text:
What's the awakened state like?
I can grasp the truth of the false self.  That what I think of "me" in my mind doesn't exist . But I'm scared of giving it up after 45 years of it. Im like the guy in the matrix. Nero?

His name is NEO!

An awakened mind no longer has any desires, ambitions, fear, anger and so on.
I do understand the fear. It is quite normal and natural. And functional in the sense that the mind won't let go. So long as you fear you are attached to what you are used to.
Basically there is no need to worry. You won't suddenly wake up, not knowing how to react or something like that. The mind only lets go when it's ready, and that means that there will be no fear.
Practice is, in my humble opinion, key. Intellectualising and thinking and reasoning can get you only this far. Only by experiencing will fear subside, because your mind get's used to new experiences. It will familiarise itself with the yet unknown. And understanding and wisdom will grow... and so on.. and so on.

These two comments above seem to contradict each other. Is ambition good or bad? Does an awakened person have ambition or not?

An awakened person has no ambitions.
I wouldn't necessarily define ambition is terms of good or bad. I think it is much more helpful to look at the outcome: will the result be wholesome or not (as far as one can guess).
Getting rid of suffering is an ambition that gets one started. But along the way one will realise that that ambition is also a hindrance one has to give up. Every ambition with whatever assumed result is, in the end, a desire. But an ambition can get one started and inclined towards the right/wholesome direction. Hope this helps.

Yes, but the important bit is that person awakened goes beyond good or bad in the way that his actions cannot lead to heavy karmic effects after extinguishing Self. It is still the case that one will “desire” to do things selflessly and so Buddha didn’t classify all kinds of desire as bad, only the selfish desire / craving. Mahayana has different sets of views on that but let’s stick to the basic notion without later non duality addons.

by Ajahn Jayasaro: https://www.amaravati.org/skilful-desires/

Intellectually perceiving concept of Self is not how entirely you should realise the notion. Yes, you need it in order to understand why you practise but its only one side of the coin.
Prefer experience over reasoning, the insight and wisdom will naturally arise after some practise.
Don't try to push it though it might only create internal conflict and doubt. It might become hinderance. You need to have constant recollection of these ideas, but don't try to religiously employ them like doctrine.
Do good, refrain from evil, understand that we are all interconnected.
What you are extinguishing when you lose Self is great deal of suffering that you inflict to yourself on daily bases. Where you are aiming is total freedom, peace, joy and liberation.
It's always worth it no matter if its 15 or 45 years of age!

Thank you for replies.  It's a bit scary if that makes any sense? What happens to ambition in an awakened state ? Desire ?

Desire is not bad at all. Desire might be wholesome and unwholesome. Desire that is a wrong type of desire is the desire is for example to have sexual intercourse with a really hot neighbour while having a great, successful family. You are aware that this selfish desire can ruin your relationship and make you suffer but nonetheless you dive in to this and then yield consequences, as Self typically doesn't follow common sense, wanting to satisfy your desire as fast as it can, without considering cause and effect factor. That stands in stark contrast to selfless desire made out of compassion.

But what if I dont get caught with the really hot neighbour!

Effect isn’t only external; It will plant more selfish lust in your habits, and lust if indulged too often cannot be suppressed, for it only grows and it’s craving has no end. That leads to a terrible amount of suffering and dissatisfaction.

It is important to realize that there was no self to begin with. Knowing this, you can see that there is nothing to fear losing. In fact, awakening has nothing to do with gaining any sort of attainment; but it is simply the loss of incorrect perception.

Im aware of the false self and aware of my bad habits but some of them I keep falling into. How does one avoid them ? I'm dealing with addiction issues.  Im able to keep them at bay but other bad habits make their way through. Not as dangerous but bad all the same

Welcome @Nuthman and very good answer!

@Barryseeker perhaps that would be better stated as another question rather than a question in a comment? I can give personal experience how I've been able to abandon my bad habit of anger or at least curtail it to a degree I'm quite happy about! But the answer would better fit as answer to a proper question and not as a discussion in comments.

@Barryseeker, Addictions are blind reactions.
They manifest as a sensation on the body, followed by a thought such as "I like it!" or "I hate it!", followed by a reaction.
Suppose there is an addiction to cigarettes. Notice when there is an urge to smoke. Observe the feelings of that urge objectively without reaction. Notice that the desire lingers for a bit but is ultimately impermanent.
Most importantly, if you fail - forgive yourself and repeat the process. Over time, the  craving will weaken and eventually disappear. Non-reaction changes the habit pattern of the mind!


text:
Will someone explain rebirth and the differences between reincarnation?
Can someone explain the difference between reincarnation and rebirth? I've read the tags and am a little confused. Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist? If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.

I don’t think this is a good question for this site. It seems nearly every person on the site has a different idea or way of explaining it. ChrisW does an admirable job below in trying to summarize, but I doubt a comprehensive answer can be found. Would advise to meditate on this and to look to some good books to see what noted teachers say. Most everyone on this site are Buddhist patzers anyway, right?

The question is certainly on-topic, allowable -- the Moderation policies for Questions doesn't suggest closing/forbidding it (unless it were a duplicate of a question already asked and answered). Do you have any suggestions for how to perhaps improve this question, @YesheTenley? If there are multiple answers (if a topic is controversial) then a suggestion for how to answer is to outline the controversy in the answer.

Was not suggesting moderation. Don’t have any suggestions other than to note that OP might want to seek answers to this elsewhere.

@YesheTenley Maybe you could answer then with a recommendation of specific good books (preferably even, if you know any, books which answer the OP's question)?

That suggestion would depend upon the tradition that Hudo might be following. Otherwise, my recommendation would be the same as here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26383/13375

I am not a Buddhist, just curious about the beliefs of Buddhists.

The problem with Buddhism, there is no single accepted interpretation of just about anything. On the other hand, that's what makes it fun. Buddhism today is like mirror shattered in a thousand pieces. I have spent more than two decades trying to get to truth and I think I'm 99% clear about it now.
Most people thinking about past and future lives assume that something (some very important part of them, may be consciousness) stays alive after death and goes on to "other worlds" and maybe spends some time in an intermediate state to eventually obtain a new body. This is what's usually called "reincarnation".
The Buddhist view (of course I will say the only right Buddhist view - but you don't have to believe) is to view life as a continuous and not discrete phenomenon, both space- and time-wise. In this view everything is interconnected and made from millions of causal/conditional influences contributing to a particular configuration in a particular timespace locality. There are no individual "objects" let alone "people" or "souls" - that would seem to exist in a static world. Instead, the world is a dynamic system of constantly flowing influences, deterministically unfolding from their interactions.
The most important aspect of all these causes/conditions/influences that interact to compose everything, is information. Natural world with its variety of species is first and foremost an informational process, shaped by the principle of natural selection. As Richard Dawkins correctly explained the main subject of evolution is gene - essentially a sequence of information - with body being a physical manifestation of gene's tendency to replicate itself and pass itself on.
Likewise, the human culture can be seen as evolution of informational forms - memes (which was a term coined by Dawkins to expand the idea of gene as informational subject of natural selection beyond its one type known as the DNA). In this view, primates are media for memetic evolution, with our culture being a manifestation of memes' tendencies to replicate and pass themselves on, just like a body of biological organism is a manifestation of gene. Makes sense so far?
Our mind (what we call "our" "minds" - but which in fact should probably be called "The Mind" - because it's not "many") is an informational phenomenon made possible by a flow and interaction of information, an evolved kind of the same information that manifested the natural world, passing between different kinds of media. These media include primates' brains as well as various artifacts of human culture - primarily books and these days the digital medium of computers-and-the-internet. In this view the subjective experience or consciousness is no longer a mystery but rather a very natural property of information to re-present (to reflect, to model, to remember) other stuff. Any possible object or configuration or system of relationships found in the natural world can be re-presented with information. When this re-presentation gets robust enough it is called "experience" or "consciousness" or "sentience".
So now to get back to Buddhism. Because our lives and our minds are understood to be manifestations of, and 100% shaped by, informational processes (both at the material as well as the subjective levels), these processes operating contiguously & non-descrete-ly across the utterly complex combinations of various media capable of re-presentation; because in Buddhism we (supposedly) have a very clear understanding of all of the above -- we no longer see humans as separate blobs of matter (with or without "soul") getting born and dying. In this view, there is no birth and death, there is continuous trans-form-ation. The mind of a person does not start with death, but comes together gradually over time from various sources. All of those sources trace back to something that existed (events that happened) long before this particular human was born. In this sense there is no new person having been born. The person is an assembly or a manifestation of multiple threads of information transformation. The birds-eye perspective on this that looks at the entire human civilization (as well as the pre-human evolution) will see a graph of interconnected causation/information/transformation rolling forward like a stream. The entire thing is contiguous and highly interconnected, with no discrete entities to be found.
Then as the human child grows up, he or she develops ability to delineate and differentiate "objects". I don't have room to go over this here in much detail, but this ability is something Mahayana Buddhists call "objectification" or "reification". In this ability to designate discrete entities lies the biggest power and the biggest vulnerability of sentient mind. Since mind is nothing but dynamically interacting system of re-presentations, there is no way for it to know that its models (the discrete objects it delineates) are not the reality but only a rough (simplified) re-presentation of reality. This results in mind absolutizing and clinging to its models as all-correct and all-important, and developing attachment to some configurations and aversion to others, based on its simplistic re-presentation of the world. This attachment, aversion and confusion lead to conflict and suffering when our models mismatch other similar but incompatible models (harbored by other people) and also when our simplistic models inevitably mismatch reality.
When Buddhism talks about Enlightenment it talks about clearly understanding all of the above (this is my claim anyway). When Buddhism talks about liberation from suffering, it talks about the above. When Buddhism talks about no-self and no-rebirth, it talks about the above.

Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist? If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.

Now we have all the tools we need to answer your question, aren't we? The goal of Buddhism is to transcend the naive model we have that "to exists" means "to exist as a separate object". Transcending this model leads to the notion of death (as well as re-incarnation of an individual soul) becoming utterly naive and irrelevant.
The cycle of suffering continues with each generation passing the objectification/reification on to the next generation. Each new child is born and learns to see the world as a collection of separate objects, him- or herself one such object among others. (The exact process of how this separation unfolds is explained in Buddhist teaching of Twelve Nidanas aka Paticcasamuppada aka Pratitya-samutpada). This naive reification/objectification in turn leads to suffering, because of the conflict between the model and reality or one model and another model. Growing in the civilization shaped by the incorrect understanding, we humans internalize the reified world as the only possible cognitive framework and pass it on to the next generation, continuing the cycle of suffering.
This answer getting too long I have to stop here - but this should give you the big picture. All of the Buddhism's teaching and practice with its various schools can be explained nicely in terms of the above.

That (i.e. "memes and genes") is a description of reality -- and maybe a "selfless" one (although its origin is a book titled The Selfish Gene, by an infamously anti-religious author fwiw). Someone described the theory to me once in passing, I haven't read the book. I didn't like the sound of it at the time, so didn't look to find out more about it. The theory seemed to me to be descriptive -- but not predictive nor even falisfiable, so maybe not a scientific theory or a useful model. It's not prescriptive, nor practicable (practical). And not moral.

Buddhism's identifying a link between suffering and craving seems more obviously useful, predictive, prescriptive, humane. I suppose you're right at least that meme-and-gene is a model that doesn't especially feature (or privilege the view of) individuals and life and death. Reification is maybe not the same theory as the meme-and-gene theory -- the reification theory maybe is interesting, prescriptive and practical. I'm slightly suspicious of its being dualistic ("true reality" versus "misconceived reification"), reminiscent of the object/subject duality which I think is a preoccupation of...

... western philosophy, and which I think Buddhism does well to ignore (by a focus on, instead, shared subjective experience). But maybe "reification" is like "attachment" (if only to a view), so it isn't a non-Buddhist model.

The Selfish Gene is not a bad book on the topic of evolution - firmly established in the popular science genre with  only a very occasional sarcastic gesture towards the creationists, I recommend checking it out. You are correct that it features more of a descriptive view than a prescriptive (just like the theory of evolution itself) by attempting to clarify the exact identity of "the subject" of the evolutionary process. Is that useful despite being "descriptive"? In my opinion, yes - it enhances clarity in an area that is complex and prone to confusion - which looks useful in my eyes...

As we both know by now, Buddhism is often descriptive and non-prescriptive as well. It provides descriptions of psychological processes: how exactly the suffering and the self-view emerge, and what actions would lead to reversal of that. I agree Buddhism supplies a prescriptive component as well, by setting up the hierarchy of "virtuous" goals and activities, with Enlightenment/Nirvana as the summum bonum.

The true reality vs "misconceived reification" dilemma is a slight misunderstanding of my presentation on your part, 100% because of me not providing enough clarity in my presentation. Reification is exactly reification of any description as "the only valid", and the correct view of non-reification would recognize (relative!) validity of almost any perspective. As I say times and again, the view of Dependent Origination is only a stepping stone to the view of no-single-view, also known as the groundless ground, - in this sense it too is a relative truth...

I think Darwin's theory is at least predictive -- more than only descriptive, even if it's not prescriptive -- e.g. it predicts the evolution of species (speciation), caused by survival (and breeding) of the fittest. That's sort of testable (observing new species created) -- even illuminating, in explaining the existence of species and the fossil record where no previous explanation existed. The "meme" model merely piggy-backs on that ("ideas are like a virus", I think it says). Sorry: just being grumpy, about a book I didn't even read long ago.

I suppose even the descriptions (of psychological processes) in Buddhist doctrine are meant to be useful as well (see e.g. the Handful of simsapa leaves), though maybe there are more and less useful bits.

The meme model is a generalization of the gene model that I find useful for explaining the process of cultural evolution of human civilization. Natural selection of ideas etc. Anyway, I do get that all views are just that - views and agree that duality between "true reality" and "misconception" is suspicious, and yet I insist that Buddha has introduced a notion of "right view(s)" (mundane right view and noble right view) for a good reason - some views are more conducive to peace than others, esp. the view that the Buddha characterized as "one who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma"

The reason I invoke the theory of memes is to show how "rebirth" is phenomenon of the same (informational) nature as memes. If you think about it, memes is a reification of informational entities, just like the concept of soul or self. In fact I believe that what ancient Hindus & Buddhists called gods and spirits are reified entities of the same kind.

I get an impression that the paticcasamuppada are lecture notes (to a perhaps-lost lecture): a teacher can draw the wheel of life, lecture on it (perhaps for hours), and leave the drawing at the end as an aide-memoire (not every lecture is exactly the same, though). The quote "one who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma" comes from the end of MN 28 -- which, only describes DO as "sense objects plus attention causes consciousness, thence the five grasping-aggregates, for which one shouldn't feel greed/desire/grasping". This (MN 28) version of DO is much simpler IMO: it doesn't mention

... becoming, and birth (whose definition is controversial), and death; nor ignorance (whose presence begs the question IMO); nor sankharas (which too invite a thicket of views IMO). I think MN 28 says consciousness is conditioned by senses and contact (which is more prescriptive for the novice than "consciousness plus name-and-form condition the senses"). I think it says explicitly that contact (paying attention) is optional, hence the practice of guarding the senses. I think it also suggests it's possible to stop craving (and attaching to) the five aggregates.

Basically I prefer this version of the DO doctrine -- it doesn't try to mention birth (its version of anatta is a dispassion for the aggregates).

My favorite version of DO can be found in Salistamba sutra

I've read the tags and am a little confused.
I agree with the other two answers (Sankha's and Medhiṇī).
I'd add that some people understand it as a repeated (but each only temporary) arising of various "self-views", views like for example "this body is me", instances or instants of some kind of egoism ... for example here:

Dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant; it is impermanent. Therefore, Birth and Death must be explained as phenomena within the process of dependent arising in everyday life of ordinary people. Right Mindfulness is lost during contacts of the Roots and surroundings. Thereafter, when vexation due to greed, anger, and ignorance is experienced, the ego has already been born. It is considered as one “birth.” The “birth” that originates from the mother’s womb used in everyday language is not the “birth” meant in the doctrine of dependent origination. The meaning of birth in everyday language obstructs our understanding of the doctrine. We should instead direct our attention on possible “future births” [emergence of the ego] at the moment. This is certainly far better than not knowing in what state the “future birth” of everyday language will deliver us.

I think some people have argued about, criticised each other about, how it should be interpreted.

People who say it means successive births or lives might be criticised as "materialist" (because they see one body as a whole life)
People who say it means successive ego-views within one body's life-time might be criticised as "extinctionist" (because are they saying that everything ends with no further birth when the body dies?)

Anyway some people get quite insistent, that their view is orthodox, or that other people's interpretation of the doctrine is mistaken. I say this to warn that you might find that different answers or explanations are mutually contradictory.
Ironically, I wonder whether the very act of attaching to and arguing for a fixed or single view on this subject might itself be an example of attaching to a view-of-self, an example of "becoming".
Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist?
I don't think so: I think the goal (or a goal) is to cease to "suffer" (and to help other people who may be suffering, and to live a "holy life" with that intention).
The problem is that various views of self might contribute to suffering, for example:

"He beat me, he hurt me, he robbed me, he insulted me!"
"Alas, I'm going to die!"
"Alas, my beloved (parent, child, spouse, friend, teacher, pet) is going to die!"
"Alas, my lovely possessions or property won't last, and/or I can't take them with me!"

Having views like these is maybe not just a result of suffering but a cause of suffering.
So having these "views of self" is criticised as being unwise: and a reason for that is because that view results in suffering.
Another argument is that the body isn't "worthy" of being viewed as self -- a body is temporary (and maybe a bit ugly and so on too), so it doesn't deserve your saying about it "this body is me and I'm sad that it will die".
Sometimes Buddhism analyses things into the "five heaps" -- none of which should be viewed as self -- and so e.g. you shouldn't say "this body is me!", nor "this sensation is me!", nor "this perception is me!", etc.
You can extend that further or to anything, to saying for example "my name isn't me" (or "this name isn't me"), and "this job isn't me", "this house isn't me", and so on.
And it's not just that self-view is unwise (because it results in suffering), or "unworthy", it's also literally true -- e.g. "this house" and so on genuinely isn't me.
The doctrine warns that views-of-self can arise as a result of unwise attention: for example if you experience a sensation, wise attention to that sensation might recognise "that is or was a mere sensation" whereas unwise attention might say "that's me!" or "that sensation is me!".
Views of self also cause social problems (or suffering as a result of social contact), e.g. "Alas, he's richer than me!" and so on. So Buddhism teaches the "Brahmaviharas" as being the right attitude to have towards "other people" (i.e. social contact).
Then you get doctrine talking about the difference between the conventional or worldly view -- according to which "the person" exist, in which people or beings have and/or are a name, a body, friends and family, skills and knowledge and habits and preferences -- and an ultimate view in which the worldly view isn't clung to, i.e. in which you aren't attached to (or constrained by, or where you're liberated from) self-views.
Another attempt to explain this is the allegory of the chariot -- i.e. "there isn't really such a thing as a chariot, what we call 'a chariot' is just an assemblage of different bits -- e.g. wheels and axle and a yoke and so on."
If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.
I find the four noble truths more lucid than the Paticcasamuppada.
I suppose the doctrine of the five skandhas is an attempt to explain "the self doesn't really exist", instead there's just these five heaps (none of which should be viewed as self).
I put the Paticcasamuppada in a similar category, some people think it makes a perfect and precise sense (and argue and fuss with each other about what it means exactly), but the message I get from it is similar to the skandhas, i.e. "the self doesn't really exist, instead it's merely a system or cycle of these twelve nidanas".
(To be fair, the Paticcasamuppada does some have further value, e.g. in explaining or predicting or introducing the role of "guarding the senses" as a means of interrupting the "cycle of becoming").
But anyway I think the four noble truths are maybe the best or simplest explanation: i.e. suffering is conditioned by craving, suffering continues when craving continues, when attachment to the aggregates continues.

OP: Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist?

The Buddha (Tathagata) became free from suffering. Does he no longer exist after physical death? Or does he exist? Or does he neither exist nor not exist?
The answer to this comes in SN 44.6:

"But, my friend, would there another line of reasoning, in line with
  which that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"
"There would, my friend. "For one who loves becoming, who is fond of
  becoming, who cherishes becoming, who does not know or see, as it
  actually is present, the cessation of becoming, there occurs the
  thought, 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not
  exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist
  after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
  death.'
"But for one who doesn't love becoming, who isn't fond of becoming,
  who doesn't cherish becoming, who knows & sees, as it actually is
  present, the cessation of becoming, the thought, 'The Tathagata exists
  after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The
  Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The
  Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' doesn't
  occur.
"This, too, is a line of reasoning in line with which that has not
  been declared by the Blessed One."

In other words, if someone is fond of becoming, that is, becoming someone, living a life, being a person etc. then he would be concerned whether the enlightened one exists or not exists after death. The craving of becoming is known in Pali as "bhava tanha".
The one who is not fond of becoming, would not be concerned whether the enlightened one exists or not, after death. It would not be important to him.
Even this craving of becoming, is a source of suffering, not just the craving for sensual enjoyments ("kama tanha").
The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering, by ending craving.
Ironically, you can also crave to not become. This is known as "vibhava tanha". One outcome of this craving is suicide, which does not end suffering, due to rebirth.
Freedom from suffering is not about ceasing to exist, becoming or unbecoming. It is simply freedom from suffering, by becoming enlightened from ignorance of truth and reality.
Also, please see this answer. I have an analogy there that would help you understand this better.

Can someone explain the difference between reincarnation and rebirth?
The first is an english word of thirteen letters and begins with an 'r' and ends with an 'n'. The second is an english word of seven letters beginning with 'r' and ending with 'h'. Notably, both begin with the same two letters. There is no definitive meaning or difference between them. Some people use them in exactly the same way, some people use them in slightly different ways and some other people use them in entirely different ways.
Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist?
No.
If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.
Sentient beings are subject to endless cycles of rebirth in samsara. This is unsatisfactory and suffering exists.

Those are not “true buddhist” answers nor necessarily majority views. If you are looking for a poll or majority answers, then I recommend you look elsewhere. Alternatively, there are a number of questions/answers on this site about rebirth and reincarnation and what these terms mean and the nature of existence. Feel free to peruse and if anything needs clarification feel free to ask specific questions.

Reincarnation is a meta-physical idea, namely, the mind leaves a physical body and enters a new physical body.
Rebirth is a kammic or moral principle, namely, the quality of actions dictate the quality of mind in the future.
For example, in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, it is taught the soul is reincarnated into a new physical body therefore it is OK to engage in and lose one's life in a war.
Where as Buddhist rebirth teaches engaging in war leads to rebirth as an animal or in hell.

The word 'reincarnation' usually implies an unchanging soul that goes from life to life. The word 'rebirth' does not necessarily imply a soul. In Buddhism, it is taught that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. So the word 'rebirth' is more suitable to  use in a Buddhist context.
The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. Birth is a part of suffering. Read the Paticcasamuppada to know about how the cycle continues.

Why is birth considered part of suffering. I tried reading Paticcasamuppada, but it was lot to dive in without prior knowledge of anything on this religion.

Being stuck inside a womb for 9 month is suffering. It also leads to all the suffering one has to endure in life. Technically speaking, arising of the five aggregates is suffering.

Although I agree with Sankha, I would add that both terms are not really suitable, imho. There is no-one or nothing to re-anything. There is no 're', just an ongoing stream of one state of consciousness after the other, with or without the combination of matter (depends on the realm).
Btw., we are talking about an experiential frame of reference. In experience there is no person. In experience there is just matter (hard, soft, cold, warm...), perception, affect of the experience, reaction to and awareness of the experience; aka. the aggregates.
It might help to look at it in this context (the context of the aggregates of experience) and 're' doesn't really come into play.
A last thing to add might be that suffering is not only limited to humans, if we talk in conceptual language. So, if there were no persons left, then there would still be enough other beings left to suffer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How personality view disappears?
Personality view disappears at once at the stage of stream entry or is it gradual ?

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I guess you mean identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) - please see this question for examples.
Eradicating identity view is different from eradicating all traces of self - please see this question.
A view is a kind of belief. For example, a person may have the view that the Earth is flat. However, this person may change his view, based on the opinion of trusted credible scientists, without making a direct scientific validation of his view.
Views may affect one's behavior and in turn result in particular outcomes. For example, if you have the view that you don't have to clean yourself when you get dirty and before you eat, this may cause you to contract diseases due to lack of hygiene. By changing your view from the wrong view to the right view, you can reduce your suffering.
But you don't have to change your views on hygiene after experiencing disease. You can adopt the right view on hygiene, after listening to trusted credible sources.
Similarly, the Buddha is the trusted credible source who taught us that all phenomena is not self. He also taught us that eradicating self view will reduce suffering. For example, when someone insults you as being fat, you may become angry and experience agony due to the fetter of conceit, but you can snap out of it quickly and not dwell on it, due to your not having the view that your body is your self. By snapping out of anger quickly, your suffering will be reduced. And that's how not having identity view will result in the reduction of suffering.
You don't lose your identity view after stream entry. Rather, you have to overcome identity view in order to reach stream entry. You don't lose the wrong hygiene view after becoming hygienic. You have to lose the wrong hygiene view and gain the right hygiene view, in order to achieve a good state of hygiene.
A stream winner could become angry due to clinging and conceit (tanha-mana), when someone insults him as being fat or stupid. But he would snap out of it quickly, due to not having identity view. Conceit is a deep-seated tendency that is hard to uproot. But a view can be changed through learning, reflection and understanding. A fully enlightened arahant has uprooted all the deep-seated fetters. Please also see this answer.
Gaining the Right View is always the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path.

Eradication of self leads to perfection which is nothing but Nirvana. Continuos meditation on five grasping aggregates leads to the fruit of stream enterer, once returner, non returner and perfection.Continous meditation on five grasping aggregates leads to utter realisation of Anatta. I quote the following from sutta SN 22.122 which says that even the perfect ones meditate over the five aggregates:

But Reverend Sāriputta, what things should a perfected one properly
  attend to?” “Reverend Koṭṭhita, a perfected one should properly attend
  to the five grasping aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as
  diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as
  alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. A perfected one has
  nothing more to do, and nothing that needs improvement. Still, these
  things, when developed and cultivated, lead to blissful meditation in
  the present life, and also to mindfulness and situational awareness.”

This question investigates whether Nirvana means utter realisation of Anatta. My opinion remains that Nirvana means Anatta. However from what I have quoted above ,the answer must be clear to you that meditation over the aggregates (which denies existence of any self) is continuos meditation. It should never end.

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


text:
What weight has the kamma when forced to do bad things as a child?
Example: A child (+/- 8yrs old) is forced to kill an animal. It doesn't want to, but has to because it is threatened by abusive adults.
Wanting to kill or not doesn't, I think, matter when it comes to the bad kamma performed here. And yes, since it is the child that performs the killing, the bad kamma is done by the child and the child will bear the negative results of that kamma.
But, what about the weight of that kamma? Since the child had no option but to obey. How heavy is that kamma? How heavy can the results be?
Does anyone have an idea (preferably with source to text in the Pali canon)?
(Related: What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse? . Except that that question was about the cause, mine is about the weight of kamma.)

Good question. Do you welcome answers from perspective of Mahayana as well?

Sure, every bit of info helps. :)

I don't think it possible for sentient beings to objectively quantify the weight of karma. In other words, there is no objective answer to this question that will properly quantify the weight of negative karma relative to other acts.
What is clear is that negative karma will almost certainly accrue. How do we know this? Because being forced to kill is unsatisfactory. It is disturbing to the mind. It will leave a negative imprint.
Now, is it possible that some child is actually an advanced Bodhisattva or Buddha manifesting as a child and what appears to us mundane sentient beings as a child being forced to do harm could in actuality be an enlightened being manifesting and doing acts that are ultimately beneficial motivated by compassion? Yes! This is possible. In such a case, no negative karma will accrue for that manifesting being. That being's mind will not be disturbed even the slightest bit.
However, if the child is an ordinary sentient being then the predicament is negative and the fruits of it are going to be at least in part negative. Why do I say at least in part? Maybe the child also has a thought of compassion for whatever sentient being it is forced to kill. That compassionate thought is virtuous and will without a doubt manifest positive fruit. Nevertheless, negative thoughts most certainly will also arise and give negative fruit.
Anyway, I don't think we can quantify it. I think we can say it is most likely some negative stuff going on and children forced to do this type of thing are going to be negatively impacted both in the moment when they are forced into a negative act and in the future as negative fruit ripens.
One thing to keep in mind is that karma is not justice. It is not like there is some court or bank that is keeping tally of our good/bad deeds and doling out consequences accordingly. It is not like that. Karma and the law of karma just are the way things work. Children don't deserve this kind of thing happening to them. On the other hand, they don't not deserve it either. Deserve / not deserve, does not apply. Karma just is.

I do agree, deserve/not deserve doesn't apply, kamma has nothing to do with deserving. I will give some thought to the role of the compassionate thought in this situation. You've raised an interesting point with this. Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer this somewhat difficult question. It's appreciated. :)

Karma is something very complected to fully comprehend and Buddha advice not to attempt comprehending it as a result.
Remember that Karma is intentional action.
In this example the child does build up Karma for killing. But did he enjoy or be happy about it. Will this lead to further killing by him compared to someone who killed on his/her own free will. All this are part of the equations. There is a difference in reluctantly killing, which can be done even by a stream entered person.
People who forced him/her to kill will also build up  karma from it. And they are more likely to repeat the pattern and build up more karma as a result compared to child.
Also the karma of the animal that was killed also played a part in it. But non of it is an excuse.
Also child might regret his action and live in guilt. Which is also bad karma. In Theravada buddhism at least, I have heard a story about a monk who became a snake after death as a result of indulging in guilt of breaking off a leaf of a tree (This original action of breaking a leaf was not even intentional nor bad karma but the guilt was).
One important thing to take here is that it is incorrect to say the child had no choice and he had to obay. This is incorrect. Every human being is free and can choose to disobey if they want. Such action may have consequences, so is killing.
This thinking of we had no choice, is a result of years of conditioning our minds to be obedient, conformatives instead of being free.

"There is a difference in reluctantly killing, which can be done even by a stream entered person." <-- Have you a source for this? That would be much appreciated. It would help me a lot if I could read about this.

Dont have a direct canonical reference. But cording to my teachers the relationship between killing and a stream enterent is described as "panathi patha pativirathi hothi". Meaning not interested in harming a living being. Which does not mean he/she will not take a life ("veeramani"). Only sins that a stream enterent will absolutely not commit are five heinous crimes.
Found this link. But not a direct canonical reference. https://blog.nirvanadhamma.com/2010/06/lets-understand-about-real-sila.html

Very long post. I'll read it with care. Thank you. :)
Also, I thought about the 'no choice' thingy. I think it would have been better to say : a child sees no other choice than to obey. An adult has a better position to see more options. And even adults have difficulty in that. Which would fit your argument of conditioning.

What will be the case when child kills a butterfly or caterpillar or ants, out of curiosity or ignorance or pure fun? Here he or she doesnt have an intention to cause delibrate suffering as the child is not advised in dhamma or is ignorant of suffering.

@BodhiWalker I like to think that a child who would do that isn't very conscious of an insect's being "a living being" (and so the kammic effect of their action may be less) -- but, I don't know, I think that it's difficult in general to assess or to predict the effects of kamma ... being able to do so is a supernatural ability -- something which the Buddha could do.

I killed a lot when I was young. I now regret doing so. On that basis, my regret serves as a condition for my abandonment of killing in the present and hopefully in the future.

@CrisW and BodhiWalker. Being ignorant does not really free you from consiquances. Remember that ignorance is the root of suffering. Iradicate ignorance and you iradicate suffering. While a child will not hurt a butterfly out of anger he will do that out of greed/desiar. Only action committed with alobha (non greed), adwesha (non anger), amoha (no ignorance) are void of karma. But ofcourse not all karma are created equal. But as you might already see this is very complicated and not something a buddhist is adviced to think too much about.

@YesheTenley Another good point: regret as a condition for different behaviour now. :)

@Medhiṇī Indeed, there is a documentary that just popped up on Netflix where a former nazi skinhead expresses such regret and says something bordering on real understanding and compassion in the present: https://www.netflix.com/title/80994804

Buddha has said "intention is kamma". The action done without any intention to do so is not binding. Here the child is not having any kind of intention ,so with this as the base ,action done by him is not burdened upon him. It is burdened upon the person making to do so. The intention is governed by the sankharas . If at all physical action does not happen but still anyone has intention to do so is binding.  The intention itself is governed by the greed,hate etc. If intention is there and you do not do physical action . For not doing physical action there might be several reasons. Not getting proper situation, mind controlling it by saying no this is not good etc . But the arisal of intention can only be dispensed with when observing it equanimously. Not by controlling it through mind. It only suppresses it for the time being, again to crop up on receipt of  stimulating inputs from sensory bases. There are n number of intentions (seeds of kamma) stored . So one is always under misconception that though bad intention aroused  ,i have not done any physical action upon it ,i have controlled myself. But this misconception does not relieve from the burden of the same. Buddha has said there are kaya kamma,vacha kamma and mental kamma. Behind all of these are the volitions/sankharas, which are generated by us only out of the avijja/ignorance of anicca,anatta. Sometimes our actions/response are so involuntary that after happening of that action we come to know of it. Here again there comes into play the reacting habit/conditioning of the mind ,strongly in that particular type of sankharas. The conscious even does not know it. But as the buddha said all arising is to pass away,it is not permanent. But this happens in our case only when  the wisdom of anicca develops within us at experiential level. But once it develops, no bothering of  arising of whatsoever. In hinduism there is a nice nomenclature about this .that stage is called upon as 'avdhoot/paramhansa". Then there is no bothering of rules/regulations of scriptures etc bcs whatever action happens is not causing any burden to repay.

"The action done without any intention to do so is not binding. Here the child is not having any kind of intention.." <-- I've said almost the same thing when talking about this to a monk (unfortunately only briefly). But he said that that is not true. There was intention there the moment the child decided out of fear of harm and fear for his own life to kill the animal. And I do except that answer. That's why I'm wondering about the weight of that kamma.


text:
Eradication of identity view is a cause or effect of stream entry?
I am asking this question due to this answer.
Is the removal of identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) required before stream entry can be attained? Or would identity view be removed only with the achievement of stream entry?

To me this question sounds like an example of reification. In my opinion, in real life the numerous factors of Understanding and Liberation develop gradually, supporting each other in lockstep.
The more someone sees through the numerous simplistic assumptions underlying our idea of "self" - the more one can be said to be free from the self-view. In practice the stream-entry is gradual, just like Enlightenment itself (I believe).
The entire maturity model is pretty much a reification - defining clear-cut categories where even the criteria for delineation are not well-defined. This is why in Mahayana we are advised against obsessing over categorization too much, because it can lead to dead-end arguments, but also supports the self-view. On which level am I? - this very question already presupposes existence of "I" that can occupy a level.
I think the whole model is a bit sarcastic on Buddha's part towards the junior students (and Buddha WAS known for his sarcasm) in the spirit of "oooooh, sounds like you still have many more lives to go, brother" etc.

I would add that none of it is really relevant to the practice. That only changes once one is an arahant anyway. So, even a sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami (if one would want to use those terms) will continue the practice not different from a so called ordinary person. Mahayana seems so now and then not different from Theravada. Except that the road to enlightenment is gradual, but the moments of reaching a certain state is, well, just a moment. But again, for the practice it doesn't matter. :)

Very well said!

There is one categorization to me that is clear cut and not subjective. That is becoming an Arya being. What is an Arya being? It is someone who has had a direct realization of emptiness in meditative equipoise. ie., entering the first bhumi.

Upon reflection, this does make sense to me. In fact, steadfast adherence to the rigidity of the maturity model and the strict definitions of every stage may even be part of the fetter of grasping at habits and practices (sīlabbata-parāmāsa). This is supported by MN 78 and Snp 4.9. So, the zen-like sarcastic part is that the student follows the definitions of the four stages rigidly till he overcomes the fetter of sīlabbata-parāmāsa, then discards it.

Sakkhaya Ditti is eradicated as a result of attaining  stream entry. It's wrong to say that it is required to remove the identity view before attaining stream entry. Read the detailed answer given here by venerable Yuttadhammo.

Two thumbs up! :)

Stream entry is a label to concisely announce that the person has the usual 3 characteristics of ''stream entry'', with what you call the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' being one of those.
If you want to know what the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is all about, which has nothing to do with being an expert on dependent origination like it is written on another thread on this website, you can read
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html
and his statements like

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I
  say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
  something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
  clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
  assume that 'I am this.'

that's all there is to the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' . the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is itself a label regrouping all the statements in this quote.
I you want to now what ''''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'''' is all about, since you are a puthujjana, you already naturally regards the ''5 aggregates'' as ''I am this'' and even more stupid from you, you turn that into a ''I am'', typically by regarding as and calling them ''mine''. You have been doing this for many years already, so no need to explain more.
Once you no longer regard any aggregate  as ''mine'' you can claim that you lack ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''.

SN 22.122 states that meditation over five grasping aggregates is a continuos process. It applies to all , stream enterer, once returner, non returner and the perfect one. Meditating on five grasping aggregates leads to the fruit of stream enterer, once returner, non returner and perfection. I answered a similar question here.
 Although nothing is left for the perfect one to achieve,eradication of self view is a desired  meditation even for the perfect one.


text:
are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?
Did the Buddha say anything of the value of mundane acts of generosity which may temporarily alleviate the suffering of others in a temporary, worldly way, but do not free others from from suffering?
For example, helping someone get what they desperately "need" will not free them from craving, nor will curing a disease free someone from old age, sickness, and death. The following quotes support this point, i.e. how  mundane work or acts of generosity - which give material comfort but are not the gift of the dhamma - do not free anyone from the causes of suffering.
Dalai Lama:

Science and technology have contributed immensely to the overall development of humankind, to our material comfort and well- being as well as to our understanding of the world we live in. But if we put too much emphasis on these endeavors, we are in danger of losing those aspects of human knowledge that contribute to the development of an honest and altruistic personality.
...
No one can deny the material benefits of modern life, but we are still faced with suffering, fear, and tension— perhaps more now than ever before.

Bhikku Bodhi:

The pāramitās begin with dāna-pāramitā, the perfection of giving. Social engagement can certainly be included under this category, as it involves giving others material gifts and the gift of security. But these gifts, as worthy as they are, do not equal in value the gift of the Dharma, for the gift of the Dharma leads to the permanent extinction of suffering.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

How many scientists do you know who have become enlightened? Have you heard of any? Well, if a scientist trains in this, he becomes enlightened. That’s pretty neat, isn’t it? These days scientists are praised as being the most eminent people in this world, because they make devices through which you can instantly talk to someone on the other end of the world, or you can fly through the skies. Well, with this practice you can go beyond being a scientist. Actually, what science can create is pretty amazing, but still, all science is on this side of the shore of knowledge. The profound samadhi means the other shore of knowledge, having transcended dualistic mind. Right now, if we compare ourselves with a scientist, a scientist seems to be better, right? But once the scientist arrives on the other shore, any mental doings is of no use at all! At that point, as far as we are concerned, it is much better to arrive on the other side at transcendent knowledge. Here’s a question for all of you: exactly how much benefit is there from scientific knowledge the moment you are in the bardo? Think about it well. When a scientist is in the bardo he no longer has any gadgets to help him, no spy satellites or jet planes to move around in. In the bardo isn’t whatever one created of absolutely no use? Scientific knowledge is not transcendent. The knowledge that we are supposed to train in is transcendent knowledge, prajnaparamita.
Honestly, whatever mundane, unspiritual actions we do show themselves to be a total waste at the end of this life. They are good for absolutely nothing. Any work that one bothers to complete is pointless unless it is connected with a virtuous outcome.

Upasika Kee:

Don’t think that you were born to gain this or that level of comfort. You were born to study pain and the causes of pain, and to follow the practice that frees you from pain. This is the most important thing there is. Everything else is trivial and unimportant.

What acts of compassion and generosity were considered worthwhile to the Buddha?

I would argue that no act of compassion is mundane.

Are you only asking "which acts were meaningful/worthwhile to the Buddha?" (i.e. a reference request), or are you also asking people for their own experience/understanding as implied by the question in the title?

Yes, certainly asking for references, but not excluding others' understanding of what the Buddha said.

There will be confusion over your use of the term 'mundane acts'. What you said as 'for e.g. helping someone get what they desperately "need" ' this I won't consider mundane. 'desperate need' isn't mundane, I would appreciate if you can give a literal example of what you are asking by mundane.

@BodhiWalker I guess the OP's definition of "mundane" includes giving food, money, and/or medicine or other necessities ... and that "supramundane" could only be the gift of dhamma.

Yes. Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful to the Buddha, however small.
From Vaccha Sutta:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Sangaha Sutta:

"There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."
Generosity, kind words, beneficial help,
  & consistency in the face of
  events,
  in line with what's appropriate
  in each case.
  These bonds of fellowship [function] in the world
  like the linchpin in a moving cart.

From Sigalovada Sutta:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

From Dullabha Sutta:

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The
  one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a
  kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are
  hard to find in the world."

From Itivuttaka 75:

"And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.
A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

From Itivuttaka 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

The quote from Itivuttaka 100 really gets to the question, doesn't it :) Any suggestions for further reading on how, in the Buddha's words, to be compassionate or of service to others?

@avatarKorra You may find this question interesting.  These articles may also be of interest: Educating Compassion (Thanissaro), Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (E. Harris), The Balanced Way (Bodhi), The Four Sublime States (Nyanaponika)

@avatarKorra I also updated my answer to include a quote from Itivuttaka 75.

Thank you @ruben2020, although I don't know how many of us here are on the path to amassing wealith. But a quote about the value of doing good, worldly deeds for people (e.g. service moreso than giving out wealth or food) would be highly relevant and appreciated.

The quotes for which compassion indirectly supports the spread of the dhamma make sense to me, but for the others, similar to Ananda's line of questioning, I ask 'what is the reward/function/purpose'  of fellowship (Sangaha Sutta), or hard to find people (Dullhaba Sutta), or friends (Sigalovada)?

Are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?

They certainly are. All actions based in the 3 wholesome roots are of great value. They will lay the foundational work (Sila) for meditation practice and move the practitioner closer to Nibbana.
The 10 Paramis (Dāna pāramī), are often described as "bowls" that are filled with one droplet a time. It may take a long time to fill the bowl but small droplets will eventually create a river.
Acts of compassion/generosity will slowly fill the bowl. One droplet a time, until one has perfected the Parami.

So you're saying that of mundane acts of generosity are meaningful not so much because the material help will end the causes of suffering for the recipient, but really because the practice of generosity is meaningful towards the giver's inner cultivation - is this correct?

I'm also thinking of dana. It's the first of the parami (10 perfections).
You could check these sources: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#dana
One thing that I experience when practicing parami, what I can notice, is that the inclination of the mind changes towards the wholesome. So, mundane acts of generosity might not help out the receiver a lot in the sense that this generosity will not get rid of this persons suffering permanently. But it will help a bit, for a moment. Plus the mind of the giver is aligned towards the wholesome.
Therefore I do think it counts for something.
Also, it will increase your happiness. That, in turn, will lead to concentration and more stillness in the mind.
Note: This is from Theravada point of view and practice.

Yes the mundane acts are good as pointed out by other answers, but you took a narrow view of the Tulkus following words,

Honestly, whatever mundane, unspiritual actions we do show themselves to be a total waste at the end of this life. They are good for absolutely nothing. Any work that one bothers to complete is pointless unless it is connected with a virtuous outcome.

Here, he is pointing at something much profound than a trivial intrepretation that mundane acts are unimportant.
The good deeds leads good karma, that good karma leads to a better life...and so the cycle of samsara prepetuates. You have been doing such useless mundane acts lives after lives...with no avail.
Contemplate on the story of Bodhidharma and the Emperor. When the Emperor asked Him, does his act of generousity produce any merit, Bodhidharma said 'Mu' and left the palace.
So I will say the Tulku is right, and I will disagree with the above answers and say those mundane acts are not meaningful, given that you are considering the bigger context of Nibbana and Human suffering.

Doing good or bad things brings good or bad results, and perpetuates samsara, so stop doing anything new that is not neutral and hasten the burning up of all previous karma - this is the Jain view that was refuted by the Buddha in MN 101.

To Buddha it was absolutely critical to do good and avoid evil as selflessness crushes Self.

@ruben2020 [1/3] I know of the Buddha's insistence on 'Dana' and overall Buddhist approach towards Compassion. You misunderstood my answer, I am not advocating becoming 'neutral' or 'inaction', I am taking the context of the question into consideration. The questioner has quoted the Tulku, that is where the question might have been aroused in his mind. I will consider a 'mundane' act of compassion as unspiritual, and hence siding by the Tulku, 'a total waste'. Of course there will be a confusion here unless we define and agree upon 'what is a 'mundane act''.

@ruben2020 [2/3] If you indulge in mundane acts, the merit acquired will not be as such of any huge value. It will on the other hand bloster your ego of doing something for someone. This is where I see the Hindoos around me stuck into, they build temples, donate to priests and make offerings all inorder to acquire merit to gain higher birth which will get them Moksha (a hindoo version of Nibbana). It takes them nowhere. You have to understand the emphasis here is on the word 'Mundane'. On the bigger context of atainment of Nibbana, mundane is useless.

@BodhiWalker If relevant and supporting your answer, you can put your explanation directly into your answer, instead of having it in comments.

@ruben2020 [3/3] He has asked, is it 'meaningful' not 'useful'. If he would have asked useful, then may be its useful, but the term meaningful changes the gist of the question given the context here is Buddhist where the supreme goal is to eradicate the suffering through Nibbana. Our time here in one life limited. Nibbana is not mundane. Mundane acts are meaningless.

@dhamma4life the word is 'mundane acts' , that changes the vantage point.

@BodhiWalker: Does Buddha make difference anywhere? No acts are meaningless, its as if you claimed that volition of and kammic outcome is meaningless.
I don't know, maybe we should better define what exactly "mundane" means in this context as well.

@dhamma4life yes its required to define what constitute 'mundane'.

In the suttas,  THe usual order of dana, from most beneficial for the person who gives to the least beneficial, is first gives to the buddha, then to what some people call ''solitary buddhas'', then to arhants, then to puthujjanas who want to stop being puthujjanas [those are the typical bhikkus] then to other puthujjanas and other living beings.
Of course, what is given matters a bit but not that much, typically, it is usual food, some basic goods for hygiene and that's all for the puthujjanas who want to stop being puthujjanas and the people called ''aryas''.
Yes toxic puthujjanas have faith in materialism and feeling compassionate to appease conflicts. THose puthujjana crave an abundance of goods and what they call ''opportunities'' and what they call ''meanings'' to please themselves and people and they think once puthujjanas are fed, they will be nice to each other.
Those toxic puthujjanas love to give materials goods to craving puthujjanas and once they are satisfied with their fantasy of being good puthujjanas by giving material stuff and telling other puthujjanas and themselves that they are good people, they stop here and leave the craving puthujjana with the given good.
To be clear the fantasy of being compassionate as being a good behavior is natural for any puthujjana. It is part of their nature of fantasizing the negation of what they despise has being good. For instance, they love to claim ''that caring for oneself and one's desires all the time is bad, therefore it must mean that trying to cater to other people needs and worrying about other people is good''. Some even claim that dying for other puthujjanas or animals is a good thing... . Those people cannot stop caring about needs, about desires, about senses. Those people cannot think beyond the present suffering.
For instance, a puthujjana wants a blanket to spend the night with warmth and some compassionate  puthujjana comes along, hear about this  claim ''I know not having a blanket at night sucks, god poor little you, I totally know your plight and I am sadden by your situation'' and gives the other puthujjana a blanket. The other puthujjana accepts the blanket and will delight in it, thinking warmth is good and there is nothing wrong with delighting in this blanket,  which pleases the toxic puthujjana who stay at the level of loving to think a beneficial action has been done.
These people even speculate about the ''origin'' of this lack of goods and opportunities and they usually come up with their fantasy of ''lack of money'' and ''lack of respect'' and ''discrimination'' or ''lack of equality''.
These people do not understand pleasures nor consciousness nor death.
Of course, once you learn about the dhamma, you learn that this caring about ''needs'' is the recipe for bad karma, for being more obsessed with goods, for more suffering and even more dramatically, trying to satisfy the desires of puthujjanas is not the way to stop their suffering.
The little quoted rant about scientists is not relevant to this and it is badly phrased, so there is nothing wrong about forgetting it.

This seems quite negative: I think it says "worldly so-called 'compassion' is selfish and toxic and worse than useless." It might be easier to understand if you added something about the opposite: when is dana good (or what type of dana, what circumstance, what mind-state associated with dana) -- and why, what's the difference in cause or intention or effect. Or maybe distinguish between generosity (dana) and compassion (metta) if that's important.


text:
Mindfulness during walking meditation
During walking meditation and day to day activity if sees the mind intention of doing something is earlier than that of bodily action. Is that mindfulness enough to generate right view in a person and disappearance of sakkaya ditti?

Very good question. :)
The answer is: Yes and no.
Yes, seeing intention before the doing is a great way of getting to see anatta in action (so to speak).
No, because I fear you won't be able to keep this up. Plus it's not necessary to go into that much detail.
Don't forget that every single action is preceded by intention. You really can't keep this up. Also, the mind is way, way faster than the body. You will miss a lot which is not a problem, but it could discourage you.
Here is a proposal of what you could do:
Day 1: Pay attention to the intention related to the change of posture. So, see if you can catch the intention to stand, to sit, to lie down or to walk.
This goes for daily life as well as walking meditation.
Day 2: Pay attention to the rising and falling of the abdomen in daily life.
Day 3: Pay attention to the four elements throughout the day.
You can create your own 'trainings schedule'. Point is that it should be doable for you, challenging but not too overwhelming so that it would be discouraging.
You can play with what you want to keep an eye on any given day. As long as it is in the realms of the four satipatthana. Then the mind will pick up the right knowledge and wisdom along the way.
In addition:
Don't forget to remind yourself. "Intention to sit, intention to sit, intention to sit"; "intention to walk, intention to walk, intention to walk"; "hard, hard, hard"; "soft, soft, soft"; "rising, falling; rising, falling"... and so on.
That reminding yourself is the sati-part of the practice (mindfulness).
Have fun! :)

Not all the actions are preceded by intention/volition according to both science and Buddha, therefore, not all actions produce kamma (i.e. some body movements both internal and external are neutral). For example, here:

http://washingtonbuddhistvihara.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/THE-IMPORTANCE-OF-VOLITION-FOR-THE-FORMATION-OF-KARMA.pdf
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/17.8b-The-unconscious.-piya.pdf

I'm not talking about kamma. That's not the sort of intentions I refer to. In meditation it will become quite obvious that every movement/action is preceded by the intention to move/to act. Every walking is preceded by the intention to walk, every sitting is preceded by the intention to sit, even every blinking of the eye is preceded by the intention to blink; every rising, every falling, every swallowing... they are all preceded by the intention to. This is what we refer to when we talk about practical applications. Hope this makes it clearer.

But it is very much about kamma. Practical implication of practising mindfulness and purpose is to quote Buddha: "Do good, avoid evil and purify your mind" and it is about perfoming a good kammic action, so mindfulness is keeping in mind the right set of ethics and views to apply them whenever we notice thought formation that leads to act that arose from moods or emotion or drive.

I think this could be due to a difference in understanding. As stated on my profile: my answers and comments are rooted in practical experience, not theoretical knowledge. I'll leave it at that.

I guess the original author's question was about mindfulness and relation to right view.
It is not so much about practical experience or not; mindfulness is a tool and has a purpose that is not done for mindfulness sake. For example, we want to be mindful to eradicate one of the corrupted, bad habits that we have that makes us suffer. So we are aware of when the drive and volition comes so we can overcome it with wisdom. This way one practises Eightfold path in eight directions keeping in mind right view.

Think right mindfulness  in this way leads to understand about  kamma. Which leads to eradicate fetters.

Yes, mindfulness does lead to understanding eventually but only when practised with other 7 legs of the Eightfold path simultaneously. Here's everything you need: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

Walking meditation isn't strictly the same as mindfulness. In walking meditation you have a set of repeated phases that you divide walking in order to concentrate on each phase in a single-pointed fashion. Note that its a set fixed set of points. That is not strictly doable in a everyday life as it is more unpredictable to know of all phenomena and phases beforehand due to cause and effect and interconnectedness of beings. Also there are also actions on a subconscious, free of volitional intent level; reactions facilitated by storehouse consciousness actively working with sense consciousness. Example being quick reflex reactions that lead to action.
With mindfulness it is that the view and recollection of the view comes first in the way that you are aware of the right view so you can apply wisdom to formations that happen as a reaction to feelings, drives and moods.
And this is what walking meditation trains, it trains sati which is reaction timing/window to the phenomena to which you can apply wisdom accordingly. For instance, thought arises as a reaction to sadness, and you are being mindful of by keeping recollection, so you have the choice to not "act" upon it.
Focusing on breath and body throughout the day also trains and brings recollection.
Please see what is right mindfulness:
Is Mindfulness a poor translation for Sati?


text:
What do you say to share your deeds after you have donated something?
I'm wondering do you say "sadu, sadu, sadu" in theravada buddhism, after you have made donation and want to share your good deeds with others.

No. Sadhu means something like 'well said'.
I think you're referring to sharing of merits:
Patti Dāna
Idaṃ me ñātinaṃ hotu
(May this be for my relatives.)
Sukhitā hontu ñātayo
(May my relatives be happy!)
If you want to hear the chant in action (and chant along):
http://chantpali.org/closing.html#patti_dana
Another option:
“Idaṃ me  puññaṃ nibbānassa paccayo hotu.”
(May these merits of mine be conducive to my attainment of Nibbana)
Addition:
I think it's also noteworthy that there is not one correct way to share merits. You can use your own words, in your own language, in English, Pali. Whatever feels comfortable to you. I think that an important part of sharing merits is to really connect to the meaning of the words you're saying. Otherwise it's just 'blabla'.

Without your "another option", it is not ancient theravāda, because the anatta-view-procedure and anatta-nibbāna are the identity of ancient theravāda.

@Bonn Does it matter for the wholesomeness of the mind whether it's ancient or not? Anyway, I was trying to point out that there are several texts. Thanks for your addition :)

Every religious have the same "sharing deed" as well, so the target of doing merit or the target of sharing deed make buddhism difference from the other religious. The targets of doing merit in buddhism are anatta-view-procedure and anatta-nibbāna, such as AN 7.49 Dana Sutta. Buddha doesn't like teaching incomplete dhamma, such as MN 97  Dhanañjani Sutta. I just add more information, because this answer is clear and good enough for the question, but it is not complete as I explained.

You can speak out loud or silently in your mind. What is important is that the intention to share/benefit yourself or others is present.
Here is a quote on the transfer of merit. Its discussed what the benefits are and how the transfer is done. The method can be used for living beings as well.
The quote is from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 409-410:

The Significance of Transference of Merits to the Departed
"ACCORDING to Buddhism, good deeds or ‘acts of merit’ bring happiness to the doer both in this world and in the hereafter. Acts of merit are also believed to lead towards the final goal of everlasting happiness. The acts of merit can be performed through body, speech or mind. Every good deed produces ‘merit’ (store of positive spiritual well being) which accumulates to the ‘credit’ of the doer. Buddhism also teaches that the acquired merit can be transferred to others; it can be shared vicariously with others. In other words, the merit is ‘transferable’ and so can be shared with other persons. The persons who receive the merit can be either living or departed ones.
The method for transferring merits is quite simple. First some good deeds are performed. The doer of the good deeds has merely to wish that the merit gained accrues to someone in particular. This wish can be purely mental or it can be accompanied by an expression of words.
The wish could be made with the beneficiary being aware of it. When the beneficiary is aware of the act or wish, then a mutual ‘rejoicing in’ merit takes place. Here the beneficiary becomes a participant of the original deed by associating him or herself with the deed done. If the beneficiary identifies him or herself with both the deed and the doer, he or she can sometimes acquire even greater merit than the original doer, either because the elation is greater or because the appreciation of the value of the deed is based on an understanding of Dharma. Buddhist texts contain several stories of such instances.
The ‘joy of transference of merits’ can also take place with or without the knowledge of the doer of the meritorious act. All that is necessary is for the beneficiary to feel gladness in the heart when he or she becomes aware of the good deed. If one wishes, one can express joy by saying ‘sadhu’ which means ‘well done’. What is being done is creating a kind of mental or verbal applause. In order to share the good deed done by another, what is important is that there must be actual approval of the deed and joy arising in the beneficiary’s heart.
  Even if so desired, the doer of a good deed cannot prevent another’s ‘rejoicing in the merit’ because he or she has no power over another’s thoughts. According to the Buddha, in all actions, thought is what really matters. Transference is primarily an act of the mind.
To transfer merit does not mean that a person is deprived of the merit originally acquired from his or her good deed. On the contrary, the very act of ‘transference’ is a good deed in itself and hence enhances the merit already earned".


text:
How can Buddhism help with bad habits?
I have been suffering with addictions. Addictions are complex. Both that I suffer from are in abatement. I am in recovery as they say. I am getting medical support.
Besides the addiction I have bad habits in relation to being abusive to people when angry. Verbally abusive. Textually abusive.
I realise the self is false but it's very hard to shake it off. Before I know it I'm operating from an ego state. Any advice?

My first Buddhist teacher was extremely helpful with this. Basically, he explained that all these problems come from attachments. "Ego" is just a name for a tangle of attachments. Someone says something that goes against your attachment and you get triggered. You think "this is right, this is the way its supposed to be - and what they did is wrong". That "supposed to be" is the attachment. They are like mind worms, you should get rid of them. If you start now, in five years you will have none. Just don't get angry at people who still have attachments, because that's an attachment too. Makes sense?
It's called "attachment" because you think this is the only right way it should be - but in reality it's not the only way. Nothing in the world has to be one way. Letting go of attachments involves catching yourself getting triggered, identifying the attachment, and then expanding your perspective to include other possibilities. This process goes deep, very very deep - until you completely lose all shape, any ground under your feet - so it's is not for the faint of heart. Following this path is like a robot disassembling itself, piece by piece - until there is nothing left. That "nothing" is freedom.
Attachments are the real issue. Addictions are secondary, just a side effect.
What's kinda interesting and cool is that reality you find yourself in is always the reverse projection of your hidden attachments. It's really amazing. The circumstances and the overall mood of the situations that you get in, is a reflection of your attachments. So the more you hold on to them, the worse it gets - and as you let go, a different reality is assembled around you.

This is brillant above but I think I'm going to have to accelerate the process as because i can't afford any more outbursts or arguments in work.

Buddhism is of great help in dealing with addictions. I will address the smoking and drinking ones. This is how my teacher advised me to deal with.
The following answer is not to promote smoking in any way, it's just based on an acute understanding on how difficult it is to go cold turkey on addictions.
Smoking Awareness
You have to basically remember that the whole process is about mindfulness and awareness and your will to quit the habit. Whenever the desire arises don't smoke while talking to friends or other people then you are not aware of smoking. Then retreat into solitariness. Take out the cigarette and smell it before lighting it, feel it, then lite it mindfully, take in every puff and exhale every puff with an articulate concentration of what exactly you are doing. At an end of each cycle contemplate that death has come one breath closer. Contemplate the gory death with cancer or any other terrible disease you are going to suffer. This contemplation creates a repulsion. Plus the more mindful and aware you become, the more you feel the smoke and the smell of cigs repulsive. This heightened awareness of smoke takes you to that state of mind you once had as a child or teenager when you hated smoke. The more aware and sensitive you become the more you don't want to do it anymore.
Also if you start practicing Vipassana you like the feeling of simple breath and you start knowing how blissful the breath is, so what happens is you start not wanting to smoke anymore.
If you study the 10 Paramitas and 8 fold path you start to know to have compassion towards your self as well and not to harm yourself anymore.
Within the context of Buddhism, you want to quit smoking as not to do the bad karma of harming yourself without feeling guilty about it.
Alcohol Awareness
Just like smoking try to be aware of every gulp of alcohol you will have. Then with awareness, you observe how the head gets heavy, you observe how you start feeling tipsy, you observe how you lose the mind and how evil thoughts overcome you. If you practice Vipassana you will learn to observe, you extend that same capacity to observe yourself while drinking. This will eventually create the repulsiveness. You don't want to be addicted to alcohol anymore.
Abusive behavior
Within the context of Buddhism, you start practicing Metta meditation i.e. compassion and kindness towards all beings, as this practice will grow, it will be hard to be abusive towards people also it will create forgiveness towards yourself and others in you.
Buddhism helps a lot overcoming bad habits

Metta starts always with oneself. Others come next. :)

Telling yourself 'The self is false' or 'bad' won't make a difference in your day-to-day life because these are just intellectual understandings without any underlying experience, therefore you don't really FEEL what you are telling yourself.
If you have harmful addictions that are long manifested Buddhism is probably not the best solution. In my opinion, Therapy which targets your both your thinking and behaving is most suited (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy/Acceptance Commitment Therapy etc.)
Ingrained habits were practised for a long time and reducing or even overcoming them can take a long time and that's why goal setting, coping skills, cost benefit analysis, restructuring 'distorted' cognitions and alternative behaviours are critically important.
While practising kindness can undermine abusive and angry behaviour(s) it only surpresses it for a while but the perceptions of anger/abuse are still there. Trying to be kind or compassionate in a difficult situation to the other person is really hard and you better be patient in such situations or delay the situation for a couple of minutes to think through your behaviour (even this is really hard).
In the end, it is very important to have self acceptance towards yourself, which means that you never judge the doer but the acts you have done and you do so in a constructive and kind manner.

CBT, ACT is not a bad advise. I would add that following the 5 precepts as an extra thingy is not bad either. :)

Yes, mindfulness helps. The question has been technically answered in depth here also:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19888/13383
Being angry and abusive is also a habit, and it is highly addictive if overly cultivated. One example is to live more mindful life and mindfully observe that anger that leads to abuse, note that anger is within me and shift your attention to the breath, as just as all phenomena such as backache or itching - it will naturally subside.
Watching breath has also another characteristic which is calming the mind; and that is the only state when one can think clearly with illuminating clarity, not under any influence.

Maybe you find one of those videos helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4j9bs3T1aPR6nBjUsHy1dns3A9ZjqjoY
The one about pornography and masturbation handles the question about addiction quite well, imho.

Thankfully I don't have thosr addictions!

The title of the video is misleading. He starts out with a question he got about pornography and masturbation, but his answer gets quite quickly into addiction in general. I found in worth while.

Apart from using mindfulness-based techniques as found in other answers, you can also try the following contemplation from AN 5.57:

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

If a person is in recovery and dependent on medical support it is not bad to reflect on kamma, but that is not enough. Knowing that thoughts and behaviours will have an effect in the future is one thing, doing something in a constructive and in a  well prepared way is another.

When I was younger I used to identify with my anger to a very strong degree. You see, I had a very bad temper. It was so bad that I regularly scared the people around me when I lost it. When I was in grade school I was known for my temper. It was an integral part of my reputation and my own self-assessment. Other children would get afraid when I absolutely lost it and I absolutely lost in on many an occasion. My family generally agreed that I received my temper from my father who was also infamous for having a very hot temper.
I idealized my father when I was young and used to follow him around. And then when I was four to five years old, my father left me. I think this likely played a large part in my strong attachment and self-identification with my anger. I loved my father and I received this from him and when he left it was one of the ways I internalized a continuing connection with him.
I used to think of my anger as a very big part of who I was and even considered it a source of refuge. Cringe :( I thought it protected me from others and I saw it as a way I could impose my control and will over others. Or so I thought...
After I started studying Buddhism and talking about this with my teacher she instructed me to have a good look at this anger and to watch carefully the effect it had on myself and others. I understood in the abstract maybe that anger was bad, but it was such a basis for my conception of self that I did not really think it was possible to get rid of it. Even worse I was scared to do so and didn't want to! If I abandoned this wouldn't I be abandoning a part of myself?? Luckily, I listened to my teacher and checked up on it and used a little bit of mindfulness to see what the real fruits were of my anger...
Let's just say that over the course of a few years it became quite apparent to me that - shockingly - there was not a single redeeming quality to my temper. To my surprise, after looking carefully I found that my temper was a huge hindrance and caused me a huge amount of grief. It was also a very large source of suffering for those around me. This really did come as a surprise! I'm ashamed now to say that this was a surprise, but it really was...
After developing sure knowledge that my temper was a problem and was only causing me grief - without a single redeeming quality!! - I started to wonder how I could abandon it? I was still very unsure if this was even possible given how long I had self-identified with it. It was a very large part of who I thought I was.
The first thing I did was to start thinking and resolving that I was not my anger. My anger was not an integral part of me, but rather a construct and habit that I had developed. After looking into my past and coming to terms with my father and other formative developments I can say that I no longer identify with my anger at all. To be clear, I still get angry... but it is no longer a part of my self-conception.
Really, it is quite amazing to me how far I've been able to come in abandoning anger. That has more to do with just how bad my temper was than how little anger I have now ;) It is all relative after all. The keys were to understand what a burden my anger was and to realize that I am not an inherently angry person. I cultivated the wish to get rid of and abandon my temper. I watched when it would arise and would generate regret at doing so and would resolve to try harder to be mindful. I started to associate my anger as a bad little habit of mind. Nothing more. One that just need to be watched carefully lest it cause damage to myself and others. And lo and behold, while I'm far from perfect I really have made huge progress! I've greatly reduced the suffering I've inflicted on myself and others from my temper.
So this is my story and experience trying to abandon this habit of anger. It really is a kind of thought training and practice if you think about it. There is no magic to it just a lot of practice and reflection.
My current big project is my arrogance. That is another habit that I've self-identified with and have stupidly cultivated over the years. The headway I've made with my temper though gives me confidence that arrogance can also be abandoned. The technique I'm using right now which seems to be really helpful is to reflect whenever I do something well or receive praise and the arrogant mind arises, "Oh silly arrogant mind! You played no part in giving cause to whatever success I just achieved. In fact, I achieved that success in spite of you and certainly not because of you! You didn't help me in the slightest to achieve this so - arrogant mind - you deserve none of the credit. Now go back to playing in your sandbox you silly arrogant mind!"
So, something like that... :)
Hope this helps!

@Barryseeker you are very welcome


text:
Stop influence on mind
Sitting on a chair, working. Sometime
later finding yourself sitting in a position same as one beside you.
Is this an automatic influence on mind, you are not aware of the position in which the other being is sitting ?
Sometimes while working make same mistakes as the one sitting beside or in front. The status of the mind same as the people around.
Doing those things as thought by other.
How to avoid this?
Is there any reference in Buddhism to stop this?
What is such behaviour of mind called?
There is another thing , would like to mention, the status of mind sometimes becomes same as the one who remembers you.
For e.g when someone trying to contact you for very long time via mobile, the mind becomes the person who is trying to contact you.
Is it something to do with chakra?
How to guard the mind?

what type of meditation do you do,you should be careful

Present moment, been following teachings of Eckhart Tolle

If the teachings include absorption in the present moment,then you are about right,you are simply absorbing in the present state of things.Try to relax in it!

Related to Andrei Volkov's answer, I don't think we need to tie supra-mundane phenomena (chakras, etc) into our explanation of why this happens.
However, in a Buddhist sense, this is very relevant and related to how the concept of self is formed. Because what we perceive as the self is not a "true inherent fact" and is, in fact, a dependent and co-arising phenomenon that occurs with many causes, it is dependent moment-to-moment on many different things. Any person who has drank alcohol can speak to how that affects a person. There are many studies about psycho-active drugs or medications of many kind which affect what we consider to be the self. In terms of company being kept, psychology can refer to it as "Mirroring".
When you speak to someone and they have expectations about you, they are not just keeping those expectations in mind- they are in fact crafting the conversation with the idea of you they have in mind. So someone who has not spoken with you in years will continue to expect you to be the same, and will craft their conversation based on this. You might then see that the conversation almost creates a slide for you. If you behave as expected, the conversation goes more smoothly. Due to attachment and aversion, we generally dislike being in awkward social situations, so when we behave in a mindless way, we get on that slide in a drive towards what we like (social cohesion) and away from what we dislike (social awkwardness). If you instead behave differently, it is like stopping yourself on the slide, standing up, and going a different direction. You throw the other person off-balance (at least for a moment, they might quickly recover) and create at least a small amount of social awkwardness. Many many people have a lot of aversion towards even momentary social awkwardness.
This also happens when you keep company with people in general, but it's especially noticeable when you are very different from them, or when they remember a different set of behaviors from the one you have now. People try to make conversations go as smoothly as they can, generally, and they do so based on their own experiences or memories.
One thing the Buddha talked about was keeping good company. In this way, we can use Mirroring to our advantage. If we have friends who are virtuous and expect others to be virtuous, it becomes easier for us to also be virtuous. So, in a mundane sense, if you find yourself behaving in a way you dislike when speaking to certain people, it's reasonable to avoid those people as a result.
If you are unable or unwilling to cut contact with these people, following the Buddhist path will be helpful. As you become less attached to social cohesion and less averse to social awkwardness, it will be easier to face the walk away from the slide. Cultivating mindfulness will also help you notice when you are being affected by others in this manner, allowing you to manually step in and stop it.

I have seen answers where other people reference other answers/answerers, but I'm unsure how to add the link properly. Is it normally done manually or is there a trick to @ someone in an answer?

If you click on where it says share underneath the answer you want to link to, it pops a URL (a web address) associated with that answer, which you can copy (and paste later). Once you have the URL of the answer you want to link to, you can use that URL to make a hyperlink in your own answer. See also Markdown help for a description of how to add formatting (including hyperlinks) to the text of your answer, and/or use the formatting toolbar above the input (text area) when you create r edit the text of your answer.

Not a Buddhist answer, but I think in psychology this is called "mirroring" and happens when we subconsciously try to "fit in" - i.e. when we feel insecure because we come from different background, and so we're trying to be like the other.

Thich Nhat Hanh has an answer to your question:

We may think that our agitation is ours alone, but if we look
  carefully, we'll see that it is our inheritance from our whole society
  and many generations of our ancestors.  Individual consciousness is
  made of the collective consciousness, and the collective consciousness
  is made of individual consciousness.  They cannot be separated.
  Looking deeply into our individual consciousness, we touch the
  collective consciousness

It is possible to see and have insight past our individual and collective ways, it requires practise to develop such capacity.

I've had similar experiences. After a while they stopped. Just like everything else in nature, this too will end.
In the meanwhile I would advise raising your level of awareness.