text:
To what extent does right view deny mother and father?
Believing that 'there is mother and father' is listed as right view affected by the taints.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
MN 117

To what extent does right view *not affected by the taints* deny that there is a mother and father?
What logic or analysis does right view *not affected by the taints* employ to deny this?
Are mother and father to be denied altogether?
Is there no such thing as mother and father for one who is awakened?

You may deny Mother and Father but Mother and Father wont deny you. So Relationships exist.

The full 'View' passage from that sutra list three kinds of view:

Wrong view, which denies mother and father (among other things)
Tainted right view, accepts mother and father (among other things)
Noble right view, which does not reject or accept (or even mention) mother and father

The point here is that 'mother' and 'father' are (ultimately) mental constructs that like all mental constructs are given to dukkha. It's wrong to reject and disrespect the roles; it's better to accept and be compliant to the roles; it's best to see the true nature of the situation, is which the roles are constructs. This is meant to show a developmental arc:

Wrong view is headstrong and proud, accepts no authority, rejects all wisdom, offers nothing to anyone. It is a self-centered view.
Tainted right view is submissive and humble, accepts and relies on authority and received wisdom, gives and sacrifices whatever is supposed to be given and sacrificed. It is an other-dependent, self-abnegating view.
Noble right view is in the middle between these. It neither accepts nor rejects authority and wisdom, and neither clings nor sacrifices. It investigates the nature of things, and doesn't embrace the appearances. It is the view that sets aside self and other-selves.

It is correct that the sutta does not mention 'mother and father' for Right View of the Noble Ones, but there are other suttas which mention Right View that specify how a Noble One deals with such conventions: SN 5.10

The noble right view of MN117 doesn't talk about parents.
There is no "my" mother and "my" father, without the self ("me"). Whose mother and father are they? They are mother and father relative to a self.
The noble right view doesn't deny parents. It leads to the end of clinging (upadana) to parents.
The Buddha taught to have gratitude towards parents and repay them by ensuring they learn and practise the Dhamma.

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay.
Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother
on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and
were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing
their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your
shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If
you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty
over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not
in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do
much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they
introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving
mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his
unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue;
rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in
generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes
them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother &
father."
AN 2.31-32

In this world it’s a blessing to serve one’s mother and one’s father.
And it’s a blessing also to serve ascetics and brahmins.
Dhp 332

The noble right view ends clinging to parents.

When a wise lay follower has put at ease another wise lay follower who
is sick, suffering, gravely ill with these four consolations, they
should say: ‘Are you concerned for your mother and father?’ If they
reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your nature to die.
Whether or not you are concerned for your mother and father, you will
die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for your mother and
father.’
SN 55.54

"There is mother and father" in the context of right view with taints (that sides with merit) appear to implicitly mean that parents are important and worth respecting and taking care of. It doesn't merely mean that parents exist.
When one clings to self, it is wrong view and nihilistic to deny those things (this world, other world, parents etc.). It leads to misconduct. When one clings to self, it is right view to accept those things (this world, other world, parents etc.) and it brings merit and avoids misconduct. When one is liberated, he is anyway no longer clinging to the self and anything that belongs to the self or part of the self.

@YesheTenley "there is mother and father" in the context of right view with taints (that sides with merit) appear to implicitly mean that parents are important and worth respecting and taking care of. It doesn't merely mean that parents exist.

@YesheTenley The noble right view of MN117 doesn't talk about parents. I didn't say the noble ones don't talk about parents. A person cannot be a mother or father without having a child. Relationships are relative to self identity.

@YesheTenley When one clings to self, it is wrong view and nihilistic to deny those things. It leads to misconduct. When one clings to self, it is right view to accept those things and it brings merit and avoids misconduct. When one is liberated, he is anyway no longer clinging to the self and anything that belongs to the self or part of the self.

Is it a correct summary of your position that right view does not deny mother or father, but that right view denies "my" mother or "my" father, then?

@YesheTenley Yes. Noble right view discourages clinging to parents.

As I understand it, the mind of the enlightened is a superset of all the points of view, not a subset (nor an empty set). This is why it is called omniscience or "the knowledge of all modes/aspects" (sarvajñatā, sarva-ākāra-jñatā).
The view in which there's mother and father is a valid mundane view, and as such it is one dimension of the multidimensional supramundane omniscience of the Buddha, along with other perspectives like "a being is a convention".
It's like looking from multiple angles at the same time. Or looking with two eyes and combining it together in 3D picture.
So it doesn't deny mother and father, it just doesn't stop at mother and father and looks deeper and broader.

The mundane right view partakes only of merit (and not Nibbana). The supramundane right view does not deny the mundane right view but simply ceases to have attachment/ripening in the acquisitions towards it. Below are supramundane views that include mother & father:

'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four
elements, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject
to impermanence, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It
has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from
it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a
disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an
uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust
discharging. For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this
body.
AN 9.15

Above, mother & father appear rendered to be merely biological rather than self-notions.
Below, mother & father are rendered to be self-notions or "beings" ("satta") to be abandoned.

Long have you experienced the death of a mother. The
tears you have shed over the death of a mother while roaming &
wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
greater than the water in the four great oceans.
Long have you experienced the death of a father... the
death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
shed over loss with regard to disease while roaming & wandering
this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
the water in the four great oceans.
Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A
beginning point is not evident, though beings ["satta"; mental fabrications of "beings"] hindered by ignorance
and fettered by craving are roaming & wandering on. Long have
you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
released.
SN 15.3

Remember, per SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, "satta" ("beings") are views & mental fabrications. Remember, per SN 12.2, mother & father are a "class of beings" ("satta-nikaye") mentally born as "birth" ("jati"). For Arahants, "birth" ("jati") had ended.
Therefore, the supramundane view does not deny the biological mother & father.

What pali word(s) do you translate as 'views & mental fabrications'?

View = ditthi, as found in SN 5.10

Fabrication = sankhara, as found in SN 22.81, about fabricating 'self'. While the word sankhara is not found in SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, what is described in those suttas is fabricating (sankhara).

sabbasaṅkhāresu is the word in SN 15.3 which I believe means "all compounded phenomena" although it is translated as "fabricated thing" I think Bodhi usually translates it in other places as 'conditioned phenomena'

sabbasaṅkhāresu is the plural of sankhara it would seem

sankharas are not necessarily mental though, right? they can be physically conditioned too like the body?

would you agree that satta is a sankhara conditioned on both physical as well as mental formations?

i would not agree. satta is only mental

i see. mother and father are biological rather than self-notions. would you agree biological mother and father are sankhara?

Biological is not satta. But the word sankhara refers to both physical & mental things; anything that is formed from conditions. One oxygen and two hydrogen atoms = water = sankhara. But satta is sankhara as mental formation. Sankhara aggregate creates satta.


text:
Is the conventional existence of 'a being' just an agreement?
It is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

The pali translated as 'convention' is 'sammuti'.
Looking at other places where the word 'sammuti' is used we can find numerous references in the theravada vinaya.
Each of these translates the word 'sammuti' from pali to english as 'agreement' and not 'convention.'
Is that all the conventional existence of 'a being' is - an agreement? Is 'a fist' an agreement? Is 'a lap' an agreement? Is 'the President of the United States' an agreement? Is 'rebirth' an agreement?
It would seem some agreements are skillful and some are not. That is why the Buddha gave the vinaya, right?
Do Noble Ones with Right View not understand agreements or somehow give up these agreements or do they just acknowledge that all of these are just agreements and not real and actual?
It would seem to me that Noble Ones with Right View see that 'mother and father' is just an agreement to the same extent as 'this world' and 'the next world.'
Right View does not utterly deny any of these; it simply acknowledges them for what they are and no more: useful agreements.
UPDATE:
This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.

See https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_22.html and footnotes below. Sujato’s book on mindfulness also discusses this “debate” in chapter 2. Sujato’s book also makes the case that this is one of the earliest suttas.

Do you believe that the two camps mentioned in the footnote are alive and extent in Theravada schools today? I'm not aware of any that accept the heritage of the Pudgalavādin (Personalist) school. I'm also not sure how any of this has to do with the questions I've asked above.

The title asks if the conventional existence of a being is just an agreement - the “debate” is precisely about just such issues. I do not know how extant either of the two camps are; but I bring it up because a) this sutta appears to be early b) the interpretation of this sutta is relevant to your question c) there has historically been much debate about the interpretation.

I think you're mistaken. The debate you linked is whether a being is just a convention or not. I think one side won that debate - Theravada - and the answer is in the affirmative: 'a being' is a convention as can be seen definitively with SN 5.10. That debate is settled.
This question is not about that debate. This question is what is the meaning of 'convention' ... and the question is 'does it just mean agreement?' as the word is translated in vinaya rules I've linked.

This question is what is the meaning of 'convention' ... and the question is 'does it just mean agreement?'

from The Dhamma Theory.
Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa:

The term sammuti is derived from the root man, to think, and when prefixed with sam it means consent, convention, general agreement.
The statement: "The person exists" is not erroneous, provided one does not imagine by the person a substance enduring in time. Convention requires the use of such terms, but as long as one does not imagine substantial entities corresponding to them, such statements are valid. On the other hand, as the commentators observe, if for the sake of conforming to the ultimate truth one would say, "The five aggregates eat" (khandha bhunjanti), "The five aggregates walk" (khandha gacchanti), instead of saying: "A person eats," "A person walks," such a situation would result in what is called voharabheda, i.e. a breach of convention resulting in a breakdown in meaningful communication.
Because the Buddha is able to employ such linguistic designations as "person" and "individual" without assuming corresponding substantial entities, he is called "skilled in expression" (vohara-kusala).  Skilfulness in the use of words is the ability to conform to conventions (sammuti), usages (vohara), designations (pannatti), and turns of speech (nirutti) in common use in the world without being led astray by them.

From this explanation it is apparent that sammuti is a common way of thinking about something, a common way of conceptualizing some phenomena agreed upon by many or most people.
Whether the reason they agreed to it is because it is more functional or more skillful or more convenient, or simply due to tradition is outside of scope of the term sammuti.

Excellent point that just because something is a convention does not necessarily mean it is functional, useful or skillful!

Yes. There is an agreement. If hand touches fire then there will be a sensation of burning. It is painful. When horse pulls the chariot then the wheels will roll and some distance will be covered.
There is an agreement to call Hand a hand, fire a fire, burning a burning, painful as painful , horse as horse, pulls as pulls , chariot as chariot , wheels as wheels , distance as distance.
But reality is that no self can be found in hand, fire , burning, painful, horse, pulls , chariot , wheels and distance.
Why ?
Because hand is impermanent, fire is impermanent, burning is impermanent, painful is impermanent, horse is impermanent, pulls is impermanent, chariot is impermanent, wheels are impermanent and distance is impermanent.
Meaning hands arise , change and vanish,,fire arises , changes and vanishes,,burning arises, changes and vanishes,,horse arises , changes and vanishes,,pulls arise ,change and vanish,, wheels arise , change and vanish,, distance arises , changes and vanishes.

No, I think it exists. Babies don't have a self. Everything is the same for them. They can't make a difference between them and the world. It's like insanity.
Proof: mirror-test babies solve at 24 months old not before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

@blue_ego Can they what? What is your question?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why is it important to keep away from the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self?
There are two doctrines. Existence of self and existence of no self. Existence of self means eternalism. Existence of no self means nihilism.
If self is eternal then there is no escape from suffering. If there is no self then there is no meaning of good deeds and bad deeds.
There is a middle path.
Depending upon ignorance , volitional formations arise,depending upon volitional formations ,consciousness arise , depending upon consciousness , name and form arise, depending upon name and form, six senses arise, depending on six senses , contact arises, depending upon contact , feelings arise, depending upon feelings , clinging arise, depending upon clinging, cravings arise, depending upon cravings,attachments arise, depending upon attachments , becoming arise , depending upon becoming , birth, ageing , death and whole mass of suffering arises.
My question is: Why is it important to keep away from the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self?

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice

Eternalism = permanence of a self
Annihilationism = a temporary self bound for eventual annihilation.
Anatta = absence of any real self anywhere = absolute not-self

WHY
It is important to keep away from the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self for the following reason- as doctrines arising from ignorance (cognitive ignorance in this case; ignorance about the truth of reality of phenomena [also called as soteriological truth of highest meaning]) they lead to more craving and aversion being created/produced and thus continuity in the wheel of life.
HOW
To abandon the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self, one has to remove the cognitive ignorance- which can be done with reasoning on emptiness. To see that the labels self and non-self have only conventional reality steers one away from creating more karma and continued rebirth.
SUMMARY
Doing so, is to see phenomena as arising based on causes and conditions- which is the opposite of 'absolute'. Absolute being does not need any other thing but according to Buddha, all phenomena have the character of dependent origination.

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


text:
Is this noble right view? - "There is no mother or father, without the self"
The right view of the Noble Ones is described here as:
"There is no mother and father, without the self."
Buddha describes wrong view here:

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong view.
MN 117

Is it possible to turn this wrong view into the right view of the Noble Ones by adding "without the self?"

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view of the Noble Ones? ‘There is nothing given without the self, nothing offered without the self, nothing sacrificed without the self; no fruit or result of good and bad actions without the self; no this world without the self, no other world without the self; no mother, no father without the self; no beings who are reborn spontaneously without the self; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world without the self.’ This is right view of the Noble Ones."

Is this an accurate description of the right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path?

I updated it to:

There is no "my" mother and "my" father, without the self ("me"). Whose mother
and father are they? They are mother and father relative to a self.

We can understand this through the following sutta:

Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'
Snp 4.14
With footnote from Ven. Thanissaro:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

Every father and mother are father and mother to someone. They are "my" father and "my" mother.

The Zen story titled "Is That So?" (I suppose you know it) suggests that it's possible to 'function' as a parent, filling the needs of the child, without especial attachment to that child nor to the role of parent.
If I look at the world (society) then I see many mothers and fathers, sometimes.
Recognizing the bond or relationship between children and parents may be important for the avoidance of suffering (and so denying it is wrong)? The Buddha set a rule for example that people need their parents' permission before ordaining, I'm pretty sure
that's an example of the Buddha's not denying that 'parents exist'.

I'm not sure about the phrase you quoted and perhaps you're misusing it if you use it out of context. I can't presume to know what was meant in context but I read as something like,

There is no "my" mother and father, without "me" (i.e. the self).

Extending the phrase to add "without the self" to every sentence sounds like a word-game (and it seems to me that a lot of recent questions on this site have been based on "logic").
If you're asking what "right view" is, perhaps that's better defined in another sutta than in MN 117 -- i.e. in SN 12.15 -- I'll quote it all because it's quite short, it contains several famous phrases:

Kaccānagotta (SN 12.15)
At Sāvatthī.
Then Venerable Kaccānagotta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’. How is right view defined?”
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
‘All exists’: this is one extreme.
‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’”

This is echoed in the Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10).

Thanks @ChrisW for helping to sort out the misunderstanding. Also wanted to note about your critique of "logic" that when I use this phrase I'm not talking about mathematical or western formal logic. Just mean nomal inferential logic such as what Vaijra uses in SN 5.10 or the Buddha uses throughout the suttas.

Hi @YesheTenley perhaps I don't know what "normal inferential logic" is when it not "mathematical or western formal logic" -- e.g. Wikipedia's Inference gives syllogisms as an example, which are mathematical and western are they not. But anyway when I said "logic" I was thinking of or meant to imply logos i.e. "word" -- there have been topics about the meanings of words (which is fine in context), but then IMO using them in an algebraic, symbol-substitution kind of way.

The logic employed in every day colloquial language by one or more people describing their reasoning which is usually not formal and with varied levels of rigor.


text:
How can i make it cloudy and gray?
I understand that the storm gods are the cause.  I hope the sun never returns.  How can I appease or offer those gods to have my wish?

SN 42.6 suggests that "prayer", and various ritual actions, won't change the physical properties of something or physical events, specifically that they won't make a boulder float nor oil sink in water.
SN 2.10 suggests that an Asura cannot make the sun to never return.
AN 5.43 says that various things "are not to be obtained by prayers or wishes" but instead by "following the path of practice" which leads to them. I interpret that more generally than only those five.

For those seeking a bargain, a warning:

MN131:3.9: Today’s the day to keenly work—
MN131:3.10: who knows, tomorrow may bring death!
MN131:3.11: For there is no bargain to be struck
MN131:3.12: with Death and his mighty hordes.

Why do you wish that ? Gods have their own game to play. You can join the game by following the God of rain and thunder. Even then you will only be part of the game. And it will happen only when the conditions are met. Everything happens based on conditions of the game.

The answer to the question is found in Saṁyutta Nikāya 32.3–12.

“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why someone, when their
body breaks up, after death, is reborn in the company of the gods of
cool clouds?”
“Mendicant, it’s when someone does good things by way of body, speech,
and mind. And they’ve heard: ‘The gods of cool clouds are long-lived,
beautiful, and very happy.’ They think: ‘If only, when my body breaks
up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the gods of the
cool clouds!’ They give food … drink … clothing … a vehicle … a
garland … fragrance … makeup … a bed … a house … a lamp.. When their
body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of the gods
of cool clouds. This is the cause, this is the reason why someone,
when their body breaks up, after death, is reborn in the company of
the gods of cool clouds.”
Ten Discourses On How Giving Helps to Become a Cool Cloud God


text:
What is vritti in buddhism?
Those yoga sutras of Patanjali and have come across called vritti.  It's like a whirlpool in the mind not ocean. But what is the equivalent of vritti in Buddhism?

Wikipedia lists those suttas as "Part of a series on Hindu philosophy". Is this question on-topic on this site, or should it be on Hinduism.SE?

@ChrisW what is vritti equivalent in buddhism? I think it's a fair inquiry

Perhaps it's called e.g. discursive thinking colloquially in English. Are you looking for an English word, or maybe Pali?

@ChrisW sir, i am looking for a pali/english description aka a concept


text:
Who is responsible for making sankharas impermanent?
Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent?
Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent?
Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent?
Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?

@blue_ego I asked this because I can change my sankhara… so I am speculating whether this is true for all Sankharas.

I don't understand what "my sankhara" means. Would you read Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? and then maybe specify more precisely which thing or meaning you're asking about?

I'm not sure how to summarize this logically. You might read more on a closely-related subject if you read some of the essays which people have written about the "Dhamma Eye".

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice

I'm also voting to close this question as it's not about Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching.

@ChrisW suppose I lie frequently. Then lying is my Sankhara and by practising honesty I can change it.  There is a choice and intention. Similarly there is a Sankhara of profit making in the modern world. Question is whose choice and intention is to make money ?

I think the doctrine is that a person could assume there is such a thing as "me" -- but that, if they do then that's not a useful/helpful theory, it's misleading.
Instead we're encouraged to see everything as not-self.
Things happen or don't happen because of conditions -- for example, greed, poverty, wisdom, anger, fear, skill, good or bad companions, and so on, or the brahmaviharas (e.g. metta), including also "views" i.e. assumptions about the way things are and function.
There's no use in saying, "Oh it's because a god decided it would be that way". Instead we're encouraged to understand 'causes' -- i.e. "what", and "how", and "why", and so on (but not really a "who") -- and to understand that when a cause or condition changes, or ceases, or increases, then that affects or changes or determines a result or a new set of conditions.

Sankhara is a compounded phenomenon. That is, it is a phenomenon which is composed of other things. It is a phenomenon which arises based on causes and conditions. It is not a thing- it is an appearance based on other appearances. It is the nature of all compounded phenomenon- to be impermanent. Being compounded- an aggregate- is a symptom of impermanent nature. Subject to change.

to say 'it's not a thing' creates confusion, but that's ok

"a thing" is a substance which is always there. Hence, I have emphasized that sankhara is not a thing (ontologically speaking). To help avoid such confusions, I have also written that it is a phenomenon. There is a difference between a thing and phenomenon - both philosophically and (especially) in Buddhist contexts.

It's simply a universal law. No one designed it that way.

“Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All
conditional things are impermanent. A Tathāgata awakens to that and
realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it,
teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and
clarifies it: ‘All conditional things are impermanent.’
AN 3.136

After meditation on Dhamma (or law) of Anicca (or impermanence) , I had an enlightening moment.
Anicca or the impermanence is a sankhara. Nibbana is neither permanent nor impermanent.
There is a birth of change of sankhara. Therefore Dhamma of Dependent origination applies.
Who makes it Anicca or impermanence does not apply.
How does the birth of change of sankhara originates ? This can be answered as follows :
First there was ignorance, this led to the volitional formations, volitional formations led to consciousness, consciousness led to name and form , name and form led to six senses , six senses led to contact, contact led to feelings , feelings led to clinging, clinging led to cravings , cravings led to attachments , attachments led to becoming , becoming led to birth , ageing and death of the change of sankhara.

Hello. This is an English language form. For Theravada, it is proper to use Romanized Pali, i.e., "sankhara". For Mahayana, Romanized Sanskrit, i.e., "saṃskāra".

@DhammaDhatu ok


text:
Did the Buddha appear for the sake of the immoral?
Mark 2:17 of the Bible says:

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no
need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners.”

Did the Buddha appear for the sake of "sinners" (the immoral)? Or did the Buddha appear to show the "righteous" (the moral) the way to Nibbana?

Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26):

'Lord, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the One-Well-Gone teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.'

"That is what Brahma Sahampati said. Having said that, he further said this:

'In the past
there appeared among the Magadhans
an impure Dhamma
devised by the stained.
Throw open the door to the Deathless!
Let them hear the Dhamma
realized by the Stainless One!
Just as one standing on a rocky crag
might see people
all around below,
So, O wise
one, with all-around vision,
ascend the palace
fashioned of Dhamma.
Free from sorrow, behold the people
submerged in sorrow,
oppressed by birth & aging.
Rise up, hero, victor in battle!
O Teacher, wander without debt in the world.
Teach the Dhamma, O Blessed One:
There will be those who will understand.'

You ask why he "appeared", I assume that means "became a teacher instead of remaining a recluse", and I suppose this sutta explains that.
It's "for the sake of":

"beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma"
"those who will understand the Dhamma"

So the first criterion seems to be "understanding".
Some (perhaps many) of his followers were initially immoral, famously Angulimala; and of course many had lay lives, were married and so on (not that that's immoral in the same way, but).
Of course the Dhamma teaches morality, and after ordaining they 'must' behave well, but that's afterwards.
In summary I think it was not "to show the 'righteous' (the moral) the way to Nibbana" -- it was "to show the the way to Nibbana, including morality, to those able to benefit/follow".
Also I'm not sure that it was only "to show the the way to Nibbana". You may get that impression for the suttas but he also talked to whole villages when having even only one in the audience become a stream-enterer might be rare. I read a modern commentator say for example that if you can't keep 5 precepts then keeping 4 is better than none. It may be a gradual training -- even a little is good.

The sutta below implies that the Buddhas arise to reveal teachings which are primarily useful for the wise (sappaññā).

Perceiving impermanence as permanence,
suffering as happiness,
not-self as self,
and ugliness as beauty—
sentient beings are ruined by wrong view,
deranged, out of their minds.
Yoked by Māra’s yoke, these people
find no sanctuary from the yoke.
Sentient beings continue to transmigrate,
with ongoing birth and death.
But when the Buddhas arise
in the world, those beacons
reveal this teaching,
that leads to the stilling of suffering.
When a wise person hears them,
they get their mind back.
Seeing impermanence as impermanence,
suffering as suffering,
not-self as not-self,
and ugliness as ugliness—
taking up right view,
they’ve risen above all suffering.”
AN 4.49

Neither. Beings are born in line with the results of their kamma. His kamma caused him to take birth in the human realm.

Appearance of Buddha is subject to conditions. Conditions like too much ignorance or too much suffering in the world. When too much suffering is acknowledged then Buddha arises to uproot the suffering.
Lack of morality may add to the suffering but morality differs from country to country and religion to religion therefore morality itself can not be the criteria.
Buddha appears to uproot suffering as the purpose of Buddha’s teaching is cessation of suffering.

MN 4 says about the Buddha:

'A being not subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the
benefit & happiness of many, out of sympathy for the world, for the
welfare, benefit, & happiness of human & divine beings,' he would
rightly be speaking of me.

It appears the Buddha did not appear primarily for the sake of asura (demonic rulers), animals, hungry ghosts & hell-beings.

The fire of lust burns mortals
Infatuated by sensual pleasures;
The fire of hate burns malevolent people
Who kill other living beings;
The fire of delusion burns the bewildered,
Ignorant of the Noble One’s Dhamma.
Being unaware of these three fires,
This generation delights in personal existence.
Unfree from the bonds of Māra
They swell the ranks of hell,
Existence in the animal realm,
Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.
Iti 93


text:
In Early Buddhism was marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women?
I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge':

In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must
be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not
something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures
in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental
component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature,
of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal
institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women,
yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women
from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address
this deeply irrational male anxiety.
On the gandhabba and male anxiety

In Early Buddhism:

Is marriage a patriarchal institution?

Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women?

Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father?

Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.

Based on the sutta below, Buddhism adopts the middle way, which is slightly patriarchial in most cases.
The wife that malevolently rules over the husband is considered a bad type of wife.
Meanwhile, the wife that obeys the husband is considered good in two out of the four types of good wives.
A benevolent matriarch is considered good in one out of the four types of good wives.
And an equal wife who is like a best friend is considered good in one out of the four types of good wives.

The Buddha said this:
“With a mind full of hate and no kindness,
lusting for others, looking down on her husband,
she longs to murder him who paid the price for her.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a killer.
A woman’s husband earns his wealth
by applying oneself to a profession, trade, or farming.
And even if it’s only a little, she wants to take it.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a thief.
She’s an idle glutton who doesn’t want to work.
Her words are harsh, fierce, and rude.
She rules over him, though he rises early.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a lord.
She’s always caring and kind,
looking after her husband like a mother her child.
She keeps the wealth that he has earned secure.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a mother.
She respects her husband
as a younger sister respects her elder.
Conscientious, she does what her husband says.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a sister.
She’s delighted to see him,
like one reunited with a long-lost friend.
She’s well-raised, virtuous, and devoted.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a friend.
She has no anger
when threatened with violence by the rod.
Without hate or anger,
she endures her husband and does what he says.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a bondservant.
The kinds of wives here called
killer, thief, and lord;
immoral, harsh, and lacking regard for others,
when their body breaks up they set course for hell.
But the kinds of wives here called
mother, sister, friend, and bondservant;
steadfast in their own morality,
restrained for a long time,
when their body breaks up
they set course for a good place.
Sujātā, these are the seven kinds of wife that a man can have. Which one of these
are you?”
“Sir, from this day forth may the Buddha remember me as a wife like a
bondservant.”
AN 7.63

That is a lovely sutta, however I'm not that being a mother makes you a "matriarch", IMO you could still be a mother in a patriarchal society. "Archon" is a greek word that means "ruler", so that ("who is ruling?") is the literal question. Also, most of the discussion quoted in the OP is maybe not (only) patriarchy but more specifically patrilineality,

@ChrisW OK. I imagined matriarchy here because it states "looking after her husband like a mother her child."


text:
Is science a Dhamma or Sankhara or both?
I am still confused about the meaning of Dhammas. Here I take the example of science. Science has many truths. Science explains the reality in its own ways.
My question is: Can we consider Science a Dhamma? If yes, then why is it a Dhamma? If not, then is science a Sankhara? Is yes, then is it Anicca? Or Is Science both a Sankhara and Dhamma?

The words "dhamma" and "sankhara" both have several meanings:

Definitions for dhamma
Definitions for saṅkhāra

Some of the meanings of dhamma are "practice", "doctrine", and interpretation:

3- the behavior, conduct, practice required to realize and understand the way the world of experience works
5- the substance of the teaching
9- an interpretation of reality

I think that science is certainly a dhamma in these ways: it's practiced by scientists as a way to understand what they experience and study; and it's taught (e.g. as a way of thinking) in schools.
Note that a dhamma may or may not be correct or the best interpretation, e.g. MN 26 mentions that,

In the past
there appeared among the Magadhans
an impure Dhamma
devised by the stained.

When the doctrine (of science) is combined with or applied by a student (of science) then I think that fits several meanings of the word "sankhara" -- it's an experience (by the student scientist), an aggregate (of the doctrine with the person), a conditioning (of behaviour by the doctrine).

By the way I think there's no contradiction in something being a dhamma and a sankhara. Could it be that all sankharas are dhammas, although not all dhammas are sankharas? Wikipedia's translation of the three characteristics:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā – all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā – all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable
sabbe dhammā anattā – all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) have no unchanging self or soul

... says that the three characterisics apply to all sankharas (all conditioned things) and that anatta applies even to dhammas which are not sankharas (i.e. nibbana). I've understood/assumed that to mean that sankharas are a "proper subset" of dhammas -- though a better way to look at it might be to say that sankharas are some aggregated combination of constituent dhammas.

From my very old blog:
The word ‘sankhara’ in context
The word ‘dhamma’ in context
In AN 3.136 & SN 12.20, the word 'dhamma' is used in relation to the Law of Nature (Dhamma Niyama).
The Buddhist Commentaries refer to five laws of nature, as follows:

Buddhism teaches that all things, both material and immaterial, are
entirely subject to the direction of causes and are interdependent.
This natural course of things is called in common terms “the law of
nature,” and in the Pali language niyama, literally meaning
“certainty” or “fixed way,” referring to the fact that specific
determinants inevitably lead to corresponding results.
The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of
causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of
relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of
natural law, or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, “as the seed, so the fruit.”

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, “good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results.”

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth
one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature. It may be
questioned why Dhammaniyama, being as it were the totality, is also
included within the subdivisions. This is because this fourfold
categorization does not cover the entire extent of Dhammaniyama.
Kamma as a law of nature (Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto)

Science is the study of laws of nature or dhamma niyama.

Science explains the reality in its own ways doesn’t sounds right. The problem is that science explains reality based on its understanding. Its understanding of reality is based on empirical data, experimental results and observations. All of which could change at any one time. As a result of new findings, new understanding emerges and its last explanation of reality may have to be revised. In fact, science’s way of explaining reality is under constant revision and sometimes there is a major makeover (although increasingly rare nowadays). Perhaps, a better way to phrase it would be science is a constant endeavour to understand why and how reality works. Some additional points:

Through understanding why and how reality works, it can then be used to predict phenomena.
Only observable, measurable and testable phenomena are under the purview of science.
All the truths in science are anything but absolute and subjected to revision with new findings.
Discoveries in science have knock-on effects. Breakthroughs in physics could advance engineering fields such electron microscopy which in turn advances fields like chemistry and biology. Both advances in chemistry and biology could further advance the field of medicine and so on.

Can we consider Science a Dhamma (or Sankhara or both)?

Neither or none of the above.
Considering the revolutionary nature of science, if it had existed during the time of the Buddha and his contemporaries, it would be reasonable to believe that they would have created a new word for it or borrowed a word just like what the Europeans did back in the 14th century. Even so, our modern understanding of science would appear strange to someone from the 1400s. This is inevitable as words in a living language tends to evolve with new meanings added to them over time.
Which makes me think that trying to find equivalent semantics in a dead language like Pali for modern concepts and ideas is a futile endeavour. Note: the five niyamas arose from the commentaries from the 5th to 13th centuries; way before the Scientific Renaissance.

I'm not sure about "created a new word" -- your link says they reused an old word (i.e. "science", from old French, Latin, and proto-Indo-European), and from the 14c gave it a specialized meaning to refer exclusively to the modern, important subject.

@ChrisW touché and thanks, I corrected it to "borrowed a word" instead. Although, I think science in the 14c is also unlike our modern usage. A body of knowledge then could be anything. But today’s scientific knowledge must be rigorously tested and validated. So, I think its meaning had kind of changed as a result of the Scientific Revolution and the way science is conducted and practiced subsequently.

Scientist never talk about "arising and vanishing of mind & matter moment more than trillion times per second [SaṅkhataDhamma]". And event they try to prove it, there is no material tools to do because mind is fastest smallest arising and vanishing, faster than the Scientist tools. The only way to prove is attained-awesome-meditation, Jhāna, with real insight meditation, TaraṇaVipassanā.
Scientist never talk about "What is the origin of rebirth".
Even the Scientist try to talk "What is the origin of rebirth", Scientist never see "the right origin of rebirths and the uncountable relativity of them" by "the past lives recollection with the insight meditation", which is so advance and complicate, without the Buddha. Because it is supernatural and the most complicate and advance to insight the entire system of "past & future lives, arising and vanishing of mind & matter moment more than trillion times per second [SaṅkhataDhamma]" systematically. This systematic program must practice the experience collection, Pāramī, more than 4 Asaṅkheyya Kappa, uncountable Big Bangs cycle, to set up the course syllabus, so the Dhamma Course begin by Buddha only.
Without all of those genius knowledge by the wisdom, no one can't finish the entire rebirth. It's impossible to be without the Buddha's teaching.


text:
Can I say Dhammaniyama Anatta?
Science can be called Dhammaniyama as per the following answer to a question.
Can I say Dhammaniyama Anatta ? And what does it mean and why ?

Dhammaniyama Anatta is correct, as in "the laws of nature are not self and are empty of a self."
Anatta Dhammaniyama is also correct, as in "all phenomena is not self and empty of a self, is a universal law of nature".

Anatta is Dhammaniyama per AN 3.136.

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā
dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
all things are not-self.
Sabbe dhammā anattā.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
and reveals it:
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti:
‘All things are not-self.’”
‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti.

It means according to Nature (rather than according to subjective personal opinion) all things are not-self.
It means Thanissaro who said "not-self is a strategy" was wrong.
It means those who insist Buddhism is phenomenology rather than ontology are wrong.
It means those solipsists who believe nothing can exist outside of experience/mind are wrong.
It means those who believe the Buddha taught a middle-way between self & not-self are wrong.
It means most internet Buddhists have wrong view.

Could you provide an example of those who believe the Buddha taught a middle-way between self & not-self?


text:
Find Sankhara and Dhamma in the following sentence?
Because there are several meanings of sanskharas and Dhamma, I am unable to exactly pin point when and what I should identify as sanskharas and when I should identify Dhamma.
Please help me identify sanskharas and Dhamma in the following sentence:
Max ate ice cream hurriedly and found it cold and sweet. He loved the taste of ice cream.

Max = sankhara (mental formation/view)
ate = sankhara (an action that requires various causal factors) + dhamma (duty of living) + sankhara (intentional mental formation)
ice cream = sankhara (conditioned phenomena) + dhamma (natural phenomena)
hurriedly = sankhara (intentional mental formation) plus sankhara (conditioned by ignorance) plus dhamma (mode of living)
found = sankhara (mental formation of view/idea) + dhamma (mentality)
cold and sweet = sankhara (conditioned phenomena) + sankhara (view & opinion mental formation) plus dhamma (natural phenomena)
He = (mental formation/view)
loved = ((mental formation of defilement)
taste = Dhamma (natural phenomena) + sankhara (conditioned phenomena from tongue, flavour + tongue consciousness)
ice cream = dhamma (natural phenomena) + sankhara (conditioned phenomena made from milk, sugar, flavour, tools, etc) + sankhara (mental formation of name/label).


text:
Need help finding a Sutta in which the Buddha details the rebirth destination of a soldier
There is one specific Sutta in which the Buddha details the rebirth destination of a patriotic soldier who dies in battle for the sake of his country? Can someone please help me find it. Metta to all.

Maybe Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.3)

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

Thank you so much. That's the one I was looking for.

About patriotically protecting the nation.

‘But sire, what is the noble duty of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle (dhamma) honoring,
respecting and venerating principle, having principle as your flag,
banner and authority—provide just protection and security for your
court, troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people
of town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds.
DN 26

Maybe Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.3) is not about patriotic soldier who dies in battle for the sake of his country.

I read a suggestion somewhere once, that references to a "wheel-turning monarch" might have been there to flatter or to refer to Ashoka.

@Dhamma Dhatu Thank you kind sir, for your response. But the question of mine is from a soldier's vantage point and his/her kammic repercussions, it is not about the monarch or a king. Don't you think there is a difference there?

The monarchs & kings were warrior caste. You asked about a "nation" or  "patriotism". If there is any confusion, it is in your question. The Buddha said: let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone.


text:
Help with alcoholism?
How or what can you advise, or what might help, anyone who drinks too much, or who may want to stop drinking?
Maybe based on experience and not only on Dhamma-theory (but an answer must include at least some Buddhist doctrine or practice or perspective).

If this is more about Buddhism, than alcoholism, why do you not trust your Buddhist teachers?

@Mazura When I was detoxing I was instructed to NOT be in withdfrawal when I arrive. They prefer to manage the patient's withdrawal from drunk to sober. Spare them the emergency of dealing with an addict in crisis.

My main fear of drinking is the loss of courage. Alcohol robs a person of their ability to face reality and the pain it inflicts. Be it the pain from the loss of someone dear, a broken relationship, joblessness, the tedium from the constant façades we wear or the grind of living for ourselves and others.
When alcohol becomes an escape, it feeds our fear and the thirst for solace. I guess there is always two sides in everything. In this case, we get temporary comfort and release from pain, fear and anxiety but we pay in terms of diminished resilience, lucidity and resourcefulness.
Perhaps, there is a reason why age and alcohol tend to go hand in hand. Who needs a resilient, lucid and resourceful mind in old age in a world that has moved on? In religions that believe this life is the end of the road, maybe alcohol makes sense but I don’t think this is the case for Buddhists. We know that there will be another place, another time and another opportunity to make right, to do better; provided we don’t repeat our follies. In line with karma, actions had a tendency to repeat themselves.
The next time round, with a mind that is clearer, sharper and wiser, we will be in a better position to care and protect our loved ones when we meet again. Another chance to better handle the difficulties in our relationships. To create a more fulfilling career. To surround ourselves with like-minded people rather than interacting under false pretences. To want to grind instead of being forced to face the daily grind.
I believe abstaining from intoxicants helps whether it is for Nirvana or to go from strength to strength as we journeyed through samsara; either for ourselves or the people we care about. With Metta.

As Desmon said, drinking is an escape. Question is, what are you escaping from?
Escaping means, you hit an obstacle but instead of fighting it you gave up. So now you don't go there, you are drinking which is a way to pretend the problem does not exist. It's a way of fooling oneself. But deep down you know you're fooling yourself so it's even worse, double pain.
In the Zen definition, Buddhism is the path to finding your true self. True self is when you don't lie to yourself, and your relationship with the world is also true. That means, you don't pretend everything is alright when it's not, you don't wear a mask, you show the real you to the world. That's hard because it means now you have to take responsibility for the results of your actions, whereas previously it wasn't your fault, you weren't really living your life you were faking it. But now you have to be honest, first and foremost with yourself: you decide what you want to do, you do it, and you face consequences of what you did.
When you are true like that, you don't keep on accumulating an ever bigger gap between where you are and where you think you should be. Not accumulating that gap, you don't get in the situation when things are irreparably wrong. And as things are never irreparably wrong, you don't need to go hide and get drunk.
So the key to not drinking is authentic living, and the key to authentic living is being honest with oneself, not wearing a mask, making your own decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences.
That's what I learned from my Buddhist teachers and books in my own experience. I hope it makes sense in your world.

Too much alcohol is bad for health. It can damage kidneys or liver or can cause gall bladder stone. I used to drink a quarter of alcohol for almost 2 years but I gave up alcoholism simply by deciding against it. And choosing what I like the most.
Today I don’t drink at all.
If you are unable to quit alcoholism then try rehabilitation center. Rehabilitation center for 1 month would be sufficient.
Always be happy and keep smiling and be grateful for all the unfortunate happenings because that is the truth. Develop love for the Truth.There is suffering and unfortunate events just reveal that.

@blue_ego one of the meditation is to rejoice.  There is nothing wrong in rejoicing. Others subjects of meditation are love , compassion, equanimity and ugliness….

Please see this answer about a video by Ven. Yuttadhammo on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to alcohol addiction as well.
Please watch the video.

Buddhism contains various teachings about alcohol & alcoholism, such as:

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in indulging
in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness:
(i) loss of wealth,
(ii) increase of quarrels,
(iii) susceptibility to disease,
(iv) earning an evil reputation,
(v) shameless exposure of body,
(vi) weakening of intellect.
In four ways, young householder, should one who brings ruin be
understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he is a companion in indulging in intoxicants that cause
infatuation and heedlessness,
(ii) he is a companion in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours,
(iii) he is a companion in frequenting theatrical shows,
(iv) he is a companion in indulging in gambling which causes
heedlessness.
The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to
ruin does he fall in both worlds ** — here and the next [the other].
Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering at
unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice — these nine causes ruin a
man.
Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are dear
unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and not with
elders — he declines just as the moon during the waning half.
Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking,
frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly brings disrepute to his family.
Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala: The Layperson's Code of Discipline
Footnote: the word 'world' in the Buddhism refers to both the social world & the mental world therefore the term 'other world' (paraloka) does not necessarily refer to another physical world

In Buddhism, a practicing Buddhist (rather than a mere social faith follower) lives according to the five moral precepts, which are:

abstaining from killing breathing creatures

abstaining from taking what is not freely given

abstaining from sexual misconduct

abstaining from false speech (telling lies)

abstaining from intoxications, such as alcohol, that cause heedlessness

Therefore, Buddhism obviously views alcohol & alcoholism as something perilous & dangerous to human life.  Buddhism would regard this view of danger/peril as a 'wisdom'.
According to one scripture, the practice of Buddhism requires five tools:

mindfulness (sati)

situational wisdom (sampajjana)

concentration (samadhi)

moral shame (hiri)

moral dread (ottappa)

The word 'mindfulness' means 'remembrance' or 'non-forgetfulness'. In the context of alcoholism, 'situational wisdom' means to clearly understand the dangers of alcohol & alcoholism. Therefore, when a Buddhist practitioner has 'mindfulness', it means they always never forget alcohol is a dangerous thing. When this mindfulness of knowledge-of-danger is maintained by the mind continuously, this is concentration, namely, the mind having one object of focus, which is the cognizance of the perils of alcohol plus the maintenance of abstinence from alcohol.
Moral shame (conscience) & moral dread (fear of the results of alcohol) are also important in Buddhism. The Buddhist Internet world has many ex-Christians with Christian baggage who assert fear & guilt are evil unskillful things. But, in true Buddhism, having a sense of moral shame & having fear of the consequences of harmful things is considered to be a virtue & skillful tool. Therefore, when if a recovering person starts to feel shame about their situation, again, they need to be mindful/remember that feeling shame is OK. Shame is a protective mechanism rather than something evil. Its is OK to feel shame. As the Catholics used to say before they became evangelists: "God loves a person with a contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17).
More subtly, the person developing the wisdom to stop drinking needs to be vigilant & mindful of the tricks the mind plays, in respect to both feelings of shame & desires/cravings for alcohol. So, as already said, if a sense of shame arises in the mind, the mind must be mindful & cognizant with situational wisdom & reflect: "It is OK to feel shame"; even humiliated. It is the alcohol that has caused the sense of humiliation. It is not oneself or the self that has done this.
The same applies to cravings. 'Addiction' is conditioned habituated cravings, called an 'underlying tendency' ('anusaya') in Buddhism. When habituated cravings from past actions (such as past drinking) 'emerge/flow out' (called 'asava') from the subconscious mind, in Buddhism, these are called 'hindrances' ('nivarana'). They are hindrances to progress & hindrances to wisdom. Buddhism lists five hindrances, which are:

sensual craving, which includes craving for alcohol

ill-will, which includes anger towards the difficult situation alcohol has caused

sloth & torpor, which may include any lethargy or laziness; the will to give up & succumb to craving

restlessness & remorse, which will especially be experienced by a recovery person, as their body & mind became agitated, stressed & frustrated due to abstinence

doubt/lack of faith, where one lacks belief recovery is possible.

The five hindrances can strongly takeover the mind, which is why the Buddha used strong metaphor/similes to explain their power/influence (refer to the Sangaravo Sutta).
Having mindfulness (sati) & situational wisdom (sampajjana) towards the five hindrances will be the great challenge for the recovery aspirant. Here, mindfulness must have the situational wisdom that:

Any of these hindrances are expected to arise. They are par for the course.

Any of these hindrances are impermanent. They should be noted, acknowledged, but not followed. One must patiently endure the arising & persistence of any hindrance until it naturally passes away. Buddhism guarantees, according to the laws of nature, that any hindrance will be impermanent. It must subside, sooner or later.

To end, my impression is common recovery programs require submission to a Higher Power. In Buddhism, there is actually a higher power. However, this higher power is an impersonal force of nature, similar to gravity. In Buddhism, this higher power is called the 'cessation element' ('nirodha dhatu'). What this simply means is purification from acquired habituated addiction is fully possible because there is a force/power in nature than dissolves unwholesome unnatural cravings; similar to how white blood cells can purify the physical body of a disease/infection.
Therefore, wisdom includes, not only completely trusting the five hindrances & acquired addiction craving symptoms are impermanent when they recur/rearise, but also trusting they can be completely dissolved & one day may never arise again.
Also, Buddhism contains children's stories called 'Jataka'. Jataka 512 is about alcohol.

The benefits of alcohol are illusory.
Through an accident of nature, alcohol excites opioid receptors.  Alcohol is not as addictive as opioids only because it is a poison.
If you want to see the types of tricks the mind can play on you, block your opioid receptors with an blocker like naltrexone.  Then drink, and find that you know longer experience the illusions of alcohol benefits.  This is called the Sinclair method, if you want to search some experiences on youtube.
You must also use mindfulness, which you learn through meditation.  In your daily habits, you use the cannabinoid circuits in your brain; that is, you go through life without noticing.  If you switch to a mindful state, you immediately use a different set of neural circuits.  As you observe in this state of mind, you'll clearly see what is good for you.
You'll also notice, using the Sinclair method, how incredibly persuasive excited opioid receptors are, and how many illusions in your mind are rationalizations of the brain.

At least on opium you know what you want. Alcohol is for feeling a little better not knowing why you feel so bad in the first place. I didn't notice when I was drinking how bad I felt. And now I don't notice feeling good per say. But every once in a while I have to stop and remember why I don't feel like crap.

I think that the truth of the matter is that the Buddha never talked about or gave much advice about escaping from alcoholism specifically.
The Buddha advised us in general to reflect and take skillful actions that will lead to long term welfare and happiness.
So, the Buddha would recommend that somebody with alcoholism seek professional help from experts.
You (or whoever) should seek help.


text:
Does rupa jhana mean material or fine material?
Does rupa regarding jhana mean material or fine (subtle) material according to Buddhism? According to source it says:

This is the first of the Absorptions belonging to the Fine-Material
Sphere (rupavacarajjhana). It is attained when, through the strength
of concentration, the fivefold sense activity is temporarily
suspended, and the five Hindrances are likewise eliminated. (Dîgha
Nikaya, 22)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html#rupa

There is no definitive answer to this question.
The jhana evangelists of the Ajahn Brahm sect say 'rupa' or 'form' refers to the mental image (nimitta) in jhana. But I personally do not agree with this.
The Suttas (e.g. SN 36.22) refers to bodily feelings (piti & sukha) & mental feelings (such as domanassa & somanassa). The jhana are based in piti, sukha & equanimity feelings. In other words, the piti & sukha of jhana is generated by the nervous system of physical body or rupa. Even though the rupa cannot be experienced in jhana, the piti & sukha experienced in jhana have their source in the rupa. Similarly, the equanimity of the 4th jhana is the absence of piti & sukha manifesting in the physical body. The suttas also say breathing is the 'thorn' of the 4th jhana, which probably means if/when the 4th jhana starts to weaken, the breathing is the 1st thing experienced. This is probably why jhana is called rupa jhana.
The breathing is physical. When the breathing is calmed by mental absorption into the breathing, this causes piti & sukha to manifest. Thus piti & sukha jhana that (previously) used absorption into breathing as its cause for fruition is probably called 'rupa jhana'.

Would u agree breath, piti, sukha, nimitta are all fine material?

There is no word in Pali that means "fine" material. Rupa means "material"

Rupa means any form , organic or inorganic, fine or coarse, biological or technological.

It's same meaning but it's difference in detail.
For example, there are only three senses for Rupa-Bhrhama while human have six senses because of the difference head-Taṇha to rebirth.
See AbhidhammatthaSangaha Chapter 1-6 for more detail.


text:
Following Buddhist concepts in non Buddhist society
How do you reconcile Buddhist concepts/faith in a non-Buddhist society? For example if you live in a society where you are to kill(stray or sick animals) or expected to lie as part of your livelihood?
If you aren't able to leave, how does participating in these forced actions effect your karma?

I live in a non- Buddhist society and it is true that in order to earn your livelihood you are expected to kill animals or lie. This is not the ideal situation. But there is hope , if you keep meditating on what Buddha said then you will understand that you can live without attachments to money , job or relationship.
Ideally one should quit and become a monk but the circumstances are such that there is no place or people left to seriously consider the implications of Buddhas teaching.
So keep in touch with Buddha and live your life with desires of renunciation one day. Admit that one day you will have to let go of your belongings and relationships because you are not body , not feelings , not perceptions , not choices , not consciousness.
Once you have understood this be happy because now you know the Truth.

This is true. However the karma we create will likely trump that knowledge right?

@TruthSeeker yes it creates bad karma if you lie or kill. Try avoiding that. If possible change your job. Do not lie out of your own craving.Buddha has said one should not lie even for a joke.

While I haven't worked a job for 8 years due to an increasingly politically correct workplace, I have never had to lie in any job. It is a matter of finding a job where you are not required to lie. Also, I have never had to put down any animals because I do not keep pets.

Perhaps if you had stayed in the PC workplace and did not have the option to leave, lieing may have been necessary?

Not possible for me to lie. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. I was 'pushed' to leave my former job, They no longer wanted people like me. I chose to leave. While the Buddhist internet space is largely PC, this is unrelated to real Buddhism.


text:
Is it okay to force your child to get married just because they’re of age?
I’m 23 years. I don’t have a partner. But I’ve agreed to them to look for a partner but I want to marry if I like the person only. My parents brought about 6 proposals but I didn’t connect with any. They are forcing me with a final one. They say they don’t want to look for more because it is a humiliation for them. But I don’t like the person. I spoke to him but I feel like we’re very different. And I am not physically attracted to him at all. My dad says he’s supposed to marry me off before 25. Now they are fixated on this person. But I don’t like him. My dad said he will force me into it despite my preference. I offered the option that I would like to become a Buddhist nun. They are not willing to comply with that either.

There's some advice here incidentally on how to choose a partner. Maybe that would help you and your parents find someone suitable or know what "suitable" means.

Buddhism (DN 31) says Buddhist parents have a duty to organize a suitable marriage for their children. The Pali words are:

patirūpa = fit; proper; suitable; befitting
dāra = a wife; wives
saṁyojenti = joins; combines; binds

Buddhism (AN 4.55) says a suitable partner has four qualities:

the same faith
the same ethics
the same generosity/sacrifice
the same intelligence/reasoning

The same faith not only includes the same religion but also includes having the same life goals. For example, in the modern world that has effective birth control, whether both people want to have children or do not is another criteria that must be considered.
This link summaries some Buddha teachings about a suitable partner.
Therefore, for respective parents to identify a suitable partner also requires input from the children because life today is more complex than 2600 years where the people of the Buddha's time lived in large clans or extended families. Today, there are factors such as education, living location, occupation, financial goals, having children, etc, that may effect who is a suitable partner.
In summary, it is not okay to force a child to get married in Buddhism. Instead, both parents & children must provide input into what is a suitable partner. Also, in Buddhism, becoming a fully ordained nun (bhikkhuni) requires the permission of parents. However, parents permission is not required to live in a monastery as a ten-precept nun.

Becoming Buddhist nun is a good idea, however it is a tough life. Tougher than a layman or laywomen style of living. If you have a true inclination towards a Buddhism then you should seek a partner who also believes in Buddha. Without a common ground of understanding no marriage can work.
If you are being forced to get married to someone who doesn’t believe in Buddha then it is unfortunate. However if things are out of your control then you should show love and compassion towards your spouse.
You can extend your love and compassion to neighbors, city , countries and world. You should also extend your love and compassion in all directions, up and down , left and right , forward and backwards , east and west , north and south. Doing so will harmonise your relationship with your spouse and will change your general outlook and attitudes, and your life will be ful of joy.

It's not okay to force marriage upon someone. It's your life and it's precious. You can marry who you want, if you even want to marry anyone at all.
Becoming a Bhikkhuni is far more beneficial, wholesome and good. I sincerely wish for you to get that opportunity in this life.


text:
Denial and ego-defence
I've never been taught psychology so I'm no expert but modern vocabulary includes the words "denial" (like "in denial") and "ego defence".

"Denial" appears in this context for example:

In psychoanalytic theory, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs where the abandonment or reversal of denial that substance dependence is problematic forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps.

Denial is explained (perhaps defined) as a "defence mechanism", of which I think "ego defence" is a synonym.

In psychoanalytic theory, a defence mechanism (American English: defense mechanism) is an unconscious psychological operation that functions to protect a person from anxiety-producing thoughts and feelings related to internal conflicts and outer stressors.

A lot of questions about "ego" and "self" on this site are related to the definition of anatta.

Is there Buddhist doctrine on the subject of "denial" though?

Doctrine which explains why or how it happens (how can it happen if in reality there is no ego to defend)?
Perhaps more importantly, how to recognise and overcome the problem if it arises in yourself or someone else?

Note:

Denying the existence of the "ego" and claiming that anatta is the only reality might be part of the problem. Do the suttas have something to say about ego? Does Mahayana?
Doctrine's saying that "ignorance" and "wrong view" and "clinging" exist is Ok but maybe not very specific/actionable. Or is that hitting the nail on the head, i.e. is "clinging" precisely what people mean nowadays by "ego"?

Here are some Buddhist doctrines that I've heard of, which might be related to "overcoming ego":

Generosity (e.g. dana)
Doctrine about pity (which I think is to do with implying that someone is inferior)
Doctrine about conceit (here and here), though the Bhikkhuni Sutta [AN 4.159] also says that conceit is instrumental

There's also this sutta that "it's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others":

...
The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'

Note: According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

Maybe one footnote should be enough as in, "a nod is as good as a wink". But if "denial" and overcoming it are as important as described in the definition above -- i.e. "the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps" -- possibly Buddhism might have said more about it?
Maybe it's in texts that I'm not familiar with -- e.g. "admitting faults" is presumably (important) in the Vinaya; and Andriy uses the word 'ego' frequently in answers, perhaps "ego" is more explicit in Mahayana doctrines.

A related topic might be "urgency":

Saṃvega
Saṃvega is a Buddhist term which indicates a sense of shock, dismay and spiritual urgency to reach liberation and escape the suffering of samsara. According to Thanissaro Bhikku, saṃvega is the "first emotion you're supposed to bring to the training" and [etc.]
...
For saṃvega to be an effective drive to practice, it must be accompanied by another emotion called pasada, a "clarity and serene confidence." Pasada is what keeps saṃvega from turning into nihilistic despair by providing a sense of confidence that there is a way out, namely nibbana.

Because I think that procrastination is another form of defence or denial.

anatta does not mean anatman. Atman is a later Hindu concept

I think some people (including alcoholic) might conceal or "deny" ego, as an ego-defence mechanism -- is there, isn't there, Buddhist doctrine on that subject? I see tangential doctrine, e.g. to be harmless and non-threatening.

I suffered a lot in the past -- technically not from my own alcoholism, though it could be said that I enabled it, more than I should have if I had been wiser or less isolated, not that other people did blame me. Not the same suffering now but a memory of what can be involved. I'm not alcoholic, after even a little I feel hung-over the next day (or "feeling like crap" as some people put it), which is rarely worth-while for me. And I'm not doing some training -- isn't it likely that some other people can explain it here better than I can?

MN 58: I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy. -- maybe this comment too.

Also I think it's sensible to ask this kind of question on this site. The doctrine is good, and questions about the theory are good, to understand it, but asking about "practical" problems is on-topic too -- does the Dhamma address this modern-day topic, and what about practice? Or is it only that this modern-day formulation of this problem is ill-stated, creates entities (e.g. "ego") unnecessarily, and is more-or-less irrelevant and useless or misleading, so we'd better focus only on e.g, less ego-centric "factors of enlightenment" etc.?

Also you asked in a now-deleted comment whether I am suffering from alcoholism, so I answered that specifically. This question may be applicable to other more general topics -- e.g. it also reminds me of Samana Johann's trying to exhort people not to remain stuck in the house-holder's life.

Atman is not found in the Suttas.

Doctrine which explains why or how it happens (how can it happen if in reality there is no ego to defend)?

The above is mixing up the mundane with the supramundane. It is wrong thinking. Only Noble Ones have freedom from the illusion of ego. The alcoholic is not a Noble One. The alcoholic is a puthujjana. Therefore, the notion of "no ego" does not apply to the alcoholic puthujjana.

Perhaps more importantly, how to recognise and overcome the problem if
it arises in yourself or someone else?

About 'denial', MN 5 says:

There are these four individuals to be found existing in the world.

There is the case where a certain individual, being blemished, does not discern as it has come to be that ‘I have an inner blemish.’

There is the case where a certain individual, being blemished, discerns as it has come to be that ‘I have an inner blemish.’

There is the case where a certain individual, being unblemished, does not discern as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish.’

There is the case where a certain individual, being unblemished, discerns as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish.’

With regard to that, the individual who, being blemished, doesn’t discern as it has come to be that ‘I have an inner blemish’ is called the inferior man of the two individuals who are blemished. The individual who, being blemished, discerns as it has come to be that ‘I have an inner blemish’ is called the superior man of the two individuals who are blemished.

Then again, the individual who, being unblemished, doesn’t discern as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish’ is called the inferior man of the two individuals who are unblemished. The individual who, being unblemished, discerns as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish’ is called the superior man of the two individuals who are unblemished.

Denying the existence of the "ego" and claiming that anatta is the
only reality might be part of the problem. Do the suttas have
something to say about ego? Does Mahayana?

The above question is irrelevant because all unwholesome action involves the arising of self-view or ego. Not knowing this is to not know Dependent Origination due to taking refuge in Bodhi & Sujato who describe Dependent Origination as biological birth rather than self-identity birth. Buddhadasa made it clear that to not know "jati" refers to ego-birth means not knowing anything about the Buddha's Teaching.

Doctrine's saying that "ignorance" and "wrong view" and "clinging"
exist is Ok but maybe not very specific/actionable. Or is that hitting the nail on the head, i.e. is "clinging" precisely what people mean nowadays by "ego"?

"Clinging" is the start of ego. Dependent Origination describes four types of clinging; the fourth being self-doctrine clinging. Clinging is the cause for becoming & becoming is the cause for "birth". "Birth" is the maturation of ego where the mind solidifies the sense of "beings or a being within a class of beings". "Alcoholic" is a class of beings.

The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without
hurting myself or others.' Note: According to the Commentary, "hurting
oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other
people down. Maybe one footnote should be enough as in, "a nod is as
good as a wink"

The above appears another type of denial. This said, MN 139 is about Non-Conflict and simply says to make the Dhamma impersonal, such as:

And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling nor disparaging but teaching only the Dhamma? When one does not say: ‘All those [persons] engaged in the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desires … have entered upon the wrong way,’ but says instead: ‘The pursuit [of alcohol] is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way,’ then one teaches only the Dhamma. When one does not say: All those disengaged from the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desires … have entered upon the right way,’ but says instead: ‘The disengagement is a state without suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the right way,’ then one teaches only the Dhamma.

Maybe it's in texts that I'm not familiar with -- e.g. "admitting
faults" is presumably (important) in the Vinaya; and Andriy uses the
word 'ego' frequently in answers, perhaps "ego" is more explicit in
Mahayana doctrines.

The above appears to be seeking a path of non-ego-conflict & avoidance of self-hatred. The Dhamma generally uses personal pronouns in respect to the admission of faults, as quoted above from MN 5. However, it appears personal pronouns can be avoided & the principles of MN 139 can be adopted. Thus MN 139 is the pure wisdom that: the pursuit of sensual pleasure [alcohol] is low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial; beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever.

Because I think that procrastination is another form of defence or
denial.

Procrastination is doubt. Doubt is a hindrance & a fetter. Doubt is the opposite of faith. Faith is the first spiritual faculty & power.

Thank you, M 139 is on-topic. So what I might have called, phrasing a statement so as to avoid "causing offence" or maybe "ego-defence", is identified in the Dhamma as avoiding "conflict".

To me, denial begins with the question, “Why me?”. I mean it can happen to someone else; an acquaintance, a friend, a relative or even a family member but why me? Is it because I did something wrong? Maybe the world or some divine force is unhappy with me and decided to punish me. There is a thousand and one possible reasons and the neurotic mind offers another million more.
Then there is the anger, frustration and bitterness. This is followed by a desperate search for a solution...anything to hold on to and provide comfort (a drink perhaps?).
Surprisingly, the thing that eventually helps to provide a semblance of calm and peace is an acceptance of the reality. Accepting that there is nothing special about me (or you). Since the day we were came to this world, no one had said that bad things (be it the loss of a job, a relationship, a loved one, health and so on) would never happen to us. Now, they finally did...just like what the Buddha said. That is when we understood what anatta and anicca meant. Like what a wise monk (was it Ajahn Chah?) once said, “the heart understood what the mind could not”.
We can be taught all the concepts there is to learn; anicca, anatta and dukkha but we don’t understand them until we tasted them through our hurt, pain and anguish.
To understand what is ego, self or atta. Look within ourselves. Look for something special, a quality, characteristic or trait that was there since the day we were born...in fact it doesn’t even have to be unique; just something that will minimally protect us and provide some assurance against the world and its harsh reality. There is none. But don’t let me convince you; try it yourselves and let me know if you find anything.
Deep down, we all want to defend our ego/self/atta but the irony is, it never defended us during the times of our deepest crises. All it ever did was to deny, get angry, drown in sorrow, thrash about and grasp at anything (in the hope that it will make the situation better) and all the while sinking deeper. Again, don’t let me convince you. The next time it hurts, just ask your ego, self, atta or whatever, “Hey, I need some help here. Where are you?”
Pity, it’s not complicated. Just shout at reality, “I am not asking for a break, just some sympathies!”. And you will know instantly its problem.
So, you learn to go the other way. Follow what the heart teaches instead of listening to the mind. Strangely, the more we listen to the heart, the quieter and calmer the mind becomes. With Metta.

Ah yes, I once saw "denial" and "why me?" listed as initial/consecutive stages of "five stages of grief".

Denial is explained (perhaps defined) as a "defence mechanism", of which I think "ego defence" is a synonym.
This confuses the matter. Denial in colloquial english just means "the action of declaring something to be untrue." or "a statement that something is not true." In your usage it means denial/refusal/avoidance to admit a known truth.
The interesting part of your question is why - or the cause - someone might engage in denial and that is where the western notion of 'ego defense' comes in. I don't think it is necessary to invoke doctrines of anatta to explain this. This psychological denial can be thought of as nothing more than a - not very effective - pain response. The docrine of anatta or emptiness doesn't need to be invoked to understand pain response.
Here is a good dharma teaching on the western concept of denial and includes a quote from the 7th Dalai Lama from his Gems of Wisdom:
What deadly sword cuts off all branches of creative activity?
The sword of denial that does not face the reality of what is.
One of the biggest things that many try and avoid at all costs despite knowing absolutely full well that it is coming is the truth of our own death. Many avoid thinking about, contemplating, or even acknowledging the fact of our own deaths in any way we can. Here is a great dharma talk on this topic.
I'd also note that in some readings of Minds and Mental Factors the third item of the 22 secondary maledictions can be translated as 'concealment' or 'denial.'

I meant "ego defence" is a synonym of "defence mechanism", not of "denial". Denial is said to be one of the defence mechanisms.

Thank you for the reference[s].

Buddha never said there is no self, neither he said that there is a self. He said Sabbe sankhara Anicca, Sabbe sankhara dukha and Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.
Meaning of sankhara and Dhamma must be understood. sankhara means all conditioned phenomena… Dhamma means all conditioned phenomena and unconditioned phenomena. He did not say, Sabbe Dhamma Annicca or Sabbe Dhamma Dukha. Nibbana is neither permanent nor impermanent. Nibbana is unborn , unoriginated, uncreated and unbecoming.
It is the escape from originated , born , created and becoming. There is neither acceptance nor denial.
Because we are dealing with an uncomfortable situation , a denial may occur , however true may the situation be.
That’s cowardice. Not acknowledging what is , not acknowledging that it is impermanent, not acknowledging that therefore it has no self is cowardice or ignorance. Take for example drug abuse- drug abuse may give momentary relief and we understand it’s Dhamma as “ If you take this drug you will feel ecstatic “ . As the aforementioned Dhamma lacks self , the statement is not true for forever for various reasons. Your body may loose ability to digest the drug. Drug can start having opposite effect on mind etc etc…
Denying the Dhamma of drug is ignorance or cowardice. A rational mind will not seek dependence on things or laws or principles which lacks self , instead he will renunciate it , not by denying it but by understanding that it lacks self. We acknowledge what is as what is and are mentally prepared for what it will get reduced to because it is impermanent and therefore we experience dispassion and revulsion towards it. That is not irrational denial but a rational understanding of the Dhamma.