text:
Why must the goal be everylasting? (Anicca)
Why must someone strive for something which is everlasting, e.g. Nirvana? It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent.
It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting. One doesnt need to cling to a belief that there is something which lasts forever. Did anyone come to the idea that everyone cling to the buddha and the idea of liberation?
Well now one could argue that you can enjoy something  which is impermanent and not get attached to it, but that is never really mentioned in the suttas.. it's not about enjoying but always to renounce. Now, I thing that it's not  good to base one's goal PRIMARLY to self oriented ones, i.e. only achieving enlightenment. I know that this is not a good motivation and that one rather focus on others or on much  measureable goals like.. meditating twice per day or showing forgiveness or to apologize for one's wrongdoings.. Agreed on that? I think you all do but still the main goal in Buddhism is to escape Samsara and the cycle(s) of rebirth. Which leads to my second question:
Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again?
I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent. It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting.
That sankharas are impermanent seems to be an observable fact as well as theoretically plausible.
Whether that seems "unfortunate" is more debatable. (reference)
Also FWIW I think that the Buddha defined "unfortunate" (in the first and second noble truths) without mentioning "impermanence".
Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again?
I think it's better for everyone, isn't it -- better for you, for me, for everyone else -- if for example I have metta towards you than if I were to hold ill-will. And better now, not just in the future.
There's the eightfold way, which starts with right view (i.e. wisdom). And there's the three-fold training, which starts with virtue and ends with wisdom. It's a bit like a chain, you can see how it works by examining it from-front-to-back or from-back-to-front ... it seems to me that metta is associated with virtue and wisdom, i.e. it's "right" and "wise".
But I think it's practical. There are many articles written about the brahmaviharas, for example:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

That article says quite a lot while hardly ever mentioning karma and samsara.
I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.
I mentioned it in a previous answer yesterday, but in case you didn't catch it there, I think the idea of "greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving" might be addressed in this sutta: Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).

You don't have to believe anything because  when one practices "seeing things as they are", that is how one knows "what is" beyond any belief.
One who lives by the Dhamma does not merely study it but practices it. If one just studies the Dhamma then one will be likely to  cultivate many wrong views and unnecessarily  over think and contemplate the Dhamma for themselves.
People who only study the words of the Dhamma are not experiencing "what is", they are reading about what is.
One contemplates impermanence not by reading about impermanence or  intellectually pondering impermanence. One contemplates impermanence by experiencing the impermanence of experiential phenomena, moment by moment. This is directly seeing what is without a concept or judgement modification.
It is good to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana if one truly doesn't know. It's not necessary to chase after liberation because all we need to do is "see things as they are" and "accept what is". Liberation could be like a nice side effect.
Hope this helps :) Metta

Why must someone strive for something which is everlasting, e.g. Nirvana?

Very good observation and good question. The answer is: you don't have to! There is no "must".
But some people want to! Some people want to find everlasting ease and peace. They are tired of troubles and don't want to hear about any solution that is only temporary and after some time the troubles will re-appear. They want to stop all future troubles once and forever. They keep suffering that life never gives them a break - and they want to find a permanent solution.
Other people suffer for a different reason. They don't worry that things are impermanent, but it really bothers them that everything is wrong and fake. They very much want to find a way of existence that is perfect and real.
Yet other people suffer because they feel they are not free. They feel that their life is constricted by all these externally imposed limits, and that they don't really live, they just tolerate and wait - all their lives. So they want to find freedom.
These things really bother some people. If you don't have a problem with freedom, you can ask someone who has it: "but aren't you already free? aren't you already doing what you want?" - and he will look at you like you're crazy. Same with perfection, some people don't think this world is wrong. Some people actually think this world is totally alright the way it is, with all its trouble and absurdity - they find this imperfection gives them many possibilities to use their skills and take advantage of situations. Finally, there are people who are Okay with impermanence. They just don't expect permanence. In fact, I knew people who were glad to finally die, because by their age they were actually getting tired of living.
And yet there are many people who are really bothered by these kinds of things. In fact, Buddha was one of them before he "awakened" and "saw" how things work.
What Buddha found is that it's all in our mind, it's all about what we're paying attention to. If we have an idea stuck in our head that "things should be this way", and we keep obsessing over the thought that "things are not this way" - we can drive ourselves mad and suffer endlessly.
But it's not enough to just close one's eyes and pretend that you don't see all the issues. That's not the real solution. The real solution, as Buddha realized, was to look inside the issues, and realize that the issues themselves are mind-made illusions. In order to see that, one must understand how conceptual mind works, how it creates these illusions. (This is called "wisdom".) Once you understand how mind works, you no longer attach to any of mind's creations, you don't take any of them too seriously. (This is called "dispassion".) Since you no longer attach to mind's creations, concepts, positions, you are never in conflict with how things are - so you never suffer. (This is called "cessation".) This state is unconditional and "everlasting" in the sense that no matter how things change, no matter what happens, nothing is ever "an issue". You don't need anything to be a certain way anymore, everything is always perfect just as it is. (This is called "suchness".) And because you're now free from attachments, positions, desires, and fears; free from all boundaries I say - this is called "liberation".

Now, I think that it's not good to base one's goal PRIMARILY to self oriented ones, i.e. only achieving enlightenment. I know that this is not a good motivation and that one rather focus on others or on much more measurable goals like.. meditating twice per day or showing forgiveness or to apologize for one's wrongdoings.. Agreed on that? I think you all do but still the main goal in Buddhism is to escape Samsara and the cycle(s) of rebirth.

This idea of "escape" is based on aversion to this world, and on a rather painful attachment to a vague idea of some imaginary state when everything is perfect, forever. That's not what Buddhism is actually about, however. In fact, that idea of escape is exactly the samsaric thinking. Instead, the Buddhist way to escape Samsara is to transform one's mind and see everything as Nirvana, see everything as Great Perfection.

Which leads to my second question:
Does one practice metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not be reborn in this - I'm sorry - "mess" yet again?

Like everything in Buddhism, metta is an interesting trick. The kind of people who seriously seek Enlightenment or Nirvana, are the people who usually have strong aversion to this world. This is true by definition, because aversion to this world is what made them seek Nirvana in the first place. So in one sense this aversion is good, because it kept them away from cycling in samsara while playing games and shedding tears, blood, and breast milk. But because they have such a strong aversion to this world, they can't achieve peace of suchness so now it becomes obstacle! To solve this problem Buddha came up with the Four Brahma Abodes, which are the four attitudes that help one get closer to suchness of Nirvana. But because regular world of normal people is based on the same underlying principles as Dharma (conflict is bad, peace is good, in both World and Dharma - because such is the nature of mind!), this attitude of metta also has a nice effect in the world, by reducing conflict and making people happier with each other.

I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterpret them [as metaphors] than to greedily chase liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

I totally agree with you here. There is a saying in Buddhism (paraphrasing): "Dharma must be practiced according to Dharma. When Dharma is practiced not by Dharma, it becomes anti-dharma". So, absolutely, craving for Nirvana, studying texts, trying to be pure and perfect, considering oneself spiritually superior to others, rejecting all the worldly stuff - can make one a horrible person and lead to a lot of suffering for oneself and others.
Dharma is subtle enough that it is but too easy to get confused and make it into an even larger problem than we had in Samsara to begin with. Which is why new schools were born, starting as far back as 200CE if not earlier - because advanced Buddhists who saw widespread confusion with dharma in their own communities kept looking for new and creative ways to teach real dharma without falling in the same old pitfalls. Hence the birth of Mahayana, Ch'an, East Mountain School, Soto Zen, Tantra, Madhyamaka, Mahamudra, and modern innovations of Buddhadasa, Thích Nhất Hạnh, and Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
All of this is to say that your concerns and doubts are not new. Discussing what's wrong with samsara that needs fixing; problems with attachment to idea of liberation; selfish vs. altruistic motivation; getting lost in overthinking etc. - all these topics were part of Buddhism for 2600+ years - and luckily for us most of these questions already have answers.

Well now one could argue that you can enjoy something which is impermanent and not get attached to it, but that is never really mentioned in the suttas.. it's not about enjoying but always to renounce.

It is impossible. Because every enjoying in impermanent stuff is attachment.

There is nothing permanent, if the electron still go around the nucleus and the proton&neutron still require that electron. Because electron are impermanent and what depending on the impermanent stuff, it is impermanent as well.
So, if you try to risk yourself by your wrong logic, it's fine. But the imprudent attitude can't change the buddhist prudent attitude. We don't want to risk with you. We want the peace, the permanent, the stable, and real happiness without any risk/posibile suffering/possible problem anyway.

You inclined to be capitalism, materialism, eternalism, and annihilationism, which all were called micchā-diṭṭhi.
So, when someone has micchā-diṭṭhi, misunderstanding the causes and effects, it means that one has sakkāyadiṭṭhi, sīlabataparāmāsa, and vicikicchā.
Therefore, one can doubt, vicikicchā, in the result of wholesome action, then act the illegal or immoralness, sīlabataparāmāsa.
That sīlabataparāmāsa is a very risk to cause the very painful feeling, such as the rob who killed by the law or the stuff owner. It is not just the rob's painful, it is his family painful as well.

One does not take on something if really knowing that it is no refuge does not make sense at all and guards no security, but because being usually see permanent and satisfaction in what is pointless and not of lasting and viz. defilents are capable to argue even on a total ignorant level yet not seen.
In times when people are cheated to have even much controll over things it's even more difficult to face the truths of aging, sickness and death and waste precious life and possibilities, not easy to gain away.
It's wiser to Affirming the Truths of the Heart and put all effort into striving after something that makes sense rather to be just another "functioning" fool feeding for the sake of being food for illusions.
Yet of course it up to the individual to strive for wise ways and really nobody could urge others to see and fear realities and make use of seldom possibilities to escape.
At least ones ideas and current statisfactions with ideas are not for sure: watch out of how much suffering it will cause when the idea construction starts to decay or to further maintain it's existence.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]


text:
Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?
I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me.
For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering?
If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha?

Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?
No: as mentioned in this answer, nibanna is classified as a dhamma (and as anatta) but not a cause of suffering.
The same source says,

sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"

It's sankharas that are classified as unsatisfactory (and impermanent).

But the term dhamma is broad and can be used (in different contexts) to mean a lot of different things -- for example, Jayarava's essay on The Simile of the Raft identifies some of the different possible meanings of dhamma.

If Nibanna is not cause of suffering then why shouldn't I identify myself with it ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna or I am in a state of Nibanna or Nibanna is my true self ?

That might be good to ask as a new question ("What does Sabbe Dhamma Anatta mean, and why is that so?"). I think it may be because identifying anything at all with "myself" is a cause of suffering ... i.e. it's not nibanna that's the problem, it's identity-view -- see for example verse 23 of MN 22 referenced in this answer. I wonder whether, perhaps, identity-view is a type of sankhara.

"But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering."
Perhaps it's clearer if, instead of understanding "all dhammas are cause of suffering", to understand that the craving for "all dhammas" is the cause of suffering. It's taṇhā, it's the thirst that keeps us perpetually dissatisfied with the dhammas experienced.

One could say that the meaning of the word Dhamma is related to the word Concept.
The concept of "Nibbana" would therefore exist until all temporary realities cease, then what was conceptualized will be known as it is and known to not have the characteristics suffering, being discerned as ultimate peace and happiness. The thinking about it and the Idea has characteristic of suffering because it only temporarily gains footing in the system in which all is happening.
The concept is not the real thing if u know what i mean.
So nibbana as a concept is in that sense a formed idea therefore will change, gaining temporary existence in a system.
Nibbana as a reality is a possible state of the system, a state in which existence and matter gain no footing, this is brought about by tweaking the states of energy and information existing within the system.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are "lower yanas"
How is it that 3 separate schools of Buddhism that developed they're own separate characteristics and sometimes even developed different fundamental teachings are taught as lower, middle and greater yanas by some teachers in Tibetan Buddhism?
Isn't it a fundamental teaching of the Buddha to not be partial or judgemental? How is this not an example of partiality?

In Tibetan Buddhism, these three vehicles are considered to be levels of motivation, the "lower" motivation of escaping suffering for oneself only, the "middle" motivation of escaping rebirth, the "upper" motivation of freeing all beings from suffering and rebirth before leaving the cycle yourself.

"the "lower" motivation of escaping suffering for oneself only"- this is trying to refer to The Buddha's actual teaching? The Buddha was for what works. The Buddha was practical.  Helping others escape suffering is helping yourself and helping yourself is helping others. Where did the Buddha teach these 3 motivations?

Yes, it will work eventually, it just will work much slower than the other vehicles, and eventually, you will have to get into the other vehicles anyway. It is progress but slow progress.

Are you implying that eventually an arahant must become a Buddha? I am fine with becoming an arahant so why would I "have to get into the other vehicles"?

you don't have to do anything.

you can stand by the side of the road and watch the cars go by if you want, or you could ignore the cars altogether

@hellyale Do you want to maybe post an answer?

There are some, of coures, who would love to read, yes. Or was it retorical asked to give a hint?

I do not understand if it's Tibetan Buddhism saying lower, middle, or greater yanas, or only Tibetan Buddhism only.
Reference to the Chinese Sutras I studied, it would be Śrāvaka, Bodhisattva and Buddha yanas. Or sometimes five yanas: Śrāvaka, Arhat, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva and Buddha. These yanas are depending on the nature/inclination of the students that they naturally choosing their vehicles. In general, Sravaka, Arhat and Pratyekabuddha responding to life as an abode to be escaped from, their main concern is a jailbreak, or liberation. But the Bodhisattva and Buddha are liberation and enjoyment, or total mastery. All yanas have happy ending, just that they have different taste buds, like some people like beer, some wine, some whisky... :)
So this is not the Buddha be partial or judgemental, just providing all different drinks for all different drinkers that pleased the most their taste buds. It wouldn't be a good bar if only offering one type of drink, huh?

Saying one is greater and the other is lower sounds partial to me. Why say that? That's so blatantly  not what the Buddha taught . Also these yana's teachings conflict greatly between each other, how could they be so compatible?

My 1st paragraph stating that's probably Tibetan B. way of lower, middle, greater... but obviously someone was unhappy downvoted ;). I didn't read the Buddha said this way "lower/middle/greater yana" in the Chinese Sutras, but recalled he described what was 上上乘(the most supreme vehicle). Yana = 乘(vehicle), a transportation mean. Like Śāriputra representing Sravaka, but the Buddha marked(授記) him will be Buddha too, since he graduating to the Bodhisattva yana. So the yana just a mean, when matched best with the student then it is the best. Likely the "yana" meaning is different in TB and CB.

Though off-putting to me some TB teachers bragging TB is Tantra (secret), or Vajrayana, whilst other Mahayana just, Maha. I read in the Vinaya some disciples suspecting the Buddha kept his secret (best) teaching only for those chosen few, like Ananda... the Buddha replied that his hands open, kept nothing from anyone. (The greatest secret is always in plain sight ;). Worldly "secret" so & so is always a convenient breeding ground for corruption and exploitation. My emphasis and response to you is, it's probably TB, not the Buddha :). I'm afraid most of the Eng. Mahayana is, not.

A yana is a particular teaching methodology and a conceptual framework in support of that. "Higher" refers to more depth and fewer concepts; in the extreme case (not real, just to make a point) teacher just looks the student in the eye and says: "here, got it?" and the student says "yup", and then as you go "lower" there are more concepts and more words, and all kinds of practices.
The usual pattern is that what seems real on lower yanas, looks like a lot of obvious and unnecessary BS from the perspective of higher yanas.
That's because higher yanas by definition get closer and closer to the essence or the real meaning of Dharma, what the concepts are pointing to, in real life.
Again, I emphasize, all these yanas are just a way to explain the different degrees of insight, regardless of school. There are enlightened people in Theravada, there are parrots repeating words in Mahayana.

Fair enough. Any books on essential teachings you could recommend?

Try "Vivid Awareness: The Mind Instructions of Khenpo Gangshar" by Khenchen Thrangu

How is it that 3 separate schools of Buddhism that developed they're own separate characteristics and sometimes even developed different fundamental teachings are taught as lower, middle and greater yanas by some teachers in Tibetan Buddhism?
There is just one Buddha Dhamma, one path to liberation. How such is caused? Disrespect, selfoverestimation, non-devotion torward ones father: in short foolishness.
Isn't it a fundamental teaching of the Buddha to not be partial or judgemental?
No either. If so it would have no grave effects to abrove foolishness. It's importand and even the highest quality to be right judgemental and only partial to what is real and leads to secure: e.g. liberation.
How is this not an example of partiality?
A dog is always after his tail. Watch them and learn how ease foolish ideas could be solved and how difficult it is for a fool to get the exit. Some love and prefer the live as Don Quixote and are seeking for their Sanchos to help carry their burdens...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Every Buddha is a Don Quixote, friend Johann. A Don Quixote changing people's lives.

Well then, calling the Buddha Don Quixote there is no more to wonder in regard of respect, not to speak about fathers. But it shows well the thoughts and virtue of secretarians... Buddha-nature, they call defilements.

I am obviously implying unwholesome partiality.

And my person whats you all to escape from suffering and rebirth here first, before leaving the nonsenseby my self... or simply follow the fathers wise advices. My person wonders why ants give birth and birth again, and so many others... maybe it's better to chance to a higher vehicle and take on a Don Quixote job. Any Sancho here? It's for a great aim! We need many of you, there are a lot of enemies to be made into windmilles here.

Don Quixote? What?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why shouldn't I identify with Nibanna?
Nibanna is not suffering but it is said to be Anatta:

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta

My question is why shouldn't I identify with Nibanna ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say my true self is Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say I am in a state of Nibanna ?

“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’
-- SN 12.15

My understanding is that identification and possession are adherences, they are clinging. Nirvana, when conceptualized into a "thing" becomes something to possess or to identify with -- which is no different than clinging to any other conceived idea:

“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
-- MN 1

Such a tendency to hold something as a self is said to be at the root of misunderstandings and a cause of suffering. But Nirvana, rather then a 'thing', is said to be simply a name, a designation for the end of dukkha.

"Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."
-- MN 22

Excellent. But how do you know Nibanna is Anatta? Can you provide me the direct quote from Buddha where he says Nibanna is a Dhamma? Thanks.

@DheerajVerma I added a quote from MN 1 that might be close to what you are looking for. This essay might interest you, though.


text:
What is Destruction of Lay arahathood?
when lay person attains enlightment he has to die that same day within 24 hours or else become monk if not there is destruction of life what is the future of such person ?

You possible might find an answer to your question, Pranay, within this similar topic: answer on "Must Lay Arahants become Buddhist Monks?" [Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

They leave the laylife within 7 days, not 24 hours. This is why Pacceka Buddhas go to live in the forest since there is no Sangha community.


text:
Sitting Meditation: not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen
During sitting meditation, Most of the times, I am not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen
This problem is not getting better, even after doing sitting meditation for some time
Want to get advice on anything I can explore to solve this
Metta

You can put your hand on your abdomen at first. After awhile you could probably spot the sensation without the hand.
You could lay down on your back and put your hand on your stomach for a stronger view of the rise and fall.
You could make your anchor focus on the sensation of your bottom and legs making contact with the floor or cushion instead of the abdomen.
Hope this helps :) Metta


text:
May I Still Take Refuge In the Triple Gem?
If one is expected to have unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha and there is concern that an Ajahn's teachings may be inaccurate, is it still possible to take refuge?

Sangha here means the monks who preach inline with the teachings of the Buddha. So if a certain monk teaches something that goes against the teachings of the Buddha, it doesn't prevent you from taking refuge in  the Triple Gem. You just have to find an authentic member of the Sangha to teach you. Even if you can't find one, you still can take refuge in the enlightened monks in the past.

Please see below. The taking of refuge is in the "ideal" Sangha when considering the accuracy of the teachings, but in the "conventional" Sangha, when considering a debt of gratitude to the "conventional" sangha.
This means that you don't need to believe that a certain Ajahn or Mahathera is infallible in his accuracy of teaching, as the Ajahn or Mahathera can be considered to fall into the conventional definition of the word Sangha, since we cannot be absolutely certain of his spiritual attainment and virtues.
When unsure, use the Buddha's Words in the suttas as your teacher, as it is said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone."
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay on Refuge:

The word Sangha, on the external level, has two senses: conventional
  and ideal. In its ideal sense, the Sangha consists of all people, lay
  or ordained, who have practiced the Dhamma to the point of gaining at
  least a glimpse of the Deathless. In a conventional sense, Sangha
  denotes the communities of ordained monks and nuns. The two meanings
  overlap but are not necessarily identical. Some members of the ideal
  Sangha are not ordained; some monks and nuns have yet to touch the
  Deathless. All those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha
  become members of the Buddha's four-fold assembly (parisa) of
  followers: monks, nuns, male lay devotees, and female lay devotees.
  Although there's a widespread belief that all Buddhist followers are
  members of the Sangha, this is not the case. Only those who are
  ordained are members of the conventional Sangha; only those who have
  glimpsed the Deathless are members of the ideal Sangha. Nevertheless,
  any followers who don't belong to the Sangha in either sense of the
  word still count as genuine Buddhists in that they are members of the
  Buddha's parisa.
When taking refuge in the external Sangha, one takes refuge in both
  senses of the Sangha, but the two senses provide different levels of
  refuge. The conventional Sangha has helped keep the teaching alive for
  more than 2,500 years. Without them, we would never have learned what
  the Buddha taught. However, not all members of the conventional Sangha
  are reliable models of behavior. So when looking for guidance in the
  conduct of our lives, we must look to the living and recorded examples
  provided by the ideal Sangha. Without their example, we would not know
  (1) that Awakening is available to all, and not just to the Buddha;
  and (2) how Awakening expresses itself in real life.
On the internal level, the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha are the skillful
  qualities we develop in our own minds in imitation of our external
  models. For instance, the Buddha was a person of wisdom, purity, and
  compassion. When we develop wisdom, purity, and compassion in our own
  minds, they form our refuge on an internal level. The Buddha tasted
  Awakening by developing conviction, persistence, mindfulness,
  concentration, and discernment. When we develop these same qualities
  to the point of attaining Awakening too, that Awakening is our
  ultimate refuge. This is the point where the three aspects of the
  Triple Gem become one: beyond the reach of greed, anger, and delusion,
  and thus totally secure.

Also from the ATI Sangha page:

In the suttas the word sangha (lit. "group, assembly") is usually used
  in one of two ways: it refers either to the community of ordained
  monks and nuns (bhikkhu-sangha and bhikkhuni-sangha) or to the
  community of "noble ones" (ariya-sangha) — persons who have attained
  at least stream-entry, the first stage of Awakening. The definition
  (ariya-sangha)

"The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well...
    who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced
    methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the
    four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when
    taken as individual types — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's
    disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
    offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the
    world."
— AN 11.12

The Sangha refers to the Noble Sangha. The Noble Sangha teach Noble Dhamma. The distinction between Noble & non-noble Dhamma is explained in MN 117:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There
  is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
  effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
  is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions.
And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
  transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
  discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
  factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one
  developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
  effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
  view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
  path.
MN 117


text:
How to focus on one thing like a monk?
Question : How to focus on one thing like a monk ( ideal one )?
Is there a well defined meaning of word " focus " in buddhism? I want to learn the technique through which I can focus on one thing at a time like a monk.

In Buddhism it is recognized that mind is not static, it's not like a lense that can be focused. Mind is something that unfolds, moment after moment. If you sit down and watch your mind unfold for a while (an exercise called meditation) you can notice that the state of mind flows from current to next through its associations in memory (plus distractions from the senses).
One simple way to achieve concentration (after calming down and reducing inner and outer distractions) is to condition this associating process to come back with questions and thoughts about the same "thing", instead of it coming back with other related topics. Basically, you can keep asking yourself questions about the object, and for each question instead of answering from memory you should come back to the object and reexamine it.
This is not really a one pointed concentration yet though, just regular meditation on a given topic. To achieve real one pointed concentration you need to shift attention from object itself to the image of object in your mind. If you look very carefully, you can see that the image of the object in your mind is never complete, it only has one-two elements or attributes of the object at any given time, not all at once. In fact, if you pay attention you can see how your mind is hard at work assembling the experience of the object from its multiple attributes by cycling through them.
If at this moment, when seeing this cyclic assembly process, you shift your attention from the image of the object to mind itself, while letting it continue doing its assembly thing, you will have achieved one-pointed concentration.


text:
Logic vs Karmic principles
Imagine this hypothetical situation (which is meant to simplify the scenario in this question):

There haven't been any past lives -- this is your first life, and therefore there is no past karma, but only the karma[s] you make in this life.
(So, in this imagined version of events, we can use the knowledge at hand without complications clouding our judgement.)

The universe is in it's first cycle, and birth has happened for the first time.
(This further eliminates any doubts of the unknown, and allows us to work with our hypothesis.)

Now imagine the following two events/actions:

Imagine walking out into the streets and seeing a hungry puppy and feeding it your lunch out of kindness/empathy and happily walking into your workplace in the bliss of doing something nice with your lunch, instead of eating it like always.

In the lunch time an old enemy of yours taunt you and this leads to a fight which ends with him arm being broken by you (intentional).

The question is: can you explain why both event 1 and event 2 would effect the next life?
As there is no Soul/Person/being in our teaching, what we have is a self responding, self generating and a replicating consciousness. If there was a soul or a being, we can justify this by saying "I am being rewarded for my good and being punished for my faults".
But we are without such permanent identities: what we have is a consciousness that gives birth to thoughts and disappears ... one thought would arise from another, but all thoughts have their own identity, apart from its parent thought (this is much like we and our parents).
On what basis can we attach the karmas of different actions together, when there is only emptiness (Anatta) between 2 different actions?

The answer for this comes in the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Of course, the question was phrased differently by Kassapa, but the essence of the question is the same.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

The second useful sutta is the Acintita Sutta which states that the precise working out of karma cannot be conjectured:

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The third useful quote below comes from the Sivaka Sutta, teaching that not everything we experience in life is due to karma. Some times it's due to the weather or indigestion etc.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama,
  there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine,
  this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done
  before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on
  bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on
  bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view
  that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."


text:
Tonglen - Exchanging Self and Other - Intersubjectivity
Dear friends, looking for parallels between the practice of Tonglen, and the Husserlian notion of Intersubjectivity, I have come upon this research paper by Natalie Depraz, Phd. Quoting from the abstract :

It is well-known that Husserl’s analysis of intersubjectivity is
  primarily based on empathy. Now, such an experience of empathy is
  described in Husserl as involving the peculiar spatiality of our lived
  body, a temporal pairing of both lived bodies and a specific
  imaginative transfer of one’s psychic states into those of the other.
  I would like to confront such a multilayered experience of the other
  with the way some Buddhist teachings (which first appeared in India
  and were then transmitted to Tibet) present the experience of
  compassion within what is called the Mahayana tradition. Indeed, the
  “tonglen” praxis (as Tibetans call it), which is described very
  concretely in such a framework, echoes in many ways the Husserlian
  empathetic experience as far as the bodily rooting, the synchronizing
  timing are concerned and above all as far as the way imagination is
  taken into account. By comparing both praxis and analysis with regard
  to lived space, time and imagination, we will be able to evaluate
  their affinities, their differences and finally how they may enlight
  and even generate each other.

I would welcome with the utmost gratitude your enlightening comments, and reference to relevant material.
Thank you for having taken the time and effort to read this.

Refer to SN 55.7, which discusses each moral precept against killing, stealing, adultery & wrong speech.

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another – of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering–that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?’ Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.
SN 55.7

Also, refer to Dhammapada X:

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


text:
What did the Buddha mean by "no truth can be spoken?"
What did the Buddha mean by "no truth can be spoken" in the Diamond Sutra?

The truth about the nature of reality is, strictly speaking,  cannot be spoken, because reality is so multifaceted that it can never be fully and precisely expressed in words and concepts.
This is in line with the rest of Diamond Sutra which tries to give the reader a taste of the experience of Emptiness.

The Tao Te Ching, if that's any similar, gave me the impression that reality is One and primordial (and perhaps without form -- the mother of form); and that using the "analytic knife" distorts it, creates those facets. That's the impression I get too when you mention "suchness" (or @nocomprende's saying "non duality"). Actually the Tao Te Ching talks about "emptiness" too (as in, "it's the empty space in a house which make it useful"); idk whether emptiness in Buddhism is the same or different.

Yes, I too think these are related themes. Tao refers to basically same thing as Absolute Truth in Buddhism. Suchness has slightly different connotation imo, it refers not to the cosmic perspective but to the unity of two truths from the perspective of an observer in the here and now.

I wondered what are the "two truths" you referred to -- I guess you mean a unity of "it" and "I" as outlined in this answer.

Unity of absolute truth (global perspective) and relative truth (local perspective).

When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.
Snp 5:6 • Upasīva’s Questions • Thanissaro Bhikkhu
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp5_6.html


text:
Is the world inherently good or is it something to be shunned?
Reading most of the responses given here related to my question and also reading many suttas it seems to me that there are two contradictory views. I don't want to name any school of thought, I don't think I'm qualified to do so, however, when one read, for example, Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh it seems clear that this world is to be abandoned, and everything we do is inherently gross and scary to say the list, but there are many responses given in this platform and I may even cite some suttas that view this world as a in harmony and perfect.
In short, according to this latter view, the world is perfect it's the mind which is f**kedup ; a worldview akin to Taoism or Stoicism in the west where everything is perfect except the deluded mind.
My question is how do these two seemingly incompatible view work in Buddhism or should these be viewed as ideas propounded by different schools of thought?

I have got three response up-to now; @ruben2020 think the world to be indifferent, @Andrei Volkov believe that the world is good and for @ ChrisW the question is wrong and to be avoided as an extreme view.
However, when one read most of the Suttas such as the Adittapariyaya Sutta and many more the teaching seems to gravitate towards negative view of the world or at list the Suttas instruct us to sail very close to the view of seeing the world as bad. So, i'm going to live the question open as unanswered.

What if chosing different langage so that it would be possible to receive answeres from those merely annoyed by low speech? Maybe a way to make the world a bit a better place. It's all up to choices and there is no much burden to let then even go of proper gained when it becomes time. Wealth. Allthought it might already provide a releasing answer, still it would be good to correct, either out of goodness or obigation.

@Samana Johann I'm not certain if i understood you correctly, but after reading the Sutta you attached and also reading you comment it seems to me that you are saying that the World is good for one living generously / virtuously.

In Buddhism, there is the notion that we can use a skillful technique or theme of thinking, which is the best technique or theme of thinking that it is suited for a particular situation, for a particular purpose, to cater for a particular need. Some of these techniques may be mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other.
It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry, sometimes you need to broil, sometimes you need to grill and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques may appear to contradict each other, but are used at different times to achieve different results.
First example:
For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it.
Second example:
The Buddha taught that not everything we experience is caused by what we did in this answer. This is the Buddha teaching anatta, so that we can let go of the self-view.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." ...  He then said
  "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it): being one
  existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then
  one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one makes (it),
  another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by feeling, his
  suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

But in some cases, for other practitioners, it might be useful to think that we are the creators, owners and heirs of our kamma. The Themes Sutta has many examples of different themes of thinking and what problems can be resolved by such ways of thinking. One of those is to think that what we experience is caused by what we did, in order to eradicate unvirtuous habits.

“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.

Now back to your question ...
Based on this, I would say that thinking of the world as disgusting and to be abandoned is a technique to be used if you're addicted to the pleasures of the world. But if you're depressed and negative about the world, then its useful to think about the world as being beautiful and harmonious but it's only your thinking that's the problem.
What is the inherent nature of the world? It is neither good or bad, or ugly or beautiful. It simply is conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) i.e. everything in the world is always changing being influenced by other things.
This is also corroborated by physics - everything in the universe changes, influenced by everything else, including space, time, matter and energy. These can be seen in the consequences of General Relativity and Special Relativity, e.g. curvature of space-time, time dilation, gravitational waves and, equivalence of matter and energy.
In most Mahayana Buddhism schools, the inherent nature of the world is emptiness. See this answer for details.

Thanks, In short you're saying we should view the world as good or bad deepening on our mind state, but the question is what is it inherently? is it neither bad or good or can we say it's beautiful when views with perfect mind ,but bad when viewed with a deluded mind.

When the Buddha attacks even our desire for eating, which is the source of life in this world, as he did in the Sutta i refereed, It makes one wander if this world is at all desirable even for a man with perfect mind.

@user13006 What is the inherent nature of the world? It is neither good or bad, or ugly or beautiful. It simply is conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) i.e. everything in the world is always changing being influenced by other things.

Tibetan schools of Mahayana are pretty clear on this: our experience of the world is projection of our mind. So when the mind is afflicted, in various ways - it sees the world as bad or ugly, in various ways. As the mind is purified of afflictions and obscurations, it sees the world as increasingly harmonious and beautiful. This matches my personal experience, going both up and down in my mind states.
The Sakya school even has this notion of "three views" or "three visions" - "the state of those experiencing suffering, those engaged in the methods leading towards freedom from unhappiness and misery, and those fully enlightened ones who have attained the highest goal of omniscient awakening".
The Nyingma interpretation of Buddhist cosmology is very much phenomenological and keeps hinting at how an experience of the world relates to observer's mind.

Is the world inherently good or is it something to be shunned?
No, not necessarily.
When you ask a question like "Is it this extreme, or is it that extreme?" then the answer is often "No". Remember what's said about the Middle Way.
it seems clear that this world is to be abandoned
I think it's teaching that greed is to be abandoned.
I'm not sure that it's saying, exactly, that we're literally eating a son's flesh -- only to have that kind of attitude, of eating not for pleasure but for necessity.
It may be trying to teach Nibbida.
And Piya Tan writes about this sutta that:

The Sutta‘s Commentary explains that the Buddha gives this teaching because the monastic order has
  been receiving an abundance of gifts and honour (lābha,sakkāra), and that some of the monks are not
  using their requisites with proper reflection. Indeed, the situation is so urgent that the Buddha is represented
  as giving this teaching as "the fifth rule of defeat" (pañcama pārājika), that is, a rule which when
  broken entails automatic defeat or fall from monkhood. To prevent this, he places before the monks (by
  way of this teaching) "a mirror of the Dharma" (dhamm’ādāsa) for their self-restraint. Constantly
  reflecting on this teaching, they would use the four requisites—almsfood, robes, shelter and medical
  requisites—with restraint (saṁvara) and proper limits [strictly defined relationships] (mariyāda).

i think the description in the Sutta goes beyond the teaching of restraint, may be its teaching Nibbida as you suggested. If so, the definition given for Nibbida by Jayarava in the link you provided seems to indicated that the one who see things as they are i.e the Arahant is disgust of sense experience. Which seems to contradict with the other view.

See the section titled "Go Left, Go Right" on this page ... I still think it's meant as an antidote to craving.

World is neither good nor bad. World just is. It is us who pick sides and categories things in to boxes.
Having said that, world is a place where nothing is guaranteed nor safe. How easy or hard life is there is always a struggle. But still everything eventually falls apart. Sometimes this is communicated as a bad deal and one that we should get out of. But this is neither good nor bad. Just the nature of world. It make life hard for those who are not enlightened.


text:
Sutta that says to do mindfulness in a slow manner
I remember that I once read a sutta by the buddha where he mentioned to do things slowly while being mindful in order to recognize each step. Any ideas which sutta it could be?

There is no sutta or commentary which taught to meditate slowly. The action speed depends on the practitioner skill level, some uneducated practitioner (may be) need to action slow.
But there are many sutta taught to meditate in order. And There are some commentary which have the example of the practitioner who always repeatedly his action when he forget to meditate mindfulness.
However, when we begin to do some very hard new thing  carefully, mindfully. we will be automatic slow down ourselves. Because if we do it over fast we will cross the step, mistake the practice's sequences.

Yes and and since behaviour (speech falls under that too), cognition and emotion are interrelated, change in one influences the others as well. So by just behaving more slowly mental processes are getting slowed down, too.


text:
How to stop reverberations running in mind? And why they are in the first place?
Like, there is song which I don't want, constantly reverberating in my mind. I've two questions.

Why it I reverberating in first place?
How to get rid of it?

Not an answer from texts, but from my own practice: what I noticed is that certain songs start playing in my head when my "subconscious" mind (which is pretty conscious these days, but usually sits in the background) wants to communicate some concern or sentiment to the rest of "me". So it starts playing some song with a certain message in its lyrics. I swear I'm not making this up, noticed many times. And most of the time the message is pretty obvious and is related to some suppressed concern that bothers me.
In order to stop it playing, I just have to stop ignoring it and acknowledge receiving the message. Think about the issue. Then the song stops.


text:
How to function properly in society after getting enlightenment?
I am near. May be few hours or days. Right now it is getting a little harder to behave properly according to the society. I just don't talk much because I don't have much to say.
I'm not able to engage with people. All I do is keep sitting in silence in bliss, sometimes solving mathematics or playing chess or listening music.

Did you consider seeking support from a professional?

@tenjin What kind of professional?

It is not that this is a broad question, it is an ill-defined poll question that reads (to me) as mocking. What does "function" mean? Presuming a social standard, "proper" is subject to the definition of "society" which is entirely unclear in the subject or body of the question.  Unless this question is refined, I posit that an expert or uplifting answer is unachievable.

@Wermske May be the question can be put in better way. I don't know. But I don't intend to mock. I'm not sure I can refine it. It is just a direct simple question.

It is an inquiry that is premised upon assumptions that are not clear or simple at all.  What does it mean to function properly? What cultural standard do you hold static for the society of your inquiry?  Potential answers are infinite without consensus because possible proper functions are infinite at any given speculative moment.  Further, since all is impermanent, a definition of "function properly in society" is also impermanent.  What holds true for any circumstantial moment is lost to that moment.  As there are infinite answers, there is no answer -- it is a poll question.

@Wermske I think a "poll question" would ask, "How do you function in society?" -- there everyone is being asked a different question (to the extent that everybody's "way" is different) -- and everyone's answer is equally good (e.g. I'd just need to explain "my" way is, in order to answer the question). So I think this question isn't phrased as a poll. When answering I try to keep this advice in mind: that a good answer may be based on references and/or personal experience.

The topic (i.e. "Enlightenment" and "Society") is broad ... but so is Buddhism. If you're not inclined to answer this question from experience, perhaps you could select what might be an appropriate reference ... I'd kind of guess that somewhere within Buddhist scripture, someone might have said something that might be relevant to this topic.

You are in a Neo state. Don't worry, it is temporary.

Putting aside the doubts whether you're close to Enlightenment or not... Or even if there is such thing as "Enlightenment"... And whether Enlightenment is something that can be attained by "me" at some point, and then retained for ever... And whether someone enlightened could still have questions about what to do and how to behave... In other words, assuming your question is valid,
When you get "enlightened" you lose your reference point. So it may be hard to decide what's good / what's bad anymore. "What do I want? What should I do? Should I do anything at all?" -- nothing seems right or wrong by itself, in some sense it's all invented by people. Nothing is important, nothing is serious, all this stuff that normal people engage seems pointless. Hence the question about "how to behave in society" - did I get this right? I hope so.
There are two parts to an answer my teacher gave me when I asked.
First, regarding your own purpose and meaning of life. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, you are free. You can literally do anything. If you want to play games, you can play games. If you want to drink yourself to death, you can drink yourself to death. If you want to go to other worlds, you go to other worlds. If you want to teach, you can teach. If you want to do nothing, you can do nothing. There is no reason to sit and worry what's the "best" thing to do, because there is no "best" thing to do, they are all equally pointless in the big scheme of things. In fact, the best thing to do is probably to arbitrarily choose any idea X that you like, and be totally serious about it, as if it was indeed a serious thing you believed in.
However, from the perspective of life here on planet Earth, actions lead to results. What you do and say has effect. And all the people around you still feel pain, they still have their lives. If you stand up and walk out of class, this may look harmless to you, and the teacher's frustration may seem funny and unjustified (in the big scheme of things) - however, by doing that you're setting bad example to other students and you are making the teacher unhappy. So even though everything is free and empty, you just created a little island of chaos and suffering in your immediate locality. See what I mean? So the best way to function in society, is to always, always, always be mindful of the perspective of others. What will they feel? How will this affect them? Will this action lead to peace and harmony for others or will it lead to conflict and negative mindstates for them?
By combining these two principles -- the absolute and the local -- we arrive at the enlightened behavior: combination of spontaneous freedom with no reference point, and tremendous empathy/responsibility for everything you touch in your spontaneous dance.

Good, I will try to develop this skill.

I would argue this is not a special skill you need to work on separately - this combination of the "absolute" and "local" perspectives is part of enlightenment itself: full wisdom is seeing that there is really no hard line of separation between "you" and "others", and therefore any suffering in any sentient being is "your" suffering. So when you're fully settled into this universalist perspective you automatically want to stop all suffering in all beings just as you initially wanted to stop the suffering in only one being, back when you thought mistakenly that only a single body was "you".

@Don May be you are right. I do have a tendency to help. But not much because I am not able to feel or engage with other people's suffering. It is hard to choose between words.

"How to function properly in society after enlightenment" may be the same as before.
There's a quote from Zen buddhism (which is explained here) which says,

"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

For the sake of completeness perhaps I should add that some people, enlightened or not, maybe don't "function in society" -- of these people, some are (and some aren't) more or less well supported by society .. even though they aren't functioning.
And/or maybe some people function in a different way ... less selfish, perhaps.

The (deleted) content of your post, about your being in class, implies that you are a young adult. Beware that's an age at which some people experience types or symptoms of mental illnesses, maybe for the first time. I'm not saying that's your experience, but that's maybe something to be aware of -- I say that because that's part of my experience (I don't know about your experience much).
But it seems to me that "enlightenment" shouldn't mean the same thing as "disability" -- a disability (being unable or unwilling to function) isn't necessarily a state of mind I'd want to develop.
Walking out of class is a bit questionable ... I mean, you're questioning it. You didn't give much reason for it, so it sounds like poor impulse control, possibly passive-aggressive, maybe attention-getting ... irrational.
Perhps you, somehow, enjoyed doing that, but I'm not sure it was the best (most enlightened) way to behave.

In case it matters and in case you didn't know, the traditional Buddhist "way" can be described as a Threefold Training, of which ethics (virtue) is maybe the first. I think that includes traditional virtues ... telling the truth, respecting the people who you ought to respect, being harmless at worst and generous at best (though within reason).
Also Buddhist society (societies) might traditionally be classified, as a "lay society" and a "monastic society", which are inter-dependent. Having a "good friend" (or "admirable" friend -- kalyāṇa-mitta) is important too, perhaps all-important.

Good answer. But I don't think it is any kind of mental illness. Some people say it can be bipolar disorder. It is like if I don't want to do something then simply I don't.

A (non-specific) person, lacking of conscience, with a personality manifesting itself in antisocial attitudes is regarded by some societies as a sociopath.

@user13032 I guess that people will agree with you (that it's no mental illness) as long as you're lucid, harmless, and as capable (and, perhaps, as responsible) as usual. If you (or people around you) are considering mental illness, IMO you should beware of trusting your own opinion -- if for example "I am enlightened" were a grandiose delusion, that is a symptom often associated with bipolar disorder (as you just said). Any mental illness is complicated to diagnose ... a professional couldn't do it without talking with you ...

... but I mention it a) because of my own experience and b) because the definition of mental disorder starts with "or impairment of personal functioning" which might be what you're asking about. It's really normal that someone who has a mental illness wouldn't (or cannot) recognise that, and are "non-compliant" (but equally, normal that some people try to control each other when maybe they shouldn't), which is a reason for "professional" advice. Topics including "ego" and "delusion" are among the topics that Buddhism talks about; but ...

... it's difficult to make individual diagnoses (of enlightenment or delusion) over the internet. One thing, you mentioned "solving mathematics". I don't know what that means: if it means repeating a process which you already know (e.g. applying the quadratic formula to an equation) that's one thing; and if it's deriving new proofs, that's another. I think that mathematicians see mathematics too as a bit collaborative, and check each other's work. Maybe a "good friend" is a bit analogous in Buddhism.

Well I don't have any doubt that I am perfectly OK. May be not getting enlightened but I'm am fine.

There is a YouTube video where Ajahn Brahm, abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia, talked about the time he thought he may have become enlightened. This was in Thailand, when he was still a junior monk.
In this story, he said that after a long period of meditation (some days), he woke up in a state of intense bliss. He thought he may have become enlightened.
Later, he went to get alms. There was food distributed to the monks, including one small pot of delicious food (I think it was pork curry), and another big pot of unappetizing food (I think it was stinky fermented fish stew). Pork curry was a rare special treat, while the stinky fish stew is something ordinary. Both were distributed to a group of monks.
The most senior monk gets to take his food first. He took only the delicious pork curry for himself, and then he poured the remaining contents of the small pot into the big pot and mixed them together, saying, "They are all the same. As monks, we must not be choosy."
Having not eaten for several days, Bhikkhu Brahm was hungry. Seeing the senior monk's actions, he became angry, but did not say anything to him.
Then he thought, "if I became angry, then I'm definitely not enlightened."
Epilogue:
The moral of the story is that the fetters (samyojana) are very deep-rooted and deep-seated, that feelings of bliss may temporarily mask the fetters. They are most probably still there and one would not be enlightened yet. Blissful feelings and jhanas could be easily mistaken for enlightenment.
This message is echoed in the Atthinukhopariyaayo Sutta (or alternative translation).

It is not about the anger. It is about the doubt. I don't pay much attention to bliss.

@user13032 The moral of the story is that the fetters (samyojana) are very deep-rooted and deep-seated, that feelings of bliss may temporarily mask the fetters. They are most probably still there and one would not be enlightened yet. Blissful feelings and jhanas could be easily mistaken for enlightenment.

Emptiness is not enlightenment.
Did the Buddha become a dysfunctional wreck after getting Enlightened? What about the many other bodhisattvas that went beyond Concentration and Insight practices?
If you are becoming dysfunctional it is due to incorrect focus.
However, it is normal to be non-functional during meditation. That is after all the nature of meditation: the journey to who you are is beyond all-that-is.
Hint: Meditation can induce some suffering. There are very specific indicators. I recommend reading the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" it is free.

I don't know in what terms you are using this word " dysfunctional". I meant just according to the society (doesn't mean antisocial). For me it is like if I don't want to do something then I simply don't. Even Buddha did what he had to do. The way he walk, the way he talk or the way he look and whatever else. First he thought he can't teach then he come up with something. But I don't know.

I think one common consequence of "walking the path" is that one needs less things from the outside world.
Since you said in your question that you don't talk much, I'll talk about talking.
A common behavior of humans is that they talk. They mostly talk gossip and chit chat. They do it because they need it. Without it, they would get agitated. That's why humans call themselves "social beings".
When one is enlightened, he or she still continues to talk, but stops to gossip and chit chat. Without it, he or she is not agitated, but calm. He or she stops because he or she does not need it anymore and also because other beings don't need it any more as they are already getting it (they get quite enough or even too much gossip and chit chat from others), thus he or she does not engage in gossip and chit chat as this would only make their realization of the truth more difficult.
When one is enlightened, even though he or she does not need gossip and chit chat and he/she stops gossiping and chit chatting, he or she, in rare cases if it is needed for the greater good of him or her or of the other being, can still decide to gossip and chit without any aversion towards it.
Maybe not now, but after enlightenment you will function properly in society. If you don't then maybe there is something other than enlightenment that you'll need to realize before enlightenment.

Good, I understand.

People who progress in the path don't really concern themselves about functioning in a society. You are very far from enlightenment. Trust me! Stop overestimating yourself and find a proper meditation teacher.

How do you know they don't concern? How do you know for me this is a concern? How do you know this is overestimation?                                           And Why do you think meditation will make you realized?

There are 16 stages of insight development and none of them has anything to do with being concerned about functioning in a society. If it's not a concern, you wouldn't be asking the question. Meditation(insight) is how enlightenment is reached according to Buddhism.


text:
I want to leave my mother
As I just starting to learn about Buddhism and the methods of be free from samsara. I have confusion about my relationship and my mother. I am 24 yo now- I feel like I have enough of being used by my mother. When I was 1 week old she gave me to another family to look after. She paid them tho. She never taking care of all my siblings inc me. She is sex worker and my dad was a lazy man who did nothing but spend my mother money. Instead of saving money for her kids, she went to another island with young guys to spend the money from properties etc. she sold me (not technically) to 50yo man who is her client,but he didn’t know that I was her daughter. She asked me to go there AGAIN after the sexual assault happen a day before, just to get a phone that he willing to give for an apology of his behaviour, but he did it again. My mom laughed and disgust when i told her what happened.
When I started to build up my life on my own, she know I have more money than all my other siblings so she asked me to send and give her money(weekly or monthly). The money goes somewhere, I dunno where but it’s a lot for food expenses. Now I am in Australia studying with my hard work and she still depend on me to live, just like what she did in her whole life. Instead of giving up on her, I show her the good path n to become a better person but she always says “I was born like this, it’s a habit, don’t tell me what’s wrong n right, cause I know” over and over again.
Last month, she asked for my help and I don’t have anything cause I just pay my school but she doesn’t understand so I asked my friends for help, and she said “it’s embarrassing to have a daughter who live in another country, but can’t support her mother” so I just said to her,”enough, enough doing this to me, if you believe what you believe is right then keep doing that, but I don’t want to be part of it” and I never call or text her since.
I truly don’t want to be in her life anymore, she is 50yo. She had 3x stroke and she stil doesn’t changes. I accept the way she is but I don’t her to be part of my life, I don’t care if someday I live on the street again, as long as she stop to using me.
What should I do ??? Try again ?? I forgive her. Should I back and apologise because I choose my happiness?? I need a spiritual answer ! I’m lost.

See also answers to this topic: Relationship with bad parents (kamma and issues)

The last paragraph ("she is 50yo. She had 3x stroke") reminds me of the first few verses from the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

I say this because it's possible that, after she has died, or when you are dying, you'll prefer it if you made peace (or even tried to make peace) with her.

I think that Buddhism says that ethics are important; and it recommends against bad (immoral) companionship. So I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt whether) Buddhism would recommend that you help to "enable" her to behave immorally ... for example by buying her drink (enabling her substance abuse) and doing whatever/everything she tells you to do.
If one extreme is to "leave her" (i.e. "no relationship") and another extreme is to "obey her" (i.e. a "bad or abusive relationship") perhaps you can find a "middle way" between those two extremes.
I imagine that perhaps there are some things that are good to offer her, and some things that aren't. So try to clarify in your own mind what the difference is, where the boundary is.
Also I guess to some extent you have already left your mother, i.e. you're in another country. Maybe what you ought to want is the best relationship you can have, and not to have a bad relationship.

Speaking of boundaries (and the following is personal advice now, based on personal experience ... the above was more-or-less loosely based on Buddhist suttas), you may want or need to say "no" to certain requests of hers. I assume she tries to make that (your saying "no") difficult (by arguing with you), which is why you want to say "no" to the whole relationship.
You (and she) might be able to have something of a relationship, if you say "no" when you must.

Also, well done for going to school and so on, working hard, having friends, and starting to learn about Buddhism. I hope that works out well for you.

This seems to hold both principles up.  If you give her money and she is on a bad path you might enable her on that path.  At the same time resenting her and harboring anger is not compassionate or understanding.  You could choose not to support her financially while she is on the wrong path, but forgive her for her mistakes (that will help you as well as her).

Buddha said, we can leave our husband or wife, but we can't leave our parents. It's a special connection, unconditional - more important than any other connection in our life.
Plus, as Maitreya the future Buddha will teach, pure heart forgives everything and always gives second chance, infinite number of times. Pure heart is like the sun - rises every morning and sends its light to everyone, no matter how much they failed.
But you know all this already, because you already said you want to forgive her. There's no need to fight this feeling - there's no shame in being kind in heart.
Of course you don't have to give her all your money or borrow from friends. You can say "no" when you must protect yourself. But no need to abandon her either. You can keep talking to her, that's more important than money. And then when you have extra money, you can send her some.
I was in your situation, my father was an alcoholic, and I kept sending him money until he died. I kept talking to him on the phone. It was very hard for me, and my mom kept telling I should not send him money he spent on drinks anyway, but I felt it must be unconditional. He never was a good father, in fact he was a rather horrible father, but he was my father nevertheless. Now in my dreams we are good friends. I'm glad I did not abandon him.

If your mother will waste money you give her on unnecessary things, you should not give her money.
In Buddhism, the most important thing is to live a wholesome life so suffering does not occur to your life.
In some cultures, such as in Thailand or among Australian aboriginals, families expect other family members to give them money.
But in Buddhism, although it is also expected children help their parents, Buddhism also says to not spend money on gambling, drugs, alcohol & nightlife.
Therefore, if your mother will waste money you give her, Buddhism teaches you should not give her money.
Buddhism says the duty of parents towards children is: "(i) they restrain them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good, (iii) they train them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage, (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them."
Buddhism says the duty of children towards parents is: "Having supported me I shall support them".
Your mother did not do her duty to protect you from evil things & did not support you. Worse, your mother used you for wrong purposes & made you do wrong actions that hurt & did not bring happiness to you. Therefore, if you wish to leave your mother, this is not bad kamma in Buddhism.
The Buddhist teaching I mentioned can be read in the Sigalovada Sutta.

+1 for "Having supported me, I shall support them"

"Having not supported me, i shall not support them"

Forgive and forbear as much as you can but not as if you have an obligation.
Nature gives us a mother, not a good or bad mother; just a mother, and to wish that your mother to be good is the same us wishing the color blue to disappear.
If your mother is bad nature has blessed you with circumstance to practice courage, patience, charity and many more virtues. But you should always remember that if you help her groaning and complaining it will amount to nothing, a virtue done as an obligation is a bile and is never a virtue. You have to wholeheartedly forgive her and proceed to act virtuously with no obligation but with love.
If your mother was blind you won't abandon her, so you shouldn't abandon her when she is blinded in the higher faculty and doesn't know what is good and bad.

Right Effort is something we should apply to everything. We should always think of what is best for ourselves and others.

And what is right effort? Here the monk arouses his will, puts forth
  effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to prevent the
  arising of evil and unwholesome mental states that have not yet
  arisen. He arouses his will... and strives to eliminate evil and
  unwholesome mental states that have already arisen. He arouses his
  will... and strives to generate wholesome mental states that have not
  yet arisen. He arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy,
  exerts his mind, and strives to maintain wholesome mental states that
  have already arisen, to keep them free of delusion, to develop,
  increase, cultivate, and perfect them. This is called right effort.

Being with your mother sounds like it won't be conducive to Right Effort for yourself OR her.
Chronically ill-behaved people are frequently better off without you.
I would suggest making your preparations to do what brings you peace, freedom, and happiness.
What is truly good for yourself is also good for others. It is hard to imagine a situation where someone does what is truly good for themselves and ends up hurting others in a way that would not have happened anyway.
When you follow your bliss, those who are meant to join your journey will join you--those who are not meant to, will fall away.
Also, compassion has its limits before it becomes masochism, enablement, self-ruin.

To me, an excellent answer.

the last part, especially the last sentence, might have helped save my life... thanks

Young woman, your current situation like before as well, is not for sure, can chance even that very moment. So when ever there is something possible to be given, give, at least, just what is given is not lost while short comfort is. How much has been given to you? What can be said as having gained without suffering and sacrifies by others at fist place? Not anything, or?
What ever you can do and give without doing something wrong for the sake of your parents is good done. What ever does neither harm one self nor others is always good to use to share. What ever is gained proper and is rightly yours: gain and share with best wishes.
Once one has been worse, not a little aware of what has been given without any real need to do it, not even to carry for month, give body and birth. Even if not perfect as it could be, one owes much, not easy to repay.
Don't fall into arrogance and greed or even without proper gratidude (as so many people easy become when they are or feel more securce then their previous supporters, yet forgetting that their situation now is also not a lasting, not sure) and it's not wrong to give back with joy and even with more wisdom as having been given.

"Monks, I will teach you the level of a person of no integrity and the level of a person of integrity. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."
{II,iv,2} "I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."
See also: MN 110; SN 7.14; AN 4.73; Iti 106.
Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

One who gives is never poor while even the riches person without real generosity and lack of gratidute is the most poor person in this world.
Who do you like to be? A rich outwardly or a real rich who does not care of what people without integrity might think and say? It's all of your choice, short and cheap happiness or a heart at peace, fulfilled it's obligations and at lasting joy in remembering his/her gratitude, generosity and virtue, equal the Devas and great men.
Be aware that you ask here in an enviroment of people with grave wrong view even suggesting foolish or bad thing in the name of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, so generally you must be very gifted not to simply follow fools advocating in accordiance with also you own defilements and tenencies to greed, aversion and delution.
One feeling deeply obligated to ones parents, even if a mass of fools laugh at it, even if meeting many burdens, is by far more secure to gain real wealth as the modern and western fools, how ever sucessful they might appear for now.

"These three things have been promulgated by wise people, by people of integrity. Which three? Generosity... going-forth [from the home life]... & service to one's mother & father. These three things have been promulgated by wise people, by people of integrity." AN 3.45

No one fails in recognize someone with even slight doubts "but" and "if's" in this regard as fools and one does always good to avoid them like fire and poision.

. "To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the highest blessing.

"Liberality, righteous conduct, rendering assistance to relatives, and performance of blameless deeds — this is the highest blessing.

Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings

So it's up to you of whom you go after: those who abound their parents and previous supporters by their systems in rest houses, leave them up to others or people of integrity and still functioning society, carrying and having a heart, feeling obligated for even small gifts.
It's easy and quick managed to join into the foolish-hood.
Here are some usefull teaching in general on this topic:

A starter into Dhamma is gratitude and without it, there is no progress on the path, mostly even no reason to seek for the path.

The Right Angle: It’s Never Wrong
The Lessons of Gratitude
Gratitude
The first gods: Parents

Look at certain, even most answers here and if a little wise you may find out in what ugly society you actually have found yourself. If not seeing know yourself as having become or be another with less hope.
Western or modern minded people, being not blessed to live among people with even basic right view, especially those "Vipassana-householders" with no gratitude and virtue at all, are not capable to even grasp basics no matter how much they might learn, know or practice with corrupted hearts and lack of any real integrity and good principles.

Gratitude is a sign of a good person. And it is an attitude that gives rise to more goodness within us... Karma & Gratitude

At least, to some aspects of your qiestion and if willing to be or become a good friend for all others, you may consider marks of good people also here:

"A friend endowed with these three qualities is worth associating with. Which three? He/she gives what is hard to give, does what is hard to do, endures (pardon) what is hard to endure (pardon). A friend endowed with these three qualities is worth associating with."
— AN 3.133

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

As I understading, when the Buddha refer to duty toward parents, he means those whom properly raise and take care of their children (in the case of @Curly99 that would be her adoptive parents). Her biological mother seems to have done much harm to her. How would she feel gratitude? Metta towards her is proper, but gratitude or duty seems unfit.

That's your and most western or better modern idea, based on certain ideas of rights and grave wrong view, not to speak of the lack of any generosity and giving within it, @Danilo . Nobody has a need to give you even body and birth , nobody would even need to explain you anything. Think about it and work on it. No way to gain anything based on grave wrong view and ingratitude.

Lodge a complaint with the police regarding the sexual assault.
If you think you cannot change your mother, stop worrying about her and move on with your life.
Give support only if you can manage, if you can't afford it, don't do it. It is much better to offer alms or give support to virtuous beings.
Practice Upekkha meditation on your mother whenever she causes you stress.

All beings are owners of their deeds. Whose [if not theirs] is the
choice by which they will become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will
not fall away from the success they have reached?

A fully enlightened Buddha could have handled a relationship with a person such as your mother . This is because they are spiritually so powerful that her negative actions towards them does not effect them . You are on the other hand a spiritual novice. You do not have the spiritual strength to handle the negativity that comes from your mother. 100% of people living on this earth cannot. I know one day when you become enlightened and you are put in the same situation you will be able to handle the negativity. For now, and for your own spiritual development , it is highly toxic and dangerous for you to be around your mother or anyone like her. Right now you need all the conducive conditions to practice , to develop and grow.Your mother is hindering that progress.
Buddha said in the Kalama Sutta
"When you know for yourselves that these things are wholesome... these things, when entered upon and undertaken, incline toward welfare and happiness — then, Kalamas, having come to them you should stay with them"
Look at it this way : Interacting with your mother will it lead to welfare and happiness for all beings in the world?
The way I see it , she will destroy your mental peace , which will lead you to withhold the gifts you bring to the world, and will contribute to her spoiling her own karma.
Avoiding her will lead to you being more happy and contributing to the world, bringing more peace and joy to the people around you.
Think about it , which act will be more wholesome.
Yes , the Buddha did say that we should be greatful for our parents, if our parents are wrong he said , we should try to bring them in the path of the dhamma , by helping them to become more virtuous. By now allowing your mother to manipulate you and spoil you , you are allowing her not to create more negative karma. If she listens to some reason and tries to lead a more virtuous life, and if you can find a way to make that happen for her that is the best gift that you can give her. If giving money to her means that she will spend it on alcohol, do not give it to her to enable her.
Wish you all the best. Remember you are precious, we are waiting for your gifts. Do not let anyone or anything stop you from giving the world all the beautiful gifts that you have inside you. May you find peace.

Like ones mother or ...? People have different ways to deal with "beauty" and causes have effects. Doesn't things fast remind on "Children, Bullets" here: "They're an affair of kamma, our children." Something to think on if specially touched by children in bikini on Dhamma places. Some call improper attachments compassioned and helpful. My person prevers to be called ugly if really ugly and not of beauty in help. Why divest others to become really beautiful? To be honored and broadly beloved? Peace is not denying,or?

Not exactly a Buddhist answer.
Based on your description you have already left your mother. And you seems to be asking to about going on No-Contact, which may be an option when dealing with highly toxic people. While I may be wrong, your description do not show such need.
However you may need to setup healthy boundaries and learn to say no, when saying yes would put your own well being in trouble. Even when they try to guilt you in to doing them. End of the day you can decide when to help and not help.
I also see an opportunity to grow here. People may ask for your help or try to manipulate you emotionally. While you do not have to give in to these attempts, this may make you angry/sad as a reaction. It is this reaction that make your life unpleasant. This reaction is one of your own. Not your mothers.
This is something you can work on. Practicing mindfulness on day to day life can help. Use your mothers attempt to manipulate you and your own reaction when you recall such attempts as a test. And next time she call or next time this come your mind, check how much it bother you.