text:
Open-monitoring meditation versus doing nothing
In psychology, there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment. I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations.
Is it necessary to have some experienced with focused attention in order to practice more objectless meditations? Is there a big difference between sitting on the cushion doing nothing, and practicing an open type of meditation? How is the concentration required?

I think you're misunderstanding the word "concentration" as it applies to meditation.  This is very, very common and I can imagine that it's wrecked the practice of thousands of people.  I want you to think about holding a piece a paper up against the wall with your finger.  How much pressure does it take to hold it there?  If you applied the energy most meditators try to foist on their meditative objects, all the blood would drain out of your finger due to the pressure being exerted.  You'll also quickly grow tired and maybe end up hurting yourself.  In actuality, of course, it takes almost no effort to hold that piece of paper in place.  All you have to do is keep your finger on a single spot, gently apply it, and keep a very minimal amount of sustained pressure.
Single pointedness, applied, sustained.  Sound familiar?
So what am I bringing this up?  These supposed "open" meditations that you are talking about follow the same formula.  Even "doing nothing" on the cushion works the same way.  I'm sure you've read about shikantaza meditation or the art of "just sitting".  Let me be the first to tell you that "just sitting" is anything but.  Rather than get into the intricacies of the practice, however, let's just say for now that act of not moving satisfies the criteria of single pointedness, applied thought, and sustained thought (and if you don't believe me, sit in one place, utterly still, for 30 minutes).  As we pin down our bodies according to those restrictions, only then can we really "notice" the distractions and other phenomena that arise.  We have to establish a stable seat in order to appreciate those things that would try to move us.
So those open meditations?  They aren't really as open-ended as you might think.  They only really work provided that we've first "set up our seat" so to speak and have achieved stability of mind (not, as most people think, a laser-like, "concentrated" mind).  If you just plop down on the cushion and start noting what comes up, you'll quickly start following your mind down all sorts of rabbit holes.  Worse still, you'll have no place to return to for when you do wander.  What comes up in meditation is actually pretty meaningless.  The coming back to rest on that single place is what really matters.

So from what you're saying, I feel it would be more difficult to meditate while walking, especially without an object?

It's difficult to meditate while breathing!  So yes.  Don't get me wrong, you can lightly meditate in just about any posture, but if you're looking for deep, productive sits, the less movement, the better.  As your practice progresses, even the slightest movement of a finger will feel like a truck driven through a dynamite factory.

when one does nothing, one is still hearing, feeling, thinking, remembering and etc, these are all perception developments because you are growing & are not unconscious. When walking it suffices to just walk attentively from a to be, noticing beginning and the end of things you experience. One needs not think 'i am walking' if you are not oblivious to your walking, think of walking in public and there suddenly appearing a person you are about to shoulder-bump into, you need not think about what's going on because you are mindful and therefore you snapturn as if it's eye coordinated reflex.

It may help to think about the walking or wholesome things as you are walking but thinking is not walking. So if you are developing the perception of breath you stick to the perception of breath as much as possible, not the perception of thinking about the breath, that is a different development of defining elements; likewise when walking try to focus on the feeling of posture and general disposition of the body and the sensations associated with motion element.

walking is defined in the sutta as a posture, therefore that is what primary object should be grasped as.

that's actually the inferable orthodox theravada definition of walking meditation, namely the mindfulness of walking, as the opposite of obliviousness to having assumed the walking posture. They define mindfulness as the opposite of obliviousness in the Abhidhamma.

Short: since good householder wouldn't not do anything (which would be already ending of Kamma, Nibbana) it's most required to monitor all the way, especially in regard of skillful and unskillful deeds. But good to start right by the practice of Sila and Dana first, to get the raw stuff (deeds by word, body) known and abound. The rest comes by it's "own" (given causes).

there is a form of meditation called 'open-monitoring', which involves paying non-judgmental awareness to everything that arises in the present moment

I think in Sutta terminology this would be close to concentration development leading to mindfulness & alertness.

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

but

I have heard, and read, that Buddhism typically advises one to have some experience with concentrative meditations before engaging in such open meditations.

Thus have i heard;

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry:
mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or
non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of[1] his
master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out
for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that
curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master
likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet
curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today
my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty
curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty
curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or
gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful
cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced,
unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent,
alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to
the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his
mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not
abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused
on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental
qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting
aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus
focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not
become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not
take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a
pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is
that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not
take note of his own mind.[4]
"Now suppose that there is a wise, experienced, skillful cook who has
presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry:
mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or
non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He takes note of his master,
thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for
that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry or he praises that curry.
Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes
mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry...
alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master
likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he
takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a
result, he is rewarded with clothing, wages, & gifts. Why is that?
Because the wise, experienced, skillful cook picks up on the theme of
his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful
monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... feelings in & of
themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of
themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental
qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his
defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result, he
is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with
mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced,
skillful monk picks up on the theme of his own mind." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html

open monitoring would be closer to meditation of the unskillful monk


text:
Finding a Meditation Teacher
I am keen on finding a teacher that is experienced in Samatha meditation. I have come to understand meditation as a skill to be practiced and developed over time. This practice is something I plan to take seriously and dedicate myself to, but have struggled to find local teachers. I am wondering if there are any known means of perhaps finding virtual teachers, or how those of you without access to a local sangha have taken this important step.
In seeking out a teacher I do have concerns about being misguided by someone that is not themselves an advanced meditator. I do strive towards the path to stream entry and I worry that in my inexperience I may lack the discernment to know when a teaching is solid or not. Any advice in this regard would be much appreciated as well.
It is worth noting that I am fond of the teachings of the Thai Forest Lineage but would not be closed off to welcoming teachings from other traditions :)
Thank you!

Where are you located?

I’m currently traveling and will be able to visit some monastic communities hopefully. But come the fall I will be in Vermont where there is a local sangha that has been out of commission due to the pandemic. There are no monastics there however so I am careful in seeking out teachers in that regard

FWIW, the simple fact that someone is a monastic does not mean they are an advanced meditator or even that they meditate.  Where I am, we have loads of monasteries and Buddhist centers every one of which is staffed by monks.  I don't think a single one of them do any actual sitting.  Contrast that with my Zen lineage.  We have, oh, five lay priests?  I think the last monk in our tradition stateside was in the 70s.  In contrast to the monastics in the area, however, our daily sitting practice runs at least an hour and half and up to five hours on the weekend.
The fact of the matter is that monk, nun, or some guy who manages a hardware, it store really doesn't matter who trains you.  I would also argue that it doesn't even matter what tradition they come from.  Look, you've got at least five years of consistent, daily practice before you start to make any real headway in samatha.  In other words, you won't be working with the jhanas any time soon.  You will, however, be working with your breath and just about any tradition can help you with that.  More importantly, the group you start sitting with will help lay down the groundwork of your practice.  I've been doing Zen for 15 years now, but I personally started sitting with Dhammakaya two years prior.  Now, say what you want about that order, but they got me following my breath and sitting everyday.  So many people fail to make it even that far in their practice...and for that, I'm eternally grateful to those guys.  Don't worry about rarified states.  They'll come.  But only after you've put an effort into establishing the meditation habit.
If I were in your shoes, I'd go on an introductory jhana retreat at a place like Henepola Gunaratana's monastery in WV or one of the workshops that someone like Leigh Brasington runs throughout the country.  Learn the basics from them.  Next, I would find a local meditation community and sit with them regardless of what they practice.  No one really has to know what you are doing on the cushion.  The important part is to start sitting with people and to develop a consistent practice.  Who knows?  You might even find that the leader of the group knows what they're talking about and that you are actually more interested in, IDK, the Shingon esotericism they teach than you are in jhana work.  If not, well, then go on other jhana retreats in a lineage that resonates with you.  Retreats are a mandatory part of samatha practice anyway.
It should be obvious, but if you take anything away from this, my advice is to just start sitting.  Don't worry about teachers, jhanas, or results.  At this stage of the game, the act of getting your butt on the cushion every day is far more important than any of that.

I would recommend Ven. Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw.
He teaches the entire Samatha and Vipassana path. One can choose to practice one of them or both, one after another. He also has several e-books that's highly recommened.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the space between thoughts an indicator of meditative calmness?
In this answer, it is suggested that space between thoughts, less discursive mental activity, is related to relaxation and concentration. I know it is not advised to judge one's inner experience too much during meditation, and that inhibiting thoughts intentionally is not recommended, but would it be right to say that a period wherein thoughts are more infrequent signifies a calmer mind? Does the diminution of thoughts correlate with calmness?

I was thinking about OP today and i figured it might be worth adding that OP is not wrong in not judging thoughts & ignoring. It seems you only read part of the Sutta and missed the rest..

I know it is not advised to judge one's inner experience too much during meditation

Sutta

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful...
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

OP

and that inhibiting thoughts intentionally is not recommended

Sutta says that sometimes it's appropriate to be without attention to thoughts but at other times one should investigate & direct thinking to abandoning.

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside.
Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it...
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking quickly? Why don't I walk slowly?' So he walks slowly. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking slowly? Why don't I stand?' So he stands. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one.

OP

would it be right to say that a period wherein thoughts are more infrequent signifies a calmer mind? Does the diminution of thoughts correlate with calmness?

In general yes, if you can still thought it's closer to the stilling of applied & sustained thought/ideation.
Another metric by which one can judge one's ability to concentrate is the strength of one's ability to apply the mind to a theme and keeping it connected without disturbance, this can be thinking about a particular theme without disturbance. This can be a contemplation subject or memorization even.
I think using both metrics is more reliable measure of own's abilities because everybody can keep their mind more or less still and one might fool oneself into thinking it's amazing when it's modicum at best.

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning.

If one didn't develop abandoning then one wouldn't abandon...if one didn't perceive abandoning... if one didn't conceive abandoning... if one didn't feel abandoning... didn't cognize abandoning... didn't experience abandoning then one wouldn't come to having abandoned.
Thoughts are like breath they get more subtle and rare, is perhaps as simple as i can put it.

Subtle and rare - like wispy clouds.  That's exactly it.  If I had an account, I'd +1!

Sutta AN9.41 provides a broad overview of immersive progression.  In the suttas thoughts are included in senses, so we have six senses rather than the contemporary understanding of five sense. Your "gap between thoughts" might therefore be understood as relatable to "secluded from sensual pleasures".

AN9.41:7.15: And so, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Your word "calmness" touches on many other terms used in AN9.41. For example, "rapture and bliss" in the above. However, "calmness" is also an attribute of "equanimity", which occurs later in the sutta:

AN9.41:9.2: ‘Why don’t I, with the fading away of rapture, enter and remain in the third absorption, where I will meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, “Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss”?’

It might be helpful to read the sutta carefully to explore the deeper meaning in each of the carefully chosen terms. Day-to-day language doesn't quite express the subtleties involved.

When we begin to meditate, we think about our breath and so become more calm. But the aim is for the calmness, and the deep and regular breathing, to come not from 'outside' imposed by attention, but from 'inside', leading the breath rather than following it. Like a mood or an attitude, of serenity & equanimity. I would say just as breathing naturally slows then, thoughts also slow.
In samatha meditation, it's not truly 'thoughtless' intervals that it is about, but meditative absorption. This can be focused on the sensation of breath on the tip of the nose, a candle flame, the bodies energy centre just below the navel, or other objects or sensations. See the Nine Mental Abidings for an example of how to understand progress in this.
With this same kind of absorption, vipassana meditation can be applied the deep matters of Buddhism like suffering and dependent origination, reflecting on them as they relate to our own lives. In ways that allows deep insights into our own nature to rise up, once we no longer rush to 'grab' extraneous thoughts and so get distracted.
I would caution against just equating lack of internal monologue with meditative progress. Some people just naturally have little or no internal monologue, and I can tell you they don't find meditation easier!

the space between thoughts is a technical term used in yogachara and madhyamika it doesnt refer simply to the stopping of thoughts which happens at the end of the 4th of the 9 stages of shamata (aka access concentration,  and which by the end of the 8th results in being able to sustain vivid extended uninterrupted attention on the spacious luminous nonconceptuality that is the mind ie. an ongoing observation of a lack of thoughts)
with good instructions it should not take longer than 2 or 3 months to fully stop thoughts arising and pulling u off ur chosen object of single-pointed fixation (aka end of stage4).  quite a while before this happens ur enemy already is not fully formed thoughts arising and pulling u off ur object but rather the beginning processes that eventually lead to full thoughts arising--these are the subtle and brief interruptions arising and pulling u off ur object momentarily which u immediately observe and correct by returning to ur meditation object.

While eating on either form, sound, smell, taste, bodily touch, yet not aware of it, that, what the Sublime Buddha called "household-equanimity" may be present at such time, equanimity which has not gone beyond sensuality. As it is a very dangerous one it's very needed to leave home first before engaging in higher paths, good householder. May he know those "good" in meditation but incapable of leaving home as those caught up there where hardly one could ever trace the path.

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


text:
Thai chanting in roman letters and translated
I bow to you with hopes of happiness, peace, safety and health for you.
And I come with a dire need for help! I am a practicing buddhist and I regularly visit a thai temple for chanting but I know no thai and they don't have their chanting written in roman alphabet and with translation so I can understand and chant.
I have recorded the whole chanting and provide a link to the recording here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxmUWA7XxR7OjhOZYXbPA6MxZvsP84kR/view?usp=sharing
Could anyone please provide me or refer me to the chanting written in thai with roman alphabet letters and an english translation? If you provide me with links then could you please point out the exact parts of the texts that correspond to this chanting?
This would be of great help to me because I can finally understand what we're saying and feel a greater connection to the teachings and to my fellow Sangha-members.
Full of gratitude I bow.

My pali isn't that great, but it sounds a lot like Homage to the Triple Gem. There are many variations of this.

The chanting of the ancient Buddhism and present Mahavihara Theravada  is for  memorizing and revisit the practices again and again until getting the understanding to practice perfectly and reaching the   mundane and super mundane attainment concentration (Lokiya-Appana Bhavana and Lokuttara Appana Bhavana). After that, the Buddhist still chant to revisit the way to teach by the buddha  and to be a model for previous Buddhist.
Some chants are for building the encouragement to practice for attaining the concentration follow the Buddha such as "Itipiso Bhagava (Buddhanussati)" because the meaning of them are very deep in detail. The detail of is an enlightenment which has the perfect  relations like Abhidhamma which is big data), so the practitioner will can't understand them easily at first. However, chanting still helpful without understanding because when the practitioner can't practice follow the Dhamma perfectly, if they can't remember the teaching, except they don't want to be perfect like the Sanga. And the practitioner can accumulate  the wholesome trust while chanting as well. It is one of five elements to get the attainment.
(This should be the first: http://chanting-book-for-buddha.blogspot.com/2013/04/5-aradhana-tisarana-pancasila-request.html)
00:00 https://dharmaforliving.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/chapter-1-morning-evening-chanting-ทำวัตรเช้า-เย็น
http://chanting-book-for-buddha.blogspot.com/2013/03/chanting-book.html
02:00 http://chanting-book-for-buddha.blogspot.com/2013/04/itipiso.html
03:43 http://chanting-book-for-buddha.blogspot.com/2013/04/bahum-jayamangala-gatha-eight-victories.html
07.45 http://chanting-book-for-buddha.blogspot.com/2013/04/jaya-gatha-victory-protection.html
10.15 https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ChantingGuide/Section0018.html
12.45 It is the pali about giving gifts to the Sanha. I think this chant is  using only in thailand. The other countries may use something different.

Bonn I give you my apologizes for a very late reply from me. Thank you for your help, kindness and effort.


text:
Compulsive desire to correct others
I'm often trying to correct others' views, opinions, and lifestyles.
I feel a strong urge to correct when their actions are clearly bringing negative consequences for themselves and others. For example, in a place I live, people generally don't pay any attention to vaccination and the prevention of disease, and my failure to convince them to follow the guidelines with logical and carefully researched arguments causes me a lot of distress.
Health, conduct, and environment-related triggers are the strongest, but I'm often needlessly eager to correct people for all other sorts of objective and subjective mistakes.
Now, what would be the proper way to live with people while minimising my own distress and maximising the good influence I could have on others?

It is in the egocentric nature to nest its immediate environment to its own self-absorbed motivations, controlling, judging, discriminating. This is because its understanding of fear is misplaced towards things out there, when it fears only what is inside. Worldly situations become a convenient decoy. It can take a long time to see how things out there are not causing your fear. That's when you begin to face the inner fear.

The core of this problem is that you are clinging to the idea that your views are correct. This has nothing to do with the question of whether your ideas are actually or factually correct, which they may very well be. It's a judgement that people should have correct ideas; a discontentment that people reject correct ideas; a frustration that people resist being educated into correct ideas.
Put in simple terms... You are upset that people fail to see the truth when you present it, but in reality you have failed to see the truth of the people you are trying to teach.
If you ran across a young child who insisted that 'two times four is six', what would you do? You might explain that, no, two times four is eight, two plus four is six, but if the child insisted that he's right you'd think: "well, the kid just doesn't get it yet", and calmly encourage him to keep working on it. But for some reason, you don't to take that attitude with adults. Adults are supposed to 'know better'; adults are supposed to 'use reason' and 'follow facts'; Adults are supposed to grasp the truth of things immediately, and respond with changes in behavior and worldview. You shift attitude, from that of a patient, compassionate educator to that of... what: A dominant authority? A righteous firebrand? A combatant in the war for truth? In any case, where you would embrace a child exactly where it is, in faith that it will move forward on its own (with a little help), you reject adults as flawed or problematic. You don't see, hear, or feel these adults as they are only as they should be, and that causes you consternation.
The idea of 'being adult' is a mental construct. It suggests a 'finished product' that cannot be worked with or changed, but only dealt with. And thereafter we get competition, jealousies, politics, resentments, even war. but what does the world look like if we don't split it into children and adults, but adopt one attitude for everyone?

I wouldn't try to influence because that is very likely to cultivate your own clinging to ego. I used to say to myself that I will just sacrifice my own progress with ego to help others and  I couldn't see that this was horrendous wrong view. It's more important for the betterment of the world for us as individuals to let go of clinging. If we believe something then we are probably clinging, so I always try to  be mindful of my beliefs as well as have a kind and compassionate attitude.

Well, I assume you can occasionally influence others without sacrificing your own progress (those who are giving answers on this forum aren't sacrificing their own progress, are they?). There is a funny sutta where the Buddha himself teaches king Pasenadi how to lose weight (https://suttacentral.net/sn3.13/). For me, the question is how do you do that properly.

You asked a question in a Buddhist forum. I didn't come at you proselytizing what I think. Did the Buddha track down King  Pasenadi to give him advice?

It is tempting for me to invoke "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," by asking how you feel when others correct you on many things over time. But I have a good friend who has the same issues you're describing and he likes being corrected when he's wrong -- though in his view too many people try to correct him when he's not wrong. So checking your own reactions when you're on the receiving end may not be the answer.
I've found the best solution to get me to break habits in the way I deal with others is to pay keen attention to how they react, and how well it achieves my ends. For example, I often notice that when I try to offer up logic to correct a point of view that I see resulting in actions with bad outcomes, my points seem to only make the person I'm talking to more stubbornly entrenched.
In the end, I've found that doing like the Buddha did in casual encounters is best: give advice when it's asked for. Otherwise: lead by example.
If the compulsion to offer advice gets too strong, ask if you can give advice, and if the person says no, respect their boundaries.
The only person you can reliably effect change in is yourself. When I look at life that way I realize I have plenty enough to keep me busy.

Concern for others is good:

AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

Yet better yet is to temporarily put aside worry for others and simply use that time for your own practice:

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

Because only by developing one's own practice can one truly 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.

One cannot help others if their actions cause upset. That upset comes from inside. So take care of inside before outside. Take care of your own practice first. A lifeguard who can't swim well is useless in a flood.

Also a lifeguard shouldn't try to save an irrational person because such a person might sink both due to his panic or whatnot.

This reminds me of the bamboo acrobat and his assistant who was called Frying Pan. It's a great sutta about just this.

Now, what would be the proper way to live with people while minimising my own distress and maximising the good influence I could have on others?

Well, you should learn to speak at the right time and avoiding confrontational speech.
Furthermore you should really pick your battles because social & political engagement will be retaliated against by those of other convictions.
You can talk to people about the measurement of an electron and they will listen with an open mind assuming they have no invested interest in how the electrons are measured whereas policy is something people have a lot of invested interest in. Where you have invested interest there is also confirmation bias, uneducated opinions and rationality here is less relevant.
Another thing you have to realize is that whenever you are correcting someone that is to influence their behavior. Thus if you are going to attempt training other people you better know what you are getting yourself into because you might be trying to do or fix someone else's work.
People are like dogs & children in that many don't have good behavior, are confused and need training. You don't go around correcting every dog you see or give other people's children corrections, so don't go around correcting other people because they won't like it and will try to punish your "bad behavior".
If you want to be an asset then make yourself useful. One doesn't have to be smart to be useful, being educated or resourceful is enough and being smart is of little use if one is neither endowed with resourses nor education. If one is smart, resourceful & educated then one is going to be very useful to other people interested in development of good qualities.
If you had a well behaved dog and it was constantly correcting other untrained dogs, that would be a flaw in the trained dog. So you should also think 'others will have bad behavior whilst i will maintain good behavior among them'.

Being a biology student, I'm determined to be educated. What's bothering me is that sometimes education seems to be of little use.


text:
Publication of written texts involving the dhamma
I have bought in my life many works written by the Dalai Lama. I know that as a monk, he forgoes material possessions. Yet, I recognize money is still being made with those texts, from the editors and publishers and so on. Am I to understand that it would only be wrong to sell such texts if the author gained money directly?
What considerations are involved in the sale and publication of dhamma-related works?

In case this answers the question:

Books & Publications
The Gaden Phodrang Foundation of the Dalai Lama manages and coordinates in close cooperation with the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama copyright-related matters for books and other publications authored and co-authored by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.
By assigning rights, title and interest in His writings and other publications, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has graciously donated all royalties from these publications to the Gaden Phodrang Foundation of the Dalai Lama. The royalties are one of the major income sources for the foundation’s fund.
The Foundation also commissions major translations throughout the world, which are in the context of preservation of Tibetan Buddhist culture, science and philosophy.

The Tibetan Vinaya including commentaries is apparently pretty large -- now I don't know it, but I assume it's believed that this kind of setup is compliant with it.
Instead of quoting the Tibetan Vinaya, consider these two paragraphs -- from The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu -- which explain why money donated to help the upkeep of a monk is donated to a steward (a monastery attendant or lay follower).

The protocols surrounding gifts of money and their proper use are
quite complex—much more complex than even this long training rule
would indicate—and require a detailed explanation. What follows is an
attempt to make them clear. If it seems long and involved, remember that
the purpose of the protocols is to free bhikkhus from the even more
bothersome worries and complexities that come with participating in
buying, selling, and monetary matters in general.
This rule is one of four nissaggiya pācittiya rules covering a bhikkhu’s
proper relationship to money. The others are NP 18, 19, & 20. Although
they sometimes seem to be splitting hairs, they focus precisely on the two
acts involving money that are most burdensome to a sensitive mind: In the
act of accepting money, or having it accepted in one’s name, one is
accepting all the cares, responsibilities, and dangers that come with its
ownership; in the act of arranging a trade, one is accepting responsibility
for the fairness of the trade—that it undervalues neither the generosity of
the person who donated the money nor the goods or services of the
person receiving the money in exchange.

I'm not saying this is that same kind of donation -- e.g. for that purpose -- but it does seem similar in being an arm's-length transaction.
I guess your concern may be not that at all, but the rather the idea of "selling Dhamma"...
Incidentally aren't a lot of the Dalai Lama's books co-authored? His name is on the jacket, but the way it happens is that he talks to an author who does the work of turning it into a book.
Personally it seems to me better that it is popularised or published, sold in book-stores, than that it isn't. It isn't the only way to spread Dhamma, but without books many people in the West would have no access at all.

Please see "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Ven. Ariyesako.
According to the Vinaya (monastic rules), monks are not allowed to receive, give, keep (for their own sake), or deal with money (including buying, selling, trading, investing, exchanging) etc.
However, lay persons acting as stewards, can handle financial affairs for monks and monasteries.
Hence, the financial transactions associated with publication, sales and handling of the proceeds of sales of books and other information media should be handled by lay stewards. Publication transactions include registration of web domains etc.
If needed, exceptions or modifications to minor monastic rules can be made, based on The Great Standards.

One should not make an effort everywhere, should not be another’s
hireling, should not live dependent on another, should not go about as
a trader in the Dhamma.
Ud 6.2

I am not sure about Dalai Lama's books, wouldn't hold them on par with Sutta.

Do you understand Dhamma to be limited to Sutta?

No but it has to generally align and be inferable from the Sutta.

I didn't want to put down his holiness and i am not familiar but works of disciples in general one has to analyze & cross reference to see if it's Dhamma or not, that even if they are leaders of a guild or have a large following.


text:
How to get rid of demons or evil spirits?
I have been a Vipassana meditator since 2001 and had a very strong practice and very good concentration. Last 2-3 years I started feeling a physical violation of space and then hearing voices. What interacts with me is some kind of demon or demons that have started harming with negative gross vibrations of all kinds and use very harmful language. They also harm physically and hurt around the spine and different organs of the body and the nervous system- to get your energy -some kind of energy vampires. They harm continuously and never stop. It is impossible to meditate or do anything else. They seem to know how to connect to human mind and body and somehow gain control the nervous system.
I asked a lot of people for help including meditators even teachers but so far havnt found anyone who knows about this or wants to help. I don’t even know where to get the help.
No drugs or medicines have helped so far, even tried to get some mantra tantra help. I have also read and listened to Ratana and Atanatiya sutta. Written to monasteries..I cannot give metta or practice Vipassana at all because I am constantly under attack.
I am not delusional and these are not illusions. Really looking for some help or inputs that refer to any success stories through monks or healers or Vipassana teachers. Someone who really knows about this well.

I answered your question here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34479/8157

Thank you for sharing this. I noticed you shared a similar question from 2019.
Firstly, I want to say something about using concentration methods as a primary practice. This is not something I would advise. Quite simply, concentration methods as a primary practice can penetrate too deeply and too quickly. This leaves the practitioner in a compromising position. Concentration methods unhinge our ability to suppress our deep psychological issues; in other words, we lose our ability to keep those aspects of our psyche hidden, and they develop a natural buoyancy and expose themselves in all sorts of troublesome ways. This is actually good, but if you haven't developed a clear understanding of how the weather in that territory changes and how to hold yourself during those storms, then things can become quite tricky. Now, that clear understanding should have emerged from a conglomeration of carefully considered notions, typically called the noble eightfold path. You see, concentration is just one aspect of this path, and too much attention on just one aspect makes things lop-sided. When things are lop-sided, we veer off course. Find a place where you can study the eightfold path with other like-minded people. This will help rebalance your practice. You might want to reduce your concentration sessions, too. Perhaps replace them with something that brings your focus back to worldly things.
Aside from your understanding of the demons you experience, these demons can be contextualized in another way: There is a movement of energy in you that doesn't understand what you're trying to show it through your practice, and it responds by hindering your progress. It becomes a huge protest which can manifest as mental images of demons. I personally had lots of this kind of stuff, but I laid the foundations, mainly because I studied well and built a robust, daily mindfulness practice. We're essentially challenging the ego mind, and the only munitions the ego mind has is fear, so it throws a whole manner of fear-based objects at you in an attempt to derail your practice. These moments can be used positively to forward our awareness and give further insight into how our minds work. For you in your position, don't invest any thought into them. If you feel you have to invest some thought, then consciously chose loving thoughts time after time.
There are other ways to contextualize these events. The Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Book of the Dead) for instance, gives instructions on how to navigate such territory, but falls short for the modern day human due to its overly religious tones and its heavy symbolism. There is a user-friendly commentary of The Tibetan Book of the Dead by Chogyam Trungpa who explains what the text means in terms of human psychology. If anything, it should help normalise the experience and fully accept their presence without disturbance. When you stop imparting pressure, the opposition gets bored and moves on. Another way to put that: when you stop worrying about them, they disappear.
The pain you describe is the redirection of conditioned thoughts, speech and actions; the karmic creations that keep your consciousness cemented to the body. It is what makes the body feel solid. The body needs to find a way to eject those things, and pain just so happens to be one of its channels. Sometimes it can use the digestive system, or muscular system. In any case, it's important that you try to separate the pain from the story, otherwise the story will continue to play as you continue to feed its narrative. You want to break it down by fragmenting the thoughts (story) from the sensations (pain). They're not related.
This can all be neatly encapsulated into verse 34 of the Dhammapada:

Just like a fish which quivers when thrown out of water onto dry land,
even so the mind throbs and quivers when it is taken out of the
sensual world to escape from the domain of Mara

In summary, it all seems part of the course, providing you have no medical needs, that is, but I want to emphasise my first paragraph: bring something else into your practice, something that is much softer, kinder and lighter on the heart.

Yes I understand at the bottom of all of it lies acceptance for everything, all forms and all mental states. Will work on the eightfold path “with guidance”. I agree in courses the concentration becomes really high and brings up things we are not ready for unless we are absolutely seriously practicing under the guidance of a teacher. And we have no awareness of our past life kammas so really don’t know what can come up. This demon scenario leaves little scope for doing anything “independently” because they connect with “thought” as if the two minds are grouped into one.
Grateful!

In answering i will assume that this is an actual posession but this isn't a medical advice or a judgement of what it is you are dealing with, i will simply answer as if a person is actually posessed.
You can try doing what the Atanatiya Sutta says, find a big tree in the forest and complain out loud about the Yakkha harassing you.
I don't know what else you can do other than developing the mind but you are saying you can't meditate which pretty much rules out any fortification of the mind necessary to deflect an attack.
Therefore you basically need some sort excorcism and afaik nobody really knows how to do it. I also think that if you stayed with Ariya they might be able to exert some influence.
Furthermore people and monks will assume you are schizophrenic and might take advantage of you for personal gain.
In summary i think developing the mind in spite of the harassment is your best bet and if you can't do it then maybe you can learn to do it and if you can't learn to do it then you need something akin to staying with protected people or people able to protect themselves or in a protected monastery but this is not at all easy to find.
I think nowadays it is easier to find a monastery haunted by evil spirits than one with proper protections. I think it would make sense to go to the oldest monasteries because these probably at least had protection in the past.
Yakkha and Maras are as real as it gets and they really do not like Buddhism, they are however not that powerful and if one doesn't panic then one can beat their mind with one's mind. You can do this by remaining mindful of the Buddha, Dhamma & the Sangha, being mindful of feelings & perceptions before, during and after an attack.
Embrace it, prepare for it and if you get scared think of the home team, the Sangha, the Buddha and remember that he does not get scared and the team bothering you has already lost in the Dhamma, they lost the war and if you read the Atanatiya, they are generally not allowed to pester disciples but some are still pestering the disciples to minimize attainments among humans. You can generally expect them to have a nervous breakdown if you decide to take a firm stand in not being swayed even if it was to kill you.
Also yogi should realize that if indeed is harassed by Yakkha or Mara then they just are trying to stop you from training and helping others. They don't generally want to kill you because it doesn't accomplish what they want which is for one to be swayed away from the Dhamma or progress as slowly as possible.
Dealing with Yakkhas might also motivate one to train harder and taking the Dhamma more seriously, if their shinanigans are then having this opposite effect then they are likely to stop seeing how they just fuel your motivation.
Just don't do anything extreme like suicide and cooperate with doctors if you feel overwhelmed. You deserve a lot of respect and praise in dealing with this circumstance whether it is methaphysical or hallucinations, you should also keep in mind that this is temporary and human life is short, it's not going to be a factor forever so don't let it do too much damage due to being shortsighted.
Unfortunately dealing with Yakkhas, having visions and all these weird things are more or less a part of the training. Sometimes a yogi will feel it's too much and might not want to train because a part of him dreads having visions because it's so alienating & scary to navigate alone.

It might be best to quote exactly what the Atanatiya Sutta says to do

I like what you mention about how to practice Atanatiya sutta. I do have great faith in it.
Staying close to people who are strong and protected (or on the path) is slightly challenging because once they know your problem they want to stay away from you- I have seen this in Buddhist traditions. Maybe a very senior teacher won’t.
I am not so afraid of their killing me - in fact happy to separate from them in any way, but my attention and kamma is affected- my goal of liberation is challenged in addition to than living a physically and mentally challenged life.

I agree with NeuroMax, sounds like you have developed a wall dividing your world in two separate halves.
Your concentration practice turned into cultivation of separation.
Now the other half is knocking on the wall. It is your own shadow.
The only solution is to connect with it and become whole again.

The demonic beings are real. They may even be humans physically.
I sometimes feel for a person like me only completely leaving the material world and resolving to become a nun in a monastery will work. Otherwise the mind is split in two worlds- it’s when we come back to the material world we become less vigilant.
Please remember me in your metta. Thanks.

Your entire world is you, a projection of your state of mind or your energy. Human beings, demons - everything.

if you cease all drug and food use that are psychoactive and youre still experiencing painful habits or effects you should check out a qualified tibetan medicine practitioner they will clear anything up very effectively.
also consider that language is by definition meaningless.  the stronger it appears to possess meaning and harm the more one is confused progressing into being psychotic

Not taking any drugs or such foods at all. I prefer awareness to anything. Will look for Tibetan practitioners- if you know of any or come across a name please do recommend.

By means of Sila and Metta (right view), not feeding for ones sake, one gets rid of the Demons, good householder.
For additional good inspiration: The demon and the Yakkha you should take care - Die Dämonen und Yakkhas

Sila and Metta are affected severely by their presence. They work continuously so you can’t really have an independent thought. It’s really a big secret that they are aware of- how to really harm humans. It’s the opposite of Buddhist teachings and Vipassana. Will read the links!

Reading is good to find faith and putting on eager effort to do the taught, good householder. Right effort plays around of right view and intention (metta) to arrive at right Sila, the 3 other places of right effort to put into, toward the way of escape.It wouln't work if effort is put on Samadhi or Vipassana, since they are carried by their foundation. No metta, Sila, no path.

Thanks so much for all the answers. I am writing a common reply to all-
I really appreciate the acknowledgement and the understanding with which they are written and really insightful. I dint just have a concentration practice but also an equanimity practice. But yes I have started understanding clearly now that if we want to attain liberation we need to understand the whole dynamics of these practices and grasp really well the concept of protection. I think we need to know how to protect ourselves at all times. I don’t think I learnt that. I thought the concentration and Vipassana practice would give me that but past karma plays a role.
I try very hard to be not mentally influenced with what they do to me - but being in my space it’s true that my reactions or responses become limited. What I have learnt is physical limitations are what we need to be set free from. And you’ve rightly said that physical is also just a denser side of our vibrations.
It’s just unfortunate that I cannot do anything actively to come out of it on my own.
Teachers in my tradition at least the ones who I have spoken with (who are not that senior) either don’t believe it or want to stay away from it. So will try monasteries and all other things you have suggested. I am not taking any drugs because-1) they don’t help me and 2) if I lose awareness I don’t know what they are going to me. I prefer awareness.
Thanks, may you all be happy , peaceful and liberated! Grateful! Please do send metta whenever possible!
Best.


text:
Do I need parents' permission to renounce?
I had a dilemma for a long time and I need your help please.
I’m from India, 29 years and belong to a conventional Indian family, staying with my parents.
Since last 4 years, I have wished to renounce my conventional life and go somewhere to meditate deeply (vipassana meditation). Its a calling, a constant calling.
Two years back I told my parents but they were shattered to hear this, they were shocked and broken. Since then I quietly resumed my life. They are also concerned about their future, as they are not fully financially independent and may need my help, but it’s not like if I renounce, they cannot manage, they can definitely manage by cutting a few corners, they can live without my financial help, they have that much savings. I have been contributing to the house expenses heavily, almost all my salary so that their savings remain intact. Its like they have enough to live for another 10 years, but what after that if I’m not there. It’s very tricky.
They are concerned about their old age and future. My parents are both in 60s.
Every now and then I deeply wish to renounce and pursue deep meditation. I get confused, is my role to serve them by being there by keeping them financially secure and being there for them in their old age, but this is not contributing to their mind at all, or is my role to uncover wisdom within so that I can inspire them to do the same for their own self.
Should I be there for them in the next few years and once they are no more, then pursue my meditation or should I renounce right now, and walk the path of wisdom so that I can inspire them to believe in and uncover the wisdom inside themselves?
Its an either / or situation.
Either I keep them comfortable in conventional life, and let them move to their next life, or should I challenge myself right now so that even they can challenge themselves spiritually. (they are not that inclined towards spiritual progress)
What is my role as a son?
This is a constant dilemma every day of my life for last many years. I am neither here nor there. I can’t fully function in the conventional life also because of this. Which way should I go, or is there any middle way?
Please help me.
Kind and humble request.
Thank you.

See answers to the topic Permission of parents to be a Monk

Permission of your parents in your renunciation

Do you need both parents permission to become ordained?

Children are not for the purpose of being a servant to an old person.

I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html

They are afraid of old age because they didn't train to fortify their mind. If you follow their advise you will also be afraid of old age and will want servants of your own.
Your parents would do well in supporting you now, you should try to work with them as a team and have everyone self-develop critical thinking, meditation, ponder views and learn science of physics & behavior to what extent possible develop intellect & good behavior.
It is not wrong to be cautious, critical and pragmatic to protect yourself and your team. A bhikkhu can act like a layman and a layman can act as a bhikkhu, think for yourself and work with your people.

So you do suggest that one must renounce, irrespective of the parents denial in this case?

I can't advise you paricularly because i don't know your circumstances, whether worthwhile communities are available to you in part. You should realize that the disrobing rate is like 95% for the first 10 years for Theravadin monks. Therefore i don't generally tell people to do it because it doesn't work out for most people. Many communities have wrong views and little to no worthwhile attainments but if u have a reason to think that you can make it work then go for it.

I would just be glad ur parents don't require immediate assistance and count ur blessings right there and do what you need to do. You can always help them out later but it sounds to me like they are capable of taking care of themselves now. No point in worrying about things that haven't happened, like ur parents might outlive you,who knows..

Also parent's permission, if you really want it you can probably get if you refuse food & drink otherwise. I think it generally depends on to what extent you will push it.

Tell them "I do not work from now on, and I'll live at the temple forever (as a layman)."  Or don't tell anything, just leave them by tell them "I will take a trip".
Then go to Pa-Auk meditation center in Burma to meditate the meditation as a layman.
When the time gone by, they will allow you to renounce.
And you may have get a trick to renounce at there.
Don't forget that, they can live in the temple when you renounced. You or your family should be worried about the future.

Just giving my two cents. Being an Indian daughter myself I have had the same questions knowing it “is” my duty to serve them. This is supported by Buddha- we “have to” serve our parents and they are considered so deserving of respect that even a bhikku can beg for food for their parents. You can ask a teacher the question about “How to serve our parents?” Some say sending metta and inviting them to the path is the highest form of service.
However separations are painful. And it really depends upon not just your desire to renunciate but also what renunciation really means to you. For some like me I know my real practice will only begin when I “physically” leave because only then I can really detach from the material world- I have such attachments (to people). If your conscience and your practice guides you and “accepts” your decision to “physically” leave then maybe do it. It may be helpful to take the guidance and help of a teacher. But do pay attention to the real meaning of renunciation which is non attachment.
Another option is to go to these courses off and on for a month, for a few months and slowly prepare your parents for it so they don’t feel the suddenness of it. It really depends upon how your mind deals with the challenges that come up and whether your conscience can accept your decision of leaving. I for example would need all close ones to agree before I can take any such step otherwise it bothers my mind and goes into ethical questions like “did I abandon my loved ones? Did I not do my duty” etc. Such rumination doesn’t help either.
Best wishes, may you grow in Dhamma.

This is a painful dilemma for all Indian sons with traditionally strong sense of responsibility towards parents. The problem becomes compounded by the fact that there are no support systems for old people in India. This was a very painful issue with me too but I was always clear that I had to take care of my parents. Secondly, monkhood is no guarantee for liberation while intense practice is. So, I think increase the time you spend in meditation. Go for retreats as often as you can. Your karma will then find a way out for you. But do take care of your parents. They have none except you and you would definitely not like to leave them in the lurch. Incidentally, I am a doctor but lost both my father and mother recently in quick succession to the second wave of Covid in New Delhi. It was very painful but I have the consolation that I was at their bedside as they passed away peacefully. I take it as an important aspect of my shila and, therefore, an integral part of my spiritual journey.
I hope that helps. Metta dear friend.

The other answers have offered good advice, opinions, and perspective. I want to bring up two things:
The Buddha's father didn't want him to renounce
The Buddha's parents themselves did not want the Buddha to become a monk. You might read up on that story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Renunciation. There are varying accounts. I'm not clear on whether he got permission or not. But he did ask for it. And I think he asked for it multiple times.
Monks aren't the only arahants
Lay followers have been able to achieve great peace and wisdom and even arahantship. Consider the praise the Buddha gave to Hatthaka of Alavi, who I think was a businessman. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.023.than.html
So, even if you do not ordain, don't despair. There is plenty you can do without taking on robes.
Furthermore, as @LetsBuddhism suggested in his comment, plenty of monasteries aren't that good. Or verse 61 of the Dhammapada:

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

You may find a lot of fruit/benefit from looking for a good teacher who practices and teaches good dhamma. And you may find that you do plenty without taking robes.

You can meditate full-time for 12 months, as a layperson, somewhere.
Possibly, after 12 months you will not enjoy full-time meditation and return home.
However, if after 12 months of meditation you attain stream-entry or higher then you will have a liberated mind to help you consider your situation more clearly.

Simply ask them, good householder son. To give permission or not, is up to your parents' choice and goodness.
As for skillful desires to seek the holy life, one is wise not to wait and hesitate even some minutes as unskillful mind and doubts may quickly arise again and it's uncertain if it would be possible anymore tomorrow.
So, best wishes and don't waste time in thinking all around for no work, neither here, nor there, would be done: a waste of precious time.

Thank you, so you suggest I leave, even if they say no?

No, but not to waste time with speculations and fear (doing correct), good householder. First ask, if wishing to leave. And maybe ask a secound, third... time (but even this is behind the step now to make). Just for info: when on ordaining, one would be asked if having been given permission from parents, before getting it.


text:
Searching for a sutta where Buddha talks about Nibbana
I am searching for sutta where Buddha talks about Nibbana.
Also, there is one sutta where he says, "ah nothingness, great is this nothingness..." or something and his disciple replies, "What is so great where nothing happens".
Can anyone please help me find the sutta?

From AN 9.34:

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

Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses, including thoughts and the intellect) or when encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for a Buddha or arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.
Please see this answer for commentaries by Nyanaponika Thera. The supporting suttas are MN 44, SN 36.5 and AN 9.34.
From Ud 8.1:

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
occasion exclaimed:
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor
water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of
space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension
of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor
moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor
staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving,
without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of
stress (suffering).

From Ud 8.3:

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
occasion exclaimed:
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If
there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there
would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made —
fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an
unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born —
become — made — fabricated is discerned.

Exactly this! thank you.

@user17389 You could mark the answer as accepted to signal that your question has been solved (:


text:
Does Avalokiteshvara speak through the Buddha in the Heart Sutra? Or how is it that Avalokiteshvara speaks to Shariputra?
I wanted to know how it is that Avalokiteshvara answered Shariputra in the Heart Sutra.
I thought Avalokiteshvara was a cosmic being representing the compassion of all Buddhas. As such he would not be a person who found himself in the Buddha's presence as He delivered his Dhamma discourses, right?
So, does Avalokiteshvara speak through the power of the Buddha or is just that Avalokiteshvara's compassion is "part" of the Buddha since he is indeed fully enlightened?
Who is it that answers Shariputra? Is the one abiding in the Prajnaparimita Gotama Buddha? I don't really understand.

Can you provide a link to Heart sutra ? I am unable to find one. Thanks.

There are two parts to this question that need to be addressed in order to answer you:
Is it the case that “Avalokiteshvara was a cosmic being representing the compassion of all Buddhas” or was he a bodhisattva/mahasattva who was present when the Buddha taught?”
And, does “Avalokiteshvara speak through the power of the Buddha or is just that Avalokiteshvara's compassion is "part" of the Buddha since he is indeed fully enlightened?”
In the first matter, clearly, in many Mahayana sutras Avalokitasvara is present as the Buddha taught. But was he a ‘cosmic being’ that presumably would not be present in that way? Although he has and continues to be depicted that way, there is some evidence that this is an inappropriate characterization that leads those that hear him being described as the “lord of the world” to also believe that he would not be present in the way that you and I might have been present if we were alive when the Buddha taught. According to Alexander Studholme in his book, “The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra:”

"Avalokitasvara eventually became Avalokiteśvara, it seems likely, due
once again to the force of another folk interpretation of the name,
here based upon the identification of the bodhisattva as a lokeśvara.
This is a generic term meaning, literally, “lord” (-īśvara) “of the
world” (loka-), applied to a wide range of supernormal beings in
Indian religious thought. Bearing in mind, then, that very few people
would ever have seen the name of the bodhisattva in written form, it
is quite understandable that the pronunciation of the -asvara ending
should have slipped to the homophonic -eśvara, thereby producing a
name—Avalokiteśvara—that would actually have seemed a more appropriate
title for a being understood to be a great lokeśvara."

There is no need to confuse the bodhisattva/mahasattva Avalokitasvara as a “lord of the world.” And if that is let go of, then we can see this bodhisattva/mahasattva for what he was: a realized being and the perfect embodiment of “Great Compassion” (Mahākarunā), which is the activity or function of Emptiness.
In his description of his meditative practice leading to his enlightenment, he says:

First, because I did not listen to sounds and instead contemplated the
listener within, I can now hear the cries of suffering beings
throughout the ten directions, and I can bring about their liberation.
(Surangama Sutra)

This power that he accomplished by discarding sound at this point in his practice in order to contemplate the meditator, which is to say, meditating upon the nature of hearing—given the presence of uncaused, unborn, and unending inner spontaneous sound—Avalokitasvara disengaged himself from both sense organs and their perceptions, enabling the direct realization of this all-embracing (Mahākaruṇā) Buddha naturing of all living beings and actual things. This is the nature of ‘mind’, which is the necessary direct insight for further progress along the path.
But the most important point of his statement is this: using the practice that is described by Avalokitasvara very quickly results in what I describe as an alchemical change in the practitioner, which is normally only accomplished much, much later along the path to enlightenment. Here at this very early stage in his practice, Avalokitasvara attests to being able to hear the cries of suffering beings and respond to them so that they can be liberated from their suffering. This is the result of having used inner spontaneous sounds, which are nothing other than the intrinsic Emptiness. They are not a manifested phenomenon of Emptiness, but rather the resonances or reverberations of the activity of Emptiness manifesting (dharmata) the world and all beings and things.
You see, by initially meditating on these sounds and using them to break free of sense perceptions and senses in order to have a direct experience of this intrinsic naturing, your hearing faculty is very quickly liberated from, and no longer constrained to, sensed sound. Hearing the cries of suffering beings is not the same as our mundane hearing sounds of crying. I cannot stress this point enough, but only those that have accomplished this hearing will truly understand this.
Although this might seem to be off the point, I bring his description and my commentary on it in order to point out the answer to your question: “does Avalokiteshvara speak through the power of the Buddha or is just that Avalokiteshvara's compassion is ‘part’ of the Buddha since he is indeed fully enlightened?”
Avalokitasvara does speak through the power of the Buddha, but only in the sense that the Buddha is the expression of Emptiness here in this world, as is Avalokitasvara. The result of enlightenment is the removal of our ignorance that blocks the true way the world ‘works’ from our view and understanding. Once that ignorance is let go, like removing blinders from one’s eyes, we realize directly that all beings, all teachings, all compassion, is the direct functioning of Emptiness.

In the original Heart Sutra, Guanyin does not speak.
Speech in Buddhist texts follows strict conventions. In Sanskrit verbs like āmantrayati, āha, or avocat are used. And this is mirrored in Chinese. These conventions are absent from the standard Heart Sutra text, which was the original.
This is because, the lines addressed to Śāriputra are copied from the Pañaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Pañc). We can go and find them (and I have) and in that context he is being addressed by the Buddha. In other words, the lines specifically addressed to Śāriputra (as indicated by his name in the locative case: śāriputra).
Interesting, the early commentary by Woncheuk (T 1711), who was well aware that the lines were copied from Pañc, also understood the Buddha to be speaking these lines.
Later, when the text was expanded, the missing elements were added to the text appear to be an authentic sutra. As well as adding the "Thus have I heard", the editor also made it appear that Guanyin was speaking the lines.
I will be publishing a paper on this in 2024.

In my understanding, Sariputta (aka Shariputra, aka Sharadvatiputra) was long gone ("dead") by the time Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara was undergoing his training.
Shariputra left a large legacy of teachings, mostly in the style of Abhidharma analysis and enumeration of various dharmas and mental/emotional phenomena.
This teaching was seen by some of the advanced students to be misleading, because it focused (or should I say, obsessively hung up) on theoretical categorization, neglecting the higher teaching of Buddha such as the signlessness and 'atammayata'.
As a response to Shariputra's students' obsession with psychological theory at the expense of actual liberation, the advanced practitioners formulated the teaching of Prajnaparamita which focuses on transcending the basis of all suffering and entering true suchness.
So when Avalokiteshvara addresses Shariputra, he addresses him posthumously so to speak. It's a figure of speech, "hey Shariputra, I wish I could talk to you and explain how confused you were about the true meaning of Buddha's Liberation" - that's the idea.

I'm curious, why do you think Sariputta was long dead?

Because, at least based on available historical evidence, prajnaparamita literature's timeline doesn't start until around 100BCE, and Sariputta lived several centuries before that.

What is important is the authors intent: was the Heart Sutra describing a contemporaneous event in the authors life OR describing a past event that was witnessed by the author or handed down through oral tradition? The Sutra itself doesn't say either way.

It seems clear to me that, as is the custom of Mahayana sutras, this one is depicting a symbolic event, nevertheless representing a real meaning. Whether Avalokiteshvara literally existed or not is beside the point. What's important is the poetic expression of a true realization contrasted with all that petty theoretical stuff studied by the spiritual followers of Shariputra.

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying for sure. I guess my point is that it is unnecessary to speculate about the mortal status of Shariputra or the existence of Avalokiteshvara in the heart sutra as that is just elaboration missing the point, yes?

Yup, that's it, exactly

This answer reminds me of the old Zen quote: a donkey that carries 200 holy books is still a donkey.


text:
How do you keep your tranquility?
I do manage to keep my self calm at times. But lately i feel i can't control the bubbling anger within me. I keep lashing out over small things. Sometimes even the smallest things can annoy me. I have tried breathing techniques and i must say that they are very useful in keeping self in check but it makes me very restless or like being sap out of energy. If anyone can give me advice i be grateful for it.

Thanks for your suggestion.   I guess i was the one attaching too much importance on superficial things.   And once again thank you for your guidance

Keeping yourself calm is clinging to an illusion of control of what comes up in your mind. Nobody can do that. It's like there is no way that after reading "don't think of a white rabbit" you can stop yourself of thinking of one.
Instead, try to observe the emotion/thought arising in your mind and just let it happen without judgment or attaching other thoughts to that arising. You will "see" that it's generally not the initial emotion arising that makes you lash out, but secondary thoughts you attach to this "train of thought".
Try to just let the initial "locomotive" arise and dissipate without judging yourself for lack of control. Control over thought is an illusion.
The purpose of meditation is not to "stop thinking" but to learn to see that there are spaces between arising thoughts, and to make the duration of those spaces longer by experiencing that thought is not a constant "stream" but more like a "dripping tap". It is only when you attach thoughts to the initial one that you open the "floodline".
Hope this helps.

The calmness of a lake in the morning is buffeted by the afternoon wind.
Serenity lies deeper, below the angry winds:

SN1.71:3.2: When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.
SN1.71:3.3: O deity, anger has a poisoned root
SN1.71:3.4: and a honey tip.

To let go of anger, stop holding the honey tip.
To let go of the honey tip:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

That is not easy, but give it time, space and diligence.

Adding to the good answers that have already been provided, I would just like to say that sometimes you have to stop clamping down your anger and start trying to understand why you feel what you feel. Don't shy away from it, don't judge it, don't be angry with it. Try to understand it. Why is there anger bubbling inside you? Are you really angry at the small things that cause you to lash out, or is it a symptom of a deeper problem?
It's OK to be angry, it's normal, everybody feels it. Nobody likes it, of course, but that does not mean that you should block it and pay no heed to it. That will only be worse in the long run.
The quickest way to tranquility is to stop fighting against your own feelings, accept and understand them, without judgment or fear. Indeed, how can you be tranquil and peaceful if you are at odds with what's happening inside you? Remember annata, you are neither your thoughts nor your feelings. From SN 22.59:

"Form, monks, is not self...
Feeling is not self...
Perception is not self...
Mental fabrications are not self...
Consciousness is not self..."

Feelings come and go as they will, change and morph from one state to another, so don't be afraid and upset when they are unpleasant, or they are not "what they should be". The problem is not the anger: as @Codosaur said, the lashing out part is caused by the "secondary thoughts", by the judging that happens with (and towards) that anger.
Of course, I'm not saying that you should let your feelings run wild and exercise no self control, far from it. Be heedful of your behaviour, while it's ok to be angry, it's not ok to lash out and hurt other. But you should definitely sit down and try to work out what's happening with you, with an honest, kind and non-judgmental mindset towards yourself.


text:
What should be a Buddhist's response to derogatory depictions of Buddhism?
I have come across multiple instances where famous people or mainstream media have treated Buddhism and its culture in a derogatory manner, though I like to think most of the time it was because they are ignorant and not deliberate. This is not limited to famous ones of course. I will note 2 popular examples here.
The first one: SNL or Saturday Night Live (an American weekly television show) did an episode titled Rude Buddha, which was about the rude mentality of Lord Buddha. It consisted of a famous celebrity acting as Lord Buddha and being condescending and rude towards his followers, including sexual innuendos. Now, it's obviously a humorous dig at Lord Buddha's life. And I am not going to deny, I found it quite hilarious.
There's another example where the famous Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo uploaded a photo to his Instagram where he seems to have one foot resting on the base of a statue of Buddha's head. Fans were outraged and the photo was met with severe criticism. However, despite the incident being as old as from 2016, the photo still can be seen in his Instagram. It seems like the sentiment of Buddhists is not taken seriously enough for this photo to be removed. While I found the SNL episode funny, I do not view this in the same sense. He could have obviously taken it down considering how insensitive it is to Buddhists as a whole.
I believe no religion should be excluded from criticism. It enables people to engage in intellectual discourse on religions. However some incidents lean more towards mockery. Most of the comments in the SNL video (it's available on YouTube and I have provided the link above) are about how most Buddhists would find this funny and move on. However, I always wonder, to what extent should we tolerate these?
My moral dilemma is, how far can we be okay with our religion being mocked or treated insignificantly?
Do we always have to give the benefit of ignorance when someone disrespects Buddhism and its culture?
And how should a good Buddhist react to incidents like these?

In addition to the answers by Letsbuddhism and ruben2020, I also recommend to reflect on "The Simile of the Saw" discourse (dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN21.html) and always remember that wise people would never consort or seek the approval of fools. Thus you should ask yourself: why are seeking the approval of fools? Why not seek the approval of the wise ones instead?

I’m voting to close this question because This question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.

“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your mind. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?”
“Certainly not, Lord.”
“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: ‘For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.’
“And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: ‘For such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us.’
DN 1

If you think you can & feel moved to help others as if they are sick with ignorance then give the medicine but don't get angry or annoyed with symptoms of the disease and don't punish a person for being sick, nobody wants to be ignorant in the grand scheme of things.

I know nearly nothing about buddhism (saw this question on HNQ), but this is a beautiful quote. Every religion should have a view like this, in my opinion. Is this an "official" quote? Or is it part of an interpretation of the "official" (whatever that means for buddhism) sources by a follower?

this is included in the oldest know text collection, pali to english translation of what is agreed upon as actually spoken by the Buddha & canonical to all historically relevant schools of Buddhism as affirmed by academic buddhist studies. Held to have been orally transmitted until around 1st century and then also written down, has parallels in chinese and other languages among the earliest texts of this kind.

Wonderful quotes. Thank you for sharing these.

Like @Syndic, I know nearly nothing about Buddhism (or Christianity for that matter), but I'm struck by the similarity between the quoted text in this answer, and the Christian doctrine of "turning the other cheek"..

This is a very good answer about praise/blame from outsiders and not to react with anger or resentment. In general, any response should be governed by Right Speech, which requires good timing and beneficial intentions. One example is in debate with Saccaka (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.035.than.html). Schisms within Buddhism were treated differently. Devadatta's actions did rise to the level of needing action  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta).  Although there was admonishment, it wasn't done with resentment or anger.

The Buddha taught:

Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and
undone.

Like a beautiful flower full of color but without fragrance, even so, fruitless are the fair words of one who does not practice them.

Dhp 44-59

Story told by Ven. Ajahn Brahm, from this page, on how to respond to abuse, such as the destruction of Buddhist scriptures and statues:

There were riots in the streets some years ago after a guard at
Guantanamo Bay was accused of taking a holy book and flushing it down
the toilet.
The next day, I took a call from a local journalist who told me he was
writing an article about the outrage by asking leaders of all the
major religions in Australia the same question he was about to ask me.
“What would you do, Ajahn Brahm, if someone took a Buddhist holy book
and flushed it down your toilet?”
Without hesitation I answered, “Sir, if someone took a Buddhist holy
book and flushed it down my toilet, the first thing I would do is call
a plumber!”
When the journalist finished laughing, he confided that that was the
first sensible answer he had received.
Then I went further.
I explained that someone may blow up many statues of the Buddha, burn
down Buddhist temples, or kill Buddhist monks and nuns; they may
destroy all this, but I will never allow them to destroy Buddhism. You
may flush a holy book down the toilet, but I will never let you flush
forgiveness, peace, and compassion down the toilet.
The book is not the religion. Nor is the statue, the building, or the
priest. These are only the “containers.”
What does the book teach us? What does the statue represent?

The Buddha himself was never disturbed by abusive speech hurled at him and taught that if abuse is not accepted and reacted to, then it stays with the abuser. The Buddha taught us to respond calmly and not be provoked into anger.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then the
brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja
clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the
presence of the Blessed One. Angered & displeased, he went to the
Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh
words.
When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "What do you think,
brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as
guests?"
"Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives &
kinsmen come to me as guests."
"And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple
foods & delicacies?"
"Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods &
delicacies."
"And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"
"If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."
"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who
is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not
taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating:
that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.
"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one
who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to
be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am
neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all
yours. It's all yours."
"The king together with his court know this of Master Gotama — 'Gotama
the contemplative is an arahant' — and yet still Master Gotama gets
angry."
The Buddha:

Whence is there anger for one free from anger,
tamed,  living in tune — one released through right knowing, calmed & Such.
You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry wins a battle hard
to win.
You live for the good of both   — your own, the other's — when, knowing
the other's provoked, you mindfully grow calm.
When you work the cure of both  — your own, the other's — those who
think you a fool know nothing of Dhamma.

When this was said, the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja said to the
Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he
were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden,
to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark
so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master
Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear.
SN 7.2

Let's not forget that within Buddhism there is a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor and the occasional irreverence for depictions of the Buddha:

Tianran Roasting the Buddha, painting by Sengai Gibbon (1750-1837)
Danxia Tianran (739-824), a famous disciple of 8th-century Chan masters Mazu and Shitou, was spending a night at a ruined temple with a few traveling companions. It was fiercely cold and no firewood was to be found. Danxia went to the Buddha-shrine hall, took down the sacred wooden image of the Buddha, and set it ablaze to warm himself. Reproached by his friends for this act of sacrilege, he said: “I was only looking for the sharira (sacred relic) of the Buddha.” “How can you expect to find sharira in a piece of wood?” asked his fellow travelers. Replied Danxia, “Ah, well then, I am only burning a piece of wood after all. Shall we burn a few more?”


text:
About the Upasakasila Sutta and LGBT
Is the upasakasila sutta based on the Tipitaka (Pali Canon) or is it based on the Mahayana teachings?
Also, I understand that Buddhism doesn't condemn LGBT, but in the Upasakasila Sutta, it is written:

"If sex is practised under the inappropriate times (times not allowed by precepts), [at] inappropriate place[s] (places not allowed by precepts), with non-female[s], with virgin[s], with a married wife, if sex relates to self-body, it is known as sexual misconduct."

Does this mean being gay (or lesbian, or being a part of LGBT) is considered sexual misconduct and therefore violated the 3rd precepts?

The quote appears to be from a Mahayana (Chinese) Sutra:

Sūtra of the Upāsaka Precepts
Translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in the Northern Liang Dynasty
by
The Tripiṭaka Master Dharmakṣema from India
Fascicle 6 (of 7)
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33f.html

But I don't know what that was translated from.
There's apparently also a Uposatha Sutta in Pali which is much shorter and doesn't have the (controversial) phrase in question. But I don't know where that sutta belongs in the Tipitaka.
See also What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism?

No, that is not in Theravada Buddhism.
The 3rd precept deny only for breaking an agreement between people. In commentary allows even if the people can do an agreement together.
For the example, in the past people agreed with "marrying with 12 years old girl" because they thought  parents or men are her owner and her protector form crime. The commentary allows follow to that agreement. However, it doesn't allow nowadays by same context in commentary because commentary also commented "Having sex with protected girl by law is breaking the 3rd precept, too".

As far as i can tell that text is not considered canonical by Vibbhajavadin schools, schools of analysis, monks who rejected some inessential parts of mainstream doctrine as it was then taught on account of it not being canonical, from which Theravada developed ca 250 BC.
I think text belongs to schools that were considered heretical by Theravada and would be among Mahayana texts.
Early texts offer little commentary but there is some.
There is a story in Theravadin Vinaya of a "pandaka" monk who first asked elder monks to attack him, then asked younger monks inb4 asking novices to attack him [a term used for sexual things, masturbation is called 'attacking with hand'] and being refused he wen't on to have sex with lay stable handlers and bad report spread about monks among lay people as a result.
A rule was made prohibiting pandaka ordination but the definition of a pandaka isn't clear, is very vague and describes some behaviors that have to do with being gratified only by ingesting semen and or other particular deviances based on phases of the moon and whatnot, there is really no word for what is said to be pandaka in Theravadin Vinaya.
Same-sex sexual intercourse is not a cause for disrobing for a nun but is a disrobing offense for a monk. There are some differences here.
There are also mentions of a monk's peculiar fascination with the Buddha, he had to be sent away to train in solitude because he was so fond of seeing Buddha's form that it interferred with his training; but he was never referred to as to any terminology akin to gay, pandaka or anything close and whether it would be considered gay at this point is a moot point. He was one of the chief disciples, foremost in faith.
It is important to note that in the beginning gay people were certainly allowed to become monks as there were little to no rules. It is also unclear whether they were allowed to ordain throughout Buddha's life but nobody was forced to disrobe because of new rules afaik.
It is also clear that they were extremely tolerant in not beating up that monk who went around soliciting novices... Iirc when he asked monks told him 'go away pandaka, what good is that..'
If anything i think pandaka is closer to sexually perverted degenerate or a maniac maybe more so than a particular orientation. It's my opinion tho.
There is also a story about a group of monks who were aroused by seeing corpses in course of their training when visiting a charnel ground.
There is more to further analysis but i will leave it here. I think that if one puts it all together it paints a fairly tolerant culture.
Unfortunately traditionally Buddhist cultures do not generally share these views, try asking a Sri Lankan if a Sotapanna can have sex and they will say yes but if you ask for specifics of what sex they can do, they will probably never talk to you again because of the cognitive dissonance they will there experience.

What you quoted is from Upāsakāśīla-sūtra (優婆塞戒經). The Upāsakāśīla Sūtra is a Mahayana Sūtra, and only a Chinese translation version exists now. The Upāsakāśīla Sūtra is adapted from Siṅgālovāda sutta and includes some contents about bodhisattva śīla (菩薩戒).
As for the 3rd precepts and lgbt, you can see this article (https://info-buddhism.com/Buddhism-Sexuality-Cabezon.html). I will talk other things the article doesn't mention.
The Mahayana Buddhism is a mixed Buddhism movement from Mahāsāṃghika, Sarvastivada, Vibhajyavāda (Theravada Buddhism), and other Buddhism sects, practicing the ideals of bodhisattva.
So, the 3rd precepts (and other Buddhism contents likewise) in Mahayana Sūtra would include the contents from these sects. The sexual misconduct including the condition of time, place, organ, non-female, is from the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivada, like Dharmaskandha (法蘊論), Abhidharmakośakārikā (俱舍論), Nyāyānusāriṇī (順正理論), etc.
The 3rd precepts in the "Pali Sutta" and the "Āgama Sūtra" of the Chinese version don't include the conditions in the Sarvastivada Abhidharma.