text:
Can new beings come into existence without this existence being a rebirth?
Can beings that have come into existence that have never been reborn before, like comes into existence without that existence being a rebirth, or "its first birth".
Or is every being's existence a rebirth and nothing new can be "created".
Like a set number of souls or spirits that just recycle through rebirth
no new souls/spirits can be created and start the cycle?

The beginnings of samsara and the precise working out of kamma is basically unknown, unknowable and may bring madness and vexation to anyone speculating on them.

Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning.
No first point is found of
sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone
suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite
enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
regarding all conditions.
SN 15.3 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration (samsara).
A beginning
point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.
SN 15.3 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro)

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
AN 4.77 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro)

i marked this answer down because it appears to say "samsara" means "rebirth".

Ruben's answer does a good job of addressing what appears to be your primary question, namely what does Buddhism have to say about the beginning of a being's existence? I would like to address, perhaps more explicitly, the secondary question posed in your third paragraph, namely "(are there) a set number of souls or spirits that just recycle through rebirth(?)".
Within the Pali Canon, a hint towards the Buddha's teaching on this matter can be found in the 46th sutta of the 12th samyutta of the samyutta nikaya (conventionaly denoted SN 12.46).

At Savatthī. Then a certain brahmin approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to him:
“How is it, Master Gotama: is the one who acts the same as the one who experiences the result?”
“‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result': this, brahmin, is one extreme.”
“Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts one, and the one who experiences the result another?”
“‘The one who acts is one, and the one who experiences the result is another’: this, brahmin, is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
When this was said, that brahmin said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, Master Gotama!… I go for refuge to Master Gotama, and to the Dhamma, and to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. From today let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”  (Translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

I think this sutta dispels the idea of a "one-to-one mapping" between lives, which your question seems to imply. A rather stronger statement on the matter of "a set number of souls" can be found in Mahayana sources. Consider, for example, the following passage from the "Diamond Sutra", which is framed as a conversation between the monk Subhuti and the Buddha (Tathagata):

“Subhuti, do not say that the Tathagata has the idea, ‘I will bring living beings to the shore of liberation.’ Do not think that way, Subhuti. Why? In truth there is no living being for the Tathagata to bring to the other shore. If the Tathagata were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a life span." (Translated by Thich Naht Hahn)

Both of these suttas illustrate two ideas idea that you will encounter again and again in Buddhist teachings. My own crude summary is: the correct way to understand the World is in terms of processes, rather than objects (cf. substance vs bundle theory in Western Philosophy); concern yourself with the cessation of suffering, not the construction of "complete" metaphysical theories.

I marked this answer down because the content appears unrelated to the question. Particularly SN 12.46 appears unrelated to past & future lives . SN 12.46 appears to merely say there is no "self" or "one" that is doing & reaping kamma. Instead, the  doer of any kamma is ignorance.

In the Pali suttas, the word "a being" ("satta") refers to "a view" generated from "strong attachment", as follows:

Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.
SN 23.2

MN 64 says a new born child has no "self-identity" therefore has no notion of "a being", as follows:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him?
A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise in him?

MN 38 clearly explains it is only when a child reaches a certain age does the idea of "a being" or "a birth" arises in their mind, as follows:

The mother then carries the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months
with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, at the end of nine or ten
months, the mother gives birth with much anxiety, as a heavy burden.
Then, when the child is born, she nourishes it with her own blood; for
the mother’s breast-milk is called blood in the Noble One’s
Discipline.
When he grows up and his faculties mature, the child plays at such
games as toy ploughs, tipcat, somersaults, toy windmills, toy
measures, toy carts, and a toy bow and arrow.
When he grows up and his faculties mature still further, the youth
enjoys himself provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual
pleasure, with forms cognizable by the eye… sounds cognizable by the
ear…odours cognizable by the nose… flavours cognizable by the
tongue…tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired,
agreeable and likeable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative
of lust.
On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing;
he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the
body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as
it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom
wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged
as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether
pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in
that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so,
delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his
clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition,
birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole
mass of suffering.
On hearing a sound with the ear… On smelling an odour with the
nose… On tasting a flavour with the tongue… On touching a tangible with
the body… On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he lusts after it
if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing…Now delight in
feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being comes to
be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing
and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be.
Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

It may be noted the eternalist translator of the above titles the above section as "The Continuation of the Round". But his title is obviously his own addition to the text & wrong. It should be titled "The Start/Commencement of the Round". Therefore,  there is a time when a child has its first "birth"; its first mental conception of "a being" and "beings".
Also, it should be noted the word "birth" ("jati") means the birth of the view or conception of "beings", as follows:

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent,
coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance [manifestation] of aggregates & acquisition of
[sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
that is called birth.
SN 12.2

It should also be noted many will vomit up hot blood when their 'being' reads this answer.

Your saying that's the Start/Commencement and is not the Continuation -- but the Round doesn't begin with any specific child or being, though individual beings take part in it.


text:
Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?
Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says:

Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time you have
undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.

Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

A beginning point is not discernable, but an end point is.

I think that the "Eternalism" that's described as wrong view in DN 1 is like this:

The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.

... and this sutta isn't teaching that "The self and the world are eternal" so it's not teaching eternalism.
You emphasize the word "you" (as the subject of this question). I think there are other topics on this site, about how names and pronouns can be used "conventionally" without presupposing an atta -- that's also the subject of the "simile of the chariot" (in the Milinda Pañha).
Conversely, although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that dukkha is said to be an inherent characteristic.
I think it's important to read things in context, and not take things out of context -- the The Water-Snake Simile is an example of someone (Arittha) taking an element of doctrine out-of-context:

Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.

Here I think the context is to point out that though the world and time are vast, so are the corresponding tears -- and seeing that ought to turn the audience toward dispassion.

this answer appears a reasonable attempt however the following appears wrong: 'although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that dukkha is said to be an inherent characteristic." It appears obvious tears & suffering are not an inherent characteristic. The inherent characteristic called "dukkha" appears not about emotions but about all compounded things being not a source of lasting happiness. For example a rock is dukkha because it cannot bring lasting happiness. A rock is not dukkha because it has tears.  Regards

eternalism is also described differently in SN 12.17 & SN 44.10

Some versions of the doctrine ("dhamma seals" rather than "characteristics") say that dukkha isn't an inherent characteristic but is instead a human/unenlightened projection onto the rock.

sorry the above comment is heretical . thanjks

I think Thich Nhat Hanh said something like, that dukkha is a human experience -- and not experienced by the Enlightened.

The quoted passage is similar in nature to the following.
"I", "you" and a view of a continuously existing self are used to generate the path, using this contemplation. Therefore, it's skillful means. It's typically targeted at those with self view.

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

strange sutta given MN 117 says kamma is not noble right view. very strange

Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?
Key Pali words in Chapter 15 are saṁsāro, sandhāvataṁ & saṁsarataṁ. SN 22.99 shows these words do not necessarily refer "transmigration" or "reincarnation", as follows:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, this saṁsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar: it would just keep on running and revolving around that same post or pillar. So too, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self … feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self…. He just keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he keeps on running and revolving around them, he is not freed from form, not freed from feeling, not freed from perception, not freed from volitional formations, not freed from consciousness. He is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.
Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

Worse, in MN 38, a bhikkhu named Sati was rebuked for saying a "same consciousness" roams & wanders, as follows:

Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sāti, son of a fisherman, thus:
“tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ sandhāvati saṁsarati anaññan”ti.
“As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another.”
Bhikkhu Bodhi translated; "rebirth" embellishment removed

As for the Pali word "sattānaṁ" ("beings"; plural), SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "satta" ("a being"; singular) as merely strong attachment and a view, as follows:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
be 'a being'?
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4]
as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst,
fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they
have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel
possessive of them.
SN 23.2

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:
“Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found.
“Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So,
when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘a being.’
“It’s only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
ceases.”
SN 5.10

In addition, SN 12.2 defines "jati" ("birth") & "marana" ("death") as applying to a "class/category" ("nikaya") of "beings". "Mother", "father", "sister", "son", etc, appear to be examples of classes of beings mentally created from attachment at "birth"; which are also subject to "death". MN 26 & SN 12.66 calls such things "acquisitions", which are subject to "birth" & "death" because they are "acquisitions" ("upadhi") the mind is bound to via "attachment" ("upadana").
Therefore, the above suttas appear to show 'saṁsāra' does not refer to 'transmigration' or 'reincarnation'.
As for the phrase: "The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and wandering is indeed more than the water in the four oceans"... literally it sounds ridiculous.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is belief in eternalism completely useless?
Is belief in karma due to eternalism completely useless?
I do not know why those without self view believe in karma, but belief in karma is said to be useful, so does it matter if your metaphysics turns out to be mistaken? In which case, is eternalism a skilful means?
More generally, I don't understand why lack of self view on paper, as an abstract belief you assent to, is very interesting or helpful. After-all, few people today believe in a soul, even a spirit.

Is belief in eternalism completely useless?

Yes, it's completely useless. It will only keep the mind in delusion and away from clarity, wakefulness and the realization of wisdom.

"In his effort to master kamma in such a way as to bring kamma to an end, the Buddha discovered that he had to abandon the contexts of personal narrative and cosmology in which the issue of kamma first presented itself. Both these forms of understanding deal in categories of being and non-being, self and others, but the Buddha found that it was impossible to bring kamma to an end if one thought in such terms. For example, narrative and cosmological modes of thinking would lead one to ask whether the agent who performed an act of kamma was the same as the person experiencing the result, someone else, both, or neither. If one answered that it was the same person, then the person experiencing the result would have to identify not only with the actor, but also with the mode of action, and thus would not be able to gain release from it. If one answered that it was another person, both oneself and another, or neither, then the person experiencing the result would see no need to heighten the skill or understanding of his/her own kamma in the present, for the experience of pleasure and pain was not his or her own full responsibility. In either case, the development of the fourth type of kamma would be aborted [SN12:67, Udana6.6]."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Kamma & the Ending of Kamma" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Wings/Section0009.html

The false view of eternalism is not skillful and not good, however, a belief in a permanent self can be repurposed for good.
A view of a continuously existing self can be used to generate the path to liberation, using the contemplation below. Therefore, it's skillful means. It's typically targeted at those with self view.

(1) “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is
subject to old age, not exempt from old age. All beings that come and
go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are subject to old age; none
are exempt from old age.’ As he often reflects on this theme, the path
is generated. He pursues this path, develops it, and cultivates it. As
he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned and the underlying
tendencies are uprooted.
(2) “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is
subject to illness, not exempt from illness. All beings that come and
go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are subject to illness; none
are exempt from illness.’ As he often reflects on this theme, the path
is generated. He pursues this path, develops it, and cultivates it. As
he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned and the underlying
tendencies are uprooted.
(3) “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is
subject to death, not exempt from death. All beings that come and go,
that pass away and undergo rebirth, are subject to death; none are
exempt from death.’ As he often reflects on this theme, the path is
generated. He pursues this path, develops it, and cultivates it. As he
does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned and the underlying
tendencies are uprooted.
(4) “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who
must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and
agreeable. All beings that come and go, that pass away and undergo
rebirth, must be parted and separated from everyone and everything
dear and agreeable.’ As he often reflects on this theme, the path is
generated. He pursues this path, develops it, and cultivates it. As he
does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned and the underlying
tendencies are uprooted.
(5) “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is
the owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as
one’s origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will
be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

how does this answer relate to the topic of "eternalism"?

There is definitely a sutta that says annihilationism is the most beneficial of outsider wrong views because at least annihilationists are expected to have developed some dispassion.
Where as I have never read a sutta praising eternalism.

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


text:
Did the Buddha's teachings change over time during his life?
Did the Buddha's teachings change over time during his life?
In the Buddha's decades long work, did he change or redevelop his teachings? Which ones?

Yes. The Buddha adapted his teaching according to circumstance. Here it was a matter of life and death, and the Buddha taught something different.

SN54.9:4.2: “Ānanda, why does the mendicant Saṅgha seem so diminished?”
SN54.9:4.3: Ānanda told the Buddha all that had happened, and said,
SN54.9:4.6: “Sir, please explain another way for the mendicant Saṅgha to get enlightened.”

Be sure to read the full sutta. It points out some of the dangers of misunderstanding the teachings.

I think he famously added to the Vinaya over time.
For example, he gave the explicit rule against alcohol when a monk came back drunk.
There are even a few rules added in the Maha-parinibbana sutta.

The Buddha also often adapted what he taught according to his audience's needs.

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness,
[sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is
the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such
is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct.
Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such
are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is
the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is
the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is
the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal
womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily
conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily
misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good
verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is
verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is
good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such
is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such
are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal
womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"
"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or
to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"
"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."
"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the
Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
speaking to or admonishing."
Kesi Sutta

The Buddha's core teaechings never changed over his lifetime.
His first teaching was about the Four Noble Truths, which includes the Noble Eightfold Path. His second teaching a few weeks later was about the Three Characteristics, namely, impermanence, unpleasurableness & not-self.
His last teachings (refer to DN 16) included how Saints could only be found where the Noble Eightfold Path was found. His final words were about impermanence.
Therefore, his teachings never changed.
At times he taught in more detail, such as explaining the Four Noble Truths as Dependent Origination (refer to AN 3.61). Or at times he taught more comprehensively, such as teaching not-self (anatta) as emptiness (sunnata).
But his teachings never changed because Buddha was Fully Enlightened before he ever taught.


text:
What is difference between sankhara and kilesa (defilement)
Are they same?
What is the relation between kilesa and sankhara?
Is it that, kilesa are tendency to build new sankhara?
Which gets cleared first?

Related: Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

this question appears to be related to the idiosyncratic ideas of Goenka

'Sankhara' is a very broad term.
Sometimes 'sankhara' is used in an explicity unwholesome context, such as in Dhammapada 203 or SN 38.14:

Sankhara (mental proliferating) is the worst suffering

SN 38.14 There are these three forms of suffering, my friend: the suffering generated from pain, the suffering generated from mental fabrications (sankhara-dukkha), the suffering generated from change

However, 'sankhara' can neutrally refer to mere thinking or thought aggregate. In other words, per SN 22.85, for example, a Buddha or Arahant has sankhara khandha (thinking aggregate). Or a Buddha has kaya-sankhara (breathing), citta-sankhara (feeling & perception), vaci-sankkhara (initial & sustained thought that facilitates speech), ayu-sankhara (vitality formations or life-force), etc (refer to MN 43 & MN 44).
'Kilesa' (greed, hatred & delusion) is a defiled type of sankhara (mental formation/fabrication). For example, SN 22.81 says the self-delusion is a sankhara. Therefore, the idea 'kilesa' creates 'sankhara' sounds like the inaccurate ideas the guru Goenka used to teach.
However, to attempt to answer the question in the most practical way using how the word 'sankhara' is used in Dependent Origination, what is cleared first is 'sankhara', that is, 'thoughts' ('vaci-sankhara'). In addition, the kaya-sankhara (breathing) & citta-sankhara (feelings) are calmed first (refer to Anapanasati Sutta MN 118). When thoughts are cleared and breathing & feelings are calmed, this results in concentration. When both concentration & direct insight/seeing develop, the underlying defilements (which are drives or energies rather than thoughts) can be dissolved and uprooted.

Thanks a lot.. By the way what is  idiosyncratic ideas of Goenka. Can you share link to where Goyanka talks about defilement.

Here is a link about Goenka sankharas. https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=19885

When there is meditative concentration, "vibrations" or "tensions" can be felt in the body and mind. Goenka appears to use the term "sankhara" for all of these vibrations or tensions. This appears to be inaccurate or a generalization.

I liked the answer of Dhamma Dhatu, but still some confusions
prevails.
I also like this article :  The Demons of Defilement
On many occasions it has been said that arhant is free from
defilement.. but never told that free from sankhara.
So until an appropriate answer arrives  I am making this conclusion
Defilements are collective intelligence of more then one sankhara. One or more sankhara collectively builds tendency to create new similar sankhara.This tendency is defilements. In a sense we can say that defilement are craving (Tanha)....
in modern Psychology we talk about parts of mind or submind.. Or personalities. but in buddhist documentary its many a time talked about Mara.
This mara is nothing but one or many sub-minds. and sub-minds is nothing but a part mind revolves around a set of sankhara. Or we can say the tendency to create similar sankhara and its compulsiveness, and  obsessiveness and  all skills builds around not just creating but fighting any attempt to tame that tendency. all together as unit is sub-mind or mara.

I suggest to study MN 9, here, reading from the end of the text: https://suttacentral.net/mn9/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=pts&notes=asterisk&highlight=true&script=latin  MN 9 says defilement causes sankhara ("choices").


text:
How to identify a non-returner?
Will they experience dukkha? Do they have thoughts which lead to form sankhara? What are the things they experience due to ignorance? Would they have mindfulness on five perceptions? Explain, when they experience a desire, how do they get rid of the desire? How is the desire different than from a sotapanna person?

I’m voting to close this question because it contains too many inaccurate (papanca) assumptions such as "thoughts which lead to form sankhara" and "mindfulness on five perceptions".

@DhammaDhatu The site's Moderation policies for Questions are unusually permissive. They're meant to allow question that may arise from misunderstanding.

Non-returner still has five fetters that can give rise to self-view and thus minor suffering, namely:

lust for form jhana
lust for formless spheres
conceit
restlessness (such as wondering what to do with 'their' life after realizing most are unteachable)
ignorance


text:
Where did the Buddha teach about the "flow of tears"?
Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of SN 15.3:

As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed
while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four
oceans.

Where else in the suttas did the Buddha teach the above about "the flow of tears"?
If the above is not taught elsewhere, does it conform with the Four Great Standards mentioned in DN 16?

It's mentioned in Thig 16.1

Remember the ocean of tears, of milk, of blood—
transmigration with no known beginning.
Remember the bones piled up
by beings transmigrating.
Remember the four oceans
compared with tears, milk, and blood.
Remember bones piled up high as Mount Vipula
in the course of a single eon.

does it conform with the Four Great Standards
I think so.
"Tears" or at least grief are mentioned elsewhere, the first that comes to my mind is from ThigA 10.1

Under the influence of her sorrow-to-the-point-of-madness,
she took the dead corpse on her hip and
wandered in the city from the door of one house to another
[pleading]: "Give medicine to me for my son!"

I've cried literal tears myself in similar circumstances, so when the First Noble Truth says that "death is dukkha" I take that as a synonym for "tears" (though of course you also have other less literal interpretations of what e.g. "birth" means in that context).
And I assume that tears/death/suffering is an incentive or motive for people to study Buddhism at all -- see also the story of the Divine Messengers and the Buddha's own Noble Search -- see also SN 3.25.
So yes that is a recurrent theme.
As for "ocean", of course that appears in a lot of imagery to mean various things. But there are several places where the Buddhist canon tries to explain what "a very, very, very long time" might be -- aeons -- for one reason or another. There's SN 56.48 saying something like, there's a lot of other stuff, a lot of wandering -- take this present opportunity.

reasonable research but Thig can be dodgy, doubtful it satisfies the great standards since the Buddha mostly taught things are "not yours" rather than "yours"

It's because of Gotami's losing "her" child that she had a problem.


text:
What exactly is 'empowerment' and 'lung'?
Sometimes, gurus will perform empowerment ceremonies or give lung in-person (or more recently, online) to recite a certain mantra or practice a certain deity. Sometimes this comes with samaya vows.
What exactly is empowerment & lung?
It is said that reciting certain mantra without empowerment is ineffective, possibly even useless.
It seems that empowerment 'activates' certain aspects in the practitioner that makes the mantra 'useful'. I've heard the analogy is driving a car without fuel & driving one with fuel to describe the difference between mantra without & with empowerment.
What is it about the empowerment that makes the mantra useful? What is the mechanics of this, how does this happen?

Empowerment and lung are two particular forms of samaya (damtsik) that, within the Tibetan Buddhist traditions at least, are seen as aiding personal Buddhist practice. Both traditions are seen as (i) creating a lineage of practice that links the practitioner back to the author of a specific tradition, and (ii) to provide the practitioner with the necessary faith (dad pa) to drive their practice forward through the walls and snares of self-doubt. This is particularly the case with “empowerment” (wong), which is a formal initiation into tantric practice. Contrary to many popular views regarding this word, tantra is not necessarily associated with sexual yoga, but is rather understood as the permitted ritual use of divine power (hence, ‘empowerment’). Tantra itself emerged out of the wider South Asian religious milieu and is indeed found in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions, and is generally recognised as something that can be used for either good (in which case, because of its divine empowerment, leading to VERY good results) or bad (thus leading to VERY bad results). For example, the Tibetan saint Milarepa used tantra to invoke divine power to destroy his uncle’s family (so: bad), but upon repenting his negative actions sought tantric empowerments from his guru Marpa in order to finally attain purification of those acts and, ultimately, enlightenment (so: good).
Simply put, Buddhist empowerment in the Tibetan tradition involves adopting a tantric practice in which one sees one’s own form, actions and thoughts as being those of a Buddha. This daily practice, called a sadhana (druptap – literally , ‘means of attainment’ of that Buddha) combines visualising oneself and others in ways that at the same time give symbolic form to the Buddhist teachings, and provide one with the confidence (lha rgyal, literally ‘divine pride’) to move beyond and overcome your own self-doubts and deep attachments to one’s own form, actions and thoughts, thus rendering spiritual progress. Suh progress involves revealing one’s own ‘Buddha nature’, which is hidden unalloyed under layers of attachment, delusion and harm. To do this, however, we need to ‘borrow’ that faith from someone else, someone that we have genuine confidence and trust has also attained that deity and overcome their own faults. In this sense, the Buddha that we receive empowerment into is, in essence, the teacher that we receive the empowerment from, and the teacher that we have great confidence in is in turn only a reflection of our own inner Buddha-nature.  Thus, to have faith in ourselves we must first have faith in another. After all, we can read about a mantra and give it a go without receiving an empowerment, but in the end it will only reflect our own inner doubts, neuroses and follies. But if we take empowerment from someone we DO have faith in, it improves our faith and confidence in our own subsequent practice. The mantra now feels worthy of confidence because we received it from someone we trust. This is what ‘supercharges’ a mantra: trust, not magic.
Obviously, to do this therefore means that we need to have first developed trust, confidence and faith in a particular teacher, and that needs to be done prior to receiving empowerment. The standard advice here is to observe and study under a teacher for at least twelve years before seeking empowerment from them. This is good advice, not least because tantric practice also needs a firm foundation in Buddhist ethics and meditative experience of bodhicitta (both in its conventional and ultimate forms – that is, the development of compassion and insight into emptiness) and calmness of mind. Such a foundation will take at least twelve years. A teacher will give an empowerment if sincerely asked; the trick here is not to sincerely ask until you are sincerely ready! (Don’t worry, twelve years will pass quicker than you expect).
As for lung, it is something of an adjunct  of the principles described above: it is hearing from someone you trust and have faith in the practice of a particular sadhana, mantra or other set of recitations. Here, you must have faith that the person delivering the lung has insight into the practice, its meaning and realisation. You cannot actually inherit these realisations, but you can inherit some confidence that they are genuinely possible – that you can achieve these things, just as they did before you.
Hope that helps.

This is an informed opinion from my own experience and understanding of tantric Buddhism and these practises. Though I have no sources and this may seem divisive, my intention is only to inform not berate or show disdain, anyone is free to edit or delete my answer/opinion.
Empowerments is/are what is known as "black magic" The practice involves the guru invoking a persona of a (fictional) deity, using their sexual energy (white bindu) in their shashamura and "ripening" (manipulating) the other persons mind with their sexual energy. The intention is to create a samaya bond with the guru.
Lung is the tibetan word for the inner bodily energy, synonymous with chi (white bindu being jing chi) prana, or in even more basic western science and laymans terms biochemical electricity! In this case it is the energy given by the guru explaining the tantric subject.
These inner energy body systems all have a common ancestry in India and the far east, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism as well as Tibetan Bon.
I have tried for many years to get to the information of the source of these practices and the claim that these teachings were taught by the actual Buddha with no avail. The furthest the sources go to is "vajradhara" which in of itself is a manifestation of the "adi-Buddha"
The simple fact is, from my own research and understanding these practices are NOT the actual Buddhas teachings and are in fact what we now call Hinduism that has been mixed culturally with Buddhism, especially in the Tibetan region as well as other Tibetan religions that are mixed with Buddhist teachings. (dzogchen, bon)
Traditionally in Tibet it is customary for a student to spend 12 years training with a guru before he/she fully commits to the guru and takes empowerments though in the modern age Tibetan "gurus" are very quick to dish out empowerments to anyone for the price of admission, dishing them out like they are collectable cards or something for one to collect.
Ultimately it is faith (in the guru) and the samaya bond that (somehow magically) allows saying syllables repeatedly (mantras) a purposeful practice.
I would suggest for anyone wanting to do these practices to fully seek sources and information regarding these practices rather than just following a "guru" and doing these things which quite frankly may be an obstacle to liberation rather than a upaya tool towards liberation.


text:
Unwholesome Sankharas Emerging From Dhamma Practice
What unwholesome sankharas can be created from too much focus on dhamma concepts, reading and intellectual pursuits, and practice?
What kind of results do those sankharas produce?
What blockades are created?
What are the common associative thinking patterns and behaviours that emerge out of persistent preoccupation with dhamma concepts?
In the Mahayana tradition, Japanese Zen Master Hakuin, has this to say:

“People see it as if it is far away. What a pity! They are like a man
who, standing in water, complains of thirst”

In the Theravada tradition, they have a similar outlook, gesturing their practitioners to not become fixated on the signs and features of their perceptions, which should include dhamma concepts. Although helpful at the outset, a hindrance may develop, and this is Theravada's recognition of that hindrance alongside many others.
In my own understanding, I have this to say about it:

The Plateau of Diminishing Returns
It is only when all effort has been exhausted that the seeker lays down their ordinance and armaments amounting to their spiritual techniques, their religious paraphernalia, and their pride. This might happen to be rather elongated and messy affair, but never mind.
From here onwards, one becomes strikingly honest with oneself and receives absolutely nothing in return.

I think that one of the problems, or at least one of the symptoms, may be people arguing.

Māna
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

Some people learn the Dhamma to use it to criticize others or argue with others.

“Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma—discourses,
stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories,
marvels, and answers to questions—but having learned the Dhamma, they
do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not
examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain
a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma only
for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and
they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the
Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to
their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the
wrong grasp of those teachings.
MN 22

Or some may learn the Dhamma to teach it for worldly gain.

They assemble the community
for business rather than Dhamma.
They teach the Dhamma to others
for gain, not for the goal.
Thag 16.10

And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) Salayatana vibhanga

There are also states where one would neglect practicing in favor of thinking about the training.
Conceit, doubt & restlessness in regards to the training...
Things like this i guess

The following teachings create sankharas:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
MN 117


text:
Are the titles “lama” and “rinpoche” given or self-proclaimed?
Are the titles “lama” and “rinpoche”, referring to a Buddhist teacher or leader, titles that are granted? Or are they titles that someone can give themselves? Or both?
By “granted” I mean they require someone to have some form of formal qualifications (as how US pastors are required to have a bachelors degree); religious training (similar to Catholic priests going to a seminary); or backing of a community (general consensus that this person is worthy of the title, regardless of whether they were formally trained or self-taught).
By “give themselves” I mean, can they refer to a person who teaches and guides others how to practice forms of Buddhism, either formally or informally, but independently of an institution?
Thanks.

This question has been on my mind since watching this video. I’m not intending to insult anyone, or claim Segal is a liar (I’ve no opinion in the matter), but watching the video made me realise that apart from the Dalai Lama, I’ve no idea whether becoming a lama or rinpoche is a formal process or not. https://youtu.be/7Gt-7U1ctao

I think that what makes a Catholic priest isn't the seminary but the sacrament of ordination. They are only ordained by bishops (who are meant to have a "lineage" from the Apostles -- "apostolic succession").

The title awarded to someone who has the academic training (in Tibet) is I think Geshe -- which the Dalai Lama for example earned when he was a young man (after a decade or so of training).

@ChrisW In order to be ordained, Catholic priests have to undergo years of academic and practical training, and evaluations, carried out by the Church. The ordination ceremony is like a graduation.

The term lama in Tibetan simply means “superior one”, or more precisely one to whom there is no superior. The term is often used as a semi-formal title, and also sometimes refers to particular Tibetan or Nepalese clans or castes, and occasionally (in places like Ladakh) as a general honorific for any Buddhist monk. However, in its usual sense it is subjectively ascribed (as in, “my lama” - the one I willingly accept teachings from). In this regard, many Tibetans I have discussed this with say that your first lama is your parent, because they teach you the first things you ever know. Certainly, there is no formal qualification for being “a lama”, since it is ideally ascribed by others, rather than claimed for oneself. Rinpoche, by contrast, is generally used as an honorific to refer to EITHER an incarnate lama (that is, recognised trulku) or a yogin of exceptional attainment and retreat experience. The term rinpoche means “extremely precious one”, and refers to the sense in which their actual bodies are precious and a source of blessing, having been transformed either through the full performance of completion stage yogas or through mastery of the process of death and rebirth. In BOTH of these cases, there are indeed processes of relatively formal recognition and examination, but not ones that involve a certificate for the wall (I guess that might be a matter of time, though!). Hope that helps.


text:
How to deal with immense guilt over past acts of cruelty? Is sincere repentance and striving really enough?
I won't go into details, but I am dealing with horrible guilt and shame over cruel acts I have committed in the past.  It feels like I am now come to terms with the significance of these actions, and seeing the ripening of this accumulated negative karma into a hellish mental state.  I had previously compartmentalized what I did and not fully engaged with its reality, but a recent experience caused me to realize that I can't fool myself or cut off parts of myself.  This is also in the context of developing my metta and other brahmaviharas, and better understanding how truly blameless and blissful these states are and how sick and painful it was to commit cruelty.  I am willing to open and be accepting of my current suffering because it is the natural consequence of what I did.  I also truly believe that I understand how incredibly foolish and unskillful I was in the past and am able to commit to restraining from that behavior in the future, and feel confident that I will be able to.
I know that for lay Buddhists there is not the same emphasis on sin and confession as in Christianity, and that the most important thing is to accept responsibility and guilt for my past actions and their karmic repercussions, and to vow to act skillfully in the future. However, what I am struggling with is to know whether to confess to people close to me, or even just to my therapist, because it feels so painful and alienating to have done these things and essentially "gotten away with them."  Nobody knows that I had this tendency in the past.  It is not something that I would go to jail for now, and while I caused suffering I don't believe I caused any irreparable damage other than to my own heart.  But if I told people close to me it would change the way that they see me, and in the process could cause more suffering to the people I love and who trust and depend on me.  It sickens my heart to think of keeping this secret until my death, but it also sickens me to think of the destruction that I could cause by telling my loved ones.  I would deeply appreciate any thoughts or guidance.

In SN 42:8 (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN42_8.html) the Buddha tells how to deal with the remorse stemming from past bad actions.

Higher Buddhism explains all things are "not-self" ("anatta"). In other words, there is no real self that is the "doer" of unwholesome actions. Instead, the Buddha explained (explicitly in SN 12.17) the "doer" of unwholesome actions is the element of ignorance. This is why a Buddha has infinite compassion because a Buddha does not conceive "self" or "agency" in beings. Instead, a Buddha only sees bodies & minds that act under the power of ignorance or, alternately, wisdom.
This said, for minds lacking wisdom, self-belief in self-agency can be very strong. Thus the Buddha said because of not understanding and not penetrating the Dhamma, this generation of people has become like a tangled skein, like a knotted ball of thread, like matted rushes and reeds. In simple terms, the mind can easily become overwhelmed by unwholesome actions performed. If the mind is overwhelmed by bad karma, confession with a wise person can be helpful. In MN 61, the Buddha taught his 7 year old son:

If, on reflection, you know that action it led to self-affliction, to the
affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful action
with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess
it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable
companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise
restraint in the future.
MN 61

Confession is a part of Buddhism. For example this search of Buddhist scriptures obtains 446 results for the word "confess". The following is a common phrase in the teachings of the Buddha:

Since you have seen your transgression as a transgression and make amends for it according to the Dhamma, we acknowledge it. For... this is growth in the discipline of the Noble One: that a person sees his transgression as a transgression, makes amends for it according to the Dhamma, and achieves restraint in the future.
DN 2

Give the nature of your question, if you are unable to drop 'self-blame' via accepting the "doer" of the past bad kamma was ignorance (rather than 'your self'), I recommend to find a Buddhist monk or wise Buddhist for confession.
It may be wise/prudent to not confess to family or even to a secular therapist due to their possible lack of compassion & wisdom.

What you did before was cruel to others. Assuming that you have ceased being cruel to others (which is not an assumption I make lightly, or take for granted, because 'ceasing' is far more difficult than most imagine), the question is this: are going to be cruel to yourself?
Don't bother. There are no reparations (reparations are entanglements in karma); there is no atonement (atonement is an indulgence of ego). There is only acknowledgement (this I did) and release (this I no longer do). Asking for more is self-satisfying.
If someone wants something from you because they see it as reparation, give it to them. That is their karma, and you should not add to it. If someone asks you to atone in some way, atone. It costs you nothing — or at least nothing meaningful — and eases their misery. If no one asks anything of you, rest assured you will inevitably find those who have been subject to the kind of suffering you have inflicted on others. That is your karma. Give of yourself to them as best you can.
Most people measure themselves by their misery, but the truth is that the infliction of misery is banal. Nothing you might have done to others is all that unique, or interesting, or peculiar. Karma is (by its nature) repetitive, ordinary, and timeworn. Whatever you might have done is merely an echo of things that others have done across the span of human existence. The only salve for the wounds of karma is to stop being an echo. Accomplish that, and the rest falls by the wayside.
The idea behind Christian confession is that the admission of weakness to another gives one strength to overcome that weakness. Honesty to another becomes honesty to oneself, and self-honesty is powerful. Confession to a therapist is extremely useful, because a therapist (by profession) won't judge you, and that will help with your own self-honesty. I recommend it. But beyond that... The world is complex beyond understanding, and simple solutions are generally self-serving. Don't be self-serving, because you will eventually discard the notion of the self, and realize you've served nothing.

Here is a good resource worth reading: https://manjushridharmacenter.org/rinpoches-wisdom/the-four-powers-of-purification-of-negative-karma/
The problem when we don't forgive ourselves for our past is many times we create a cycle where our self loathing will cause us to act in unvirtuous ways and we remain tied to our guilt, unconsciously acting in ways to perpetuate our current state and self image. As Carl Jung said: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”
Most importantly don't feel afraid to seek professional help if necessary.
The Bodhisattva Vajrasattva may help you in your future meditations.
OM VAJRASATTVA HUM

Sadhu. It's fine now. Go on and keep the focus on the path toward liberation, not following other than that, good householder.

To endorse Dhamma Dhatu's answer: as a lay person living alongside regular people, a certain degree of skill is needed when approaching confessions and in some cases confession may not be the most appropriate approach at all.
Counsellors or psychotherapists can help you unpack the issue until you find yourself surrounded by many other satellite issues orbiting in your mind, thus you suffer more. I don't consider that helpful. Even the therapist has a strange compulsion towards suffering, but it's performed in a rather acceptable and sophisticated manner, so many therapist operate from an awareness that is stuck inside the global culture of suffering-based narratives. It has its uses, though.
With regard to your situation, I had found myself in a similar position in my practice, and I was not able to move forward without disclosing my actions directly to the person in question. However, it is possible to write about such things, and in those instances that can lead to a greater understanding and thus a release of some sort.
Crucially and simply, inner conflict is the way the mind keeps itself going. In doing this it generates time, space and causality, and it is within that threefold domain where you choose to hold yourself captive.
From a Buddhist perspective, time, space and causality is a succinct way of describing the five aggregates of clinging. As one progresses certain beliefs, views and perceptions fall away, and, out of fear, the mind searches for other artefacts so that it can continue to create inner conflict; in this instance, it is your old memories and the associated feelings.
Those memories are a type of thought form because the mind as a sense organ detects thought forms. What you think about those thought forms are your feeling/perceptions - these two are both combined as one. The feeling/perception creates a response - a volition or will of some sort - in your instance that response is more thoughts about how disgraceful you are, thus guilt and shame. That is the cycle; that is the inner conflict, and that is how we hold ourselves captive inside samsara.
The good news is that there is a way to drop out of this cycle. How that's done is by chipping away at these little stuck points. Sometimes it might seem arduous, but it'll be worth it.


text:
What does Buddhism teach about abusive parents?
My husband’s parents are very abusive now and in the past. Recently they’ve started bringing me into the mix, and so my husband decided to cut them out of our lives. They still text me to curse our marriage and say awful things about both of us. I know that filial piety is very important, but what if it’s an abusive situation? Does Buddhism teach anything about this?

My answers below can be read: Father-Son relationship; and Devotion to parents.

Its good that you are staying away from them. You have made the right choice. Follow this technique to deal with them in the future.
This may be difficult to practice at first; but you need to gradually extend truly heartfelt Metta (loving kindness) towards them (refer: SN1.8 Mettasutta). This is a very powerful technique to deal with abusive people who hate you.
Hate is like a virus that jump from person to person and, corrupt and make the mind ill. If others are throwing burning coal at you and your husband. What is the intuitive thing to do? Throw burning coal back at them in return? But that will create even more calamity and create a fire that will destroy everything. Instead, each time they throw burning coal at the two of you, throw them cold calming water of Metta. If you do this from the bottom of your heart, they will not be able to throw burning coal at you any longer. This is because their coal does not burn you, its because you grow beautiful flowers on their coal (bad thoughts) their efforts become fruitless. If this method changes them, keep your guard up dealing with this kind of people. My experience are, they are deceptive in nature, and may try to use a good face to get through to you. Metta is the best medicine for all these occasions.
This is a long tried and tested method to deal with bullies, haters and abusive people. The best advantage of this method is that you do not allow hate contaminate your mind, so the situation cannot affect you anymore. Refer AN15 Mettanisansasutta to learn the benefits of practicing Metta. You can't go wrong with this technique. Once mastered, you will be like a super hero!

Understand that people who abuse others suffer a lot. They are always in the clutches of the demons of greed, anger, ignorance; and because they don't know how to skillfully deal with the negative emotions arising within them, the only thing they can do is project their anger and hatred onto others. People don't choose to be unhappy; they can only behave from the level of maturity they are currently at. Given the choice, no one wants to be abusive, everyone wants to be happy.
The only way to skillfully deal with a abusive person is love and compassion. However, many times this is not possible or we have not developed the level of compassion for the abuser yet, which is fine. Then the next best thing to do would be to have compassion for yourself and realize when you have to cut off ties to the abuser. Allowing the abuser to cause harm to you is not doing you nor the abuser any favors; you are indirectly reinforcing the abuser's behavior and essentially telling him that he can get what he wants through his abusive behavior.
This probably won't be helpful to tell someone who is currently suffering from intense abuse, but abusive people are here to teach you a lesson about self-clinging. When we perceive ourselves to be in an abusive situation, we always make it about the other person and not ourselves. We should learn to take responsibility for the role we played in that situation. We came to be in this position because of our karma. Sometimes the abuser is a karmic debtor and we should take the opportunity to practice patience and forbearance, rather than revenge which perpetuates the cycle of abuse.

I recommend this answer.
My limited experience of an abusing relationship is that it can stem from something like:

"I'm unhappy because you don't love me"

... but then being rather vague about what love and proof-of-love is (which of course must vary from one relationship to another). I don't know whether modern "relationship counselling" might help to clarify that communication, but it's outside the scope of what the Buddha usually talked about in the suttas.
Another experience is that sometimes people kick the dog

When someone in power over you forces something upon you, and you in turn force something on someone under you. like when parents punish you, then you turn around and beat on your little brother.

For example one parent complains to the other, and the other then complains to (or kicks) their child or their child's wife and so on. In that case the cause is indirect i.e. more to do with their unhappy relationship with each other, with someone else, with themselves, than with you.
In this situation, it's two parents, your husband, and now you. Perhaps your husband feels a need to protect you, or his relationship with you.
One idea might be to try to reduce the stress your husband feels, e.g. tell him it's no big deal, i.e. that you are A-okay.
I think that main thing that Buddhism teaches, not only about filial piety but relationships in general, is the brahmaviharas. Those essays suggest that one or more of these is always appropriate for every relationship (perhaps most immediately your relationship with your husband).


text:
Does the Pali word "vinaya" in the suttas always refer to the Vinaya Piṭaka?
I read the following comment on the secular internet in relation to the closing paragraphs of DN 2, where a King or layperson made an admission of a moral transgression/sin to the Buddha:

Yes that confession is especially by and to monks -- "the discipline"
as you quoted it is the Vinaya.

Does the Pali word "vinaya" in the suttas always refer to the Vinaya Piṭaka, i.e., the Pāṭimokkha rules made exclusively for monks & nuns?

More specifically the use at end of DN 2 is ariyassa vinaye.

In DN 2 I doubt that the Buddha was referring to the Pāṭimokkha rules -- he was addressing a king (not a monk), and the king confesses taking the life of his father (which isn't, you know, one of Pāṭimokkha rules).

The PTS Dictionary gives other more general definitions, e.g.

norm of conduct, ethics, morality, good behaviour

... of which the "monastic discipline" or "canon law" is what I'd call a subtype of the more general class.
But the Vinaya does formulate confession, and experience with it I hope might acclimatize a monk to properly hearing an confession -- e.g. without "the destruction" which the OP feared would arise "if I told people close to me" -- especially a suitable confession i.e. as identified in that sentence of DN 2:

For it is growth in the training of the Noble One to recognize a mistake for what it is, deal with it properly, and commit to restraint in the future.

Perhaps we're fortunate to witness an example of that in this answer.

i marked this answer down for two reasons: (i) it is not authoritative; it has no sutta references; thus it is not an answer; the PTS dictionary is not the suttas; and (ii) it strays into irrelevant matters, such as linking to another question. For me, this type of answer warrants confession by its writer.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

DN 2 contains the term "ariyassa vinaye", translated as "training of the Noble One".  This term is also found, for example, in the Brāhmaṇapaccorohaṇī Sutta, another sutta addressed to a layperson. The sutta says:

But Master Gotama, how is the ceremony of descent observed in the
training of the Noble One (ariyassa vinaye)? Master Gotama, please teach me this.”
“Well then, brahmin, listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”
“Yes sir,” Jāṇussoṇi replied. The Buddha said this:
“It’s when a noble disciple reflects: ‘Killing living creatures has a
bad result in the present life and in lives to come.’ Reflecting like
this, they give up killing living creatures, they descend from killing
living creatures.
… ‘Stealing has a bad result in the present life and in lives to
come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up stealing, they descend from
stealing.
… ‘Sexual misconduct (kāmesumicchācārassa) has a bad result in the present life and in lives
to come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up sexual misconduct, they
descend from sexual misconduct.
‘Lying has a bad result in the present life and in
lives to come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up lying, they descend
from lying.
… ‘Divisive speech has a bad result in the present life and in lives
to come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up divisive speech, they
descend from divisive speech.
… ‘Harsh speech has a bad result in the present life and in lives to
come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up harsh speech, they descend
from harsh speech.
… ‘Talking nonsense has a bad result in the present life and in lives
to come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up talking nonsense, they
descend from talking nonsense.
… ‘Covetousness has a bad result in the present life and in lives to
come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up covetousness, they descend
from covetousness.
… ‘Ill will has a bad result in the present life and in lives to
come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up ill will, they descend from
ill will.
‘Wrong view has a bad result in the present life and in lives to
come.’ Reflecting like this, they give up wrong view, they descend
from wrong view. This is the ceremony of descent in the training of
the Noble One.”
“The ceremony of descent observed by the brahmins is quite different
from that observed in the training of the Noble One. And, Master
Gotama, the ceremony of descent observed by the brahmins is not worth
a sixteenth part of the ceremony of descent observed in the training
of the Noble One. Excellent, Master Gotama, excellent! … From this day
forth, may Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone
for refuge for life.”

Obviously, the above is a standard teaching for laypeople, as found in many suttas, such as AN 10.176. For example, the term sexual misconduct (kāmesumicchācārassa) generally pertains to laypeople because for monks the relevent term is "abrahmacariyā".
In summary, it appears clear the term "ariyassa vinaye" as used in the suttas does not pertain exclusively to what today is known as the Bhikkhu Vinaya. It appears the secular blogger on the internet was wrong.


text:
What's the role of "blameless" in the Dhamma?
The word "blameless" is often used in suttas: https://www.google.com/search?q=blameless%20site%3Aaccesstoinsight.org
AN 4.62 suggests it's highly good:

Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.

Is there doctrine about it, or do people just already know and agree on what it means?
Is it given as an ideal for monks and for lay-people?
What is its opposite -- i.e. "blame" -- who does the blaming?
Is it to do with self-reproach? Or with blaming other people, ...?
Is it identical to "absence of remorse", which AN 11.1 explains is the purpose of skillful virtue?
What about "irresponsible" -- behaving badly, not accepting blame, even blaming others instead?
Does someone know correctly whether and when their life is blameless, or might they be self-deluded?
What about the Lokavipatti Sutta AN 8.6 -- does that say that "desirable things" (e.g. "blamelessness" in this context) shouldn't charm the mind, and its opposite shouldn't be resisted? Is blame and blamelessness just another of the worldly winds?

Blameless is a synonym for one who is unblemished or free of conditioning, not owing anything to the world, debtless and from that position bliss is the result. Bliss does not come from the acquisition of being blameless like a when your birthday arrives, one receives a present - that is a silly understanding of bliss. Instead, bliss is simply what remains when you recognize how you suffered, in what way you suffered, and that you no longer need to suffer again; nothing is attained.

AN 4.62 defines the happiness of debtlessness and the happiness of blamelessness, but says that the happiness of blamelessness is worth a lot more than the happiness of debtlessness.

And what is the happiness of blamelessness? It’s when a noble disciple
has blameless conduct by way of body, speech, and mind. When he
reflects on this, he’s filled with pleasure and happiness. This is
called ‘the happiness of blamelessness’. ......
Seeing clearly, a clever person knows both kinds of happiness: the
other kind is not worth a sixteenth part of the happiness of
blamelessness.”
AN 4.62

The following Dhammapada verses also talk about blamelessness.

If knowledgeable people praise him, having observed him day after day
to be blameless in conduct, intelligent, endowed with discernment &
virtue: like an ingot of gold — who's fit to find fault with him? Even
devas praise him. Even by Brahmas he's praised.
Dhp 229 - 230

Blameless in conduct by way of body, speech and mind is related to virtue, and therefore also freedom from remorse.
Remorse is of course, what one feels, when one is blamed for his or her conduct. When one is blameless, one is remorseless. This leads to jhana according to the sutta below, and eventually to liberation. And that's how blameless conduct is related to the Dhamma.
Remorse can be considered self-blame.

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."
(this goes on, till)
"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
AN 11.1

Having blameless conduct is also one of the four factors of stream entry.

And a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones,
unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by
sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
These are the four factors of stream-entry that they have.
AN 10.92

Yes except that blame and remorse may be unrelated -- if e.g. "remorse" is a feeling about your own actions or inactions, and "blame" is what other people say -- so a person might feel remorse when there's no external blame, and maybe vice versa.

@ChrisW I see remorse as self-blame.

The definition of "blameless" in the suttas is recursive--the definition uses "blameless" to describe "blameless".

AN4.135:5.1: And how is a person blameless?
AN4.135:5.2: It’s when a person does things by way of body, speech, and mind that are blameless.

To understand the definition, we have to consider the context. Blame is contextual. It is contextual because the context for blamelessness is the assembly. Living together in harmony requires blamelessness.

AN3.95:4.2: An assembly where the mendicants live in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other with kindly eyes. This is called a harmonious assembly.

Assemblies are bound together by commonly held rules. Monastics will have the Vinaya. Yet even laity has rules. Even organized crime has rules. Those who break the rules in their society with body, speech or mind are not blameless.
Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do not. For example, take the first three rules of MN8:

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.’
...

Because Mara exploits loopholes with a passion, blamelessness requires utter vigilance. It also requires abandoning the conceit, "I am".

DN34:1.2.11: What one thing should be given up?
DN34:1.2.12: The conceit ‘I am’.

SN45.3:2.2: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Without blamelessness, how could there be a spiritual life?

i found this answer blameworthy and marked it down. It appears to drift off-topic, which is blameworthy. In other words, the answer quoted many suttas that did not include the word "blame" or "blameless".

Thank you for explaining the downvote. I understand the concern. I am unable to search the Abhidhamma at this time. The connections posted are therefore my inference.

Indeed. I found the following ideas to be unsubstantiated inferences: (i)  "the context for blamelessness is the assembly". For example, in MN 144, blamelessness was mentioned without any context to any assembly; (ii) "Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do not. ". I started a new question on this idea; (iii) "Assemblies are bound together by commonly held rules.". This appears to say all social groups as "assemblies" per the meaning of "assembly" in the quote; and (iv) this social group (BSE) of mostly "rebirthers" are kalyanamitta & spiritual companions.

Excellent. I shall defer to your better resources for research. My answer works personally yet cannot span the quotes of the Buddha definitively for all. For example, please note that Channa and Ven. Sāriputta are an assembly in MN144.

Most importand to relay on Samma-mana, right conceit, going after blameless. Without the notion of feeling rightly blameless, the path wouldn't develop and faultlessness is prerequisite for pathdevelopment Jhanas. Sure it's problematical to be accepted by on-house-holder and stand-maintainer as there way requires dusty blameful ways of which they are not willing to give up. In that way they start to develop a virtue out of incapacity, try to polish there faults with 1000 useless words of wrong conceit, maintaining there being.
By seeing blameworthy as blameless and viciversa, step by step they increase their bond downwardly, hoping that rebirth will not come along for those denying cause and effect anyway.
Most blameworthy those followers of the naked... most blameworthy their jeloose ways. Stingy in all regards incapable for Jhanas, Paths and fruits, burning off by defending decaying stand, house.

i never read 'Samma-mana' before. please quote this term from sutta. thanks

@DhammaDhatu I guess an example is in the Bhikkhuni Sutta i.e. the conceit of comparing oneself with another who has further advanced on the path and telling oneself, "If they can attain that by doing that then so can I" -- i.e. emulating one's betters, learning from or copying a teacher.

thanks Chris. your speculative view above sounds reasonable and possible. Regards

"We want a happiness that’s blameless, i.e., one that doesn’t harm anybody."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Brahmaviharas on the Path" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations8/151122_Brahmaviharas_on_the_Path.pdf

"Blame" means "blamed, censured or criticized" by the Buddha; similar to being condemned by the Biblical God Yahweh for your sins.
Buddhism is not an escape for ex-Christians from being blamed,  judged and terrorized with threats of being sent to hell. MN 130 particularly shows the extreme horrific depictions of hell held to be believed & taught by the Buddha.
Also, there are many suttas where the Buddha appears to accept capital punishment is the inevitable outcome of certain bad kammas, including adultery (which many secular cultures such as in France appear to now hold  to be OK, fun and acceptable; such as married men & even married women having mistresses & lovers). For example:

The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages,
you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you
had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your
heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four
great oceans.
SN 15.13

Then King Yama says, 'My good man, didn't you see among human beings
kings — catching a thief, a criminal — having him tortured in many
ways: flogging him with whips, beating him with canes, beating him
with clubs; cutting off his hands, cutting off his feet, cut off his
hands & feet; cutting off his ears, cutting off his nose, cutting off
his ears & nose; subjecting him to the 'porridge pot,' the
'polished-shell shave,' the 'Rāhu's mouth,' the 'flaming garland,' the
'blazing hand,' the 'grass-duty (ascetic),' the 'bark-dress
(ascetic),' the 'burning antelope,' the 'meat hooks,' the
'coin-gouging,' the 'lye pickling,' the 'pivot on a stake,' the
'rolled-up bed'; having him splashed with boiling oil, devoured by
dogs, impaled alive on a stake; cutting off his head with a sword?
MN 130

Instead of legalistically searching for the meaning of words in dictionaries, it is best to read suttas for a contextual explanation:

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt.
When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this
case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' —
then you should abandon them.
Kalama Sutta

Buddha: There are those families that were friends of the bhikkhu Channa, Sariputta, families that were his intimates, families that were blameworthy; but I do not say that to this extent he was blameworthy. Sariputta, when one lays down this body and clings to a new body, then I say one is blameworthy.
MN 144

"similar to being condemned by the Biblical God Yahweh" Really? The way it was explained to me in Sunday school was that deliberate sin is one's own decision to distance or remove oneself from God's love. I guess it's possible that a similar mechanism is taught in Buddhism too -- but, saying that Buddhism is similar to Christianity might say more about you than about Buddhism. Secondly I am not terrorized with threats of being sent to hell, never been an adulterer -- does that for example make me "blameless", is that all that "blameless" means?

Third, yes I was wondering whether the only possible answer is based on the Kalama sutta -- i.e. it's whatever "the wise" might criticise or not (or perhaps similarly, "ethics praised by the Noble"). But then, forgive me for doubting, what about people's capacity for self-deception (e.g. "Of course my behaviour is moral" etc.).

Fourthly, "blame" seems to me a huge mechanism in some less-enlightened personal relationships (e.g. the subjects of other people's recent questions) -- e.g. people use blame to try to coerce each other, or they deny blame to deny responsibility or escape coercion. Is that related to the sense in which "blameless" is used in the suttas -- does it necessarily include simplifying one's relationships to avoid any people who might blame you?

I assume the enthusiastic comments above are expressions of gratitude for my answer. Thank you. if so.