text:
What's the effect of association with outcasts?
Even if out of "compassion", what's the effect of association with outcasts, even appear as "family-member" of such?
What's the effect of being related to those who are actually turned over the bowl?
Associate with thieves, slander, people who speak in dispraise of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, gratitude, generosity, virtue... those who use generosity to offend the giver... with no regard for hospitality, training, teacher, faith...
Do they risk to be avoided likewise by the wise and good?
How are people adviced to act in regard of outcasts? To bear such, or to avoid any association or ways that look like as if?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining but as a tiny door to exit this wheel)

what's the effect of association with outcasts
I like to distinguish between the person and the behaviour, and to not criticise a person.
It's advice from pre-school teachers -- that if a child ever misbehaves then you can say, "That's bad behaviour", but not, "You're a bad boy or girl".
Criticising people leads to problems -- it perpetuates problems:

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.
"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.
Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Do they risk to be avoided likewise by the wise and good?
I think that's for the wise and good to decide -- but I imagine they may have limited patience for the stress associated with misbehaviour.
I expect that especially important and true in a formal teaching or a formal work situation, where "disruptive behaviour" -- being loud, disrespectful, even asking questions out of turn, or questions which the rest of the class doesn't find helpful or interesting -- might disrupt (interrupt or break up) a classroom or work-space that's meant to be shared by several.
In that situation you might ask the disruptive behaviour to stop -- and if it doesn't  then "expel" the person.

If you're a bit independent-minded, and perhaps even have a low opinion of other people, might think that it's wrong to "take your cue" from other people's behaviour.
However I think that disrupting assemblies of people is kind of wrong -- wrong speech, even taking what's not given.
I think the suttas suggest that the Buddha was almost invariably courteous -- and for example he replied to people's questions when they asked, but didn't go around "preaching" without being invited.

I suppose you are familiar with the stories of 'Angulimala Thero' and the 'Pancha Tanthra story' about 2 parrots.
Summary : In Angulimala thero story Angulimala was a mass murderer before being an 'Arhath sawaka' of Lord Buddha. Being a misleaded good student, Angulimala was killing almost 1000 of people to fulfill his hateful teachers wishes. The king of that kingdom was ready to come with his army and hunt down Angulimala. Lord Buddha saw the potential of Angulimala becoming a good person and being an 'Arhath sawaka' so the Buddha went finding Angulimala to teach him Dhamma and show him the righteous path, and Angulimala realized about his bad behavior and at the end became an Arhath Sawaka.
Associate one self with outcasts or people who punished by the low or marked as bad people by the society is not band or considered as a bad thing by Buddhism. But you have to be careful about how you are associated with them. Being related or being friend with a bad person doesn't necessarily makes you a bad person. Others and their behavior does not affect your Sansara, you and only your self can make your Sansara long. If you are associated with bad people to take them into a better path that's the way it should be.
In other cases like your relations and friends speak in dispraise of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, gratitude, generosity, etc. as a Buddhist you should not be concerned. If one speak ill about Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga and good deeds that effect only to them not the ones around them. As Buddha teaches what you should do in those situations are instead of get mad or angry about them or what they speak, be compassionate to them if it's possible help them tenderly with kindness to realize where they were wrong, what they did wrong and what's the right path.
As Buddha says 'Chethanahan bhikkawe kamman wadami !'.
(There are so many stories and advises that Buddha given to follow in such situations. If your Pali is good or possible to find a translation read Suttha Pitaka->Khuddakha Nikaya->Suttha Nipatha->Maha Wagga)

From the Sutta Nipata: The famouse Mangala sutta, the highest blessings, starts with:

Asevanā ca bālānaṃ paṇḍitānañca sevanā,
Pūjā ca pūjanīyānaṃ etaṃ maṅgalamuttamaṃ.
The Buddha:
Not consorting with fools,
consorting with the wise,
paying homage to those worthy of homage:
  This is the highest protection.

The vicious are dear to him. He likes not the virtuous; he approves the teachings of the ill-natured — this is the cause of his downfall. from Discourse on Downfall, Sutta Nipata

There is no more clear advice in regard of assosiation, in regard of fools, outcasts and bad friends, since it is the only outer condition of either growth or downfall. "Not to do! When ever traced"
To take such even as advisor or dwell in areas where outcasts even get a lot of reputation, shows just the natural flow of those never met the good teachings, becoming there on and manys "enemies" and increasing suffering for both.
While such as pain, harsh words... is something that one should endurance, fools are to be avoided:

"[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.

So even it there is danger to be suspected!
Since association has (even not recognized) extrem fast impart one oneself, nothing more is urged as outer needed condition as to avoid evil people and wrong view.
Not a single account that the Buddha and wise advice in ways of seeing it easy can be found, but the opposite.
Even in regard of people how are actually no more able to fall down, or in regard of simply dwelling near, the Buddha adviced not to do such, because at least one could be suspect to associate and would therefore be avoided by good people.
Well-known simile is that of a banana leave taking on the smell of fermented fish.
The fermentation of follish compassion with people who can actually only be helped by avoiding, if, cost one not only the reputation of being not firm in faith of the Buddhas advices but also the circumstance to be suspected being another of those outcasts.
Even under recluses:

"Bhikkhus, these three persons are evident in the world. Which three? A certain person should be loathed, should not be associated. The second should be looked after not associated and the third should be associated. Bhikkhus, which person should be loathed and not associated. Here a certain person is unvirtuous, with evil thoughts like rubbish, with secret actions, with only a promise to recluseship, festering inside and filth oozing out. Bhikkhus, this kind of person should be loathed, should not be associated. What is the reason? In some way if this person is not imitated, ill fame spreads, this is an evil friend, an associate of evil. Just as a serpent with excreta on its body would not sting anyone, for he smears excreta. In the same manner an unvirtuous person with evil thoughts similar to rubbish, with secret actions, with only a promise to recluseship, festering inside and filth oozing out should be loathed, should not be associated.

More on friendship and association here: Admirable friend - [Großartiger Freund]  kalyanamittata.
Whether one is capable to trace of what is good or bad, aside of being informed, is of course a matter of ones Upanissaya and tendency, and nobody at least could does destinated to bad association help them out, not even the Sublime Buddha.
How ever, for those with Nissaya to a better: How to address wrong view?
In regard whether such people, associating with outcasts, are avoided as well: As in regard of Vinaya and rules of Monks, yes, they have to. Others than not instructed may tell, there are firm rules to seperate those with wrong views and bad conducts out or to be avoided. In areas of fools wise and Dhamma gets censured, yes. Also a strong sign to "run away". So take care with whom you associate and in which spheres you get involved. Smell last long and you might not that independent from support of wise as you may think for now.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and association with what binds to this wheel but for liberation from it.)


text:
Bad conduct leads to richness?
Some people, althought saying that following the Buddhas teaching, but maybe do not have much trust or understandig into cause and effect, kamma, saying that richness and success comes from no fear to do evil.
If that is the case, why are not all people who have no virtues, no Sila, rich, following their arguments pattern?
Isn't it not merely because still having some merits that the downfall does not arises accurate, if one conducts wrong, thinking it will not fall to me?
What's the effect of Sila, virtue, on wealth and success?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but for release from this wheel)

It is a contradiction to say generosity is a virtue when there also exists delight in material wealth.
The teachings in Buddhism about generosity leading to wealth are fake dhamma.
The suttas properly say (somewhere) the supreme generosity is merely for the purpose of beautifying the mind.
Generosity is practised for the sake of giving up selfishness & self. Generosity is not practising for the sake of material reward.
The poor peasants in Cambodia who give to monks will never have material wealth.
Material wealth is acquired by those who have the disposition for making money.
No amount of generosity will give an incapable person the ability of making money on the stock market or start a large corporation, for example.
The greatest wealth in the world is acquired by evil means.
Yes - bad conduct leads to material wealth.
The suttas themselves say wealth can be acquired via evil means.

These ten pleasure seekers are found in the world.
What ten?
First, a pleasure seeker seeks wealth using illegitimate, coercive
  means. They don’t make themselves happy and pleased, nor share it and
  make merit.
Next, a pleasure seeker seeks wealth using illegitimate, coercive
  means. They make themselves happy and pleased, but don’t share it and make merit.
AN 10.91

I didn't really understand the first sentence as written -- generosity is a virtue, isn't it, even when there does also exist some delight in material wealth?

Giving money for the sake of receiving money in return is "investing" rather than "selfless generosity". Regards

If that is the case, why are not all people who have no virtues, no Sila, rich, following their arguments pattern?
The question seems to me based on illogical extremes:

Someone said that, "some bad people are rich, and some rich people are bad"
And in reply to that you disagreed, by saying that, "some bad people are poor"

That reply isn't llogical if it's meant as a counter-argument.
It would only make logical sense if you read the first statement as an extreme -- which I think it wasn't, if you were referring to this answer -- for example, "immorality always leads to wealth and success".
Also perhaps you shouldn't be "following their arguments" -- and instead try to understand what people are saying, and see what truth there is in what they're saying, instead of only disagreeing.
I suppose it's also true that "immoral people are wealthy" might sound like a dangerous doctrine to "follow".
What's the effect of Sila, virtue, on wealth and success?

Don't squander wealth -- DN 31, if you accept that as canonical, says,

By dividing wealth into four parts,
  True friendships are bound;
  One part should be enjoyed;
  Two parts invested in business;
  And the fourth set aside
  Against future misfortunes.

Develop and maintain harmonious and cooperative working relationships
Resilience e.g. good behaviour and peace of mind that's independent of immediate or temporary success

In Sutta Pitaka->Anguttara Nikaya->Dasaka Nipatha-> Janussoni Sutta Buddha explains to Janussoni Brahamman how Sila effect on life(Jathi) and in Suttapitaka->Majjima Nikaya->DakkinaVibanga Sutta Buddha explains to Prajapathi Devi an Ananda Thero how Dana effects wealth.
"Idha Pana Brahammana ekachcha panathipatha patiwirato hothi, adinnadana pati wiratho hothi, kamesu michchachara patiwiratho hoti, musawada patiwiratho hoti, parusaya wachaya patiwirato hoti, sampappalapa patiwiratho hoti, anabijjalu hoti, awyaapana chitto hoti, sammadittiko hoti, so kayassa bedha parammarana manussanan sahawyathan uppajjati. Yo manussanan aharo tena so taththa yapethi." [Janussoni Sutta]
Translation : Brahammana, take someone who refrain from killing living creatures, stealing, committing sexual misconduct and doesn't use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical and is not covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. After death that person will born among humans and there he will eat human food.
As the Sutta explains further; the Sila is responsible of where one born, how he born and how he lives. If I explain further using many resources in Tripitaka; Based on the sila you practiced on previous lives and this life; your next life will be decided. If your sila had flows, those will effect on the next life. For an example, One may practice above mentioned sila and still he hurt an animal, that may effect on his next life. As a result of practicing the sila he might born as human. Yet, because of the flowed sila he will be born as disabled or later in life  might become a disabled human. (Please mind that this is merely an example i used to explain. Kamma is not necessarily working in the way I mentioned). Sila is a Kamma that beneficial for a better life(Jathi).
As explained in Dakkina Vibanga Sutta, Dana/giving affect on persons wealth. Wealth can be categorized into several types. Wealth of money and goods. wealth of good health, wealth of people and followers, wealth of power and prosperous ,etc. Wealth is necessarily a result of Dana. There are 3 factors in dana that affect on wealth and prosperity. Giver, Recipient and the things you give. In Sutta Pitaka (I don't remember the exact sutta) it was mentioned about the things you can donate and should not donate. You should not donate liqueurs, weapons, sex, slaves, poison and anything that cause destruction of a person. That types of donations not considered as Dana and also it will affect badly on both doner and recipient. A purified donation will cause accordingly on receiving wealth and the amount of wealth one receives. It's mentioned in the Dakkina Vibanga Sutta how a donation can be purified and how a purified donation can be fruitful

The donation is purified by the sila of giver, not the sila of recipient? It’s when the giver is ethical, of good character, but the recipient is unethical, of bad character. [this donation is only purified by the sila of giver. Therefore the result will be fruitful]
The donation is purified by the sila of recipient, not the sila of giver? It’s when the giver is unethical, of bad character, but the recipient is ethical, of good character. [this donation is only purified by the sila of recipient. Therefore the result will be fruitful]
The donation is purified by neither the sila of giver nor the sila of recipient? It’s when both the giver and the recipient are unethical, of bad character. [this donation is not purified by anyone. Therefore the result will not be fruitful as above two donations. But still effective and fruitful]
The donation is purified by both the sila of giver and the sila of recipient? It’s when both the giver and the recipient are ethical, of good character. [this donation is purified by both. Therefore the result will be the most fruitful and effective.]

Keep in mind that even if you are a good person and donate more in this life and yet you experience pain, sicknesses, poverty; that's because you are experiencing the things you did in past lives not the things you do in this life. You born in this life because of the Kamma you did in past lives. You experience results of kamma you did in past lives. The effects of dana and sila you did in this life, you can experience as relief and peacefulness of mind and body. You will born in next life according to the kamma you did in this life. If youpracticed sila and dana in this life. next life will be healthy, wealthy and prosperous.
However Buddhism encourage to practice dana and sila not to wish a wealthy and prosperous life but for the sake of mastering giving up Tanha(Alobha) and ultimately going in the path of Nirwana.
*Please pardon my English

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Would Buddhists help non-Buddhists continuing their attachments?
Let's take 2 examples:

A Buddhist notices a crying girl. After asking it turns out that she lost her mother, and don't know where to find her
Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship. Bob wants to communicate with Alice, but due to her misunderstandings and prejudices, she doesn't accept his words. Helplessly, he turns to a Buddhist that is an important friend with Alice, hoping that he will help him to tell Alice that she needs to listen to Bob carefully

Would the Buddhist helps them?

Yes, because explicit sufferings (losing mother, being unable to communicate, having prejudice) are more suffering than implicit ones (staying in the attachments)?
No, because ultimately it's still helping them staying in the attachments, while the Buddhist goal is aiming at the ultimate freedom? Or is that because helping others also a kind of attachment?

Related: Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

The two examples seem quite different. In the first example, are you asking whether it would be good to let a lost preschool-aged child remain lost and unaided, so that they might learn non-attachment?

@ChrisW yes... (it looks silly I agree)

Unfortunately it seems that my question is not clear enough, and most answerers read it as "would a Buddhist take that opportunity to teach Buddhism?" What I mean is that the Buddhist refuses to help them because they don't want to involve in relationships. Helping them necessarily requires a form of relationship to the persons who get help, and this is the kind Buddhist wants to avoid

Oh, so the question isn't about teaching the child non-attachment, and is instead about the about the adult Buddhist not wanting to become involved/attached in other people's emotional dramas? So when you say "their" attachments in the title, you meant the Buddhist's attachments rather than the non-Buddhists'?

@ChrisW your question makes me realize that the word "their" in the title refers to two different interpretations, and I am asking both of them at once without noticing. As this question has been settled in one interpretation, I will ask the other in a new question.

When I agreed with your first question ("so that they might learn non-attachment?"), I mean when the Buddhist refuses the help request, they send a signal that: "sorry, my goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you. I hope you get well with your life." By sending that signal, the person will learn more about non-attachment.

Reading your question I feel like you are little misled about what Buddhism is (or maybe I don't understand your question at all). So however, I will give you an answer as I understand your question.
First of all, as I know the word "attachment" is wrongly translated from the "Pali" word "Ragha".
The meaning of "ragha" can philosophically explained by using the words like greed, sensuality, desire, attachment or excitement for sensory objects, lust, sexual desire and passion. Now, because of the "ragha" when you lost something or someone you love or even when you can't have something or someone you love, you face an unbearable pain. This unbearable (or bearable) pain called in 'pali' as "dukkha".
Now, you cannot control losing things or people and not being able to having things or people you love. Nothing and no one last forever. Things decay they brake, people age they die. Even we didn't lose them when we alive, we die eventually then we lose them in the moment of our death.
In Buddhism it teaches about reincarnation, a cycle of birth, living and death (Sansara). After someone died they reborn again based on what they did in their past lives(Karma). Every living being suffer in various ways sicknesses, injuries, pain of losing loved things, does't matter rich or poor, powerful or not, every one suffer as life goes on. So, as the cycle of livese goes on the pain (dukkha) continues. So the Buddhism is all about braking this cycle of lives and ending the continuous pain (attaining nibbana). Buddhism teaches us that holding onto things/attachments (Ragha) is one of the reason this cycle goes on. To break the cycle you have to lose the 'Ragha'. The way to lose ragha is being well aware of that everything is not lasting forever and accepting the reality of world (practicing Upekha). If you truly master this 'Upekha' you wouldn't be in pain of loses. This doesn't mean that Buddhists have to leave or stop protecting their loved ones, loved things or Stop trying to achieve things, earn money and doing jobs. People need those things to be alive, to survive. Buddhism teaches to be aware of the fact that things don't last. Love people knowing that someday we lose them, use things knowing they break, they don't last, Earn money to survive not out of greed, Eat food only to be healthy not because taste good.
Now about your question, If you understand what I explained above you will realize that helping a child to find her mother is not helping her to stay in attachment. Doesn't matter you help her to find her mother or not she always will be attached to her mother, even the mother is dead. As long as the girl don't understand and not accept the concept of 'dukkha' she will always feel the pain of losing her mother, doesn't matter you didn't help the girl or not. One cannot be removed from attachment(ragha) by just being away from others. That attachment(ragha) is a state of mind, a way of seeing the world. Helping the girl doesn't make her or you any more or less 'ragha' person. It's not ultimately helping her to be in attachment it will only be helping her to survive and allow her to be with the people she loves.
Same like that helping Bob and Alice will only be helping them to communicate and understand the situation and helping them to continue with their lives.
Helping others to live or helping them to continue their lives with ease doesn't make any bad effects on your ultimate freedom (Nibbhana). However, if someone did those things with 'ragha' mind that will affect his 'nibbana'.
My vocabulary is not that good to explain things in the Buddhism. I don't know the most suitable english words and phrases to explain these things. I hope you understood and got the answer you needed.

https://suttacentral.net/define/r%C4%81ga

Very well put. Better if the questioner acknowledges what he/she learned from your detailed and thoughtful answer.

@Krizalid_13190 I put my understanding in this question: Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

A Buddhist notices a crying girl.
One would hope that a Buddhist, or any reasonable person for that matter, would assist a reunion.
Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship
Most everyday communication is complicated by identity view. I.e., "why won't she listen to me?"
Here again a Buddhist, or any reasonable person for that matter, could assist by asking open and non-partisan questions that promote understanding and communication. Here are some examples:

"Bob, what is important to Alice?"
"Bob, what is important to Bob?"
"Bob, what does Alice expect from Bob?"
"Does Bob always do what Alice expects?"
"Does Bob expect Alice to always do what Bob expects?"
etc.

This actually happens a lot as younger friends seek advice from an old fart like me on relationships. Oddly, the help always revolves around compassion and relinquishing craving. People are rarely aware of the asymmetry of their own expectations. They are unaware that they often expect what they are not willing to give. When they become aware of the inconsistency of their expectations, compassion usually unfolds into a letting go and acceptance of others.

Those who are "virtuous Buddhist", keeping precepts, observe "not to speak of what is not true" and inside of this precept, some would try to help, sometimes with silent as well and if possible, and understand them selves right, when time is proper, point toward the path of liberation, asked or not. A good instucted disciple would not give a gift that actually harms on long term.
Whether one could give the gift of release or not, depends on ones own state of liberty, right understanding and skill and foremost on Upanissaya. One is how ever not asked to help but simple able voluntary (aside of ones possible duties in a relation).
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment, but for release from this wheel)

The question is based in a extremely serious & dangerous wrong understanding of Buddhism.
Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (i) moral, which includes attachment; and (ii) non-attachment (MN 117). The Buddha said his teaching of non-attachment was only for a minority of people (MN 26).
Therefore, a Buddhist would help ordinary people maintain their important social relationships. In fact, this is a duty of a monk (DN 31). The duty of a monk & of a Buddhist is not to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.
Only psychopathic gurus & their brainwashed disciples try to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.

No. I mean they just refuse to help them, not to try to convert them. Ordinary people can have that right too: they are busy. The Buddhist can be busy to attain ultimate freedom.

DD, is it even possible to strip one's idenity without vipassana? I mean even monks engage in certain 'identities' while on the path, i.e., samanasañña.

Generally speaking people are the most receptible to help they themselves ask for, and vice versa. Advice not asked for are the spam emails of life.

So I understand unsolicited advice are not preferable. But if the Buddhists are asked for help, would they do so? Or it depends on the individual?

@Ooker I was primarily referring to your second example, where i don't see Alice asking for help, essentially. My point is that suffering does not equal wanting relief. And my second point is that it doesn't necessarily equal wanting a buddhist helping out either, for that matter. How can we beforehand know that these people wouldn't rather need a police officer, a doctor or a priest? Or more drugs or alcohol? How can we assume that others know what they want? Et c. What if we're most fit to help those who specifically ask for what we can do?

I suppose what Alice wants does not mean Bob has to follow that. If Bob has a valid reason to do so, then ignoring the reactions based on false perceptions and continuing his action is also Buddhism I think. This is more valid if Alice also practices Buddhism, because in that case she doesn't have the right view

@Ooker Sorry, long answer. What i left out is that your question seems to be phrased from a buddhist frame of understanding. Nothing bad in that, but sometimes compassion is about giving the other person the prerogative to frame their own understanding, and that may even require us to set aside our preconceptions even if they're as noble as a buddhist perspective ever may be.

this is why Bob turns to her Buddhist friend. This means if the friend seeing that Bob's point is valid, and that correcting Alice understanding is beneficial for her, then there is nothing wrong to have a talk to her

@Ooker It seems like you found your answer

Does that mean the Buddhist will help them staying in the attachments? But for what reason from the Buddhist framework?

Buddhism teaches the pursuit of happiness and the elimination of suffering.
And of course, the highest happiness, the highest bliss is Nibbana (Dhp 204). It is also the long term goal of happiness.
The medium term goal of happiness is stream entry (for Theravada).
The short term goal is worldly happiness, and that includes happiness in relationships, when it is achieved through virtue, merit, charity and harmony.
Not everyone has the capacity to pursue the highest happiness of Nibbana right now. For these people, like those you have mentioned, at least they could be guided towards the short term goal of worldly happiness.
A person hungry for food or emotional support or shelter has no interest in Nibbana, because they need to fulfill their short term needs and desires first. Helping them alleviate their worldly sufferings is an expression of Buddhist compassion too.
From AN 5.58:

He always does his duty toward his parents;
  he promotes the welfare of his wife and children.
  He takes care of the people in his home
  and those who live in dependence on him.
The wise person, charitable and virtuous,
  acts for the good of both kinds of relatives,
  those who have passed away
  and those still living in this world.
He benefits ascetics and brahmins,
  and also the deities;
  he is one who gives rise to joy
  while living a righteous life at home.
Having done what is good,
  he is worthy of veneration and praise.
  They praise him here in this world
  and after death he rejoices in heaven.

From AN 5.43:

For one desiring long life, beauty, fame,
  acclaim, heaven, high families,
  and lofty delights
  following in succession,
  the wise praise heedfulness
  in doing deeds of merit.
Being heedful, the wise person
  secures both kinds of good:
  the good in this life,
  and the good of the future life.
  By attaining the good, the steadfast one
  is called one of wisdom.

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


text:
Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?
There are many good answers in the question Would Buddhists help non-Buddhists continuing their attachments?. I'll summarize some of the points here:

Buddhism only teaches that things don't last, not stop doing them. Love people knowing that someday we lose them; use things knowing they break; earn money to survive not out of greed; eat food only to be healthy not because taste good. Even if the girl is attaching to her mother, helping them or not will not make them less attaching anyhow. (ashen25's answer)
Dhammadhatu's answer even cites the suttas:

Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (i) moral, which includes attachment; and (ii) non-attachment (MN 117). The Buddha said his teaching of non-attachment was only for a minority of people (MN 26).
Therefore, a Buddhist would help ordinary people maintain their important social relationships. In fact, this is a duty of a monk (DN 31). The duty of a monk & of a Buddhist is not to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.

The consensus in there is clear: helping them, not converting them. However, psychologically speaking, I think helping people necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship, or requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas. Or when they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes. These are things a Buddhist would like to avoid.
They can simply say "sorry, my goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you. I hope you get well with your life." Not only this is an acceptable manner, this would also conveniently help the helpees understand the value of non-attachment without the need to teach them anything.
I think the solution is simple: as long as the helpers acknowledge that after the problem has been solved they can detach to it, then it would be fine. However, are there any sources discussing this?

I think your question should be 'Can a person help another without forming a relationship ?' If that's the question, Yes of course can. The Buddhism encourages to interact with the world with loving-kindness(metta), compassion(karuna), empathetic joy(muditha), equanimity(upekka).

I feel it is better for questioner to define what is a "relationship". You can have a conversation with someone without forming any "relationship". Yet, the conversation could have helped the other person. Furthermore, what is the big deal of "forming a relationship or not" when somebody decides to help another person ? Would appreciate the elaborations.

@Krizalid_13190 when I said "psychologically speaking, I think helping people necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", I was thinking that someone is in desperation and you feel pity for them and want to save them. That is quite dramatic/extreme, but it does illustrate the way emotions work in a helping situation. Does that answer you?

Get what you mean, but -- "psychologically speaking, I think helping people necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", this statement implies forming a relationship "must be a prerequisite", can be the problem and kind of limiting your way of thought. The only line to draw is whether the helper is attached to the helped, and the answer is both situation can happen, a Buddhist or not.

I think of the "brahmaviharas" as the right attitude[s] to have towards other people -- which include "may you be well" (i.e. wishing them non-suffering), and kindness, as well as equanimity.
So if a child needs help, I think it's not wrong to offer it -- isn't that what anyone would do? -- even if you know that form of help is temporary.
There's a Zen story which includes that-- Is That So?
Buddhism is also willing to distinguish between "attachment" and "need" -- and IMO a young child "needs" her mother (as well as being attached) -- everyone, not even excluding monks, are allowed "requisites".
Also "non-attachment" isn't the only goal, maybe not even a primary goal. Another goal (and maybe a more immediate goal) is "non-remorse" -- i.e. don't do things you regret, and do things you don't regret -- where "regret" and "remorse" have a moral aspect, e.g. you should feel remorse over what's morally wrong.
This fits with the "brahmaviharas" too, by the way -- e.g. if "non-remorse", and possibly therefore joy, is the purpose of "skilful virtue", then "mudita" (one of the brahmaviharas) is "sympathetic joy" you might experience as a result of someone else's virtue.
But anyway I'd expect it's right to help a lost child if you can -- that's an action or intention which you needn't regret -- and, conversely, it's "choosing not to help" that might be regrettable.
Whether and how, and how much, you'd be willing to get involved in adults' relationship/attachment problems may be another matter -- pertly because it's more complicated (than e.g. "phone the police" which you might do for a lost child), and less certain that you can be not only virtuous but skilful, but also because it's less obviously a morally right thing to do.
I think I decided a while ago that it's fine if someone is enlightened -- but that I'm a bit inclined to regard it as an illness, if "enlightenment" means that they're less skilled, less competent, or more immoral than normal.

I thought once you have eradicated your ego, then helping every one in needed in your ability is the natural thing you would do, not just the right thing to do? Therefore, there should be no morally distinction between two cases?

The following three quotes from the question are merely more annihilationist wrong views (per SN 12.17) based on the original annihilationist wrong view:

Requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas.
When they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes.
My goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you.

The above ideas are "annihilationist" (per SN 12.17) because these views ignorantly assume a "self" exists that must non-attach from itself & from other "selves", "persons" or "beings".
When the mind is enlightened with right view, it does not think it is helping "people". It is only helping "ignorance" become wiser. Since the enlightened mind has no view of "persons" or "beings", it naturally also has no attachment when helping.
Please refer to SN 12.17 and also MN 102.

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  these venerable contemplative & brahmans—through fear of
  self-identity, through disgust for self-identity—(nevertheless) keep
  running & circling around self-identity.
MN 102

Therefore, if & when "helping necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", one party (the helped) is attached & the other party (the helper) is non-attached. In other words, the helper is free from fear & is unconcerned about whether the other party attaches to them. The helper trusts in virtue, appropriate boundaries & the Dhamma. The helper does not need to and should not physical touch the helped, let alone engage in sexual relationship. Thus, pure metta will always be harmless to both, even if the helped becomes attached. When a Virtuous One acts with pure metta, the helped will always remember & love them but this type of love is not harmful.
As Volkov wisely said elsewhere:

As my teacher explained, it's only when the person is completely
  abandoned by the currents of normal life, is when they get picked up
  by the current of Dharma.

In other words, those looking for help can even spend months in a monastery, where they may speak each day for one or two hours with a monk. But, eventually, such ordinary worldly individuals will leave the monastery when they feel better or restored (to try their luck again in the world of attached relationships).

If the enlightened mind has no view of "persons" or "beings", then would they continue to help if the helped ones aren't willing to accept the words? Of course this does not mean they will force them to listen, but can they be persistent in helping them? (This would have a big assumptions that the helped ones don't have the right view)

To help requires educating the other in proper morality & relationship skills & duties.  Helping is not some magical cure based in some sort of profound transmission or wisdom. The duty of a monk is to educate laypeople in morality. The Western Buddhism money making business of selling meditation is not really  how monks should help people. People are best helped by teaching them proper morality or relationship skills. Regards

I ask this as a separate question here: What is the view of Buddhism in correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it? Hope to see you there

The Buddha placed no such as inherent duties, but "if liking this, that needs to be done" and in regard of helping (sangaha) it's the same. Your merits or demerits, one might be able, one not. To maintain a health relation it's a duty. How ever, this duty resits only if no violation of precepts are secured. Hurting someone to help another is not to be done.
Rendering benefical assistence is one of the 4 Sangha-vatthus, and the highest help is fond in the Balasutta.
Others then many tell wrong, it's not so that one should not turn another toward path, convert, but the opposite, and taken for example the pay back of goodness toward parents and other supporters, the converting toward path is said to be the only way that one could pay something back, if possible.

“But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.“
— AN 2:32

For more to develope right gratitude see: [Q&A] How to develope, learn and maintain gratitude (right view)?
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment that binds here but as an exit)

Shakyumuni the original Buddha gave up his wordly goods and ventured out into the world to discover why people suffered. One was their attachments to external things, another was that the minds of people are deluded and that the Buddha nature exists in all humans...so the point of this is if you are s Buddhist  or Bodisatva  of course you would help people as much as possible. The practice of Buddhism is for yourself and others. Like a domino effect. We live by example and hope others will follow to eradicate most of their sufferings or to understand why we suffer.....


text:
Help Me Choose which meditation i Should do Anapanasati or Brahmaviharas?
I have been going through this dilemma for almost a year now in choosing a meditation object..
I only wish to take one meditation object.The reason being i maintain this object through out the day and i gather momentum with it.I noticed if i practice two meditations even if it's very short i lose momentum with my previous one.I think because i've inclined the mind towards one object so when it switches i am not developing much concentration.
The main problem i have is i really love and enjoy anapanasati.Piti and sukha are quite developed so i enjoy it very much and can sit longer. I can gather momentum,its relatively easy to turn my attention to the breath through out the day..now here's the bad part... MY EXTERNAL situations in life just seem bleak,unfriendly,uninspiring,lonely,dull i start getting emptier and emptier like less socialising less entertainments moving towards like a letting go type of life it's freeing and a relief  except nobody is friendly around me.Like things are just DRY and uninspiring around me.
On the other hand when i practice Brahmaviharas,the result are immediate and everything around me is great,people are friendly,i feel protected from harm,pleasant situations.HOWEVER,i don't really prefer this meditation object because it's tiring and i can't sustain it through out the day repeating phrases.Its tiring basically.Also it's not as still as anapanasati which i prefer but if i don't practice the brahmaviharas life just gets very bleak very fast.When i do practice even for 5 minutes everythings just annoyingly great and sugary sweet.Its really wearing me out trying to choose.
Should i just ignore being afraid of unpleasant situations and emptiness/seclusion and incline the mind towards the breath which i know i can make progress or should i just do brahamaviharas and keep everything around me happy?
Thanks

They're both important parts of the whole Dhamma cultivation toolkit. Brahmaviharas, especially Metta, is useful when the mind is dominated with hatred or resentment. Anapanasati is good especially when the mind is dominated by lust. Overall, there're 40 subjects of meditation, each counters some specific defilement. See the Vism. for more details (ref: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf )

Brahmaviharas is a lower type of meditation than Anapanasati. In Brahmaviharas you use your intellect, to make up suggestions or narratives, that condition your point of view a certain way. In Anapanasati you don't use your intellect to generate anything, you just let go of hangups and let them dissolve. Anapanasati is more direct.
The Buddha said, we don't have to rush to finish the with-intellect meditation and jump to the direct. In fact, he said we should max out the first type until we had enough of it at which point it would seem too artificial. I think that's exactly where you are at.
So at this point it makes sense for you to do Anapanasati. However, it sounds like you misunderstand what that means. Anapanasati is not just watching your breath and disconnecting from the world. It is using the breath as a focal point for directly seeing your mind, and cutting through any negative thoughts that assault you.
The end result is that you come back to a fresh open mind, as if you have just awoke.

I wonder something from your answer: you mention compassion meditation as an addition, and breath meditation as letting go. Would you say that compassion is kinda like a temporary remedy, whereas breathing is more foundational and restructures the mind? I remember reading this somewhere, but the 'ultimate' (I think) way of generating compassion was linked to vipassana rather than anapanasati.

"Jhana" itself is a "Brahma realm" therefore the mind should have buoyancy & metta if it has developed genuine "piti & sukha". This "metta" is from & the same as the natural development of love & non-judging required for self-development of Anapanasati. In other words, there is no need to give up Anapanasati to develop metta. The self-directed love towards oneself required for developing Anapanasati should also naturally manifest outwardly externally. This said, viewing the world with brightness & buoyancy will not change the general stupidity & bleakness of the world. If the mind has metta plus wisdom, it views the external world like a comedy movie - 'A Ship Of Fools'. Since a mind of wisdom has no unrealistic expectations towards the world, it has no reason to have hatred. Non-hatred is metta.

Your right about how not having enough metta hinders anapanasati as i feel like i can't progress past a certain stage because i lack metta but if i split my attention its going to not produce solid concentration.I think i will practice intensive brahamviharas for a few years until i'm certain there's significant ill-will,hatred,envy removed from the mindstream then practice anapanasati.I think once i reach upekkha it will be conducive towards anapanasati. just can't do two meditations it's truly something i can't do.

Also you mentioned something about the Brahma Realms and i can't remember where i read it and i may be wrong but i think the Brahmaviharas lead to the deva realms which is a sensual realm not a fine material realm like the Brahma realms.I can see it in my own life when i practice brahmaviharas a lot of good food,pleasant experiences,highs,ups,good days..but when i practice anapansati lots off seclusion,letting go,nekhhamma..i may be wrong..just observing patterns in my life.

By all means remain with Anapannasati. First of all, it is foundational. Listening to your story, it sounds as though your practice is trying to correct itself. The Anapannasati will make you more sociable as an end result, but at your current practice you are still retreating into yourself. It's the cultivation of equanimity  that will be crucial, as always. Hang in there. Been there, done that.

"And furthermore, 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.' He permeates and
  pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested
  of rapture, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded
  with pleasure divested of rapture." — AN 5.28

I don't recall anywhere in the EBT (early buddhist texts) where the Buddha encouraged people to only do one type of meditation, to the exclusion of all others.
Check out the sutta excerpt AN 9.1 for example, where 4 of the most common meditations are mentioned (near bottom of article)
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-four-guardian-meditations-where-from.html
The 4bv (brahmaviharas) and metta, can be done in a way where its not tiring at all.
If you can do 16 APS (anapana) in a way that produces bliss, piti, sukha, etc, then you should be able to adjust your metta practice to be just as comfortable.

Householder Akashad, interested,
to gain path it is required to develop fist a situation/conncentration of access-possibility and therefore one of the ten Recollections are recommended whereas the first six, listed there, are best used by those who have not left home yet, not really living a Yogies life. They also provide with the training to be devoted toward the very basics.
The Brahmaviharas, althought beloved, actually require to have gained integrity since if not, if not having reached the path, they might work fine for very hypocratical development. Remember that the realm of the Brahmas is also the host of very confused mighty beings and all here know in which bad manner the Sublime attitudes can be use even very destructive, deluded "creater" dwell there.
Contemplating, meditating, in extensive manners, on death, the ugly of the body, anapana, are already very advanced and would not fit well into normal aspirations of householder, althought very effective, get soon in conflict with gains in the world.
The last, Recollection of peace, is then really only recommended for those who had already gained a view on Nibbana because otherwise they would develop wrong liberation even further.
So again, the usual meditations, which also secure right basic approach for those living in and outwardly as householder are the first six, the seek after borderlands and visit them much, inwardly but good if also outwardly, to gain a base for ones recollection and maintain it. When time is right, then things get broadened by there previous cases.
General worthy to note is that a Yogi or one desire for such, would devoted approach a skilled monk, an meditation teacher, having payed respect, made offerings, one would ask for ones kammatthana (working place, object) and then, individual adviced, follow it. So the answer, as a whole, should be seen as an approach to consider good, better and proper ways to be given a blessed path. At least it's a matter of responsibility to look out whether on has basic right view, since with wrong view, what ever effort, leads to wrong release and meditation on improper base can be all then harmfull, even to ever gain right view which is not gained by meditation, but by hearing the Dhamma while dvelling in borderlands, proper attention.
A possible extended answer as well as given space for further questions and discussion can be given found here: [Q&A] Help Me Choose which meditation i Should do Anapanasati or Brahmaviharas?
May you and others always make proper choices to find the way to real happiness for themselves with ease.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining binding to world, but as exit for higher and beyond)

well your claims do not make sense when you want to reach nibanna, since cultivating dispassion and disgust for rupa  is a big part of  the goal of the dhamma....in fact, it begins right at minduflness...
Since you cling to rupa like any puthujjana addicted to rupa, it is normal to hate to see rupa as unworthy of your energy, and the best you can do is the jhanas as the abiding in the present life, meaning lots of sukha like you claim you already have.
The next step is precisely to combine jhanas with sati, right intention, right view, right understanding, wisdom, call it whatever you want... you have to choose: either continue to do the samadhi for sukha, or you start cultivating the dispassion for vedana, rupa, vinnana, whatever is conditioned by seeing them as anatta, anicca, dukkha and all that...
If you hate sati, panna, and son on, well then you can cultivate samadhi irrespective of any doctrine, or you can even  become a hindu claiming that nibanna is some level of samadhi and that you are a good guy for being skilled at samadhi, but ofc you will be wrong....

Practising breath meditation one develops the 4 focuses of mindfulness ultimately leading to true knowledge

When the mindfulness of the in-and-out-breathing is cultivated and often developed, it brings the 4 focuses of mindfulness to perfection
When the 4 focuses of mindfulness are cultivated and often developed, they bring the 7 awakening-factors to perfection.
When the 7 awakening-factors are cultivated and often developed, they bring true knowledge and
liberation to perfection.

Ānâpāna,sati Sutta
Brahmaviharas help develop concentration.
Also until one gets liberation it helps make the path easier.
So it is best to practice both. In Mahā Rāhulovāda Sutta Ven. Rahula receives the instruction for both Brahmaviharas and breath meditation.


text:
What is the view of Buddhism in correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it?
I have these questions:

If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask?
If they are hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection?
How is that different to converting them?

My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think the helped has the right to challenge that intention.
How does Buddhism address that?

For the question that how the helper knows what is beneficial to the helped, read Does following logic necessarily require one to conclude that they are objective and have no bias?

Whould householder Ooker listen to help if against his thoughts?

I would assume good faith first, so I will happily listen why my approach is wrong. I understand that this can only happen in the best case; while you are in a rush probably you just want to get things done, and your mind may not be calm to consider other options.

May person thought it's a question. Not much desire to get householder Ooker from what he likes to hold on, althought even contradicting his stand possible with it.

If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively
  ask?

Yes. They would help without being asked, as the Buddha did. However, the Buddha did this relatively rarely and only to those he knew he could help. The difficult issue is actually knowing intervening when not asked will benefit the person. For example, often I would like to help some people but sense I cannot actually help them; given they are difficult to change.

If the enlightened one is hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the
  help despite of the rejection?

An Enlightened One, that knows the mind of others (due to psychic power) would not try to help another who would reject them. As I said, the difficult issue is truly knowing we can help another.

How does that be different to converting them?

The Buddha converted many individuals however only because he knew it was the best thing for them; due to their inherent disposition. As the saying goes: "When the student is ready; the teacher appears".

My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the
  long term.

Yes. We agree.

There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not.

Angulimala Sutta.

However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even
  stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big
  attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I
  think one has a right to challenge that intention.

Someone who can be helped will be grateful. I think there would be nothing worse than learning that someone who could truly actually help you decided not to help you. It is best to follow the example of the Buddha. While the Buddha did not attempt to help everyone, the Buddha did intervene unsolicited to help those who he was absolutely certain he could help.
Note: Since we do not have psychic powers, it is rare we can be certain we can help another, unsolicited.

ah, so this is simply "only do when you are certain that you will be success"? I suppose knowing the mind of others is today called perspective-taking. With logic, as the question of Philosophy SE suggests, I think we can improve that certainty?

No. Helping others requires a moral perspective.

@Ooker, I sense an incredible danger and not a small amount of hubris in thinking that one can, through tangential contact, be “certain that you will be success” in providing true “help” to someone. We humans are such complex creatures with such different life experiences, I would be astounded that true “help” could be administered by a relative stranger. Opinions, yes; bromides, certainly – but true “help”? As Dhammadhatu said, “it is rare we can be certain we can help another, unsolicited”. I’d be stronger in this by saying only a true enlightened one could.
With hubris, Jim

@GVCOJims I look up "bromide" and it seems that the word mean "cliché". What do you mean by that? Anyway, the premise of the question is that the person has actually become a true enlightened one. The advice everyone gives here is that be really sure that you are indeed one. I thought that with mindfulness you can be an enlightened one, at least temporarily.

@GVCOJims quite the opposite, I would think that human is quite sensitive to "wrongfulness". When people have a self, they are very likely to have self-conscious emotions. The person who has those emotions are very likely to be irrational, and we have evolved to detect such emotions of others quite accurate (but poorly of ourselves) .

@Ooker, Thanks for feedback. 1. my use of 'bromide' was a (perhaps feeble) attempt at humor since so much of what passes as advice now is that. 2. "I thought that with mindfulness you can be an enlightened one, at least temporarily." Was that aimed at me for not understanding the question or were you suggesting that if a person could be temporarily mindful; they then could qualify as enlightened?. 3. I did not understand your second comment. Sorry for my lack of wisdom.

@GVCOJims 2. It's a generic statement that if a person could be temporarily mindful, they could qualify as enlightened. 3. My second comment is to reply to the point that stranger can't be certain that they will success in helping others. You say that such statement contains "an incredible danger and not a small amount of hubris". What do you think about that?

@Ooker, Thanks. 2. my belief is that temporary mindfulness does not qualify as having achieved, even temporarily, enlightenment. I don't see any evidence in the Buddha's teaching that enlightenment can be a temporary state. 3. A fully enlightened person might, as Dhammadhatu said, have an understanding of when advice is correct and will be accepted. I admit that I was thinking of someone giving advice who was not fully so (misunderstanding your premise), and would be in danger of giving inappropriate advice due to hubris on their part (that they would be smart enough to do so). Best, Jim

Your description of "help" is too vague and it's most likely not really "help" - in a way a Buddhist should help people. It sounds more like an imposition.
In the Diamond Sutra, it is said that one should practice charity and compassion with no regard to appearances. So you should GIVE, despite being loved or hated - but also, despite your own ideas about "right and wrong".
If a person is poor and hungry, you give him food, or money and go away. It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you.
If a person is carrying a heavy load, you help them and go away. It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you.
If a person wants you to listen, you listen. It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you.
If a person wants you to go away, you go away. It doesn't matter if they'll appreciate it, or what they think about you.
That's helping.
If a person wants to smoke and you don't want them to, so you make schemes to prevent them from smoking, that's not helping anything at all, but your own ego and your wish to control, that, according to Buddhism, you should let go of.
"Pile up money for your children,
they will just spend it.
Pile up books for your grandchildren,
they won’t read them.
The best thing to do is to quietly accumulate your own virtue,
Quietly and in secret.
Such a gift will benefit your descendants
for a long, long time." (Hakuin)
Buddhism is searching for happiness inside oneself. "If we look for the Buddha outside ourselves, the Buddha becomes a demon." (Dogen)

By definition, the enlightened mind has no ego. What do you think about this?

I'd rather say "the enlightened mind is not attached, or controlled by the ego". There are certainly accounts of great masters who forgot not only about their egos, but everything about themselves, being described as a "block of wood". But that's not "the enlightened mind"; just cases of enlightened minds. It's like the reflections on a pool of water. You can focus on them and you'll stop seeing the water. If you focus on the water, you stop noticing the reflections.

Both are sides of the same thing. The enlightened mind realizes the reflection for what they are - illusions - it doesn't mean "doesn't have reflections".

Suppose that person wants to smoke, but the smoker once expressed that they want to quit smoking. However, when they are having a nicotine craving, they just can't remember anything. Even when they allow the helper to help them before, they will fight and accuse them for "who are you to force me?". What would a Buddhist do in this situation?

This is only limited to my understanding about Buddhism, but isn't that koan the exemplar of this? The koan teacher deliberately makes the student confused. Could this be considered as "correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it"?


text:
In which suttas does The Buddha cover annihilationism (ucchedavāda)?
Given what I assume was the predominant view of the time, I would not be surprised if there are many Suttas that deal explicitly with resurrection (as opposed to rebirth which seems to be a more recent word used to delineate the concept), but I am interested in finding out in which sutras did Buddha Shakyamuni deal explicitly with annihilationism (ucchedavāda) which, as I understand it, is the position of the dissolution of the self after death (of which materialism would be a subset).
I am aware of the following Suttas:

Brahmajāla-sutta -- which covers a large array of positions of
wrong arguments against annhilationism, but doesn't seem to go into
too much detail on how it is a wrong view.
Alagaddūpama-sutta --
in which The Buddha instructs on how to defend his position from
being confused with annihilationism.
Pālileyya-sutta -- not sure exactly how to interpret this, but it
seems to be about assuaging the fear of annihilation.
Achela Kassapa-sutta -- where the Buddha states the middle way
between eternalism and annihilationism.
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- where The Buddha separates his view from
all conventional views.
Kalama Sutta -- where The Buddha explains the benefits of the path
even if there is nothing after death.

Are there any glaring misconceptions here?
Are there any other Suttas dealing with this topic?

"Ucchedavāda" is the view "a self or existent being in annihilated at death" (DN 1; Iti 49; SN 22.85; etc). "Ucchedavāda"is not the view that consciousness ends at the termination of life. In other words, "ucchedavāda" is a "self-view" rather than a doctrine of impermanence or a denial of reincarnation.
"Ucchedavāda" is also used to refer to a view that "other selves" cause personal suffering (SN 12.17); thus a doctine of "self-denial" that still believes in "selves"; which is similar to SN 22.81 & SN 44.10, which are views of annihilation that still contains the view of "self" or "I" & "mine":

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will
  not be mine.’
‘no cassaṃ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṃ na me bhavissatī’ti.
But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, ucchedadiṭṭhi saṅkhāro so.
SN 22.81

‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’
‘ahuvā me nūna pubbe attā, so etarahi natthī’”ti.
SN 44.10

In MN 22, while the Buddha was called a "venayika", the meaning was the same as "ucchedavāda":

‘The ascetic Gotama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation,
  eradication, and obliteration of an existing being.’
‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ
  paññāpeti

Why the Buddha was not an "exterminator" was because he taught there was no "existent being" (refer to SN 5.10).
The Kalama Sutta is not about "ucchedavāda". The Pali "natthi paro loko" in the Kalama Sutta is not related to "ucchedavāda".
In conclusion, "ucchedavāda" does not mean a denial of "reincarnation" or "rebirth". This common false idea found among Eternalist Buddhists slanders the Tathagatha & leads to hellish rebirth (because such Eternalist Buddhists are still devoured by "self-view" in the same way Annihilationists are devoured by "self-view").
Note: AN 10.29 says the "ucchedavāda" found in SN 22.81 is beneficially the foremost in non-Buddhist views because it is the closest to "loathsomeness".

This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might
  not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be
  mine.’
Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, bāhirakānaṃ diṭṭhigatānaṃ yadidaṃ ‘no cassaṃ, no
  ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi, na me bhavissatī’ti.
When someone has such a view, you can expect Evaṃdiṭṭhino, bhikkhave,
  etaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ:
that they will be repulsed by continued existence, ‘yā cāyaṃ bhave
  appaṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissati;
and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.
  yā cāyaṃ bhavanirodhe pāṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissatī’ti.

perhaps you will find what you want in the vagga about wrong views
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm

Some people hold the common fatal wrong view -- see DN2 -- "fatal" because headed to hell, driving them more to make their believes real as only escape option having:

'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves....Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'

Even: "To be or not to be, is no question", Buddhadasa told seldom once wisely.
At large: vibhava-driven, desire for not being, becoming, is all more or lesser common with the self/actor-denying view.

Third, the way “self” (attā) is defined in the annihilationist views (51–57) shows that the concept of self in the Buddha’s time did not—contrary to what is often believed—always have to mean an eternally existing self. In each of these views, the self is defined in such a way that it will be annihilated at death.

As not willing to correct their habits, wishing that kamma will not fall on them, they are hoping that "‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’"
Otherwise they would really see them in big troubles, if causes may have effects on them, facing such even after the break-up of the body.
As the Brahma-net sutta gives, they are mostly eager to gain certain "sunnata" by practicing Jhana, if not simply holding the common view that they are here only because mother and father.

“Another says to him, ‘There is, my good man, that self of which you speak. I don’t say that there’s not. But it’s not to that extent that the self is completely exterminated. There is another self where—with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, ...(perceiving,) ‘There is nothing’—one enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness...[27] You don’t know or see that, but I know it, I see it. When this self—with the breakup of the body—is annihilated, destroyed, & does not exist after death, it’s to this extent that the self is completely exterminated.’

Or they mix it up (as very popular today under householders of various livelihho) with the Uposatha of the Jains, the no-self approach on sessions.

"I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you.

It's the most common view under "modern/western" "Buddhists", this Annihilationists, some working on reaching such, some thinking that what ever doing, it will not fall to back on me, giving the fathers and mothers, or mother nature, the origin of causes of experiances (who ever might have them...).

...“There, where any of those contemplatives & brahmans who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation, destruction, & non-becoming of an existing being on seven grounds: That they would experience that other than through contact isn’t possible... “But when a monk discerns the origination, ending, allure, drawbacks of, & emancipation from the six sense media, he discerns what is higher than all of this.

See also natthikaditthi, one of the evil views, taught by Ajitakesakambala and further recourse found there.
Good to take on the safe bet
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks of short time benefit in this life, but for even the next and beyond)


text:
Judges passing the death sentence
The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
  seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
  struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
  exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
  striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
  slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
  slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."

What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law?
Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why?
Is it right livelihood?

A Sufi saying has it, 'To make a man a judge is to kill him without a knife'.

Yes, and it's good to compare it to that quoted story, as many think that for a "higher, nobler" aim, doing wrong is ok. Or out of duties, like moderators and "responsible" often think.
Not only doing by oneself, but also order by words or sign and mental approve (which is the heaviest) are the doors of action (kamma).
Not even the judge, but also those who install such as death sentence inlaws, order death sentence, or mental agree face the results of the kamma of killing. So one should be careful also when voting or watch news of "bad-mens-hunts".
Always good to address here is the Dhanañjani Sutta in regard of duties.

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

Is it right livelihood?
Ordering death is no right livelihood, spoken in regard of the main question.
"But": There is nothing total wrong which the work as judge, althought surely not very conductive for the practice. Remember the devoted King who gave up judging and passed it to his servants, having faced than "noble" people are capable to lie for sensual pleasure.
The work as someone who orders the physical harm or even depriving from life, or depriving of own, is of cause wrong livelihood, at least at the moment he makes use of the power for such. So it might depend much on the law he has to execute itself as well.
Same as doing soldier is not perse wrong, but only if not firm abstaining from killing.
(Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and notorious doubter by for those after firm stand upwardly and toward liberation)

Judging presents a tremendous burden of responsibility. Witness the following very sad judgment from AN4.111:

“Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow these forms of training?”
“In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”
“Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures.
  And yet you say
  you kill them.”
“It’s true, Kesi,
  it’s not appropriate for a Realized One to kill living creatures.
  But when a person in training doesn’t follow any of these forms of training, the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.
  For it is death in the training of the noble one
  when the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.”

Note that the killing is indirect by non-support. Yet one reads finality in this judgement as well as a deep sadness that there are no skillful means for helping those with no wish to be helped.
Judges uphold and are constrained by the laws of society. As citizens, we can advocate for laws that support the common good with the least harm. Whether we exile, imprison for life or execute those who maliciously and grievously violate society's laws is a shared responsibility.

There are many suttas where the Buddha speaks as matter of fact about Kings executing criminals.

Suppose, Susima, that
  a robber, an evil-doer, having been caught, were shown to a king:
  'This, your majesty, is a robber, an evil-doer. Decree what punishment
  you want for him.' And so the king would say, 'Go and — having bound
  him with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back,
  having shaved him bald — march him to a harsh-sounding drum from
  street to street, crossroads to crossroads; evict him out the south
  gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, cut off his
  head.' Then the king's men, having bound the man with a stout rope
  with his arms pinned tightly against his back, would march him to a
  harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads,
  evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of
  the city, cut off his head. What do you think, Susima? Wouldn't
  that man, for that reason, experience pain & distress?
SN 12.70

If King Yama & the wardens of hell in MN 130 went to hell for punishing evil-doers then there would be no King Yama & no wardens of hell. There would be no one to stoke the fires and punish those evil-doers (who misconstrue Dhamma).


text:
Best Pali to English translation source
I’m very new to Buddhism and am wanting to find an accurate source to show me the word-for-word interpretations of terms and words. Right now I’m trying to learn the meaning of each word of the “Ethan santhan ethan paneethan..” chant and although I have the English explanation of the whole thing, I want to know what each word translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how this mantra is said and also how Pali works.
I’d appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

Here is a slightly modified B.Thanissaro translation of that passage (etam santam...), with pali + english lined up side by side, nearly word for word order.
http://lucid24.org/an/an09/an09-0036/toc-addon/index.html
suttacentral.net is an excellent resource, if you configure the settings on there to show pali with english for B.Sujato translations (aside from KN, he has complete set of translations for nikayas). You can view them side by side or line by line.
lucid24.org has a snapshot of B.Sujato's translations as of 2019-jan., arranged in side by side pali+english, with an important correction to B. Sujato's mistranslation of the 4 jhana formula.
DPR (digital pali reader) is an offline excellent resource addon for firefox.
Those resources will save you an enormous amount of time from the tedious and frustrating old tech research methods. But with that said, don't expect to get an understanding of the Dhamma even if you read the entire Pali and English collection with a decent intellectual understanding. It's only through repeated reflection over years, and seeing how the various important terms are used in various contexts throughout the canon, and a deepening of samadhi in your meditation practice that the passages will really make sense, and you're able to sort out for yourself the various controversies and sharply divergent interpretations existing out there.

I want to know what each word translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how this mantra is said and also how Pali works

So other answers have already mentioned SuttaCentral.
There's also a Digital Pali Reader which I haven't tried (but which other people have, and liked).
And some of the suttas on buddha-vacana.org have "word by word" translations (i.e. if you use a mouse to hover over a word).
As for "how Pali works" I guess you need to ...

Know vocabulary (e.g. via dictionaries, of which there are several, and/or by looking at words in context, and/or seeing how other people translate them)
Know that words are compounded (aggregated into longer words, a bit like in German), however they're compounded in different ways (see here and/or here) -- you might need to guess at how to break a compound word into its components and look up each word separately.
Nouns are declined and verbs are conjugated (like in Latin or Greek)

You can't afford to ignore declension. In a Pali sentence like "man dog bites" then the nouns "man" and "dog" would be declined to show which is the subject or agent in the sentence, i.e. to show whether it's saying "man bites dog" or "dog bites man" -- it's the declension not the word order that's important (and declensions might be instead of prepositions too).

This list -- Declension of Nouns -- helps to look up the declension of nouns. See also the Pali Toolbox more generally.
The Syntax of the Cases in the Pali Nikayas tries to explain what each declension means -- e.g. "what might it mean when a noun is in the 'ablative' case?"

Questions about Pali itself (i.e. questions about the language) aren't really on-topic on this site, though, though questions about the meaning of specific Buddhist doctrine written in Pali is on topic.

You have to memorize the whole Pali context, not only "etam santam etam panitam" part, the answer is inside the entire Sutta's skeleton already.
Start with clinging in 5 string aggregates, which is sankhara (unpeaceful; asantam)
>>
More and more peaceful by clinging in only 1st jhana-8th jhana aggregates, which has lesser sankhara, but it still has  (unpeaceful; asantam).
>>
The most peaceful (peaceful; santam) is sabba-sankhara-vupasamatho.
For how is it unpeaceful, see MN Mahadukkhakkhandhasutta.

I’m very new to Buddhism

Newbies to Buddhism should 1st comprehend the core message of the teachings, which is found in the 1st three sermons. If the 1st three sermons are not comprehended then the phrase of this question will be misapprehended:
‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.
In summary, the 1st three sermons explain Nibbana is the ending of craving, attachment & egoism rather than the ending of "sankhara".
"Sankhara" is a complex term with many different meanings and is not found as an unwholesome dhamma in the 1st three sermons.

wanting to find an accurate source to show me the word-for-word
  interpretations of terms and words.

An "accurate" source does not exist, which is why there are numerous translations of a same sutta by different translators where each translation is different.
The above said, Sutta Central has (mostly) word-for-word Pali-English function of suttas translated by Bhikkhu Sujato, which is all of the MN, SN, AN & DN. While this Pali-English dictionary function can be used as a guide, it cannot be completely relied upon because the Pali dictionaries are often flawed.
In Sutta Central, click on the "wheel cog" at the top-right of the screen then activate the dictionary function below:

Right now I’m trying to learn the meaning of each word of the “Ethan
  santhan ethan paneethan..” chant and although I have the English
  explanation of the whole thing, I want to know what each word
  translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how
  this mantra is said and also how Pali works.

The verse you wish to translate is generally translated incorrectly and/or misunderstood, particularly the phrase: "sabbasaṅkhārasamatho".
‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.
Since the suttas clearly tell us in many places Nibbana is no attachment (sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo), no craving (taṇhākkhayo), no passion (virāgo) & no suffering (nirodho); the phrase "sabbasaṅkhārasamatho" does not mean "no sankhara" because "samatho", unlike "paṭinissaggo", "khayo", "vi" & "nirodho", does not mean the absence of something. "Samatho" means "calm", "tranquil" or "serene".
"Saṅkhāra" can be activities of body, speech & mind, which a living Buddha, dwelling in Nibbana, also has. Therefore, "sabbasaṅkhārasamatho" means the "calming of activities", i.e., a calm body, calm speech & a calm mind.
The common translation of "sabbasaṅkhārasamatho" as "stilling of all activities" gives the impression of an "absence of activities", which is wrong.


text:
Buddhism on paying for previous bad Karma
I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism.  However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years.  And it was slightly worrying.
He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information.  She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled.  Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong.  Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach".
However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes.  Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person.
I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.  And that obviously there may be more to the story.  I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.
But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?  As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done.  Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"?
In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably.
Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression.  But that's not you now.  Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"?
Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.

The above is wrong view. Many monks are idiots.

I also appreciate that they were seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

The above is wrong view. The monks were offering a superstitious (rather than spiritual) answer to her questions.

But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?

Buddhism became extinct in India because the Buddhism after the Buddha developed an obsession with past & future lives, which made it the same as Hinduism. It invented superstitions such as the Jataka Stories & added dodgy suttas into the suttas, such as the unique MN 135; which obviously justified the status quo of the society and supported the monks who pandered to the ruling classes for political support & financial donations. As a result, this corrupted Buddhism became extinct; absorbed into Hinduism.
Real Buddhism teaches about suffering & its cessation. When the Buddha taught about "kamma" ("action"), he taught about unwholesome & wholesome kamma that leads to "suffering" ("hell") & "happiness" ("heaven").
Obviously, a lack of a "worldly" quality cannot be explained by past lives. Our academic skills or intelligence, our ability to make money, our ability to play sport, our ability to play music, our physical beauty or ugliness, is obviously unrelated to "suffering" & "happiness". It is quite obvious many highly academically intelligent people are evil; such as the evil people who work in evil governments or evil industries that create evil things, such as wars & weapons of mass destruction. Or the many greatest musicians, most beautiful movie stars & champion sports people who die of drug addictions & unhappiness.
In summary, there is no correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". Since the Buddha taught Dhamma  was not something "worldly", there can never been any correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". In fact, a hypothesis could be pursued or researched about whether the majority of high level university graduates end up working in immoral unethical industries.
To end, similar to many current Western Christian schools, it appears the primary goal of this Buddhist school is not to make the students good people but to make the students high academic achievers for the gaining of worldly financial rewards. Similar to the dodgy MN 135, the impression is these religious schools are teaching narcissistic "spiritual materialism".

Unfortunately in such delicate situation, any explanation whether religious or materialistic, if they're done hastily at an inappropriate time and space  wouldn't be very useful. Matter of fact, by just shrugging one shoulder and tell the kid something like, sorry kid, sh... happens, or: well, it's just complete sheer chance that you've been dealt a lousy hand in life, might just make him feels much worse than that kammic explanation. That's why knowing the truth is not enough. It's when and how to say the truth is of no less importance:

"In the same way, prince:
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings." ~~ MN 58 ~~

I can think of one circumstance in which the doctrine might be useful -- i.e. if I said, "It's not fair that I have trouble with books when other people don't!" -- then a reply like "you have trouble because of a past life" might be helpful.
I guess it might be helpful is as an antidote to the "it's not fair" feeling -- and because it emphasises that it is now up to me to do something about it and/or live with it.
I agree though that as a reply seems suboptimal -- that a better teacher (perhaps with more teacher-training) might have been more helpful.
Also saying, "You're failing because you are or were an evil person" is completely contrary to e.g. how I've learned that preschool teachers are supposed to relate with their children/students. I mean as a teacher you might want to convey a message like, "That's bad behaviour, stop doing that and do this other good behaviour instead" -- but saying, "You're an evil person", is the wrong lesson (it's anathema to me). Some people (Buddhists too) dislike what they call western liberalism, saying it teaches that everyone is equal which is a false doctrine -- I think though that Buddhism's anatta doctrine justifies saying that certain behaviours are bad but without unduly identifying or associating traits with a "person".
I guess it's not uncommon though -- for example I think I remember someone (a westerner) complaining that he went to a monastery (probably several but this was one of them) in Asia, and had trouble learning what he was supposed to learn there, and the teacher said that his trouble was probably because he'd taken drugs when he was younger and was dismissive.

It's always miserable if caught to address either the wrong people, or at the wrong time or not attentive. There are places where only such miserable gather together and nobody would be able to help them out...
May all gain the bliss to get known those having left home.
A/the possibility to increase ones "luck" toward better is to practice generosity toward sublime and stick firm to Sila, virtue as this is the base for connection and learning.
Prisoners of Karma: A Story, maybe a more dettached access for prisoners.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for an exit of this wheel)


text:
Justice through soul-reincarnation
A pure, almost metaphysical but from the inside of me:
How would it sound that there is an afterlife of the more that 00 billion people that ever lived on earth since the begging of our species (as calculated).
And more specifically those who have lost their lives in vein or with an unjust way, through war or crime or even physical disaster.
How much JUSTICE could be embodied in our Universe and could these lost lives have a second chance as energy (a soul) in another parallel universe, or in other case, just be re-incarnated in our Earth?

I think there are several lessons in Buddhist doctrine -- and that two of them are:

Things happen for reasons, and what happens isn't necessarily "unjust"
Things happen (or stop happening) whether you like it or not, sometimes for reason which are outside your control -- you might try to anticipate that (e.g. knowing that things are impermanent), and to develop an appropriate attitude and reaction to events like that when they do occur.

You might listen to, for example, Ask A Monk: Karma in a Holocaust.


text:
Does accepting duality lead only to nondual skillfull qualities?
This question can seem contradictory but form my understanding ,duality is inherent in reality and accepting reality in all its dualities leads to more conscious actions. But if the person as a result acquires ONLY positive qualities then isn't this dual and not in accord with nature?
Buddhism lays emphasis that qualities like ,jealosy ,hate,pride and anger are unskillful and qualities like love,peace,contenmtent and compassion are. Don't we kill animals and plants to eat ,don't we fight in wars in self defense, these are negative but right actions to take and underlie negative qualities of brutality .
Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

This topic may be related -- it's about understanding or misunderstanding non-duality.

This question is a wonderful one. What should be defined and addressed in order to clear up your confusion is this:
What defines a “skillful” quality?
In classical Buddhism, something is skillful if it leads you closer to enlightenment. But why are experiences such as jealousy, pride, hate, and anger unskillful? All of these emotions enhance and reinforce a belief in duality. When you are jealous, you (someone separate) desire something they (someone separate) wants. Every unskillful experience arises because of a belief in separateness. It is only through observing first hand that the belief in duality is an illusion that we can be truly free.
It seems from your question, you believe that actions can be positive or negative. It is important to remember positive and negative are born from desire. No action or object is inherently “good” or “bad”. What makes something positive or negative is our own desires and orientation towards those experiences. Here are two examples to illustrate this.
The sky is blue. Most would say the sky being blue is neutral. If I wished more than anything in the world the sky was always orange, I would suffer most of the time, but find some peace during sunsets. If I desired the sky to be blue, it would bring me much joy most of the time, but I would suffer during sunsets.
All things are inherently neutral. Killing an animal for food is only a negative action if you don’t want to kill animals. If you are a vegan, you suffer while doing it. If you are a hunter, it brings you joy while doing it.

Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

This is exactly what enlightenment is. Right now, because you believe yourself to be a separate entity observing the world, you see many things that are not. Killing and crying are illusions. To someone who has not yet observed Nirvana, killing and crying are interpreted as painful actions that cause suffering. But when you see beyond the illusion, you will find that very same suffering doesn’t arise from killing and crying, but from the belief that there is someone present that is being harmed. Once you experience Nirvana first hand, it becomes clear that the only thing here is Nirvana. There is no you. There is no I. There is no killing. There is no crying. There is only peace.
I hope these words have been helpful to you on your path. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

You definitely cleared my confusion regarding skillful qualities.Very well put Nagasena :)