text:
The Account of Other Minds in Chinese Yogācāra Buddhism
https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/80747
"POM1: Presume that other minds can be perceived. Then, they shall be like external forms and
have no real existence.
POM2: Presume that other minds can be perceived and still have real existence. This epistemic
realism contradicts the idealist position held by the Yogācārins, insofar as there is one type of
really-existed objects that can be directly given to one’s mind and this givenness is independent
of one’s own mind.
POM3: Presume that other minds cannot be perceived. Then, the doctrine of consciousness-
only also becomes untenable, because there is one type of objects that falls outside of the scope
of one’s experience."
"Other minds are then perceived through the second-person perspective."
That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds? Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind  Thank you.

Note the language being used. Self and Other. Your questions presuppose things which are not ultimately true. The presuppositions undergirding these questions do not stand up to logical analysis. They lead to absurd consequences.

Should this school be perceived as metaphysical idealism or epistemological?

I think you're trying to fit western philosophical definitions on to thesis' that don't easily fit them. What I'm saying comes from the Prasangika (Consequentialist) school and its criticism of Yogachara. If you wish to understand Yogachara/Cittamatra from that perspective I suggest reading chapter 6 of this: http://siddharthasintent.org/assets/pubs/MadhyamakavataraDJKR.pdf

Related: Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

"That is, when the Yogacarin communicates with other people, does he directly communicate with other minds?"
The Yogachara/Cittamatra is one of the higher tenet systems of Mahayana buddhism with the other being Madhyamaka. Both of these tenet systems attempt to explain the Buddha's teachings through the lens of the Two Truths: the conventional truth, and the ultimate truth. Your questions are confusing these two truths in a way that a Yogacarin would not agree to. That is, a Yogacarin would object to your questions as they rely upon western words and ideas that simply do not fit into the framework of the two truths and the tenet system of Cittamatra.
If a Yogacarin answered your question from the context of the conventional they would say they communicate with other people just like you do: talking and hearing, writing and reading, sign language and so on. From the context of the ultimate, a Yogacarin would ask why do you presume a 'self' and an 'other' where none so exist in the ultimate?
"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind Thank you."
Again, in the context of the conventional the Yogacarin would say there is no "pretending" and this question is just presuming things they do not agree to. In the context of the ultimate, the Yogacarin would ask why do you presume a 'self' and 'other' and a 'his mind'?

Didn't you already ask this?

"Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he
knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just
imaginations created by his mind"

Who's conceptual framework would that be done with?
What do you think minds are, things with an unchanging essence?
As I see it, key to understanding the 'mind-only' perspective is recognising all experiences have to be filtered through subjectivities, there is no truly objective, because no one experiences that, only consilience of experiences: like between different senses, & by comparing with others.
We each carry our own reality, but it's one where we constantly interact with the reality of others. A modern framing is 'peer to peer reality'.

Thank you. That is, this school is not metaphysical idealism? Is it about the perception of the same object here? For example: Two minds talk to each other about Paris, but one mind says that he likes this city, and the other mind tells him that he does not like this city because there are a lot of tourists, for example?

@Arny: "One day Soshi was walking on the bank of a river with a friend. 'How delightfully the fishes are enjoying themselves in the water!' exclaimed Soshi. His friend spake to him thus: 'You are not a fish; how do you know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?' 'You are not myself', returned Soshi; 'how do you know that I do not know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?" -from The Book Of Tea

Thanks. That is, the Chinese and Indian schools of Yogacara are schools of impressions only? That is, two friends do not create Paris with their minds, but create the impression of Paris with their minds?

'Impressions only'.. As opposed to, substances? Essences? Identities? Transcendental unity? I feel like you have a set of square blocks you are determined to jam into round holes. It's like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net Less self + world, than the surface, the interface between. That is the shift. Bundles of phenomena, grouped into salience landscapes, but all empty of inherent existence, all changing, relative, interdependent, mutually arising.

Thanks for the answer. But I cannot understand: Here's the situation: One Yogacarin talks to another Yogacharin about the river they are looking at. From the idealistic point of view of the Yogacara: A yogacarin must think that his mind has created another yogacarin with his own mind and a river? Or it should look like this:  one mindstream talking to another mindtream about the stream of water and two mindstreams creates an impression of this stream of water in their mind? Thank you.

@Arny From The Gateless Gate: *Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: "The flag is moving."
The other said: "The wind is moving."
The abbot was passing by. He told them: "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving."* Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory#Buddhism Not different from the total of people's experiences, but also not found in those separate parts. You think the river is made by the minds. But the minds are also made by the river.

When my friend and I are looking at the river. It looks like this:  two minds look at the river, but if there were no river then there would be no perceptions in the minds, but if there were no minds it would be impossible to perceive the river? Thank you

@Arny: Yes. No minds, no perceptions. When the tree fell, there would be sound waves, but no one would hear them. 'Self' is like 'hearing', not something that is, but something we do. The same with 'Paris', and 'river'. Yogacara interpreted as subjective idealism is not tenable, I'd say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogachara#Philosophical_dialogue:_Yog%C4%81c%C4%81ra,_idealism_and_phenomenology It is mind-only in that there are only thoughts, but the idea anyone has thoughts, is itself only a thought. Don't look to an objective world, or subjective real, look in between.

it doesn't really matter to the yogacarin if other minds exist or not.  the mind can be one or many for all they care.  knowing is karma; it's not permanent, they are waiting patiently for holistic unraveled.best scenario is no conflict, no blaming, no nothing


text:
Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days?
Can a lay person observe the ten precepts on uposatha days? I ask this because I want to observe the eight precepts on uposatha days and I don’t need to use money on those days anyway so I might as well observe the ten precepts instead of eight. So is it ok for me to observe the ten precepts or should the ten precepts be only observed by novices and nun?

The recommendation is for lay persons to observe the Eight Precepts on Uposatha Days.
The Eight Precepts are included in the Ten Precepts, thus the Ten Precepts conform to the above recommendation.
So, there's no problem observing the Ten Precepts on Uposatha Days.
It's just like the case where monks need not do more than what is required by the Vinaya. But if they want to, they can optionally choose to observe the stricter Dhutanga rules.
In any case, it is useful to remember that the Buddha taught the Middle Way between excessive indulgence and excessive austerity.
The analogy from the Sona Sutta is applicable here to illustrate that energy and effort applied to the practice should not be too much or too little:

“What do you think, Soṇa? When you were still a layman, weren’t you a
good harp player?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too tight, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too slack, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“But when your harp’s strings were tuned neither too tight nor too
slack, but fixed at an even tension, was it resonant and playable?”
“Yes, sir.”
“In the same way, Soṇa, when energy is too forceful it leads to
restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa,
you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of
the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.”

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Ten thousand world systems
I keep pondering over the below questions and thought of posting it here.

Is the physical universe(the one we observe with stars, galaxies, black holes etc) contained in the 31 planes of existence or the other way around?
A "ten thousand world systems" imply that there are other universes besides ours, which gives support to the multiverse hypothesis in science?
Are there ten thousand of world systems or infinite of them? Just trying to ponder if its infinite, then imagine the probability of being born as a human and able to understand dhamma, that is mind blowing. That also goes to show the sheer magnitude of samsara.

Just so it's said, the number 10,000 is a bit of a translation error, at least as far as ancient Chinese texts are concerned. It should really have been translated as 'myriad', or 'innumerable', with the sense of a number far too large to count. Interestingly, the word 'myriad' also literally means 10,000 in ancient Greek. That may have had something to do with the limitations of early math devices (abaci or stone-marker systems), where tens of thousands was an upper limit to the tool.

On one hand, we read the following description, explaining further on how the Buddha can shine his light and extend his voice to the billionfold great world system aka the galactic supercluster.

The Buddha said this:
“Ānanda, a galaxy extends a thousand times as far as the moon and sun
revolve and the shining ones light up the quarters. In that galaxy
there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king
of mountains, a thousand Indias, a thousand Western Continents, a
thousand Northern Continents, a thousand Eastern Continents, four
thousand oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand realms of the
Gods of the Four Great Kings, a thousand realms of the Gods of the
Thirty-Three, of the Gods of Yama, of the Joyful Gods, of the Gods who
Love to Create, of the Gods who Control the Creations of Others, and a
thousand Brahmā realms. This is called a thousandfold lesser world
system, a ‘galaxy’.
A world system that extends for a thousand galaxies is called a
millionfold middling world system, a ‘galactic cluster’.
A world system that extends for a thousand galactic clusters is called
a billionfold great world system, a ‘galactic supercluster’. .....
“First, Ānanda, a Realized One would fill the galactic supercluster
with light. When sentient beings saw the light, the Realized One would
project his call so that they’d hear the sound. That’s how a Realized
One could make his voice heard throughout a galactic supercluster, or
as far as he wants.”
AN 3.80

On the other hand, we read below a description of the "thousandfold world" which matches the other meaning of "world" in the suttas, as discussed in this question. Here, it means "world of mental formations" or "world of mental fabrications" (sankhara loka) - from this answer.

“It is, friend, because I have developed and cultivated the four
establishments of mindfulness that I have attained to greatness of
direct knowledge. What four? Here, friend, I dwell contemplating the
body in the body … feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in
phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed
covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. It is, friend,
because I have developed and cultivated these four establishments of
mindfulness that I directly know this thousandfold world.”
SN 47.28

Putting these two suttas together, it simply means that the Buddha is able to reach the minds of a billion people by shining the radiance of his personality and extending his voice to them through their senses and through the monastic order and discourses.

The sheer scale of samsara is scary. I was under the impression that the physical universe is a tiny slice among the 31 planes of existence and the other slices correspond to heavens and hells. It's still as confusing as trying to pin point the physical location of Mount meru. Still trying to unravel the cosmos depicted in the Buddhist texts.

"If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as
they are, of single essence." -from the early Chinese Zen poem The
Xinxin Ming

Compare also

"The named is the mother of ten thousand things." -from The Tao Te
Ching

It is interesting to look at the soteriological role of numbers in Indian thought, as discussed in this episode of In Our Time: Indian Mathematics. A kalpa in Buddhist thought has been estimated at millions of years, and a maha-kalpa at tens or hundreds of billions of years - appropriate for geological time, the current age of the universe, and the stelliferous era over which stars will form, respectively. But what is notable is these were not presented as exact:
"it would not be equal to a Maha Kalpa"
"even that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas"
"will be filled even before the kalpa end"
are typical phrasings. So like with the number of realms, I'd say the import here is to understand our situation in general terms, to gain a sense of perspective.
Physics is very much a work in progress, what we are sure of about time and gravity, is that they don't fit with the other forces which we have a nice integrates quantum field of. A fifth force turned up from muon behaviour a few weeks ago. Dark energy and dark matter are big challenges to our picture of the past and future. Yet in 1900 Lord Kelvin declared:

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that
remains is more and more precise measurement.”

just five or so years before the beginning of quantum mechanics, and two decades before relativity.
Mixing and matching between physics and Buddhist thought is not I think generally useful. Buddhist thinking forms a coherent whole, best understood in reference to itself, as tools aimed at cultivating awakening.
It is remarkable that Buddhist cosmology seems to have the most accurate timescale from long before Hubble, and point not to an infinite cosmos but one very very large (there are likely a lot more than 10,000 planets with intelligent life in the universe). It is highly well suited to a universe encountering alien species, and to Earth's own animals developing human-level consciousness. But it is better I'd say approached as a way of thinking, rather than as a set of results, or declarations. What I'd say is remarkable, is what is indicated about the power of regular meditation practice to give us good answers to deep questions.
In physics there is no agreement or clarity about the multiverse, the existence of Many Worlds, brane collisions, fracture planes in the E8 mathematical structure, multiple time dimensions, whether the past and future are 'real', whether there are multiple dimensions of time, or why the time dimension behaves differently from space dimensions. Buddhist thought is not waiting for those answers. Like in The Parable Of The Poison Arrow, next to the problem of suffering these are like asking about the material the bow was made from, when we have been struck by an arrow. It may be good to know the poison, to understand why someone might fire such an arrow - but don't forget why: to benefit all sentient beings.
If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that our words are not sufficient to communicate the understanding of an enlightened person to someone who isn't. The cosmos will doubtless prove stranger and more beautiful than we are even beginning to imagine. I suggest a playfulness about cosmology, an inquiry into it for how it can help us be better. This Kurzgesacht video 'The Egg' is a nice example of how different traditions may have been like the blind men who approached the elephant in different ways.

In the early Buddhist texts a world is that in the world through which one perceives & conceives the world, eg mind, eye, ear.
A world which is a thousandfold system is thus a perception of a thousandfold percepients.
Special relativity and principle of non-simultaneity do well in explaining why and how it is world.

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


text:
Vajrasatva Practice as training in ultimate Bodhicitta?
I am doing Vajrasatva purification practice, and wonder whether this is a training in Ultimate Bodhicitta?
As stated in the Scriptures related to Mind Training: one should first train in Ultimate Bodhicitta.
So is purification through Vajrasatva Practice the kind of training to be used to get accustomed to the view of emptiness?
Also, is it the best antidote for attachment?
Many thanks!

When you say "Vajrasatva purification practice" do you mean an appropriate visualization plus the hundred-syllable mantra followed by a dissolution?
If so then the answer is: no, this is not training in the Ultimate Bodhicitta, this is a preliminary practice.
If by "Vajrasatva purification practice" you don't mean the above mentioned sadhana but instead you mean the cultivation of the view that "In the absolute sense there is nothing to be purified, no one purifying, and no act of purification" - then that's training in Ultimate Bodhicitta.
There's nothing to be purified etc, - means you no longer regard yourself as a problem. Things don't require fixing because nothing is broken. In the ultimate sense everything is exactly as it should have been. All judgments like "dirty" and "pure" are mind-made categories, defined relatively to one another. That's the view of Emptiness.
When you cultivate the view of Emptiness, you get used to the idea that to let go and to open up is okay. You stop being driven by your hopes and fears and come out as authentic being. Instead of pretending to be perfect, you figure things out as you go, and that creates a sense of kindness and openness. Now you can actually relate with people.
This is why they say, first cultivate the Ultimate Bodhicitta and  only then the Relative Bodhicitta. Because the view of Emptiness is what gives that authenticity and relaxed attitude, that sense of not forcing your preexisting agenda on people that makes it possible to meet the real them. Only then saving others from samsara, the point of Relative Bodhicitta, is possible.

"Some bodhicitta practices emphasize the absolute (e.g. vipaśyanā), while others emphasize the relative (e.g. metta), but both aspects are seen in all Mahāyāna practice as essential to enlightenment, especially in the Tibetan practices of tonglen and lojong. Without the absolute, the relative can degenerate into pity and sentimentality, whereas the absolute without the relative can lead to nihilism and lack of desire to engage other sentient beings for their benefit." -from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhicitta#Levels I think you only value the absolute.

Not at all, I'm just answering the question. Both are important, of course.

Thank you very much for your answer. But this makes me wonder:
"If so then the answer is: no, this is not training in the Ultimate Bodhicitta, this is a preliminary practice." Is it misleading, to do Vajrasattva preliminary practice with Absolute Bodhicitta in mind? Maybe because one (I am) is with one feet trapped by nihilism, like: My wrongdoings are empty. (And therefore everything is okay). So is it better to imagine ones afflictions as substantial (smoke or "oil", dirt) and the nectar as substantial too – with no sense or idea of emptiness?

Right, it's a question of picking appropriate medicine for your condition. In a traditional context this is something  a lineage guru would decide based on their knowledge of you and your problems. If in doubt I'd say stick with preliminary practice and don't worry about emptiness etc. until you are confident you are done with the purification. But as they say, "consult your doctor" - in this case whoever initiated you into this practice.


text:
Chinese Buddhists consider all people to be potential Buddhas
Do the Chinese Buddhists of all Chinese schools of Buddhism regard all people as potential Buddhas or just Buddhists? Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? What is the difference between their relationship to people whom they consider potential Buddhas from their relationship to ordinary people? Thanks everyone.

Would you stop creating accounts? Please use the same account for all your posts.

@AndreiVolkov: Weird behavior... Why would he do that?

Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment?

In the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding, the Buddha teaches that "in any doctrine or discipline" that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found:

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"

"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."

"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

Buddhism holds that any being can become enlightened if they follow the Buddha's teachings. Different sects of Buddhism envision it on different timescales, and different sects have different relationships to the ideal, but no Buddhist would ever say: "This person (or these people) can never achieve enlightenment".
It's a more open question whether one must identify as a Buddhist to achieve enlightenment. As I see it, someone of a different faith (a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jain, Atheist, or what you will) who follows the teachings of the Buddha as well as their own beliefs should have no problem attaining; someone who follows no path at all, but uses practices that are (for all practical purposes) the same as what the Buddha taught should have no problem attaining. Enlightenment is a realization, not a thing or event. The Buddha showed a path and practices that lead us in the direction of that realization, but ultimately even the identification of 'being a Buddhist' must fall by the wayside.

In some styles of Mahayana Buddhism the icchantika is understood to be a deluded being who can never attain enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icchantika

@CriglCragl: I"m sure there are people out there who are so debased that attainment would be exceedingly difficult (and yes, I have at least one prominent person in mind when I say that). But any assertion of permanence is dukkha, so I can't quite ascribe to the idea that someone can never attain understanding.

Yes. But all schools of Buddhism say it is possible for any being to become a Buddha, but given their rarity unlikely - and a Buddha is specifically an originator of the teaching in a realm without one, so as long as Buddhism exists, there can't be a new Buddha only arhats and bodhisattvas. There is a long tradition not only in Chinese Buddhism, of recognising the wisest teachers of other traditions as pratyekabuddha, those who have some degree of awakening but do not teach it's full realisation. Lao Tzu has been widely identified as such a one.
Scholars have linked the emphasis on the tathatagharba doctrine of original enlightenment or Buddha-nature in Chinese Buddhist schools, to it's resonance with the Dao and principle of Li in Confucianism, which are doctrines of natural or original harmony.
The doctrine draws from Buddhas description of the 'luminous mind':

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming
defilements" -Anguttara Nikaya, 1.49-52 (alternative translations and Therevada discussion of here)

And

"He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established,
solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or
Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: 'I am a true son of
Blessed Lord (Bhagavan), born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by
Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this
designates the Tathagata: 'The Body of Dhamma,' that is, 'The Body of
Brahma,' or 'Become Dhamma,' that is, 'Become Brahma.'"" -Digha Nikaya
III. 84

The tenth chapter of The Lotus Sutra, emphasises that everyone can be liberated, that all living beings can become a buddha, not only monks and nuns, but also laypeople, and non-human creatures. It also details that all living beings can be a 'teacher of the Dharma'. The Lotus Sutra is foundational for and of the highest prominence in Tiantai, Tendai, Cheontae, and Nichiren schools. But also important in Chinese Zen, and there is a commentary on it by Vasubhandu in the Therevada tradition. A copy of The Lotus Sutra is the world's oldest printed book, bound in blue silk, and is held in the British Library in London. Worth dropping in to see if you're there.
It is interesting to note the dharmakaya within the trikaya doctrine in Chinese thought. The trikaya are the three bodies of a Buddha, the nirmankaya or 'transformation-body' is a physical manifestation of a Buddha in the world. The sambhogakaya or 'bliss-body' is the celestial manifestation. And the dharmakaya or 'dharma-body' is the unmanifested "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a Buddha out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. It's interesting to me, to notice parallels with Christian theology, both of the trinity, and specifically of immanence. The framing I choose, is to see religious practice and doctrinal innovation as about succeeding in helping practicioners and communities of practicioners to succeed, and live well. So I note this as a kind of convergent-evolution that highlights the doctrines effectiveness.

Reasons for down-voting, are appreciated.


text:
Is actively reporting wrongdoing considered divisive speech?
I've been reading through the newest version of the code of conduct of the company I work for, and I've been weighing each rule against my Buddhist ethics, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me.
One thing the code of conduct says is that if one witnesses something improper, and does not report it, that constitutes a violation. I think, for most serious offenses this is in line with the Buddha's teachings (for example, sexual harassment, violence, etc). But for certain other offenses, it's not very clear to me whether reporting them would be considered divisive speech, i.e. wrong speech.
The Buddha defines unskillful verbal action, in part, thusly:

What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism.

— AN 10:165
So, two questions pertaining to two very concrete examples:

Suppose one witnesses corruption. If one reports it to the police, is that considered divisive speech? Could it be said that one is setting up the police against the perpetrator?
Suppose someone confides in one about a relationship in the workplace (not disallowed by the code of conduct, unless it goes unreported). Could it be considered divisive speech if one reports the relationship to the company's ethics body?

Apparently, according to the commentary on rule number 3 of the Pācittiya section of the Pāṭimokkha, one of the defining characteristics of divisive speech is that one has to have the intention of either gaining favor with another party, or causing the disgrace of another. Whereas if one is acting with the genuine intention of putting an end to harm, or to have someone help the other person see the error of their ways, it is not considered divisive speech.
More discussion can be found here.
So, some possible answers might be:

If one does not develop ill will toward the perpetrator of the act of corruption, and one is genuinely interested in preventing or stopping harm, one can report the act to the police and it would not be considered divisive speech. Although the severity of the criminal consequences here raise more interesting questions in this case.
If, by not reporting the workplace relationship, harm would befall the witness or the people involved in the relationship once the relationship is discovered; and, additionally, one does not have the desire to shame the people involved; then one can report the relationship to the ethics body of the company without being considered divisive speech. Since in this specific case, the code of conduct does not forbid relationships, but only unreported ones, no additional harm would come from the report.

Very good answer (and question) +1.


text:
Right action when being lied to
If a family member has been dishonest with me, and upon discussing the issue denies the lie, what is the best action?

I think this question would also be on-topic at [interpersonal.se], if you're also open to non-Buddhist answers to this question.

Everything that happens to us is caused by an action we have committed in the sansara. This was common to Buddha as well (Devdatta's actions etc.).
Therefore the answer to the question What is the best action? is,
Understand that this is a result of an action you have committed in the past (maybe in previous births). Further, try to spread metta (kindness, love) towards him though he is lying to you. In future, he will admit what he did today. Until that there's no much meaningful thing to do.

Welcome, Lineke! I don't think that there is a straightforward answer, as I think the situation deserves some analysis. I do not claim that this is the "best" action; I am only using what I've learned from a few Suttas as a guideline, so I would encourage you to read more on the matter.
First, I will assume that you know for sure that you are being lied to. Second, I am assuming that, when this other person lies to you, you feel hurt, or angry, or betrayed, or it causes you to suffer in some other way (I am assuming this, because falling into this kind of distress is only human, as we all know from first-hand experience). Now, with those two assumptions in mind, I put forward that the problem has two elements: the harm the person is causing themselves by lying, and the harm that they are causing you with their actions. Please bear with me, as I think that addressing the first is important to be able to address the second part.
Regarding the first part, the Buddha taught that we are all heirs to our actions, and have to live with the results, good or bath, whether in this life or the next. This means that the person lying is generating bad results for themselves. At the very least, they'll have to live with the lie weighing on their conscience and, depending on whether one adopts the view of rebirth, they aren't helping themselves to secure a good future life.
Now, addressing the second part, a relevant Sutta that touches on how to react when one is being harmed is MN 21. In it, the Buddha explains that if a group of bandits should capture someone, and savagely cut them up, limb by limb, even then that person should cultivate feelings of goodwill towards the bandits. Extreme though that simile may be, it illustrates an important point about what the Buddha thought a good strategy for dealing with harm is—namely, to cultivate goodwill towards everybody, regardless of whether they are being harmful to you or not. Now, as a lay practitioner, who is as human as anyone else who is not an Arahant, I know this is incredibly difficult, and perhaps you'll realize that in order to cultivate goodwill, you will have to let go of a few things.
If you find that cultivating goodwill for that person is too hard, then perhaps you can weather the issue with compassion, or equanimity. When one considers that the person lying is causing harm to themselves, one can maybe begin to feel a little compassion for them. If one understands that the harm they are causing themselves will only make their life worse, one can begin to feel genuine concern for their wellbeing, and not in a condescending kind of way. This is, in fact, one of the strategies the Buddha taught for dealing with feelings of animosity toward another. If, when you feel anger, or hurt, or betrayal when you're lied to, perhaps remembering that the person doing the lying is harming themselves will help you let go of that suffering and develop more wholesome feelings instead.
I hope this is helpful. With Metta.

That is too vague. It depends on probable or possible consequences of the lie. Whether you will have to rely on or cooperate with them in future. And what harms and suffering may arise from their behaviour repeating or remaining unchecked.
The best thing is to be really present with them when discussing challenges like this, and try to open yourself to seeing how their mind works. Potentially then you can find a direct way to communicate the issues to them, as though you were them and they were you.

In Buddhism, the best action is always the same: be compassionate. If someone close lies to you, they are afraid of something or wanting to preserve some element of their ego-identity. You don't have to know why they are doing it or what the truth is; you just need to accept things as they are. Keep your eyes open in case the lie they are telling causes them troubles so that you can help them out of it, but otherwise allow the situation to play out as it will.
If you allow your ego to get involved — becoming angry because you aren't told the truth, becoming insecure because you feel like you're on the outside, becoming prideful because you think you see through the lie being told — you'll just aggravate the situation. Nothing needs to be done until something needs to be done.

Being compassionate and keeping out your own ego are very good points. But: not sure whether you mean it that way, but that sounds quite fatalistic, to the extend that it might miss to teach children the bad consequences of lying. At least one could draw attention to that, helping to reduce future harm to the family.

@Hans-PeterStörr: The bad consequences of lying will manifest without our assistance. You're right that it doesn't hurt to remind a child that lying is bad, but accusing a child of lying, or trying to dig out the ostensible truth, generally does more harm than good. It may even make the child more prone to lying, since we are forcing the child to practice the techniques of evasion and deception. And really, many people find the excitement and challenge of getting away with deception a reward in itself, so confronting them is feeding and nurturing the problem.


text:
Is it ok to watch a media that promote homosexuality?
this is my first post
I have researched what the buddhist sutra says about Homosexuality...I found Saddhama Smrty Uposttana sutra and Upasakasila sutra that said homosexuality is sexual misconduct and in the first sutra it even mention hell
https://youtu.be/g7aikfMui2M
So my question..I am not a homosexual but I am a hardcore fan of Kpop(korean music pop) since 7 years, and there is a lots of promotion and depiction of Homosexuality in concert, reality programs that are about the boy bands groups, that even fans create something called fan fiction and a lots of time it talks about sex and even rape among the boy bands..I dont read fanfiction because it's bad.. but I watch a boyband and they also do some homosexual acts..I have been turning blind eye but I was concerned what buddhism think about that..even there is a lots of fans who watch bl series(boy love aka homosexual story) such fans called Fujoshi( which is japanese words means spoiled girls, which they like to watch boy acts on boys) and I am also realized that I am also a fujoshi and I cant help was drown to watch such series( I didnt but felt like craving to watch it) and it's very popular in Buddhist countries..so I thought more buddhists should discuss this thing and its influence among the teenagers because the vast majority of fans are but I am adult..any way
Should buddhist refrain from watching such media?
I also wanted to know what Buddha think of celebrities and i know that in Talaputta sutta buddha said actors would go to hell( I am not sure if that also include singers) I am usually watch music videos and some shows by boy band i dont watch movies or series..but it appear like the buddha also think the one who watch entertainment is not good
Any way...sorry for being long..i just need guidance regarding that..i am also follower of mahayana pureland buddhism but even pali sutta, i will still look to it
Thanks

Buddhism deals with suffering and how to become permanently free from it.
Superficial and conceptual things like sexuality are useless in that regard, hence the focus merely on ultimate reality.

That doesn't sound compatible with non-dualism.

If it's useless...then the Buddha wouldn't need to talk about it in the sutra..the argument doesnt make sense

@LoveJeju. These suttas are later add-ons by Mahayana Buddhists and has nothing to do with the original Pali Canon from the time of the Buddha.

but I am follower of Mahayana Buddhism..I don't understand the sectarian bashing..I am not a theravadin..I don't believe only in the Pali canon...the answers are just very unhelpful

Sorry about that. I hope you will get an answer that you can use. In Theravada Buddhism sexual orientation doesn't matter. What matters is the 5 Aggregates of Clinging and how to become free from that burden. If you see a man or a woman it's still just "seeing", i.e. the Eye-faculty is working. If you hear the voice of a man or woman it's still just "hearing". If you like a man or a woman it's still just a "feeling" etc. That's what I meant with ultimate reality instead of dealing with concepts like man, woman, etc. Maybe you can ask a Mahayana monk about this online or in a temple/center?

'Going to hell' in Buddhism is not like in Christianity, it is not a judgement. Ksitigharba went to hell, and is a bodhisattva.
You should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation
Stigma, and denying or silencing issues around sexuality, cause huge amounts of suffering, prevent reporting and accountability, and make many people's traumas more difficult to recover from.
Buddhist monastic sanghas, as described in the Wikipedia article, had specific issues in terms of maintaining the reputation of the sangha, given monks relied on alms from the community to be able to practice. It is clear though that sexual misconduct in Buddhism is about harms, and in modern times we understand homosexual relationships can be conducted without harms, and that many of the historical associations with harms were actually a result of social stigma, and of having been pushed to the edges of society and lacking social support and protections. Gay marriage must be seen as a positive, making lasting commitments to mutual support and family life. Issues around rape and sexual exploitation among boy bands, are absolutely sexual misconduct, in Buddhism and wider society, but must be separated from homosexuality more generally. The studio system in Korea, is far more the problem in that regard, than sexuality.
I found this article on the emergence of Yaoi manga very interesting: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35714067
Yaoi as an overwhelmingly female-led genre, in terms of both writers and readers, is a fascinating example of women getting to explore their own sexuality in their own way, where sexual awkwardness, discomfort with sex acts, and with sexual persona and societies views, can be explored through the alternate gender. The origin of the word yaoi comes from a (self-deprecating & somewhat ironic) portmanteau of "no climax, no point, no meaning", which highlights how it is (primarily) about romance and flirting, rather than being porn.
Such gender and sexuality exploration, where hard boundaries are not so enforced (ie, 'you are this or that category even by one experience' or even just curiosity, making it more difficult for people to explore and understand themselves), is as I understand it part of the global rise of Kpop, and especially part of it's appeal among teenage girls. Eg BTS the first Kpop band to be nominated for the Grammies https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/42565/1/bts-gender-fluidity-teen-angst-column
Androgeny and gender-nonconformity has commonly been a feature of music and musicians where the fan base is primarily female, which can be linked to the easing of pressure on girls to conform to gender roles and express gendered behaviours. This has generally helped support social progress and freedom of expression for all. Sexuality is a powerful factor, in the lives of individuals and in society and culture; I suggest that a measure of playfulness and humour about it, can help release the grip it can take on our minds.
Celebrities are like the devas: not in the best realm for awakening, which is to be an ordinary human. Because devas are likely to be distracted or self-satisfied in ways that don't help with spiritual practice. Monks are not allowed music, or to watch theatre, but they dedicate themselves full time to Buddhist practice, and that is not the only way to benefit from Buddhism. As a lay person, some ways of following celebrities can be unhealthy, taking on bad influences or attitudes, using them as a distraction, or feeling bad by comparing yourself. But there can absolutely be positive influences, though they are probably much less common. Taylor Swift is I think a great example of someone using their influence positively.
I have to say, the Kpop industry sounds INTENSELY exploitative of young people, I don't know how that can be changed by fans, but I hope it will be. Singers getting to speak out, and supporting independent singers who've left the big labels, may be part of it.

That's basically are contradictory to say homosexuality is allowed in buddhism based on buddhist sutra..I actually dont understand why many seems to just ignore the sutra...but it's ok..I was look answer from a knowledgable person from buddhist sutra perspective..I am not an ex christian and not western..so I dont understand why christianity have to be mentioned.. and ksitigarbha going to hell to save living being..not going there means it's to reborn in hell is ok..he is an enlightened being not like us... being reborn in hell might not even found our way again..master hsuan Hua said thar

@LoveJeju: It is difficult to understand you. Where is Christianity mentioned? The bare bones of the sutras on these issues is there in the Wikipedia article. "According to some scholars, early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations, since the subject was not mentioned." Then an explanation about certain sexualities/gender identities not being allowed in the sangha, with discussion of how the words for those are unclear. What sutra or other statement have you read that you claim makes homosexuality 'wrong'?

Ok..but you didnt basically checked the youtube link above..it have two sutra saddhama smrty uposthana sutra and upasakasila sutra..where homosexuality are clearly mentioned as sexual misconduct and the first one even mention hell...I did not want to debate whether homosexuality is ok or not..I just needed a guidance regarding consumption of such media but I guess may be I did ask on the wrong place..any way master hsuan Hua talked about that. So may be it was better to ask his follower

You should know both of those are later Mahayana sutras, that are not found in the Pali Canon, and do not date from the time of the Buddha. There are substantial criticisms to the badly made Youtube video you linked, in the comments.

I did mention clearly in my post that I am follower of Mahayana buddhism..you seems never reading the post..I dont believe its later add that's theravada perspective..and the comments in the video doesnt matter...the sutra does..not people desires...so any way..I think I am asking in the wrong place

It's the perspective of scholars who look for textural clues, earliest extant copies, and commentaries. I practice a Mahayana style. But I accept the Heart Sutra, Lotus Sutra, and other important texts in Mahayana thought are later additions to the Tripitaka, which I regard as core to understanding Buddha's teaching.


text:
Are Buddhists supposed to feel superior compared to other people, and to brag about it?
I'm asking this question because I want to know if I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting something. I hope I'm not offending anyone, I want to genuinely know how to interpret my experiences with the people I'll describe below.
I live in a country where there is no significant Buddhist population. Neither in my country, nor in the neighboring countries I often travel to. However, when I occasionally happen across someone who practices Buddhism, I seem to notice very strong similarities between all of them.
If we're in a group with many other people, it's always them who bring up the topic of spirituality. Or if I meet an acquaintance who is not so close as to engage in deep conversations, and we would just generally exchange some pleasantries, "how are you? I'm fine, thanks", they instead start to instantly brag about how spiritually evolved and enlightened they are. No matter the topic, they sooner or later mention how enlightened they are. And quite often in a condescending tone, that they are a being of much higher level than I am. And no matter the topic, they keep inserting words not from the language we're speaking in, and if I ask what it means, the answer is either that they won't say because I wouldn't understand the true meaning, or that it's the word for "desire", or "thought", or "energy", or "wisdom" or "consequence" or any other common word, but as they say "but it means so much more than that!". If I remember correctly, most of these examples I met said they practiced Zen Buddhism. (because they invariably start talking about how spiritual they are, someone sooner or later asks why they say it)
What also happens almost every time, is that if we're talking about a non-religious topic, they still have a very strong opinion about everything, even if it's a technological topic in which I have experience and they don't. Then they still say the opposite of what I know to be true, and if I present my proof or argument, the answer is that their feelings tell them that they are right, or that they know it better because they are spiritually more evolved than I am, therefore they have a more open mind, or something similar.
I know all this sounds very negative and judgmental, but it seems to cover basically all my experiences when I happened across a Buddhist. Maybe that behavior only sounds strange or impolite for me because that's not the way of thinking I'm used to in my culture? Or maybe they themselves gravely misunderstand what Buddhism is (or should be about), and only "practice" it because it sounds exotic for them? How representative are these people, anyway?
So, my question, summed up: there are very few Buddhists in the culture where I live, but most of them seem to be constantly bragging about how much more superior and how much more enlightened they are.

do I misunderstand them?
or are they misunderstanding Buddhism?

This feeling you describe isn't exclusive to Buddhism, I've met people like that who are involved in other "spiritual" schools. Everyone has their own understanding of Buddhism, even within Buddhism, there are different schools. To make a judgement on Buddhism based on interactions with such people will always be an incomplete understanding of Buddhism. Your question sounds like you want to ultimately tell them what they are practicing is wrong Buddhism, and I don't think an answer from here will be able to convince them that. Even though, they do sound quite conceited.

I agree with the last from @user29568. Those who misunderstand the teaching of the Buddha to the extent necessary to act like that are unlikely to be swayed by argument. It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing; all that would be accomplished would be to frustrate the teacher ...and annoy the pig. Best to just move away from such negativity and say nothing (eye rolling only permitted out of sight).

What you are noticing is a familiar behavioural pattern unearthed by various Buddhists practices. In Tibetan and Theravada Buddhism it is called Māna or to use the more user-friendly term: conceit. Theravada sees this as one of the very last fetters to fall away. Conceit can be quite a horrible one. I have experienced this myself and still do on the odd occasion. If we are not aware of it, then big lessons loom on the horizon, and those lessons usually come from life in the form of a proverbial brick - sometimes the harsh lessons can be the greatest.

Sanyojana Sutta: Fetters
"There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters."

Essentially, conceit is a response evoked by fear because, through practice, we come to learn more about the nature of reality, we gain knowledge of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self. This is enough to stir up our psychological issues around inferiority and the compensating effect of this is to bolster our identity but through the guise of spiritual-type things. We hit our fellow humans on the head with spiritualized trinkets and baubles, and poke them with incense sticks. We philosophize them into a stupefied mess of their former selves such that they take away only empty judgments.
My understanding of conceit: A sense of arrogance and superiority; a know-it-all attitude. The one-upmanship complex. In my view, conceit has an opposite which presents as an overly deflated sense of self.
I guess you'll be seeing this in your friends for some time. It is likely that they have some awareness about it, but unfortunately, it can chew people up entirely such that they cannot see themselves falling under the influence of further egoic pursuits. I don't think it would be unreasonable of you to share your observations with one of them. Maybe first bring up the fetters model as this can be a good talking point for the pursuing Buddhist, and then ask if they see any of these fetters in themselves.
Chogyam Trungpa covers this subject with great skill in his book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

This is a typical (and common) stage in spiritual development. In my country, I mainly see it in a wide variety of Christians; it's common enough in Buddhist circles as well, but the Buddhist population is small by comparison.
There are are a couple of things happening here that are worth considering when you run into such people:

Such people are generally good-natures enthusiasts: they have 'learned' something that makes them feel happy and good, and there is a natural human instinct to share such happiness and goodness with others. They are not trying to be bores — no one ever is — but they become bores because they can't see when they fail to connect with others.
At this stage, such people have not yet untangled their faith from social standing, political opinions, trust, and other conditional relationships. Their religious beliefs are part of their identity within the wider world; they use it to present themselves to others, and find themselves compelled to defend it when they see it being challenged.

The best approach is to accept such people as they are without allowing yourself to be unreasonably shifted. When they become more comfortable with you as a person, the need to present themselves in a particular light will fade, and the posturing will fade with it. Being annoyed won't help you or them, and allowing the conversation to deteriorate into a contest of wills is counterproductive.

Why? When you pick a stone you weigh it on your hand and say 'Ummm this is heavy". Then even if the stone speaks and says 'I'm not heavy' you won't believe it. In the same way, why do you call them Buddist?
Next time when you hear them speak a cryptic language say these people are probably grammarian or language translators don't say they are Buddhist.
But if you see them acting virtuously and controlled in speech you can say they have a trace of the Buddha. Then even if they say they are not Buddhist don't believe them.
It's not by name or by knowing complex syllogism one is a Buddhist but by action.

O Atula! Indeed, this is an ancient practice, not one only of today: they blame those who remain silent, they blame those who speak
much, they blame those who speak in moderation. There is none in the
world who is not blamed.

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.

But the man whom the wise praise, after observing him day after day, is one of >flawless character, wise, and endowed with knowledge
and virtue.

Who can blame such a one, as worthy as a coin of refined gold? Even the gods praise him; by Brahma, too, is he praised.**

Let a man guard himself against irritability in bodily action; let him be controlled in deed. Abandoning bodily misconduct, let him
practice good conduct in deed.

Let a man guard himself against irritability in speech; let him be controlled in speech. Abandoning verbal misconduct, let him
practice good conduct in speech.

Let a man guard himself against irritability in thought; let him be controlled in mind. Abandoning mental misconduct, let him practice
good conduct in thought.

The wise are controlled in bodily action, controlled in speech and controlled in thought. They are truly well-controlled.

Dhammapada chapter 17

do I misunderstand them?
How might I know if you do?
"Misunderstanding" might mean that your description doesn't match some kind of "truth", or "other evidence" -- but your description is the only evidence.
there are very few Buddhists in the culture where I live, but most of them seem to be constantly bragging
Could this perhaps be "selection bias" -- i.e. that people who brag are those who you find remarkable.
How representative are these people, anyway?
People who talk about their interests uninvited seems to me a fairly common human characteristic, not especially Buddhist -- people come out and talk about their religion; politics; favourite sports team; what kind of food they like or books they read or places they go.
Not a majority of people, but a large enough minority that it doesn't seem to me very surprising.
even if it's a technological topic in which I have experience and they don't
So that implies that the subject (Buddhism) isn't especially relevant (i.e. "they are like that" about every topic).
Unless you find it is only self-proclaimed Buddhists who talk like this.
but as they say "but it means so much more than that!"
Perhaps they sound enthusiastic about what they're learning -- as a technologist yourself, do you have no sympathy for that? -- but not especially skilled at explaining, which could be another topic, note the footnote to this sutta about teaching:

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

they keep inserting words not from the language we're speaking in
I use words like that to think about Buddhism.
Not only Buddhism -- I find, working as a software developer in France, that (French) people normally use some English-origin words (like build as a noun) as technical jargon in everyday conversation -- even though there are French words to use, in conversations about other topics (other than software development).
No matter the topic, they sooner or later mention how enlightened they are.
Really?
I very rarely encounter someone who claims that. It seems to me inherently contradictory -- because Buddhist doctrine includes an element of "non-self" -- so I am uneasy with "I am" statements, especially "I am enlightened" (I too trip over "how are you?", don't always know how to answer).
Anyway though I try not to get drawn into the madness. Like if someone said, "I am clever" or "I am pretty", would that be as objectionable as "I am enlightened"? Is it a statement I want to resist, want to fight about?
And quite often in a condescending tone, that they are a being of much higher level than I am.
As for "condescending tone", I don't know what that's about. It sounds important, central to what you're asking -- about whether you're misunderstanding.
Coming out and lecturing someone ("I know more/better than you") might be described as one of several possible "ego defence mechanisms" people use.
Maybe a phase people go through until they learn to be better friends and better at socialising.
Do parents say it's stereotypical teenage behaviour, that some people are know-it-alls?
Are Buddhists supposed to feel superior compared to other people, and to brag about it?
Yes and no.
They're "supposed to" in the sense that it's predicted or observed that people, Buddhists, "will" -- not that they "should" -- and that that's a fault ...

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

... and that it remains a problem (perhaps only intermittently) even for semi-enlightened people -- see How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
See also for example the answers to What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?

I'm of the opinion that nobody should ever call himself or herself a Buddhist under any circumstances.  After all, the Buddha said that the true Dharma would disappear after 500 years, and that was many many centuries ago; that should be enough to resolve the debate.
On a more esoteric note, the Buddha taught that the self does not exist - so how can any individual person be a Buddhist, by his or her own nature?  If I truly were a Buddhist, then I would understand that my own consciousness and individuality is an illusion.  The entire cosmos is possessed of a Buddha nature, which is emptiness...
Practically speaking, the guideline for Buddhist monks is very strict; lifelong celibacy, veganism/vegetarianism (practically speaking, although a monk doesn't refuse meat if offered); cannot accept money if offered, as a gift, or perform paid work; cannot wear beautiful clothes, jewelry, fragrances; to say nothing of the emotional and spiritual demands of the monastic life, to be free of anger and selfishness under any and all conditions.  The Mahayana teachings for lay believers are even more demanding; that a lay believer is to be just as enlightened as a monk, but without going forth and while carrying the responsibilities of a household.  Certainly very few people ever make a serious attempt to attain enlightenment in this manner.
So don't call yourself a Buddhist.  If somebody tells you they are a Buddhist, and you are feeling verbally combative and in a particularly un-Buddhist disposition, you can curtly inform them they are not!  ;-)

Buddhist endgoal is that it shouldn't occur to one ''i am a woman', or 'i am a man' or 'i am anything at all', there being no 'i am' there don't come to be 'i am good/bad' or 'may i be' or 'may i not be like this or that', one to whom this does not occur is not going to compare oneself to others or brag about it.
One who compares himself to others and brags about things is going to have a lot of difficulty stilling his distractive thinking and won't progress easily.

The OP wrote:

If we're in a group with many other people, it's always them who bring
up the topic of spirituality. Or if I meet an acquaintance who is not
so close as to engage in deep conversations, and we would just
generally exchange some pleasantries, "how are you? I'm fine, thanks",
they instead start to instantly brag about how spiritually evolved and
enlightened they are. No matter the topic, they sooner or later
mention how enlightened they are. .....
What also happens almost every time, is that if we're talking about a
non-religious topic, they still have a very strong opinion about
everything, even if it's a technological topic in which I have
experience and they don't.

I know some people like the above and most of them are, in fact, not Buddhists, but they could easily have been Buddhist.
I think this behavior is not specific to the Buddhist community. It's about ordinary (untrained, unenlightened) people, just being ordinary people, who are conceited and obsessed with their own views, ideas and opinions.
You can find many people on YouTube who have strong religious views (whether atheist or belonging to a religion) and have their own ideas on politics and economics etc. who passionately rant video after video, expressing their views and opinions.
From Snp 4.11, we see that clinging (also known as attachment), is the cause of such behavior.

"From where have there arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me."
"From what is dear
there have arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.
Tied up with selfishness
are quarrels & disputes.
In the arising of disputes
is divisiveness."

"I think this behaviour is not specific to the Buddhist community" - For a puthujjana yes, but for an ariya I would argue that this type of conceit is different because it has vision-of-the-truth as its penultimate fear rather than the general fears associated with mundane worldly affairs.

@NeuroMax The OP is obviously talking about puthujjanas who have self-identified as Buddhists.


text:
The Final Moment of the Buddha's Realization
“Siddhartha Gotama sat for one last time under the pipul tree with the adiṭṭhāna that he would not get up till he became realized. He battled the beautiful as well as the ugly and fearful illusions of Māra successfully that night and at the same time had very profound insights into Reality, the final one being that into paticcasamuppāda which destroyed the last vestiges of avijjā and Gotama became the Buddha, the Tathāgata, ‘Thus Gone’.”
It was a momentous event!
I want to understand this profound moment and, therefore, have some questions:

What happened to Gotama when he became the Buddha? Of course, as Buddhists we understand that there was no self at all to begin with, but that was not experientially realized till asmi māna, one of the last fetters, dissolved. So, Gotama did not realize nibbāna because that would mean that his ‘I-am-ness’, his māna, continued into nibbāna, which is unacceptable. Should we say instead that ‘there was realization’, an impersonal phenomenon, as the asmi-māna vanished? Could we say that this realization entailed an ontological shift from the puny, illusory self to the unconditioned Nibbāna? But then wouldn’t that still be some kind of eternalism?

Or:

Did Gotama, the conditioned, illusory self ‘die’ at the time of his realization and the nāma- rūpa, that it once was, continued by the sheer force of its unspent past karma which on exhaustion then led to Parinibbāna of this psycho-physical being? Was the Buddha this nāma- rūpa that, metaphorically speaking, ‘translated’ the unconditioned Reality for puthujjana like us and made it possible for us to tread the path for its realization?  But then what happened at Parinibbāna? What remained? Nothing? Doesn’t that sound like annihilationism?

Or:

Did at Parinibbāna, with the extinguishing of the final vestiges of conditioned being, the Unconditioned shine in its brilliant, impersonal glory? Beyond Being and Non-being? Beyond anything that can ever be understood? Or would that be mere linguistic gymnastics?

I want to understand what actually happened!

Your question somehow seems to superimpose onto Buddhism the Hindu Advaitin idea of an illusory self merging into God the Ultimate Reality, except that instead of God, you have Nibbana. Buddhism is different.
Eternalism and annihilationism
There is no eternal self. That would be eternalism. If we associate the self with the mental idea of Nibbana, or eternal consciousness or God or Ultimate Reality etc., that would be eternalism, a false view. In MN 38, we read that Sati made this mistake of associating consciousness with the self and assuming it to be eternal or unconditioned.
It is also wrong to say that there is no self at all, or that the self gets destroyed at death or at Nibbana. That would be annihilationism.
Quote from the Acela Sutta (This comes from here but the full text can be found here).

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S.
XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

According to the Attakari Sutta, it also doesn't make sense to say that there is no self-doer at all. It is obvious that you can will your hands and legs to move and they will move.
What is the self?
The self is just an idea of the mind that is dependently originated based on conditions and is impermanent. The "birth" (jāti) nidana of dependent origination is the birth of the idea of the self. Snp 4.14 calls this the thought "I am the thinker". This mental idea of the self is reborn from moment to moment i.e. it's changing dependent on conditions.
In the Vina Sutta, we read the analogy of the lute, where different parts of the lute work together to create music. But if you take the lute apart into pieces, you cannot find music. Similarly, the mental idea of the self is constructed by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, by the process of dependent origination. If you take them apart, you cannot find the self. Music here refers to the self (atta), which is what becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti) is about.
According to the Khemaka Sutta, even a stream enterer already fully understands this (i.e. no longer has self-view), but he still has conceit (the self-habit or self-obsession). He KNOWS that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me" are false views, yet he still FEELS that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me". That's the difference between self-view and self-habit. Please also see this answer.
In fact, the stream enterer still has seven of the ten fetters. The non-returner would still have all the higher fetters, namely, desire for material existence, desire for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance.
What is Nibbana?
Next, what exactly is Nibbana? It's not an Ultimate Reality or Truth or God.
Nibbana is a mental object to be experienced by the mind. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free from defilements.
From this answer, we read:

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.

From AN 9.34:

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, Nibbana is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it.

Final moment of realization
So, what happened at the final moment of the Buddha's realization?
From MN 36:

“When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the destruction of the
taints. I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’;…‘This
is the origin of suffering’;…‘This is the cessation of
suffering’;…‘This is the way leading to the cessation of
suffering’;…‘These are the taints’;…‘This is the origin of the
taints’;…‘This is the cessation of the taints’;…‘This is the way
leading to the cessation of the taints.’
“When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of
sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of
ignorance. When it was liberated there came the knowledge: ‘It is
liberated.’ I directly knew: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has
been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming
to any state of being.’
“This was the third true knowledge attained by me in the last watch of
the night. Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness
was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent,
ardent, and resolute. But such pleasant feeling that arose in me did
not invade my mind and remain.

It's basically the destruction of all ten fetters, the last being ignorance. Ignorance is uprooted by enlightenment, the complete understanding of how it all works. Also uprooted are the underlying tendencies, which are deep-seated habits, hard to be removed.
The buddha became free from rebirth (of the mental idea of the self) and also free from death, i.e. the death of the self. To be deathless, i.e. to not experience the death of the self, because the mental idea of the self is no longer constructed by dependent origination.
When ignorance has been destroyed, craving (a habit of reification) no longer arises from feeling. Without craving, there is no clinging, becoming and birth of the mental idea of the self.
From Khemaka Sutta, we read that the cleaned cloth of the non-returner still has the scent of the self that needs to be finally smoked out, by complete enlightenment:

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

Parinibbana
Then what is Parinibbana?
Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
For a living arahant, the music has stopped, but the lute remains. One day, even that will be destroyed. The five clinging aggregates is like a lute vibrating with music, while the five aggregates not subject to clinging is like a silent peaceful lute.
Although I said music, it's more like noise. When the noise stops, you have peace. That's the living arahant's mentally cognized peace of nibbana.
What happens after Parinibbana?
From Yamaka Sutta:

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful (suffering). That which is stressful has
ceased and gone to its end."

Change of perspective
A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that there is suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).
Also, think about the core teaching, sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is no permanent consciousness or identity or individuality or self in all phenomena.
There is suffering, and it arises because of the mental idea of the self, that arises because the mental idea of the self was constructed by the mind-body phenomena (the five aggregates) through the process of dependent origination, due to ignorance.
Suffering is connected to the mental idea of the self through papanca (reification). This is explained in this answer.
Craving itself is a habit of reification. The self is also a result of reification.
The rebirth of the mental idea of the self from moment to moment is sustained by craving.
When ignorance is uprooted, reification is stopped, craving ceases, which then causes the mental idea of the self to be no longer constructed, and thus suffering is ended.
The key defining feature of the Buddha's enlightenment is not about no more self or no more craving, but rather, no more ignorance. Ignorance is the root of it all.
Please also read SN 12.20 about self-view:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

Thanks a lot @ruben2020 for explaining the classical Theravada position. Certain grey areas remain though. I'll return with these very quandaries in a while. Please give me some time.

@SushilFotedar I have also added a quote from Yamaka Sutta which explains what happens to a fully enlightened person after death i.e. after parinibbana.

@SushilFotedar I have also added a quote from SN 12.20 at the end. You may also find that useful.

There was an intellect that developed to understand the world as it actually is and without a self.
We cannot find a self even among the electrons & photons nor is there an element of 'justice' in molecular chemistry.
When these words have no referents in our most scientifically precise predictive models, is it then not insane to think in those terms?
This is what that intellect which can be grasped with wrong view to be that of the Bodhisatta realized. His intellect understood thinking with thinking, he saw what one thinks when one thinks about how one thinks, seeing how one thinks he didn't see what isn't there, understanding what is there he had no confusion about the present qualities.
Not seeing a self he only saw what he thought of as not personal, as an affliction, as a consequence of a bad choice but no choice maker, only delusional thinking for requisite conditions.
Seeing it thus he became disenchanted, being disenchanted his mind didn't incline to any particular state of cognizance and was in that inclined to the cessation principle aka deathless aka sorowless state.
His verbal, physical and mental activity ceased but his lifeforce wasn't extinguished. He remained absorbed based on the cessation principle for 7 days & 7 nights, sensing unalloyed pleasure, at that time he became absorbed due to a cessation of the perception & feeling but he was still percepient thus 'the cessation of existence is nibbana [the destruction of greed, anger & delusion is spoken of in that way]'. At that time he felt pleasure where nothing is felt, nothing being felt is the pleasure therein.
It is not the case that the Buddha describes only the 6 classes of perception & feeling as percepience & pleasure he speaks of percepience & pleasure in whatever terms it is attained.
He realized the cessation of everything but he didn't see himself in everything, as everything, as coming out of everything, he didn't affirm a self or hold that the all was his. He saw with wisdom that cessation principle which persists without change as a truth & reality not included in the allness of everything as it actually is.
He didn't see himself coming in, coming out or being in Nibbana.

Sorry for being late to reply @ruben2020
As you rightly pointed out, the notion of the ‘self’ is heavily loaded, most often as a synonym for the eternal ātman of Hindu thought, in particular Advaita. So, it was wrong for me to use the word, I admit. I would, therefore, move to the term, the ‘experient’, which I find more neutral and slightly better than the other classical western philosophical term, the ‘subject’.
When I talked about the illusory self, I meant this very experient, the ‘one’ who experiences any phenomenon, howsoever false it turns out to be in the end.
So, as I understand the basics of Buddhism, when we say that “there is suffering but ‘none’ who suffers”, what is actually meant is that when experience of suffering arises, it comes with its bit of viññāna; we have an inseparable package of the duo of the experience and the experient, the ‘suffering’ and its ‘awareness’ in the present example. Of course, as the experience ceases, the experient too collapses at the same time; there is no permanent ‘experient’ that persists after the experience of suffering has ceased. So far, so good!
Now coming to the two conundrums I was talking about, the riddles of Nibbāṇa and Parinibbāṇa:
When I raise the question of the Nibbāṇa and Parinibbāṇa of the Buddha, my understanding is that it falls in the realm of ‘pure reason’, as Kant would have called it. I think Buddha, long before Immanuel Kant, talked about antinomies and paralogisms and, therefore, the impossibility of answering such questions. When he talked about the four imponderables, the ‘Acinteyya’, for example, he was speaking about this very impossibility of reason to enter this realm where it fails utterly ‘like a bird trying to fly with one wing in a vacuum’.
It was, therefore, so heartening for me to read the ‘Yamaka Sutta’ which so beautifully describes the antinomies that arise when we try to conceptualize Nibbāṇa and Parinibbāṇa; it is simply impossible for reason to pierce and understand these imponderables.
I quote the portion that I loved the most:
“…"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, my friend.
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?
"No, my friend.
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?
"No, my friend.
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'…?"
This is how I understand all this. I hope I have not gone utterly wrong!
Thanks dear friend for being kind with your detailed explanations.
Metta!

Is this an answer to the question? This is a Q&A website and not a discussion forum. That said, it is also too long for one comment.

Well, I am sorry if I have broken some rules here.


text:
Do modern day Buddhists still believe in the magical siddhis?
From Wikipedia on the Visuddhimagga and Siddhi:

Aṇimā: the ability to become smaller than the smallest, reducing one's
body to the size of an atom or even become invisible.
Mahimā: the ability to become infinitely large, expanding one's body
to an infinitely large size.
Laghimā: the ability to become weightless or lighter than air.
Prāpti: the ability to instantaneously travel or be anywhere at will.
Prākāmya: the ability to achieve or realize whatever one desires.
Īśiṭva: the ability to control nature, individuals, organisms, etc.
Supremacy over nature and ability to force influence upon anyone.
Vaśiṭva: the ability to control all material elements or natural
forces.
Kāma-avasayitva (per Kṣemarāja and Vyasa): satisfaction, suppression
of desire, or (as Yatrakāmāvasāyitva) wishes coming true.

Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like
fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi) ?
Do any current day Buddhists practice these?
Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?

Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi) ?
If there is a belief in these things, then there exists conceptual artefacts. I certainly don't believe in them. In Buddhism, if they occur for you, - and they can occur in some quite powerful ways - they can be seen to have only an indicative value, both for personal practice and in how you skilfully integrate with others. Personally, I was plagued by these things, but given the correct attention, they served my practice well.
Do any current day Buddhists practice these?
Off the top of my head, Daniel Ingram is quite vocal about the siddhis. Whilst he is certainly an interesting character, I would find it difficult to recommend many of his practice methods to others for many reasons. For one, he teaches Buddhist practices that are far too powerful and disproportionately off-centre from the eightfold path for the average run-of-the-mill person, and some of those practices can't even be considered Buddhist in nature.
Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?
They are neither rejected nor reinterpreted. The approach to the siddhis from the suttas tells us two things: 1) to much wrong attention towards the siddhis is not helpful towards the primary task at hand: the ending of suffering. 2) the siddhis are only symptomatic of the primary task at hand. In other words, they are a sign that the radiant mind is opening further.

Then Venerable Anuruddha went up to Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged
greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
over, he sat down to one side and said to him:
“Here’s the thing, Reverend Sāriputta. With clairvoyance that is
purified and surpasses the human, I survey the entire galaxy. My
energy is roused up and unflagging, my mindfulness is established and
lucid, my body is tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in
samādhi. But my mind is not freed from the defilements by not
grasping.”
“Well, Reverend Anuruddha, when you say: ‘With clairvoyance that is
purified and surpasses the human, I survey the entire galaxy,’ that’s
your conceit. And when you say: ‘My energy is roused up and
unflagging, my mindfulness is established and lucid, my body is
tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in samādhi,’ that’s
your restlessness. And when you say: ‘But my mind is not freed from
the defilements by not grasping,’ that’s your remorse. It would be
good to give up these three things. Instead of focusing on them, apply
your mind to the deathless.”
After some time Anuruddha gave up these three things. Instead of
focusing on them, he applied his mind to the deathless. Then
Anuruddha, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon
realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very
life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which
gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
He understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been
completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to
any state of existence.” And Venerable Anuruddha became one of the
perfected.
With Anuruddha

Allow me to point out that the category 'Modern Buddhist' covers 535 million people across hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural groups, ranging from parochial tribal villagers with no formal education to cosmopolitan urbanites with doctoral degrees. I have no doubt that if we went looking we could find a decent number of them who believe in and practice this assortment of paranormal powers.
I mean, heck: I can go into any major city in the US and find a New Age bookstore with people practicing crystal healing, astral-plane travel, angel card divination, and an assortment of other 'magicalish' powers. Why should I doubt that there are Buddhists somewhere trying to levitate themselves?

There are many groups of people who self-identify as Buddhist.
Some are orthodox dogmatic Buddhists who take the scriptures literally. So, if the scripture talks about supernatural powers then they will accept it literally. Usually they are not interested to obtain these powers, but they will talk about them in a positive way and will colorfully recount how the Buddha and his senior disciple Moggallana used them.
Then there are the New Age people, who may not understand what the Buddha taught but would mix Buddhism with New Age ideas. They may even have Buddha statues, Bodhisattva statues etc. and might practise some kind of mindfulness meditation with scented candles and meditation music. They would accept these supernatural powers as true and may be interested to obtain these powers, but usually it's out of their reach.
Next we have Vajrayana practitioners among whom, some may practise tantra. The tantra practitioners may be interested in supernatural powers.
And then we have Secular Buddhists who discard anything they feel is pseudoscience, and only extract teachings of Buddhism which they see as useful. These people would not believe in those supernatural powers. They may view Buddhist teachings as psychology.
Finally, there are very serious practitioners of Buddhism, the ariya (noble), those seeking the end of suffering. These practitioners are not seeking supernatural powers as they are not important to the ending of suffering. So, whether these supernatural powers are true or not, or attainable or not, is unimportant to them. The Buddha's senior disciple Sariputta, the arahant, did not have any supernatural powers.


text:
Should we encourage children to find their interest?
In western societies specially, children are encouraged to try their hand at different things so that they can find their interest, practice it, be good at it. In the process build character like learn how to be disciplined, punctual, diligent, organized, productive, learn from mistakes etc.
Then the very act of finding an interest seems similar to how 'attachments' are described in Buddhism. Am I missing something?

Related: How to choose a career?

@ruben2020, Yes, I was the OP of the question too. This question is more related to parenting. As a parent, 'Should we encourage children to find their interest?' and try engage them in different activities

First, I believe the simple answer is: Yes, it can be proper.
One of the teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path is “Right Livelyhood”. In this teaching the Buddha laid out the requirements for a job to be helpful to moving forward toward enlightenment – even for non-monks.
As long as the encouragement to follow their interests includes teachings on how to recognize a Right Livelyhood I would say such encouragement would be quite proper.
As to the specific issue of ‘Attachment’ in this:
Most lay persons need to have a job / livelyhood to live. To my way of thinking, just because one finds a job one enjoys and has an affinity for, does not imply they must also have an exaggerated or unhealthy attachment to that job which would hinder their spiritual development.
Again, if the parent or teacher imparts teachings of how to recognize symptoms of unhealthy attachment to things of this world and of the proper perspective as to what a job is, in the wholeness of a person’s spiritual existence; again, I would say such encouragement would be proper.
Best, Jim

Then the very act of finding an interest seems similar to how 'attachments' are described in Buddhism. Am I missing something?

In Buddhism interests are for the most part not developed "right now" - instead they are based on habits and inclinations that have been cultivated during countless of life times in Samsara. Kids are their own beings like everyone else so the attachment is already there from past lives. It's just the outer expression or topic of the defilement that might change from life to life.
What one could do instead is to introduce them to mindfulness meditation and if they like it or have affinity for it then one can continue to support and help them in their practice.


text:
Resistance to Loving-Kindness
I have been continuing my meditation practice, and I feel there would be a great benefit from switching to a metta practice instead of breath. Yet, with metta, a strange phenomenon occurs.
I am usually very good during metta bhavana and  generate the feelings. However, it is incredibly hard for me to begin the metta session, and I seem to avoid this type of meditation before and afterwards. Only during the practice do I feel great emotion and compassion.
How can this be explained?
Thank you.

How can this be explained?

That's aversion towards the meditation practice. Just note it as "disliking" and be mindful about it until it passes away. Be very vigilant in observing this aversion when it arises as it can sabotage ones practice if left by itself.
Eventually, as one gains more and more clarity of mind, this aversion will subside due to the mind understanding the benefits and freedom that comes from consistent meditation practice.

I would think of this as generalized aversion.
Aversion is a hindrance, one if the five hindrances. Whenever one notices a hindrance one should direct the mind accordingly.
If thinking about doing a certain contemplation seems tedious then one should resolve that aversion before doing anything else. One does this by recognizing the circumstances, properly reflecting and secluding oneself from the triggers mentally & physically. When a stilling of unwholesome thoughts has occured one can just enjoy that and not worry about whether one used metta or whatnot to attain it.
There is nothing repulsive about metta contemplation but contemplation or meditation in general can become repetitive & a chore. It is especially boring if one is putting in a lot of work but get's neither special rapture nor lights & visions.
How one deals with aversion is a matter of trial & investigation. One should learn many skillful means such as redirecting the mind to the body and the themes of appriciation & etc. One might think that metta counters aversion but if one is averse to doing it, as one has been doing it, then it isn't at that time suitable and one can choose to investigate the aversion or choose another gladdening theme such as ie compassion, appreciation, equanimity, virtue, The Buddha and whatnot. One can also do breath work to shut out distracting thoughts and thus create distance & attain seclusion in order to perceive the grand distinctions such as lights & visions.
Forcing oneself to meditate with an aversive mind is not a good idea but the stilling of aversion is a meditation and a good idea.
You can also try mixing things up to avoid monotony in contemplation, try different ways of rousing the mind and develop wholesome themes by giving of attention as you see fit.

You can also be active like helping and teaching kids in buddhist monasteries, doing donations for food, shelter, reforestation, volunteer work...
If you aren't comfortable with a technique would should go very slowly maybe 1-5min a day. Maybe Tonglen or Mantras(Chenrezig) would be more fit for you.
https://www.lionsroar.com/how-to-practice-tonglen/
You should ask a Guru a Lama or Monk he would know.

Mindfulness meditation is four-fold:

MN10:2.1: “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.
MN10:3.1: What four?
MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.3: They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.4: They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.5: They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Rather than skipping directly to the fourth step for metta meditation, proceed through all the steps in order, passing from one to the other at the right time. Your aversion might simply be to doing things out of order.
Please also note that right immersion is not forced:

DN34:1.6.69: Right immersion with five knowledges.
DN34:1.6.70: The following knowledges arise for you personally: ‘This immersion is blissful now, and results in bliss in the future.’
DN34:1.6.71: ‘This immersion is noble and spiritual.’
DN34:1.6.72: ‘This immersion is not cultivated by sinners.’
DN34:1.6.73: ‘This immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.’
DN34:1.6.74: ‘I mindfully enter into and emerge from this immersion.’

I have done breath meditation or many decades. I still do it. The other meditations come naturally--after breath is settled.


text:
Is there a comprehensive list of types of Samadhi?
Is there a comprehensive list of different types of Samadhi (in Pali, Sanskrit, English and/or otherwise) related to Buddhism?

I did an in depth research going through a digital search of the pali suttas and compiling a comprehensive list of every type of usage of
☂ Samādhi: broad umbrella term in every type of usage in EBT.
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/nuance/index.html

Wow! Thanks so much! This was and is a very needed resource.