of paying attention to what they should not and not paying attention to what they should, unarisen defilements arise and arisen defilements grow.
But take an educated noble disciple who has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They understand to which things they should pay attention and to which things they should not pay attention. So they pay attention to things they should and don’t pay attention to things they shouldn’t.
Because of not paying attention to what they should not and paying attention to what they should, unarisen defilements don’t arise and arisen defilements are given up.
They properly attend: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. And as they do so, they give up three fetters: identity view, doubt, and misapprehension of precepts and observances. - MN 2

Misc on Sati;

Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? Herein a monk is mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he remembers, remembers constantly, what has long been done and long been said (concerning release). This is called mindfulness-awakening-factor. (1) - Vb 10

That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness, remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing, mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness, Right Mindfulness: this is called ‘mindfulness.’ - Vb 7

The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is. (abhihamma) - Ds 2.1.1

The Blessed One said, “Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, ‘The beauty queen! The beauty queen!’ And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, ‘The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!’ Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, ‘Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.’ Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside?”
“No, lord.”
“I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. The meaning is this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness immersed in the body. Thus you should train yourselves: ‘We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it, and undertake it well.’ That is how you should train yourselves.” - SN 47.20

Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced, intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel, subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart. The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." - SN 35.204

Thank you for your answer and reference ! May you be well.

Thanks @deadmanposting for the answer. However, even though you have given a detailed explanation as to what sati is, and I totally agree, yoniso manasikara still remains a little obscure.

B. Thanissaro answers the question here:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/02/faq-what-is-difference-between-yoniso.html
(contains long excerpt from his book and essay)

Thanks a lot @frankk. The explanation given by  Rev Thanissaro B. Is absolutely brilliant. I think , I have been able to grasp the subtle difference clearly, even though conceptually. Through you, I must thank him too for clearing my doubts. My hand folded pranam to Rev Thanissaro B.

This answer violates the site policy on own personal site promotion - please see this Buddhism Meta SE question and its answers, as well as this page to understand the policy. 1) You need to paraphrase, summarize or partially quote the content of the link in the answer. 2) The user need not have to click into the link to benefit from the answer. 3) The link is only there to support the answer. 4) You must disclose yourself as the author of the linked site. Please update this answer.

this site policy can suck it. I'd gladly just cut and paste from my blog and post the entire post on here, but the hyperlinks citing original article sources that I cite often don't make it, as well as html formatting. I provided a useful answer, the OP was happy. I'm not going to waste a single second of my valuable time beyond that.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Always analysing deeds: sati and samadhi
In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop.
But,
I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple.
So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati.
Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day.
Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

It seems like you have developed a method of suppression which is favoured in the Theravada tradition - under certain circumstances. This isn't bad if done correctly, but you may find that whatever is suppressed must then find the next path of least resistance, usually through our emotions which, in turn, shapes our behaviour. This might be why you feel your sati has been weakened. These instances require emotional and mental discernment. They must be understood or known and that understanding or knowing must come from an observation that is not informed by our regular mental and emotional conditioning. This is sati. This is correct attention. Sati and Samadhi are very different, but they often  acquaint each other as part of the Nobel Eightfold Path.
Developing healthy emotional intelligence is key because the way in which we respond to emotional upheaval determines the quality of our dhamma path. Virtue and morality (sila) practice is considered a critical and fundamental prelude that serves to strengthen and lubricate the dhamma path in ways that will permanently and radically change the mind, behaviour and feelings. Having healthy emotional intelligence at the outset is similar to servicing your car prior to a long journey - and even along the journey, we stop off and continue to service the car. In the same way, we give correct attention to our emotional and mental state as often as is needed so that we are able to see how our behaviour is influenced by our thoughts and our environment. So, this kind of virtuous pursuit is aided by being open and receptive rather than being trained onto one modality: the single good thought. I'm not saying your method is wrong, just that different situations call upon different forms of sati or a different kind of attention.
In some instances, I have found it helpful to let whatever occurs occur. This often means letting go of dhamma concepts and throwing caution to the wind. I make mistakes and I give my apologies, but I learn valuable lessons about myself, people and the complexity of social dynamics. I think this kind of raw human intimacy cannot be given the substitute we call dhamma, but I think it helps to have a reasonable ability to manage your own emotions.
We all have our different skill sets in dhamma, and you may not have found what's most useful to you at this moment or perhaps something needs tweaking a little. There's a lot to be said for trial and error. Largely, I'm an observer; I watch, study and examine my own behaviour and others' behaviour through the magnifying glass of dhamma. Sometimes I throw myself in there, sometimes I don't. It's nice to have the choice.

Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have
a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have
sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did
during the day.

The general idea of good and bad comes from preconceived notions, man-made conceptions that only produce stress. For example, good and bad define each other and the void in the middle is called stress. In Buddhist thought, we can see this as attraction and aversion leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain and suffering. Having said that, I think it can be helpful to generalize good and bad for the sake of orientation. But, ultimately, whatever knows morality knows it from a place beyond conceptions. Keeping to the basic precepts is enough for most people. I would't discount the single thought practice; it just may not be practical all of the time.
Adjunct to this, some Theravadins have hundreds of ridiculous rule sets that constrict the practitioner such that they lose their autonomy to systematic regimes. Now, sometimes I dwell in arcane regions of the cosmos to try and understand humans from a new perspective, but this I could never understand.

So How am I improve the situation?

Studying the Noble Eightfold Path.

I don't understand your question fully.
In general the five spiritual faculties support one another. Ie wisdom or understanding cannot culminate without development of effort/perstence [putting in the work] and a development of samadhi which leads to knowledge & vision.
I will give sutta references

"Monks, these are the four developments of concentration. Which four? There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
"These are the four developments of concentration.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

Samadhi can be in short defined thus;

Therein what is samādhi-awakening-factor? That which is stability of consciousness. right samādhi, samādhi-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor. (6)For him of calm body (of mental aggregates) and mental pleasure, consciousness is in samādhi. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor.
The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, imperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration—this is same as composure [collectedness/self-collectedness/onepointedness]

Patisambhidamagga explains that it's power is non-distractedness.
I won't dump more text here on sati but i did recently itt, in the last part of the answer;
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/43920/8527
To me it sounds like you are dealing with a bunch of hindrances such as doubt about the method & development, worry about the strength of your faculties, general restlessness & restlessness about the Dhamma, discontentment and wanting to soon experience the comforts of the noble one's.
If you are always thinking and analyzing you might want to develop jhana and learn to calm the thought formations.
If your sila is good then use that to go deep into the rupa & arupa jhana and proceed to entering into cessation of perception & feeling so that your klesha are destroyed by the seeing with wisdom.
If you are just keeping sila and neglecting seclusion from unwholesome states then you probably won't have any substantial contentment, will feel deprived of comforts and be tempted by sensuality.

'dead man posting' is an awesome screen name / handle. I love it! Great name for an arahant also to carve on your stupa when you succeed.

arahants don't die.

In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no
space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is
good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow
five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong.

The above is correct, as the Buddha taught Rahula in MN 61.

So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not
visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop

Yes, the above can occur because morality/being good, while being necessary and desirable, can also be a strong source of clinging to 'self'.
In the Dhammapada, it is taught: (i) avoid evil; (ii) do good; (iii) purify the mind. The phrase 'purify the mind' means to purify the mind of attachment/clinging because avoiding evil & doing good can cause attachment/clinging.

I was trying to improve samadhi but it
weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind.
Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple.

The term "sati" or "mindfulness" means "to remember" and "to not forget" to practise the Dhamma Teachings. SN 46.3 says: "a bhikkhu who recollects the Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu".
Therefore, as shown in your question, sati is required to practise good conduct, as explained in MN 117, as follows:

One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
speech: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right speech.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
action: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
right action.

This said, the type or object of sati for the development of morality can be much different to the type or object of sati required for the development of samadhi.
To develop samadhi, the object of sati (remembering) is either the breathing (for beginners) or "letting go" (for mature practitioners), as explained as follows:

There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; always mindful he breathes out. MN 118

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.  SN 48.10

The mindfulness practise for "letting go" is far more subtle than the mindfulness practise for maintaining good behaviour.
Therefore, as described in your question, as you attempt to develop samadhi, your mindfulness of good behaviour weakens. This probably occurs because your wisdom about what is good & bad behaviour has not yet been fully developed and consolidated.

So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming
wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But
this prevent having samdadhi.

Yes, as i explained, this is an ordinary expected obstacle. One of the "fetters" ("obstacles") to Stream-Entry is called "sīlabbata-parāmāsa", which includes crude or clumsy attachment to morality.
I cannot give you any advice about how to improve your situation, apart from encouraging you to be patient. As your sati of good behaviour becomes better and better and more consolidated, I imagine samadhi will naturally develop from this.

Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day.

Yes.
When you are around people, you should maintain mindfulness of skillful behaviour & avoiding unskillful behaviour.
When you are alone, you should try to develop mindfulness of one single object, such as the breathing or such as "letting go" of all desires.

Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

SN 46.3 says:

"Whenever a bhikkhu who recollects the Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by
the bhikkhu".
"Whenever, bhikkhus, the mind becomes concentrated in a bhikkhu whose body is tranquil and who is happy, on that occasion the
enlightenment factor of concentration is aroused by the bhikkhu."

In summary, sati means to bring & maintain the Teachings in mind. Samadhi means to have a unified mind based on the mind being tranquil & happy.

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


text:
The Buddha and the act of smiling
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa.
Even though it may at first hand appear to be a shallow subject and inquiry, I happen to find it of relevance to the practice and wondered about it.
How prevalent was the Buddha's smiling ?
As I was starting to read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Buddha Smiles", it is stated :

The Pali Canon has a reputation for being humorless. And it’s easy to
see why. In some of its passages, the Buddha seems to regard humor in
a bad light. For instance, in the Wailing Discourse (AN 3:107) he
refers to “laughing excessively, showing one’s teeth,” as a form of
childishness, and counsels that a monk, when feeling joy in the
Dhamma, should simply smile. His instructions to Rāhula in MN 61 note
that one shouldn’t tell a deliberate lie, “even in jest.” A passage in
the Vinaya (Sk 51) tells of a monk, formerly an actor, who made a joke
about the Saṅgha. The Buddha, in response, made it an offense for a
monk to tell a joke not only about the Saṅgha, but also about the
Buddha or Dhamma.
There is also the famous verse in the Dhp 146 that seems aimed at
squelching all forms of merriment:
"What laughter, why joy, when constantly aflame? Enveloped in darkness,
don’t you look for a lamp?"
And then there’s the fact that the Buddha himself rarely smiles in the
Canon, and when he does, the reasons for his smile are never
hilarious.

(the emphasize in the quoted passages is a making of mine)
Yet, I started to also read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught" in which I can read the following :

The Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy. He was described by his
contemporaries as ‘ever-smiling’ (mihitapubbamgama). In Buddhist
painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with a
countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate.

There seems to be a divergence in the two quoted passages as to whether he was "ever-smiling" or only in rare occasions.
In Bhante Vimalaramsi's teaching the act of smiling within one's practice is quite present yet I cannot recall from what I read in the suttas the mentioning of smiling.
I'd appreciate learning more about it.
(If such a question is indeed irrelevant please kindly let me know and I'll delete the question).
With metta.

Related: Are there examples of the Buddha showing humour in the Pali Canon?

The Buddha smiles many times in the suttas, in fond remembrance of experiences that brought great wisdom.

MN83:2.1: Then the Buddha smiled at a certain spot.

The Buddha does not smile at the suffering of others. His smiles are never cruel. His smiles are for the remembrance of great wisdom and insight that can be shared. The Buddha smiles for us all, never against any.

MN83:21.16: Ānanda, I say to you:
MN83:21.17: ‘You all should keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my final men.’”
MN83:21.18: That is what the Buddha said.
MN83:21.19: Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda was happy with what the Buddha said.

The Buddha does have a manner of speaking wisdom that can lead others to smile as if in reaction to a deadpan joke:

AN8.63:1.2: “Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”
AN8.63:1.3: “This is exactly how some foolish people ask me for something.
AN8.63:1.4: But when the teaching has been explained they think only of following me around.”

Here, the Buddha is being completely serious, but his statement recalls our own folly and hubris. And we smile at the gentle remembrance of the depth of his wisdom, just as the Buddha smiled in MN83 at his own experience of escaping folly by means of the compassionate help of another.

But is it the case that an awakened one can smile at the unfortunate situation of others by means of wisdom and insight?

@Max, that's a good point. I've added a new quote about AN8.63, which is one of the suttas that makes me smile.

If I may bring forth an answer to my own question, I have found a passage in the suttas that may provide some useful information on the matter. In the sutta MN 81 With Ghaṭikāra it is said :

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was wandering in the land of
the Kosalans together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants. Then the
Buddha left the road, and at a certain spot he smiled. Then Venerable
Ānanda thought, “What is the cause, what is the reason why the Buddha
smiled? Realized Ones do not smile for no reason.”

https://suttacentral.net/mn81/en/sujato

There are certain reasons for being joyful. Including the ones which make you smile. Remembering Buddha and understanding him is a reason to smile. Buddha himself smiled when he remembered his past lives... Only in one sutta nobody smiled and that was MN1 where he explained root of all things...

Smiling is an essential ingredient in Thich Nhat Hanh's practice. Starting when one wakes up, and prevalent in many of his talks, writings, and instructions.
So if he teaches today that which the Buddha taught, you can extrapolate backwards.


text:
Does Buddhism apply to this formula for Christianity?
In a discussion about suffering with my brother that got heated he said,
"Buddhism can't end suffering any more than Christianity or Islam, it's a great sales pitch though. Formula to religion: life is bad, but we can end suffering in some distant end goal that no one can ever actually achieve."
I'm a not very well studied or practiced, so I didn't know exactly how to respond and it's shaking my worldview.

You'll encounter more than many who will unconsciously demand that you remain in the domain of suffering. It's not possible for them to see beyond it - they're transfixed by it, and anyone who suggests that there is a better way to operate is seen as crazy. It's a common outlook by the average run-of-the-mill person. Better to not have those discussions with them. In this way, it requires complete respect and trust towards your own autonomy. To do this we turn away from the commonly accepted ideas of society. It's tough, but it can be done.

I am not too versed in Buddhism, so only making this a comment. When Buddhism emerged there was a wide belief in reincarnation, and the sufferings buddhism tries to 'cure' is also 'birth'. So in a sense buddhism is playing the long game by teaching how to avoid reincarnation (and more suffering from that).

Striving towards an ideal can be good even if that ideal is not reachable. If you strive towards ending suffering, you may only end up reducing suffering. Reducing suffering in itself is not bad or pointless.

Keeping other people in line with one's own world view is an unfortunately common human quirk.  In a very different context, consider the analogy of the crab bucket, as described by Terry Pratchett in his book Snuff.  Here's the page on the L-Space wiki.

"Anyone as experienced in handling seafood as Ms Pushpram knows that no lid is necessary on a bucket of crabs. If one tries to climb out, the others will pull it back. Crabs fall considerably lower on the evolutionary scale than primates and, certainly, people, so this seems to be a basic force of life. Petty jealousy or a reluctance to see anyone do better has probably slowed the development of civilisation more than anything."

For me, the Buddha’s great insight about suffering had a very practical goal in this life—not some future one. I see this goal being confused with the accomplishment of the enlightenment and total realization of the Buddha. That takes much time and patient dedication which I won’t speak about.
I feel that it is important to point out a couple of obvious differences between Christianity and Islam, and what came to be called Buddhism: the Buddha was not God and is not the creator, and the point of Buddhism is not to worship Buddha, but to emulate him throughout your life, while practicing what he taught about ending suffering. The desire to end suffering does not bring about ‘happiness’. That is the well-crafted carrot on a stick that consumptive corporatists dangle in front of us to keep us wanting more and more in a hopeless chase to find something which ultimately can’t be found outside ourselves.
The Buddha’s path doesn’t make you happy, although you might experience being happy while on that path; instead, the Buddha taught how to end suffering, which leads to the satisfaction called comfort. All too often today, that message is corrupted, by those that should know better, into a ‘buddhist’ search for ‘happiness.’

The goal to be sought is not momentary elation, but an enduring, universal omnipresent enjoyment: “… Unshakable freedom of mind, this is the goal…” [1] when achieved, then “to whatever place you go, you shall go in comfort; wherever you stand, you shall stand in comfort; wherever you sit, you shall sit in comfort; and wherever you make your bed, you shall lie down in comfort.” [2]

If you think about it, all sentient beings seek comfort, not happiness. It is only in modern times that ‘happiness’ has become our stated goal, but it is only an abstraction, not something that is attainable, and marketeers know this. That is why they are always trying to convince us that we need to buy their products to be more comfortable in some way. They know that this is our actual motivation, but they also know that desiring or craving things will not bring us happiness, nor comfort, so we will never be satisfied.

Any community that lives on staples has relatively few wants. The community that can be trained to desire new things, even before the old have been entirely… consumed, yields a market to be measured more by desires than needs. And man’s desires can be developed so that they will greatly overshadow his needs.[3]

This is the exact opposite of Buddha’s great insight about how not to suffer.
I’ll leave it at that, so you can answer your brother without getting into the complexities of how one goes about implementing what Buddha taught.
[1] “The Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya),” Volume I, tr. I.B. Horner, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1954, pg 253
[2] “The Book of the Gradual Sayings,” Volume IV, tr. E.M. Hare, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1935, 1955, pg 200
[3] American Prosperity - Its Causes And Consequences, Paul M. Mazur (Lehman Brothers) 1928, pgs. 24-25

This discourse around the false divide between comfort and happiness isn't only wrong and misleading, but also what made me drop Buddhism altogether.

Comfort is the name of a feeling that is described as “contented well-being.” Happiness is an abstract conceptual state. To make a dying person comfortable in their last hours is a compassionate act, but does that infuse the dying person with happiness as their life is ending? What is it about the uses of these two words that disgusts you so that you would give up something you once were flirting with ( and still maintain an interest in)?

You are defining them as different things, so your argument will always sound true. But that's a false tautology. Comfort is dependent on happiness - not the euphoric, explosive type we usually imagine, but instead on the small set of things that brings one's brain to release a few drops of dopamine at a time. A warm blanket on a cold day, having food when hunger hits, and so on. Showing compassion to a dying person - comforting them - does make them happy, even if by a little bit. You can't have one without the other.

To finish it up, "Contented well being" is just as abstract as "being happy", but pointing one as abstract conceptual state and not the other creates a situation akin to othering - it devalues "happiness", even if the two are, conceptually, equivalent. This type of biased thinking is rampant on most religions - Buddhism included - and, while it may sound profound and wise at first, it reveals itself as shallow as a puddle once you remove the  smoke and the mirrors from the discourse.

(more so, the "If you think about it, all sentient beings seek comfort, not happiness" line ignores animals like bonobos, dolphins, gorillas, chipanzees, dogs, cats, and a bunch of others that actively display fun-seeking/happiness seeking behavior, not merely what you define as "comfort", so whatever derives from that premise is already wrong from the start.)

@T.Sar: I wonder if you have encountered this description, of how to be perfectly unhappy? https://theoatmeal.com/comics/unhappy Real humans, choose all kinds of things other than happiness, or pleasure, or even meaning. I see the best 'carrot' as play, which is to say creativity, development: "Man's maturity: to have regained the seriousness that he had as a child at play" This is the real apex of the hierarchy of needs, and where we build new ways to be, together - once our work is done. And, the very opposite of: "in all their promises of paradise, you will not hear a laugh".

I think the comparison drawn in your second paragraph should not be between Buddha and God (non-deity/deity, as you point out), but between Buddha and Jesus - earthly presences that lived as examples to emulate, albeit different examples.

@CriglCragl That's still falling into a rabbit hole of trying to define happiness, comfort, and whatever else. "Real humans choose all kinds of things other than happiness" only if you set happiness as something that you aren't choosing. If you define happiness as "events that release dopamine", for example, then Playing is seeking happiness, creativity and development is seeking happiness. Sometimes, even suffering on purpose (by choosing to endure pain, for example) can be seeking happiness. Doesn't matter what one says about happiness - it is only valid for a very, very narrow meaning.

Well, @T.Sar, we seem to have different dictionaries and understandings of English. The definition for “comfort” is “contented well-being” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and their thesaurus doesn’t list happiness as a synonym for comfort. As for “happiness,” in English, it can only be referring to an abstract state or quality. That’s not my definition of happiness, its the definition of what words that end in “-ness” mean in English: they are abstract qualities or states. (Part 1/3)

So a human can be conscious, and we treat that quality of a human as if it is something in itself—“consciousness.” Trouble is, aside from conscious beings, no one can actually point to anything that is consciousness itself. And that’s the problem with the word “happiness.” You feel happy engaged in role-playing games, so you feel justified in saying that “happiness” means the state when you feel happy, but that’s not what the word happiness means - your happy feeling role playing is particular to you. Like consciousness, no one seems to be able to find happiness anywhere on its own. (Part 2/3)

That’s why it’s a carrot leading people around on hopeless searches for it. Sure, you can be happy when you are comfortable, but you can’t be happiness. That’s the distinction I don’t think you are getting. And happy and comfortable, like my dictionary says, are two different things: happy is a feeling, comfortable is a state. So the problem you had with Buddhism, is actually a problem of linguistics. (Part 3/3)

The same dictionary's definition for "happiness" : "a state of well-being and contentment : joy". So, by the dictionary itself, you are indeed incorrect. I don't understand why you felt you should point out the webster's definition for one but not the other - that's very underhanded.

Yes, as I said, people actually seek comfort, not an abstract happiness. Language reflects that. If you look back at the quote I gave above in my answer of what Buddha said, he pointed out that "The goal to be sought is not momentary elation, but an enduring, universal omnipresent enjoyment." The dictionary, following the way most people use the word, categorizes one of the meanings of happiness that they list as "a state of well-being and contentment: JOY" and that is exactly wrong according to the Buddha. This is the point that you are not getting.

No, that's the point you are not getting. You can't cherry pick from where you pick a definition, you can't ignore sources, and you can't create fake tautologies from thin air. That's the type of thought that poisoned Buddhism for me - it is fake philosophy, to create a mask of purity to hide away arrogance. It is exactly the same as every-single-other religion. I'm dropping this discussion and your discourse. Have a good day, sir.

" a rabbit hole of trying to define happiness, comfort, and whatever else" I was trying to illustrate a different mode to that. Happiness & pleasure as motivations are about moving towards preconceived sources of. Play is different, like exploration: we don't know what we will find. "desire only that of which you have no hope, seek only that of which you have no clue" Like Nagarjuna, as described here: https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/nagarjuna-nietzsche-rorty-and-their-strange-looping-trick

Buddhism has diagnosed all suffering as possessive attachment to the five components of life (body, feelings, perception, mental formations & consciousness) as 'self'.
Buddhism has also diagnosed the primary cause or fuel behind this attachment is craving.
Therefore, ask your brother: "Can suffering exist without self-attachment & craving?"
Then ask your brother: "If there was no craving & no self-attachment, would suffering end?"
For example, ask your brother would he suffer if my computer was stolen? Then ask your brother would he suffer if his computer (or another object he cherished) was stolen? The expected answer to this question proves the suffering is due to self-attachment; that he would not suffer about my lost computer but would suffering about his lost computer.
Then ask your brother: "Does the suffering occur because he desires/craves to have his computer and he desires to not have to spend money on a new computer?" The expected answer to this question proves the suffering & attachment is caused by craving.
Then ask your brother if he completed believed the computer was "not-self" ("anatta"), like the Enlightened Buddhists completely believe, would he suffer over a disappearing computer?
This shows Buddhist enlightenment works to end suffering.

he would probably say, "how can you prove that craving and attachment can come to an end?" I have to guess at what he would say
because he's no longer willing to have this conversation

Say to him: "Imagine you saw, from a distance, a beautiful looking lady with long blonde hair dressed in a red bikini walking towards you. Then as the lady came close to you and took off her bikini and blonde wig, it was revealed the lady was really a man dressed as a woman". Would your desire end?
Or imagine he is given a hot nice garlic smelling pizza box but when he opens the pizza box, it is full of dog shit. Would his desire end?
The examples show desire can end.
Or another example: say he was offered cheap wine to drink but then was offered very expensive wine to drink. Would his desire towards the cheap wine end? Similarly, when a meditator enters the heavenly meditation state called "jhana", because pleasure in that heavenly state is far better than the pleasure of sensual objects, the desire towards sensual objects end. This shows desire can end.

he would probably say, "how can you prove that craving and attachment can come to an end?"
I have to guess at what he would say because he's no longer willing to have this conversation

he might also ask, can the essential human nature and aspect of craving, something deeper than the example of the illusory woman, be removed? can the sense of self be removed? is there any empirical evidence for any of that?

there is no empirical evidence because it is clear in buddhism only a small minority of people can remove the self illusion. you should focus on the subject of suffering and how it is only Buddhism that clearly teaches all suffering is attachment to the five aggregates, as explained in the 1st noble truth.

Similarly, when a meditator enters the heavenly meditation state called "jhana", because pleasure in that heavenly state is far better than the pleasure of sensual objects, the desire towards sensual objects end. - But only until the meditator comes out of jhana and remembers there's a pile of dirty dishes to clean. Similarly, pleasure in a state of MDMA intoxication is much better than the pleasure of sensual objects. But the moment you come down, the desire returns.

Your brother projects his own definition of suffering onto Buddhism.
I've read that the Buddha said something close to this:

"There are these three kinds of suffering [dukkhata]. What three? Suffering which is pain & misery [dukkhadukkhata], suffering which is the formations [sankharadukkhata], suffering associated with change [viparinamadukkhata].

These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said: 'Whatever is felt comes under stress.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change.
"And I have also taught the step-by-step cessation of fabrications.

Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'"

Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.

Suffering is defined differently in these religions and therefore the goals are entirely different.
Nowhere does Islam define perception, congnizance, feelings, sensations, ideas, intentions, attention, mind or intellect as suffering; and nowhere do they speak of an altogether extinguishment of the conditioned as 'the unconditioned' and define the extinguishment as primary principal bliss, which is spoken of as antonymic to suffering in a definitive sense.
As a matter of fact these systems of thought aren't in agreement as to what consciousness is and understand the concept of feelings & perception differently.
They aren't in agreement as to what suffering is and as to what is & isn't possible. The goals are antagonistic.
If the goals are entirely different then it's foolish to say "the goal is the same and they all fall short of the goal".

I like Stephen Batchelor's emphasis on the four noble truths as to be actively realised, rather than to be taken as dogmatic declarations. He adds the verbs I've italicised:
understand There is suffering (or anguish, or unsatisfactoriness) (& it's one of the three marks of existence)
realise There are causes of suffering
giving up (attachments that cause suffering shows us ) There is a path to the cessation of suffering
develop (using) The path to the cessation of suffering which is Buddhism and the Eightfold Path (which can be seen as like a 'stock take', working through attention to different aspects of our life, like speech, or livelihood, and applying the previous : understand, realise, give up, develop ; about what we know causes suffering in each area)
So I see it not as a distant goal, but an active process, yo bring into our lives. Through developing meditative concentration, and mindfulness, we witness where suffering is, we try to understand it's causes, we try to change things and let go of the parts of ourselves which contribute to causing suffering. And the Eightfold Path helps us keep balance with our attention, on to different aspects of our lives.
This focus on the personal, the taking responsibility for our reactions to the world, is just like stoicism, in mood, stepping away from being coerced by others & ourselves. But, Buddhism goes further. It says holding to these truths, this path, can take us to a different way to be, a way not premised on attachment, and suffering that follows 'like the wheel follows the ox'. A way that is to our ordinary way, like being awake is to being asleep. Unshakeable liberation, from causing suffering.
That still hasn't ended suffering. Not being a cause of suffering, does not end suffering in the world. That is where the bodhisattva path is needed, to save all sentient beings from suffering. And that, is a distant goal.
But a long journey, begins with a little step.

This question deals with soteriology — the theory of salvation advocated by a religion or philosophy — and soteriology is never quite as simple and straightforward as one might like. We can discuss the differences in soteriology between Buddhist and Abrahamic worldviews. But if we do we have to recognize that mystical sects interpret soteriological principles differently from liturgical sects, and those differences can be significant.
As a general rule, liturgical sects present salvation as a sort of transaction: obedience to doctrinal principles in the present make one welcome into a state of salvation sometime in the future. Christians, thus, hold out the promise of heaven  after death for those faithful who adhere to the commandments and teachings; Liturgical Buddhists, by contrast, envision a series of rebirths, where those dedicated to the teachings of the Buddha use 'right' behavior to slowly relive themselves of of past misdeeds, working their way up to ultimate salvation-through-release of the nirvana.  Liturgical practices are often comforting and effective for those spiritually at sea; who need structure and guidance to lead them to proper understanding.
Mystical sects tend to remove the temporal element: to take the idea of salvation out of the (distant) future and re-construe it as an ever-present state which one merely needs to access, touch, or remember. Christian mystics tend to follow Luke 17:21 and the idea that the Kingdom of God is already among or within us; Mystical Buddhists tend to emphasize the immediacy of the state of enlightenment, which exists beneath and around and within the attachments that cover it.
It is often the case that people outgrow liturgical worldviews before they have properly grown into a mystical worldview. For such people, liturgical practices will start to seem 'phony' or 'strained', and the entire project of religion feels bankrupt. Some people reach that stage and collapse into a sour nihilism; your friend's statement is a typical expression of that. Other people retreat into confusion or agnosticism, perhaps clinging to the form of the faith without really believing it. A few go through a rough patch and transcend, returning with a more mystical outlook and a different relationship to the practices and tenets of the faith.
If you're friend's sourness has shaken your worldview a bit, that's fine. Worldviews need to be shaken every once in a while or we fall into complacency. But don't doubt the reality of the teaching. Instead, re-examine your relationship to the teaching. It will come into balance.

That is certainly the formula for Christianity. Christianity is a mental virus. Adaptations that help it infect new hosts, or keep the host from leaving (being cured) are propagated into the next generation. Any mutations that set a host free, would have to set them free of Christianity too, so such mutations aren't evolutionarily advantageous.
All religions are susceptible to this kind of value drift. However, Buddhism has some characteristics that keep it purer:

The idea that Buddhism is just a vehicle, to be discarded the moment the journey is complete, is explicitly included in Buddhism. Buddhism is designed to be abandoned when its usefulness is over. The same can't be said for Christianity. To a Christian, the idea of them becoming enlightened (exactly like Jesus) is offensive.
There is a written record of a lot of things Buddha said, that has been preserved far better than what Jesus said. The New Testament is a set of stories mostly written by people who had never met him, then copied and edited, bits added or taken away depending on the preferences of the copier, and at some point any writings that weren't consistent with what the people in charge wanted it to say, were destroyed and made illegal.

Some religions offer an end to suffering only after death, in heaven, provided that you're a believer and have fulfilled the requirements of those religions.
But in Buddhism, when you look deep into the original teachings of the Buddha, he provided methods to reduce sufferings in the here and now, even for a lay person, who is not a professional full time practitioner of the Noble Eightfold Path.
By adopting the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, and changing his thoughts in such a away that he takes responsibility for his future actions, and detaches himself emotionally from things out of his control, a Buddhist, even a lay Buddhist, can reduce his sufferings in the here and now.
The idea is that if you cling to things that are out of your control, and those things change because they are impermanent, then this will cause you to suffer. If you cling to the past, that you cannot change, then it will also make you suffer. Also, for things that are in your control (i.e. future thoughts, words and actions), if you behave unvirtuously, then it will also cause you to suffer.
Understanding this, a Buddhist can change his thoughts and behavior in such a way that he can reduce his suffering.
In other words, a Buddhist doesn't even have to be a stream enterer to experience a significant reduction in suffering.

From the conversation you had with your brother I assume(may be wrong assumption) he is agnostic. He seems to have a strong sense of attachment to life. Maybe he is not yet seeing the vicissitudes of life. Every one of us is wired with innate ignorance and it is easy to have a blind eye to the suffering that is happening all around.And also it is extremely hard to understand that ignorance is at the root of our suffering. By suffering here i mean the ever perceived gap between what is and what should be(I guess this includes every form of suffering).
If he is of the type who doesn't see the suffering enough yet, give him a gap to see the suffering by himself or if you can point him to how dissatisfaction, insecurity and conflict are prevalent in every walk of human life.
If he is of the type who sees the suffering but doesn't think there is any escape from it, you can point him how Buddhism can help to end suffering by clearly making us to understand the root cause of suffering and showing us the method to fix the cause there by freeing us from suffering, right now in the present life.
What use is of promise that is only fulfilled after death ?
If I may suggest, compassion and love should be the motive during our discussions with fellow human beings, not the desire to be right always.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal -Dhammapada
I feel here hatred is not just simple hatred but hatred in many subtle forms like our desire to be right, our desire to despise other points of view, jealousy, competitiveness and antagonism etc.

life is bad, but we can end suffering in some distant end goal

It may sound facile, but if the cause of suffering is craving, then acknowledging that, and finding a means to end craving, would be a special way overcome "suffering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
However, if suffering just means "life is bad", rather than life being endless rebirths into conditioned existence, then Buddhism may not be a very helpful counteraction - even if it is a "moral" one.
Because, as you say, few can be Buddhas in this life.


text:
What is before spring?
Genjokoan says

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression
complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call
winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter.

And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

Dogen is said to have said:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
But what does “is” mean, and how does it help form the answer being searched for by the OP?

In the question, the OP interprets what Dogen said, in the text that the OP quoted, as meaning:

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

But Dogen said:

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Lets deal with the first two assertions, and leave the metaphor for a moment. In the quote from Dogen’s “Uji,” there is the line:

Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.

We are so used to being told what to think, we have forgotten what it means to be. I like to ask of others, “Today, we know that the heart pumps blood, but before humans invented the water pump, what was the heart for?”
Of course, if we give it some time, and don’t just shut the question out of our thoughts, we all know what the heart is for—and it’s not to be a pump. Why? Because before we were told what it was, we all could experience it ourselves—and we still do. It’s just that when we are confronted today with a question, we can’t think of much beyond the scientific facts, like “it pumps blood,” because our personal experience is always held to be of secondary importance to what we’ve been told to know, and therefore what to think.
So, if I ask you now “what is time?” looking for your experience of time, rather than the scientific definition of time, what might it be? So I ask you, what is time?
Go ahead, take your time.

Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.

This should just hammer it home for you. While you are here in this life, time is not separate from you—it’s your time—it’s not clock time, it’s not a stream of time flowing past you, its not a static road that you travel, because it is nothing other than you—your being here. So time and being are the same—the “is” between them is merely saying these two concepts mean exactly the same thing, as the sentence: “That is James” means, when you are pointing your finger at me.
So the takeaway is: there is no ‘Time’, there is only your time and my time, and the time of all other manifested things. You don’t have to be real, the way we think Time is real, but you’re not nothing either. You are being-time: manifested forms of time that we experience as our being here.
So that is Dogen’s assertion first quoted by the OP. But did you notice that if that is what time is, then there is nothing for us to move through, and nothing that moves past us? We ‘flow´ through our ‘selves’—our time, but not through time ‘itself’ because there is no such thing. Thats why Dogen says:

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment.”

We flow through our being, the way a play flows through its script—in its own time. But our being is always complete now—it can’t come to be, or cease to be in the way scientists would frame it as a passage of events over ‘Time’.
So now, you are probably lost in Space, not knowing what to think. So don’t think. Pay attention to what is right now in each moment. As Dogen points out:

Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.

What is a moment? Don’t fall back into thinking about clock-time! I prefer to use the word “vignette” because when I clearly  attend to what is, I notice that there is always a history hanging about—the ‘causes’ and ‘conditions’, seasoned with a bit of serendipity, that ‘brought me’ metaphorically speaking, to now. But its just history, a story about how I got here, and it’s just a story, because it isn’t still happening. In fact—the fact of what I experience—it isn’t still happening, and there isn’t any ‘Time’ in which it can be hiding out! This moment is all there is. But this moment—this Now—is not mine alone.
But there is more! My time is still unfolding—because I’m still here. So there is an expectation in this moment of still more ‘to come’—it’s another story, perhaps a dream, or just a job I ‘have’ to get done. Or maybe its a refusal to accept what is, and a story of a victim is in it’s place in my dream.
And then I notice that the causes and conditions are not mine alone, but entail and are indicative of other vignettes, other being-times, intricately woven into this moment now, because mine is not the only vignette playing out. As Dogen says:

In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.

This now—this moment—contains all the vignettes of every ‘thing’ and every ‘body’ all in this intricately woven now. And what ‘was’ are just stories, and what ‘will be’ are just dreams, because there isn’t ‘what is past’, and there isn’t ‘what will be’, there is just now, whole and complete. Nothing real ‘in and of itself’, but much more than the back story, and much more than the dream of what is to become, it’s what appears to be, now.
This is why Dogen says:

They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

When I am ‘in’ (experiencing) Winter, I call it “Winter,” not “Spring,” and not “the “beginning of Spring.” This doesn’t mean that there are not causes and conditions now that may mature as the being of “Spring,” but when it is Spring, I call it “Spring,” and not the “end of Winter,” because that is just a story I tell myself about what was the case once upon a time.
There is no moment of transition for events to happen in. There is only this, now, and nothing else (remembering that “this” is a woven whole of every being-time all at once this).
So, “Winter,” in our habitual and shared way of seeing things in this Sahā world, comes before Spring, but never will you be in Winter while you are in Spring, nor will you ever be in a moment when there is a transition from one to another, for that moment can be neither.
And none of this stops anyone from weaving stories of cause and effects, natural laws to be followed by things, and those saving graces of ‘chance’ and ‘very long periods of timé, and it works to a certain point, allowing us to note tendencies and habits, allowing us to predict the weather, or how long a computer memory chip might take to respond to a query about its contents. That is, until we pay attention to what is truly present now and we cannot find what was and what might be fully present too.
Even scientists today no longer believe that Time is a thing.

you seem to say - early in the answer - that i am wrong in my interpretation, but it's not clear what you think i'm mistaken on? and i think i can include quotes from G. which show i'm just paraphrasing different parts of the argument therein

When reading the words of an enlightened being, we can only interpret their meaning. It's not that we need an understanding of the ‘subject’ in order to know their true meaning. On the contrary, it’s that we need to not have an understanding that stands in the way. (1/5)

If we have sufficient meditative insights, we can hear the meaning, like it is a musical score, guided by our own insights, that are like the possible individual notes that can be arranged in a composition. (2/5)

If we only study words, without ever gaining the necessary insights, we are forever outside the music hall and we can only interpret what was meant. And yet, until our enlightenment matches that of the enlightened being we are trying to listen to, we will surely miss some of the complexity in the song. (3/5)

Personally, I don’t know of a single Enlightened Western translator (my apologies to those that are), and so the words of someone like Dōgen that I can read in a language other than his native Japanese, is already an interpretation. Onto this, I cast my own. (4/5)

So, I always take what we students say, to be interpretations. I don’t mean that they are necessarily wrong, I am just reminding myself not to fix an understanding in my mind that will stand in the way of hearing the real music. (5/5)

This idea is elaborated in Dogen's work called "Uji" (The Time-Being).
Here I will paste some bits and pieces:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.
In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.
Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.
Do not think that time merely flies away. Do not see flying away as the only function of time. If time merely flies away, you would be separated from time.
The time-being has the quality of flowing. So-called today flows into tomorrow.
You may suppose that time is only passing away, and not understand that time never arrives.
People only see time's coming and going, and do not thoroughly
understand that the time-being abides in each moment.
Do not think flowing is like wind and rain moving from east to west. The entire world is not unchangeable, is not immovable. It flows. Flowing is like spring. Spring with all its numerous aspects is called flowing. When spring flows there is nothing outside of spring. Study this in detail. Spring invariably flows through spring. Although flowing itself is not spring, flowing occurs throughout spring. Thus, flowing is completed at just this moment of spring. Examine this thoroughly, coming and going. In your study of flowing, if you imagine the objective to be outside yourself and that you flow and move through hundreds and thousands of worlds, for hundreds, thousands, and myriads of eons, you have not devotedly studied the buddha way.

What does this all mean? It means there is no hidden essence or identity that  would pass from the past into the future. When milk goes sour and "turns into" yogurt, or firewood burns out and "turns into" ash, or spring ends and summer starts, or "a person dies" - we habitually assume that something, some entity, stays itself throughout all phases and gets transferred from point A to point B to point C. However in reality there is no such thing. Identity is our imputation.
The young person, the old person, and the corpse are not the same entity - they are like the dominos falling in succession, like a moving wave. Similarly, the spring and summer are not the same entity, they are phases of flowing like the dominos in a chain.
Entire world is flowing like that, and most importantly the illusion that "I am staying the same as the time flows" or "I am moving through time while staying myself" - is the illusion of self. Our mind and our experience is part of the flow.
This is why, in Genjokoan:

It is a custom in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we call it “unborn”. And it is an established Buddhist teaching since Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we call it “undying”. Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation.

Hmmm... That's interesting.

so what is before spring? its beginning?

@anon - try to think of it in fractal terms: within the ever-changing aspects of form, we concretize certain particularities of those changes, so winter becomes winter, spring becomes spring, and self-identity becomes self-identity, but they're only fragments of a grand spectacle and that grand spectacle does not fit comfortably within the confines of the conditioned mind.

so spring is before spring?

Spring is just a discrete concept we impute on top of a continuous process. Spring is a human convention - therefore it doesn't have real ontological beginning and end. This is why you are having trouble finding and defining the ends :)

everything is conventional. does that mean we can't ask what is before or after anything?

@anon - Try to isolate the characteristics in this video and name them to your hearts content

i like the analogy @NeuroMax but it is only an analogy. does spring / the fractal have a beginning and end to its before and after? instead of saying nothing is before and after (permanence?) you seem to be saying nothing begins or ends (momentariness?). how do these two truth combine?

@anon - searching for beginnings and endings can be an interesting practice!

sorry if i seem awkward and unhelpful, just not getting quite getting it. dw

@anon - not getting it is a good place to get what you're not getting. Maybe rest in that not getting it mind set and see what happens.

@anon, before and after are fine, point is it's not a previous version of the same thing, nor is it an entirely different thing. "Thing" is an imputation.

Blue mountains are constantly walking.

When spring comes the grass grows.. by itself.
"Before him the dead trees come to life."
The Buddhist approach is to take the middle path, between eternalism and a soul, and nihilism where everything ends at death. We are never isolated individuals: we blurred into existence, as part of someone elses body, cared for through our vulnerability, and absolutely requiring our community-developed language, to even have the word 'self'.
We are built out of the lives of others, and others will take up the masks and costumes that we think we are, until we realise we can put them down. You never are the masks and costumes, you were something that doesn't die, all along.


text:
Buddhist Brahmachariya, Brahmin Brahmachariya, celibacy, chastity
Here is my main question #1
What is the difference between sutta defn. of Brahmacariya and 1) brahmin Brahmacariya predating Buddhism and 2) celibacy and chastity?
defn.: celibacy
the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.
What is the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Although many people use “celibacy” and “abstinence” interchangeably, there is a difference between the two terms. Abstinence usually refers to the decision not to have penetrative sex. ... Celibacy is a vow to remain abstinent over an extended period of time.
defn.: chastity
the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or especially from all, sexual intercourse.
What is an example of chastity? The definition of chastity is a quality held by someone pure, modest or celibate. A virgin is an example of chastity. Faithful married couples are examples of chastity. ... The boy's friends laughed at him when he took a chastity pledge and promised to not have sex.
Note that ‘brahmacariya’ goes much farther than ordinary defn. of ‘chastity’ and ‘celibacy’
Here is my main question #2
Not even having a thought of lust is the EBT definition of brahmacariya, avoiding sex and any kind of physical or mental sexual activity. Ordinary defintions of ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity’ tend to use physical activity to determine status. EBT buddhism focuses on the mental causes that can preempt physical manifestations of lust, kāma . (sutta refs?)
I think there's a sutta (or two) in AN that answers both questions, where the Buddha criticizes Brahmans of his time not living up to brahmacariya.
PED definition:
: Brahmacariya (neuter) [brahma + cariya] a term (not in the strictly Buddhist sense) for observance of vows of holiness, particularly of chastity: good and moral living (brahmaṃ cariyaṃ brahmāṇaṃ vā cariyaṃ = brahmacariyaṃ Pj I 151); especially in Buddhist sense the moral life, holy life, religious life, as way to end suffering, Vin I 12, 19, renouncing the world, study of the Dhamma D I 84, 155; II 106; III 122f., 211; M I 77, 147, 193, 205, 426, 463, 492, 514; II 38; III 36, 116; S I 38, 43, 87, 105, 154, 209; II 24, 29, 120, 219, 278, 284 (°pariyosāna); III 83, 189; IV 51, 104, 110, 126, 136f., 163, 253, V 7f., 15f., 26f., 54f., 233, 262, 272, 352; A I 50, 168, 225; II 26, 44, 185; III 250, 346; IV 311; V 18, 71, 136; Snp 267, 274 (vas-uttama), 566, 655, 1128; Thag 1027, 1079; It 28, 48, 78, 111; Dhp 155, 156, 312; Ja III 396; IV 52; Pv II 913; Dhp-a IV 42 (vasuttamaṃ); Vibh-a 504. — brahmacariyaṃ vussati to live the religious life A I 115 (cf. °ṃ vusitaṃ in formula under Arahant II A); °assa kevalin wholly given up to a good life A I 162; °ṃ santānetuṃ to continue the good life A III 90; Dhp-a I 119; komāra° the religious training of a well-bred youth A III 224; Snp 289.
— abrahmacariya unchastity, an immoral life, sinful living M I 514; D I 4; Snp 396; Pj I 26;

The phrasing of the question could use more focus.

'abrahmacariyā' = no sex, no masturbation, per Vinaya
for a sutta explanation, MN 117 says:

And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko?
Refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual
misconduct.
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, kāmesumicchācārā veramaṇī—
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?
It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence and refraining from the
three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble mind and undefiled
mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino
ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato tīhi kāyaduccaritehi ārati virati paṭivirati
veramaṇī—
MN 117

the three kinds of bad bodily conduct includes any type of bodily conduct that maintains or increases the hindrance of sensual desire, as follows:

And what is the fuel for the five hindrances?
Ko cāhāro pañcannaṃ nīvaraṇānaṃ?
You should say: ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’
‘Tīṇi duccaritānī’tissa vacanīyaṃ.
AN 10.61

sexual thoughts are not included in 'brahmacariyā' because only 'abrahmacariyā' or 'kāyaduccaritehi' are included in the Right Action factor of the Noble Eightfold Path

And what is right action?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing and sexual activity.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī,
abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
This is called right action.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammākammanto.
SN 45.8

sexual thoughts are obviously 'wrong thought' but not 'wrong action', as follows;

And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will,
on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve.
MN 117

as for Brahmins & sex, the sutta sought is possibly AN 5.192, even though such a sutta is not for Buddhists. This sutta appears to say a brahmin is equal to Brahmā when they go forth from the lay life to homelessness and master the Four Brahma Vihara. If the 4th Brahma Vihara of equanimity is mastered then obviously any type of sexual activity is excluded.


text:
Translation of Akkosa Sutta: Insult - ."He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"
Listed below are three translations of Akkosa Sutta provided in access to in access to insight
Which translation has the correct meaning?
The third translation is not far from the common ethics i.e., the virtue of temperance found in most major religions of the world, but what is presented in the first two translations goes beyond that.
Accommodating an angry man sheepishly, I mean responding to him/her kindly to calm them, does no good to the angry man because they will think that they were in the right when they are angry. The short story leading to the sutta's stanza does indicate that too.
As I understand it Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is missing the key part which is present in the two other translations "He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"...But I may be wrong.

Acharya Buddharakkhita translation
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.

......

Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations
If a man's abused and answers back, Of the
two he shows himself the worse. He who does not answer back in kind,
Celebrates a double victory.

......

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translations
You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry   wins a battle   hard
to win.

Using the built-in dictionary I guess the word-by-word translation seems to be as follows:

Tasseva tena pāpiyo,
yo kuddhaṃ paṭikujjhati;
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ.

[Tasseva] [because of] [bad]
[anyone] [angered] [is angry in return]
[angry] [not getting angry in return]
[a battle] [conquers] [hard to conquer]

The Pali being verse is quite terse. Translators into English are almost required to add words to it to make it "clearer" or more grammatical in English, as such you get slightly different translations.
I think your interpretation ...

Accommodating an angry man sheepishly, I mean responding to him/her kindly to calm them

... is slightly wrong. For example if I offend you and you get angry then I might get "sheepish" and try to pacify you. But I don't think the Buddha is "sheepish", nor offensive. I wouldn't say he's even exactly reacting to the anger, the point of the lesson is that he isn't participating in whatever that little drama is playing out -- not offensive, not afraid, not angry ...
And this ...

He who repays an angry man in kind
Is worse than the angry man

... doesn't sound to me perfectly Buddhist (or perfectly enlightened). I think that comparing people is a characteristic of conceit (e.g. explained here). So of the three translations I'm more inclined to go with just, "You make things worse if", but even that's maybe introducing pronouns which didn't exist in the original?
And having accepted, "you make things worse", then why not take it a step a further and translate it, "you just make things worse for yourself", as Ven. Sujato did -- it's worse "for yourself" because, among things, as is being stated, the Buddha isn't taking any part of it. But, also as stated later, it's better for both if you don't.

Thanks... I agree with you... The Buddha is not responding at all! That is exactly I think what makes the teaching different. .....A Cristian would probably say it lucks humility and expect the humble to say  " I'm sorry Akkosa Bharadvaja for making you angry, etc" .... But therein lies the conceit you're looking for even deeper in apparent Humility.

The Sujato translation is:

When you get angry at an angry person
Tasseva tena pāpiyo,
you just make things worse for yourself.
yo kuddhaṃ paṭikujjhati;
When you don’t get angry at an angry person
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
you win a battle hard to win.
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ.

I have zero competence in translating Pali but my mere guess is:

Tasseva (3rd person pronoun in genitive case; genitive means having possession) tena (because of) pāpiyo (sinful)
One has a sin/sinful because of
yo (one who) kuddhaṃ (accusative case is object of the verb; is provoked; is angered) paṭikujjhati (verb; is angry in return; pati + kudh + ya);
one (yo) getting angry/provoked in return (paṭikujjhati; verb) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ; object of the verb)
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
When one (yo) is not angry/provoked in return (appaṭikujjhanto) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ)
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ
one wins a battle hard to win.

Note: for Sujato, possibly "tasseva" is in dative case, which implies "giving" or "making"; rather than genitive case, which implies "possessing".
While i cannot definitively translate the verse, my guess is the translation revolves around the 1st sentence: "Tasseva tena pāpiyo" and particularly who is the owner or maker of the "pāpiyo" ("sinful").
My guess is the person getting angry in return possesses the "pāpiyo" because it appears the "pāpiyo" ("sinful"), together with the "jeti" ("victory"), are the main subjects or outcomes of the entire verse.
Therefore, I merely guess the Acharya Buddharakkhita & Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations are the most accurate because the "pāpiyo" ("sinful") is possessed by "the person" ("tasseva") rather than possessed by Thanissaro's generalization of "things". But I could be wrong.
Often, our Soviet & European moderators are fluent with grammar and can assist, here.

This seems very straightforward, I don't see what's to doubt here.
The Brahmin insults the Buddha. The Buddha stays calm and says, I don't accept your insults nor react to them, so they still belong to you, just like the food you serve to your guests belongs to you when they leave it untouched.
The verse says, when someone is angry and that makes you angry at them - you get in trouble, but if you don't get angry then you can win the battle.

It is to one's, therefore, disadvantage
when one gets angry at someone angry at them.
Not getting triggered by anger
one wins the battle difficult.

In that translation that you found confusing, I'm pretty sure "in kind" means "in the same way" (i.e. with anger) - not "with kindness".

I understand "one wins a battle hard to win" as (one's battle with the experience and the consequence of anger caused by egocentrism), not (the battle with the other person).

Agreed, this is explained in the final part of the verse, the battle hard to win is finding a win-win solution for both the sides.

The question is ... Is the verse implying that answering an angry man in any way is wrong? If it's saying that "don't fight anger with anger" then its straightforward or  it it's saying like a Christian "calm the angry man by humility" then it is also common and straightforward, but it seems to go further.

I've read that, as i understand it, one shouldn't strike a Brahman and a Brahman [being struck] shouldn't let anger loose; that it is shameful to strike a Brahman and more shameful if being struck one was to let anger loose.
To me it seems parallel to the OP discourse and i think it's probably a reverberation of the same verse.


text:
Is Buddhism methodological solipsism?
Is Buddhism methodological solipsism? Is Buddhism similar to methodological solipsism, or is it something completely different?

Is this some kind of homework assignment? We had about three questions on this same topic recently.

It isn’t solipsistic because the self that can be known is illusory in that it does not have an independent self-nature, and all the qualities that can be known about it are ephemera, i.e., there is nothing that can be identified as an enduring individual.
It is the same for the conscious perception of all ‘external’ things. Even the mind that is taken to be one’s own cannot be so, because neither the self that we constitutionally identify with, nor the contents we assign to our mind, such as thoughts, feelings, and intentions, arise independently from an enduring individual mind.
Breaking through these illusions, which collectively are categorized as being the result of ignorance, is the point of Buddhist practices that lead to a direct experience of the nature (naturing) of mind. Following this path, and accomplishing this goal, does not result in a nihilistic void, because, while the manifestations of mind are not real in themselves, they do arise, and do so in a coherent codependency. And so, the solipsistic agony of a single self locked within itself doesn’t arise (except in philosophical thought experiments, which appear crafted to force a line of thought towards an ‘inevitable’ conclusion, but only by ignoring anything to the contrary ).
In its place is found a non-individuated responsive naturing of the whole that we call reality—give or take slight philosophical differences between various extant schools of thought comprising ‘Buddhism’.

That is, you say that Buddhism is not methodological solipsism?

Buddhism says an objective fixed ultimate reality exists (AN 3.136; SN 12.20), regardless of perception of it. Therefore Buddhism is not solipsism.