text:
How to get along
As we all know, Harmony in the Sangha is one of the most important attributes of the practicing community which necessarily live and work together.
Yet, it is almost inevitable for people - imperfect as we are - to be drawn into squabbles and/or unwittingly hurt one another's feelings in our daily interactions (or non-interactions) with one another.
Association with the enemy, as it turns out, is one of the 8 Dukkha's expounded by the Buddha. So:
What are the Buddha's advice for people who cannot get along?
How should people resolve conflicts when they arise?
What should you do to protect yourself if you were deeply hurt by someone close to you?

Whether it's sangha or Upāsikā same point needs to focused. The answer is in your question it self.

How should people resolve conflicts when they arise? What should you
  do to protect yourself if you were deeply hurt by someone close to
  you?

If you closely look at the bold words, I've made highlighted above, you would understand the reason for the problem.
Conflicts: Conflicts are there when something didn't happen the way you want to be. yampi ichchan na labhathi thampi dukkan. That's the root cause for all the conflicts that we face in our lives. So understanding the reality of the nature (dhamma) will stop you from expecting things to happen the way you want to be. Until you understand that, conflicts will happen. ( I can't explain how to understand it here, because if I do, the majority of the audience will down vote this answer)
Close to you: This means you are attached to a person thinking he/she is worth or he/she does have a value to you. But as mentioned above since you can't control the things as the way you want it, the closer people hurt you more. Because you thought the closer people (more valuable ones) will behave as the way you expect to be for sure. But it might not happened if there's no reasons for that to happen. That means it will hurt you more, because you are too much attached to them because you though they are more valuable.

In MN 128, the Buddha gave this advice:

For enmity in this world
  is never settled by enmity.
It’s only settled by love:
  this is an ancient principle.
Others don’t understand
  that our lives must have limits.
  The clever ones who know this
settle their quarrels right away.

The word that was translated as "love" above is avera in Pali, which is translated by some dictionaries as friendliness or kindness.
The same sutta also teaches us how to get along with others:

Then Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimbila came out to greet the Buddha. ...
“I hope you’re living in harmony, appreciating each other, without
  quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other
  with kindly eyes?”
“Indeed, sir, we live in harmony as you say.”
“But how do you live this way?”
“In this case, sir, I think: ‘I’m fortunate, so very fortunate, to
  live together with spiritual companions such as these.’ I consistently
  treat these venerables with kindness by way of body, speech, and mind,
  both in public and in private. I think: ‘Why don’t I set aside my own
  ideas and just go along with these venerables’ ideas?’ And that’s what
  I do. Though we’re different in body, sir, we’re one in mind, it seems
  to me.”
And the venerables Nandiya and Kimbila spoke likewise, and they added:
  “That’s how we live in harmony, appreciating each other, without
  quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other
  with kindly eyes.”

Have a "mind of good will" that's independent of other people's speech and behaviour.
MN 21

In the same way, monks, others may use these five modes of speech when speaking to you — speech that is timely or untimely, true or false, gentle or harsh, with a good or a harmful motive, and with a loving heart or hostility. In this way, monks, you should train yourselves: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred.

Do not "participate" when someone else seems to offer or invite hostility and argument
SN 7.2

Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman.

If you begin to feel angry, act to "check" it and not to get carried away with it
Dhp 222

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

Don't hold a grudge
Dhp 1..6

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

This fits with other doctrine too, e.g. anatta.

Beware of pride
Māna (Wikipedia)

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Though you might sometimes think you have a "sharp mind" and see things clearly, avoid using that as your excuse for having a "sharp tongue".
MN 22

They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

Ud 6.4

Not knowing what is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this.'

If you can't agree with someone perhaps you should stop trying:
AN 4.111

His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.

DN 16

After my passing, give the prime punishment to the mendicant Channa.”
“But sir, what is the prime punishment?”
“Channa may say what he likes, but the mendicants should not advise or instruct him.”

Dhp 61

Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.

Don't forget Right Speech

In one of my first jobs, there was a meeting where I was too enthusiastic about my own plan of how to do something, instead of politely taking time to listen to other people. Afterwards, my manager gave me this advice privately -- "It isn't enough to be right" -- which I think was saying that, although I was right, I should consider being more agreeable.

This has been answered;

"Monks, these six are conditions that are conducive to amiability, that engender feelings of endearment, engender feelings of respect, leading to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of unity. Which six?
"There is the case where a monk is set on bodily acts of good will with regard to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition[...]
"Furthermore, the monk is set on verbal acts of good will with regard to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition[...]
"Furthermore, the monk is set on mental acts of good will with regard to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition [...]
"Furthermore, whatever righteous gains the monk may obtain in a righteous way — even if only the alms in his bowl — he does not consume them alone. He consumes them after sharing them in common with his virtuous fellows in the holy life. This is a condition [...]
"Furthermore — with reference to the virtues that are untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration — the monk dwells with his virtue in tune with that of his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition [...]
"Furthermore — with reference to views that are noble, leading outward, that lead those who act in accordance with them to the right ending of suffering & stress — the monk dwells with his views in tune with those of his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition [...]
"These are the six conditions that are conducive to amiability, that engender feelings of endearment, engender feelings of respect, leading to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of unity."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.012.than.html

There is also this excerpt which i like;

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.”
“Surely, venerable sir, we are living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.”
“But, Anuruddha, how do you live thus?”

“Venerable sir, as to that, I think thus: ‘It is a gain for me, it is a great gain for me that I am living with such companions in the holy life.’ I maintain bodily acts of loving-kindness towards these venerable ones both openly and privately; I maintain verbal acts of loving-kindness towards them both openly and privately; I maintain mental acts of loving-kindness towards them both openly and privately. I consider: ‘Why should I not set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do?’ Then I set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do. We are different in body, venerable sir, but one in mind.”

The venerable Nandiya and the venerable Kimbila each spoke likewise, adding: “That is how, venerable sir, we are living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.”http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/302-upakkilesa-sutta-imperfections.html

Whenever someone was behaving particularly bad this was advised;

The practice of Dhamma, [1] the practice of continence, [2] mastery of this is said to be best if a person has gone forth from home to the homeless life. But if he is garrulous and, like a brute, delights in hurting others, his life is evil and his impurity increases.
"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed.
Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.
"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.06.irel.html

Here is a story of a monk being forced out of a recitation of patimokkha;

Revered sir, let the Lord recite the Patimokkha to the bhikkhus." When this was said the Lord remained silent.
When the night was (still further) advanced and the middle watch had ended, a second time the Venerable Ananda arose from his seat... and said to the Lord: "The night is far advanced, revered sir, the middle watch has ended and the bhikkhus have been sitting for a long time. Revered sir, let the Lord recite the Patimokkha to the bhikkhus." A second time the Lord remained silent.
When the night was (yet further) advanced and the last watch had ended, as dawn was approaching and the night was drawing to a close, a third time the Venerable Ananda arose from his seat... and said to the Lord: "The night is far advanced, revered sir, the last watch has ended; dawn is approaching and the night is drawing to a close and the bhikkhus have been sitting for a long time. Revered sir, let the Lord recite the Patimokka to the bhikkhus."
"The gathering is not pure, Ananda."
Then the Venerable Mahamoggallana thought: "Concerning which person has the Lord said, 'The gathering is not pure, Ananda'?" And the Venerable Mahamoggallana, comprehending the minds of the whole Order of bhikkhus with his own mind, saw that person sitting in the midst of the Order of bhikkhus — immoral, wicked, of impure and suspect behavior, secretive in his acts, no recluse though pretending to be one, not practicing the holy life though pretending to do so, rotten within, lustful and corrupt. On seeing him he arose from his seat, approached that person, and said: "Get up, friend. You are seen by the Lord. You cannot live in communion with the bhikkhus." But that person remained silent.
A second time and a third time the Venerable Mahamoggallana told that person to get up, and a second time and a third time that person remained silent. Then the Venerable Mahamoggllana took that person by the arm, pulled him outside the gate, and bolted it. Then he approached the Lord and said: "Revered sir, I have ejected that person. The assembly is quite pure. Revered sir, let the Lord recite the Patimokkha to the bhikkhus."
"It is strange, Moggallana, it is remarkable, Moggallana, how that stupid person should have waited until he was taken by the arm."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.irel.html

Vinaya contains a lot of procedures that are conducive to getting along. It restrains bad behaviour in precept and opens opportunity for confession & making known a suspicion and outlines procedures of censorship, rehabilitation and expulsion.

Harmony is difficult because there are so many difficult sects & heretics (with different interpretations of the teachings).
Certain individuals, as I have personally witnessed over the years, think they have right view and, when others disagree with them, they quit Dhamma internet forums.
For example, I have never quit any forum because I am unconcerned with praise or blame; agreement or disagreement.
I am often blamed for puting the Dhamma sword thru heretics until they quit.
How can there be harmony when the teachings of the Buddha are not even respected?
The scriptures say:

Furthermore — with reference to views that are noble, leading outward, that lead those who act in accordance with them to the right ending of suffering & stress — the monk dwells with his views in tune with those of his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs. This is a condition

This shows when "views in tune with those of his fellows" does not exist; harmony will not exist.
Therefore, the question of "How to get along?" is answered by each member of the Sangha having the right view as taught by the Buddha.


text:
How would a Buddhist advise on this subset of problems of motivation?
Some call Buddhism psychology, so maybe it can help -- me.
This sense that doing something -- let's take a difficult but generic example, learning sanskrit -- is a wonderful, exciting idea; but one never gets started with it, because there is no tangible psychological or material benefit from it -- for whatever reason [you won't find anyone new to talk with, most texts are in translation, no-one will care, etc.].
What remedy is there for this?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking about a remedy for lack of motivation?

yes, but i am also describing exactly what sort of lack of motivation i mean @Erik

or at least framing it

Nyom likes to know reasonings for learn worldly skills, maybe languages, right?

You seem to be thinking clearly. What are you trying to find a remedy for? Is there some part of you that thinks you should learn Sanskrit? .

@PeterJ motivational problems [both apathy and -- mild -- depression] are not limited to people who can't think straight

From the article "Two Exercises for Turning Intention into Motivation" by Thupten Jinpa on Buddhist site tricycle.org, we see some useful tips on how to motivate yourself to do a task that you set yourself to do.
He states that "parents who have struggled with their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything changed the moment the child began enjoying it." Basically you need to find a way to enjoy what you're doing - this is intrinsic motivation. When you enjoy it, the rest comes naturally.
You can try the two exercises on this page.

The question of how we motivate ourselves to pursue our deeper
  aspirations has been a major interest in the long history of Buddhist
  psychology. In Buddhist thinking, motivation is a matter of desire,
  more specifically the desire to act accompanied with a sense of
  purpose. Say, in the case of being more compassionate, it’s by making
  emotional connection with compassion and its objectives that we arouse
  in ourselves the desire to act. And it’s through seeing the benefits
  that we acquire a sense of purpose in being more compassionate.
Contemporary psychology has only relatively recently come to
  appreciate the role of emotions in motivating our behavior. For a long
  time, the Western theory of action was dominated by rational choice
  theory, and emotions were accused of clouding the process rather than
  being an integral part of the system. To articulate the dual dimension
  of our motivation—cognitive awareness of and emotional connection with
  our goals—Buddhist psychology uses a term that is almost impossible to
  capture in any single word in English. The Sanskrit term shraddha
  (depa in Tibetan) has a broad range of meaning, the important ones
  being “faith,” “trust,” “belief,” or “confidence,” connoting
  “appreciation” and “admiration” as well. Shraddha is a felt sense like
  trust, rather than a cognitive state like belief or knowledge.
  Experientially, shraddha feels something like attachment or attraction
  to our goal, like being inspired to play guitar when you see a rock
  star do it. It’s this quality, shraddha, that primes our heart and
  mind to roll up our sleeves and play.
How do we tap our emotional reservoir? Cognitions play a critical
  role, which the early Buddhist texts characterize as seeing the value
  of doing something. Through cognitive engagement, such as seeing the
  benefits, we connect intention with motivation. So, within this causal
  nexus, the crucial link to watch for is the one between our awareness
  of the goal and why we would go for it, our feelings about the goal,
  and our desire or will to pursue it.
Then, again, it’s the joy we take in our efforts—the courage to try,
  the dedication to stick with it—and their results that helps sustain
  our motivations over the long run. Or, in other words, makes us want
  to keep trying and keep doing it. Parents who have struggled with
  their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything
  changed the moment the child began enjoying it. This is called
  intrinsic motivation, as opposed to the extrinsic motivation of, for
  example, the parent rewarding the child with more screen time for
  practicing her instrument. From decades of motivation research, we
  know that intrinsic motivation is far more stable and enduring. The
  process of setting intentions and joyfully reflecting on them in
  dedication is how, over time, we transform extrinsic into intrinsic
  motivations, and thereby sustain the energy and purpose to live true
  to our best aspirations.

incidentally, my mother suggested lower your expectations -- it won't be as motivating as you think. thanks

@sorta_buddhist My music teacher told me he wanted me to practice for five minutes every day -- that 5 minutes a day of practice is better than half an hour once per week -- and I can't say "I don't have time" to practice for just 5 minutes. He also set me to learning (enjoyable) tunes rather than (boring) exercises like playing scales. When I did, then I found my skill improved, not day by day but week by week -- and that (success) enables motivation to continue.

just to add -- might it be and the answer link to something about the need for shared -- rather than personal -- meaning?

According to Buddhism, faith in something is the foundation of motivation.

he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Who should we regard as role models?
When practicing the Dhamma there are many exemplary characters found in Buddhist texts who are worthy of emulation,I want to know whether it would be right for a layman to regard an Arahant Bhikkuni as his role model. Is it suitable?

Sure, why not. The Buddha or any of His noble disciples would be good role models. After all, isn't a role model someone you're looking up to and wanting to become one yourself one day, but as of the moment, you have not quite attained to the same level as theirs just yet?

In my opinion, keep only Buddha as your role model otherwise you will be in for a dissapontmemt. The next option is to keep any other teacher who is passed away without any known bad publicity. It is not advisable to keep any other living teacher as your role model. However, you can keep any living Kalyanamitta (spiritual friend) as your role model. The reason being you can accept any drawbacks of your spiritual friend as you know they are not perfect.

From where does a not noble one know that another isn't perfect? Such is impossible, as the Buddha taught, good householder. May he be carefull since defilements know the way back and forward to use for their blossom.

Honored Buddhaparisada,
Good Householder Isira Ratnayake, interested,
Those wishing to follow the path of liberation, the path of the Noble One, seek for Arahats as there foremost refuge, headed by the Sublime Buddha.

'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'

The Savaka Sangha consits as the living refuge, those who have followed straight.

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

Usually people took and take Refuge in the Community of Monks, after their master himself.
If it is proper to take a certain person or a Bhikkhuni, or a woman as a men, as near model?
Some points to consider:

Seeking Refuge in Individuals as perceived as perfect, bears the danger of missperception and so it's especially for those not having joined the Sainthood better to stay at the Sangha as field of merits, seeing ones chosen particular guide in times of sacrifices within or after them.
Refuge in woman might be often accompanied with defiled thought, yet not necessary so. How ever, good if always seeking for the foremost.
Turning toward another gender bears a lot of danger and so was even at the Buddhas time the the very near guidiance total unusual and seperated. Althought the female Sangha was bound after the male, they had to look after the refined under their "own kind".
A mixed gender relation for a intensive student and teacher relation is even not something praised for children and parent, the lesser free of many dangers for a spiritual, yet there might be seldom exceptions where all works out benefical and of course a wise and decerning person can benefit from all.

If a woman seeks for intensive training she does good and is encouraged to seek after a female near teacher, one who has the higher and foremost as refuge herself, and guides on also to the monks. What isn't good is to seek after a group or person who stands in conflict and opposition of formal hierarchies and is better to be avoided for the most cases. People with problems with hierarchies, even with gender respect problems are heavy ensnared in Sakayaditthi, pride "better am I, worst am I, equal am I"
While Vinaya, conduct, way of life, as foundation of Dhamma, should be seeks to gain under same kind, in regard of teachings of mind-matters, Dhamma, one does good to seek out for Arahats, at least Noble ones, regardless of Gender.
So since the "relation" between layperson and Monastics focuses most more on Dhamma, there is really problem to take a good Bhikkhuni as foremost model in regard of taught as long as living in proper dependency and still in different modes of live.
The have been even ex-husbands seeking for Dhamma, to gain path, from their former wives and Bhikkhunis appear often as great advicers in the texts for (mostly singe) lay people.
May it be of help to straighten the importand things out.
Possible extended answer and given space for discussion and deeper investigation can be found here.
(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks and what binds here, but for escape from this wheel)

Role models exist for when we reach their level.
Otherwise, for example, if you use an Arahant as a role model, you may end up disparaging & reviling stream-enterers, once-returners & non-returners, which will lead to your rebirth in hell and particularly rebirth in the animal kingdom of dumb beasts.

The key advantage in making the Buddha your role model is that although the Buddha is not living amongst us, his Radiance is present in the Cosmos, in the form of Cosmic Energy. When we pay homage through Buddhanusati, we're linking up with that Cosmic Energy. It is extremely powerful. Many faith based religions survive purely on such devotion. The Buddha however stressed the need to couple Faith or Shraddha, with the rest of the 5 x faculties i.e Shraddha, Veeriya, Sati, Samadhi, Panna.

From AN 4.159

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I think that "conceit" includes comparing oneself to someone else -- I am worse, I am equal, I am better, I could be equal, and so on, see for example How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
But the quote above suggests that maybe it is not a "who" (a role model, a person) but is a "what", to be regarded as exemplary -- i.e. it's the practice ("the ending of fermentations").
See also SN 6.2 -- not because one is "more consummate than others", but because the dhamma is "to be known individually / by oneself".

I think this is only a partial answer to your question, a half an answer, see also SN 45.2 -- see also AN 8.54:

And what is meant by admirable friendship? There is the case where a lay person, in whatever town or village he may dwell, spends time with householders or householders' sons, young or old, who are advanced in virtue. He talks with them, engages them in discussions. He emulates consummate conviction in those who are consummate in conviction, consummate virtue in those who are consummate in virtue, consummate generosity in those who are consummate in generosity, and consummate discernment in those who are consummate in discernment. This is called admirable friendship.

See also Ud 4.1 on the effect of a monk having admirable people as friends, companions and colleagues.

It answer "that" one should, but not "whom" or "what", right Nyom? Maybe just a reaction on an useless account by someone else here, so far, worthy to better focus on the original Question, or?

@SamanaJohann I think it's the admirable practices which are to be emulated, even more than the admirable people -- one thing to admire people, better to admire the admirable virtues or practices which they embody. Doing so, making that distinction, might help to avoid some of the dangers (e.g. missperception or dissapointmemt ... or misplaced guru-worship) identified in your and SarathW's answers.

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


text:
What's the role of mother-day in regard of a blessed life?
Being broad celebrated mothers-day today, my person thought to give this question space so that many might share reflections on it and pissible give others good inspirations:
What role does a day like mothersday play for a blessed life, for a follower of the Buddhas Dhamma, and how would it be good spend by mind words and bodily deeds?
(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for escape from this wheel)

I would like to paraphrase Luang Por Viradhammo, who cared for about 10 years for his elderly mother, in saying that it is good to have formal ways of bringing up and maintaining gratitude for ones mother lest we become complacent and let the importance they have in our being here fade from our minds.
With that in mind, I would say that exactly how you would internally use the formal occasion of mother's day is something only yourself can piece together. I hope the two links I am sharing can help give you a good starting point for reflection.
Dhamma talk by Luang Por Sumedho about gratitude to parents
Article by Ajahn Amaro

Sadhu, Sadhu Here are some reads as well, for inspiration and maintain right view, gratitude: Withou gratitude no success

This is how u have a good day
Waking up as the third [last] watch of the night begins one gets up quickly thinking 'i will not indulge in the pleasures of sleeping, reclining and lazy stretching'.
Definitely not sleeping until sunrise snoring...
During the last watch of the night, sitting & pacing back & forth, one cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the day, sitting & pacing back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the first watch of the night, sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check.
During the second watch of the night, reclining on his right side, he takes up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with his mind set on getting up.
Practicing moderation in eating, guarding the senses and being devoted to wakefulness, that's how one cleanses the mind and has an auspicious day.

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.
  Ardently doing
  what should be done     today,
  for — who knows? —  tomorrow
      death.
  There is no bargaining
  with Mortality & his mighty horde.
Whoever lives thus ardently,
      relentlessly
      both day & night,
  has truly had an auspicious day:
  so says the Peaceful Sage.
  "'Monks, I will teach you the summary & exposition of one who has had an auspicious day.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html

Not only on mother's day should one do this.
If possible one can spend the mother's day absorbed in meditation, preferably nirodhasamapatti.

While living in a house and eating mothers off... Good to work on raw abounding first and get there most debt-free, since the bills come also if one maintains and trains household-equanimity.


text:
How to deal with exhaustion?
So, I meditate every for more than half an hour during the evenings and also five minutes session every one or two hours during my work so I keep myself calm all the time(not every day but I am trying to do in these lockdown days) but what I feel is I easily get exhausted from my work which involves only heavy mental activities.
But otherwise if I let myself refresh doing things which excites us like joking with my friends, watching fast beat songs, etc. I can continue my work feeling energetic. But the downside of this is I easily get carried away with the stuffs I do for refreshing or even get stressed with my work.
How to balance this?(physically i am weak person due to medical problem)

I would advice improving the effectiveness of meditation by learning more, this so that you might more often attain a pleasant abiding when you meditate and otherwise.
One can start by adressing the exhaustion & lack of energy by giving a lot of attention to the theme of wakefulness, the benefits of wakefulness, to the fearfulness of laziness & lazy stretching and to the drawbacks of getting into a habit of sleeping too much.
This can be contemplated for some time and will be effective if established as dominant perspective and will thus remain for as long as maintained by sufficient giving of attention to the theme of wakefulness.
When one gets over exhaustion one might be restless and a restless mind can be calmed by ie breath meditation.
If you learn how to get over states like exhaustion, restlessness, regret, doubt, anger and sensual pleasure seeking, then you will be in charge of directing and the states you compose in meditation will more often be rewarding and pleasant.
The resolves and inclinations will change by themselves according to development.

In the distant past we all used our bodies more and health came more naturally. Today, we sit and type at computers. Continuing that sitting in meditation can therefore be unfruitful. Fortunately the Buddha anticipated different needs over time and suggested that walking meditation is beneficial:

AN5.29:1.1: “Mendicants, there are five benefits of walking meditation. What five? You get fit for traveling, fit for striving in meditation, and healthy. What’s eaten, drunk, chewed, and tasted is properly digested. And immersion gained while walking lasts long. These are the five benefits of walking meditation.”

I sit all day and compensate by walking meditation, sometimes listening to the suttas as I walk. I download sutta audio from voice.suttacentral.net for offline listening. My earbuds signal a desire for seclusion. Indeed, during the current COVID crisis, we can all be secluded while walking.
May your practice reenergize you!


text:
Can this Buddhist do this job?
At my university I and my group were offered a case of opinion on Buddhism.
Neither I nor my colleagues are Buddhists so we have done a lot of research in the last few days, but we are afraid of misinterpreted this religion.
The case given to us is about a Buddhist who works in an investment fund and basically his job is to recommend investments to clients.
Right now, the best investment he can recommend is related to the manufacture and exchange of automatic weapons.
We found that having a job that causes suffering to other creatures is against buddhism and for that reason, since weapons are something that is created to cause suffering the worker is in doubt...
Can he recommend this investment on weapon to his clients because recommending this investment is really far from causing suffering to other creature with a gun or it doesn't matter and it is against the buddhism and he should leave this job ?
Thank you,
Tiago from Portugal

Related topics -- Jobs indirectly related to the meat business and Can lay people be involved in the weapons business?. People can tell you what the doctrine and the commentary say (see here) -- it says something but not much -- any more than that might presumably be based on various people's own opinions/interpretations.

Are you his employer, or affiliated with his employer?

Since we haven't attained the kind of wisdom the Buddha or His noble disciples possessed, when in doubt, try to err on the safe side. Investment fund activities are a kind of educated gambling and hence would be best to avoid if possible. If that's not possible, at least try to avoid giving advise on weaponry, at least try to focus on life-saving pharmaceutical drugs, or life-sustaining commodities like grains, food, oil, etc.

To everyone who replied, thank you, it helped a lot !

not to be pedantic: he can: ought he not? i'm almost certain that buddhists do not consider one's profession as an excuse [butcher, bar tender, organized crime], and will even tell you not to keep friends that are fishermen, etc

It may not be necessary to be a Buddhist to realize that doing harm to others by selling weapons, is not a wholesome act.

Yes. It looks like a rhetorical question.

Its wrong livelihood if the investment advisor persuasively recommends the investment, i.e. actively attempts to get his clients to fund the weapons company. Since shareholders are owners of a company, the shareholders are carrying on a business of trading in weapons.
Its not wrong livelihood if the investor merely points out the features of the weapons investment to his clients. There is no need for the investment advisor to "recommend" the investment. Instead, the investment advisor merely needs to "inform" the clients of the investment and leave it to the investors to make their own choice.
For example. I have been asked to contact you about a new investment opportunity our company is facilitating for our clients. It is an investment in a new weapons company. The return on the investment is expected to be 50% per annum because there is currently a war between Portugal & Spain and the new company is contracted to supply its new technology to the Portugese regime. The Portuguese regime, which is backed by the USA, has entered into a contract for 10 years of supply. If you are personally interested in investing in this weapons company, you can apply through our company, which has the exclusive rights to organise the public offer.
However, it would always be wrong livelihood if such offerings were very common in the job. In reality, an investment company would know what type of industries their clients are willing to invest in because generally investment companies ask these questions when taking clients.
In other words, generally, probably the same investment companies & the same clients would would manage & subscribe to the public offerings of new weapons companies. It would be wrong livelihood to work for an investment company inherently connected to the weapons industry.
For a Buddhist practitioner, it would be dispiriting/disheartening to frequently be dealing in weapons investments. But if this occurred only one a year, then a Buddhist invest advisor could present the information about the investment while remaining detached from the job. As originally said, the investment advisor cannot "recommend" the investment. They can only "inform" a client about the investment and speak in a way that places the intention or motivation to invest upon the client.
The law of kamma/intention is something natural & determined by neurological psychology. As said, for a Buddhist practitioner, it would be dispiriting/disheartening to frequently be dealing in weapons investments; even if the Buddhist tried to merely "inform" the client.
In Buddhism, there is a story not spoken by the Buddha about a hunter's wife who was partially enlightened. Personally, I do not agree with his non-Buddha story the hunter's wife might perform her duties cleaning the traps and such without blame of killing; because the Buddha taught husbands & wives should share the same morality. If the hunter will be reborn in hell for hunting, it is unlikely an enlightened wife would not exercise compassion & try to change her husband.

In the Pali scriptures, there are at least three teachings required to consider this matter:

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants and business in poison.
Vanijja Sutta

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & intellect.
Nibbedhika Sutta

And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the
unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
Sammaditthi Sutta

But, is there a correct answer ? Or it depends ? We saw some opinions that he should keep recommending the investment because he is to far away and others opinions that it doesn't matter how far you are. My question is, ''in the real world'' how a real compromised buddhist should act on this, is there a consensus among buddhists or there are split opinions ?

You have been given a question to think about, rather than get another person to answer it for you.

yes, i see you think I'm trying to have my job done by some other person... but we really have been thinking and researching about it an we came to our conclusions and what we want to know now isn't written only someone who really practice Buddhism can answer.. that is, is there only one way to look at the Buddhism teachings or each Buddhism can interpret in slightly different ways without being wrong ?

Ok... i will post another answer

Understood, I deep thank you for taking the time to explain me !

I have a friend, isn't Buddhist that I know of but is an investment adviser. Some (I don't know how many) investment funds like to do "ethical" investing -- and he gives them advice, about whether for example an investment is ecologically sustainable, whether it pollutes, oppresses the local people, etc.
I'm not sure if that answers your question (about "doing this job").
It might be a Buddhist answer, an ideal -- i.e. that it's OK to work, but to work ethically, prefer a more ethical path within the career.

Cultural Politics and Asian Values By Michael D. Barr

As pointed out

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons

So, unless you want to be disingenuous about it, he should not. Reality -- for most -- is a compromise; that doesn't make it permissible, just excused by oneself and others.
I'm unsure why you are asking here.


text:
Recognizing the loss of fetters
I have a question regarding the fetters. Once a fetter is lost, is it obvious to that person that it has been lost? If one has doubt about the loss of a fetter, is that in itself proof that it has not been lost?
Many thanks.

Most fall in sets, good householder.

The first Fetter is personality view i.e. the belief that you're in charge of your destiny. To overcome this fetter is rated the most difficult. If you do succeed, it means that you physically experience, during meditation, that you're no longer in charge. Your breath has disappeared. You're not in control even of your own breathing. You may experience that your breathing has vanished and you try your best to get the breath back. But, you fail because when you overcome the first fetter you are no longer in control even of your own breathing. There is No Self - Anatma. After reaching this stage during meditation and you reflect back when you are off the cushion, there is no doubt in your mind that there was no personality operating during that specific period of time, when you lost control of your breathing. Yes, it is quite obvious.

Thank you. I have another question, do you need Right Concentration before this occurs? Ie, uninterrupted focus on the breath.

And is it only in meditation where you feel that change?

Yes, Right Concentration is needed. There is a package of things that need to be done. Belief in samsara means that you've lived for millenia without achieving the purification of the mind, needed for a breakthrough on the fetters. The Doctrine spells out the need for Virtue, Concentration and Wisdom as the 3 key elements in this package. The 8 Eightfold Path encompasses these 3 elements. The 4 x Foundations of Mindfulness, spell out the specifics that lead to Right Concentration. However, these 4 x Foundations are only 4 of 37 Aids to Enlightenment that need to be mastered. Its a long haul.

@ Danyaal. Ref your second comment above, Meditation is only a means to purify the mind and therefore is not the only method to make ''you feel that change.'' The scriptures refer to a minority of  people who were able to purify themselves without resorting to meditation. I believe, the Buddha referred to the 4 x Foundations of Mindfulness as the Only Way in the Satipattana Sutta, as this was applicable to the great majority of mankind.

If one has doubt about the loss of a fetter, is that in itself proof that it has not been lost?

Yes.

Fetters are eliminated in four stages of Sotapanna, Sakdhagamia, Anagami, and Arahant.
You experience the first elimination of fetters when you become a Sotapanna.
As per ven. Vijithananda .this happened when you practice Satipathana and for the first time you experience elements. (Dhatu) At this stage, you eliminate self-view, doubt and clinging to rites and rituals.


text:
Why did Buddha put so much emphasis on no-self?
Why should we care if we have no-self or have a self. Ultimately it is of no help. I know any buddhist teacher will say that feelings or body are not-self, so you shouldn't get attached to it, but even if we do assume that we have no-self still we face the consequences of kamma. We just can't pretend that this body is not-self and cherish once it starts to decay. Everyone understands that no-self is truth but how can it help us remove our suffering? The only option I see is that you pretend that because of no-self your suffering has lessened, but does this pretending ever help? No,never.
In short, how does the theory of no-self help us in a real sense, not just in pretending sense. Why is this no-self so important to Buddha?

Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta would help a lot to understand proper, without extrems, often adopted others then the middle path.

How does it help in real sense

One "real" sense would be to read, good householder, and then put it into practice. My person does not think that good householder known much of what the Buddha actually taught and so any comment in doubt or request based on being informed actually makes no "real" sense, or would it?

In the suttas, the phrase the Buddha uses is "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self". People seem to ignore the "This is not mine, I am not this" part and focus mostly on the "not my self" part.

You're speaking of the self as if it is real. Only when you know it is not does the benefit of knowing otherwise become real. Being told the self is unreal will be of no help to you except as a clue. The idea is most definitely not to pretend anything.
You say 'Even if we do assume....' It would be an error to assume anything, and of no use at all. When you see beyond the self you wont be asking about the benefits but marveling at them. The theory is practically useless, the reality is all that counts.
You say everyone understands that no-self is truth but this is far from being the case. Even you seem to be questioning it. I'd guess 1 in 500 would be an optimistic estimate of how may people think non-self is truth, and those who know are even thinner on the ground. Most people wouldn't know what you're talking about.
The 'theory' of no-self is not designed to help us. It's not designed at all. It's just what is the case. It is not a theory for those who know but just the way things are.

If theory of "no-self " is not designed to help us,then why Buddha preached it..Buddha would have remained silent on this topic..he remained silent on many topics but not on no-self...he gave reason why he remains silent on certain topic ,because it is not connected to goal https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.wlsh.html

I think i understand what you mean as in there is no theory to be developed. It's all about reconsidering the doctrine of self and abandoning that, no need to develop a new doctrine.

@UdayKumar - A slight misunderstanding I think. It does help us, yes, but it is not a theory designed to help us. It just describes what is the case. If it was not the case it would not be taught. .

The answer to the question is the message of the Nakulapita Sutta.

Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?
He assumes [each of the five aggregates] to be the self, or the self as possessing [each aggregate], or [each aggregate] as in the self, or the self as in [each aggregate]. He is seized with the idea that 'I am [each aggregate]' or '[The aggregate] is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his [aggregate] changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.
And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume [each aggregate] to be the self, or the self as possessing [each aggregate], or [each aggregate] as in the self, or the self as in [each aggregate]. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am [each aggregate]' or '[The aggregate] is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his [aggregate] changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.
This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind."
That is what Ven. Sariputta said. Gratified, the householder Nakulapita delighted in Ven. Sariputta's words.

The intellectual understanding of anatta is not particularly complicated, and i agree with you in that regard.
However, dhamma teaches us that intellectual reflection is one out of three types of wisdom:

Learned panna (suta-maya-panna)
Intellectual reflecting (cinta-maya-panna)
Spiritual experiencing (bhavana-maya-panna)

And how is final knowledge achieved by gradual training, gradual practice, gradual progress? Here one who has faith in a teacher visits him; when he visits him, he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up in him; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom.

https://suttacentral.net/mn70/en/bodhi
This means that the road to enlightenment is not merely intellectual understanding. We also need the tacit knowledge of experiencing anatta directly, through the aid of sati and samadhi.
To use a metaphor: the instructions for learning to walk on a slack line is easy to understand. However, to learn how to walk the slack line we need the experience that comes from specific practice.
(On a side note, buddha never spoke about "no-self", but instead about not-self. There is a subtle but substantial difference between the two).

Thanks a lot.. btw what is the difference between no-self and not-self

@UdayKumar See this topic, for instance: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22643/why-is-i-have-no-self-a-wrong-view

I think the intellectual understanding is very difficult because people don't understand how one previous life can be connected to another if there isn't a self that is unaffected by birth.

We are trapped in this vicious understanding of Self. I am superior , I am inferior , I am equal ... I did that ... I am doing this ..I will do that... The conceit and view of 'I AM ' runs our life. We are holding wrong view and this wrong view is pushing us into greater trouble forever. Therefore holding the right view and holding no conceit of 'I AM' takes away all your troubles and helps you achieve Nirvana. Thus it is of great great help.
Understanding No-Self helps us in great many number of ways. First and foremost it makes you dispassionate towards the five aggregates i.e. form, feelings, perceptions, choices and consciousness... Once dispassionate you escape from suffering !!!
This theory is very much real. Try to put it in practice.

The doctrine of self varies in what is assumed to be true and what is taken to be a self.
The notion of self is a massive cause of psychosis. In dependence on it one thinks; 'i was, am or will be..', 'i am good because of this..', 'i am bad..', 'this is mine, may this be mine', 'this is my self, my self is good, is bad or may it be otherwise' etc
This idea is a ground for a lot of decision making. Ie one delineates other people as not self and one's own thinking & body as a self. One then might think; 'i am bad because of this painful circumstance, may i  be in a pleasant circumstance, may my self thus become good, i will attain a pleasant state by causing grief to 'not self'.
Here it is basis for greed, ill-will & delusion. If the idea of self turns out to be a false delineation, empty in meaning, without a referent which can be established as a truth, then the whole line of reasoning leading to thoughts of ill will to another would turn out to be a tought of ill will in general in that it would have to be reconsidered as a baseless strategy for attaining happiness.
If there is no self then how would one treat good the elements which can be grasped by wrong view to be a self when one cultivates the element of cruelty towards other external elements which are otherwise identical to thr internal ones a body is a body, life-force is life-force, intellect is intellect, feeling is feeling; in the worst case it will turn out as a practical impossibility and element of cruelty will affect that which is taken to be personal as well, thus one might be harming oneself by harming others whilst cultivating elements of ill will, cruelty & delusion based on an untrue doctrine of a self; dwelling in wrong resolve & false expectations.
Furthermore if one treats oneself good by treating others good, thinking; 'my self is made good by making others good, i will remain like this'
This might turn out false, if that which is taken to be a self turns out to be not permanent then it will change or cease, a further effort needs then to be exerted for maintenance of a good state. One remains enchanted by good states, it becomes the resolve. Resolve on existence, pleasant feelings on one end, unpleasant feelings on another, neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings in the middle.
Therefore the idea of self also ultimately blocks the resolve on knowing the unknown though liberation by wisdom based on disechantment; as it  maintains the perception of existence being worthwhile  there is then a lack of development of the  intellect due to frequent giving of wrong attention and the nourishment of hindrances.

Well, it's not about the self existing or not existing, it's about taking this one thing to be all-important, important over everything and everyone else. And then all the suffering that everyone (including you, the thing) has to experience because you want this thing to live the longest and bestest life.
This is why it is emphasized, because undoing this illusion removes a large part of the problem that keeps perpetuating itself.

In scientific research on "Near Death Experiences" it is established that an individual who has had, say an experience, such as a near fatal motor accident, recalls the entire episode later after recovery in hospital. In this instance, the individual was able to cognize the entire episode from a detached "self". The doctors are often surprised that the individual recalls every detail from the time of the accident to the time of recovery in hospital. This shows that in this instance the ''self'' is detached from the body. At the point of our own death, when we leave our precious family and friends behind, this detached "self'' will still be operational but will not make a re-entry into the physical body as in the case of the motor accident victim. The Buddha explained that this ''self'' will be reborn in an infinite cycle of births and deaths. It is in this context that He said that there is no-self. His doctrinal message is that there is another "Self"  which is of a permanent  nature that is not subject to this infinite cycle. This other 'Self'' can be developed through a strict regimen of practices, which is the essence of His message. The discovery of this other "Self" is in the main, Experiential. The Reality of the other 'Self'' is a Universal Truth.  The Buddha only showed "The Way."

I mean, everyone understand that no-self is truth but how can it help us remove our suffering..the only option i see is that you pretend that because things were no-self ,it changed..but ask yourself does this pretending ever help ...no.never.

Maybe because one's still "pretending" to see this truth instead of actually put in the time and effort to actually "live" it? What do you think the root cause to your envy/jealousy when your friend has a girlfriend ten times hotter than your own girlfriend; or s/he's ten times more wealthy, smarter, stronger, more beautiful; or when your teamate got promoted to managing director and became the boss of the boss of your boss; or your anger/resentment when you present your project to him, which you dedicated countless hours of work, including your own private time, and s/he simply said: "It's a piece of sh.."? the list goes on and on and on, but they all share the same kind of stuff, the "I", "mine", and "myself"!

When there is no self, there is no war since just because everyone has been fighting for their own goods.  People in heaven knows to help, share with each other, hence they live there peacefully for a long time.
Greedy, hatred and ignorance/illusion are all because there is a self to bear.  Until understanding there is no self, there won’t be any afflictions not pains.
Is the arm, the teeth... mine?  Think about what will happen if loosing them.  They are not self.  Just like the mother who don’t have self but their children.  When people has no self but only others that they care about, they becomes Bodhisattva.

In my experience anyway, the idea of an absence of self as 'self importance' could seem completely crushing -- depending on how you look at it. From a quasi existential position, there may be some freedom to having a goal -- enlightenment -- that cannot ever be reached by me or you, is just about some impersonal causal series; or that may make it all seem quite disappointing.
No soul behind the scenes to suffer or be rewarded, only samsara and nirvana.
Anyway, without 'I and mine' you can imagine how greed and desire might be tempered; likewise hatred, its opposite. And if there really is no self, it makes sense that thinking there is multiplies all sorts of delusions and confused or foolish beliefs.

It Buddhist cosmology, soteriology etc. -- I mean the religion proper -- rebirth arises due to ignorance of how there is no "self" -- no unchanging substance making myself me, only a series of momentary causes and effects so that I am, like my experiences, completely contingent on past karma -- to be reborn


text:
Does anyone know what Bhodisattva this figurine represents?
I purchased this beautiful figurine, but actually I have no idea what exactly it represents. Maybe somebody can tell me more about the symbolism in it (including the mudra)?

The iconography — particularly the head-piece and dual lotus flowers — makes me think this is one of the manifestations of Tara (a Tibetan Buddha and a Mahayana bodhisattva). But I've never seen a Tara with crossed hands; the ubiquitous Green Tara is presented with open hands (left raised, right lowered).

This is a statue of Vajradhara, the primordial Buddha sitting in Virasana with his hands in a Vajrahumkara mudra.


text:
Comparing suffering of humans to people from higher realm
In the story of Prince Nanda, He equal the most beautiful female humen on earth to a died monkey as compared with a women from higher realm.
Lord Buddha said that The king of all earth is like a beggar in the heaven.
Are there more other detailed comparisons between humens and people from higher realms ?
I'm asking this because, I don't feel much suffer about this life. Life is going ok. But, If we compare the typical humen life to the life in heven, This is lot of suffering. Because, People of heavens doesn't need to do hard jobs. Some of them don't do any job. Brahmas don't get hungry. So, Having a better understanding of higher realms may helpful to understand suffering of this world.To avoid pursing physical things (Because richest/luckiest/happiest person is nothing compared to the heaven, most valuable thing/achievement is nothing compared to the heaven)
Kind regards.

Not even compareable, pleasure and lifespan, good householder, as if a human watches a bug or marggot, a fly. So easy to finde objets to observe to get a little taste Wanna go after dung further? Sure, a bug, ant... isn't aware of human realm even right around.

Even higher and gain-able right here and now: "Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of stream-entry
excels them."

I feel your ideas are too anthropomorphic and too various to deal with easily. I would just say that if you delve more deeply then you can expect most of these questions to fade away, to be replaced by a few even harder ones.

Answers, please. This is a Q&A site.

Some people are suffering because they have no food to eat. Some other people suffer because their home WiFi doesn't reach the toilet. I suppose it's something like that. (Can I write this as a zen-style answer?)

This is a [tag:reference-request] question -- the OP is asking for references.


text:
First cause, appearances and mind
Im asking about the Vajrayana or Mahayana view, but theravadan views are fine too. Buddhism rejects a first cause, but how can birth and death go in infinite regress? How did samsara start? Ultimately nothing arises yes, but then there would be no movement or action, right?
The only way I can posit a solution is the cyclic universe theory where mind and appearances have always existed, and are dependent upon each other. Thus they can be said to give rise to one another in a sense (but not in succession, just that without one the other cant exist). I think this is what Guru Rinpoche also said somewhere? Is this the Buddhist view?
By the way, I have recently converted to Buddhism after having debated it in the past. I want to understand it more, so this is not an attack on buddhist Pratityasamutpada.
This is very hard for me to understand. I am hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can provide some insight.
Edit:I think I have found an answer with the theory of the Five lights in dzogchen.matter and consciousness(wich is a element)are always there,and have always been there.

'The Dhamma Theory' pdf by Prof Y Karunadasa,  The Linga Sharira and The Akashic Record, may throw some light.

Let's say you are learning to play baseball.  One of the first thing you find out is that the game has nine innings.  What, you ask breathlessly, comes before the 1st inning????  While you are mulling that over, your turn comes at the plate.  You stand there asking yourself "What comes before the 1st?  What comes before the 1st????".  As you delve deeply into the fundamental nature of innings, their arising and their passing away, the pitcher lobs three balls to the catcher in quick succession.  The umpire calls you out.  You go back to the dugout none the wiser on the nature of innings nor having actually played the game.
Buddhism doesn't seek to make any ontological statements about reality.  Even the headiest of Buddhist philosophies are exclusively soteriological.  The statements they make on the nature of being, mind, karma, etc. are to be understood exclusively within that context.  Notions of beginning and endings or the nature of reality are entirely Western constructs that are completely out of bounds in discussions of Buddhism.  More to the point, they have no bearing whatsoever on the endeavor of Buddhist practice.

"Don't waste your time on doubts and arguments that have nothing to do
  with this." - Seng-Ts'an.

The Vajrayana (Dzogchen) interpretation is that in the beginning there was this "Ground of All". This ground is said to be spontaneously present, undifferentiated or undetermined, and having potential for manifestation of infinite possibilities including the fundamental nature of mind - the ability to represent.
This ground is also atemporal, meaning it does not disappear or lose its character until even this moment.
From this Ground of All come all kinds of random fluctuations. Most of them disappear right away, but some start a cyclic process whereby the first instance of fluctuation creates favorable conditions for the second instance of a similar fluctuation to emerge, creating a sort of positive loop. These are so called "tendencies", samskaras. From accumulation and aggregation of these tendencies, everything else arises.
If you insist on seeking the first cause, it is this Ground Of All (usually equated with Emptiness and Buddha-Nature) that can be called the first cause.
The basic nature of mind, so called Luminosity or the potential ability to represent, exists primordially as a quality of this Ground.
The appearances arise from iterative proliferation of discriminative  tendencies, as described in The Twelve Nidanas.

Thanks.is this representive of the Rangtong view aswell?or just the shentongpa view?

As I was writing this answer it occurred to me that it was probably much more aligned with shentong although in practice Dzogchenpas don't concern themselves with such lowly theoretical matters.

I do not have a sutta citation for it (I spent several hours looking), but there is one sutta where the Buddha was pressed for a first cause and he said that if such a thing must be had it would be taṇhā, thirst. Not avijja, blindness.
To say that blindness was the first cause would be to mistake the individual as being the creator (something not uncommon in this world), for ignorance is a property of an already existing being.

Hello Bhante (Samana Johann):
Those suttas are found in an SN vagfa
I have just read through the entire Samyutta 15 and the reference I remember is not there. I think it was in one of the many suttas where the question of the unanswered questions came up. In any case I am not saying this, this is what I remember being said in a sutta by Gotama.
My guess to householders answer is that such idea is merely avija, or? How could there be craving without no knowing, not seeing?
I myself questioned the idea of thirst being a first cause in a situation where it is also being said that the beginning point of samsara is not to be seen. I believe what is being spoken of is just "pick a point in the cycle of causal associations which is where it 'starts over'". That would be thirst.
But thirst is not exclusively a property of living beings. A sponge is said to be thirsty. If we think of this world as an evolving chemical reaction which has self-awareness as one of its properties, we can imagine this evolving thing at one point jumping from being 'inanimate' to 'animate' by way of a property similar to that of the sponge.
There is much talk of the time when computers will become self-conscious and able to make decisions to act on their own based on their 'thinking'. At what point, dependent on what factor will the transition take place if not wanting (thirst)?

Those suttas are found in an SN vagfa, good householder: 15. Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

My guess to householders answer is that such idea is merely avija, or? How could there be craving without no knowing, not seeing?

Why should one think there is no infinite regress.  The assumption of a first cause doesn't resolve or explain anything.  It really only actually begs the questions: where does the first cause itself come from.
Mathematically, we don't have a problem with an infinite regress when it comes to things like the number line or expanse of Euclidean space.
But when it comes to Dharma practice, it really doesn't matter one way or the other how you think about this.  The Dharma focuses on the Four Noble Truths which aren't interested in such philosophical quandaries like first causes.

I am hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can provide some insight.

I am more knowledgeable, with insight.

Buddhism rejects a first cause

Buddhism does not reject 1st cause
Buddhism teaches about how suffering arises & how suffering ceases
Buddhism teaches the 1st cause for the arising of suffering is ignorance (AN 10.61)

but how can birth and death go in infinite regress?

Materialist ideas eventually came to dominate Buddhism. In original Buddhism, the word "birth" ("jati") refers to the creation of self-identity. "Death" is the death of the same "self-identity". The original teachings don't refer to any "infinite regress".

How did samsara start?

Samsara means "continuation" of self-views. Refer to SN 22.99.

The only way I can posit a solution is the cyclic universe theory

The Buddha taught about the origin of suffering rather than the origin of the physical universe. Refer to SN 56.31 and MN 22

By the way, I have recently converted to Buddhism after having debated it in the past. I want to understand it more, so this is not an attack on buddhist Pratityasamutpada.

Paṭiccasamuppāda, as originally taught, is only about the arising of suffering. To quote AN 3.61:

And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering?
  With ignorance as condition, ... activities come to be; with
  ... activities as condition, consciousness; with consciousness
  as condition, mind-and-body; with mind-and-bodyas condition, the six
  sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with
  contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving;
  with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition,
  existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as
  condition, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection,
  and anguish come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.

your link to show that ignorance if a "fiist cause" does not include the terns "first" or "cause"

the sutta says " not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it came into being"...

From SN 15.4:

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is
  found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
  ignorance and fettered by craving.
What do you think? Which is more: the mother’s milk you’ve drunk while
  roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time, or the water in
  the four oceans?”
“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the mother’s milk we’ve drunk
  while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four
  oceans.”
“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching
  like this. The mother’s milk you’ve drunk while roaming and
  transmigrating for such a very long time is more than the water in the
  four oceans.
Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite
  enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
  regarding all conditions.”

According to the sutta above, you have been reborn for more times than you can count, with no known beginning to suffering.
Usually, people take this to mean that the very same consciousness that is reading this answer has been reborn many times and experienced all that has been experienced through this body since birth.
However, according to MN 38, this is not true:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

Consciousness is always changing and it is dependently originated. However, it may appear to be the same just as the water stream of a river appears to be the same, when in fact, the droplets of water in it are constantly changing. Please see this answer.
So, yes - you have been reborn for an uncountable number of times and have drunk more mother's milk than the waters of the four oceans. But who are "you"? You are not the same consciousness that moves through the births.
"You" refers to the self i.e. the thought or idea of the self. It's not a soul. It's simply the thought or idea or view of the self in the mind. It's not the same common self for every person. It's also not the same thought that exists at all moments in time - it's dependently originated.
When there is the thought of the self, there is the objectification and classification (papanca) of everything else that is perceived as non-self, relative to its relationship to the self. This causes the arising of craving and suffering. This is elaborated in this answer.
So, there is definitely rebirth - not the rebirth of a permanent consciousness or soul, but rather the rebirth of the mental idea of the self, and together with it, the rebirth of suffering.
So, the Buddha looks at YOU - yes, that's right - YOU - the SELF - and tells you that you have been reborn for an uncountable number of times, with no known beginning. You (the SELF) have also drunk more mother's milk than the four oceans combined. This to me, is definitely proof that there is rebirth in Buddhism, just not the kind of rebirth that you may have in mind.

Buddhism rejects the existence of a permanent self (ātman), and denies
the existence of a first cause in any form

Dr Tadeusz Skorupski
Ignorance is not really a "first cause", it is not an uncaused thing that brought all other things into being; think of ignorance prolonging dependent origination, just like suffering old age and death -- itself not some final effect, but causation thought through in a particular way.

How did samsara start?

There's no explanation for the beginning of samsara, only particular phases of it. A "first cause" would make for some single essential cause being the basis of reality, which is not Buddhist [cf The Awakening of Faith].

although beginningless, it has an end

On Buddha Essence: A Commentary on Rangjung Dorje's Treatise p5

So asking how it began will confuse.


text:
Buddha referring to himself
Why does in almost all instances in the pali canon where Lord Buddha refers to himself he calls himself "Tathagatha" in 3rd person? Is it because Lord Buddha has eliminated self view? Or is it that when a bodhisattva reaches buddhahood he becomes the same as all previous Buddhas? Or a combination of both?

Please see this question and the selected answer for it which is based on SN 1.25.
The Buddha sometimes referred to himself as "I" and this is not out of conceit or self view, but because he is simply using conventional language.
Why does he refer to himself in the third person as Tathagatha - "firmly established in reality"?
The way I see it, this is just like me talking about humans - "the human eats when he is hungry".  Similarly, the Buddha describes his nature as one who is firmly established in reality, by speaking of the Tathagata in the third person.

could he refer to himself as "you" or "ruben" or "a dung beetle" with just as much truth as he does "I"? fwiw, i assumed not, that it is a conventional expression that is also adequate to reality


text:
Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there
For years I've been trying to find the source of a quote, but I've only been able to get so far.
The quote is "Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there."
This seems to come from some verses titled, "Samantabhadra's Admonition to the Assembly".
My research indicates that it's part of the evening service for Pure Land schools of Buddhism.  I've even found the Chinese for it.
是日已過，
命亦隨減，
如少水魚，
斯有何樂；
大眾當勤精進，
如救頭然，
但念無常，
慎勿放逸。
I can read and understand Japanese, but Chinese is only half a guess for me since I'm only using my understanding of Japanese to read it.  But, I'm having a hard time finding Japanese sources.  Most of my searches pull up Chinese sources.
It seems it's from a sutra, but I don't which sutra it comes from.  I have figured out that it's not from the Flower Garland Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra), nor is it from the Lotus Sutra.
Could anyone help me out?

Absolutely. Sn 4.15 Attadanda Sutta:

"When embraced, the rod of violence breeds danger & fear:
  Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay.
Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles,
  competing with one another — as I saw this, fear came into me.
  The world was entirely without substance.
  All the directions were knocked out of line.
  Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to.
  Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent.
  And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart.
  Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions.
  But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink.

In Pali this reads like a poem, 8 syllables per line. Sometimes the authorship is attributed to the Buddha himself. Apparently at one time the poem was a standard part of the ritual for new person joining the early Sangha.
The line you're interested in says something like "I saw people crowding like the fish in shallow puddle, getting in each other's way, this really had scared me."

I am aware of these verses. Thank you for sharing them. But this does not correspond to the lines I am interested in finding. The line I cite is an admonition to practice diligently because our lives are short and should not be squandered on trifling and unimportant things. Given that my lines are reportedly the words of Samantabhadra, I would expect it to be from a Mahayana source where such bodhisattvas make frequent appearances. As far as I am aware, is Samantabhadra mentioned at all in the Pali cannon?

Sorry, I thought you were looking for an early doctrinal source for the metaphor of fish in a small puddle. Didn't realize you were looking for the poem itself that you mentioned,

As this day has passed
Our lives, too, come to an end
Like fish in a shallow puddle
Such is our joy \
O Great Assembly! \
Diligently we must strive
To save ourselves as we would were our hair aflame
Be mindful of impermanence!
Beware of complacency!

That is indeed the translation I'm interested in.  And I appreciate you pointing out a source for an early reference to the fish metaphor.  That's worth an upvote alone.


text:
Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions?
Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]?

I do not think this is a mere "metaphysical" question in the pejorative, because it may say something about birth and death: whether or not samsara -- karmic conditioning -- and so nirvana -- its termination -- are empty of essence; what the nature of first and third noble truths are.

I find it impossible to answer as it is very difficult to understand what you mean by "conceptual construction".
Can you give examples of construcs which you would class as conceptual and which aren't included?

I was very impressed by your question. From my perspective, your question is one that only arises when you are very near Awakening. If you want someone to talk to or any guidance, feel free to reach out to me. My email address is on my profile. I think you are very close to the end of the path.

err thanks for the encouragement @w33t i'll see a teacher again at some point, ha

Well, obviously the notions of production etc are dependent on having the notion of a finite, spatially/temporaly/qualitatively bounded entity (phenomenon) that is being produced etc.
Since the bounds determining the identity of any such entity (phenomenon) are necessarily a product of an act of analysis aka imputation, its production etc. is an empty conceptual construct.
As you correctly supposed, suffering, cessation of suffering, samsara, and cessation of samsara are conceptually constructed notions in the same vein. Hence all the Mahayana talk about transcending the duality of Samsara/Nirvana, liberation from even the concept of liberation, entering true emptiness, the groundless ground etc.

The four characteristics are indeed empty conceptual constructions. It certainly makes the four, as well as impermanence and other characteristics illusion. But such is the case from the ultimate point of view. From a conventional point of view, impermanence is not a illusion, it is the very characteristic of reality. Likewise the four characteristics you mention, from the conventional point of view, they are not illusory- they are very much real- things break, things are produced and so on.
It is important to keep in mind that to be empty is to be empty of an objective existence, an independent existence. To be empty is to be dependent on other phenomenon.
From the conventional point of view, all phenomenon are dependent and this is synonymous to all phenomenon being empty, from the ultimate point of view.

Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions?

Ultimately speaking, yes. I find this a difficult concept to explain so please bare with me.
Ultimately, Nirvana is the only thing that exists. Nirvana is both ever present and infinite. It is free of the four concepts of which you speak. For the sake of explanation, one could say Nirvana is the only thing that exists, and everything else we believe to exist is simply a conceptual construction or interpretation of Nirvana. Belief in those conceptual constructions is what causes the illusion of samsara to arise.
Here is a small example of how I would break this process down to explain. I know it doesn’t conform to the standard understandings of some Buddhist concepts like Nama and Rupa, but please just take this as a simplified explanation.
Imagine you see a tree. It looks as if it’s dying and will soon pass. You think how the four characteristics are present in the tree. But then you take a step back and realize that is not a tree. It is sight, which you have conceptualized to be a tree. You now think about how the four characteristics are present in sight. But then you take a step back and realize that it is not sight. It is Nirvana, which you have conceptualized to be sight. Upon observing Nirvana as the source of all conceptualization, conceptualization ends and the false self has nowhere to persist, and you become free.

Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]?

Yes. They are illusions, but they are helpful illusions. When studied, they can assist in guiding us towards liberation. But their usefulness comes to an end once they are observed to be illusions. This is why the Buddha says once liberation is reached, even the Dharma itself must be let go of. It no longer becomes helpful and only ties to to more conceptualization, which will pull you from the freedom you have just achieved.
Build the boat to cross the river, but don’t try to bring it with you when you reach the other side.
That being said, if you haven’t directly experienced Nirvana yet, don’t try to pretend you aren’t observing the four characteristics. It’s important not to ignore them and use them as tools to get a glimpse of the other side. Once you see Nirvana for the first time, the illusion will naturally break down, as will the understandings.
I hope this was helpful to you. I pray for nothing more than your success in your endeavors.


text:
Did the Buddha himself say anything about 'greater good'?
The phrase comes up -- especially when discussing 'militarism' -- in the secondary literature; e.g.

that “one must sacrifice the lesser good for the greater good”; so too
  must “our heroes sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the naition...

Buddhism and Politics in Thailand, p154
Did the Buhddha say anything like this? The closest I know of is "be a lamp unto yourself", but in effect that could legitimize all sorts of errors.
Specifically I mean examples analogous to serving in the military: when some wrong doing is permitted due to "the greater good".

this may be a duplicate

If this is the lesser good:

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.

Then this is the greater good:

AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

If this is the lesser good:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Then this is the greater good:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice in particular that "heroes sacrificing themselves for the nation" is only third best. There are two practices better than that. Indeed, one reads that practicing to benefit oneself is better than being a hero. But to understand this fully, one must also know that practicing to benefit oneself requires one to make progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. The first step of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View. And that Right View includes the direction to perform good deeds.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?  Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.  And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

The greatest good, however, is to practice to benefit both ourselves and others. And how do we practice to benefit others? We teach them Right View.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two?  The words of another and proper attention.  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

"is only third best"... actually akusala, deluded, straight to hell,  and possible not of use and something if slight to encourage, but sure, it might have been sais, thinking it's a greater benefit to still maintain hold on, good householder. And whats the use of right view for one on the path if that to enter isn't established yet? To be able to act further for a higher good?

Something similar is said in the Dhammapada

If by giving up small pleasures great happiness is to be found, the wise should give up small pleasures seeing (the prospect of) great happiness.
Dhammapada 290

https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=290

"There are these four types of brightness. Which four? The brightness of the sun, the brightness of the moon, the brightness of fire, and the brightness of discernment. These are the four types of brightness. And of these four types of brightness, the foremost is the brightness of discernment." An4.144

There are other similar comparisons of pleasant abidings, ranking various classification of pleasure & happiness ìn the pali texts of early schools.

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.
"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'"

The difference between these classifications and the saying "that “one must sacrifice the lesser good for the greater good”; so too must “our heroes sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the naition..." is that the Sutta classification is precisely expressed & it's meaning is easily here drawn out, sun is brighter than the moon obv. The quotation about "hero sacrificing life for the nation" is far from precise because the words 'hero, nation' are very abstract terms and open to interpretation. It can easily be argued against as not being 'the greater good' and one can argue about what constitutes a real hero. It's kind of typical of politians&poets to use language in this way.