text:
Can Buddhist practice lead to pure consciousness experiences?
First, how is "pure consciousness experience" (abbr. PCE) defined for the purpose of this question?

A PCE is when one’s sense of identity temporarily vacates the throne and apperception occurs. Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself … it is a pure awareness . Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception is when the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is not and an unmediated awareness occurs. The pure consciousness experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear.

Secondly, here are some self-reports by people of them experiencing PCEs. Here's one report:

Yesterday I had the first really clear and unequivocal PCE since starting with this ... previously, I had had what I call ‘mini-PCEs’. They lasted only very brief periods of time, say an hour or so, and I wasn’t really sure it was a PCE. Yesterday, however, I had no doubt at all about the experience, as it accorded in all details with what I have read about PCEs ... I had some trouble at work ... some old fears of mine concerning work, authority, success, etc. came up for me. I found myself in some turmoil about these issues and, investigating deeper into it, I once again saw the futility of a feeling-based life, a so-called ‘normal’ life of sorrow, malice, nurture, and desire ... I wrote in my journal to myself what I would do to bring about peace-on-earth, for myself and others. A little later, I sat in my chair and was still for quite awhile. The PCE experience started there and continued for the rest of the day, at times most vividly, at other times diminishing somewhat, but always lustrous, vibrant, and rich. One of the things I noticed most strongly was the intensity of sensation – the clearness and brilliance of colours, and the ability to hear every little sound around me ... at a gravel pit ... I saw a stone popping out of the ground that had some interesting features to it. I ran my hand along the exposed top of it and it felt to be alive. Similarly, the texture and surface of the stone appeared to be actually a living thing. It reminded me of psychedelic drug experiences I had when I was younger, except that it was natural and uncontaminated by any emotions of fright, fear, doubt, etc. Later on we went to the supermarket to do the week’s shopping.
Another thing I noticed about the experience was how any object, even the most ordinary and mundane, instantly had become amazingly interesting and wonderful to look at.
Everything I looked at had a life of its own. Everything appeared fresh and new.
Everywhere I looked there were sensual delights to behold. Another thing was that there was some kind of very pleasurable sensation located near the solar plexus region. I find this difficult to convey but it was a very satisfying visceral sensation. I shall have to, in future, see what I can notice about it ... I found that I could refresh the experience by running the ‘How am I ...’ question and by increased attentiveness to the feelings that contaminated the experience. A couple of times, the experience would come back in full bloom in all its lustrousness. The PCE stands out in such dramatic contrast to ordinary, every-day perception and sensation ... another key feature of the experience – no affective element, no feelings, no disturbance whatsoever – there was nothing that could disturb the experience, take anything away from it, or detract from it. In other words, there was no feeling ‘me’ to spoil the experience. How amazing.

From this juncture, I have some specific questions:

Have anyone in the Buddhist history (a relatively unknown monk perhaps) advocated pursuing such a state?
Is there any Buddhist methodology that demonstrably leads to a PCE?
In what way (in regards to consciousness) is the official Buddhist goal different from PCE?

PCE sounds very much like Eckhart Tolle's experience in his book "The Power of Now", of which you can find the excerpt on this page:

“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept
repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a
peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with
myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’
cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”
I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I
was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt
drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement
at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and
my body started to shake. I heard the words “resist nothing,” as if
spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void.
It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside.
Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that
void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.
I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had
never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw
the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound,
this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of
dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt,
I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That
soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears
came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized
the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before.
Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into
existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at
the beauty and aliveness of it all.
That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of
life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world.
For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep
peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or
perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could
still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever
did could possibly add anything to what I already had.

I would speculate, the same as your PCE page, that this refers to what Buddhism calls jhana in Pali (same as the Sanskrit dhyana) and ch'an or zen in Mahayana traditions.
While the Sanskrit dhyana simply refers to meditation, jhana in Buddhism is defined into 8 levels - 4 lower jhanas and 4 higher jhanas. You can find more info on this in "The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana.
Another two good books on this subject is "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm and "Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners" by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. These two books provide the Buddhist methodology.
From Chapter 5 of Ven. Ajahn Brahm's book "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook", obtained in PDF format from here:

As you build up mindfulness and it gets sharper, you will realize that
you are emerging from a world that has been very dim. As you get more
and more mindful, it’s as if someone has turned on the lights in the
room, or the sun has come out, illuminating the surroundings. You see
so much more of what’s around you. It’s like shining a spotlight on
reality, and you begin to see the subtle beauty of rich colors,
delightful shapes, and deep textures. It all appears very beautiful
and wonderful. When mindfulness becomes powerful, it generates not
only insight but also bliss.
When you have developed powerful mindfulness, it’s like going out into
a beautiful garden in the brilliant sunshine. It’s energizing and
inspiring. Possessing strong mindfulness, such brightness of mind, if
you then focus it on a small part of the world, then you will see so
deeply into its nature. The experience of bright and focused awareness
is wonderful and amazing! You see much more beauty and truth than you
ever imagined.

I'm not sure about Actual Freedom, but Eckhart Tolle really thought he became perfectly enlightened with this experience.
However, in Buddhism, this is nowhere close to enlightenment. This is only part of the samatha (tranquility) meditation to calm the mind, concentrate the mind and overcome the five hindrances.
Also, there are 8 levels of jhana. Actual Freedom's PCE and Eckhart Tolle's experience is probably only up to the first or second level of jhana.
The Buddha himself experienced this (first jhana) as a boy, as narrated in MN 36:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied,
while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I
entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by
applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of
seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following
on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to
enlightenment.’

Samatha (tranquility) is not enough. It has to be combined with vipassana (insight), to reach the enlightenment that the Buddha speaks of, as stated in Kimsuka Sutta:

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
concentration."

So, in my opinion, a number of new age gurus have experienced the rapture (piti) and joy (sukha) of jhana and imagined that this is enlightenment, when this is only a small part of the journey towards complete enlightenment that was discovered and taught by the Buddha.
In his journey to enlightenment, the Buddha was taught by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta as described in MN 26, and they reached the 4 higher jhanas, which is higher than what is taught by Actual Freedom's PCE or Eckhart Tolle's "entering the Now", but even then the Buddha was not satisfied that this ended suffering permanently, and he continued till he achieved complete enlightenment.
The jhanas by themselves calm the mind and refine consciousness (which are impermanent), but they do not solve the problem of realizing the truth i.e. the four noble truths, the three marks of existence and dependent origination.
Samatha (tranquility) is needed to calm and concentrate the mind, while vipassana (insight) is needed to observe the nature of reality, which is not possible if the mind is not calm and concentrated.

It seems to me Eckhart is describing the moment of enlightenment, not his entering a jhana. Jhanas are concentration states that occur during meditation. Not spontaneously.

Actually, they can happen spontaneously with quite a bit of regularity.  All that is required is for the conditions for them to be met.  Sometimes circumstance can provide them.  The Buddha himself spontaneously experienced the first jhana as a child under the rose apple tree.  There are also anecdotal reports of people spontaneously falling into the base of Nothingness (disconcerting to be sure!).

@w33t Have you read this answer by Andrei? Furthermore, as suggested by user19511, the Buddha himself, as a boy, entered the first jhana under the rose apple tree, without trying to meditate.

The only reason I bring it up is because in Eckharts account, he claims the experience is constant, and became his new normal. Jhanas, in my experience, are temporary. I’m not suggesting it’s not possible to enter first jhana spontaneously. I 100% agree with that. I just do not think he’s describing a Jhana, since he describes it as a continuous state.

I read what you linked, but their assessment doesn’t align with my personal experience. I suppose a Jhana could be seen as a metaphor for some sort of incremental understandings walking the path, but my experience of them is as concentration states, not milestones along the path of awakening.

PCE does not have any feelings, including love and beauty. And here's a lengthy conversation about Eckhart Tolle in the context of PCE: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-eckharttolle.htm

@SridharRatnakumar The jhana states have no emotions or feelings apart of rapture (piti) and bliss (sukha), and then later rapture will drop in higher levels, and in even higher levels, bliss will drop. There are 8 levels of jhana.

@ruben2020 I haven't experienced Jhanas, but having known someone who did (Tarin, in fact, from the DhO community) - and based on the conversation between him and actualists - it seems to me that feelings still exist albeit in a very subtle form. By the way, (actual) absence of feelings doesn't mean zombie-like.

Ajahn Brahm talks about the jhanas like seeing vibrant colors too, like your quoted message

Similarly, the texture and surface of the stone appeared to be
actually a living thing. It reminded me of psychedelic drug
experiences I had when I was younger, except that it was natural and
uncontaminated by any emotions of fright, fear, doubt, etc. Later on
we went to the supermarket to do the week’s shopping.
Another thing I noticed about the experience was how any object, even
the most ordinary and mundane, instantly had become amazingly
interesting and wonderful to look at.
Everything I looked at had a life of its own. Everything appeared
fresh and new.
Everywhere I looked there were sensual delights to behold.

Anyway there is no right view in this account. Whatever it is, it is not based on right view.
You can train for the jhanas iwth the books by  Ajahn Brahm if you want this kind of vibrant colors experience.

The Pure Consciousness Experience you have defined is far from the use of “Pure” in Buddhist practices.
If the PCE entails a “pure” experience of the mind apperceiving ‘itself’ then it involves a perspective, even though a viewer is denied.
If, within that perspective there is the apperception of the mind’s self, there is a subtle error being imposed upon the PCE as there is no mind-self.
And the descriptions of different PCE accounts you provided are of the bliss that accompanies the direct meditative insight that all the manifestations of mind that we think are of our self, and to which we are attached, and suffer because of, are not the self that we believe we have/are.
This insight is a real accomplishment, and is only the first, along a Buddhist path (and many others).
But the bliss attained with that direct meditative insight is like a whirlpool at a bend in a river. If you get caught up in it, you will go round and round, without ever making further progress along the river.
In no case though, is either this insight, or the bliss that accompanies it, full enlightenment, in Buddhist terms.


text:
The unity of samadhi and prajna
Does any extant tradition claim that the unity of samadhi and prajna^ is actual from the beginning of the bodhisatva path, so that it is available to the neophyte - just with less power of something similar to more advanced bodhisatvas?
^e. g. Chinul:

Samadhi being prajna, it is quiescent and yet always knowing.

or Platform Sutra:

To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion... a lamp and its light.

So you can see, they are one, yet - perhaps - not everyone realizes this in their practice?
Just asking because I think it may be the meaning of human life etc..

Inhaling and exhaling are both part of one breath.  The former requires the latter and vice versa, but they employ completely different modalities.

i maybe agree ha @user19511

Of course it is.  You can't have prajna without samadhi.  Think of a shovel versus a backhoe.  With a little shovel you can clear away a little debris and dig little holes.
With a backhoe, you can move mountains.  So to with concentration and wisdom.  Your samatha practice is the tool that allows you to clear away your own obstacles and access insight and wisdom.  And just like in the shovel example with the little samadhi of the novice comes little prajna; with the big samadhi of the adept comes bigger prajna.

Noble Eightfold Path is further summarised into three main categories namely Sila, Samadhi, and Panna. Noble Eightfold Path should be practiced as a whole. You can't practice only a selected limb and called it "Noble" Hence all three Sila, Samadhi and Panna should be practiced together in NEP.

Good householder,
If by "Bodhisatta-way", the path of the Buddha, the path of release from stress and wandering on, is meant "being (satta) after bodhi (awakening)", then there is a different for a either student nor finished and a student. To reach the path developing right view, pañña, straighten it, comes before concentration, while one on the path focuses on concentration to reach refined pañña and knowing and vision.
If by "Bodhisatta" ideals of certain sects, which desire for reasoning for useless wandering on and continue harm for themselves and others, is meant: it's by nature of this that in all ways right view, right samadhi, pañña is avoided since the path of the Buddha would bind one toward release and unbound. So in short, since there is no different between an ordinary worldling and a "Bodhisatta", neither is there right view nor right concentration present and easy recognise-able by lack of right Right Resolve and going after confused resolve, harmful, unwise, attached.
The unite of concentration and wisdom arises, can be developed after having gained path, having completed the purification of virtue after right view had arosen. It is therefore a "unite", path-section only accessable for Noble ones till the ten-fold path of the Arahat.
[Note that this hasn't been given for stacks, exchanges, trade for wandering on, bond to it, but for escape and release from this wheel]

We don't call it "samadhi" when it's partially distracted and we don't call it "prajna" when it's partially confused.
In other words, whether something of the kind may be available to a beginner, it's not qualified to be called those two terms.
You might ask: ok, even if the case, is there a unity of aiming at prajna and samadhi?
-- Yes, and that's what's known as the unity of Samatha and Vipassana - also known as the practice of meditation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there any proof that Budai was an actual historical figure
Does any online site refer to evidence that this monk ever existed as an actual historical figure? If the person is believed to be so important and famous as next Buddha then where is the tomb?
Refer to wikipedia

Many Chinese Buddhists believe he was a reincarnation of Maitreya, the person who will become the next Buddha after Gautama Buddha.

According to the non-simple version of Wikipedia,

The main textual evidence pointing to Budai resides in a collection of Zen Buddhist monks' biographies known as The Transmission of the Lamp.

i.e. that is the historical evidence.
See also The Jingde Record of the Transmission of the Lamp -- I guess that's not translated but I think you can read Chinese so you might like to read for yourself what it says about Budai, there.

Incidentally, "history" is defined as text -- i.e. everything we know about history comes from historical texts, by definition. The time before our earliest recorded/surviving texts is called "pre-history" or "pre-historic". The time of the Buddha (500 BCE in India) is sort of pre-historic, except that we have the Tipitaka and so on transmitted via "oral tradition".
Apart from texts received from the past, there's the study of old things. That's a separate topic, i.e. "archaeology". Pre-historic times are known only through archaeology. People study historic times using history and archaeology.
As an example of the archaeology of early history, we have historic texts about the Roman war with Carthage, plus people go to dig in Rome and Carthage to see what they can find, the remains of city walls and houses and temples etc. Usually, in my experience, stone and pottery are the only materials which survive (intact or broken) to be dug up, every other material tends to decay -- and even stone doesn't survive, was already previously dug up and scattered or reused, on land on which people have built new things, unless the older archaeological layers are buried underneath -- and graveyards, or any place like that, tend to fill up and be recycled within a few hundred years.
Or sometimes something is preserved as a valued relic by or in a temple  (although 1000-year-old temples aren't very common either, the Potala is only 500 years old).

The word Jingde (景德), the first two characters of the title, refers to the Song dynasty reign name, which dates the work to between 1004 and 1007 CE.

Our detailed knowledge of history is mostly from historical sources -- not from archaeological sources nor contemporary monuments. Archaeological evidence is rare i.e. you're lucky to find anything that old (even if something is made of stone, for example, later people/civilisations often reuse those old stones to build something new). So if you're looking for archaeological evidence, an individual tomb from 1000 years ago, you may be disappointed. Perhaps you also won't find tombs of specific kings from that period. Also I don't know what the burial customs of that time and culture were, perhaps it was cremation without necessarily preserving/venerating the remains (plus I haven't read what The Transmission of the Lamp says, if anything, about the circumstances of Budai's end-of-life).
I'm not even sure what archaeological evidence there is for the Buddha's existence (I say that to point out the limits of archaeology, not to doubt the Buddha's existence). There are some present-day objects which, tradition says, are relics (e.g. a tooth or several teeth) of the Buddha. One of the earliest remaining artefacts are the Pillars of Ashoka -- I guess we're lucky to have them, and you can see from that the kind of thing which might survive for millennia -- i.e. imperial monuments more likely than individual tombs. Some tombs survive too, but by chance.
Importantly the absence of a present-day tomb isn't proof of the non-existence of a historical person.

Even if there were a present-day tomb, its authenticity might be disputed, subject to debate (a lot of "holy relics" in the West are proven to forgeries from the middle-ages). And even if a tomb used to exist, it might not still exist now -- at least in other religions and countries, the tombs of "Saints" are often destroyed intentionally by later cultures -- the Cultural Revolution being only the most recent example of many throughout history.

I guess that's not translated but I think you can read Chinese ->  i can read quarter out of it and use text to Cantonese voice tool to understand it and that how i decode most of the Sutra/Mantra. Cantonese is my mother tongue.  let me try to find more info... Thanks Chris

Part of the business of historians is to translate (or understand) historical texts, compare them with other texts, compare them with whatever the archaeological record is, and speculate about whether the historical author is reliable/believable (e.g. are they biased, are they a first-hand witness to what they're writing about etc.).

I guess that (scholarly/textual analysis and personal opinion) is what Wikipedia means, when it says about the Transmission of the Lamp, "... although most scholars interpret the biographies as largely hagiography". I did reference one example of some comparative analysis which sounded plausible, in this answer. But usually Buddhists leave that kind of study and discussion to scholars -- and of course to monks, who are the "scholars" of Buddhism. I haven't read what anyone has said or written about the Transmission of the Lamp in particular.

destroyed intentionally by later cultures -- the Cultural Revolution  --> agreed, all this start from corruption right before Opium war and i was one of the person that anti-China folk but my mindset changed. I also stayed there on and off for 3 years for some businesses and to seek for the truth. Basically there are 2 party of communist head, Premier Mao and the Current Premier Xi. The current premier inspired me for below, just name a few. 1. Total Clean Up of illegal activities in Shen Zhen or Sin City. Included all illegal activities and corruption all around China

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/red-lights-dim-in-chinas-sin-city

High End Security System since last 8 years all over China including every small street. Outdoor Crime is almost impossible .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY

Human Civilization massive education for those born after 2000. All public transport installed with Moral education video, philosophy ideas and idiom painting all over China, even my small home town. Refer to below, just share a little.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oR_A1ehBqOdVBYPFVRHprWPuces5kjTV/view?usp=sharing

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-big-bet-soft-power

The transmission of the lamp is about Buddhism or Zen, Bodhidharma version or Shaolin version. It's way too different. I am practitioner of Shaolin arts too but still at beginner level after 2 years cause the way of meditation indeed has significant changes of my instinct thought and sparring reaction so I just stop there to study carefully. Look at Bruce Lee and greatest fighter of HK all time. Misuse of it could be dangerous https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Shun_Leung

I learned with a sifu from Wudang for a while. He taught Tai Chi and other things to adults, difficult weapons to teenagers, and "kung fu" to the small children who were as flexible as he was. :-) See also Should a Buddhist advocate the learning of a martial art?

@ChriwW it was my dream and wish to go Wudang mountain to continue my martial arts study. i commented some sharing on the martial arts related link u have given too.

There is research and writing to proof Budai monk is a historical figure around 10th century and under category of Buddhism Zen teaching.
The source found that seems not having enough of a specified quality and could not be suitable to Junior Buddhist.
"The sources available to modern scholars concerning Pu-tai' s life are deficient". The materials give merely a nebulousaccount,  all  are  agreed that he was  a mysterious  cleric whoperformed  miracles.
Reference
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Budai
Hsiao, Bea-Hui (1995) Two images of Maitreya: Fu Hsi and Pu-tai Ho-shang. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London.
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/28925/

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


text:
What is prajna?
In the west, when we talk about wisdom we tend to mean knowing the value of things. As far as I tell, prajna is about emptiness, at least in its perfected aspect. So does it also allow us knowledge of what is valuable, or is that something that the path is founded on - good karma nd liberation from suffering - so that really all the sages have very little to say about it?

why downvoted??

Prajna is direct practical realization of Buddha-Dharma.
It is when you 1) clearly see in front of your nose (and everywhere around you) all that cool stuff being spoken about in Buddhist books,  and 2) have attained actual hands-on mastery of these theories and principles in your own day-to-day life.
Another way to say the above, Prajna is when 1) you attained a whole new level of discernment, when various ethically important qualities of processes and phenomena are clearly discerned by you. And 2) you learned to put these discernment skills to good practical use.

nice, grounded, answer. thanks

Kusala (ku=bad, sala=cutting off/away) is doing which getting at least 2 values, now and then (6 values--present value, next value, nibbana, own value, others' value, each others' value. See the last quote.)
Pajānāna (Pa+ñā) is understanding the possible various angles/aspects, causes and effects -- realities, in each moment. It means not only value and not only emptiness.
The Buddhist Followers use every kind of Pajānāna to enlighten Nibbāna properly.
It is impossible to say "I am a genius man in emptiness but I don't like to give or mettā" because giving and mettā always arise with the Pajānāna of emptiness.
The real Nibbāna is teaching only in the Buddha's teaching because of the Buddha is teaching of understanding in the proper&possible path to understand emptiness, causes&effects. And the proper&possible path includes the basis which supporting to understand the emptiness, such as understanding karma, understanding mettā, understanding people, understanding the smallest elements, etc.
The possible reality can't esily arise without it's supporters.
This is why the Buddha teach everything included Samatha, 40 Kammatthāna, not only Vipassanā.
Ñāna is Proficiency Pajānāna. It's when you are knowing one, you understanding every aspect of that one together in same moment without using thinking or comprehending time requirement because you are professional of it's relations, causes and effects, already.

For kusala see AndhaSutta (blinder of 2 values):

These are the three people found in the world.
Neither suitable wealth, nor merit do they make. They lose on both
counts, those who are blind, with ruined eyes.
And now the one-eyed person is explained. By methods good and bad,
that devious person seeks wealth.
Both by fraudulent, thieving deeds, and also by lies, the young man’s
skilled at piling up money, and enjoying sensual pleasures. From here
they go to hell— the one-eyed person is ruined.
And now the two-eyed is explained, the best individual. Their wealth
is earned legitimately, money acquired by their own hard work.
They give with best of intentions, that peaceful-hearted person. They
go to a good place, where there is no sorrow.
The blind and the one-eyed, you should avoid from afar. But you should
keep the two-eyed close, the best individual.”

can you clarify your first sentence there, please?

I have edited the answer.

Capable of upvoting (praise) of what is or leads to essential, a mind directed to unbond: this is called pañña.
Tendency of downvoting (blame) of what leads or is essential, a mind directed toward views, stacks, exchange and trade: this is called lack of pañña.
Uncapable to trace the essence in the essential, seeing unessential as essence, how could a grasper of pointless ever benefit of even highest knowledge?
Those who regard
non-essence as essence
and see essence as non-,
don't get to the essence,
ranging about in wrong resolves.
But those who know
essence as essence,
and non-essence as non-,
get to the essence,
   ranging about in right resolves. ✦
As a Khmer proverb, an advice, says:

យល់តូច កំុអាលខំ យល់ធំ កំុអាលស្រាយ
Understanding/knowing little,
don't brand (judge) things.
(even if) Understanding much,
don't brand (judge) as heartwood.`

...

The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head). story

So the Sublime Buddha did not pay much judgement in regard of wisdom viciversa knowledge but whether corrupt and a fool or not:
Got the essence or another death having searched for stacks, exchange and for gains where nothing would hold?
Be(come) wise!
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, binding trades in the world but for escape from the bond of fool]


text:
Anatta a tool or reality?
I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self? It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.
Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self?

Throughout history, many arahants from many traditions have attempted to describe the true nature of reality. You can see examples of this from diverging explanations of realizations between Buddhist traditions. Some traditions describe enlightenment from the perspective of “no self”. This perspective views the world as full of illusions, all empty, transient, and devoid of identity. This perspective can be said to be one of negation, where you realize there is no identity in what you once believed there to be. Others describe enlightenment through the perspective of “true self”. This perspective views the world as pervaded by an almost godlike entity, a being that can be seen as the source of all that arises. This perspective can be seen as one of addition, where you realize you are not only human, but also the totality of the universe, and become one with everything.
Whenever this conversation arises, I always am reminded of the Buddha’s parable about the blind men an the elephant. Each touching a different limb of the elephant, and endlessly arguing about who’s description is accurate. This situation is extremely similar. Neither the no self, nor true self perspectives are completely accurate. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The perspective of being an arahant is one that can only be experienced and is impossible to explain in its entirety. To the mind, it is logically paradoxical, and therefore can not be conveyed accurately. Experientially though, the paradoxes coexist easily and without effort.

It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

So, based off the above, hopefully you see why the Buddha avoided the questions. Describing the enlightened state is logically impossible. Anything that can be said about it can only be partially accurate. And people tend to get so caught up in the details, I think personally he was just trying to avoid blind men and the elephant situations in the hopes that people would make real progress as opposed to arguing about their belief systems.
I wouldn’t say the answer is irrelevant. The perspective you gain from becoming enlightened is what provides the understandings that ultimately ends suffering. It just can’t be accurately conveyed through language.

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.

Those who describe true self understandings will tell you that what you really are is not a human being or body, but that indescribable thing that creates all that arises. That very same indescribable thing is what the Buddha describes as “empty” and “devoid of self”. Both perspectives are close, but again, not fully accurate.
So yes, one could say that a self exists outside of experience. But, thinking in this way will not help you become enlightened. Honestly I view it as a hinderance. In my experience, the illusory self likes to “jump” from one object to the next. For example if you believe you are the body, and then experience proof of the beliefs inaccuracy, the process of self identification tends to begin somewhere else. “I’m not the body, so I must be the mind! I’m not the mind I must be my thoughts!” Etc. My advice is to not think in this way. If you believe it’s possible that what you are something that exists outside of your experience, you put yourself in a bad situation. You are giving the illusory self a place it can nestle in, that is based on belief alone and can not be verified. If you wish to be free you must focus on investigating what you presently believe yourself to be, and constantly disprove places the self will try to hide.
Of course I’m speaking in metaphors here. The illusory self is not a thing that exists, but a process of identification that needs to come to a stop by observing that there is nothing permanent that can be claimed to be yourself.

Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

Anatta can not be fully intellectually comprehended. Even those who are enlightened can not fully logically process the experience. They just experience life, as no one, someone, and the entire universe, at the same time. They accept the mind is of no help in the situation, and abandon any attempts to logically understand.
I would say it is not wise to investigate “what the enlightened experience is like”. One should work to become enlightened, and then once you get there yourself, you will fail too (as all others have before you) in explaining the experience to others. Even if you found an enlightened being that was willing to describe it for days on end to you, you would be no closer to the experiential understanding that is required to become free.
However, that being said, the Buddha’s no self teachings are filled with wisdom that should be used to guide you along your path. Enlightenment is inevitable if you can experience first hand how your current belief systems are incorrect. The first moment you truly break down the illusion of self and no one sees that the self doesn’t exist, from that moment on you will become free.

OP: However, is this reality or is it a tool?

It's both.

OP: Is there truly no self?

There is a self, but it is just a mental idea that appears when the five aggregates work together according to dependent origination. It is a mentally built up concept. There is no standalone indivisible object or thing called self anywhere.
It's like if you show me a chair - a chair is composed of its leg, seat, back etc. Is any one leg or seat or back by themselves the chair? No. Is the chair all the parts together? Also no - because if you remove a leg, it's still a chair, minus the leg. So, the chair is just a concept, an emergent phenomena. There is no standalone indivisible object called chair.
The Vina Sutta provides a nice analogy:

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

You can find more info in this answer.

OP: It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is
irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually
a self? Or for another reason?

This comes from SN 44.10.
The ending is:

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self —
were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the
arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
to have now not exist?'"

The Buddha realized the truth that all phenomena is not self. So, he could not say: "yes, there is a self".
At the same time, Vacchagotta would be confused if the Buddha were to say that there is no self, because he does not understand anatta. Hence, the Buddha decided not to answer.

OP: But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the
collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even
talk about.

The self is just a mental idea, a concept - that is conjured by the mind, concocted by the mind.
There is no soul in Buddhism.

OP: Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

Both - actually. The Noble Eightfold Path is an iterative process. Please find more details in this answer.

True Reality is : Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. All Dhammas are not me , mine or myself.
Anatta is a concept not a tool.
Tool is the practice and grasping of Dhamma to realize the true Reality.
Dependent Origination is the Dhamma.
Therefore you should practice Dhamma.

If you are asking whether Anatta is a useful fiction or a didactic simplification (an upaya) - the answer is no. It is the idea of Self that is actually a vast simplification, while Anatta is a characterization of the much more complex way things exist in reality, behind this convenient simplification (of Self).
It's like we can say: "see this cloud? Right now it looks like a distinct shape but in reality clouds are not static nor distinct, they are transient and amorphous. When we say "this cloud" that's just a simplification we use for convenience".
Similarly we can say: "see this universe? it doesn't actually have any entities, the notion of entities is a simplification we employ for convenience".
Similarly, we say: "sentient beings don't have a self, self is a simplification we use for convenience".

Anatta is a reality, as unambiguously explained in AN 3.136, which says all things are anatta regardless of whether or not Buddhas arise to explain anatta:

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’
AN 3.136

The above said, the realisation of anatta is also a 'tool' that ends suffering, as follows:

Seeing [anatta] thus, the well-instructed noble disciple gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge he is emancipated.SN 22.59

No-self, good householder, is a tool, a tool (and as such, one toward real, also fine to call it real, at least where a non-liberated is) to gain "the real", the Unbound, and it's not a tool for intents in the world but used after First things are clear. Anatta is actually, as a path-tool also not used to struggle with questions whether there is a self or not, and actually there are many kinds of self, but to remind and encourage to investigate whether that of one just graspes is real, lasting, under ones controll, suitable to make or hold it as mine, me, myself. In this way it works as a tool for certain release, as one is already used in regard of outwardly things to take on or let go of this and that to be able to move on. In regard of the objects/phenomenas to be investigated it's, if one looks for himself, actually real so far, neither eye, it's object, touch at the eye, feeling, consciousness, will... are real, lasting, under ones controll, not fit to be regarded as me, mine, myself and therefore one is - if seeing clear, or reasons proper, or has faith that it is that way - able of letting go and release from it. Same holds for ears, nose, tongue, body and intellect, it's objects, touch...
As it is a tool to leave sensual world and even most refined spheres of experianses, it can be seen and used like late Mahathera Chan once gave in simple words (here used in regard of anicca, but also fit to use likewise anatta:

The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. >Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

Once clear on the conventional truth of the path-tool, leading to the only real, having applying it already for all in the world of experiances, one, as sublime encouraged in the raft simile - actually dealing with anatta - has to give up the tools as well, having found a footing on the other shore, for who would carry on a raft, once having gained the secure. But to do not through out the baby with the bath-water, as many do, having got things wrong, not done, gained, the basics, "First things first!" as already linked above.
Liberated, done the task, all those questions are then total clear, and a little taste and release of doubt, will arise if good householder simply investigates one sense of the six after another, for this Dhamma is ehipassiko, not to be real gained in other ways aside of look, and see for oneself.
At least a certain promise of the Sublime Buddha as final encouragement to let go of the question as raised, on faith for now, and to get to the essence of the path: SN 25.1: Cakkhu Sutta — The Eye
(Possible extended or improved answer as well as space to get more active into the topic, can be found here)
[Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trades binding one here, but for release]

Hmmm... Is the opposite of a 'good householder' a 'bad monastic'? I once knew a guy whose last name was actually 'Householder', and he was a decent sort, so that's true enough.  I don't usually disagree with what you write, but the way you write brings out an irreverent urge to play. You should have a talk with whoever does the laundry at the monastery; I think they put too much starch in the loincloths...

Idly, useless talk, good householder, leads downwardly, as well as disturbing (possible sillful connection) so may good householder take care about it. And rag-clothes are washed with no means else than cold water and maybe sometimes with natural dye and warm water, if avaliable, by oneself. The opposite of a good householder is a bad. One's choice, how ever adressed then. In regard of virtue the matter of holding on a good self is very important for progress. At least reminding ones virtue is a purification tool to gain possible access to non-householder-domain.

It's a mistake to think that play is 'idle, useless talk', because playfulness is an excellent tool for seeing our own attachments. And even you must admit that your carefully curated and stylized speech patterns come across as wonderfully 'stuffy': rich grounds for play. Of course, I never have been good at acting the adult (though I can fake it when needed), so maybe that's something to consider... But still, 'good/bad', 'householder/non-householder', 'this/that', 'here/there', 'etc/et al': What do these dualities have to do with anyone, or anything?

Wruff, wruff...A gambler, player...Like young dogs, hmm... actually train to kill... And right judgement does not end even with Awakening and the requirement to even go for it, ending foolish ways and playing around, since it's just for suffering and stress

I like young dogs; most people do. They are unassuming, and joyous, and not given to prejudgement. But I suppose that's neither here nor there... Look, I started this dialog because I know there is a point (usually found a ways down the path) where form solidifies and becomes an obstacle. It's like we make a mold for our own liberation and pour ourselves into it, but then forget to crack it open when our practice is set. You have a lot to say, but it's hard to hear it from within that stifling mold. Maybe you're not ready to break out yet, and that's fine. But I wanted to plant the seed.

Most human, after a human existance, are born in an animal womb, as Peta or in hell. It's up to one whether one desires toward the main of choses the Ariya-Magga, good householder. Where one tends, leans to, there one derives... It's not a break out (in prosperity manner) if follow fools and it's not a break out to use a serious talk place for one fermentation outflows as well. Wruff, wruff...

Dogma is karma, not dharma. Pun intended...  And sometimes anatta can be just another mask we wear: the self insisting it's not a self so it can preserve itself from harm. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", the Great Oz says, because we would all rather believe we are the Great Oz. The phrase 'good householder' is your 'Great Oz' moment: it sets you apart from the rest, and grants you the pontifical stage. And honestly, that's fine. You're welcome to take that stage whenever you like. I'm just pointing out that you don't need the artifice.

Good householder wouldn't know if meeting a non-artifice as he not even known nature, so may he take care and find trust in real coolness.

I see. Well... That's too bad.

@TedWrigley Does it help to know that Samana Johann is (I think) German by origin? And presumably knows at least two languages other than English; and lives in a non-anglophone country. Perhaps his English sounds "carefully curated" but, let's admit, it's much better than my German is. I'm sure your jest is well-intentioned and friendly. Yet I'd hesitate to make fun of the way people express their thoughts in a foreign language -- we don't know how or where he learned it; and German is famously more formal to begin with, forms of address like "Herr Professor" and so on being conventional.

@ChrisW: I'm familiar with both ESL and cultural issues, and I credit SJ with insight and intelligence. He and I are debating a matter of (for lack of a better word) style. He's adopted traditional and time-tested mannerisms: avoiding names and proper nouns; adopting generic titles, like 'good householder' and (I assume) 'fellow monk"; using circular, indirect language to deflect from anything personal; in general, effacing all 'identifying' characteristics form language. If I were a lay practitioner taking lessons from him in person it would be effective and entirely appropriate.

@ChrisW: However, I'm not. And I don't think you (or many of the people on this site) are either. On the internet, his otherwise appropriate attitude comes off as officious and affected; we don't have the effect of his presence, and he doesn't have the effect of our presence, so the relationship can't stabilize naturally. He finds himself constantly trying to place people in categories that make sense to him, but that the people he is talking to either don't agree with or don't understand.

@ChrisW:  I mean, I know what he means by 'good householder*, sure — I'm not sure how many other people do — but I don't happen to accept the identity label and all its relational implications. I am not that. I'm also not a monastic. He doesn't have a title for what I am, and he won't use 'un-titled' forms of reference for pedagogical purposes, so he and I end up talking past each other. And yes, my sense is he knows exactly what I mean, but he wants to stick to the traditional mode of discourse, and that's fine. So long as we understand each other...


text:
Is there any skillful use of using 'we' in addressing certain opinion?
As possible also observed, when teaching, the address of ones position by 'we' is hardly found in the teaching of the Buddha and his disciples.
It seems that this often used way of using 'we' in argumentation, is purely a tool to demonstrate power and backhold, used also for winning anothers favor, in cases when 'we' includes the listener or could, if he takes on it.
In most cases it seems to be actually an often deliberated lie, as for how could one speak for another, possible even disregard those one might incl. in one 'we'.
So what do you think, is there any case, or in which case, can position 'we' be used skilfull, in which cases does it not point on ones attachments, greed, desires: unwise after gain and identification. In which case is it not clear to be seen as an outcome of sakkāyadiṭṭhi (on-group-holding/group-identification-view) of even gross outwardly sort?
Is it a word a non-worldling woul make use of, and if, in which circumstances?
Maybe one like also sacrifices samples found under the leading teachers of past and present, as addition to ones gift of sharing ones reflections here.
Would the use of 'we' be a good warn-signal, if tracing such in others speech?
`ironical' What do we think? What would we answer here?
[Note that this isn't given for exchange, stacks, and what ever world-binding similar trade but for escape from this wheel]

To clarify, straightforward usage of the term is when a speaker or writer is representing a concensaed group, or in the royal sense; otherwise, it's becoming more widespread recently as a debate method, & for marketing; variations include: asserting incorrect premises, or using known words/ phrases incorrectly & then invoking them/ using them to imply, as supporting information etc; & a somewhat indirect method of implying being part of a consensus is repeating a question prior to answering,or prefacing a reply or answer with repetition of the question, to imply legitimacy & connectedness

In MN8, the word "we" is used extensively to cover forty-four ethical considerations. Here is one such:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Such ethical considerations would apply to all on the Noble Eightfold Path.
Others will ignore them. We will study them.

Who are you? It's not to assuse that good householder is part of first the Sangha and second that it is a repetition of what the master said to them. It would be very respectless if the Sangha, as "we" makes a declaration of their ways outside the given. To include one into the Sangha as a suggestion "we" could be also very demeritious. So maybe good to work out the point here, where it appears, better as it is a hot iron. You householders, if devoted followers, need to consider a lot neither lerned, used to, nor much willing to fundamental things, if wishing for good prosperty and refined joy

It doesn't matter who I am. What matters is that people read the suttas and listen to the Dhamma.

What a thoughless turn to justify ones mission instead of going after proper attention and even abound Sakkayaditthi in this way...

MN8:12.45: ‘Others will be attached to their own views, holding them tight, and refusing to let go, but here we will not be attached to our own views, not holding them tight, but will let them go easily.’

Defender... why not become part of us but steady seek for justification for wandering on and why avoiding letting go? Then it would be even not respectless to speak out in such manner or a matter of danger.

Venerable, I was agreeing with you in my quote about identity view.

Another try to escape confrontation of good householder, and: My person didn't doubt that but thought good householder might be able to effort more and tries to point out the root, the cause and the remove of the cause and does it further, since teaching is one of the five ways to gain Vimutti. Who are you, who is we?

"You" and "I" and "We" are empty conventions.

I guess it sounds to me like it might be "political" speech -- for example:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

... also ...

You're either with us, or against us

As you said, I think that's "argumentation, a tool to demonstrate power, used also for winning another's favor".

Alternatively it's "parental" speech -- for example a parent or a teacher might say, to a misbehaving child, "No, we don't do that here" -- or use other plural forms, like, "It's time for us to wash our hands, before supper".
I think that kind of parental we, fits with the way the plural is used, in many Indo-European languages -- including in German for example where a respectful child might refer to a teacher as "Sie" rather than "Du".
A synonym is to say "one" -- "one doesn't do that". That is archaic or at least old-fashioned in spoken English --  excessively formal, it sounds frosty rather than warm --  but is current in French and commonplace, friendly and unexceptional. It seems to me there's more social cohesion and bit less class warfare (rivalry) in French than in English, perhaps due to the educational systems, so people might not mind so much hearing "we" in French.
If I may say so, when the Buddha uses "we" in MN8 it sounds to me like this -- i.e. that he is speaking as teacher and leader -- another person's saying "we do this" might sound like "my way or the highway" (i.e., in an extreme case, "obey me or be banished as an enemy"), but coming from the Buddha it is good advice which "we" welcome (choose to welcome).

I tend to prefer "I-messages" when I speak or write, partly because they're low-conflict, and partly for the other reason you gave (i.e. to avoid a "lie, as for how could one speak for another").

It's theoretically possible too to use a 3rd-person singular -- e.g. "this person", instead of "I" -- but that is unconventional in English.
And beware, that can be seen as an affectation or an eccentricity (e.g. narcissism or depersonalisation), if that matters, and unfortunately that syntax therefore irritates some people who hear or read it.
Apparently (I didn't know) there's a technical word for that, Illeism:

Illeism /ˈɪli.ɪzəm/ (from Latin ille meaning "he, that") is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of first person. It is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device. In real-life usage, illeism can reflect a number of different stylistic intentions or involuntary circumstances.

I've only ever heard people call it "referring to oneself in the third person".
Incidentally Wikipedia also says ...

Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases wisdom and has a positive effect on one's mental state because an individual who does so is more intellectually humble, more capable of empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one's own problems.

... which I hadn't heard before.

Generally though I've used "I", because it is conventional, and I'm not trying to claim to being the spokesperson of a group. Also, not to leave you with a wrong impression since I've said this much already, I try not to judge people based on their use of English syntax -- I think that Postel's law is a good idea ("conservative" talking and "liberal" or permissive listening) -- generally I'm grateful if people produce English well enough for me to understand, I don't want to judge people by that.

"I" seems to me friendlier than "we", or "this person".
Perhaps some people might not want to seem "friendly", and would rather seem "formal" -- and that's the other use-case for a "we" in English -- i.e. the "royal" we, which I understand as a claim of political power or perhaps of social hauteur.
Or a family member, a parent, wife or husband, or child, might use "we".

If or when you want to talk about the Dhamma, with authority, it might be better to avoid personal pronouns -- for example you might say, "Compassion is good, anger is bad, the Buddha said", etc., all without referring to "we" and "I" and so on.
I think the Buddha usually talked like that, in the suttas, more often than not -- maybe that's called "objective" rather than "subjective".

Good that good householder made good founds under his kind, so that he could take of what my person often tries to give. Looks like you, yours, are required to collect all together  before able to give certain individuals an ear to lend. Common Dutsen is the sign for lowest social group but possible worthy to raise a question on it and it's perfect training to use only 3-person and no calling of names, adressing just proper positions.

I don't know the word "Dutsen" so I'm not sure I understand that sentence.

Using "du", informal addressing, or English...


text:
Truth Table of Buddism/Four fold logic?
One thing that I find Buddhism fascinating is the "true contradictions", which says that there are statements that can be both true and false.
I was googling and found Dialetheism and Catuṣkoṭi on Wikipedia, but I have not found a truth table that represents this idea.
Do anyone know if there are web pages talk about this idea more clearly, and if we can also do a truth table about this idea, compared with the standard mathematical Truth table?
Namaste

@ruben2020 actually I was thinking if I should post this here or in Math related SE, but this can be considered informal logic so I am also worried if this will get removed/relocated if posted in Math SE. But you can try to move it if you believe it belongs to Math SE

@ruben2020 With due respect, I disagree with the idea of closing this question because it belogs to Math.SE. Buddhism has a huge history of logics and a question like this serves to demonstrate those ideas. This question is not just a mathematical one- it it quite relevant to Buddhist logic and therefore has a place on this webpage.  Consider my humble opinion.

@HomagetoManjushri I probably changed my mind. The question remains open.

OP: One thing that I find Buddhism fascinating is the "true contradictions", which says that there are statements that can be both true and false.

You can find such statements in Pali-canon not because the Dhamma falls into one of those logical statements but because the blessed one mentioned & rejected all those possibilities in related to Dhamma.

'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'

"These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One

Cited from: Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63)
Another interesting statement can be found in Bāhiya Sutta (Ud 1.10)

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."

OP: I was googling and found Dialetheism and Catuṣkoṭi on Wikipedia, but I have not found a truth table that represents this idea.

You couldn't find such a truth table because there is no such truth table in Buddhism. Truth tables can only be applied to something which can be explained by reasoning and logic. But Dhamma cannot. The Dhamma taught by the blessed one is very subtle and deep. It's very hard to understand for majority of the people bounded by craving and live in their own world made up by five aggregates of clinging. Only a wise man can understand this Dhamma. Nibbana is the ultimate goal of Buddhists. To tell you that it is an atakkāvacara Dhamma I've quoted a passage below.

What is Nibbana is a question that a Buddhist or non- Buddhist may prefer to ask at the outset. This is not a question of today or yesterday. Clever answers may be given and Nibbana may be explained in glowing terms, but no amount of theorizing will bring us nearer to it, for it is beyond words, logic and reasoning (atakkavacam). It is easier and safer to speak of what Nibbana is not, for it is impossible to express it in words.

Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Catuṣkoṭi or tretralemma is mostly made up by  intellectuals who commented on what they thought was the dhamma, and they tried to push their sloppy reasoning as the dhamma too, like Nagarjuna, so it is mostly in Mahayana. None of that stuff is strongly buddhist. The intellectual works like the Upanishads use it too, with their neti neti, and the jains also, to support exactly the same claim like Nagarjuna, ie ''you can't talk about reality'', ie the absolute truth cannot be said with conventional language. Buddhist intellectuals are not really rigorous logicians, even more so when compared to today logicians.
Plenty of people have tried to formalize the tretralemma like here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7744.pdf

Hence the interpretation of this modified catus.kot.i is: If somebody
denies all these alternatives, then he/she intends to mean by
abbreviation using the representatives that he/she declares that the
ultimate truth or the reality can- not be described by any formula of
any propositional calculus in which A is a generic formula.
Particularly any propositional calculus for which A is a sentence
letter doesn’t work to describe the reality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#LNCBudTet
In the sutras, the tetralemma is just rejecting a claim and also rejecting the negation of the claim. This is from the claim being ill-defined, completely out of topic. But intellectuals prefer to view it has a deep thing about reality.

Sir/Madam, I can understand that you've used the words "conventional language" in order to emphasise the idea. But a novice may think that there are words belong to ultimate truth. For them I'd like to say all the words are conventional whether or not it's used to mention an ultimate truth. ie. "Nibbana" is a Dhamma which belongs to ultimate truth but the word "Nibbana" is conventional. (Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma)

First, Catuskoti explicitly rejects propositions of the type "p and not p" as being true. Therefore, it is wrong to say that contradictions are held valid in buddhism. They are not.
Secondly, 4-fold rejection is posited from an ultimate standpoint and not the conventional standpoint (two-truths theory). From an ultimate standpoint, the differences are also fabricated between phenomenon and therefore are not ultimately real. In this manner it is said that contradictions are true- because both are mere appearances from the ultimate standpoint. But from the conventional standpoint, they are both not true at the same time and this contradictions in conventional domain are not held valid.
Remarks:

The finding of contradictions is posited within the conventional domain of the two-truths theory. Such contradictions are not logical contradictions. They are rather contradictions from a point of view or a theory (for example, dual logic) which takes for granted essentialist reasoning. Within Buddhism, which refutes essentialism, such contradictions are not contradictions because there is no one fixed logic, no ultimate building block to which everything could be reduced.

To understand how these so called contradictions are possible, it is suffice to mention here that the context sets the tone/them for the sort of statements posited and that the scope of such statements is within that context or like contexts only.

The idea if a truth table for catuskoti is to ask another system to mold itself and distort in order to speak according to the language of some other theory. Instead, it should help to understand that the buddhist logic, is not mathematical in its language (which of course does not make it any less incorrect or wrong). Buddhist logicians havent used formal logic but that does not make it any less rigorous. It will be suggested to read texts that explicitly deal with Buddhist logic to clear this misconception. It is is not being said that comparisons are not possible or should not be done. Just that for comparisons require one to thoroughly know the two systems being compared.

D S Ruegg has a brilliant essay that critically refutes the idea of looking at BUddhist logic through categories of thinking that are alien to the system and offers a much better perspective on Catuskoti. [ref. The uses of the four  positions of the Catuskoti and the problem of the description of reality in Mahayana Buddhism].


text:
Is Enlightenment a momentum with a continuum or can have regressions?
According to buddhism , does the enlightenment have a continuum from an initial momentum or can have also regressions?
I suppose if a specific state of mind has been acquired from innumerable causes it can’t return back, can just evolve toward a vector even if we force ourself in a condition of ignorance, so the bodhisattvic principle.

definitely in the Mahayana "falling back" / 'non retrogression"

an answer might depend which branch of Buddhism; perhaps there could be faltering / forgetfulness

Do you see an old woman or a young one? Or can you see both?

Once you've seen, can you forget how to see it?
Until we see the world as it is we don't see it, but once we've seen it we cannot 'unsee'. We may fall back on old habits and patterns (old ways of seeing the world), but enlightenment (honestly) is just seeing the world as it is. It's our natural state, something we're drawn away from by our egoic selves, but which pulls us back to itself whenever we stop fighting against it.
I know, sometimes people feel the need to walk all the way around the block to get back to their own front door; the craving for progress can delude us as easily as any other craving. C'est la vie.

Good householder
(if wishing for the Bodhisatta path, don't read it, as good householder could gain liberating wisdom by it. Read only if wishing to abound doubts!)
As for the awakening that arises by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, once one has gained the first stage of awakening, streamenter, there is actually no more return but one is headed toward liberation within max. 7 further "pleasing" existances in the human- or Deva-realm. Time can be of course shortened or, if no right effort is made paths and fruits arises by birth, by death.
As for other sects, outside the Buddha-Sasana, which desire long wandering on and suffering, because of the fact that once right view is gained, the path cause developed, they but all effort into avoid insight and wisdom as well as to [listen to the good teachings](Listening to the True Dhamma) since if they would hear the Dhamma of the Awakened with proper attention, they would lose their possibility to "compassionate" give and experiance suffering for long periods.
There is, how ever, a point of return (44-49. Turning Away Through Perception, etc. (saññā-vivaṭṭādi)) when touched and in progress with gain of seeing, Vipassana (when having seen the reality of Dukkha), like when listening to the good teaching, when one would need to let go of the last distruction to cling on to hold a stand.
But even if one has gained the stage of Faith-follower or Dhamma-folower, once the Ariya-Dhamma is known, one would die before not having gained to be headed for liberation, since latest by upcoming of death the decay of clinging to a stand is not avoidable and adds the practice to the already known.
The primar cause of staying in Samsara is to associate with fools and avoid wise and awakened people, seeking for giving toward the lower and maximum equal and avoid increase of relation with more advanced and Sublime in regard of virtues, concentration and wisdom.
So one has, if gained good human birth, not done one of the 6 grave transgression, not a fool and touched by the Juwels (e.g. living near where they might still exist) always the choice whether give into the momentum of old-age, sickness and death or toward Unbound.
Less are capable to change their Ancestorship.

These days there are some who wish for Buddhahood, and wisdom-oriented Buddhahood at that, though their conduct barely qualifies them to become ordinary disciples. What characterizes them is the bold banner of craving-de- pendent deeds, which cry out for public recognition right now and yearn for glorious results hereafter....The Four Special Characteristics of a Bodhisatta

Gati, gati, paragati, parasamgati, bodhisvaha
[Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange or any other trade binding to the world (Bodhisatta-way) but for Unbound, escape from Suffering by abounding foolishness]

I don't believe it is an of/off state.  Enlightenment is just that moment of understanding your place in the universe.  It doesn't stop you doing stupid things afterwards.  You are only human and open to the same temptations that you were before.

This answer is from the Theravada perspective.
Stream entry is the point at which the teachings become fully understood, not just intellectually, but also through one's experience.
When a stream entrant feels jealousy due to deeply ingrained latent tendencies and habits, he can quickly see how his jealousy relates to his clinging and craving. He is not free from suffering yet, but he can see how everything works. He also has had a glimpse of Nibbana, at least in moments of mindfulness (sati sampajanna).
The stream entrant has completely uprooted the first three fetters - doubt on the Buddha's teachings, attachment to rituals and rules, and belief in a self (or self-view). He has lost his self-belief or self-view, but not his self-habit. There are no more doubts because the teachings have been fully understood - it's very clear what everything means and how everything fits together.
In SN 13.1, the Buddha taught that the suffering remaining for a stream entrant is like dirt at the tip of a finger nail, compared to suffering that has been endured, the size of planet Earth.
So, stream entry is that point of no return when one cannot go back to complete ignorance of the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the three marks of existence and dependent origination.
Here's an analogy. Stream entry is like that point in time where you have completely understood how diet, exercise, obesity, metabolism, homeostasis, ageing and non-communicable diseases work. There's no more denial, delusion and doubt. There's no more ritualistic practice of diet and exercise without understanding. The remaining journey to attainment of Arahatship, is like the rigorous journey of improving one's diet and exercise further till perfect health and fitness is achieved.