text:
May one learn how to breathe from the diaphragm (Buddha Belly Breathing) holistically throughout all of their activities and if so how exactly?
Peace, Divine Love, and Blessings to All.  I recently began to research meditative/breathing for the Solar Plexus.  I was instructed that the "normal breathing" done in the west is not the right/true way that we are supposed to be breathing but instead we should do it from the diaphragm (liken unto babies).  During my research, I came across Belly Breathing/Diaphragmatic Breathing which I came to find out is "Buddha Belly Breathing" (please forgive me if I come across as ignorant not knowing the true terminology and cultural linguistics).
The very little I have done so far has been amazing but extremely difficult.  Inhaling while expanding the stomach (and vice versa) took a lot of concentration while simultaneously trying to keep an erect posture with square shoulders (all while trying to be loose) was/is full of challenges. It made me consider and realize, one how bad my posture is (sad face) and two is it possible to continuously and consistently do this form of breathing throughout the entire day and in all activities?  I understand that meditation is about going inwardly, so I know I must take that journey and do the inner work but I pose this question asking if there are people who have done it, are doing it, and would they kindly share any pointers or guidance about their accomplishment(s).
This question is open to anyone. Feel free to share howsoever you are led to...Thank you.
(As suggested this question was posed on the Hinduism StackExchange as well)

I don't think this is related to Buddhism. Afaik these breathing exercises are closer to other kinds of yoga.

@Buddhism Peace beloved, what forms of breathing would be more aligned with Buddhism?

Watching the breath and the four establishings of mindfulness is what the Buddha taught. As well as finding pleasure and joy in the breath.

He taught something called mindfulness of breathing  (anapanasati), it is included in what is called 'mindfulness of the body' (kayagatasati) which is included in what is called 'four establishments of mindfulness' (cattari satipatthana) where four things to be kept in mind is what is meant.

I've closed this question as it does not seem to be related to Buddhist philosophy, teachings or practice. If you disagree, please write to me here in the comments.

@Buddhism thank you and I appreciate this/that

@ruben2020 Peace be upon you beloved. I thought that breathing technique was a part but was a part of Buddhism but as explained by others see that is not the case. Would you know how I could reformat this question so that it's more in alignment with what the Buddha taught?

Actually, you are better off asking this question at [Hinduism.SE] StackExchange as pranayama, the practice of breath control in yoga, is part of Hinduism, rather than Buddhism.

@ruben2020 will do, thanks.

@ruben2020 I was told that this question isn't related to Hinduism as well and that I should ask the Buddhism StackExchange

@ruben2020 I'm not sure this is off-topic -- there are 40 other posts on this site which mention "diaphragm".

@ChrisW OK. Let's reopen it and see how it goes.

@יהודה It seems like in the Hinduism Stack Exchange they might have gotten confused because of the name "Belly Buddha Breathing." (Which, by the way, I had never heard of, and personally find odd. I think it's probably one of the many things falsely ascribed to the Buddha in Western culture).

@arturovm Through research, I heard it was in reference to how in some Buddha statues he is depicted as having a huge belly symbolizing breathing. I don't know how true that may be because I don't have the proper understanding of Buddhism.

@יהודה Ah, yes, that sounds like an apocryphal attribution. The statues of the monk with the big belly are of Budai, a figure venerated in Zen Buddhism. The Buddha is depicted without a big belly.

@arturovm Breathing from the belly is something I was taught for Tai Chi (as well as, for singing, in a choir). So if it is "Buddhist" perhaps it is from the Chinese lineage, rather than Indian. But I think it's physiological, and to that extent culture-independent: associated with deep+relaxed breathing.

@ChrisW Hmm, yes, that does seem likely. And I agree that it is beneficial, in general terms. It's just the name that I object to. I'm assuming it's one of the misconceptions about Buddhism born in the syncretistic/New Age spaces, so I just wanted to prevent its perpetuation.

@arturovm, AT: ChrisW...... Truth be told I'm very much into it from a general standpoint but as I was researching it was labeled under "Buddha Belly Breathing" which to be honest sounds very "Westernish" to be honest lol.  I've come to understand that Spirituality and Righteousness transcend religious dogma that keeps us separated not just from one another but also from our true power that dwells within.

The Buddha discusses mindfulness of breathing here:

MN118:15.1: Mendicants, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it is very fruitful and beneficial.

Find a comfortable, quiet place:

MN118:16.1: And how is mindfulness of breathing developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial?
MN118:17.1: It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body straight, and establish mindfulness right there.

Westerners normally have pain sitting cross-legged, so you may need a cushion or even a chair to support your body comfortably. A well-supported body is comfortable.
The body should be straight simply because that is comfortable for a long time. A hunched over posture leads to pains in the neck and back. Meditation is also not a military drill where a drill instructor whips out a micrometer to check you against some ideal. The posture should be tranquil:

MN118:35.1: When the body is tranquil and they feel bliss, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.

Finding a tranquil posture, gently observe your breaths. Note how the breath flows as you breath. And this is important. We observe the breath. We do not struggle with the breath.

MN118:17.2: Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.
MN118:18.1: When breathing in heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing in heavily.’ When breathing out heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing out heavily.’
MN118:18.2: When breathing in lightly they know: ‘I’m breathing in lightly.’ When breathing out lightly they know: ‘I’m breathing out lightly.’

As you meditate mindful of the breath, you may notice that breathing slows and deepens to fill more of the lung. This is natural and does not require struggling. Just peacefully meditating, the chest opens up, the shoulders relax, the chin tucks in, the back straightens, the diaphragm moves the breath.
This sounds simple but isn't. The mind races about frantically asking, "is this right? is this working? is this bad? how long do I have to keep doing this?" And that babble of worrisome thoughts feels like a flood. Let the flood go and attend to your breath. A very effective way to attend to your breath is to count your breaths. Counting our breaths is challenging but manageable. If you lose count, start again or keep going. Just count your breaths. Counting is important because counting requires that we note each breath we take.
As mindfulness of breathing increases and deepens, we become aware of breathing throughout the day. We start to notice subtle things. Chopping vegetables we may discover that breathing mindfully can help us from cutting ourselves. Driving our car, we may notice that breathing mindfully stills road rage. Feeling depressed and inadequate, we may find that our gentle breath keeps going on, sustaining and nurturing us through our darkest moments.
May you find peace in your meditation, in your breathing, in all that you do.

Peace be upon you. I appreciate the very insightful response and I can bear witness to the change in my day-to-day movements. I definitely am more long-suffering holistically but still needs to be applied.

Welcome to the community! Before answering your question, I believe some clarification would be helpful.
As the user Buddhism pointed out, specific breathing exercises are more related to other ascetic practices of ancient India. One important component of the Buddha’s discovery of the path to awakening, is the leaving aside of exercises such as these. What the Buddha taught instead was the mindful watching of the breath, as well as the development of the four establishings of mindfulness.
But leaving that aside, to answer: yes, it is possible to maintain a meditative state throughout the day, and it was something that was actually taught by the Buddha. Though I do not practice to that extent myself (I find that it requires a great deal of mindfulness, which I do not have yet), it was the way the Buddha encouraged his disciples to practice, and it is my understanding that modern monastics are encouraged to practice in this same way as well.
I hope this is helpful, and Metta.

Peace be upon you beloved. Thank you for your clarifications and assistance.

Breathing is taught to extent in some zen schools though what I've been exposed to is a little different than what you're describing.  First off, the technique you've mentioned seems a little forced to me.  Belly breathing is more about relaxation than it is about simply forcing out your belly.  Instead of trying to force air into your abdomen, instead focus on releasing the tension that's prohibiting the air from getting all the way down into your belly.  For most people, this means releasing that knot of tension that one often finds in the chest.  If it helps, you can visualize a knot at your sternum that releases.  What personally helped me was to focus on relaxation and then to put on hand on my chest and another on my abdomen.  When we are breathing properly, both hands should rise and fall, not just the hand on your stomach.  There really should be no staining.  We Belly breath to release tension, not create it.
Once you are able to do that seated, you are certainly welcome to do that off the cushion, just don't be willful about it.  Use it to settle your body/mind when you are getting agitated.  You don't get a medal for being a perfect belly breather and any effort you might expend in becoming one is likely largely wasted.

Peace and thank you.   As I mentioned in the question body above, I realized how unaligned my posture is (round shoulders, slouching). So, I was focused on trying to keep my back straight and shoulders squared.   All while doing the breathing exercise, trying to stay loose/calm.  I did notice however that when I lay on my back, I do it automatically... At times I do have tightness in my chest/sternum (when I come across things I don't like, that upset me, annoyed, feel arrogant, etc). I know there are answers within but sometimes I make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Posture is important, but avoid being rigid.  Think of your body as a jacket on a hanger.  There is a well defined structure, but ultimately the jacket just hangs.  It isn't forced into position.  There is no pulling or tension.  Don't worry about what your posture looks like.  Just don't fold forward at the waist.  As you practice and your body naturally relaxes, it will adopt the proper posture all of its own.

I would also recommend that you avoid looking for answers anywhere - within or without.  Just sit and relax.  You will be amazed at how far that simple practice can take you.


text:
Does belief in self prevent suicide & not-self cause suicide?
I read the following on the internet:

The reason that Secular Buddhists (who do not admit the conventional
existence of rebirth) do not commit suicide is because they believe in
the true existence of the self in this very life.

Are there any Buddhist scriptures or teachings that say belief in true existence of the self prevents suicide?

Please do not use questions for polemics.

It appears suicide is caused by belief in true existence of the self, as follows:

How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and
disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
Iti 49

It appears suicide is caused -- not by belief in true existence of the self (or "the view of true self") -- but by craving for the true non-existence of the self, as follows:

How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and
disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
Iti 49

Suicide arises from vibhava tanha. Vibhava is also a self-view; just as the doctrine of annihilationism is a self-view. It is craving for the annihilation of the true self which can cause suicide.

Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
proclaim their views?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

DN 1

The original answer that prompted this OP has been edited to make this clear.

Thank you for the edit @ChrisW as you are absolutely correct in what I was trying to point out. Thank you for making it clearer.

Actually, both Dhammadhatu and you are saying the same thing. You are saying that vibhava tanha is craving for the (future) non-existence of the self.  While Dhammadhatu is saying that first you must believe in a self, before you can desire for its future non-existence. It's just as how some people say they don't recognize the statehood of the country called A, yet at other times, they call for its destruction. Doesn't it make sense that you can only call for the destruction of country A, if you believed that country A actually exists?

Yes, @ruben2020 I am aware :) The decision to use the same passages and sutta references in this answer was specifically made to highlight this. I tried to edit the OP's original question to highlight this and so end the apparent disagreement, but Dhammadhatu would not allow.

Still it is literally incorrect to say that the view of the true self causes suicide since it does not pervade. That is, there are ordinary beings (the vast majority in fact) who do not commit suicide who nevertheless have a view of the true self. That is why the Buddha said that it is craving for the non-existence of the true self which causes suicide. By pervade I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyapti

Suicide arises from vibhava tanha. Vibhava is also a self-view; just as the doctrine of annihilationism is a self-view. Therefore, the view of true self obviously does not prevent suicide because it is the view of self that causes suicide.

Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
proclaim their views?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

DN 1

Suffering is real. There is no need for Buddhism if suffering was not real.
Most people commit suicide in the hope to end their suffering, not because of a belief in self or non-self.
However, lack of virtue could be the main reason for existential dread which leads to suicide.
It clear that Virtue is very far from a materialist and secular Buddhist who do not believe in the efficacy of Kamma. So what is keeping them from falling to existential dread?
For a keen eye, the answer is pleasure and craving for gain in this very life!
So the quoted statement is not far from the truth it just needs some clarification on what it means by self in this very life.

That's a falacy, the reasons for suicide aren't rooted in the belief. Of self nor non self.
You would commit suicide if you aren't ok in life, if life is very hard on you. And reasons that make you cry.
Even in jihadists there might be a story behind their reasons to commit suicide for God as a form of justice. If their life was fine they would not do it.
Belief in something better does prevent you from suicide.

This seems like a random comment, not on topic on this Q&A site. We require our answers to provide a Buddhist perspective on the question, not just an opinion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
A summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters?
Can anyone share or tell: where can I find a summary explaining those ancient Indian philosophies of those non-Buddhist schools that had debated with Buddhist, especially Nalanda, masters? For example, those philosophies of those opponents in Indian Buddhism Śāstras (i.e. treaties).
I ask because I am studying some texts on and also pondering on the tenets system/theory of Indian Buddhism, and I would like to be rigorous in understanding what non-Buddhist philosophies are refuted grounding in reasoning by Indian Buddhism (Nalanda) masters.

You might be looking for a scholarly paper which lists the non-Buddhist schools and their philosophies (for which I don't have an answer).
The sutta which comes to mind as likely relevant to your question is Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) -- which I think lists sixty or so wrong or non-Buddhist views.
Piya Tan as a more detailed (highly referenced) translation and commentary of this sutta (and of many other suttas too). The URLs on his site aren't quite stable but they're currently:

Brahma,jāla Sutta -- The Discourse on the Perfect Net -- D 1
A Commentarial Guide to the Brahma,jāla Sutta

I am not aware of any sources claiming actual debates taking place at Nalanda with non-Buddhists, but I do believe the curriculum was such that debates took place with students trying to accurately and faithfully take the place of non-Buddhist Indian schools of thought, in order to show that Buddhist systems were superior and would overcome them.

"Besides Theology and Philosophy, frequent debates and discussions necessitated competence in Logic. A student at the Mahavihara had to be well-versed in the systems of
Logic associated with all the different schools of thought of the time
as he was expected to defend Buddhist systems against the others."

I think this was achieved through internal debates where students of Nalanda would try to faithfully represent the other schools of thought.
Perhaps the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha would also be of help for a non-Buddhist compendium of various extent philosophical schools of India in the author's extent period.

DN 2 has descriptions of various shramanic teachings at the time of the Buddha including by the following teachers: Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sanjaya Belatthiputta and Mahavira (Jainism). Also MN 101 further compares Jainism and Buddhism.
These suttas contrast the Buddha's teachings with these other teachings.
A good comparison between Hindu Vedanta and Buddhism can be found in Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study by Helmuth von Glasenapp.
Please also see "Have any Buddhist thinkers responded to the critique of the Brahma Sutras?".

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


text:
An example of right livelihood
A little reference-request question.
As I remember it it's the story of someone who supported his aged parents. He did this by taking loose river clay -- without digging it -- making it into pots, and leaving the pots, without setting a price. People would take the pots and leave in exchange whatever they chose to, and thus he supported his parents. This was portrayed as praise-worthy, ethical.
It's perhaps not a sutta but, I don't know, perhaps one of the stories from the Dhammapada or something like that. Or possibly it's later but I thought it was from the Pali canon.

This is the story of the lay potter Ghatikara from MN 81, who lived in the time of Buddha Kassapa.
From MN 81:

Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual
misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. He
has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones. He is free of
doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice
that leads to its cessation. He eats in one part of the day; he’s
celibate, ethical, and of good character. He has set aside gems and
gold, and rejected gold and money. He’s put down the shovel and
doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled
off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a
carrier. When he has made a pot, he says, “Anyone may leave bagged
sesame, mung beans, or chickpeas here and take what they wish.” He
looks after his blind old parents. And since he has ended the five
lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become
extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.


text:
How did ancient Indian Buddhists describe causation vs correlation? Why were they concerned with this?
An important compendium of the ancient Indian philosophical schools - called Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha - was written in India in 14th century CE by Madhvacharya (a non-Buddhist Indian Philosopher) who gives an intriguing account of the debate between ancient Indian materialists (the Charvaka) and the extent Buddhist schools of thought in India at that time. He describes the Charvaka thus:

Chárváka, the crest-gem of the atheistical school, the follower of the
doctrine of Bṛihaspati. The efforts of Chárváka are indeed hard to be
eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current
refrain—
While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it e'er again return?

The mass of men, in accordance with the Śástras of policy and
enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the only ends of man, and
denying the existence of any object belonging to a future world, are
found to follow only the doctrine of Chárváka. Hence another name for
that school is Lokáyata,—a name well accordant with the thing
signified.

This characterization would appear quite in accordance with descriptions in sutta of the Charvaka school and its tenets:

"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there
is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and
realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
death.'

This compendium describes the Buddhist response to the Charvaka school as a direct attack on their understanding of causation vs correlation. Succinctly put, it would appear the Charvaka did not believe in causation, but rather only believed in correlation:

"Be it so," says the opponent; "your wish would be gained if
inference, &c., had no force of proof; but then they have this force;
else, if they had not, then how, on perceiving smoke, should the
thoughts of the intelligent immediately proceed to fire; or why, on
hearing another say, 'There are fruits on the bank of the river,' do
those who desire fruit proceed at once to the shore?"
All this, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy.
...
Hence by the impossibility of knowing the universality of a
proposition it becomes impossible to establish inference, &c.
The step which the mind takes from the knowledge of smoke, &c., to the
knowledge of fire, &c., can be accounted for by its being based on a
former perception or by its being an error; and that in some cases
this step is justified by the result, is accidental just like the
coincidence of effects observed in the employment of gems, charms,
drugs, &c.
From this it follows that fate, &c., do not exist, since these can
only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say, if you thus do
not allow adṛishṭa, the various phenomena of the world become
destitute of any cause.
But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena
can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.
Thus it has been said—
The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety? from their own nature was it born.

The author of the work then gives the known Buddhist reply at the time in ancient India. This can be succinctly summarized as denial of causation leads to practical absurdities. NOTE: invariable concomitance is a term of art in ancient Indian debate that is described here.

At this point the Buddhists remark: As for what you (Chárvákas) laid
down as to the difficulty of ascertaining invariable concomitance,
your position is unacceptable, inasmuch as invariable concomitance is
easily cognisable by means of identity and causality. It has
accordingly been said—
"From the relation of cause and effect, or from identity as a
determinant, results a law of invariable concomitance—not through the
mere observation of the desired result in similar cases, nor through
the non-observation of it in dissimilar cases."

On the hypothesis (of the Naiyáyikas) that it is concomitance and
non-concomitance (e.g., A is where B is, A is not where B is not) that
determine an invariable connection, the unconditional attendance of
the major or the middle term would be unascertainable, it being
impossible to exclude all doubt with regard to instances past and
future, and present but unperceived. If one (a Naiyáyika) rejoin that
uncertainty in regard to such instances is equally inevitable on our
system, we reply: Say not so, for such a supposition as that an effect
may be produced without any cause would destroy itself by putting a
stop to activity of any kind; for such doubts alone are to be
entertained, the entertainment of which does not implicate us in
practical absurdity and the like, as it has been said, "Doubt
terminates where there is a practical absurdity."

Which seems in accordance with the ancient Indian Nagarjuna's opening verse of his famous treatise:

Based on this my questions are:

Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Charvaka views and tenets at the time?
Does the non-Buddhist author of this work accurately describe Buddhist replies at the time?
Why was it deemed important to the ancient Indian schools (Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike) this debate over causation vs correlation?
If you accept the Buddhist view in this debate as superior, then how does it undermine the views and tenets of the Charvaka?
Is it true that the Charvaka school was the most popular in ancient India at the time this compendium was written?
What do we know of how prevalent was the Charvaka school in the time of the Buddha?
If the Charvaka school was very prevalent in the time of the Buddha and granting the supposition that some hold - that the Buddha only taught rebirth as a fictional contrivance to appeal to the people of his time and age - then why did the Buddha also teach rebirth to the people who steadfastly rejected it? (please only answer this if you actually believe this supposition as that's all I'm interested in...)

This is out of scope for Buddhism SE. This is more like a history question. The Buddhist texts describe Charvaka as being materialist. Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha describes Charvaka as being both materialist and hedonist, but some scholars (especially Bhattacharya) say there's insufficient evidence to claim that Charvaka was hedonist.

The explanation of the Buddhist position given in the Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha doesn't match what's in the Pali Canon, but rather appears to expand on it. So, I guess this may describe the position of Indian Buddhist scholars who lived long after the Buddha's time.

I will skip #3 and #4.

From my understanding, Charvaka was not the most popular school at the time. Brahmanism (the Vedic religion) was the most popular orthodox religious view of the era. Charvaka was a minority heterodox school.

We don't know.

And lastly question 7 will be answered below.
First mark of existence
Sabbe sankhara anicca - All conditioned things/phenomena are impermanent.
Apart from Nibbana, everything else is conditioned. Something conditioned depends on something else, is influenced by something else, and is caused by something else. And all such things are impermanent, changing, unreliable, unstable.
So, from this, you can see that causation is quite important.
Everything that exists and happens is caused by something else. Events that happen to us and our existence, may not all be caused by karma, but they are definitely caused by something, be it weather, the actions of others, bile, etc. according to the Sivaka Sutta.
Conditioned phenomena are essentially chains of dependent processes.
Second mark of existence
Sabbe sankhara dukkha - All conditioned things/phenomena are suffering.
Now, the term "conditioned things" is focused on mind-body phenomena. Wherever there's mind-body phenomena occurring, craving arises, and that's the cause of suffering (second noble truth).
Also, take note that it is suffering that is occurring due to craving. It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's not your craving or my craving. It's just suffering caused by craving.
Third mark of existence
Sabbe dhamma anatta - All things/phenomena are not self.
"All things" include Nibbana.
This is the teaching that truly differentiates what the Buddha taught from what everybody else taught, including Charvaka.
The view of Charvaka is that there is a self. It's associated with the physical body. When the physical body is destroyed, the self would be destroyed too.
The Buddhist view is that the self and being are just emergent phenomena. A being is a term applied conventionally when the five aggregates occur together and when there is the clinging of the mind to the idea of "I am".
The self is just the mental idea of "I am". The self idea arises from moment to moment, from the mind-body phenomena, depending on conditions. It's always changing, just as the five aggregates are always changing.
If you step into a flowing river then step out then later step in again, would you be stepping into the same river twice? It may appear so, but in reality, the molecules, flow speed, temperature, pressure etc. of the river would have changed. So, it's not the exact same river.
Similarly, the mental idea of the self keeps changing throughout one's life, and even throughout a single day. Also consciousness, the mind, the body, is also changing. The mind changes more rapidly than the body.
Thinking that there is a concrete self, a specific individual identity, a core entity, that is born, lives, grows old, dies, and then is reborn or perhaps not reborn, are all self-views. The Charvaka view is called annihilationism because they believed that there was a self (associated with the physical body) and then it will become destroyed (along with the physical body).
According to the Vina Sutta, when you break down the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations down to their constituent parts, you cannot find the self anywhere. This is explained using the analogy of the lute. When you break the lute down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music anywhere.
So, all phenomena is not self. All phenomena is empty of a self (Sunna Sutta).
Karma
The Charvaka view is that if you will become destroyed at death, why bother with good behavior and charity? This is typical of a self-view. If suffering will end at death, why bother trying to end suffering? Just endure it till it's gone.
The Buddhist view is that firstly there's causation, as described above. Karma is one of the causes of suffering but is not the only cause, according to Sivaka Sutta.
The Buddhist goal is to end suffering, not in the future, but in the here-and-now. If we talk about ending suffering in the future, then that future is described relative to the self. That's a self-view.
Here's an example of self-view related to the future. A person thinks he will probably live for another 50 years hopefully, if he has good health. And he thinks, "perhaps it's good if I can attain Nibbana within my natural life, before death comes, otherwise I may be reborn somewhere else and not fortunate enough to encounter the Dhamma in another life". That's self-view.
Ending of suffering in Buddhism is through the purification of the mind.
Hereafter and Rebirth
Charvaka says there's no rebirth and no hereafter. Everything ends at death. What ends? The self ends. This is a self-view. That there was a self, and it got destroyed at death with no continuity.
What does Buddhism say?
According to Buddhism, there is causation. Every event and every object is caused by something else. It is influenced by something else. It depends on something else.
According to Buddhism, there is continuity. Everywhere the mind-body phenomena occurs, you have individuality or the mental idea of the self reappearing, and with that, suffering also reappears. Individuality is (re)born. The self idea is (re)born. Suffering is (re)born.
But this causation, continuity, individuality, suffering, craving etc. are all not self. They represent chains of dependent processes.
And what is "not self"? It means there is no core entity, no concrete self, no specific individual identity that is born, lives, dies and is reborn or not reborn. That's just a temporary emergent phenomena that arises from the mind and body.
Also please see MN 38 (story of monk Sati), SN 22.85 (what happens to the Tathagata after death?), SN 12.20 (have I existed in the past? will I exist in future?), SN 12.17 (is suffering self-made or others-made, or both or neither?).
Fictional contrivance? Or skillful means?
The teaching given to people that they would be reborn depending on their karma, is skillful means (upaya) on the part of the Buddha, given in AN 5.57. In fact, there are multiple self-views given in that sutta like "I will grow old" etc. As explained in AN 5.57, the Buddha taught these reflections for a reason.
From AN 5.57:

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

If people who have self-view reflect that their actions will result in their future condition, then misconduct will be completely abandoned or diminished.
This is not a fictional contrivance. It's skillful means (upaya). Perhaps you can call it a "mind trick".
Remember that everything conditioned are chains of dependent processes? The Buddha used this reflection to change the conduct of people with self-view in order to reduce suffering and lead towards the complete elimination of suffering.
Skillful means occurs elsewhere too like in AN 7.52. Giving in charity with expectation of future good results in return is the lesser purpose, while adorning the mind or purifying the mind is the highest purpose. For someone with self-view, charity with the lesser purpose is better than no charity at all, and is a step in the right direction.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Questions 1 thru 6 would take an historical scholar to answer. However, I want to contribute to an answer to both questions 6 and 7. First question 6, in my experience and understanding, cause and effect are important to understand because it leads one to the understanding of the four noble truths, and specifically, to the understanding of dukkha. I'm not trying to be cryptic here, only that to fully explain this would take a very long explanation. Now question 7, the Buddha taught rebirth because that is true whereas reincarnation is not true. There is nothing that continues into another incarnation. Rebirth is the re-entry by the deathless (that's what the Buddha called it in his first teaching of the five ascetics) into another living experience. So it's a fresh start, not a reincarnation. The karma brought into the new experience is simply the accompanying ignorance. As one awakens, karma vanishes, in exact accordance to the self-awareness (which, of course, is not a "self").

"Rebirth is the re-entry by the deathless (that's what the Buddha called it in his first teaching of the five ascetics) into another living experience." This sounds like "the deathless" is what continues and thus this sentence appears contradictory to, "There is nothing that continues..."

It's the difference between rebirth and reincarnation.

Correction: I meant #3 not #6 above.


text:
Would a stream enterer no longer need the "I am the owner and heir of my karma" reflection?
The following sutta quote shows the reflection that would cause the diminishing or abandonment of misconduct.
However, this appears to be a method of skillful means for reflection by someone with self-view.
A stream enterer would have discarded self-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), which is the first of the ten fetters.
Therefore, would a stream enterer also automatically abandon the following skillful reflection or perhaps not need it anymore?
From AN 5.57:

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

There's something about the ownership of karma that no longer fits within my frame of reference which I don't fully understand. I'll be watching this question carefully; it's a great question.

Agreed. This is an amazingly important question and hopefully quite illustrative.

I suggest to rephrase this question to say "Buddha" instead of a "stream enterer". Then the answer becomes obvious.

@AndreiVolkov That would be too easy.

Perhaps in some respects it would be easier, but perhaps not in other respects, depending upon what your view of a proper answer to this question would be :)

"the monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not infatuated with that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a fabrication against this cause of dukkha, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of dukkha, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of dukkha where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of dukkha where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the dukkha coming from the cause of dukkha for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the dukkha resulting from the cause of dukkha for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted. - MN 101

"I am the owner and heir to my karma" is a fabrication against heedlessness as a cause of dukkha. Other skillful reflections in AN 5.57 are fabrications against other causes of dukkha.

So he exerts himself with stress & pain, and while he is exerting himself with stress & pain, unskillful qualities decline in him, & skillful qualities increase. Then at a later time he would no longer exert himself with stress & pain. Why is that? Because he has attained the goal for which he was exerting himself with stress & pain. That is why, at a later time, he would no longer exert himself with stress & pain. - MN 101

Once the goal of a fabrication is achieved, there is no need to exert and load oneself with the pain of the fabrication.

"Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." - MN 20

I don't see "stream entry" or "stream enterer" anywhere in this answer.

That's probably because it's irrelevant. If there's a danger of heedlessness, this fabrication is applicable - otherwise not. Seems logical, no?

@YesheTenley I have posted an answer to add on to Andrei's and Buddhism's answers. That will cover your comment.

The point of contemplating kamma inheritance is for it to become the inclination of the mind as a dominant perception due to a frequent giving of attention.
A sotapanna can be excessively heedless and has to often reflect on being the heir of the good & bad for the undoing of ill.

Suppose an ordinary being thought the following:

“My friend purchased a new car the other day. That car is useful for
them to get from point A to point B. That car is theirs. That car
would also be useful for me to get from point A to point B. However, I
should not take that car as it is theirs and not mine."

Now, after this ordinary person wins stream entry would they automatically abandon the above thought or perhaps not need it anymore? Isn't this question similar to the OP? I think the answer is clear: the person winning stream entry would still have these discursive thoughts and if they abandoned the conclusion - thinking that it is now permissible or skillful to take the car - they'd be doubly wrong. If they thought that because 'I' and 'mine' were self-views that they no longer believe in or that they have outgrown these childish notions and that it was no longer skillful to refrain from taking the car, they'd be doubly wrong. If someone thought they'd won stream entry while holding the above notions they'd be dangerously wrong.
"Therefore, would a stream enterer also automatically abandon the following skillful reflection or perhaps not need it anymore?"
An Arya being is no longer fooled that the self is truly existing, however an Arya being does not come to the false conclusion that this knowledge refutes  the conventional existence of the self. Therefore, emphatically no, an Arya being does not give up skillful means that are based on conventional truths. An Arya being is not held sway to the illusion that this reflection (a conventional truth) has true or ultimate existence. That is the point.
The Buddha did not argue with the world. The Buddha did not reject conventional truth. Upon perceiving the ultimate truth he did not use this to refute the conventional. Doing so would be an error of falling to the extreme of annihilationism.
When you analyze dhammas with reasoning trying to find a self and come up with nothing... to come away from this thinking that the dhammas do not have conventional existence is an error. It would be like analyzing a chariot and trying to find the true existence of the chariot ... is it in the parts? is it in the whole? is it both? neither? and when you come up with nothing ... would you conclude that chariots just don't exist at all? That they have no use in this world since they don't truly exist and you've "outgrown" them??
This question is like asking if an Arya being, after discovering that chariots do not ultimately exist, would use this to deny the conventional existence of chariots and therefore refuse to ever get in one again - preferring to walk instead!
It might be good for people having doubts about this to meditate on this question and read Nagarjuna's 24th chapter of the MMK where he specifically discusses what the doctrine of emptiness implies for the Four Noble Truths - and maybe more importantly - what it emphatically doesn't.

The real danger with this whole line of reasoning - mistaking the result of analyzing for the ultimate as refuting conventional truth - is that nothing whatsoever can withstand ultimate analysis. That is, if you ask whether anything at all has true existence - a pot, a headache, a chariot, a car, persons, evolution, special relativity, quantum mechanics, basic arithmetic, electricity - nothing at all can withstand this analysis. You'll come up empty each and every time. So if you then conclude that pots, headaches, chariots, cars, persons, evolution, special relativity, quantum mechanics, basic arithmetic, electricity are all conventionally non-existent or conventionally false ... boy will you have a hard time living in this world and communicating with your fellow sentient beings. It is just an error. I'd say go back and look again :)

By Nagarjuna's quote, form is needed to understand emptiness? Or, one must be ignorant before coming to a fundamental understanding of emptiness? When I read the OP's question, I expected a flurry of answers about conventionals and ultimates.

Yes, without depending on the conventional truth, the meaning of the ultimate cannot be taught.

To see some very dramatic and poetic examples of this fact have a look at the Diamond Cutter Sutra! Without being able to distinguish the Two Truths how would anyone possibly be able to understand statements like “The Bhagavān said, “Subhūti, what do you think about this? Does the once-returner think, ‘I have attained the result of once-returner’?”
Subhūti replied, “Bhagavān, it is not so. Why is that? Because the phenomenon of entry into the state of the once-returner does not exist whatsoever. Therefore, one says, ‘once-returner.’”

https://fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/sutras/vajra_cutter_sutra_c5.pdf

There are several koans in the zen tradition that address this very issue most notably Hyakujo's Fox from the Mumonkan.  When one gets a taste - or even a veritable feast - of awakening, the experience can be so profound and liberating that one can think that there is no work left to be done.  From the Mahayana perspective, of course, this is patently absurd.  Dharma gates are without measure.  Our personal karma is taller than Mount Sumeru.  Irrespective of how liberating a kensho experience may feel, there's always more work to be done.  Seeing a truth is not the same as having worked through it. There is, as another koan puts it, just a little bit of tail that hasn't passed through the window.
No matter how deeply we see into emptiness, we remain in the world of form.  A fully enlightened monk may still fall into a well.  A roshi may still develop alcohol dependency and I need hardly mention the number of sexual misconduct scandals that have wracked the sangha in recent years.  Many of these people were deeply awake, but could not escape their karma.  We all fall into causation...at least until we are enlightened without remainder and even then, I wonder.
We may hook the golden carp with the moon, but our foxes wait on the bank with hunger in their eyes.  We can never stop reflecting.

I think these excerpt taken from Ajahn Chah Teaching could be the answer:
A sotapanna is still sekha puggala (a person who needs to train) so some of the conventions of teachings are needed.

Usually when we talk about practice we talk about entering and
leaving, increasing the positive and removing the negative. But the
ﬁnal result is that all of these are done with.There is the sekha
puggala,  the person who needs to train in these things, and there is
the asekha  puggala, the person who no longer needs to train in
anything. This is  talking about the mind: when the mind has reached
this level of full  realization, there is nothing more to practice.
Why is this? It is because  such a person doesn’t have to make use of
any of the conventions of  teaching and practice. It’s spoken of as
someone who has gotten rid of  the deﬁlements.
The sekha person has to train in the steps of the path, from the very
beginning to the highest level. When they have completed this they are
called asekha, meaning they no longer need to train because everything
is ﬁnished. The things to be trained in are ﬁnished. Doubts are
ﬁnished.  There are no qualities to be developed. There are no
deﬁlements to  remove. Such people dwell in peace. Whatever good or
evil there is  will not affect them; they are unshakeable no matter
what they meet. It  is talking about the empty mind. Now you will
really be confused.
You don’t understand this at all. “If my mind is empty, how can I
walk?” Precisely because the mind is empty. “If the mind is empty, how
can I eat? Will I have desire to eat if my mind is empty?” There’s not
much beneﬁt in talking about emptiness like this when people haven’t
trained properly. They won’t be able to understand it.
Those who use such terms have sought ways to give us some feeling
that can lead us to understand the truth. For example, these sankhara  that we have been accumulating and carrying from the time of
our birth  until this moment – the Buddha said that in truth they are
not ourselves  and they do not belong to us. Why did he say such a
thing? There’s  no other way to formulate the truth. He spoke in this
way for people  who have discernment, so that they could gain wisdom.
But this is  something to contemplate carefully.
Some people will hear the words, “Nothing is mine,” and they will  get
the idea they should throw away all their possessions. With only
superﬁcial understanding, people will get into arguments about what
this means and how to apply it. “This is not my self,” doesn’t mean
you should end your life or throw away your possessions. It means you
should give up attachment. There is the level of conventional reality
and the level of ultimate reality – supposition and liberation. On the
level of convention, there is Mr. A, Mrs. B, Mr. M., Mrs. N. and so
on. We use these suppositions for convenience in communicating and
functioning in the world. The Buddha did not teach that we shouldn’t
use these things, but that we shouldn’t be attached to them. We should
realize that they are empty.

Excerpt from "Toward the unconditioned"

If you think “I’m good,” “I’m bad,” “I’m great,” “I’m the best,”
then you are thinking wrongly. If you see all these thoughts as merely
determinations and conditions, then when others say “good” or “bad”
you can leave it be with them. As long as you still see it as “me” and
“you” it’s like having three hornets nests – as soon as you say
something  the hornets come buzzing out to sting you. The three
hornets nests are  Self-view, doubt, and attachment to rites and
practices.
Once you look into the true nature of determinations and conditions,
pride cannot prevail. Other people’s fathers are just like our father,
their  mothers are just like ours, their children are just like ours.
We see the  happiness and suffering of other beings as just like ours.
If we see in this way we can come face to face with the future
Buddha, it’s not so difﬁcult. Everyone is in the same boat. Then the
world will be as smooth as a drumskin. If you want to wait around  to
meet Phra Sri Ariya Metteyya, the future Buddha, then just don’t
practice... you’ll probably be around long enough to see him. But He’s
not crazy that he’d take people like that for disciples! Most people
just  doubt. If you no longer doubt about the self, then no matter
what people  may say about you, you aren’t concerned, because your
mind has let go,  it is at peace. Conditions become subdued. Grasping
after the forms of  practice... that teacher is bad, that place is no
good, this is right, that’s  wrong... No. There’s none of these
things. All this kind of thinking  is all smoothed over. You come face
to face with the future Buddha.  Those who only hold up their hands
and pray will never get there.

Excerpt from "Knowing the world"

You can look into this: self-view, skeptical doubt, superstitious at
tachment to rites and rituals. The ﬁrst step is to get free of these.
Whatever sort of knowledge you gain, these are the things the mind
needs to  get free of. What are they like now? To what extent do we
still have  them? We are the only ones who can know this; we have to
know for  ourselves. Who else can know better than we? Self-view,
doubt, superstition: if we are stuck in attachment here, have doubt
here, are still  groping here, then there is the conception of self
here. But now we  can only think, if there is no self, then who is it
that takes interest and  practises?
All these things go together. If
we come to know them through  practice and make an end of them, then
we live in an ordinary way.  Just like the Buddha and the ariyas. They
lived just like worldly beings  (puthujjana ). They used the same
language as worldly beings. Their  everyday existence wasn’t really
different. They used many of the same  conventions. Where they
differed was that they didn’t create suffering  for themselves with
their minds. They had no suffering. This is the  crucial point, going
beyond suffering, extinguishing suffering. Nibb ¯ana  means
“extinguishing.” Extinguishing suffering, extinguishing heat and
torment, extinguishing doubt and anxiety.
There’s no need to be in
doubt about the practice. Whenever there is  doubt about something,
don’t have doubt about the doubt – look directly  at it and crush it
like that.

FWIW, I see this answer as in complete accordance with the one I gave so I vote it up :)

@ Yeshe there is more in the Ajahn teaching in line with what you presented.  I have added some more.

I will post this answer just to add on to others' answers. And I will not accept my own answer.
Adding to Andrei's answer, a stream enterer, once-returner and never-returner all would still have conceit or self-habit (a higher fetter), even if they have overcome self-view (a lower fetter). Hence, they may still need this reflection as skillful means.
This is explained in SN 22.89:

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

Adding to Buddhism's answer, those who may still be heedless would need this reflection to make hiri and otappa (fear and shame of wrongdoing) the inclination of their awareness.
This is explained in MN 19:

Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will,
abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that
thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness,
his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.


text:
About svasaṃvedana (reflexive awareness) and having bodhicitta

What is your view regarding svasaṃvedana? Do you accept or deny (the
existence of) svasaṃvedana?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana

Can a Buddhist know whether or not he/she have really genuine and
firm bodhicitta by him-/her- self? If yes, then how? (Does this
question have to do with svasaṃvedana?)

I hold the Prasangika Madhyamaka as the highest and definitive of the Buddhist tenet systems. The prasangika refute the notion of inherently existing reflexive self-awareness. Here you can see Chandrakirti refuting the notion of Svasaṃvedana or rangrig of the Cittamatran school:

The above is taken from a commentary on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche. Rinpoche is a highly accomplished master of the Rime movement and has studied under all major schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It should also be noted that he is quite sympathetic to the Cittamatran school:

I won't highlight the actual rebuttal arguments that Chandrakirti invokes as you can click on the link above and read them and draw your own conclusions whether they are strong arguments or not. However, this is the conclusion that Chandrakirti draws:

As for your second question... Yes, it is possible to be aware of your own genuine realization of Bodhicitta. However, most ordinary people fool themselves into believing overinflated self-conceptions of their own achievements. Regardless, this self-awareness - whether mistaken or unmistaken - is only conventionally true and does not have one iota of true existence. That's because nothing whatsoever has one iota of true existence.

PS: If you would like to verify with another commentary on the Madhyamakavatara you can look at Ju Mipham's commentary here. If you do you'll find that it is in complete accord with the above.


text:
Did Nagarjuna want to become a Buddha?
Did Nagarjuna aspire to Buddhahood in a way that he wouldn't be a 'ariyasavaka' type of disciple who attains awakening to the truth during a Buddha's sasana?

Does this answer your question? Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana?

I guess it does but as i understand your answers, the answer is yes, Nagarjuna too would advocate foregoing the awakening to the truth in that very life under Buddha Gotama and supposedly did not attain to any Ariya stage but instead aspired to become a Buddha in some future existence. He was neither a faith-follower, nor a dhamma-follower and certainly not Sotapanna or higher.

No, my answer is the exact opposite. Nagarjuna - like all Bodhisattva's in the Mahayana path - make a vow to reach full and complete enlightenment as fast as they possibly can. That means if a Buddha was alive right now on this earth and they could possibly reach full and complete enlightenment in the next millisecond, they would do so without question forthwith.

I was confused.  By enlightenment above what do you mean exactly? Canki Sutta says, 1st there is a learning, pondering & coming to agreement, then exertion and an awakening to the truth before a final attainment of the truth by development of the same qualities. Vinnana Sutta & Cakka Sutta say, a person who has faith in anatta or a modicum understanding is ensured sotapatti latest at moment of death. Why would one take a Bodhisatta vow if one is a ariyasavaka, ariyasavaka do not become Buddha as they are disciples. I like some of the things you write therefore i became curious about this.

I always write mahayana off because these kind of things but you seem to think Nagarjuna was basically a Vibbhajavadin of Mahayana and aligned with the pali texts?

I am also curious if the way you use the word Bodhisatta is a bit different than i use it. I hold that a Bodhisatta is one who actually becomes a Buddha or a Private Buddha without a teacher expounding the DO and it's implications in that life.

Cakkhu Sutta* not Cakka. Vibbhajavadin of Mahayana would be one who analyzes A contemporary tradition,  generally approving of canon but also rejecting a lot of later developments like comy

I also hold that a person becomes a Bodhisatta by making the determination to forego discipleship in order to develop the perfections required to sustain Buddhahood. His determination is then known to the Buddha that had at that time opened the door to Deathless, he somehow also makes a determination in approval or whatnot and it being determined by a Buddha it becomes inevitable. As i understand it the Bodhisatta adheres to the doctrine of self until the very last birth & due development.

I think each sasana produces one Bodhisatta and there is only 1 Buddha in the world at a time; sometimes there is also a Bodhisatta; when there is no Buddha then there is always a Bodhisatta.

If my answer causes confusion perhaps open a new question to address it? The Mahayana definitely teaches that there can be more than one Bodhisattva in the world at a time and in fact each Bodhisattva in the world makes a vow to reach enlightenment as fast as possible.

Yes, for sure Nagarjuna saw zero contradiction between what he wrote and believed and the Pali canon. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Mahayana in the world.

By what law or principal do you believe there can be only one Bodhisattva in the world at a time? And what do you mean by world... a single planet? A single solar system? A single galaxy? A single universe? What would preclude two beings from being in the same world at the same time holding the Bodhisattva vow? How do you think Bodhisattva's arise?

Can you answer if you think a Mahayanin Bodhisatta can also be 'a faith-follower', 'dhamma-follower', 'one attained to view', 'a bodily witness', 'one liberated by wisdom', 'one liberated by faith' or 'one liberated in both ways' under Gotama's Dispensation? It would be sufficient to clarify the above answer for me.

Can you provide sutta(s) or reference(s) which would give def. of the above terms for what you have in mind?

I don't mind moving further discussion into chat, happy to discuss & clarify this.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

In brief, the Mahayana has a specific Bodhisattva vow not to wait:

To abandon: Believing and saying that followers of the Mahayana should
remain in cyclic existence and not try to attain liberation from
afflictions.

Those authoritative texts in the Mahayana which seem to contradict this are only for purposes of training the mind. This is not a subject of controversy in the Mahayana as every tradition acknowledges the above.
Again, with emphasis so this is absolutely clear: All Bodhisattva's in the Mahayana path make a vow to reach full and complete enlightenment as fast as they possibly can. That means if a Buddha was alive right now on this earth and they could possibly reach full and complete enlightenment in the next millisecond, they would do so without question forthwith.
See here for the long answer.


text:
Attitude towards harmful behaviors
Whenever I'm confronted with behaviours I find potentially harmful, I get angry. One example of this is when I witness motorists speeding or otherwise making risky maneuvers (going after the light has turned red, cutting in traffic, etc.) I may be enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be  otherwise feeling quite serene, but then a single passing car happens to accelerate too much (sometimes noisily), and then I start feeling all sorts of feelings of disapproval, powerlessness and contempt.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for. Clearly, getting worked up over passing cars accomplishes little. It even hurts me, since I lose focus on what better thoughts I was enjoying before. Afterwards, I'm in an unhappy, vindictive mood for a while. People I love that see me having these types of reactions often look concerned and a bit disturbed. Pretty clearly, getting angry is not the right reaction.
On the other hand, even on a rational level, I'm not sure I want to not get angry, because it seems obvious to me that these drivers are taking unnecessary risks that will invariably lead to more kids getting hit by cars, more car crashes, more noise, environments that feel less safe - harmful things. If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Please note - reckless driving here is just an example. I'm hoping to find some insight on how to deal with things that are more or less tolerated by many, either by apathy, ignorance or differences in personal values, but that are for some reason important to me. Other examples that come to mind :

Marketing
Political propaganda
Erosion of private life
The environment
Social justice.

How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways? A "Live and let live" attitude seems problematic, since it contributes to the problem.

If I don't react, am I not placing myself and others in harm's way by taking part in an enabling apathy?
Given that anger is ineffective in that situation, I don't see how non-anger is enabling apathy.
You seem to be keenly aware of the potential dangers of unsafe driving. I presume you act on that, when you're the driver yourself, or when you're a passenger and able to communicate with the driver.
I don't see what good it does to get angry about the behaviour of others over whom you have no control, with whom you have no communication, whose driving you're unable to affect.
How do Buddhists see disagreements where the opposing party might harm others if they continue in their ways?
Doctrine like MN 8 might be relevant:

Others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here
etc.

The first part of the sutta may imply that what's especially good isn't the, "enjoying a nice calm walk in my neighbourhood and be otherwise feeling quite serene", but is more especially the decision to refrain from unskilful action -- including anger -- even when others don't.
I feel like I should change my attitude, but I'm not quite sure what I should strive for.
The doctrine of the "Three Poisons" suggests that people feel attracted to what's attractive, repulsed by or angry about what's unattractive, and confused or ignorant about what's neither. Perhaps we're used to thinking about things being Good or Bad, and are nonplussed about what's Not or Neither.
I think that Buddhist doctrine has a lot of "not" or "non-" in it -- for example the opposite of "harmful" isn't only  "beneficial" or "benevolent", it's also simply "non-harmful" or "harmless".
Similarly if you feel that anger isn't appropriate, then "what you should change it to" might be, simply, "non-anger". I like Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- it suggests you should refrain from "participating in" or "sharing" or "accepting" the misbehaviour (e.g. somebody's revving their car engine) -- not to violently stamp out that behaviour, but to see it as an attention-getting invitation which you decide to decline.
I think you described already many disadvantages of anger and why it's inappropriate (in the first two paragraphs).
I don't know how much doctrine you know already (since this is the first time you posted here), but I'd like to add two more things.

One is that I'm conscious of "conceit" as being a cause of inter-personal disputes, and try to avoid both (conceit and inter-personal disputes). If I'm tempted to dispute I remind myself that conceit is hard to eradicate (but should be eradicated) -- see here for some explanation of what conceit is:

Māna (Wikipedia)
This answer associates it with comparisons, e.g. "I am better than you" (including "... because I'm selfless and considerate, whereas your actions are potentially harmful")

I'm not trying to say that there's no difference between skilful and unskilful driving -- but perhaps I'm trying to suggest that getting angry is akin to unskilful driving -- see Chapter 17 of the Dhammapada, which includes

He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.

This answer suggests that getting angry or getting into disputes -- about what's ethical -- is still getting angry or getting into disputes.

I think a large part of the question is ignored here, and that is what should be done, instead of anger. To ignore situations one has no control over(or seemingly no control over), is what the OP is concerned about and can often times lead to exasperation and anger. Not letting the anger overtake you is the first step, but it must be followed by action that leads to change, right? This is where the answer gets more interesting. What sort of action? And how to develop that action skillfully. What about not doing anything?

Also the answer in number 2  seems unnecessary in proving a self-evident point, but besides that to start by saying anger is ineffective and ending by saying that disputes about ethics are still anger/tendency to get into disputes, could give the false idea that you should do nothing.

Anger depends on thinking in terms of the doctrine of self.
A person takes the body or that which is called mind, intellect or consciousness, as a self or belonging to self for this or that person.
There comes to be conception & comprehension 'i am', there being 'i am' there comes to be 'i am good ' or 'i am bad', because of this or that, it develops. Eventually there comes to be an evaluation of something as bad and aversion comes into play.
There is a tendency to think in terms of the doctrine of self due to dull faculties even if one has abandoned adherence to it let alone if one has not abandoned.
When one takes neither body nor mind, nor anything whatsoever to be a self, abandon it as superstition, don't think along those lines.
Think along the lines of elements as elements, do not conceive of what isn't there.
The delusion is similar to thinking that one's name is part of one's biology as an organ or whatnot.
Neither one's name nor one's self exist apart from the philosophical thought systems in the context of which they are here & there conceived as objects of ideation and it's corresponding neurological structure for biology.
One's name is conceived of in the context of the doctrine of self.
If one rather thinks that there are feelings, consciousness, perceptions, objects of perceptions, forms, ideas, a nose & aromas, delusional ideas, greed, compassion, good & bad, craving, etc
Then one can discern how these are philosophically interdependent and then it doesn't occur 'i am bad' or 'may my experience be otherwise'.
There is then mental equanimity of intellect even if experiencing sharp bodily pain.
It is understood & felt as a disagreeable feeling but it isnot like before.
Ie if a person was very superstitious before and abandoned that due to verified confidence, when seeing the thing that would before make him act on his superstition, to become scared, angry or whatnot, now having abandoned the superstition it does not occur to him to act as before even tho it will take him a while to adjust as old habitual thoughts will come up for him for a while but he wont get carried away much.
Ariya are not superstitious about the present qualities but learners more or less get obsessed by prior conditioning due to a lack of development and similarly get carried away.
A person might say 'if there is feeling, to whom does it belong?'. the question is posed in terms of the doctrine of self and invites looking for it rather than questioning whether it's there or not.
Therefore straightening one's views and being attentive the theme of one's thoughts is part of the solution.
Second part is developing wholesome themes & perceptions. These become the pathways by which thoughts travel. When frequently used these bonds become stronger and old thought pathway structures atrophy due to non use.
Electrochemistry is simply such that one must develop & strengthen healthy pathways by which thoughts travel. Thoughts are thought of not as electrochemistry but are an expression of it and neurologically electrical impulses need new pathways and they better be easy to travel as charge just follows the least magnetic resistance path and activates whatnot accordingly.
Directing the mind skillfully one becomes percepient of many pleasant distinctions which are qualified & definitive releases from the unpleasant, unpleasant mindstates, unpleasant perceptions, coarse perceptions and even the percepience of the truth of the cessation of perception & feeling which is the most spectacular attainment to enter into & emerge from.

This essay might help good householder to do not only understand RIGHT intention/resolve, but also to get out an arrow in ways of one normaly might think, not common with the Dhamma,, and will clarify much it reading with proper attention, certain confidence and respect in regard of the Tripple Gems and toward highest liberation: Wisdom over Justice.


text:
How to practice “In the seen will be merely what is seen”
"In the seen will be merely what is seen”
I’ve red this http://theeyeofdhamma.blogspot.com/2013/10/ditte-ditta-mattan-bhavissathi.html?m=1
I’m  still not sure how I should apply & practice this in real life?
For an example, if I see some delicious food, instantly, craving naturally occurs and think “that looks yum”.
After that, with a tiny force, I think that, this is how my mind is trying to objectify the feeling and remind the example given on above post:
“An example given is the image (or shadow) falling on water when one looks into a pond. We cannot interact with this image by touching or smelling and it appears when we look into the water and disappears when we move away. If we try to touch it we can feel the water but not the image.”
I’m really confused how to put this in daily life. Really appreciate if anyone could guide me..

This topic is famously developed in Vajrayana's highest tantras such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
The point is to shift the focus of experience from the samsaric mind with its constant judgement of things in relation to ego and the values ego identifies with, e.g. "is this useful to me or worthless", "is this cool enough for me or too basic", "will this make me dirty in any sense", "is this spiritual or lowly material", "is this democratic", "is this stylish" and so infinitely on -- and towards experiencing the authentic quality of things on their terms, as they are.
So instead of "look at this beautiful sunset" - you just look, you truly look and see it all, without bringing your preconceived ideas and simplistic concepts such as "beautiful". Instead of judging a person as primitive or advanced (substitute any other category) you take them as a little mystery they are just like each of us.
You get the point, to see things as they are is to stop overgeneralizing our experience by limiting it to projection of what we know. It means to look with our eyes, not with our brains. It means to see the new and unknown, the unspoken, the inexpressible - instead of only seeing our own thoughts.
Samsara is a subjective realm made of our thinking. We feed and maintain it by dwelling on samsaric thought patterns, which can all be summarized as instances of generalization, stereotyping, and reification. We feed these by replaying them over and over in our thoughts. The practice of seeing things as they are is unmaking this cyclic feeding/sustenance and breaking through to the actual reality beyond our bubble.
When we do this we discover that reality has an extra dimension we never saw. Seeing this extra dimension requires allowing ourselves ambiguity of interpretation. Going beyond the stable ground of habitual interpretation allows us to walk that extra dimension. This is the freedom the Buddha has taught.

Your answers are very liberating. (I’m mindful that I’m somewhat judging there as well). Took me a while to reflect on this answer. Could I please know what kind of meditation or any other practices you do?

Thank you. I started with Buddhism ~25 years ago. For decades I used to practice radical self-denying Mahamudra in Chogyam Trungpa's style. Then I did two years of regular Korean Seon (Zen) meditation. These days I don't practice anything other than atammayata which is essentially the practice we were talking about ^

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed
run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
[things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
[things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
tell you.
"He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind ...
beings as beings... gods as gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as
Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent
glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the
gods of abundant fruit... the Conqueror as the Conqueror ... the
dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the
infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of
consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness...
the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the
dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception ... the seen as the seen... the
heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the
cognized ... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity
... the All as the All
MN1

There dots mean repetition of the formulae where one conceives of things about this or that present quality due to not having comprehended.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
lies beyond range."
SN 35.23

When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen,
only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference
to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then,
Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you
in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you
there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just
this, is the end of stress.
Ud 1.10

You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the
future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart.
MN 131

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not
lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be
thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it
leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be
thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then
this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it
of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness
be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to
affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my
consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?"
— "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful
or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is
impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be
regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No,
venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable
sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful,
venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since
subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I,
this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or
presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or
external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with
right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine,
this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently
arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external,
whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right
understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is
not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus,
he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he
finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in
determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of
passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he
is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has
been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more
beyond.'"
SN 22.59

Ven. Malunkyaputta elucidates the meaning of this phrase in SN 35.95 .

"I understand in detail, lord, the meaning of what the Blessed One has
said in brief:
Seeing a form     — mindfulness lapsed — attending    to the theme of
'endearing,' impassioned in mind,     one feels   and remains fastened
there. One's feelings, born of the form,  grow numerous, Greed &
annoyance     injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress,    one is said to be
far from Unbinding.
Hearing a sound... Smelling an aroma... Tasting a flavor... Touching a
tactile sensation...
Knowing an idea   — mindfulness lapsed — attending    to the theme of
'endearing,' impassioned in mind,     one feels   and remains fastened
there. One's feelings, born of the idea,  grow numerous, Greed &
annoyance     injure one's mind. Thus amassing stress,    one is said to be
far from Unbinding.
Not impassioned with forms    — seeing a form with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind,     one knows   and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is seeing a form    — and even experiencing feeling — it falls
away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not
amassing stress,  one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
Not impassioned with sounds... Not impassioned with aromas... Not
impassioned with flavors... Not impassioned with tactile sensations...
Not impassioned with ideas    — knowing an idea with mindfulness firm —
dispassioned in mind,     one knows   and doesn't remain fastened there.
While one is knowing an idea  — and even experiencing feeling — it
falls away and doesn't accumulate. Thus one fares mindfully. Thus not
amassing stress,  one is said to be in the presence of Unbinding.
"It's in this way, lord, that I understand in detail the meaning of
what the Blessed One said in brief."
SN 35.95

What that passage means is don't add stories, filters, deluded perceptions to your raw sensory experience every moment. In other words, try to do the opposite of what deluded unenlightened beings do all the time.
In your example of pursuing food, the extra baggage being added, the stories, desire, plans to engage with more delicious food in the future, recollections about bad experiences of food, all just amount to unnecessary waste of energy and suffering.
Something more in line with Dharma, would be to see that your time on Earth is short, eating is a medicine we have to take everyday, and to take in enough nutrients to keep our body functioning properly so we can do our spiritual practice to end suffering.

Thanks so much for this answer. It helped me understand the 1st answer better. This means we need to keep close attention momentarily. I started using labelling to keep up with that. Any techniques you recommend?

Nothing I can summarize in a tiny comment box :) Any number of popular meditation methods in the suttas will work, more important is to develop commitment and lifelong practice, every moment. Any audio talks and writings from thanissaro Bhikkhu will give you a great foundation: https://archive.org/details/Ven.ThanissaroEssaysAndTalksOnSamadhi


text:
Looking for a quote from Johannes Bronkhorst
I recall, years ago, reading about Buddhist treatises on rebirth, composed some long time after the Buddhas death.
It was a very brief reference of Johannes Bronkhorst's, probably in a footnote. I've searched various of his big works looking for it, and numerous papers. If anyone happens across a likely candidate, would you please let me know?
It seemed to indicate there was a period in which one faction was trying to convince another that the Buddha taught rebirth. I'm interested in learning anything I can about how far back the debate that lives on today goes.
Thanks for any and all help.

hi Linda. The suttas, such as MN 95, refer to how the Buddha compared the Brahmin Pundits to a lineage of blind men. Scholars can be similar, often regurgitating the same often speculative ideas & accepted yet unsubstantiated histories. However, returning to fresh in-depth studies of root sources can be very helpful. While not exactly on the topic of Bronkhurst, you could consider running your ruler over this link: https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/Is_%E2%80%9Crebirth%E2%80%9D_a_misconception_of_the_Pali_suttas.pdf Regards

@Dhammadhatu. Spectacular bit of research, thanks. Will take me a while to go through it all, but I can already see how useful it will be. Who is the author?

Thank you for the kind words dear Linda. I am pleased you found it interesting. The author is here: https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?6671-Exploring-rebirth-in-the-Pali-suttas&p=84497#post84497

I haven't found a quote about disagreement between Buddhist schools on rebirth, but I found this 1998 lecture by Johannes Bronkhorst entitled "Did the Buddha Believe in Karma and Rebirth?".
Perhaps you're thinking about Pudgalavada.
From the Atman (Buddhism) wikipedia article:

According to Johannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that "original
Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm
Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking
about the soul or even denied its existence.

The linked footnote reads:

Johannes Bronkhorst (1993). The Two Traditions of Meditation in
Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 99 with footnote 12. ISBN
978-81-208-1114-0.

Thanks. Interesting. But -- right -- not quite what I'm looking for.


text:
How to juggle between the need for Prosperity and Desires for a Samsaric mind?
I completely understand the second noble truth which says

origin of dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā
("craving, desire or attachment")

in plain English,

Desire is the cause of Sorrow.

But if one has not renounced and not living as a monk one has needs to maintain the Samsaric existence. As a layperson, you need money for thousands of things, pay the bills, get the wood for the fire to cook, pay for children's education, etc etc. Now I understand that core desire like, "I want more money" will lead to suffering, but you need an intention to become prosperous as time passes, i.e. grow in the samsaric world along with a spiritual goal towards Nirvana.
How can one grow without harboring desires? I understand that, the thoughts like, "I want a Ferrari" is a blatant desire, but I do want a decent car to drive few miles to my work. How is this basic necessity dealt with without desiring? How is this situation dealt with in the bounds of Dhamma? I am not talking about attachments to already possessed things, but working towards a prosperous living. After all, Nirvana or not, nobody wants to live in adversity.

There's a whole book on that subject: The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World

@ChrisW thank you for the book recommendation... just brought it...hope it answers my query...

one phenomena (such as taṇhā) cannot cause "comes together". What comes together in the 2nd noble truth is taṇhā + bhava

There are two kinds of right livelihood:

MN117:30.2: Right livelihood is twofold, I say.

One may give up bad deeds for good deeds and prosper:

MN117:30.3: There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:31.1: And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:31.2: It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood.
MN117:31.3: This is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements.

Even better, one may give up attachments:

MN117:30.4: And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:32.1: And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
MN117:32.2: It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
MN117:32.3: This is right livelihood that is noble.

The path is gradual and the first step is understanding the nature of good deeds. In other words, let ethics temper the siren call of desire. MN8 provides a list of ethical considerations:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
...

For example, buying and driving a Ferrari alongside a hungry person would be cruel. But helping to ease that person's hunger would be kind and it would also be cheaper.

AN10.28:4.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’

The ideal is basically to not break the sitting posture until the mind is freed from defilements, that even if one's blood was to dry up.
Most don't have this.
An ordained bhikkhu who accepts vinaya for guide basically set his mind on attainment even at the cost of his life as well.
A monk is not supposed to store up goods and generally not allowed to pick fruit even in famine.
They are not supposed to disrobe if they can't get food, they are suppoded to accept that kammaresult & go without.
The level of virtue, the strength of determination and the purity of intent is more important than days lived and is what makes them a bhikkhu.
Now most monks fall short of this ideal and would disrobe even if there is a lot of food & options due to a lack of attainments.
Then there is the household life. Technically a householder who decides to  pursue heightened virtue & ability is called a bhikkhu even if not formally ordained. That is due to the purity of his intent & resolve.
It is noteworthy that Arahants do not store up provisions, bhikkhus are supposed to emulate Arahants.
It then follows that a householder is a bhikkhu in as far as he emulates the Arahants.
An ordained bhikkhu is a bhikkhu by affiliation & on account of the order alone as well as due to maybe having bhikkhu resolve, bhikkhu virtue & bhikkhu ability.
Knowing the ideal one makes adjustments to one's behavior to grow closer to the ideal.
Here's basically what i do..
Start with the easiest things, trifling matters that do not require much of you. This can be as easy as getting some more exercise, cutting some ties, resolving conflicts, diet & whatnot.
Proceed then to confining, moderating & coming to terms with your current conditioning & circumstances.
Here i mean things like how you spend your days & nights, where you live, how you spend vecations, personality traits, habits, guilt, fear, regret, shame, vices & allowances.
Fear & shame is super important to understand & analyze because if one knows that one is slacking and not acting optimally then one will fear the consequences & be rightfully ashamed, one should expect the associated anxiety & heart pulpilation as this is what one is signing up for.
One should also prepare to have sad thoughts like 'when will i enter into some superhuman distinction of the noble ones..'.
Analyzing these one can prepare for future peril & parting with what is dear.
In general tighten up the leaks making vices & relationships orderly & safe for you & others.
This stage is for damage control, relative calm & coming to terms with one's conditioning, which frees up resources to overcome.
At this point one will have done a lot.
Ideally here one moderates sleep, food, sensuality and is often intent on heightened virtue & concentration.
In layman terms this is where one has laid most of the groundwork for having mystical spiritual experiences that alter philosophy & behavior and should exert effort thinking 'I shall come to know the unknown'.
In due time the quality & intensity of the resolve will increase and mind will be inclined to knowing & seeing grand successive distinctions.

A mendicant with defilements ended can’t deliberately take the life of a living creature, take something with the intention to steal, have sex, tell a deliberate lie, or store up goods for their own enjoyment like they did as a lay person. Dn33