text:
What does "has students" and "has teacher" mean in this sutta?
In this question, we found the metaphorical use of the term "the world", different from its ordinary everyday meaning.
Similarly, the sutta SN 35.151 below talks about living the holy life without students and teachers, as well as living the holy life with students and teachers. A deeper look into the elaboration by the Buddha seems to indicate that "has students" and "has teacher" are metaphors.
What do these metaphors mean?
And what is the difference between "has students" and "has teacher" in this case? Why are they differentiated into two different things?

“Bhikkhus, this holy life is lived without students and without a
teacher. A bhikkhu who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering,
not in comfort. A bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher dwells
happily, in comfort.
“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher
dwell in suffering, not in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has
seen a form with the eye, there arise in him evil unwholesome states,
memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They dwell within
him. Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is
called ‘one who has students.’ They assail him. Since evil unwholesome
states assail him, he is called ‘one who has a teacher.’
“Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a
mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has a
teacher.’
“It is in this way that a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher
dwells in suffering, not in comfort.
“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher
dwell happily, in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has seen a
form with the eye, there do not arise in him evil unwholesome states,
memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They do not dwell
within him. Since those evil unwholesome states do not dwell within
him, he is called ‘one who has no students.’ They do not assail him.
Since evil unwholesome states do not assail him, he is called ‘one who
has no teacher.’
“Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a
mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has no
teacher.’
“It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who has no students and
no teacher dwells happily, in comfort.
SN 35.151

Apparently for Pali word for having a teacher there is sācariyaka:

together with one’s teacher

... and for not having a teacher it is anācariyaka for which the dictionary gives two definitions:

not having a teacher; not dependent on an instructor
free from bad influences

"cariyaka" isn't defined in the PTS dictionary.
There's cariya which seems to mean "conduct" or "state of life"

Cariya Cariya (nt.) & cariyā (f.) [from car, carati] (mostly -˚) conduct, behaviour, state of, life of. Three cariyās at Ps i.79; six at Vism 101; eight at Ps ii.19 sq., 225 & four sets of eight in detail at Nd2 237b. Very freq. in dhamma˚ & brahma˚, a good walk of life, proper conduct, chastity — eka˚ living alone Sn 820; unchā˚ begging J ii.272; iii.37; bhikkhā˚ a life of begging Sn 700; nagga˚ nakedness Dh 141.

... plus the suffix "-aka":

-aka: is said to denote the property of: manussa, a man+a=manussakaṃ, that which belongs to man, the property of man, human (see -ka).
It also forms a numerous class of action-nouns and adjectives: √kar, to make, do+aka=karaka, making, causing or maker, doer; √gah, to take, receive+aha=gahaka, taking, receiving, a receiver: sometimes a -y is inserted between aka and a root ending in a vowel, especially long ā: √dā, to give +aka=dāyaka, a giver.

So "cariyaka" might mean literally something like "maker or causer of behaviour" -- which may be good or bad behaviour; and, more importantly, the "causer" might be a person (i.e. a teacher) or something more impersonal (e.g. a good or a bad habit).
So perhaps it isn't a "metaphor", but the English language (not always being steeped in anatta) might tend to imply strong distinctions between people and impersonal causes -- a distinction which doesn't clearly exist in Pali.

The word for resident student is santevāsika:

with resident pupils, i.e. with internal impurities

There's a non-canonical explanation here, The Disciple Within, by Bhikkhu Revata:

So, we have to find out exactly what our Buddha meant by the 'disciple within' and the 'master
within'. We have to find out and to see what sort of lives we are living in. It is time for us to re-examine
how we are living and what sort of mind-set we have. As tonight happens to be the eve of the New
Year 2008, I feel that this is a most appropriate time to reflect deeply upon this matter. That is why I
wanted to deliver this talk tonight.
Now, in every living being's mind there are the defilements of greed (lobha), the defilements of
hatred (dosa), and the defilements of ignorance (moha). Also, we have within us envy, stinginess
(issamicchaya) and conceit (màna). Each one of us, we all have these defilements. Whenever we see
something that we think is very desirable or undesirable, there arise in us evil unwholesome states that
bind us up like fetters. Our senses, our memories, our perceptions and our feelings become very busy
and active in arousing the unwholesome defilements (akusala). These defilements dwell within us.
Since they dwell within us, they are called the `disciples within.'

By analogy with the previous answer -- that "teacher" should be understood as "cause" -- I presume that "disciple" should be understood as an "effect" or "result".

There is Ācariya and Ācariyaka both of which are defined as "teacher". It gives the etymology of "acariya" as "ā + car]" -- with the Ā prefix meaning "to" or "from" -- so perhaps that doesn't change the answer really.

Thanks i appreciate the analysis. I can't really say much because unlearned.

It's not that I'm learned, just trying to make sense of the dictionaries in this context. I mean, I guess the word "Ācariya" literally says "what leads a person to behaviour" or "that from which behaviour comes" -- and one of the ways in which it's used sometimes is to describe a teacher, and "teacher" is one of the translations -- but a teacher/person isn't the only source of behaviour (especially bad behaviours and consequences).

Fwiw i know as a bhikkhu one asks 'upajjayo me bhante hohi' when asking one to be one's preceptor and one asks 'acariyo me bhante hohi' asking one to teach the dhamma and to interrogate making sure one has understood correctly. It is said that a bhikkhu can dwell alone until a suitable acariya comes along. The meaning of Acariya can also be drawn out from sigalovada sutta

They (acariya) make sure they’re(students) well trained and well educated. They clearly explain all the knowledge of the profession. They introduce them to their friends and colleagues. They provide protection in every region.

I think the semantic properties are well drawn out by you. The translation i think is teacher/trainer/mentor.

If you think there is some different meaning to the verses in the OPs sutta, that Acariya ought not be translated as a teacher, then you really need to provide evidence of acariya being used differently.

Also on the prefix “The prefix ‘ā’ has such meanings as a state of approaching towards, an upwardly directed or overhead action, bordering, complimenting, reaching, wishing, embracing, commencing, taking, residence, propinquity and addressing.” https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=259210&sid=3192f1506677277d711f8206188faed5#p259210

@Letsbuddhism "Teacher" is indeed Ven. Sujato's translation as well as Ven. Bodhi's, and I'm not sure why they do but I'd be foolish to contradict them. I'm aware though that words usually have a range of meanings, that translators must pick a single and that the ranges. The PTS dictionary says that anācariyaka has two meanings (or two usages), and Bhikkhu Revata also explains "the disciples within" as referring to impersonal defilements, not people.

The non-canonical text you mentioned. In the sutta the students are said to be with him, not in him, likewise one is with a teacher. What dwells in is said to be defilement and because of that he is not without a student. The defilements aren't a student, equating the two is unwarranted, if one was to equate defilements with the student then the one whom they assail becomes the teacher and the bhikkhu can't be that teacher because he is said to be with a teacher.

And defilement within the bhikkhu can't be both the student and the teacher in the same context, that would be equating teacher with student. that text it's erroneous.

Do you see the sleight of hand that the Bhikkhu Revata made with that interpretation?

@Letsbuddhism "In the sutta the students are said to be with him, not in him" Perhaps that's an example of a degree of precision which exists in English but not in Pali -- i.e. English uses (and requires) a lot of prepositions, which a translator-into-grammatical-English will supply to write a sentence in English, but which isn't always specified so precisely in the Pali. And I'm not sure that text must have only either meaning or another (music for example may produce two notes at the same time).

It should be very obvious. In that text there are 2 nouns bhikkhu+defilements, yet bhikkhu is said to have teachers + students, two additional nouns that aren't same in meaning. It should be super obvious that the defilements are neither the teacher nor student. Can't be. There are 2 contexts. 1st is a stament about the bhikkhu having defilements, 2nd is a statement about the bhikkhu on the account of having those defilements. Both statements are about the bhikkhu. All in all there are three attributes to that bhikkhu, he has defilements, he has teachers, he has students...

forgot to tag for notification. I can't make it any more clear i think. @ChrisW

I think that begs the question, i.e. that "teacher" is in the text. That is your assumption, it's the basis for your answer, and it's true of the two or three translations we've looked at. I wanted to look for commentary, and then I looked into the Pali, and I found sācariyaka and so on. Another theory is that these (e.g. "with a teacher") might be refer to an ego-state, (not to some separate person) e.g. what Freud might call "superego" -- like if you tell yourself to do something, feel guilty about doing or about not doing, and so on -- that's not "living in peace", and is wordy,

It's said that one who has craving is never alone, craving is his companion, in as far as one has craving one has unwholesome states and on that account one is said not to be without teachers & students. Having gotten rid of craving one is truly alone and without the unwholesome states, without students & teachers. I am quite confifent that this is how it is to be drawn out.

I don't think we can fully explain this without explaining the state of the arahant to whom it doesn't occur 'i am a bhikkhu' or 'i am a man' or 'i am anything at all'  and he won't even give rise to 'i am alone'

Id call it a personification of various elements, it appears to be analogical reasoning but i think that it isn't and it turns out to be rather definitive in the end, that is how arahants end up understanding and using these words.

Well I think the translations personify it (in that "a teacher" is usually assumed to be "a person") and so can make it seem like a metaphor.

i won't argue whether its definitive or qualified use of the word. I also wanted to note that there isn't much personal about the word 'teacher' etymologically neither and i doubt that people back in the day were dwelling much on the etymology of achariya. Therefore i think there isn't much to it @ChrisW

Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is called ‘one who has students.’ They assail him. Since evil unwholesome states assail him, he is called ‘one who has a teacher.’

They are unskilled, unlearned, ignorant and are misbehaving. Therefore they are called students.

They assail him. Since evil unwholesome states assail him, he is called ‘one who has a teacher.’

A teacher is assailed & pestered by his students. Therefore being assailed by the unskillful students one is called a teacher.
It isn't that the unwholesome states are the bhikkhu's students nor is he the teacher of the unwholesome states but that bhikkhu is not without a student-teacher dynamic, therefore he is said to be with students & teachers rather than alone. In other words he does have the suffering that is characteristic to a student and he has the suffering characteristic to a teacher.
This expression draws from sn21.10

The Blessed One said: “And how is living alone perfected in its details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued.1 That is how living alone is perfected in its details.”

Also iti15

With craving his companion, a man
wanders on a long, long time.
Neither in this state here
nor anywhere else
does he go beyond
the wandering-on.
Knowing this drawback–
that craving brings stress into play–
free  from craving,
devoid of clinging,
mindful, the monk
lives the mendicant life.

Also sn35.63

A person living in this way—even if he frequents isolated forest & wilderness dwellings, with an unpopulated atmosphere, lying far from humanity, appropriate for seclusion—is still said to be living with a companion. Why is that? Because the craving that is his companion has not been abandoned by him. Thus he is said to be a person who is living with a companion.

These sutta are aimed at straightening people who have an inadequate take on dwelling alone, having teachers & students, they do not understand the definitive meaning of these terms in the training of the Noble One's.
This is a good teaching to give to people who might be neglecting their training because they crave students or are upset about not having a teacher
These aren't metaphors but how Ariyans use these words.

That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.

It's never anywhere explained to be a metaphor.
It is the unlearned people who due to their stupidity can't conceive the meaning of those words as ariyans use them (i mean no offense to op and am myself learning this). Ordinary people can only use colloquial & qualified meanings whereas Ariyans have beginninglessly been arriving at & explaining the definitive meaning because great minds think alike.

I think "it's so advanced, that you need to be enlightened to understand it" shouldn't qualify as an answer on StackExchange.

I tried to explain it, whether one understands it or not is not something i can control. You are very rude in distilling my answer down to "it's so advanced, that you need to be enlightened to understand " because i think it's a misrepresentation but you are free to do so if that is how you take it.

To me it's very clear and this is how i understand it, what will you have me do? Buddha explained it and you are not understanding it, here you ask questions about it and are complaining that the answer isn't good enough. Cry me a river. Perhaps you should make a time machine and go see the Buddha about it, complain that his teachings are obscure and only understood by Ariya..

Looks like a sort of admirable respectful for the kleshas that they are being given the title teacher, and the result student.
Makes sense as a metaphor as dukkha is the first of the four noble truths, the kleshas cause dukkha so in turn are "teaching" us [part of] the meaning of the first noble truth.


text:
Is it possible to have perception without reification?
Sometimes some visual or auditory sense perception gives the taste of no-self. Like, the ego dissolves for a moment and you feel tremendous oneness with existence. For e.g. while looking at the sunset or the night sky, or listening to the rain.
But such states don't last for long. So just want to understand what might be happening. I think what happens is that you perceive but there is no reification, but that is what I think.
Is it possible to have perception without reification? And is this state the same as "Yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana"

Is it possible to have perception without reification?
Yes. The sutta MN 1 below shows this and presents the difference between unenlightened persons and the enlightened ones.
The unenlightened:

“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for
noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has
no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he
conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he
conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’
he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
it, I say.
“He perceives the seen as the seen. Having perceived the seen as the
seen, he conceives himself as the seen, he conceives himself in the
seen, he conceives himself apart from the seen, he conceives the seen
to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not
fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives the heard as the heard. Having perceived the heard as
the heard, he conceives himself as the heard, he conceives himself in
the heard, he conceives himself apart from the heard, he conceives the
heard to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the heard. Why is that? Because he
has not fully understood it, I say.
“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.

The enlightened:

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
has fully understood it, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that?
Because he has fully understood it, I say.
“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened,
directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth,
he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in
earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not
conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is
that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering,
and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever
has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through
the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and
relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full
enlightenment, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that?
Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and
that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has
come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the
complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and
relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full
enlightenment, I say.”
MN 1

But why is it this way?
In the following sutta and commentary, Ven. Thanissaro explained that reification is rooted in the mental idea of the self i.e.  "I am the thinker". So, everything other than the self is objectified and classified into non-self objects based on their relationship to the self.
However, for the enlightened, self-view and conceit has been destroyed. Thus, they see things as they truly are.
For e.g. if you're a vegan, you may look at a meat dish and cringe. If you're meat lover, you may look at a meat dish and salivate.
But an arahant will just see it as it is, without reacting based on greed, aversion and delusion. The arahant still has the non-clinging aggregate of perception (please see Ven. Thanissaro's footnote to Iti 44 and SN 22.48), using which, he can identify what is sensed, without reifying (concept-proliferating) it relative to the self.

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'
Commentary by Ven. Thanissaro:
On objectification-classifications
and their role in leading to conflict, see Snp 4.11 and the
introduction to MN 18. The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at
the root of these classifications in that it reads into the immediate
present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
drop them.
Snp 4.14

If by reification you mean "looking with your brain and only seeing what you already know" then yes, of course it is possible to be free from it. That's exactly what Buddha taught, leaving your preconceptions aside and seeing things as they are.
This is "Yatha-bhuta" and "Beginner's mind".
See How to practice “In the seen will be merely what is seen"?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Enlightment of Early Monks
Did any contemporaries/students of the historical Buddha achieve "full enlightenment" before he passed away?

Yes. Many became arahants (fully enlightened ones) in the Buddha's lifetime.
While the Buddha was living, Venerables Sariputta, Moggallana, Mahakaccana, Mahakassapa, Punna, Anuruddha, Upali, Rahula, Khema, Dhammadinna, Bahiya, Patacara, Angulimala, Bhaddiya, Sona, Khemaka, Sunita, Sumana, Vimala, Canda, Kisagotami, Revata, Subhuti, Anna Kondanna, Dabba Mallaputta, Ambapali, Subha etc. became arahants.
Ven. Ananda became an arahant after the Buddha's passing away.
You can search for these names in the Palikanon's Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names and in AccessToInsight's Index of Proper Names.
You can find sources for these, in various suttas, including in the Theragatha (stories of the elder monks) and Therigatha (stories of the elder nuns).
From "Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas" by Ven. Bodhi:

Although the Buddha was the pioneer in discovering the path to
liberation, this does not mean that his arahant disciples just
selfishly reaped the benefits of the path and did nothing for others.
To the contrary, in the suttas we can see that many of them became
great teachers in their own right who were capable of guiding others
towards liberation. The best known among them are Sāriputta,
Mahākaccāna, Moggāllana, and Ānanda. There was the monk Puṇṇa who went
to the barbarian Sunāparanta country, risking his life to teach the
Dhamma to the people there. There were such nuns as Khemā and
Dhammadinnā, who were outstanding preachers, Paṭācārā, who was a
master of the discipline, and many others. For four hundred years, the
Buddhist texts were preserved orally, transmitted from teachers to
pupils, and obviously there had to be thousands of monks and nuns who
dedicated their lives to learning the texts and teaching them to
pupils, all for the purpose of preserving the good Dhamma and Vinaya
in the world.
The example established by the Buddha's great arahant disciples has
been the model for the followers of the arahant ideal throughout
history. While those who pursue this ideal do not make such lofty vows
as do followers of the bodhisattva ideal, they are inspired by the
example of the Buddha and his great disciples to work for the
spiritual and moral uplift of others to the best of their ability: by
teaching, by example, and by direct spiritual influence, inspired by
the Buddha's command to "wander forth for the welfare of the
multitude, for the happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for
the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and human
beings."

Thoroughly concise, learned and exemplary. ;-)

Many monks & nuns attained Arahantship, being released even in both ways;

When craving, Vaccha, has been got rid of by a monk, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence in the future, he is a monk who is a perfected one, canker-waned, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, the fetters of becoming quite destroyed, freed by right profound knowledge.”
“Let be the good Gotama. Has the good Gotama even one monk who is a disciple and who, by the destruction of the cankers, having realised here and now by his own super-knowledge the freedom of mind and the freedom through intuitive wisdom that are cankerless, entering on them is abiding in them?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two hundred, three hundred, four hundred nor five hundred, but far more are those monks, disciples of mine, who, by the destruction of the cankers, having realised here and now by their own super-knowledge the freedom of mind and the freedom through intuitive wisdom that are cankerless, entering on them are abiding in them.”
“Let be the good Gotama, let be the monks. But has the good Gotama even one nun who is a disciple and who, by the destruction of the cankers, having realised here and now by her own super-knowledge the freedom of mind and the freedom through intuitive wisdom that are cankerless, entering on them is abiding in them?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two, three, four or five hundred, but far more are those nuns, disciples of mine, who, by the destruction of the cankers, having here and now realised by their own super-knowledge the freedom of mind and the freedom through intuitive wisdom that are cankerless, entering on them are abiding in them.” -mn73

As to laymen & lay-women there were none that attained the final goal at the breakup of the body without abandoning the fetters of householdership;

“Good Gotama, is there any householder who, not getting rid of the householder's fetter(s), at the breaking up of the body is an end-maker of ill?” “There is not any householder, Vaccha, who, not getting rid of the householder's fetter(s), at the breaking up of the body is an end-maker of ill.” -mn71

What are the fetters of householdership? I have never heard this term before.

The word is gihisamyojanam, gihi is householder samyojanam is as i understand it connections or additives. These denote things that bind one to what is opposite of renunciation, these include less obvious things having to do with behaviors like storing up provisions [even for the training] which an Arahant has given up [dn33], these are marks of a householder [mn54] that are effectively a clinging to material things.

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


text:
Compulsion to repeat afflictions and Buddhism
I've noticed in myself a tendency to pursue situations that cause a certain stress, in a somewhat compulsive way. This is a bit like people who are drawn to people who are bad for them. I have heard Thich Nhat Hanh saying teens drawn to spending all their time on computers feel empty inside.
How are such "addictions" conceptualized in Buddhism? In other words, what would be the cause and nature of a behaviour that is bad for one, that depends on a kind of meaninglessness and self-sabotage?
Lastly, what would remedy such internal afflictions? Are they forms of a kind of avoidance of suffering?

I believe the term you're looking for is 'tanhā', which translates roughly as 'craving. The essential idea, as I see it, is that discontentment (dukkha) arises from a clash or disparity between how the world actually is and one's expectations of how the world ought to be. In some cases that disparity becomes so painfully acute that one decides something in the world must change to conform more to one's expectations. This is craving (tanhā). Craving — if left unfulfilled and unaddressed — can turn into an obstinate fixation, or eventually even a flight from reality into a fantasy world where (perhaps) the expectation is met, or mysterious and nefarious forces are conspiring to prevent the expectation from being met.
Some people believe that drugs or alcohol create the person they wish to be. Other people imagine themselves as metaphysical 'winners' and are drawn to gambling because it's something that ought to come out in their favor. Others think they should be with this person or that person, and lean towards stalking or obsession. Still others imagine that sensual pleasures (food, sex, excitement) are the height of existence, and pursue them with reckless abandon. The list is endless, really: anything where one might say "that would fulfill me" can turn into an addiction, as one constantly seeks to fulfill one's identity in a world that does not naturally lend itself to such constancy.

It's all greed, anger and delusion.
Self-sabotage is an obvious expression of cruelty towards oneself, it is due to a lack of compassion, a lack of sympathy and of course ignorance.
Greed, delusion, lack of concentration, laziness and all this lack of development is also there, right there for all with eyes to see.
The remedy is of course the development of the five strengths, the five faculties, the four satipatthana, the seven factors and the eightfold path.

Destruction with intention is a manifestation of anger. And if the behavior is personally destructive, then there may be anger directed inwards. Anger is very tricky and slippery. Anger justifies itself and seeks to destroy either directly or indirectly. So we must proceed with extreme care.

SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama,
SN1.71:2.4: whose killing you approve?”
SN1.71:3.1: “When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease.
SN1.71:3.2: When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.
SN1.71:3.3: O deity, anger has a poisoned root
SN1.71:3.4: and a honey tip.
SN1.71:3.5: The noble ones praise its killing,
SN1.71:3.6: for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

In the Buddha's description of anger there is an eye-catching phrase anger has a poisoned root and an honey tip.  When we see or hear this phrase, we have to think carefully, "what is the poisoned root and what is the honey tip?"
Anger arises from expectations thwarted. It arises from desires frustrated and denied. Wanting kindness, we might be surrounded by cruelty. And out of hopelessness and sorrow, anger and resentment might arise from craving that gentlest of touch, a simple kindness from others. That is the poisoned root of anger.
We cannot control the others, but we can control what happens here. We can offer kindness to others and be content with that. There will at least be kindness in the world.
But if the thought arises that one is "unworthy and undeserving" of kindness one has stepped on a land mine that will explode and main or kill us. One might be tempted to punish oneself for an imaginary transgression. And that temptation to exercise control through self-harm is quite dangerous. It is the siren call of destruction. It is the honey tip that keeps anger and resentment alive.
The Buddha teaches us to step away from anger and resentment. Unsupported, they will fade and cease on their own.
And in their place the Buddha teaches us the limitless releases of the heart through love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.
Please be kind to yourself and allow that kindness within to grow and embrace others so that we all might suffer a little less. Let kindness, let metta guide you.

MN127:4.2: ‘Householder, develop the limitless release of heart.’


text:
How to combat self-doubt?
Doubt (Vicikitsa)is one of the five hindrances to progress to meditation. I searched for the hindrance of doubt, and as I understand it is the 'doubt in Buddha, his attainment and the Dhamma he taught'. I also tried reading about the 'ten fetters', but none of it mentions countering self-doubt.
I mean, the thoughts go in this way,

I have been unsuccessful in worldly matters, I was unsuccessful in
getting 'this and that', I couldn't fulfill the expectations I
had...then how do you expect to succeed in attaining Nirvana...If you
failed in samsaric life, then...so and so...

How does one counter this negative chatter and some kind of predictive reasoning?

You can try thinking like this:
Certainly i am a great being, for i am an attainer of the human-state, a state so difficult to attain, certainly am i fortunate, so very fortunate for many beings envy me like the manyfold wretched humans, let alone animals and the countless beings in the lower realms.
Having attained this state, i am one who will not squander this opportunity. I am a doer of many good deeds, these deeds so difficult to do.
The merit i make in this life will certainly bear great fruit, it will certainly support me and if i were to reconnect, i will be coming back stronger.
Having found a refuge in Tathagata i am so very blessed. For one who has a teacher like this will certainly either realize the goal in this life or another. It is guaranteed that the development of my strengths, faculties & factors will eventually culminate in the attainment of the deathless.
I am very lucky to have the chance to support even a community of monks because gifts given to a sangha, on account of the order, even if the monks aren't virtuous, are of an incalculable & immeasurable benefit.
Let alone giving gifts, i have the opportunity to learn & master the words of Tathagatha, even learning the expression is of great fruit let alone penetrating the meaning.
Recollecting your good deeds will support and develop your faculties.
If you see other people in a worse or a more fortunate state,  remember that they are like you and are likewise reaping the results of their actions.
If you do these good things and restrain yourself from evil, then certainly you will come to know the unknown, be filled with good qualities and become an end-maker.

Very nice and comforting answer, thankyou.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion Ven. Revata the Doubter was sitting not far from the Blessed One, his legs crossed, his body held erect, reflecting on [his] purification through the overcoming of doubt. The Blessed One saw Ven. Revata the Doubter sitting not far away, his legs crossed, his body held erect, reflecting on [his] purification through the overcoming of doubt.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

Any doubts,
about here or the world beyond,
about what is experienced
by/because of others,
by/because of oneself, are abandoned — all —
by the person in jhāna,
ardent,
living the holy life. - udana5.7

That line of thinking would have me reflect, "This is stress; and this is the origin of stress; etc."
I think that is an essential benchmark (i.e. a metric or dimension against which to measure experience, and lines of thought).
A lot of that dialog seems to me based on risky assumptions: especially "I", "getting", "expect", and "success/failure".
The assumption seems faulty, i.e. that the "I" can reliably acquire because of who it is; or that attainment is about getting.
I think that the "I" itself -- i.e. notions about the "I" -- is some kind of fetter.
Perhaps that's why you can read about "confidence in the Dhamma" but not about "self-confidence".
I could quote suttas but perhaps you know them.
At one level, there is cause and effect -- but I think it's misleading to associate that with "I".
I remember that a preschool teacher is taught that she may observe, distinguish, and teach the difference between what she'd call "good and bad behaviour" -- but it's the behaviour that's good or bad, not the person, and she shouldn't teach, "You are a bad boy."
It's maybe more helpful to see things -- actions, intentions, thoughts, conditions -- without the view of their being specifically embodied in this or that person. And maybe it's help to see people (including yourself) as impermanent, inconstant. I mean the line of reasoning you're complaining about is, "Because I was unsuccessful in the past I will be unsuccessful in the future", is that meant to imply you've never ever learned to do anything, never adapted to changing circumstance, never learned a new skill?
But one of the "new skills" of Buddhism is perhaps to recognise stress when you observe it.

For only stress    is what comes to be;
stress,    what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress     comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.
SN 5.10

How does one counter this negative chatter and some kind of predictive reasoning?

Just be mindful of it - mindfulness will keep it from proliferating. This is just thinking and should be noted as "thinking, thinking". If any aversion towards the thoughts arises then the aversion should be taken as an object and noted as "disliking, disliking".
Observe and note it until it passes away - if it doesn't pass away after a long time just go back to the rising and falling of the abdomen. If it arises again the same technique should be used.
In short, turn the negative chatter/predictive reasoning into a meditation object, study and learn about it and cultivate Wisdom (Paññā) from it. Wisdom will eradicate doubt.

I downvoted because i think it's incomplete. Afaik the hindrances ought to be dispelled and countered, mindfulness is useful but when one recognizes that a hindrance is present then one should direct the mind to remove it. Capala Sutta is a good example, whereas Yuttadhammo has previously taught that one ought to note drowsiness & whatnot until it goes away or one falls asleep, i don't know if he still teaches this.

I don't agree with what you wrote - I think it's a complete teaching.

I think it is essential to develop sati in that way but i don't think it's complete, sufficient maybe but not complete. If it was complete it wouldn't contradict capala sutta. Also vittaka santhana sutta is contradicted, there are other sutta as well. I also trained this method for well over a thousand hours.

Again, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. While he is contemplating phenomena in phenomena, there arises in him, based on phenomena, either a fever in the body or sluggishness of mind, or the mind is distracted outwardly. That bhikkhu should then direct his mind towards some inspiring sign. -sn47.10

Here's a good guide by Ajahn Brahm on overcoming doubt. Doubt not just on the method, or the teachings, but also doubt on one's own abilities.
Please see the section on doubt from the essay "The Five Hindrances" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
"Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
"How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
trust in the driver.

I have been unsuccessful in worldly matters, I was unsuccessful in
getting 'this and that', I couldn't fulfill the expectations I
had...then how do you expect to succeed in attaining Nirvana...If you
failed in samsaric life, then...so and so...

That line of thinking is more in-line with conceit than doubt. Doubt usually has a narrative that directly challenges the teachings, whereas conceit can take the form of various types of inferiority complexes, which I believe is the case for you. In any case, like Jade Empire says, one just notices conceit and its different levels - superiority - equality - inferiority - by tuning into the feeling-tone of the narrative - in your case it's unpleasant, so it is inferiority conceit.
The Upadanakkhandhas go like this...
The excitation of sankharas initiate thoughts - the mind detects those thoughts and uses the feeling/perception blueprint to determine if those thoughts are worthy of further entertainment. It considers them worthy and plays a repetitious rendition of those thoughts - this is the intention. This cycling leads to the gross feeling of unworthiness.
Don't try to reason with this part of the mind - it's neurotic. Reasoning with it means you've recognized its importance, and so it will show up again. You're creating this situation yourself, but have not yet developed your practice enough to see this at this depth. It will come to you.


text:
What is difference between dhamma in Dhammanupassana and dhamma in Sampajana?
Sampajana is observing mental object(dharma) and associated perception and feeling.and its part of all 4 foundation.
It seems there are two different types of dhamma.One is for Sampajana and other is for dhammanupassana.
So what is the dhamma in dhammanupassana and what is dhamma in sampajana.

There is a difference between Dhamma and these dhammā.
Excerpt from Milinda Panha below;

“Dhammo kho, mahārāja, sabba-sukhumo, na kho, mahārāja, dhammā sabbe sukhumā, ‘sukhuman’ti vā ‘thūlan’ti vā dhammānam-etam-adhivacanaṃ.
‘Truth (Dhamma), O king, is the most minute and subtle. But this is not true of all qualities (Dhammā). Subtleness or the reverse are epithets of qualities. (I think this is Rhys Davids original pali to english)

Here is a much later translation also pali to english

"Kiṃ pana, bhante, sabbaṃ sukhuman”ti? ..."
"What, revered sir, is everything that is subtle?"
"Dhamma, sire, is all-subtle, but not all dhammas, sire, are subtle; this is a synonym of dhammas, sire, 'subtle' or 'coarse'."- I. B. Horner

Perhaps this is what you're getting at.

So you mean Dhamma is truth and that is what to be observed in Dhammanupasyana.... Whereas Dhammā is phenomina. That is to be aware of in sampajana.

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8265-8_201209

Dhamma (Pāḷi) or Dharma (Sanskrit) in singular and generally denotes the Teaching of the Buddha, the truth or natural law he discovered, used for liberation, and taught.
Dhammā or dharmā in plural – according to context – usually point to phenomena, things, experiences, factors of existence, conditions, realities.

Dhamma is singular because it is only one. just like son ... wow so dhamanuopasyana is pasyana of the truth.

I think two sublime things can be called Dhamma and it derives from this Ayacanasuttam; For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana.

Teaching these two things is called teaching the Dhamma.

It's evident from these lines; Enough now with teaching
what
only with difficulty
I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized
by those overcome
with aversion & passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,
deep,
hard to see,
going against the flow —
those delighting in passion,
cloaked in the mass of darkness,
won't see.
As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

I agree, Dhamma is not mare teaching but cristalised teaching established in practioner and available real time. Just like ohter mental Dhammā it is available in mind.

According to MahasatipatthanaSutta Pali's context, 21 meditations are meditated in four postures, iriyāpatha-pabba, for more proficiency, and the most proficient meditations are the 21 meditations in 7 sub-postures, sampajañña-pabba.
What is SamPajañña?
SamPajañña is the various proficient understanding of the wholesome's object in various perspective.
Saṃ prefix+pa prefix+ñā root+yu root's suffix+ṇya noun's suffix.
Saṃ prefix = sampanna = perfectly complete.
pa prefix = pakāra = many aspects, various perspective.
ñā root = understanding.
yu (na) root's suffix = making ñā to be noun.
ṇya (ññ) noun's suffix = making sampajana word to be state/condition.
Why people can't understand SamPajañña easily?
Because they never memorize kayagatasatisutta pali and mahasatipatthanasutta pali. Every Pali word below is from the sutta directly and I understand it because pali has the very perfect relations in the context.
The kayagatasati pali is very clear and easy--the practitioner pajānāti of breath in sitting meditation until getting proficient  level. This develops pajānāti to ñāṇa in sitting posture by the first pabba. Then the practitioner pajānāti breath in every  postures by the second pabba, iriyāpatha-pabba. Then the practitioner pajānāti breath in every sub-postures by the third pabba, sampajañña-pabba. The end of all are absorbing Jhana ("Sato ca sampajāno sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṅvedeti" at the end of 21 pabba in KayagatasatiSutta).
MahasatipatthanaSutta is  same but it is Vipassana, not samatha. It is the explaining Sutta of the word "Vijjā" of KāyagatāsatiSutta, VipassanāñāṇaVijjā.

Sati is keeping conscious on the wholesome's object, to avoid unwholesome. The wholesome are 21 minds and 38 mind-factors. The wholesome's objects are 4 Satipatthana or 21 pabba.
Sampajanna is the perfect understanding in various perspective of the wholesome object.


text:
Mention of Saraswathi river in Buddhist scriptures
Does any authentic Buddhist scripture mentions the Saraswathi River? If yes where and what does it say?
Saraswathi river is an ancient Indian river mentioned widely across all Indian scriptures but it's dating is debated. We know that Buddha lived around 6th century BC, if Saraswathi river is mentioned then we can be of some certainty that the river flowed, however sparsely around 6th century BC.
Refer

I could find the following references to the Sarasvati River in the Pali Canon:

Now at that time the brahmin Sundarika Bhāradvāja was sitting not far
from the Buddha. He said to the Buddha, “But does Master Gotama go to
the river Bāhuka to bathe?”
“Brahmin, why go to the river Bāhuka? What can the river Bāhuka do?”
“Many people agree that the river Bāhuka bestows cleanliness and
merit. And many people wash off their bad deeds in the river Bāhuka.”
Then the Buddha addressed Sundarika in verse:
The Bāhuka and the Adhikakka,
the Gaya and the Sundarika too,
Sarasvatī and Payāga,
and the river Bāhumati:
a fool can constantly plunge into them
but it won’t purify their dark deeds.
What can the Sundarika do?
What the Payāga or the Bāhuka?
They can’t cleanse a cruel and criminal person
from their bad deeds.
For the pure in heart it’s always
the spring festival or the sabbath.
For the pure in heart and clean of deed,
their vows will always be fulfilled.
It’s here alone that you should bathe, brahmin,
making yourself a sanctuary for all creatures.
And if you speak no lies,
nor harm any living creature,
nor steal anything not given,
and you’re faithful and not stingy:
what’s the point of going to Gaya?
For any well may be your Gaya!”
Majjhima Nikaya 7

Oh, when will I cross the Ganges, Yamunā,
and Sarasvatī rivers, the Pātāla country,
and the dangerous Baḷavāmukha sea,
by psychic power unimpeded? When will it be?
Theragatha 19.1

And again, O king, just as there are five hundred rivers which flow
down from the Himālayas, but of these ten only are reckoned in
enumerations of rivers—the Ganges, the Jumna, the Aciravatī, the
Sarabhū, the Mahī, the Indus, the Sarasvatī, the Vetravatī, the
Vītaṁsā, and the Candabhāgā—the others not being included in the
catalogue because of their intermittent flow of water.
Milindapanha 5.1.4

The Indus, and the Sarasvatī
are rivers, like the Candabhāgā,
the Ganges and the Yamuna
the Sarabhu and the Mahī too.
Thera Apadana 3

There's another mention of this river in this Chinese Mahayana Sutra:

Nāgasena asked the king, “Would those who have never seen the great
ocean, know that the ocean is great? There are five great rivers, and
to each of them, there are also five hundred small tributaries. The
five great rivers are: (1) the Ganges, (2) the Sindhu, (3) the Sita,
(4) the Oxus and (5) the Sarasvati. The waters of these five great
rivers flow to the ocean day and night, but the water in the ocean
neither increases nor decreases.”
T 1670B Nāgasena Bhikṣu Sūtra 2.46


text:
What did the Buddha say about sharing merit?
It seems customary to share merit in certain Buddhist traditions. However, I've recently heard merit can't really be shared. What did the Buddha say about this?

Ajahn Puddhadammo mentions particulars about merit sharing from the suttas in this talk https://satisaraniya.ca/2016/05/11/ajahn-punnadhammo-on-buddhist-cosmology/

The following passage is usually used as a support for sharing merit but i now think it may not be although i am not sure.

Master Gotama, you know that we brahmans give gifts, make offerings, [saying,] 'May this gift accrue to our dead relatives. May our dead relatives partake of this gift.' Now, Master Gotama, does that gift accrue to our dead relatives? Do our dead relatives partake of that gift?"
"In possible places, brahman, it accrues to them, but not in impossible places."
"And which, Master Gotama, are the possible places?
...
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech, engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the realms of the hungry shades. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him. This is the possible place for that gift to accrue to one staying there.
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that possible place, who partakes of that gift?"
"Other dead relatives, brahman, who have reappeared in that possible place."
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that possible place, and other dead relatives have not reappeared in that possible place, then who partakes of that gift?"
"It's impossible, brahman, it cannot be, that over this long time that possible place is devoid of one's dead relatives.
An10.177

It has been pointed out that it may be about in some way attempting to have a dead relative receive a gift.
Afaik the transfer of merit to living people isn't canonical to EBTs and it would indeed be strange if one could experience the good consequences of another's work as it is generally held that no one can purify another.
The chants akin to Uddissanaadhitthaana Gaathaa do not appear in canonical texts, that one in particular is composed by king Rama 4th of Thailand.

There are already other answers, good householder.
In addition to those, one can share merit by inviting others to join in the carrying out of charitable or meritorious activities, and increase right view, if wished. For e.g. when giving alms to monks, invite others to join you in giving alms, and thereby sharing in the merits.
It's of course very much possible that one gravely addicted to worldly sensual pleasures, would not want to share in joint charitable or meritorious activities.
Another way to share merits is to tell others about the charitable and meritorious activities that one has done, so that others may practise mudita (appreciation, approve, rejoice with). For e.g. when you have given alms to monks, tell others so that they may rejoice in your act and thereby share your merits by practicing mudita.
But mudita cannot be practised by those who do not have right view.
Some explanation here (switch language for english.)
The other answer here, by the way, has nothing to do with the sharing of merits, but rather talks about being charitable to those who have passed on.

So what did the Buddha say.. Couldn't find anything neither in your answer nor in your house [forum]. Do you have a canonical reference? If you do then please add it to your answer so that i can remove the downvote householder

It's all included, even the downvote explained, good householder. Yet "it's all far form getting understood" might be still remaining. Nobody could act-ually help there out. For share merits doesn't mean making anothers work or solves anothers deeds and duties. Beings are heir of their actions and if not willing to change their courses, no way upward and out, or understand the way.

I flagged this because it doesn't answer the question. 'Mudita' as 'altruistic joy' as 'rejoicing on behalf of someone else' or inviting someone to be gladdened due to gain
of another is something else entirely.

Also if you look at the link 6. Sharing of merit 'Pattānuppadāna' there is actually no canonical reference therein other than (ironically) a mention of sharing of merit with dead relatives..

AN 5.36 in Danilo's answer supports this answer. Assisting in others' benevolent activities and rejoicing in others' benevolent activities would be sharing in their merits.

Ajahn Puddhadammo mentions a story about how a Preta is helped indirectly by receiving shared merit https://satisaraniya.ca/2016/05/11/ajahn-punnadhammo-on-buddhist-cosmology/

The Buddha said:

AN10.91:23.1: In the same way, the pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit, and who uses that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the ten.”

With an unfettered heart, how could there be a distinction between merit and sharing?

The sharing of merits happens when you make your good deed to be known by others so that they can rejoice or give assistance to it.

Having been given in proper season, with hearts inspired by the
noble ones  —straightened, Such—  their offering bears an abundance.

Those who rejoice in that gift  or give assistance,  they, too, have a
share of the merit,  and the offering isn’t depleted by that.  So, with
an unhesitant mind,  one should give where the gift bears great fruit.
Merit is what establishes  living beings in the next life.
AN 5.36

It's good to mention that, according to AN 8:39, the abstention of doing bad deeds is also a way to "give a gift"

It's a very good quote. Thanks.

There is this explaination in Pv5

The Supreme Buddha gave this sermon to King Bimbisara after an alms offering to the Sangha.
After they have been born in the ghost world, departed relatives will come back to their own houses and stand by the doors. They also stand outside walls and at intersections.
Some people in the family will enjoy delicious food without remembering their departed relatives. Departed relatives are forgotten because of their own bad karma.
Some compassionate people offer delicious food and drink to virtuous people and share merits with their departed relatives saying, “Let this be for our relatives! May our relatives be happy!” Departed relatives gather to these places and highly appreciate the offering. They bless their relatives saying, “May our relatives who compassionately offered us these gifts have long, happy, and healthy lives.” The givers also gain good results.
Beings in the ghost world do not farm, herd cattle, trade, buy, sell, or use gold and money. They survive on merits shared by humans. As water that rains on a mountain-top flows down to the bottom, so will the merits shared from the human world reach the beings in the ghost world. Just as streams of water fill the ocean, so will the merits shared from the human world reach the beings in the ghost world. One should share merits with departed relatives recalling, “He gave to me, he worked for me, he was a relative, friend, and companion.”
Weeping, sorrow, and lamentation will not benefit departed relatives in any way. They will remain in the ghost world no matter how much we cry.
Great King, the merits shared from the donations given to the noble disciples of the Buddha will be received by the departed relatives right away. They will enjoy happiness for a long time. Sharing merits with departed relatives is a very good habit to develop. You have respected departed relatives and supported the monks. By doing this you have collected much merit which will result in extraordinary happiness for a long time, great King.


text:
What is the meaning of 'compounded' & 'uncompounded'?
Some texts speak of 'compounded' phenomena etc.

What does it mean for something to be 'compounded' or 'uncompounded'?
For the former, does it just mean 'things that are composed of other things, which themselves are composed of smaller things, ad infinitum? For the latter, something 'indivisible'?
If something is uncompounded, how can it exist as a 'thing'?
Why are some things compounded or not? What makes them that way

Looks like they're synonyms for conditionality and the unconditioned, but there's probably a more clever (compounded) way to put that which you might find in the answers.

The terms "conditioned" and "compounded" are often used to explain the term "sankhara".
Conditioned means phenomena which are affected or caused by each other. For e.g. a tree is not just a standalone object. It is dependent on sunlight, water, air etc. Space and time too are conditioned as we can see in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
The following writing entitled "The Fullness of Emptiness" by Thich Nhat Hanh explains this nicely:

If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating
in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain;
without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make
paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is
not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. ....
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the
sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow.
In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. So we
know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. ....
And if we continue to look, we can see the
logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed
into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist
without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread
is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are
in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these
things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
The Fullness of Emptiness

The term compounded explains how phenomena is composed of other phenomena and are not standalone. For e.g. a tree has water and gases in it. Molecules can be broken down into atoms and atoms can be broken down into subatomic particles. And all of these are also conditioned.
The sutta below provides an explanation of what is meant by compounded but also explains what is convention.
A chariot is never standalone. It is an assemblage or composition of different parts, like wheels, axle etc. The term "chariot" is therefore a convention that we use to describe this composition. If one wheel is missing, or replaced, it is still called a "chariot". But if all parts are disassembled, then we don't call it a "chariot" anymore.
So, the term "chariot" is a convention used to describe an object that is compounded by many parts.
Similarly, a "being" (satta) is the convention used when the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations are present together and functioning. A "being" is therefore compounded.

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the
Evil One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,"
sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
SN 5.10

The sutta below gives the analogy of a stringed musical instrument, called the lute (vina). It can produce music. But if you break down the lute into its constituent parts and air, you cannot find music anywhere. Music is both conditioned and compounded by the different parts of the lute, and even the actions of the lute player. Music is made up of rythmic sound composed of movement of air. And this movement is dependent on the movement and vibration of parts of the lute.
Similarly, the mental idea of the self is conditioned and compounded by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Dependent origination (paticcasamuppada) is the Buddha's explanation of how the birth of the mental idea of the self is conditioned by the five aggregates. But it's also compounded, because the mental idea of the self is also a type of thought, a mental formation.

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."
SN 35.205

Nibbana is the only phenomena which is not conditioned. It is also not compounded. This can also be inferred from the three marks of existence, as found in this answer.

“There is, mendicants, an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned (asaṅkhataṁ). If there were no unborn, unproduced,
unmade, and unconditioned, then you would find no escape here from the
born, produced, made, and conditioned. But since there is an unborn,
unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, an escape is found from the
born, produced, made, and conditioned.”
Ud 8.3

The term asaṅkhata seems to mean unconditioned and also uncompounded, according to the PTS Pali-English dictionary:

Sankhata Sankhata [pp. of sankharoti; Sk. saŋskṛta] 1. put together,
compound; conditioned, produced by a combination of causes, "created,"
brought about as effect of actions in former births S ii.26; iii.56;
Vin ii.284; It 37, 88; J ii.38; Nett 14; Dhs 1085; DhsA 47. As nt.
that which is produced from a cause, i. e. the sankhāras S i.112; A
i.83, 152; Nett 22. asankhata not put together, not proceeding from a
cause Dhs 983 (so read for sankhata), 1086; Ep. of nibbāna "the
Unconditioned" (& therefore unproductive of further life) A i.152; S
iv.359 sq.; Kvu 317 sq.; Pv iii.710 (=laddhanāma amataŋ PvA 207); Miln
270; Dhs 583 (see trsln ibid.),

I like this answer, but he last sutta quote seems ambiguous as to the context of the assertion just before… how does the sutta quote relate or illuminate upon the last sentence in your answer?

@YesheTenley You're right. The sutta quotes don't point to Nibbana being unconditioned and uncompounded. It comes from Ud 8.3. I will update the answer.

Tathātā is unconditioned and is not nirvana (Theravada (Kvu ) consider tathātā to be conditioned - but I do not know how).

sankhara means a construct, a conditioned thing, a relative thing, or a compound, meaning something made of parts and existing only dependent on other phenomena.
conversely, Nibbana is asankhata, meaning not constructed, unconditioned, absolute, so not a compound, not made of parts and existing independent of phenomena.

While @ruben2020 answers this question well, Ruben does not explore the meaning of 'uncompounded' with as much rigour as Ruben explores the category of 'compounded'.
Ruben mentions 'uncompounded' only within the scope of Nirvana, and indeed states that Nirvana is the only phenomena which is not compounded

Nibbana is the only phenomena which is not conditioned and not
compounded.

Ruben's argument is based upon a citation from Ud8.3 which, while (correctly) stating that Nirvana is uncompounded, does not claim that Nirvana is exclusively so.

If we consider that compounded phenomena are products (and products are necessarily impermanent and dependently arisen) then we can also identify many more things than nirvana which are uncompounded.

Non-existent things
Non-existent things are not compounded, because they do not exist. For example, an inherently existent self, or a fantastical hobbit. (Q: How is a hobbit uncompounded?  A: While the hobbit (in middle-earth) is fictionally compounded, the consequences of the actions of a hobbit are bound only by the imagination of the author.  Therefore, while the hobbit is depicted as a compounded phenomenon, a hobbit is a mere fiction. this does not detract from the impact that the fiction has - the fiction (as a narrative) is an existent, compounded phenomenon, but the contents of that narrative are non-existent, and therefore uncompounded).
Non-existent things do not intrinsically exist - because they do not exist.

Permanent phenomena
("Permanent" here does not mean 'everlasting' - it means not subject to momentary change which leads to it's disintegration.)
Permanent phenomena are uncompounded because they are permanent (not subject to momentary change), while compounded phenomena are impermanent. Permanent phenomena are existents. Their designations might be compounded, but the referents are uncompounded.
There are many ways of categorising permanent phenomena, but in the end all of them are absences.  Here are a few (and this is not an exclusive list):
Cessations (nirodha) are permanent phenomena.  Nirvana is one such cessation, being the cessation of suffering and its causes.  Just because a cessation has arisen, does not necessarily mean that we do not feel the consequences of such a cessation.  We continue to receive the benefits of Lord Buddha, despite his winning the cessations (e.g. the cessation of ignorance) associated with Buddhahood.
There are many other cessations: Anything that only exists in the past.  We continue to be affected by them, but they have ceased. So cessations are not limited to spiritual achievements.
Temporary permanent phenomena
This is the absence of something that might return.  For example, a candle may be blown out.  The subsequent absence of flame is a permanent, but there is no cessation, as the conditions are still available for the candle to be lit once more.
Mere Absences
The absence of an elephant in this room is a permanent: If it (the absence) were compounded, it (and an endless number of other absent things) would decay until at some point the absence would cease. If absences were impermanent, we could wait until the absence of 1 million ... No! 100 billion dollars in our pocket had disintegrated!
***Suchness / Tathātā ***
This is an important term - used in, for instance, "Tathāgata"
The naturally absence of inherent existence is a permanent. The absence of inherent existence does not require a Buddha (or others) - it is the final truth, but it is an absence - so is not composite.   (Theravada consider tathātā to be conditioned, but I do not know how)
Space
The space between particles - the complete absence of matter - is a permanent, being non-composite and non-disintegrating. (It might be that there is no actual absence of matter in space - but this doesn't affect our path to enlightenment either way).
Permanent phenomena depend upon designation and do not intrinsically exist. This is true of cessations such as nirvana.

Everything else (ie, other than non-existents and permanents) is a compounded thing, subject to dependent-arising, and does not intrinsically exist being a composite, a dependent-arising and dependent upon designation.

An important distinction between non-existence and absence is that absence does not necessarily indicate the possibility of the entity that is absent, whereas non-existent entities cannot exist.  An example is inherent-existence, which is naturally absent because it is a fiction.  Being a fiction entails that it cannot exist.  However, the absence of a flame does not indicate the same level of negation.  (I am not 100% sure that all non-existents can be established as 'impossible to exist' - but there are plenty of examples where that is the case.)

Sorry but IMO the whole section of non-existing things adds confusion

@blue_ego this is not as silly as you might think.  After all, the object of analysis, intrinsic existence, is a non-existent.  Without recognising that it is non-existent, one cannot gain insight that recognises it cannot exist (and is not merely absent). Both absence and non-existence (and the distinction between them) are very relevant to Madhyamaka insight meditation.

@blue_ego I think it's important, fundamental, "basic" -- see this answer and the question to which it's a reply -- another example of a non-existent thing is, "the hypothetical evil action which you didn't do yesterday"! An absence being non-impermanent and non-dukkha  maybe makes Buddhism difficult to understand but I think it's key. But your calling it confusing may be true too, it reminds me of the "three poisons", i.e. that pleasure elicits desire, unpleasantness elicits aversion, and neutral (i.e. neither) elicits ignorance/confusion.

@blue_ego, I am happy to be persuaded that Tolkien’s hobbits are real: Go argue the case with the world, and I will go with the winner. My current stance is that I believe most people consider hobbits not to be real.

Moved this discussion into a question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49017/

You're right. Nibbana is the only thing which is unconditioned, but not necessarily the only thing which is uncompounded. So I have changed my answer to state: "Nibbana is the only phenomena which is not conditioned. It is also not compounded."

I do not see how you claim the distinction between unconditioned and uncompounded. Can you provide source material?

@Konchog The term sankhara includes both conditioned and compounded. The first two marks of existence state that all sankhara are impermanent and are suffering. The last mark of existence states that all phenomena is not self. Nibbana is not impermanent, not suffering and also not self. Nibbana is not a sankhara according to Ud 8.3. What else is not a sankhara? Even space and time are conditioned according to General Relativity. Is time compounded? I'm not sure. But time is surely conditioned. Time dilation is proof of that.

@ruben2020, as far as you go, I do not disagree. But you haven’t answered regarding mere absences - like tathata, or merely the absence of living elephants in my bedroom. Absences are not compounded neither are they conditioned. While the mind that recognises absence is (of course Sankhara) - the object of that mind is not. Otherwise, please explain how mere absences are conditioned and compounded.


text:
How should a buddhist behave when he&she is treated unfairly?
OK, religions just say: "be patient, trust god and never think revenge!" god takes your revenge or better you will see prize here or you will reach nirvana I mean big paradise prize in other world if you behave like jesus crist or prophet youself.
I wonder if buddhism says the same things or something different?
(please do not mention just trust karma or make yoga things here, cos I did not see any winner before in my life) I and my family are suffering about our bad life experiences that caused by some bad people. Moreover these are legal so we cant do anything other than enduring but that we did not deserve..

Welcome to BuddhismSE. If you'd like to learn more about the site, please head over to the help centre.

When a tsunami destroys our house, there is hardship. And anger does not help.
When oppressive laws destroy our peace, there is hardship. And anger does not help.
Hardship opens the door to massive sorrow at the loss of kinder times. But anger and resentment only lead to different sorrows. The Buddha teaches us to kill our anger and give up resentment.

SN1.71:3.2: When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.
SN1.71:3.3: O deity, anger has a poisoned root
SN1.71:3.4: and a honey tip.
SN1.71:3.5: The noble ones praise its killing,
SN1.71:3.6: for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

But even giving up anger and resentment, hardship remains. And here the Buddha says we have four supports.

DN34:2.3.81: And how does a mendicant have four supports?
DN34:2.3.82: After appraisal, a mendicant uses some things, endures some things, avoids some things, and gets rid of some things.

So in the face of hardship, we use what we can, endure what we must, avoid additional hardships, and get rid of things such as anger and resentment.
After a tsunami, we might rebuild on higher ground.  And oppressive laws might be changed or left behind.
May you find peace for yourself and others in the hardships you face.

Anger is a very important motivation and antidote to dullness. I wonder if the Buddha had anything positive to say about anger as well.

@henning, The Buddha never said anything positive about it. Anger is just a poison which weakens discernment.

@danilo agreed. The Buddha discourages anger. Instead of anger, the Buddha encourages rousing energy as an antidote to the dullness.

Buddhism largely follows a similar format to the one you provided, but one is encouraged to 'figure things out for themselves' rather than blindly following a leader like a duckling follows its mother.
Encouraging this autonomy empowers a person to see in their own direct experience how they create their future circumstances.

"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.

It is only amongst the quietude of the mind that one can then understand the brevity and scope of the pains we unconsciously cause ourselves.

The answer to your question is at the center of the Four Noble Truth.

Life is pain, no matter what you do. Birth is pain, death is pain, and sustaining our way of life is painful.

The cause of pain is attachment and expecatation from who you think you are or whom you expect to become.

Letting go of who you are or who you think you should be, is the way to getting rid of attachment and therefore pain.

For practicing the "letting go" of attachment to your life and persona, the Eightfold Path was created. Following the Eightfold Path is a way of life, helping with the 1-2-3s of the Four Noble Truths.

One strategy I use (in difficult situations) is that I turn it into a teaching, to show me where I still get stuck. How did I allow this situation to happen? Blaming myself first, before the mind can strategize about blaming someone else, puts the responsibility and therefore the solution in my hand. Giving the second part away to someone else just to avoid blame, robs you from the ability to change it.

Justice vs. Skillfulness might help good householder, if reading with proper attention.
And one would also have feets to walk on. Not all needs to be taken when there are skilful ways to step aside. Of course ill-will is an obstacle to go on, yet a wise would/could remove it from the exit path.
Knowing that what ever build up would get swept away, in this or that way: Why not seeking for an escape and an end of another rebuild and turn toward doing merits toward path?


text:
What did the Buddha said and taught about sharing demerit?
"It seems not customary to share demerit in certain Buddhist traditions. However, I've recently heard demerit can't really be shared. What did the Buddha say about this?"
What's the matter with bringing others to approve, or rejoice, or appreciate ones demerits made by body, speech, thoughts?
What's the result for one if joining anothers demerits?
And refined: What's the different between demerits and sharing them, for an 'unfettered' heart?

By "sharing merit" I think you mean "telling others about meritorious deeds". The only analogous "sharing demerit" that I can think of, in the canon, is the institution of "offenses of confession" in the Vinaya.

Encouraging others to demeritious deeds (a-ku-sala) is one of the four ways of evil kamma (aside of bodily doing, by approve, rejoicing, by speech). Praising what deserves dispraise, leads as well toward low realms hell. Like the sharing of merits (kusala), telling of good conducts and let others rejoice with it, share of demerits has same effects like sharing merits, for one who shares, and those who join by approve and delight but into downwardly direction with painful results. Those who share disaprove of what deserves praise, like tjose who join this demerits head as well toward hell.
Like a single candle can light countless others, such is the possibility of offering a share of A-Dhamma and can be used to burn off much. Everybody knowns the phenomena of demerits, known as root of wars and disasters and everybody has seen samples of joining demerits.
Medias are full of shares of demerits and looking at upvotes and likes shows as well how strong and rich the part-taking on demerits arises. People still wonder why humans, at large, meet low realms after break up of the body... Yet who knows of places where share of merits is custom and finds approve? Most of you might not even have ever met such places, yet so deep in the forest that trees all around are not seen, in regard of share and rejoice with demerits... just look at this occasion right here... "buddhism exchange, they call it..." Sad but true.
As today tools of shares are much faster, one is wise to better do not spread of what one isn't sure whether right or wrong, good or bad.
Blindness and lack of discerment aren't a protection of results, note that not-knowing, not-understanding is the root of suffering and who would do anything wrong if knowing, at least.
Many might think that things are easier this days, but actually much more dangerous for not so gifted and discerment and good association-lacking common people.
And in regard of an Unfettered Heart: Such has gone beyond merits and demerits by own deeds, beyond accumulation, yet, out of compassion, still shares samples of both to teach it's distinction, teaches benefits (for long term happines) of merits, teaches loose by demerits, and both and in cases all does not work out, he 'kills' ones in regard of getting approached and shares further on.
May merits and demerits, right discerned, been always seen by those who ever little capable, forwarded and take part or not on them.
Take care and as a khema proverb tells: turn your tongue better 100 times aronnd before speaking.

If we can agree that "demerit" is "apuññaṁ", then the Buddha tells us:

AN2.134:1.1: “Dvīhi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bālo abyatto asappuriso khataṁ upahataṁ attānaṁ pariharati, sāvajjo ca hoti sānuvajjo ca viññūnaṁ, bahuñca apuññaṁ pasavati.
AN2.134:1.1: “When a foolish, incompetent bad person has two qualities they keep themselves broken and damaged. They deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much bad karma.

Sharing such demerit could then be understood as:

AN2.134:1.3: Without examining or scrutinizing, they praise those deserving of criticism
AN2.134:1.4: and they criticize those deserving of praise.

The Buddha continues and says this about merit:

AN2.134:2.3: After examining and scrutinizing, they criticize those deserving of criticism
AN2.134:2.4: and they praise those deserving of praise.
AN2.134:2.5: When an astute, competent good person has these two qualities they keep themselves healthy and whole. They don’t deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much merit.”

However, until one is free of delusion, it may perhaps be best to pay proper attention and say little until wisdom is gained. For example, praising organized crime bosses for their local generosity may also support their ongoing criminal ventures. And it's usually fatal to criticize a crime boss.

MN8:16.1: Truly, Cunda, if you’re sinking down in the mud you can’t pull out someone else who is also sinking down in the mud.
MN8:16.2: But if you’re not sinking down in the mud you can pull out someone else who is sinking down in the mud.

It's actually quite hard to escape demerit by focusing on demerit. It's much easier to escape demerit by focusing on merit. That's why it is critical to practice and follow Buddhist ethics.

MN8:12.7: ‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’
MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
(...omitted for brevity...)

(submitted by Anonymous)
"Now I have to think whether sharing the hunts of Robin Hoods would fall under share of merits or demerits to make the circle of escape closed within" --Anonymous
Exactly. From a Buddhist point of view, stealing from the rich is still stealing.

The answer to this question can only be that there's officially no such thing as sharing of demerit.
Despite that, the closest I can offer is telling others of one's past misdeeds as an example of what they shouldn't emulate, and also as an example of how it is possible to change to become better.
For e.g. the Angulimala Sutta shows how one shouldn't be a violent person, and yet it also shows how a violent person can change to become an arahant.


text:
Ultimate reality: How does one practically disidentify with one's mentally labeled world?
It is said that ultimate reality is only truly experienced at the point of the mind ceasing to identify and add its mental 'knowing' to any given phenomenon.
How does one practically enter into the space of seeing something with the fresh curiosity of not entirely knowing what it is? I notice that it is very difficult to see anything at all. Immediately meaning is assigned as to what something or someone is - their behaviours, their familiarity, what might be expected - and then my reality seems dull.
Is there a pragmatic practice that can guide me back to the authentic, unlabeled unknown?

If we define pragmatic as dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, then Buddhist practice, whether it is meditation, work, recitation, koan practice, etc, is entirely pragmatic.
Each aspect of Buddhist practice from all schools has been developed and tuned over centuries to overcome this 'mental labeling"...but I get the sense you're asking if there is a "shortcut"?
This is a question which is difficult to give a personal answer to - it is one of the reasons the relation between teacher and student is deemed so important in Buddhism. Your teacher should know which aspects of practice are most likely to work best for each individual student. So please keep in mind this is an attempt to answer your question in a generic way from the perspective of my own experience.
D.T. Suzuki once said about kensho (Jap. "to see things as they are") that it can take 30 seconds to attain it or 30 years.
Ironically, if attainment is seen as a goal, it is preoccupying your mind, making attainment much more of a struggle. You'll be swimming against the current in stead of letting the current carry you. There is essentially no point "A" where you are and a point "B" you have to "get to".
The ceasing of "naming things" in the mind is related to experiencing non-duality. And since all thoughts are language, and therefore dual, this is not something you can conceive or willfully experience. You kind of have to "surrender" to it.
Once you have experienced it (however briefly), you will know it and you can "steer the currents" to realize this again.
HTH

HTH? Was this supposed to be a link?

@Max "HTH" is a formality, a way to conclude a message -- "I hope this helps" -- like "Kind regards" etc.

@ChrisW - right. I see.

Principally and as a layman, I had self-studied a form of shikantaza from the Hongzhi school of thought. Its fundaments are rooted in the Buddha's teaching given to Bahiya and that the subtext of that teaching appeals to a practitioner who is already accomplished in various domains of their mind: steadfast comprehension, virtue and scrutiny. You might recognize these three domains as compounds of the eightfold path, which refer to the naturally occurring qualities of a fairly balanced human. For other practitioners, the aim is for them to become intimate with those qualities before embarking into the deep recesses of the mind. Whilst Zen master Hongzhi might not have been directly influenced by this teaching, his approach was surely a themed corollary to 'in the seen, there is just the seen', with which Hongzhi termed 'Silent Illumination.'
Firstly, as Codosaur has highlighted, one must have an awareness about the terrain we call Buddhism and its teachings. This might occur through self-study or working with a teacher or as a group (sangha) while developing wholesome states and skilful actions. To borrow Codosaurs words, one applies themselves sensibly and realistically. With this kind of exposure, in this kind of context, using these kinds of skilful methods, one ferrets out a pragmatic means to accomplish the primary task of ending psychological suffering - the by-product being that one sees clearly.
Yes, one may take upon a method that propels you quickly, but then one may take upon a slower path - it depends on certain factors I'd rather not go into. In the progressive instance, better to be learning how to access your own inner authentic values than those troublesome values thrust upon you by a society gone mad, and if you don't make it, perhaps you will learn to die peacefully with dignity and mindfulness.
Here is a free copy of Taigen Dan Leighton's version of Hongzhi's Silent Illumination. Perhaps you might take to it quickly, who knows!

Buddhist practice is not some fantasy football that's practiced outside of the real life. It's quite the opposite: our real life situations are the bread and butter of Buddhist practice. Everyday instances of fear, lust, anger, egotism, stubborn grasping at one-sided views etc.
Whenever you have a real-life situation that involves working with other people, there's a chance you are letting your ego drive and ego loves dealing in labels.
That's where the real practice comes in. If you can step out of your ego's limited perspective, its stereotypes, preconceptions, prejudices - then that's a tiny but a very real step in the direction of enlightenment and ultimate reality. Keep doing it for a few decades and the result is almost guaranteed.
As to exactly "how" - is that something that needs explanation? Okay, here it is: always watch yourself and pay attention to your hidden motives. If you see that you are doing something primarily to defend and/or feed your ego - stop and force yourself to try and see things from the other person's perspective instead of just yours and do your best to do what's objectively wholesome, regardless of what that does to your ego.

When we talk about meditation as a practice, we mean that when we sit down to meditate we are practicing the skill of putting down the thinking mind. A meditation period is chosen as a stretch of time where we don't have anything that needs to be done, and part of the practice is stilling the mind that is constantly casting about looking for problems to solve or entertainment to distract itself with.
Without problems to solve, the self rapidly loses meaning...
The goal, however, isn't to return to the infantile state in which nothing has labels or meaning. That mistake is what Ken Wilber called the Pre/Trans Fallacy. Enlightenment doesn't mean that a cat stops being a cat, a dog stops being a dog, or a teapot stops being a teapot. What it means is that one now perceives these things as themselves, not as objects within a web of concerns and potential discomforts. We don't worry that the cat will disturb our meditation; we aren't frightened that the dog might bark or bite; we aren't annoyed or ashamed because the teapot is empty or has a crack. The mind doesn't get involved and make a problem for itself to solve. But we don't discard the pleasure of seeing a cat or a dog, and we don't reject the usefulness of a teapot.

Ken Wilber? Ah, well, I suppose he has to make some appearances!


text:
How does one accomplish a reality not governed by the mind when thought is required to function?
It often seems that ultimate reality is only available in the absence of thought, yet interactions, work and daily functioning requires thought. How does one curb thought when it is uncertain as to whether there is utility in the thought and that it is necessary to follow that thought to achieve something? Wouldn't this mean that ultimate reality can't be accomplished?

Good question, more to the point than your first one, IMO.
Regular samsaric mind is "flat", we see things and we interpret them non-ambiguously as per our ego's convictions.
Buddha's mind is "non-flat", it's not like it doesn't interpret at all, rather it produces a solution space of all possible and plausible interpretations at once. It's not a collection of individual distinct interpretations, more like a multidimensional gradient space.
This is why it's said the Buddha's mind is indescribable, Buddha has no position on things etc.
This has been described variously in Buddhist literature as openness or vastness or groundlessness or Emptiness or suchness or ambiguity or metaphorical homelessness  etc.
So it's not that you need to stop the thought and become a rock or a log, not at all. Undoing the ego is about opening up and removing the boundaries, towards the fully open Buddha-mind (Bodhi-citta).
In practice this sort of open multiperspective is actually very helpful in everyday life. It makes one a lot less prone to being stuck in a box or getting into a conflict with others. So it's not just good for enlightenment, it makes one more robust in the regular life, too.

How does one accomplish a reality not governed by the mind when thought is required to function?

There is no one who can govern. There are only realities which causing others.
So, the purification of understanding in realities  is the only way to specify the using of "govern" word whether wrong or right using.
It's ok to say "governed by the mind" if the speaker realizing in every moment weather "there are only realities depending on other realities, nothing controllable itself".
It's wrong if the speaker don't realize even one moment, although the speaker avoid to say the word "govern".
And that ability required proficient Jhana and Abhidhammic detail. The proficient Jhana let the practitioner see ultimate realities in very advance, abhidhammic detail. The abhidhammic detail are seeing the smallest reality more than atom, fastest arising&vanishing more than the light speed, more than trillion time in a second.

It often seems that ultimate reality is only available in the absence of thought, yet interactions, work and daily functioning requires thought.

The ultimate reality is every where either thinking or not. The mind can know only a reality or a concept per arising, however it's conascence-wisdom can understand both of them at the same moment.
So, the thought is the opposite of  only Jhana.
However, the unwholesome is the opposite of the insight-meditation as well, so it is important to do Jhana for pausing the thought. Jhana is easier than the insight-meditation, less detail, so it is good in short term to stop the unwholesome mind.

How does one curb thought when it is uncertain as to whether there is utility in the thought and that it is necessary to follow that thought to achieve something? Wouldn't this mean that ultimate reality can't be accomplished?

"Curbing thought" is Jhana. Jhana is required but not all the time.
It's important for insight meditation weather "how deep in detail that you can see the realities?".
But it's important for Jhana meditation weather "how long time that you can pause the thought?"
However, both Jhana-meditation and insight-meditation are important to do.

"governed by the mind" suggest that there is one who is governed. Once you enter the 2nd refuge of the 3 jewels of Buddhism (taking refuge in the Dharma) and the teacher and the teaching as localized sources melt away, you become one with all , therefore the continued teaching and realizations do not flow from a person or from a book anymore. The whole starts teaching herself.
2+2=4 not because your mind is localized and is able to calculate. The same way, things can be happening (urge to go to the bathroom) without the mind creating a story about it. Then "you aren't going to the bathroom", but rather "the whole is going to the bathroom". There is still "going to the bathroom", but a localized mind is not required to achieve the act.
Also IMPORTANT, none of these states are black/white, on/off, etc. In most cases there are partial realizations or degrees of achievements. Once you notice the gap (between what is and what is in the mind), you can widen that gap with practice and repetition. So the functionality of the mind can be slowly/quickly, gradually/at once be transferred/tasked to work as part of the whole, rather than work for the individual. The Eightfold Path gives you specific training to work on the mind and its functionality, to slowly erode its fascination with itself. Then it becomes a tool, rather than the seat of your god.

You cannot, not at least until you are enlightened & choose to do so.
What you can do is cease identification with the thought; detach yourself from the one who is doing the thinking. Karma will still play out for you, things happen, situations occur, thoughts arise. You can't really stop this.
The waves still as a consequence of following the path, you cannot willfully curb thought.