text:
Why did the Buddha contradict about His teachings in these two different suttas?
In the Simsapa Sutta the Buddha said;

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught].

I would take the meaning that there were many things that the Buddha did not talk about because they were not important for leading the holy life towards Nirvana.
But then in the Maha-Parinabbana Sutta, the Buddha says;

...I have preached the truth without making any distinction between
exoteric and esoteric doctrine: for in respect of the truths, Ānanda,
the Tathāgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps some things back...

I would take this to mean that the Buddha says that He has not kept anything untold or unsaid...that, he has said everything that there was to tell to the monks.
Why is there a seeming contradiction in these two suttas. Did the Buddha told everything or not...or I am misunderstanding something?

The key phrase, I think, is: "those things that I have known with direct knowledge..." (emphasis mine).
Some things must be experienced as direct knowledge. Teaching or discussing them with those who have not yet had some measure of direct knowledge will merely lead them into circular reasoning and philosophical maundering. The Buddha taught the path of awakening: a system for achieving direct knowledge. He offered what insights he could that would help motivate and focus people on the path. He did not offer insights that might lead the unawakened into attachments, fantasies, fruitless rumination, or pointless confusions.
If a car is stuck in the mud, we don't want it to spin its wheels wildly; that will dig it deeper into the mud. If people are stuck in ignorance, we don't want to amplify that ignorance by encouraging them to think about things they can only understand through experience. In both cases one gains traction by being slow, deliberate, and focused.

A teacher with a closed fist is one that holds back relevant information. In this regard the Buddha is saying he does not obscure dhamma, aka anything relevant to the goal of liberation. As for the first quotation, this is akin to a math teacher saying “in my time I’ve learned a lot of stuff that isn’t related to math” but as a math teacher, talking about those other things in class is not relevant.
The Buddha only teaches the dhamma because it is the most important subject. Through meditation he has learned a lot about the mind and the universe that isn’t relevant to the practice

The Buddha is basically saying:

I told you everything you needed to know, without holding anything back
I know more than what I have told you, but what I did not tell you, is not important for you

Is not important for you to be told, perhaps?

The two amount to the same thing -- i.e. that there's nothing important which he might say but didn't say.

The Buddha revealed the truth in the Lotus Sutra. You must understand that people's minds and capacities vary. Because of this the Buddha taught various sutras to try to develop his disciples capacities. All of these teachings were taught for the sake of the one  vehicle. There are not two vehicles. There are not three vehicles. There is only one vehicle, and all of the sutras were preach to lead people to the one and only vehicle. The stages that people gained by practicing the various sutras were not uniform. You can only gain enlightenment by adhering to the Lotus Sutra. I will post sutras to support what I have said.

The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra
Because their [people’s] natures and desires are not alike, I preached the Law in various different ways. Preaching the Law in various different ways, I made use of the power of expedient means. But in these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth."

Lotus Sutra
“Among all shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas are the foremost. So is the Lotus Sutra; among all sutras, it is the foremost! Just as the Buddha is the King of the Law; so is the Lotus Sutra, it is the King of all Sutras!"

The Buddha did not hold back teachings pertaining to the Noble Eightfold Path,his doctrine. Not about everything. Compare it to a teacher who teaches maths, he is concerned only with teaching you maths, he is not going to teach you history or geography, even if he knows about history or geography.


text:
Heterosexual attraction in rebirth process?
In his book "Tibetan Buddhism from the ground up", Alan Wallace describes a part of the (human) rebirth process as follows:

"In [this vision] one sees (...) [the parents-to-be] in the act of sexual intercourse (...) and the bardo being is lustfully drawn to this event. Moreover, Buddhism says, this lust is directed toward the parent of the opposite sex of that being which is about to be conceived."

I have some questions about this:

Is this the usual Buddhist view? If yes: What's the original source?
Do I understand it correctly that "lustfully drawn to" means sexual attraction?
If heterosexual attraction is a fundamental part of the human rebirth, how is this process supposed to work for homo- or asexual people?

Detailed description of the rebirth process appeared in the Garbhāvakrānti Sutra and the Abhidharmakośa, with the former being written first. AFAIK, both of these texts are significant in Tibetan traditions.
"Lustfully drawn" is sexual attraction, judging from the relevant passage in the Abhidharmakośa provided by José Cabezón:

The eyes [of the antarabhava being], born from the power of its karma,
behold its place of rebirth even if it is far away. There it sees its
father and mother having sex. If it is [destined to be reborn] a male,
there arises a male's desire for the mother; [and vice versa].
Conversely, there arises hatred [for the parent of the same sex]. As
the Prajñapti states: "Either of two minds can manifest in the
[intermediate-state] at that time: it may possess an attached mind or
a mind filled with hatred." Confused by these two [thoughts], but with
a desire for sexual pleasure (rantukama), it clings to the site [where
the parent's two organs are joined] and thinks to experience sexual
pleasure there.

The existence of an "intermediate state" was a contended issue among early Buddhist thoughts, as it countered the belief that rebirth follows immediately after death. Mahayana schools generally accept it. I'm unsure of how Theravadins perceive the issue, for it seems to vary by countries. Regarding this particular piece of text though, there are cultural (and perhaps, political?) reasons that might make Buddhists in East and Southeast Asia not want to discuss it (at least not publicly). It can be off-putting to hear that fetuses pretend to sex with their parents.
The next passage from the same source mentions a neuter (napumsaka) child. Napumsaka and neuter are not exactly equivalent, as pointed out by many Buddhist scholars, but I digress. The text goes on to describe the position of a neuter child. The implication I get is that a neuter child is initially conceived as either male or female but becomes neuter during gestation. There is no further explanation as for how or why such transformation occurs.
I'm unable to find further sources commenting on sexual orientation. The description above by Vasubandhu suits a genderqueer or intersex person more than a non-heterosexual one. It's hard-coded so that heterosexual male fetuses face their mothers as if copulating with them, while female ones face the opposite direction. I find it difficult to imagine which direction a fetus would be facing if it's bi or ace.
The earlier text, the Garbhāvakrānti Sutra, shares a similarly hard-coded system of heterosexual attraction/aversion. I don't have direct access to the sutra, but the articles I've read involving this sutra didn't mention the neuter gender at all. Maybe other users can clarify.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the most common ways to enable keyboards to type Pali characters in 2021?
Given the wide variety of possible solutions from keyboard firmware to operating system specific solutions, I'd like to leave the question wide open in order to discover which solutions are actually most commonly used by people who have this need in 2021.
I am personally most interested in solutions that work for the macOS and Linux operating systems.
Although iOS and Android solutions are also of interest to me.

Seems like more of a technical computer-based question. Maybe this would interest you: Typing of Pali Language in Ubuntu 10.04

@ruben2020: sīlabbata-parāmāsa: 3rd of the 10 fetters: "unskillful attachment to rules". The stack exchange community with the greatest concentration of people (1) who can answer this question (2) will find the answers to be valuable, is this community. Rules should be changed or enforced with leniency.

Reopened based on this meta-topic.

@ChrisW: Thank you

Please try: fsnow Pali keyboard which works on Windows.
Pali is usually rendered in Roman/ Latin characters with diacritical marks - the same ones used by Sanskrit. Pali doesn't have its own script. However, I think it's possible to render Pali also in the Sinhala script and the Devanagari script (used by Sanskrit). Hence, you can also use keyboards that render Roman/ Latin characters with Sanskrit diacritical marks, Sinhala script and Devanagari script.

There are some topics with answers on discourse.suttacentral.net

Pali keyboard on mac os x
Insert Pali and Sanskrit Characters with diacritical marks

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


text:
Where are the most common places to find Pali/Buddhism Anki decks in 2021?
Anki, is by far the most popular "spaced repetition tool" to enable long term retention of learned material in 2021.
It does so using a scheduling algorithm which prompts the user to recall a piece of information at the time of optimal "desirable difficulty."
Example: YouTube: Guide to Anki Intervals and Learning Steps
In this fashion, it enables large amounts of information to be memorized (e.g. Pali language, Buddhist lists, Suttas, etc) with the optimal return on investment of time and energy.
One advantage to having this information committed to memory, as the monks of 2500 years ago did, is that it can be instantly recalled and used in reasoning. In this fashion, memorization creates the conditions whereby deeper insights into the truth of existence can be extracted more quickly.
I have a strong intuition that this might be part of the reason why arahats were more common at the time of the Buddha than they seem to be today. For this reason, I strongly suspect that spaced repetition practice would be helpful for those intent on mastering the skill of nibbana.
I know that many Buddhists use this tool and that many shared decks exist.
However, I have not been able to find any listing of Anki decks for Buddhism thus far.
Where are the most common places to find Pali/Buddhism Anki decks in 2021?

I can find Buddhism AnkiWeb, Buddhist Practices for AQA GCSE AnkiWeb and Dictionary of Pali Buddhist terms (from Access to Insight) AnkiWeb.

@ruben2020: This is useful. These are rather small decks. I was hoping that a more comprehensive collection existed somewhere.

Out of the 84,000 teachings, there are only certain types of teachings that are suitable for you. Why not locate those, like a garland maker would carefully select flowers from a meadow adorned with many flowers, and focus solely on the arrangement of those teachings.

@Max: Agreed. I am hoping that an effort to extract and organize the key ideas (from different perspectives) while retaining connectivity to the original teachings, will help others to more efficiently navigate the teachings and end their suffering more quickly than would otherwise be possible. My strong intuition is that anki decks will be the infrastructure of the emergent internet-based "hive mind" AnkiPedia which will make this possible. https://bit.ly/2WhFj9r

Interesting. Whenever I see the word 'decentralized' my mind lights up. However, there are challenging questions I would like to ask about this - complex questions about the flow of information on such a potentially apocalyptic substrate. It reminds me of the blockchain technology called the Internet Computer. I'm aware that I'm drifting beyond the parameters of this site, so be well with your quest.

@Max: Difficult to predict the short term future with accuracy. In the long term, however, if unmet human needs exist, we will find a way to meet them fully. The need to help people who are suffering find a more skillful way to end that suffering faster exists. The need is large. We will find a way to meet that need.


text:
Does the Buddhas resolve on the night of His Nirvana go against the middle path?
I read here that on the night before the dawn of Buddhas Nirvana, the Buddha made a resolve that;

‘I shall sit under this tree and meditate upon my questions. And I
shall not move until I have my answers. Even if my skin rots and my
body decays, I shall not budge till I see the light,’ he decided.

Does this resolve go against the middle path that there should not be extreme asceticism and indulgence? I mean if He was not going to get up until He attained enlightenment then wasn't it extreme of asceticism.

Wasn't this literally a night before he invented the middle path? :)

@AndreiVolkov AFAIK He discovered the middle path sometime before the nirvana night...that's when He ate the rice porridge from Sujata...and other ascetics left Him and He continued further...

The story of the vow is from the Jhataka (see here).
The story is impressive and much-loved, but maybe the Jataka is a slightly different category than the other suttas (see also this answer). The version in the suttas e.g. MN 26 doesn't include that detail.
As an aside, since you're interested in Zen, I wonder if the story has any parallels with Zen story Three Days More.

I think it could be seen as a metaphorical gesture as well as a literal event. One might say it is a noble response emerging from the very tethers of samsara, where you have just had enough of the whole thing and are prepared to do anything.
One might also consider that some practitioners can sit within a samadhi state for what seems like an unnatural amount of time with little to no adverse effect on the body. Also, the Juñha Sutta describes an instance where sariputra, whilst in deep meditation, is hit over the head very hard by a yakkha, but having emerged from his meditation sariputra only reported a slight headache. The Buddha, having saw what occurred with his divine eye, said this...

Whose mind, standing like rock,
doesn't shake,
dispassionate for things that spark passion,
unprovoked by things that spark provocation:
When one's mind is developed like this,
from where can there come to him
suffering & stress?

So then, resolving to sit under the Bodi tree gave him this understanding which he then shared in various creative ways through the medium of wisdom bullets.

Probably, the story of the vow was an exaggeration in the Jataka, and seems to hint of extreme asceticism.
Perhaps, the truth behind the actual story might be the Buddha's resolve and effort i.e. Right Resolve (aka Right Intention) and Right Effort. It was more of a resolution and a decision, rather than a vow or a promise.
As you can see in the sutta quote below, too little energy results in laziness. Too much energy results in restlessness.
However, the right amount of energy, along with the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path, will bring the right results.
So, basically, the Buddha resolved to apply the right amount of energy into his effort.

“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.”
“Yes, sir,” Soṇa replied.
AN 6.55


text:
Does Buddhism Teach Nihilism?
I saw an article on the Internet about the fact that Buddhism is compared to solipsism or nihilism.
In particular, they talked about Japanese and Chinese Buddhism, since the teachings of Yogacara are present there.
On this I want to ask questions about these schools.
My questions:

Do the schools of Buddhism Soto, Rinzai, Jodo-shu, Jodo Shinshu, Nichiren, Shingon in Japan teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas any varieties of solipsism and any varieties of nihilism?

Do the schools of Buddhism Chan, Pure Land in China teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas any varieties of solipsism and any varieties of nihilism?

Hello and Welcome to Buddhism Q&A. I must say, you are asking a very broad question about 8 schools of Buddhism, looking to identify "any" parallels with two western philosophical ideas without giving their precise definitions. This will be hard-to-impossible to answer well.

Do the schools of Buddhism Soto, Rinzai, Jodo-shu, Jodo Shinshu, Nichiren, Shingon in Japan teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to deny that other people have individual minds?   Do the schools of Buddhism Chan, Pure Land in China teach Buddhists, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to deny that other people have individual minds?

There are several topics about "solipsism" asked on this site already, maybe the best is What are other peoples minds according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra? (which is tagged [tag:yogacara]).

There are already multiple other questions that asked whether Buddhism is solipsism (or not) and whether Buddhism is nihilism (or not). Are there reasons why you think Japanese and Chinese schools of Buddhism are any different from Buddhism in general, with regards to nihilism and solipsism? Also, why mix nihilism and solipsism in one question?

I think the question is barely on-topic also, I mean I think it is on-topic but only barely. Our rule for "comparative religion" questions (for example) is that the question must be at least as much asking about Buddhism as it is about whatever religion it's being compared with -- whereas this questions seems to be more about solipsism and nihilism and less about Buddhism. And the question might be clearer, more focussed, if you cited and quoted the article, and asked something about that quote (like whether it's true, or something like that).

I think the answer is probably "no" to the question about nihilism and Japan.
There's this story for example, where the protagonist, Dokuon, is Rinzai rōshi.

Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”


text:
What is the best distance for kasina meditation between person and object?
Some websites show that it is ideal to get 1.5 m distance between the person and the kasina object.
Is there any science behind the recommendation to get that specific distance?

Can you provide at least one example of such a website?

You're using a word that is troubling me - namely "science".  A lot of modern people are drawn to Buddhism because, at least at the beginning, it seems that the Buddha is offering an empirical path to liberation.  Let me turn you off that idea now.  As you progress, you are going to find that Buddhism will ask of you things that are not rational, require faith, and are not falsifiable.  Buddhism requires fundamental trust.  Be prepared to offer it.
But to answer your question...eh.  Not really.  Meditation is an art.  What you are looking to do with a kasina is establish it so that it fills your field of consciousness.  You want something that you can hold in your mind.  Too big and you lose the edges.  Too small and it might be hard to hold onto at first.  Play around with it.  See what works for you.  Ultimately, you want something you can hold steadily in your mind.  So as long as that can happen, don't worry about how far away it or how much of your inner field of vision it takes up.

Let's say you are an artist who put a small bowl of fruits in front of him (or her) as the object of inspiration and intends to paint it on a canvas.
How far away from you should it be?
I would say 1.5 meters would be a pretty good distance. Not too far and not too near, for you to be able to make it the foreground of your visual focus, covering all parts of the bowl and the fruits, and their details, adequately.
That is the same idea behind the kasina visualization recommendation.

I noticed that the OP has tagged 'Visuddhimagga' but when I scanned through the fire kasina section in the Visuddhimagga I could not find a reference that pertains to distance.

It doesn't matter, contemplation & visualization is sufficient.
The colors can appear just due to contemplating the bodyparts, eg the whiteness of bones or the red hue of blood.
The colors are a good way to start because it's quite simple but if one is skilled at defining the elements one can direct the mind to all the kasina bases by contemplating the 6 constituents of a person; earth element, water element, air element, fire element, consciousness element & space element.
The earth element, water element, air element, fire element & space element can be contemplated as both internal & external elements.
The space-kasina and consciousness-kasina are the formless bases and the others pertain to the heavens of form.
As a side note, all kasina attainments are jhana but not all jhana are associated with a kasina.

One should "get one with the Kasina" and remove what ever distance, good householder.


text:
How difficult is it to be a foreign monk in Asia?
I wonder about the practicalities of being a foreign monk in Asia, especially Theravada-majority countries.
In particular;
About the Visa arrangements, can this at all be handled without much stress by one who doesn't use money?
What about the rule of not driving a car or using vehicles, is this a rule that can be kept by one in such a predicament?
Anything relevant is of interest.

Asia is a very big continent with 48 countries. You may want to narrow the question down to one country or a few countries.

Related: What is the visa process for ordaining foreigner monks in Sri Lanka?

Well it's not like one can ordain as Theravadin in China or Kazakhstan etc. South East i guess. I don't have a particular country in mind at this point.

Other topics with some mention of visas: Myanmar -- Nepal -- Sri Lanka

Good householder,
one who went forth under the Gem is everywhere outside the Buddhaparisa a foreigner. One who went forth does not relay on 'rights' or demands, but has just the Gems as refuge and receives what is given without strings toward world. One who has gone forth abstains from using vehicles, dwells in the Vihara of metta for all. One who has gone forth does not desire to (be)come and arrive anywhere in this world, does not seek protection where non can be found. Less are those ready and in firm faith of going forth, for deals for another home usually seems more secure to them.
Nothing faster as one barefooted on the right track.
Does one seeks another home or go for leaving it behind?
It would be everywhere difficult living the Brahmacaria to it's end if staying in the world if not in the Brahmadwellings or beyond any borderland.

It is difficult everywhere but i should choose what is least difficult right? I am not about to make things harder for myself by going to foreign lands if i can train better here as a layman or ordaining elsewhere. Laymen can be Arahnts you know, 7 days, it's not like monks have a monopoly on going forth.

Your answer isn't really making clear what is obscure

Foreign Monks in Sri Lanka
There are a few foreign monks in Sri Lanka.
There are usually not many monks that speak English in the temples.
Visa rules have recently changed allowing visa beyond three months:

See section 3. Religious Category of Residence Visa
See also General Information

Residence Visa for clergy is Free.
Are you an ordained Monk? If so your home temple should be able to arrange your stay in Sri Lanka.
Are you currently a novice? The folks at the Canadian vihara I belong to should be willing to advise you on your journey: https://www.bvs.org/ There are many Sri Lankan members.
I have never seen a monk here needing to pay for local transportation. Dana is provided in the temple by the community. I have not seen monks begging for food door to door as in Cambodia.
It would be best to have everything arranged before you depart.

Good householder,

I wonder about the practicalities of being a foreign monk in Asia, especially Theravada-majority countries.

It's more difficult to become a foreigner, than to stay at home in one's homeland. One could easily just stay at home.

About the Visa arrangements, can this at all be handled without much stress by one who doesn't use money?

How could one handle something requiring money, if not accepting, using or telling others to use and abstains from trade with householders?
In other words, if you need to get something done that requires money, then you need to deal with money, whether directly or indirectly.

What about the rule of not driving a car or using vehicles, is this a rule that can be kept by one in such a predicament?

It would be not wrong if sick and not able to walk to accept a male ride (cyclo, bike, cart, man-powered). It's also not wrong to give a fellow a hand cart ride, if given to use one and desire to 'drive'.

Anything relevant is of interest.

DN 2: Samaññaphala Sutta — The Fruits of the Contemplative Life


text:
Proper to let trade carry liberation, even possible?
No question that it isn't proper to let trades for world carry Dhamma, share Dhamma via market places, but what does one think in regard of receiving? Would Dhamma made avaliable by commerce take one out of this wheel?
Could people, who are not willing in providing sphere out of faith fist, based on generosity, ever match even the base? Or will they simply stay bond where they wish to receive?
Question powered by... grave defilements...

Why not? quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

npthing is gratis in the world and liberation as well, good householder.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I downvoted this question because it was asked with a clear answer in mind and the way the user responds to others doesn't seem to promote healthy discussions.

My friend, did I miss you.

"I downvoted this question because it was asked with a clear answer in mind and the way the user responds to others doesn't seem to promote healthy discussions." that's how defilements act if touched. They wouldn't like to answer.

Would Dhamma made avaliable by commerce take one out of this wheel?

Making a bussiness out if Dhamma is a corruption in one who does it, it doesn't corrupt the Dhamma.
Therefore there is no apparent reason to assume that one who payed to learn the Dhamma would be deficient.

So householder thinks that Dhamma could be gained, liberation could be gained, by corrupt and not given ways? Did the payed gave him ways to go forth?

"thinks that Dhamma could be gained, liberation could be gained, by corrupt and not given ways?" No, that i do not think. "Did the payed gave him ways to go forth? I don't understand this.

Aren't there Jataka where people pay to learn the Dhamma? I am not sure but i think it's obvious that one who buys doesn't part-take in the offense of selling.

The wording you use "corrupt not given ways". Liberation can not be gained by corrupt ways but Buying a Dhamma talk or a Book is not a corruption in one who buys it.

One's evil kamma doesn't corrupt another, one is not heir to another's kamma.

'I don't understand this.', seemingly, yet still thinking to be able to answer. Bond.

If buying Dhamma would block liberation then it would be close to anantarika-kamma. i don't think i can explain it due to the apparent language barrier

Well, wrong view, strong wrong view, is actually anantarika-kamma good householder, or is he able to cross the "language barrier"?

Please have mercy samana... If you care what i think then let's find an interpreter and i will explain, otherwise it's stressing me immensely

Let's try another door: If a gift (a gift!) isn't purified either on one or both sides, would it be of benefit beyond the world?

Based on Dakkhinavibhangasuttam; There is an offering that is neither purified by the giver nor by the receiver. Here, Samana, the giver is unvirtuous and bad-natured, and the receivers are unvirtuous and bad-natured. That unvirtuous person who, with a mind lacking in confidence, gives a gift that has been unrighteously obtained to unvirtuous person, who does not have great faith in actions and their results, that gift will not bring an extensive reward I say.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Trading the Dhamma is wrong, according to Ud 6.2.
But selling a paperback book containing words of the Dhamma is not wrong, if the proceeds meant for the author, goes to charitable causes.
Ven. Ajahn Brahm has published books and has regular talks on YouTube. According to this page:

Ajahn Brahm has authored three popular books that are available
commercially ... the royalties raised from sales of these books goes
to the activities of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia.

Similarly, if videos of talks by Dhamma teachers are monetized on YouTube with ads, it's ok, if the money received by the YouTube channel owner, is then used for charitable causes.
It's only wrong if the money from such activities is used for financial profit and as a means of livelihood.
Of course, YouTube itself, and the book publishing company itself, may make profit, but this is only because they are providing a platform as a paid service. After all, they need money to maintain this platform and pay their employees.
What about the recipient of the Dhamma? Well, it's up to him to discover who is the right teacher and who is the wrong teacher. Sometimes, monks like Devadatta (Iti 89) or Sati (MN 38) are wrong teachers and a lay householder like Citta (SN 41.5) is the right teacher.

'But selling a paperback book containing words of the Dhamma is not wrong, if the proceeds meant for the author, goes to charitable causes.', who says? Common traders sense?

'Similarly, if videos of talks by Dhamma teachers are monetized on YouTube with ads, it's ok, if the money received by the YouTube channel owner, is then used for charitable causes.', so Dhamma can be use to feed the poor? Aside of youtube isn't a generous undertaking. Not to speak how a monk could use it...

'What about the recipient of the Dhamma?...' one with disrespect and not even faith into geneosity, not to speak about Sila able to receive higher, even the goid Dhamma? "By words and ways"

Sure, it's not easy to answer when used to give Dhamma between advertising and for others profit: any answer would be therefore corrupt, approving wrong oneself, right?

@user21819 Ven. Ajahn Brahm has published books and has regular talks on YouTube. I'm sure he doesn't take money from it. It all goes to the Buddhism Society of Western Australia, for which, he is the spiritual head. According to this page, "Ajahn Brahm has authored three popular books that are available commercially ... The royalties raised from sales of these books goes to the activities of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia."

As if he wouldn't be a remarkable sign of corruption. It's like citing Devatatta on discussing Dhamma... but good to bring up the most huge thieves.


text:
How to teach sympathy/empathy in Buddhism?
I have been following Buddhism and mindfulness for a while now. I have a 5 year old son and want to teach him to be sympathetic/empathetic and grateful but im struggle to reconcile some of the Buddhist ideals.
In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life. This is easy to say since I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc. But when I look at the less fortunate people, homeless, poor, addicted, etc., I struggle. To tell them to just trust the unfolding of their life or to see the silver lining in what they have seems insensitive or even wrong.
Ive also taught my son to feel lucky that he is fortunate to have things like a home, toys, opportunity, etc., and usually compare his life to those who are less fortunate in order to make the point that he is lucky and that he should be sensitive to other's misfortune. I don't want to teach him that we are any better than they are, but I want him to understand the difference between his luck and others.
Although I am not religious (deity), I find myself wanting to pray for those people as I feel like i was simply lucky to be born into a family with opportunity, money, education, etc., whereas they were not. I guess I am a determinist for a lack of a better word.
I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism when Buddhism teaches that you should accept life for what it is and not to desire more? I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory? Even to be motivated to help others, comes down to wanting more for them but Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us... Im confused and having trouble reconciling my desire to be grateful, empathetic, help others, etc., when Buddhism says just sit still and accept life for what it is (rich, poor, good, evil, etc.).

Speaking as buddhist and a father of four (3 biological kids and 1 step-son).
I don't think we should teach the passive unfolding. Like, we obviously can't say: "if they provoke you and you get angry, you may have an impulse to hit them, just watch it unfold" - absurd.
Instead, we can teach them karma and how we always reap what we (or our previous generations) sow.
I.e. your family is not just lucky. You inherited the results of someone's hard work, good ethics, and kindness. Not necessarily your direct ancestors but in general some people who contributed to good circumstances that shaped your life. That said, we can't just rest on the old laurels, we must make sure in our own life we can preserve the good karma we inherited and pass it on to the future "us".
Those other kids are not just unlucky. They inherited results of someone in the past being stupid and/or lazy and/or wicked.
So we (the parents and kids) can empathize their condition, because it's hard to build good life on a bad foundation. And we (the parents and kids) should pray that they will intuitively discover what kind of behavior leads to a less troubled future, or may they encounter good role models who would show them how to create better future instead of perpetuating old problems.
In short, to me it's not about being greedy for more vs passively watching things unfold. I think it's about creating causes of trouble vs creating causes of harmony - and how this process spans past, present and future generations. Thinking in terms of karma we can be grateful, we can empathize, and we can aspire to do as well or better as our karmic benefactors.
P.S.
It's totally okay to desire less trouble and more harmony. In fact that's what Buddhist path is all about. Harmony is not just external comfort, you know, that's the coarse aspect of harmony. The deeper types of harmony are e.g. the social harmony, ecological harmony, and finally the inner harmony.

thankful for exactly the things we have ... shouldn't want more than what has been given to us.

This is not entirely accurate. We should accept what we have rather than wishing it were otherwise. Indeed, things are the way they are for a reason, and wishing they were otherwise is plain stupid not to mention unnerving. We have what we have and that's what we work with. We shouldn't want more shiny objects, power, and fame - because eventually they lead to trouble. Wanting more harmony for ourselves and for others is totally fine.

"We should accept what we have rather than wishing it were otherwise." I find this statement interesting in the context of innovation and social activism. I understand you are referring to  selfish goals, but even when the goal is seemingly unselfish; it can still be unnerving; isn't that part of the process of social change? How can you reconcile the two?

The thing is, wishing it were otherwise and aspiring for it to be otherwise are two different things.

The Buddha does NOT say "just sit still and accept life for what it is". The Buddha says we should practice to benefit one and all (e.g., "to be grateful, empathetic, help others"):

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

Practicing to benefit one and all requires a shared understanding of one and all. Empathy is a start:

DN34:1.7.87: They understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having comprehended them with their own mind.

In that shared understanding is a form of acceptance. In that understanding is a simple acknowledgement of present perception. But we have to be very careful here. That shared understanding is perilously close to identification. Buddhist acceptance is NOT identification. So there is a problem with using the term "acceptance".
There is a problem with using "acceptance" to understand Buddhism. Buddhists will see anger but not accept it. Buddhists will see covetousness but not accept it. Buddhists will see ill will but not accept it. Buddhists will see lying but not accept it. Buddhists will see delusion but not accept it.
There is also a problem with using "not desire more/less" to understand Buddhism. It is a problem because the Buddha decided to teach the lessening and ending of suffering. The Buddha did not accept the apparent inescapable inevitability of suffering. And he shared the escape from suffering with a foundation of more love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.
In brief, teach sympathy/empathy without identification. It feels bad to be lied to, so don't tell lies. It feels bad to have things stolen, so don't steal. It feels bad when others are stingy, so be generous. Those are all examples of a shared understanding without identification.

Due to the nature of society there is always a tendency to shape our child and, for many reasons, I think this is only natural. Some parents believe that their child isn't perfect - a subliminal message we get from society, which we pass over to our children. Using society's blueprint for perfection, they will try to mould their child with that blueprint in mind. The issue with this is the child will hear this message, the child will develop an overbearing sense of wrongness about themselves. This is what I call the implicit subscription to neurosis. Some parents will want their child to follow their own ideologies, they will want their child to become a smaller version of themselves, perhaps because of an unconscious fear about endings - seeing their character pass on through another person appeases some of their own anxieties. This can be another form of imparting unconscious anxieties onto the child. Even to teach your child that they are lucky is to teach them a kind of conceit: how to measure themselves against the misfortunes of others and feel good about it. For most, this luck-bearing attitude is a stick-wielding mentality used to prize apart segments of society. This habitual need to create schisms is where your confusion resides, and love & compassion is the resolve of that confusion brought about by wisdom-understanding. In some odd sense, confusion is the stepping back from it all so that we can seek a new perspective. Stepping back gives us a little refuge.
I could go on and on about the parent/child relationship, it goes as deep as the neurosis it rides upon, but let me just offer this rather wide summary:
It is within the entire scope of humanity that we bear the foibles and deficiencies of each other's behaviour and later come to a wise reassurance about its function. This means getting intimate with life, regardless of your level of understanding about things. That level of intimacy eventually coagulates to form empathic understanding. You see, this is beauty in all its glorious forms. It is a beauty that always permeates the warp and weft of human interaction, weaving a grand tapestry for the greater good on a rickety loom we call earth. It may at times appear terrifying, disgusting and bloody wrong. It is during these times that we begin to question its function, and that questioning pushes our attention inwards towards our own perceptions, towards our own wisdom. In the meantime, one just does their best in the world, and afterwards one just does, without dumping our psychological issues on our children.

The Buddhism i follow teaches that all beings are the same and are experiencing results of good and bad actions, also after death, in the next world [an after-life] and that there is no beginning to this transmigation from one world to the next.
It teaches that we inherit the results of our actions, mental, verbal & physical and that others are like ourselves albeit differently conditioned, having different amount of delusion.
What is good for others is good for us because we are all alike.
Therefore if we have sympathy & compassion for ourselves we should develop sympathy & compassion for others.
In this way one embraces all beings with sympathy & compassion and reaps rewards of good mental, verbal & physical actions.
May all beings be happy, may their minds be steadied by virtue, may they make straight what is crooked on a path so hard to walk and be free of all ill.

Have you heard of the four Brahmaviharas (abodes of brahma) in Buddhism? These are the four sublime virtues.
Empathetic joy or altruistic joy (mudita) is the virtue of delighting in others' experience of well being and good fortune. Here, we may encounter people who are doing better than us, and we feel genuinely happy for them. This is the opposite of feeling jealousy and envy.
Compassion (karuna) is the virtue we feel when encountering the suffering of others, and wishing them, or even helping them, to alleviate their suffering. Here, we encounter people who are doing worse than us, and we feel like lifting them up. This is the opposite of feeling contempt.
Loving kindness (metta) is the virtue of wishing that everyone, without exception, be happy, healthy, at ease, content, and enjoy peace and well being. Here, we encounter all people, and we feel like being their ally and benevolent friend, who wishes them no harm and only wish the state of well being for them, just as we experience the state of well being ourselves. Of course, we also want to be our own ally and our own benevolent friend, who wishes well being for ourselves too. This is the opposite of feeling ill will and hatred.
Equanimity (upekkha) is the virtue of being even-minded, with unshakeable inner peace and freedom, in the face of fortune and misfortune, honour and dishonour, gain and loss, praise and blame, pleasure and pain, good health and disease etc. Here, as you have said, is the virtue where we accept all that happens to us with an even mind, and let go of the struggle against circumstances that are out of our control. Of course, we should still be mindful to improve ourselves the next time we encounter choices in life, that is in our hands - equanimity is not fatalism. This is the opposite of greed and discontent.
The four brahmaviharas, therefore, is the teaching in Buddhism that shows us how to relate to others and how to relate to ourselves, in all possible scenarios where: others are better off than us, others are worse off than us, we are better off than how we think we should be, we are worse off than how we think we should be, as well as the case, where others and ourselves are doing just fine and being happy, contented and at ease.
So, while you were struggling with balancing contentment and teaching empathy/ sympathy and feeling grateful, it turns out that these are not contradictions in Buddhism. In fact, you have not one, but four brahmaviharas that you can share with your kid.
When you are hungry, you eat. When you are thirsty, you drink. When you are tired, you rest and sleep. But you don't eat, drink and sleep all at the same time. Similarly, the four brahmaviharas do not contradict each other. They are to be used at different times, for different situations. But, the point is, you need them all.
Let your mind reside in these four abodes of brahma and radiate the expansive goodness that emanates from them.

In my understanding, Buddhism teaches that we should be thankful for exactly the things we have (not to desire more/less) but to trust in the unfolding of our life.
In passing, I'm not entirely sure that's an accurate summary -- but perhaps that's a separate topic.
I was lucky enough to be born into a productive family and am living a mostly positive life, etc.
mudita.
As mentioned in another answer, it's worth identifying the brahma-viharas

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti).

I guess what im asking is what place does sympathy/empathy or even being grateful have in Buddhism
I think they're instrumental in not hurting yourself -- the converse, e.g. "craving for things you can't have, or craving to keep things you can't keep", is a cause of suffering.
They're also instrumental in not hurting others.
I can see how that narrative would work for me because i have the things i want, but for people who aren't as fortunate, how do you reconcile that in theory?
What if someone in your family, a friend, a child, a spouse, were homeless or a drug addict?
Maybe you'd want to try to help, to act on that (and in practice to do that you might need to change yourself in some way).
Buddhism teaches we shouldn't want more than what has been given to us
Buddhism also teaches "generosity" and "giving" as virtues.
It also teaches healthy and appropriate social relationships -- towards friends and family, employers and employees and teachers.
And it isn't only a matter of passive acceptance -- states like viriya (energy, strength, effort) are identified as instrumental or virtuous -- conversely there are kilesas

... mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions ... include states of mind such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc. Contemporary translators use a variety of English words to translate the term ... such as: afflictions, defilements, destructive emotions, disturbing emotions, negative emotions, mind poisons, neurosis etc.

How to teach sympathy/empathy in Buddhism?
Right, well -- for a five-year old ...
I don't want to say it's difficult or impossible to teach, but it might be an ongoing process (not a learn-it-once-and-you're-done kind of lesson, like learning to tie your shoes or whatever). For example I also associate it with bodhicitta; and the principle or final (i.e. the last remaining) motive of the Buddha, his motive for teaching.

One aspect of it, that maybe everyone should know, is "harmlessness" -- sometimes called the silver rule in English, or the "negative" formulation of the Golden Rule

The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:

Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)

Some of the Buddhist texts explicitly use this negative formulation -- for example from the Dhammapada:

All are afraid of the stick,
all fear death.
Putting oneself in another's place,
one should not beat or kill others.

Another aspect is, beware of looking down on people, of seeing others as inferior.
In Buddhist doctrine, "compassion" is explicitly not the same as "pity" -- see What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
See also The Buddha's Teaching on Unselfish Joy:

Mudita will also vitalize and ennoble charitable and social work. While compassion (karuna) is, or should be, the inspiration for it, unselfish joy should be its boon companion. Mudita will prevent compassionate action from being marred by a condescending and patronizing attitude which often repels or hurts the recipient. Also, when active compassion and unselfish joy go together, it will be less likely that works of service turn into dead routine performed indifferently. Indifference, listlessness, boredom (all nuances of the Pali term arati) are said to be the 'distant enemies' of mudita. They can be vanquished by an alliance of compassion and unselfish joy.
In him who gives and helps, the joy he finds in such action will enhance the blessings imparted by these wholesome deeds: unselfishness will become more and more natural to him, and such ethical unselfishness will help him towards a better appreciation and the final realization of the Buddha's central doctrine of No-self (anatta). He will also find it confirmed that he who is joyful in his heart will gain easier the serenity of a concentrated mind. These are, indeed, great blessings which the cultivation of joy with others' happiness can bestow!

The habit of comparing people and finding them different is identified as a cause of conflict:

Māna 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.

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

How does a child learn anything?
I don't know of any detailed Buddhist doctrine on that subject (the doctrine I have comes from studying Early childhood education in Ontario and Montessori education).
I expect that it will be by "modelling" (i.e. exemplifying, providing or being an example of) the behaviours you might want them to learn.


text:
How is it that everyone's cocksure of their own religion or spiritual path?
This question may not appear as exactly Buddhist or related to Buddhism but considering a bigger picture of Buddhism as a religion I want to know the answer to this.
We Buddhists consider 'Doubt' in the dhamma or the Buddha as one of the hindrances to meditation, so most of us who do sincere practise are totally convinced with the Buddhist ontology and overall framework. So if we are true then definitely, the Advaita Vedantists or Christians or Islamists have something which is wrong.
But considering the average human intelligence of practitioners of other religions, they do not find any thing wrong, in turn, people are hundred percent sure of their religion or spiritual practice. In fact, up to the last century, we were ready to die and kill each other for our religious beliefs.
I have met some school students who go on preaching faith in the bible on roads, keeping their arguments aside, their conviction was admirable. I come from a Hindu background and most of the Hindu practices are about pleasing gods so that they will give their blessings or favor or some or other material boon. There is still so much poverty around but nobody seems to question the religion at large which is a major part of their lives.
So to sum up my question, how is it that everybody is cocksure or their own religion?

It's a haphazard undertaking: there's a lot of stumbling around. Actually, religion is a bloody mess, but there are those few who understand. They may try to exercise their understanding, and this might look arrogant from the midst of the bloody mess. What is one to do? They can only highlight their understanding and illuminate the path they found while everyone else complains about the new incense not smelling good, or the Nicaraguan coffee has run out, or that group over there is doing things wrong. Absurd, I agree, but it's also human nature.

Yes I think it's not on-topic for this site -- "Why are Christians sure of their religion?" -- I think there's no reason to suspect that the users of this site have any special knowledge about Christians, and why (and whether) they are sure of their beliefs.

@ChrisW sorry if I sounded like that...but you got me wrong...i was not narrowing Christians or questioning their beliefs...I was asking about all the religions...including Buddhists...

Yes and I'm saying that really only Buddhism is on-topic on this site -- that the users of this site maybe can't give expert answers about whether and why adherents of other religions believe what they do -- that to ask about Christians and Muslims and Hindus and so on you should probably ask them elsewhere.

Given that there are a number of different ‘vehicles’ that flourish under the Buddhism moniker, this question applies to Buddhists. There are differences, some small, some large, between Sravakas, Pratyekajinas, Yogacarins, Madhyamikins, Guhyamantrins, etc. and one can see these differences in the wealth of answers on this SE group, as well as in the rampant downvoting of different views here. What makes everyone so cocksure of their own favored doctrines? (To put it in the OP’s terms) This question is appropriate for this substack.

How is it that everyone's cocksure of their own religion or spiritual path?
I'm not sure they are.
One of the mottos from the Christian canon is, as a prayer, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24) -- which I read as an admission of not being cocksure.
Perhaps Buddhists too aren't "cocksure", instead I think the canon keeps tells people to assess the Dhamma carefully and not to take doctrine only "on faith". There are many elements of doctrine, and I don't know about you but I tend to take the Noble Truths as core, conversely not pay much attention to some other elements like Mount Meru for example.
So I think it's not true, or an exaggeration, to say that all Buddhists are cocksure about the same entire ontology, and all Christians are likewise about a different ontology. Instead each person has different views which they're more or less faithful to.
You could instead ask, "Why are people sure about the things they're sure about?"

Firstly, that's just a truism -- i.e. people are "sure about what they're sure about" by definition.
Second, this latter phrasing of the question removes some of the antagonism from the original questions (i.e. people contradicting each other).
As for "why?" I imagine it's because they find the belief helpful in some way -- possibly reassuring, or some other kind of "good".

most of us who do sincere practise are totally convinced with the Buddhist ontology and overall framework
So I think that people find or build or select an ontology which they find convincing, except that instead of "convincing" I'd say "workable", "reasonable", "useful", perhaps "enlightening" or "liberating".
we were ready to die and kill each other for our religious beliefs
That might be an exaggeration too. Maybe people killed each other for other reasons -- political and economic -- and "religion" was a convenient excuse but superficial, just one of the "identifying" characteristics that sometimes happened to distinguish "us" from "them".

OP: So to sum up my question, how is it that everybody is cocksure or their own religion?

The quoted suttas below say that an unenlightened person says certain teachings are true, or holds to views, because of clinging, because he depends on them. Due to clinging, it's hard to let go and see other perspectives. These and other suttas in Snp 4 show how an unenlightened person says his view is true and others are false, calling others fools.
However, the enlightened don't cling to any views and have let go of all views. They see things as they are. They are also free of conceit and have no need to dispute with others and defend their views.
So, does this mean that the Buddha accepted all other religious views in his time and said that they all lead to liberation? No. Definitely not.
As a fully enlightened teacher, he could discern between right view and wrong views. Only the Right View (samma ditthi) can lead to liberation. It's the forerunner of the path, ahead of others, in the Noble Eightfold Path.
There are various suttas where the Buddha was confronted by followers of other teachers or consulted by seekers who spoke to various teachers (like in DN 2), and the Buddha explained why each of their views are wrong, and explained the Right View.
In this answer, we see how the Buddha debunked Jain views on karma in MN 101.
We can see how the Buddha's explanation of the dependent arising of consciousness based on the six sense media and their sense objects in MN 38 easily debunks the explanation of consciousness of Advaita Vedanta as found in the Hindu writings Aparokshanubhuti and Vivekachudamani.
You can find many other wrong views explained in DN 1. Followers of a number of religions today may hold to some of the views in DN 1, especially the wrong view of eternalism.
If a person was stubborn and not interested in listening to the Buddha's explanation, the Buddha simply stopped teaching him (AN 4.111).
As stated clearly in Dhammapada 254 - 255, noble (ariya) contemplatives cannot be found outside what was taught by the Buddhas. In other words, you can only find noble contemplatives where there are the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the three marks of existence and dependent origination. Only these lead to the permanent end of suffering.
Also: "But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness." (DN 16)
In fact, the specific person of Gautama Buddha is not more important than his teachings, which was discovered and rediscovered again by multiple Buddhas (SN 6.2) in history.
Even if Buddhas never arose, the three marks of existence is in any case a natural law independent of the person discovering and teaching it (AN 3.136).
The term noble (ariya) by the way is a technical term that refers to people, teachings and practices that lead to Nirvana, as explained by the Buddha. Please also see "What is ariya or noble?"

A person entrenched in his teachings,
honoring a preconceived view,
isn't easy to discipline.
Whatever he depends on
he describes it as lovely,
says that it's purity,
that there he saw truth.
The brahman, evaluating,
isn't involved with conjurings,
doesn't follow views,
isn't tied even to knowledge.
And on knowing
whatever's conventional, commonplace,
he remains equanimous:
'That's what others hold onto.'
Snp 4.13

Because entrenchments in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.
Now, one who is cleansed
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit & illusion,
by what means would he go?
He isn't involved.
Snp 4.3

Sine you've asked a not-exactly-Buddhist question, I'm going to begin with a daoist observation and work my way back to Buddhism. Chapter 38 of the daodejing contains the following passage (variably translated):
When the Dao is lost, people become good.
When goodness is lost, people become moral.
When morality is lost, people turn to ritual.
Ritual is the empty husk of true understanding;
After that all is chaos.

My point is that on the spiritual path we must take this declining list in reverse.

That chaos is nihilism, where nothing has meaning or value beyond the
immediacy of ones own desires
The step up from nihilism is transactionalism, where we do what we
think we need to do to get what we want from the world
Up from transactionalism is conviction, where we have strong, rigid,
deeply held beliefs about how the world is and should be
Beyond conviction we find compassion, where all our beliefs are
tempered and softened by our knowledge of human suffering
And past compassion there is understanding (attainment, right-view)

Every faith (at its philosophical core) teaches that upward path, but in practice religions and religious practices can get caught at any of those lower stages. Spiritual leaders can sometimes become so attached to elevating themselves and their followers that they push themselves downwards towards brutal dogmatism. But in any case, being 'cocksure' of one's faith is a natural and perhaps unavoidable stage in spiritual maturation, one that will (hopefully, eventually) be set aside for a better understanding.

A disciple of the Buddha wouldn't quarrel around but just remember and know DN 1: Brahmajāla Sutta— The All-embracing Net of Views | The Brahmā Net, good householder and use struggles in the world just to increase efforts but Samvega.

I want to address two aspects of this question.
First, why is everyone so sure of his or her own path? I think the answer lies in the process of identification. This is in our nature, identification is even considered necessary to develop a personality when growing up. We can identify with a lot of things. With a person, a religion, a race, a gender, a football team, an occupation, a concept, a political party or system, a role in a family, a role we’re playing in theater or on stage, and so much more.
Identification can happen consciously or unconsciously. When we go to work, we may see ourselves as cook or boss, but completely different when playing with our kids, and again change when sitting down to meditate. An actor has to identify with the role he is playing in order to play it convincingly.
The danger is over-identification. When we identify too much, we may become presumptuous, intolerant against others, even fanatic. I am so convinced of my country, my religion, my political opinion, my brand of car, my race, my football team, my whatever, and my whatever is so obviously superior than your whatever. If you cannot see this, you must be ignorant or brainwashed or outright evil. For the good of all beings, I have to argue with you, convince you, and if I fail, then oppose you, fight you, silence you, kill you.
This is what I observed. I’m no psychologist, so identification may not be the perfect word, but I hope the point is clear.
Second: Doubt in Buddhism.
Having no doubt in Buddhism does not mean to have blind faith. Being a hindrance, having no doubts is an essential part of meditation. Besides doubting the teaching or the religion, which is your question, there will be doubts about other things: Am I able to do it? Do I do it right? Did I get this right? Is now the right time? Did I just have a great achievement? Is my teacher the right one? Why am I doing this? How am I doing?
Doubts are necessary, even helpful, outside meditation. Doubts can arise if my understanding is incomplete. Doubts can and should motivate me to go deeper, to investigate, to look further, wanting to find an answer, a reason, an explanation. And this is a good thing. However, when sitting to meditate, it’s time for the doubt to shut up. If doubts arise, they should be put aside, left for the and of meditation and then reviewed. Then the meaning can be uncovered, and appropriate action taken.
Compare it to a sports team. A coach will teach the team to be absolutely convinced, without a doubt, that they will win - during a match. But outside a match, this could be harmful, as they may not see their weaknesses and thus not work on them.

The Buddha discouraged being cocksure:

MN38:14.1: “Pure and bright as this view is, mendicants, if you cherish it, fancy it, treasure it, and treat it as your own, would you be understanding how the Dhamma is similar to a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on?”
MN38:14.2: “No, sir.”
MN38:14.3: “Pure and bright as this view is, mendicants, if you don’t cherish it, fancy it, treasure it, and treat it as your own, would you be understanding how the Dhamma is similar to a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on?”
MN38:14.4: “Yes, sir.”

Therefore, the Buddha is a counterexample to the OP.

Most people have convictions, they go on faith. Those who go on faith aren't sure, they have not gone beyond doubt and they do not have verified confidence.
You can be as convinced as you can be but that isn't same as knowing & seeing.
One who knows & sees will deny having faith and convictions.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?"
"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."
"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."

As to why people are stubborn and unwilling to change their views.
That is mostly due to their inate stupidity, clinging to the identity and the relative advantage that comes with their position.
For example
islamic and christian leaders aren't interested in finding truth when they converse, they are concerned with conserving their status in general.
Many people have so much invested interest in their views that obtaining knowledge would be perceived as ruining their good fortune and causing them a lot of distress.
Some religions exert immense social pressure on children to conform to a set of beliefs, even if at the level of lip-service and go as far as calling for execution in cases of apostasy.
As to Buddhists, it is basically the same..
It feels good to think that one has affection & love for The Buddha and is guaranteed at the very least a good rebirth, it feels good to do something thinking it bears a great fruit and it helps one sleep at night.

Well if you're a Christian, then Christianity is always 100% right.  If your Muslim, then Islam is always 100% right.  It can't be otherwise.  Your universe simply doesn't allow the possibility.  It's written into the fabric of your existence like acceleration due to gravity in our physical universe.  Why wouldn't you be cocksure if there's no other possible way it could be?
But to be a Buddhist is to stand apart from any universe.  If there was no Buddha, no dharma, and no sangha, Buddhism would still be true.  If the kalpa ending fire laid waste to everything, it wouldn't matter at all.

From a Buddhist perspective, the Buddha and the dharma only "deals" in Truths.
Buddh[ISM] is a mental construct created by "lesser" people (worldlings)
The Buddha himself only explained the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, cessation of suffering and the path to the cessation.
Obviously then "lesser" people created vast religions and even so far as elaborate deity worship around those truths!
To put it simply, these truths are not held by a religion, or by any person, including the Buddha, they are able to be found by anyone at any time.
So much is these truths true that they are actually "held" in other religions as well.
for example Christianity has ethical conduct and karma (reap what you sow) or sunyata (corinthians 12-13)
So while other religions force these rules or concepts into and onto others, Buddhism only deals in truths, so for damn sure anyone who has seen these truths (sotapanna) can be cocksure that these truths are true.
Other religions (from my own experience) are faith based and conceptual based ideologies... The cocksureness of those who practice them are often just a form of ignorance as they are unwilling or unable to explore the actual truths of reality.
That is my opinion.

There are genuine paths in all religions that lead to the Truth. There are, at the same time many blind alleys, again, in ALL religions, that seem to digress from the Truth, and therefore, confuse and confound. Many ways lead to New York; some start from New Delhi, some from Berlin, some others from London. The idea is to reach New York. If your map is correct, you will definitely reach your destination even though your path looks dramatically different from another person's starting from a different place. For example, Hinduism is not all about pleasing gods for material boons, as you seem to put it, but there are umpteen strands that stress pure rationality, like Advaita and Trika Shaivism. So, let us not compare. Let us stick to what suits us and move ahead towards the Truth.

I am astounded that my answer has been downvoted. There is a not-so-subtle display of bigotry here. If a person says that Hinduism is mostly about pleasing gods for material boons, it is necessary to point out the unfortunate ignorance that understanding entails. Anyways, I think it is time for me to move out of this forum. Thanks and metta!

I second the downvoting simply because it's entirely inaccurate to imply that they are all aiming at the same destination.  They simply aren't  In fact, for a Christian to claim that that their goal is to merge into a nondualisitc relationship with God as a Hindu might is complete heresy.  The lived experience of a devout Muslim in no way resembles the lived experience of a Tibetan Bon adherent.  These are all very, very different things and I think it does a disservice to all of them to believe that they are all somehow aiming at the same place.

I think the downvotes are not because of countering "Hinduism is mostly about pleasing gods for material boons". The downvotes are for claiming that "there are genuine paths in all religions that lead to the Truth." That's not what Buddhism teaches. Please see Dhp 254 - 255 which say that there are no noble contemplatives outside of the Buddha's teachings. Noble contemplatives here mean the four enlightened ones - sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami and arahant. DN 16 has a similar statement. The Buddha explained the various wrong views of other teachers in DN 1, DN 2, MN 101 etc.

Those who assert what is not true go to hell

"When I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best - and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naive I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today...”
This is what the present Dalai Lama says. I am in total agreement with him. I would follow him anytime, anywhere, rather than the likes of Ashin Wirathu who believe that their faith alone knows the best and the rest will rot in hell.

@SushilFotedar It's not that other religions are bad or false or inferior. It's just that other religions lead to different destinations. How is it possible for religions who do not accept sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self) to lead to Nirvana? Without letting go of the fetter of self-view, stream entry cannot be reached. I'm sure Hinduism leads to Moksha, and the abrahamic religions lead to heavan etc., but these may not be the same as Nirvana. Furthermore, they may not be interested in Nirvana. Many are looking forward to sensual enjoyments in the hereafter.

@SushilFotedar I agree with the attitude, though the answer would be better with some rewording. Most religions are theoretically irreconcilable with Buddhism, but the virtues they promote are not that different from those of Buddhists. If a practitioner is truly invested and genuinely want to improve themselves and help others, they are also unintentionally moving closer to the end goal of Buddhism. In the case where their religion contradicts their wholesome views, either ditch the religion or change it for the better. The rise of gay imams is a good example.

I grew up in Kashmir as a Hindu with a tradition of Trika Shaivism and a rich Buddhist past. Surrounded by a 98% population of Muslims, I studied in a Christian missionary school. I assert once again that there are STRANDS in all these religions that go beyond the straitjackets as defined by their books and that reach out for an ultimately indefinable Reality. I am talking of those STRANDS and not the mainstream. Anyways, I am thankful to @ruben and viptrongproz98 who have at least tried to understand my position. I hope they also don't wish me to go to hell as someone here has proposed.

There are obvious similarities in the different paths -- in the lists of "virtues", for example. I think that what users are complaining about, in this answer, is the idea that the goals are the same (i.e. that there's something called "Truth" they all aspire to, and that they aspire to the same Truth). For example, so far as I know the goal or ambition of Christianity is "communion with God" (eventually in Heaven) -- and perhaps that doesn't describe the goal of Buddhism (except maybe the Pure Land school).

A movement called Theosophy taught that religions have something in common, are similar, maybe branches from a common source; it's motto is apparently, "There is no religion higher than Truth". But some people decided that, to do that, the Theosophists had to distort or misrepresent the actual doctrines of Buddhism -- and that Buddhist doctrine should be understood in its own terms, and not as described by Theosophists. So perhaps that's another reason why this answer is unpopular, i.e. it's a non-uncommon view but people think it's inaccurate.

I have said what I had to say. I have nothing more to say. Thanks and metta.

@SushilFotedar The individual mentioning hell, did not mean to threaten you with hell. He is merely quoting some stock phrase from the suttas that holding wrong views may lead one to hell. But the meaning of this statement is simply that wrong views lead to suffering. For e.g. the wrong view held by anti-vaxxers concerning vaccination, may lead to them suffering in the "hell" of severe disease. That's all it means.


text:
Non-striving and happiness
I have only an informal understanding of Buddhism, so please excuse the informal language used in this question. My intent is to understand Buddhism better, and I welcome any answers or resources that will help me do that.
Being present is focusing on the here and now, because that is all you ever have. Not striving to feel differently, just accepting and observing what is. It is my understanding that this mindset helps do away with the suffering that comes from an over fixation on striving. In other words dropping the expectation that if only this one aspect of life was different or you had a little bit more money you would be happy. Unless your circumstances are truly dire and your basic human needs are not being met, striving for a change in life is a recipe for always wanting more and not being satisfied. This seems to be consistent with the concept of hedonic adaptation.
It is my understanding that part of accepting the present and non-striving is believing that every road has an end. Every career path chosen, every hobby taken up, every life decision made will ultimately come to an end in one way or another, and there you will be on the other side still only having the present moment. This is a deeply depressing mindset to me. Viewed through this lens, what is the point of doing anything? Why strive for an experience or accomplishment when it is fleetingly temporary?
There seems to be some critical components missing from my understanding of these aspects of Buddhism. What am I missing?

Non-striving can devolve to dullness, laziness and unhappiness:

AN8.80:1.5: ‘I have some work to do. But while doing it my body will get tired. I’d better have a lie down.’
AN8.80:1.6: They lie down, and don’t rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.
AN8.80:1.7: This is the first ground for laziness.

The Buddha recommends otherwise.

AN8.80:9.5: ‘I have some work to do. While working it’s not easy to focus on the instructions of the Buddhas. I’d better preemptively rouse up energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.’
AN8.80:9.6: They rouse energy for attaining the unattained, achieving the unachieved, and realizing the unrealized.
AN8.80:9.7: This is the first ground for arousing energy.

So if the Buddha doesn't recommend non-striving, what does the Buddha teach? The Buddha teaches us to strive carefully, skillfully and diligently.

AN2.5:1.1: “Mendicants, I have learned these two things for myself—
AN2.5:1.2: to never be content with skillful qualities, and to never stop trying.
AN2.5:1.3: I never stopped trying, thinking:
AN2.5:1.4: ‘Gladly, let only skin, sinews, and bones remain! Let the flesh and blood waste away in my body! I will not stop trying until I have achieved what is possible by human strength, energy, and vigor.’
AN2.5:1.5: It was by diligence that I achieved awakening, and by diligence that I achieved the supreme sanctuary.

What then is this skillful striving that leads to contentment without wishes?
Well, it starts with ethics:

MN8:12.1: Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways.
MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
MN8:12.7: ‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’
MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’
...

It is indeed depressing to strive for self-centered goals. There is no lasting happiness there. But it is the "self" that is suspect, not the striving. So strive for the "win-win" and happiness for all:

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

That's a start, but there is much more to explore. Welcome to Buddhism!

I enjoy the way you compound sutta excerpts like this. Simple and striking.

Happily, the Buddha's teachings are indeed simple and striking.

You are confusing what is with what may be. We all suffer when we refuse to accept what is the case right now. We suffer because you can’t change the present. In Buddhism there are lots of forward-looking activities directed toward desired goals. Prayers, mantras, even meditation, for example, all are directed to becoming a better person and to help oneself and others escape suffering. It is often said by confused people, who haven’t made the effort to study the Buddha’s wisdom, or haven’t understood it—even sometimes those who call themselves Buddhists—that any desire is a bad thing, but this is not Buddhism. If it were, why pray, why meditate, why make the intent and expend the energy to become enlightened and help others? Trouble arises when we desire that which we cannot have, or will not get, or which will not in any case help us or anyone else. If you want to be an astronaut and you’re close to seventy years-old, you’re going to be frustrated (unless you’re a billionaire). Frustration is suffering. If you can’t understand the source of your frustration and you let yourself be convinced by hucksters that this or that will solve your problems, you’ll suffer even more. Most of us cannot understand this. The Buddha taught the way to end suffering, but not by suppressing it, or just accepting one’s fate, nor by expending one’s life in a hopeless chase after the exact special trinket or abstract quality (like happiness) that will make all your suffering go away. The Buddha realized that that was the cause of suffering (as many others have), and he taught the way to stop causing suffering (unlike others) by not desiring more than we can have, other than we can obtain, or chasing after those things, or qualities, that will not fulfill our confused desires. I wrote this answer because I desire to help you better understand the Buddha’s teaching. If Buddhism only imparted a defeatist attitude, I wouldn’t have bothered. Implicit in this acknowledgement is my believe that I could help. And I wrote it this way, rather than simply listing the four noble truths for you, because the Buddha’s great insight is more profound, and requires more reflection than just memorizing bullet points. His was a dialectical solution. If you can see how that is the case, then you understand well how to end your suffering and that of others.

MUMONKAN, CASE 48: “KEMPO’S ONE ROAD”
The Case
A monk once asked Master Kempo, “A sutra says, ‘The Bhagavats
in the Ten Directions, one straight road to Nirvana.’ I wonder, where
is that road?” Kempo lifted up his stick, drew a line in the air, and
said, “Here!”
Later a monk asked Ummon about this. Ummon held up his fan and said,
“This fan jumps up to Heaven and hits the nose of the King of the
gods. The carp of the Eastern Sea makes one leap and it rains cats and
dogs."

Or put another way, where should your heart be?  At all moments, here here.  Striving puts your attention somewhere else.  It is time bound, couched in desire, and oriented toward becoming.  Don't strive.  Instead, simply do.  I think Thoreau put it best - "God himself culminates in the present moment, and will never be more divine in the lapse of all the ages."  We cannot work our way to nirvana.  No amount of striving will get us there.
It's very fair to ask what a life of non-striving would look like.  Wouldn't it be empty of activity?  Devoid of joy?  Goal-less.  Aimless?  If we aren't on Kempo's one road, absolutely.  But to walk that one road is to meet what is before us, moment after moment, particle after particle.  Every mind moment presents us with a new challenge.  Each brings the possibility of joy and loss.  Even noticing these mind moments is a challenge all of its own.  A life that is oriented towards these moments and greets them all, one after the other, is deeply lived.  No amount of accomplishment can compare.
Everything comes to an end.  That is true.  But that doesn't mean there is no reason to walk the one road.  Step after step, the walking is the way.

I think you answered the question yourself.

“It is my understanding that this mindset helps do away with the
suffering that comes from an over fixation on striving”

The problem lies not in striving, but over fixation on striving. People assign (often arbitrarily) values on a future they imagined and are convinced they will be worthless if that future is not realized.
Scientific progress has led to the mass adoption of a clear-cut worldview where the factors affecting an entity can be exactly pinpointed and grouped into external or internal ones. Reductionist models are useful when doing research, but they should not to be mistaken for reality, because the uncontrollable “not-yours” and controllable “yours” are so deeply interwoven, always interacting and evolving. Some of ‘you’ are made from ‘not-you’, things like your parents, or - maybe too specific an example - your birthday if you were a 26 year-olds American in 1969. Some of “you” also make “not-you”, like the mood of your spouse or the lives of patients in ICUs if you are a medical personnel.
This is the emptiness that Buddhism talks about. Everything dies (even ideas, even concepts) but still lives on, just in different forms.
By viewing the world this way, what we get is not “nothing matters”, but “everything matters”.
Since you will be in this world for a while, I assume a comfortable experience would be much preferred. If so, you should treat everything with care, not just a small set of things mistaken to be the determinants of the future, because everything affects your future. This is why obsessive striving will make you suffer, but not striving. And by treating everything with care, you're being present, and you’re already striving.
A side note: this argument will only be useful if you are struggling with the thought that “everything ends”. If your worldview is similar to the one I held before I researched Buddhism - feeling nihilistic or thinking that morality and social constructs are pointless – a different method should be used.

"This is a deeply depressing mindset to me"

Physics suggests the universe will end in 'heat death', or featureless photon soup that erases any record. Should we reject that, because it's 'depressing'? Surely, we should try to understand this place we find ourselves in, & act in it on the basis of that understanding.
Things don't truly begin or end, what we call things are tags for phases of endless processes. There is an ancient phrase said to make happy people sad, and sad people happy: 'This too shall pass.' We can only choose how we meet that, not whether it will be the case. Change has two edges, that is just it's nature.
The point to learn isn't, 'do nothing'. But, to act on the basis of what is meaningful right now: things worth doing in themselves regardless of outcome. A good act is part of living a good way to be, it doesn't need rewards or praise to be proved good.
Return to this very moment, and in it's qualities, are the answers to what us worth doing.