text:
How can all dharmas have no intrinsic reality logically speaking?
There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):
1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.
2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).
any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.
Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:
a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone
or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma
A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.
Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.
If an infinite (I am granting You guys the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.
Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.
Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist?So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

In the original teachings by Buddha, "atta" refers to "ego". Both the conditioned & unconditioned are anatta. "Anatta" and "sunnata" are not about the existence & non-existence of things. Rarely a Theravada Buddhist will be found that declares the teachings of Nagarjuna are consistent with what the Theravada Buddha taught. Buddha was concerned with "atta" (ego; possessiveness, etc) because atta is and causes suffering (mental torment & anguish).

Here's the traditional answer (straight from a Mahayana textbook so to speak, not making it up):
You imagine a chain of conditioned dharmas, one giving rise to another, but no such chain exists! - instead, the dharmas continuously morph and stir (like clouds) and this new configuration is what we call the subsequent dharmas.
When we say a dharma is conditioned by several preceding dharmas we just mean it's been created from them - not by them.
For convenience we say that preceding dharmas have to "cease" in order for the subsequent dharmas to "arise" but in fact this process is continuous. In fact "a dharma" is not something concrete and distinct with clear boundaries, whether spatial or temporal. We the observers make up those boundaries as we observe, just like with the clouds. This continuous process is what we're actually referring to when we say things are Anicca (impermanent) and Anatta (have no intrinsic identities).
So when you imagine your permanent and unconditioned creator called Ishvara, how do you think he creates the subsequent dharmas? This idea of Ishvara creating dharmas while himself staying unchanged can only make sense if future dharmas were something new and distinct from past dharmas but that is not how things work!
Instead, the Ishvara would need to himself morph into the next dharmas. So maybe you're saying that the entire realm of the ever-morphing dharmas (the dharma-dhatu) is what you call Ishvara? In other words, your Unconditioned Reality is the Law of Morphing, the Law of Dependent Origination?
If that's the case then you are in agreement with Buddha, you're just calling it a different name. Buddha called it The Dharma while you're calling it Ishvara. The choice of name is up to you, as long as you get the point.

Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata.
When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

If you're speculating on the nature of the universe or the nature of existence, then the Buddha considered this a futile exercise of intellectual gymnastics that leads to madness in the Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The Buddha only concerned himself with suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way to end suffering.
In the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, he taught that a man struck with a poisoned arrow should find a way to remove the arrow and heal himself, rather than investigate who shot the arrow, and what is the arrow made of, and what does the arrow cost, and at what speed was it shot etc.
Of course, from the perspective of the individual, we may ask whether there is a self (i.e. an intrinsic unconditioned reality for a person) or not, and this is indeed related to the path to the end of suffering.
And the answer is clear from the Vina Sutta that the self is a mere mental idea (supported also by Snp 4.14), conjured by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, according to the process of dependent origination:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Then you may say consciousness is intrinsic and unconditioned, but even this is rubbished by the Buddha in MN 38, as he proves beyond any doubt that consciousness is conditioned upon the sensory media:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.

The Buddha also taught in the Sabba Sutta, not to imagine realities beyond the six sensory media:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

The concept of an intrinsic unconditioned reality is a mere philosophical conjecture and intellectual gymnastics, based on the false view of the self, no different from creationists trying to defend creationism against evolution using rhetorics.
The Buddha's teachings are grounded on his empirical realization of the four noble truths and the three marks of existence, and even today, these can be empirically verified through the Noble Eightfold Path.

So how can Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?
Because it is quite the relief from suffering that such thoughts and questions have no foothold in emptiness.

MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.
MN121:13.4: So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’

Good householder. Higher Dhamma isn't taught to people still attached to sensuality and views, as it either cause total confusion or development of most dangerous householder-equanimity, a state where one has no fear in wrongdoing, even stealing from and harming the Noble Ones. In this 'emptiness' they shameless consume and harm, invite others, as requiring supplying, to do likewise.
How ever, if willing to seek refuge into the Gems, rather then in shameless thieves, this teaching could, if respectful received, help to get out of the 'paradox' toward clear vision: The Essence of the Dhamma.May it be assistance to walk toward the Deathless, take on the lifelihood of a Samana, leaving to live on not given, to be able to enter and remain not in blind consume but in real emptiness. When seeing some in pyjamas or jogging dress 'dwelling' there, that should be a clear reminder of the distinction, even outwardly.
"Ananda, what ever householder (bond to the strings of sensuality, house) thinks he dwells in emtiness, know him as heading downwardly as if been forced."
The Buddha was actually very harsh when seeing his disciples teaching high to minds totally caught in the world, and doing such, even the other wanderers, of the Mahayana sects, see it as a grave transgression, break of the Bodhisatta vows.

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities (Dharmas)

The word "realities" appears inappropriate because this word itself appears to imply some sort of esoteric connotation. The proper terms to use are "things", "phenomena" or "elements".

1.Conditioned... depends on something for its existence.

Yes.

2.Unconditioned... self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence.

In Buddhism, the Nibbana Element is the Unconditioned

A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of
conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma,
what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something,
and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist.

The Buddha did not always declare a preceding cause ("hetu") of all conditioned things. In AN 10.61, it is said a preceding cause of ignorance cannot be found. However, AN 10.61 does say ignorance has a "condition" ("paccaya") of "nutriment" ("ahara") that sustains the existence of ignorance. That "nutriment" itself is a product of ignorance but when that nutriment (namely, the five hindrances) is removed, ignorance will diminish and cease. Therefore, ignorance is conditioned, even though a preceding cause of ignorance is unknown.
A thing can be "conditioned" due to having: (i) a preceding cause (hetu); (ii) a condition (paccaya); or (iii) nutriment (ahara). These three words are not necessarily synonymous.

Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist.
Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not
exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality
fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a
conditioned Dharma.

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha said to not always rely on what today is called "logic". For spiritual matters, "logic" does not always work.

Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the
conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite
chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions
fulfilled.

I struggled to comprehend the above clearly however i wish to mention that prior causes generally cease. For example, the last in-breath my life depended on has now ceased. That in-breath of oxygen has transformed into an out-breath of carbon dioxide that has now gone to a different place and transformed into something else. I suppose I am saying there appears no tangible "chain" of causes & conditions that remains tied together.

the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an
unconditioned Dharma.

Yes. If we use the characteristic dhamma of "permanence" to define the 'unconditioned", then the Law of Nature is an "infinite" dhamma that gives the impression of being made up of conditioned things. In other words, the Law of Cause & Effect is permanent, even though it exhibits itself in relation to impermanent conditioned things.
In AN 3.136 & SN 12.20, the Buddha said the Law of Nature (Dhamma Nimaya) is fixed & unchanging; such as the impermanence of conditioned things is a permanent phenomena.

However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot
depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the
case, it would be conditioned.

No. I already explained this. The permanence of impermanence does not make the impermanence impermanent; just as a barn full of chickens does not make the barn into a chicken. The law of impermanence is permanent; just as a barn is not a chicken.

Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a
conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.

No. The conditioning or cause & effect nature of the stream of discrete conditioned things remains a fixed constant. In other words, each discrete conditioned thing or element each has an impermanent nature. So the "sabhava" or "inherent nature" of all impermanent conditioned remains the same & is permanent. The conditioned nature of an impermanent thing is a permanent quality it permanently retains.

Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have
their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by
a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series)
with an unconditioned Dharma.

I would say the series of dhammas is held together by an unconditioned dhamma, namely, the permanence of the impermanence; the permanence of the cause & effect.

Thus it Seems that a intrinsic Existance does exist? So how can
Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta be True?

Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta are true because they have intrinsic existence (AN 3.136). Nibbana also has intrinsic existence (Udāna 8.3).
Unlike Nagarjuna, Theravadins do not dispute "sabhava" or "intrinsic existent".

I should have said things instead of reality as I was not talking about a abstraction like impermanence but concrete things.when you see dharmas as concrete things you will come to the conclusion that a inherent concrete ground must exist.furthermore,in Theravada conditioned concrete things arise out nothing Through kshanabhanga And this view is not tenable.


text:
Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Lutheran doctrine of Justification?
I read on the internet Martin Luther said:

No sin can separate us from Him (Christ), even if we were to kill or commit
adultery thousands of times each day.
the Law shows us our inability to contribute anything to
justification.

Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Lutheranism (Christian Protestantism), namely, a Buddhist doctrine of salvation by faith alone?
Would this qualify as true dharma?

To clarify, you're referring to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification - the teaching that all humans are inherently sinful and thus the God saves them because of his graceful love and not because  they can ever redeem themselves by being perfect.

the question is quite clear. Is there a Buddhist doctrine of salvation by faith alone?

Yes and no.
No: The term “sin” does not have any special connotation in Buddhism, as it has in major theistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In all these religions, the general belief is that sins are individual actions which are contrary to the will of God or to the will of the Supreme Being. The karmic principle is based on action and consequence.
In Buddhist thinking the whole universe, men as well as gods, are subject to a reign of law. Every action, good or bad, has an inevitable and automatic effect in a long chain of causes, an effect which is independent of the will of any deity. Even though this may leave no room for the concept of 'sin' in the sense of an act of defiance against the authority of a personal god, Buddhists speak of 'sin' when referring to transgressions against the universal moral code. In addition, Buddhism has no concept of "original sin" like Christianity.
Yes: If you consider all of the above:

deities are subject to the same karmic principles as all other living beings
there is no comparable concept of sin, just action and consequence

then the principle of Pratītyasamutpāda comes very close. Commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, it is a key doctrine of Buddhist philosophy, which states that all dharmas arise in dependence upon other dharmas, i.e. that everything is interconnected and nothing can truly be separate.

It may be that you've misunderstood the Christian sola fide doctrine -- I think that at least some Christian sects would hold that relatively blameless behaviour is evidence of salvation or grace. Still, perhaps you're right -- the table in that Wikipedia article says that the (specifically) Lutheran belief is ...

Justification is separate from and occurs prior to sanctification

... implying that they're not always concurrent.
Incidentally I haven't read your quote from Luther in context -- but from what I remember of my "history of religion" class, Luther was writing in reaction to a time when the church was selling indulgences:

One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death. It was the selling of indulgences that led the Reformer Martin Luther to post his famous 95 Theses - a document challenging Roman Catholic authority in theological matters, including indulgences and many others. Luther's opposition to the selling of indulgences was not new, however. In most of the Reformation movements stress lay not upon new understandings or doctrines, but on a return to the more authentic and original excellence of tradition.
Luther, one of the main Protestant Reformers, eventually arrived at the conclusion that divine relationship and salvation come by grace through faith, not by good works, belief in dogma, or economic propitiation. One's relationship to the divine is initiated by God, and one can only participate in this relationship by remaining open to it. Therefore, Luther's theology placed him in square opposition to the Roman Catholic practice of selling indulgences.

Perhaps we could all agree or not disagree with Luther's opinion about that -- and even try to understand Luther's claim in that context.

You might want to read this topic -- What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity?

MN 125 might be ambiguous on the topic (not that the sutta is ambiguous but that I'm not sure how to apply it to your question about Lutheranism).
One the one hand it says ...

Prince Jayasena dwells in the midst of sensual pleasures, enjoying them, consumed by thoughts of them, burning with fever for them, and eagerly seeking more. It’s simply impossible for him to know or see or realize what can only be known, seen, and realized by renunciation.

... which implies they're connected (can't have faith or vision, right view, without right conduct).
On the other hand it says ...

A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone reborn in some clan. They gain faith in the Realized One, and reflect, ‘Living in a house is cramped and dirty, but the life of one gone forth is wide open. It’s not easy for someone living at home to lead the spiritual life utterly full and pure, like a polished shell. Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’
After some time they give up a large or small fortune, and a large or small family circle. They shave off hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness. And it’s only then that a noble disciple comes out into the open, for gods and humans cling to the five kinds of sensual stimulation.

... which implies one happens before the other.

So far as I know, Theravada might tend to put the two together -- I tend to associate stream-winning with faith and virtue -- for example 55.27:

When an educated noble disciple has four things, they’re not
frightened or terrified, and don’t fear what awaits them after death.
What four? Firstly, a noble disciple has experiential confidence in
the Buddha … Seeing in themselves that experiential confidence in the
Buddha, they’re not frightened or terrified, and don’t fear what
awaits them after death.
Furthermore, a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the
teaching …
Furthermore, a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the
Saṅgha …
Furthermore, a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble
ones, unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating,
praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
Seeing in themselves that ethical conduct loved by the noble ones,
they’re not frightened or terrified, and don’t fear what awaits them
after death.
When an educated noble disciple has these four things, they’re not
frightened or terrified, and don’t fear what awaits them after death.”
“Sir, Ānanda, I am not afraid. What have I to fear? For I have
experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha …
And of the training rules appropriate for laypeople taught by the
Buddha, I don’t see any that I have broken.”
“You’re fortunate, householder, so very fortunate, You have declared
the fruit of stream-entry.”

Admittedly "experiential confidence" there is aveccappasāda which is arguably more than only "faith".
Also I think I'm told that even stream-winners are still subject to some anger, conceit (e.g. associated with disputes), desires -- that seems to me a limit to their "virtue" even if they are a stream-winner.

The Śrāvaka article mentions:

The canon occasionally references the "four pairs" and "eight types" of disciples. This refers to disciples who have achieved one of the four stages of enlightenment:

Sotāpanna
Sakadāgāmin
Anāgāmin
Arahat

In regards to disciples achieving arahantship, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

In principle the entire practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is open to people from any mode of life, monastic or lay, and the Buddha confirms that many among his lay followers were accomplished in the Dhamma and had attained the first three of the four stages of awakening, up to nonreturning (anāgāmi; Theravāda commentators say that lay followers can also attain the fourth stage, arahantship, but they do so either on the verge of death or after attainment immediately seek the going forth [that is, homelessness, associated with becoming a monastic]).

For each of these stages, there is a "pair" of possible disciples: one who is on the stage's path (Pāli: magga); the other who has achieved its fruit (Pāli: phala). Thus, each stage represents a "pair" of individuals: the path traveler (Pāli: maggattha) and the fruit achiever (Pāli: phalattha). Hence, the community of disciples is said to be composed of four pairs or eight types of individuals (Pāli: cattāri purisayugāni attha purisapuggalā).

That implies there are people on the path who haven't yet attained the fruit -- perhaps they "have faith but haven't yet attained virtue and the fruit of virtue" -- which again might be compatible with the Lutheran position.

I think some Mahayana texts mention "hearers" -- people who have heard the doctrine.
And maybe "followers" -- people who follow the doctrine -- is a separate and more elevated or praise-worthy category.
So again that maybe like the Lutheran.

I find the answer to this topic insightful -- What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? -- explaining how "faith" is connected with "realisation".

Personally I think that the grossest meaning of the sola fide doctrine is that good deeds isn't enough -- i.e. that faith is necessary as well -- "faith as well" and not necessarily "faith alone" or "faith instead".
That has a parallel in Buddhist doctrine, e.g. SN 42.6 which says that good deeds -- or more especially "rites and rituals" -- can't make up for the case where ...

the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views

I think there's a similar message in the original Christian doctrine (by which I mean the Gospels) -- e.g. discouraging public prayer, praising the widow's mite, and probably more.
Buddhism has a notion of "merit" -- e.g. "making merit". You might see that as a precursor to enlightenment. Some might even see it as a wrong goal, where or because it's pursued instead of enlightenment.
I presume that a Buddhist's "meritorious" deeds (and attempting to keep the precepts is meritorious IMO) are often the result of "faith" -- and in that sense not unlike the Lutheran doctrine of salvation after justification (although, to be clear, there's doctrine saying that merit and ethics are intermediate not ultimate goals).

Incidentally I found the source of the first quoted sentence. It's from here -- Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon -- the last paragraph:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy.  If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin.  God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners.  Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world.  We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides.  We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign.  It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.  Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins?  Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

There's a lot of commentary on it on the net (e.g. here -- Did Luther really tell us to ‘love God and sin boldly’).
As I understand it the message is, "Ever man is a sinner, and it does no good to pretend otherwise. Nothing you can do makes you less of a sinner, but even a great sinner should have a strong trust in Christ and Christ's victory."
Incidentally there may be some play of words in there that I don't understand, about there being  no "justice" in this world:

We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides

... which I guess might be related to the doctrine's talking about being "justified" by faith (and possibly in the afterlife at that).
But now to answer your question, it seems to be that does have "Buddhist equivalent":

In the description of Shin that I referenced previously:

For such a person, calling Namu-Amida-Butsu is a willingness to rely on the Other-Power of Amida (on his practice of saving sentient beings)

"Namu-Amida-Butsu" is then understood entirely differently: not as something we do, not as our own practice, but as an embodiment of Amida's practice. Another way to put it, once one totally abandons the idea that it's possible to "save yourself" through enough effort, one totally relies on Other-Power and so there is nothing to practice anymore on our part. There's just an absolute passivity of "deep listening to the Dharma". One realizes [etc.]

In taking refuge -- perhaps not the ceremony of it ("doing"), but as an act of faith

In the story of Aṅgulimāla -- which implies that taking refuge in the three jewels is possible and effective even for the great sinner.

I notice that there's even something akin to "rebirth" in the Aṅgulimāla Sutta:

The Buddha said to him, “Well then, Aṅgulimāla, go to that woman and
say this:
‘Ever since I was born, sister, I don’t recall having intentionally
taken the life of a living creature. By this truth, may both you and
your baby be safe.’”
“But sir, wouldn’t that be telling a deliberate lie? For I have
intentionally killed many living creatures.”
“In that case, Aṅgulimāla, go to that woman and say this:
‘Ever since I was born in the noble birth, sister, I don’t recall
having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this
truth, may both you and your baby be safe.’”

That might be veering off-topic -- the question seemed to be more about sinning than about the afterlife, and perhaps this is even a thicket of views according to Buddhist doctrine -- but perhaps that's not unlike, anyway I find it reminiscent of, passages in the Christian Bible like Romans 6.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did Buddha know the properties and behaviour of the matter fully?
How did Buddha fully understood the world and proclaimed it without the knowledge of all experiments of science? Was his knowledge about the properties and the behavior of matter limited?
Thanks.

there is a relevant similar question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10512/detailed-definition-of-lokavidu

No, the Buddha lived in an age where things such as germs, atoms, nuclei, molecules, thermodynamics, neurology, etc. were unknown. This is largely irrelevant to Buddhism, though there are similarities in their values and approach.
Science attempts to create theories and experiments that are independent of the human range of senses and way of thinking. The best example is quantum mechanics, which is beyond both our sensory range and our intuition. Science is therefore objective and experimental in nature.
Buddhism is a path to seeing the true nature of things through the human perspective, in particular the mind. It is therefore anthropocentric and experiential. Trying to describe or analyze the path is counterproductive, it is to be esperienced.

Joshu asked Nansen: ‘What is the path?’

Nansen said: ‘Everyday life is the path’.

Joshu asked: ‘Can it be studied?’

Nansen said: ‘If you try to study, you will be far away from it’.

The question then remains, does attaining Nirvana/Kensho/Satori render a complete understanding of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, neurology, etc? The answer is no. While this attainment does give the practitioner a new (and very important) understanding about the one-ness, interconnectivity, and emptiness of all phenomena, it does not endow with knowledge equal to or beyond the body of science.
Again, this is not central or essential to Buddhism, just like it is not essential to know about thermonuclear reaction to feel the warmth of the sun on your face, or to know neurology to lift your arm. It is possible to experience Mind without understanding Mind. The (mythical) discourse between Bodhidharma and the Chinese emperor illustrates this very well:

The emperor asked: “What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths of
Buddhism?”

“Vast emptiness, no holiness,” replied Bodhidharma.

“Who stands here before me?” asked Emperor Wu.

“I do not know” said Bodhidharma.

The question “Who stands here before me?” is taken as "who are you in essence, as an enlightened person?", i.e. "what is the nature of Mind"?

"Knower of the world" does not automatically mean "knower of quantum mechanics, neurology, etc." As it says in the Kalama Sutra: "Do not believe anything merely because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage". Learning the meaning can be seen like asking "what is the path?" as quoted above. It brings you no closer to attainment, because they are just words, and words always imply a duality that only practice can eliminate. Best regards.

phi·los·o·phy
/fəˈläsəfē/
noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Buddha fully knows the fundamental nature of knowledge (mind), reality, and existence. Fundamental nature is how things are / how things work in principle, in general, fundamentally.
This includes the nature of causation, the nature of phenomena, events, and objects, their arising, morphing, and cessation, the nature of mind, and the functioning of mind.
This also includes the ontological foundations of ethics - why certain things are good and others are bad, and what actions lead to what results.
Buddha does not have to know all the trivial details like the exact octane number of the gasoline his car is fueled with, or how to install a spare tire, in order to be the Buddha.

in Buddhism, the world arises from ignorance (SN 12.44) & craving (AN 4.45) and is synonymous with "dukkha". Therefore, the Path Fruit is not "the world" but, instead, the means of being "above/beyond the world" ("lokuttara"). suttacentral.net/define/lokuttara

The Buddha was a scientist of the mind, and had achieved full knowledge (science) of the nature of mind, which encompasses (as a subset) all 'physical' appearances, perceptions, conceptions, apperceptions, etc. He was not a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, or any of the other subdivisions of modern knowledge of the qualities, characteristics, and behaviors of the appearances. He wasn't interested in those fields. He was interested in the mind, and thus, how all these modern subjects of study arise, and how our reactions/responses to them cause us suffering. Modern scientists, even those studying the brain, do not study mind. Instead, they assume mind and brain are equivalent, or at least 100% aligned, so that what can be known about the brain, and its functioning, completely defines mind. The Buddha would disagree. The video below of the Dalai Lama, a strong supporter of science, with researchers in the field of secular meditation and its benefits and dangers, succinctly presents this divide between the Buddhist understanding of mind, and modern scientists confusion about the brain. Note the Dalai Lama's repeated questioning to the researchers "What mind? What is mind?"
Modern science's understanding of Mind is limited at best.
The Mind and Life Dialogues XXIV: Latest Findings in Contemplative Neuroscience, at The Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN 2012
https://vimeo.com/69253042
If you want further clarification of this, please see my article "The Irreconcilable Divide Between Scientists and Traditional Meditation"
https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/the-irreconcilable-divide-between-scientists-and-traditional-meditation-c3ef9fa6e58f?source=friends_link&sk=71b0a7ac6a109437ae5d37776563eab4

i marked this answer down because one of the official titles of the Buddha is "Lokavidu" or "Knower of the World". See the link: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10512/detailed-definition-of-lokavidu

And you see in that label a refutation of what I said? That can only be if one understands the world to be a separately existing thing to be known apart from mind, as modern scientists see it. “Official titles” are the preoccupation of lesser minds than the Buddha.

This question, similar to some answers, is lost in materialism. About materialism, the Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand
Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language
Buddhadasa

Therefore, before I make an effort to answer this question from the Pali suttas, I recommend to read the very excellent book by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu called Two Kinds of Language. Reading this books can save from lots of headaches.

In respect to the Pali suttas:

The term "lokavidu" or "knower of the world" is a title of the Lord Buddha (which real Buddhists chant with morning & evening Pali chanting). The suttas say:

Here, bhikkhus, a Tathāgata appears in the world, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One, possessing perfect knowledge and conduct, a sublime one, a world-knower (lokavidū), an unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, a teacher of devas and humans, an enlightened one, a Lord. He teaches Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfilment and complete purity.
Iti 84

About the meaning of "lokavidu", Iti 112 provides some answers, as follows:

Bhikkhus, the world has been fully understood by the Tathāgata; the
Tathāgata is released from the world. The origin of the world has been
fully understood by the Tathāgata; the origin of the world has been
abandoned by the Tathāgata. The cessation of the world has been fully
understood by the Tathāgata; the cessation of the world has been
realized by the Tathāgata. The course leading to the cessation of the
world has been fully understood by the Tathāgata; the course leading
to the cessation of the world has been developed by the Tathāgata.
Bhikkhus, in the world with its devas, māras and brahmās, with its
recluses and brahmins, among humankind with its princes and people,
whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought and
reflected upon by the mind—that is fully understood by the Tathāgata:
therefore he is called the Tathāgata.

The terms (above) "origin of the world" & "cessation of the world" refer to the conceptual world of "beings" or "identity" (called "birth") created by ignorance & craving; as explained in SN 12.44, as follows:

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes
becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From
birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into play. This is the
origination of the world.
... And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless
cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of
clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of
becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation,
pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this
entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

That the word "birth" ("jati") refers to the conceptual creation of ideas of this & that "category" ("nikaye") of "beings" ("satta") based on the manifestation & use of their aggregates is clearly explained in SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, MN 98, MN 86 & elsewhere. For example, a set of aggregates that manifests itself by wearing a uniform, using a gun & acting to kill enemies is conceptually called a "soldier", or more often these days, "a terrorist". Or a woman that uses her womb & breasts to bear & feed children is called "a mother".
Therefore, when Iti 112 refers to "devas, māras, and brahmās, with its recluses and brahmins, among humankind with its princes and people", this refers to the categories of categorized beings based on the activities (kamma) of these various sets of five aggregates. In other words, the Buddha understands the kamma of individual life forms. This is one meaning of "knower of the world".
In addition, because all of the above "beings" are "mentally born" from their own ignorance & craving, the Buddha knows each of these beings born of self-view will suffer because of their attachment & self-view. This is another meaning of "knower of the world", namely, knowing how suffering arises & how suffering ceases. In AN 4.45, similar to SN 12.44, the word "loka" or "world" is used synonymously with the word "dukkha"("suffering").

In short, "the world" refers to that which is low, mundane & ordinary. The Dhammapada says:

Follow not the vulgar way; live not in heedlessness; hold not false views; linger not long in worldly existence.

Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Lokkavagga

Thus, a Pali word used about the higher teachings, such as the teachings about Emptiness , is "lokuttara", which means "beyond/transcending the world", as follows:

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that
are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will
lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these
teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train
yourselves.
SN 20.7

In summary, the Pali word "loka" or "world" does not necessarily refer to the physical world or physical universe, which some materialistic translators translate as "the cosmos". Yes, it is that embarrassing at times. As merely one example, in MN 79, the here-&-now meditation states called "jhana" are called "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa
)". Or, in MN 35.135, "heaven" & "hell" simply refer to agreeable & disagreeable sense experiences at the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind.

Since all of the above "worlds" are impermanent, the term "the world" also is used to refer to impermanence & decay, as follows. It follows this is another meaning of "knower of the world".

'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word
'world' apply?
"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what
disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate.
Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye
disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
SN 35.82.

To end, hopefully the above is sufficient although more can probably be written about the terms "loka" ("the world") and "lokavidu" ("knower of the world").

Thank you for your effort to write this detailed answer. I'll check the texts you've mentioned. I would like to ask one more thing about this ordinary people language: What is the meaning of eye in the ultimate sense? Buddha says ''dependent on eye and forms'', to me in this context ''eye'' seems to be used in ordinary language meaning, which is: a part of the body that enables us to see forms.

yes indeed. eye & many words are ordinary.

How did Buddha fully understood the world and proclaimed it without the knowledge of all experiments of science? Was his knowledge about the properties and the behavior of matter limited?

The Buddha spent countless lives cultivating/perfecting Sila/Samadhi/Panna and evolved into an advanced being far far ahead of us run-of-the-mills on the evolutionary scale, hence able to see the limitation of experiments and sciences. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a pretty good analogy here

an answer for beginners to buddhism here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10512/detailed-definition-of-lokavidu who have never taken refuge. Devout Buddhists who have taken refuge have chanted countless times about the Buddha's title of Knower of the World

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


text:
How can one Vijnana condition its subsequent Vijnana?
In Buddhism's Kshanabhangavada,a Vijnana perishes fully,before its subsequent Vijnana Arises.so how can it condition it?Buddhism says that a Vijnana need not be permanent to store karma or samskaras because one Vijnana skandha simply conditions another Vijnana skandha.how is this possible if there is a interval between them ?

i already answered this question.
at least the Pali suttas never say vinnana is the condition for vinnana
you appear to be learning buddhism from the wrong sources


text:
Devas: offerings and merit sharing
In Jāṇussoṇi sutta (AN 10.177) the brahmin asks the Buddha whether offers to departed relatives and family members benefit them. The Buddha says that "on the right occasion, brahmin, it can be of benefit not on a wrong occasion", and later on, he says about someone who is reborn in the deva's world that "this is a wrong occasion, when the gift is not of benefit to one living there".
At the same time, we find in suttas such as Ratana Sutta and quite a few others, references not only to devas desiring offerings, humans making offerings to them, and even sharing merits with them.
Of course, it's a fact known that the many (if not all?) traditions, specially in the Theravada countries support the practice of offerings and merit sharing with devas.
My questions then are:
a) Does any literature (eg. commentaries) deal with this seemingly conflict?
b) Are there any known explanations by elders of any tradition commenting on this sutta?

The  Jāṇussoṇi Sutta is about merit or benefit accruing to the receiver of the gift.
The Ratana Sutta is probably about merit or benefit accruing to the giver of the gift.
Is so, there appears to be no conflict.

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas.
This is because a human or god does not need the gift, which is why the gift does not accrue to them. For example, a virtuous (human) parent gains merit from giving to its children. When a child gives a gift to its parents, this gift is only a trivial or amusing thing to the parent (rather than something that changes the parent's merit). Or when a rich person (a god) is given a gift, it does not change the rich person. For example, my rich friend returned home from overseas recently and when I visited him after many years I sensed I was not really appreciated by him because he has become very important & rich. But 15 years ago when he was having relationship problems & I helped him, he appreciated me because he was a hungry ghost then, wanting a successful relationship.
Similarly, for beings trapped in hell or animal mind, a gift does not accrue to them because of their chronic state. For example, when people are chronically depressed due to a deep loss (which is 'hell'), giving a gift does not help them. Similarly, an animal, such as a sexual predator, does not respond to gifts because they do not have the disposition for loving others. For example, I know a man who is a sexual predator, who is bitter & twisted. I helped him once for many hours set up & learn to use his new computer but he is never friendly when he sees me. He hates everyone. He is incapable of gratitude because his mind is animal mind, every morning & every afternoon on the same beat looking for tourist women to have sex with.
But for a hungry ghost, a person who is lonely or searching for love, a gift accrues to them because the hungry ghost is searching for love or gifts. The hungry ghost wants to be reborn in a human relationship & they respond very positively to receiving gifts.

In the same way, a family member who has not done enough merit to be human (enlightened) or a god & is also not an animal or hell being but is separated from their family & misses their family will accrue from a gift from their family. This is what the hungry ghost is here, namely, the needy & unenlightened family member who misses their family.
Its like my mother, who I see for one or two weeks per year. My giving gifts to her does not change the enormous merit she has made as a mother. Therefore, my gifts to her are essentially worthless, apart from a token gesture to show I think about her. However, my small token gesture is important to the 'hungry ghost' element in my mother; namely, her need to know her children think about her on her birthday, mothers day, Xmas, etc. Just a small gift or phone call is enough to keep this hungry ghost element in my mother satisfied. I am not required to give an enormous gift to my mother.

The above analysis is supported by the traditional depiction of the Wheel of Life (below), where the antidote, solution or practice for each realm given by the Buddha is depicted as follows:

humane - renunciation

godly - beauty

animal - morality

hungry ghost - generosity

hell - 'the book' - the Four Noble Truths

Why asking on places where hardly anybody has right view, believes in Devas, nor is pleased to make gifts, cherishes generosity, aside of no ideas how the elders and the Sangha actually deals with it? Isn't it not merely like approaching Devas on such an account, dealing with their prison? And if meeting actually Petas here, better if making gifts, rather to ask them to give. Understand?
His asking the Petas, dedicates groß food for the Devas... but if he would sacrifices toward those on the path, seek association there, his actions would hardly fail, even if not knowing firm yet.


text:
Dependent origin operating mind
During  walking meditation it happens automatically,without any initiation.understanding of dependent  origin lead to fear of sansara. Is it the doer of the  mind cause upadana?

During walking meditation it happens automatically,without any initiation

There is an intention (Cetana) behind every movement in the walking meditation. If you look carefully it can be seen. There's e.g. an intention to lift the foot, move it, lower it, place it, etc. With practice one will begin to see intentions everywhere such as the intention to swallow, to blink, even behind a thought, there's an intention to think.
With consistent practice this part of reality will reveal itself.

Buddha did not talk about a doer. What he said was "Thanha pccaya Upadana" (craving is the cause for clinging)

What is than a?

Thanha = craving

tanha = craving. this forum is english language or, for Pali, Roman script. Make an effort to not confuse others by practising metta for readers

Experience there is a mind that operating very  speed and not worth.what is that?

Are you familiar with the seventeen though moments?

No I am not. What is that speed mind is?

The mind occurs in both passive and active modes.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#causality


text:
How to stop rejecting / avoiding things?
I'm getting aversion when someone do things that I don't like. This happens when a person do and not on natural things like rain. But It is hard to recorgnise it as aversion because that aversion is not towards a person. I just don't like certain actions that affect me (Only the things that affects me in someway). I don't want to hit someone or to hurt someone. So I always try to avoid such situations. But It is not always possible and that avoiding proccess makes suffering, makes doubts. So, How can I stop avoiding things ? How can I practise more acceptance ? How can I face anything without getting aversion?

Today I found the quote: "Acceptance is the first step to love". I think this helps me because I don't want to hurt anyone. I want to love all. Lord Buddha also said to love all. Note : This quote is not from a buddhist book.

Very good question, focused on real and useful problem.
Mind generates aversion when things go contrary to what it believes is "right". This belief is called "attachment". For example you believe that only certain weather is good and that it should be that same weather most of the time.
So the first technique is to remember this as soon as you feel aversion (basically, as soon as you feel emotionally disturbed):     "what is my attachment in this case?". Once you identify the attachment you should think: "this attachment is a cause of suffering and an obstacle to Enlightenment, I shall let it go". And then you should make effort to let go of that attachment. "I shall not be attached to what I think is good weather. I should enjoy all weather as it is."
The second technique is to turn problems into blessings by changing your perspective. Here's how. Every time you have some unpleasant experience, tell to yourself: "this is actually a blessing because it gives me chance to practice Dharma and reach Enlightenment." Thinking like this will immediately turn a negative experience into a positive, happy event. Instead of experiencing suffering your mind will be elated.
Initially, you may tend to keep forgetting these instructions. If that happens you will react automatically as you always did. That's okay, keep practicing, keep trying to remember. (This is called mindfulness.)
Eventually you will reach a point when the problems themselves will serve as automatic reminders. At which point the game is won: what was previously triggering aversion will now trigger recollection of Dharma.

Not sure whether it is a Buddhist perspective, i would like to share few things which may be of some sense to you. Please excuse my immature writing skills.
There are two streams of thoughts/ideas/concepts/feelings we are put up with in any life situation. In present case, first stream is the feeling/idea of aversion. Please don't assume i am denouncing that there is nothing called aversion.
And the second stream is the idea of avoiding it.
If you can look at both of these streams and try to see how we play this never ending game of duality like, "this is how things are !! and this is how things should be", not just intellectually, even with a minute bit of intuitiveness if you can see yourself how the game is played, you are at the shore of great ocean called freedom.
Along with the instructions from Andrei try to see what i struggled to convey !!!.
All the best in your journey!!!.

You reflect aversion is harmful to yourself & others; it causes stress to yourself & can even lead to physical disease, such as cancer. If you get angry at the other person in the wrong way or place, you can lose your job, etc, or get suspended by politically correct authorities.
You also reflect the Buddha taught the foundational element of the world is "ignorance". People do bad things due to ignorance. The Buddha said only a relative few people in the world are free from ignorance or blindness.
If the bad action is closely related to your life, family, work, etc, you should learn to calmly talk to the other person about their behavior.

The rain is cold. With too much rain we can die of exposure. Knowing a body is cold, we can shield it or take it to a dry place. The thought "I am cold" or "I am averse to cold" can be replaced with the simple thought, "there is wet. there is cold." Further thoughts can address the situation with "this is bearable" or "this should be remedied to avoid cruelty."
Aversion is unskillful in its reactiveness. The escape from aversion is skillful consideration:

SN7.2:3.1: Someone who, when abused, harassed, and attacked, abuses, harasses, and attacks in return is said to eat the food and have a reaction to it.

SN7.2:3.2: But we neither eat your food nor do we have a reaction to it.

"Come, bite your botty" sometimes help quick if telling angy children, or to "force" them looking, or need to look, into a mirror. Try it, when ever aversion arises.

This answer looks a bit low quality. Could you explain a little clearly what do you mean?


text:
Very speed mind and calm mind
With mindfulness experience  that  there is a mind operating  very speed and realized  not worth.  After little time of thinking get rid of uneasiness happens automatically .That leed to feel happiness. What was the state of mind at this stage of meditation?is it the stage where mind operates on it's own?Mindfulness  mind is very  calm  but feel like not worth attach to it even.

You told so little information which could be many state.

The lowest state of the simple meditation of a person who can't ever do sitting meditation whole day through years.
The high state of a person who can do sitting meditation whole day through years simply.

Which one your are is depending on various information that you didn't told us. Calming, happiness,  feeling like not worth attach to it, etc. are not enough information to judge your state.

How long you sit per days?
Do you have the "instead characteristics of major characteristic and minor characteristic  (PaṭibhāgaNimitta for concentration meditation; Pure 3 characteristics and pure smallest realities for insight meditations are the instead object of Nimitta and Anubyañjana)"?
Do you realize that both meditations and Buddha's teaching are the only main path for your lives from now on.
etc.

We need more information from you  to consider of what you are.

What is patigaha nimittha?see oil lamp in the middle. Sometimes disc.

There are many kinds of happiness or feelings.
The following Sutta explains all.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html


text:
Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again?
Buddhist theories all summed up to the point of Nibbana. They have reached the goal, gone there(Tathagat). They conclude holy life is lived and goal attained. Cessation of becoming(No new formation).
But, when asked, Do Tathagata exist after death? is absurd question. It is that our individuality arise and ceases. So, why the buddhist assume there is stopping of birth and death?
Tathagata is synonym for ocean, where waves are arise and passes away, which we calls individuality.
Tathagata is the root of Tree of Samsara. It's branches and leaves are species and karmic stations respectively. So, when one attain to the root, the whole tree(Samsara) appears as mere bubbles or foam, rising and falling, absolute impermanent.
So, having so, why do they preach after attaining the Root, one attain freedom form birth and death?
They are not. Because from root, a new one is formed and rolled on, in this continuous existence.
That's why, its been asked by some of recluse of higher wisdom, Do Tathagata (the one who goes to that, the one who ceases) exist after fall of body and life? Buddha answered: Silence!
I feel that doesn't stop the new creation or new forming of individual. Hence I conclude, there is no such freedom from birth again. Why?
My assumption is that, the one who arise and ceases, doesn't exist in reality! It's like dream of someone else's and dream can't be true or real. It's only the dreamer tends to be real.
Tathagata(gati of the one)literally means to merge in Brahman. The dreamer. And see this universe as mere dream. So,it appears that no new dream arise after cessation of current dream, but not so. You can control the dream but not the dreamer. The Brahman.
That's why in Indian village, Saint Chokha says, 'What a miracle! The God of god is gone mad!' He is saying about Brahman.
Also in Bhuridatta Jataka, The Arhats said the same thing. ,

how is the Jataka quote related to the question?

are you Indian? if so, what does the word "jati" ("birth") mean in India? thanks

Jati is not term for birth in fullest sense. It's a karmic station or point of karmic pool. 84 lacs of karmic station exists. The individual karmas in the life accumulated and define the Jati of the one according to deeds. Jati literally close to the word 'Species'! In fullest sense 'karmic stations of species'.

When Buddha says, 'Ayama antima Jati', he means Jati(cessation of all species) is ended and I am the Ancient. Samma samadhi is end of holy life. sam+adhi here sam =same and adhi=ancient one or which were I was before creation! Buddha here literally mean, I am the ancient, I am awake!

Upanishada also said the same thing, Thou art that. But they arranged the formula of 'neti neti' not this, not this. Neti body, neti sensation, neti feeling, neti mind, neti sanskaras, neti perception. From negation of one over other, they want to arrive the goal. But the goal is still positive one. So, the formula fails even describing what is left at the end. No one could fathoms the depth of the Ancient and Unborn. Buddha only speaks what he knows, the way and stayed away from speculation and debate of the Truth.

Jati is used as phrase in India. Yes I am from India. They used the word to describe particular species. Mankind as 'Manushya+jati', animals as 'pashu+jati'. And for all species india have word as 'Pra+jati'. Jati literally means womb of particular species, which play role in frution effect of karma and one born according to the deeds.

Upanishada is the same as buddhism

The Pali suttas define "jati" ("birth") as a "category/group of beings" ("sattanikāye") (SN 12.2).
The Pali suttas define "a being" ("satta") as "strong attachment", "a view", "a convention" (SN 23.2; SN 5.10).
A summary of the above is found in MN 98, as follows:

The distinctions among humans; vokārañca manussesu,
are spoken of by convention; samaññāya pavuccati.

The Pali suttas also define "death" ("marana") as related to a "category of beings" ("sattanikāye") (SN 12.2). For example, a "category of beings" includes, "mother", "father", "son", "daughter", etc, as follows:

Long have you experienced the death of a mother... the death of a
father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to
relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to
disease.... SN 15.3
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
gold & silver  are subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
illness... death... sorrow... defilement. MN 26

The word "marana" for "death" is not used in the Pali suttas in relation to the passing away of a Noble One because a Noble One is free from self-view or identity. Here, the word used for the passing away of a Noble One is generally "kālaṅkata" ("ending of time").
In summary, the words "birth" ("jati") & "death" ("marana") in original Buddhism refers to "self-views" or "categories of identity". An Arahant has ended "birth & death" even though they are still alive. It follows the Pali suttas say:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I
shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?
MN 140

In conclusion, Nirvana really means stopping of birth & death and it ensures that no new one will arise again because Nirvana is the stopping of "self-views" or "identity".

To summed up everything except 'That' ceases. The uncreated and unborn. The ancient. Universe is mere a reflection on That and without permanent self. No one is there who is bound and no one seeking freedom. Thats the permanent truth. Only by ignorance he felt bound and with knowledge he feels free! So, bondage and freedom is notion of Mind, nothing else. Mind is the real thief!

Great answer! Very true. When one freed from all conditions and state of mind, even death is seen as illusion. Everything dies, everything remains both are false statement. Truth lies in middle of it.

World is a magic play of the Ancient. The suffering lies in attachment to life. Ancient sages of India said, animals are naturally perfect with wisdom. How? If you show them mirror, they look away! Like they already know 'it's not me or mine'! Only human need a mirror. I feel the Humanity is blind. Human clings to life and not give it up even when death comes. Me and mine always exist.

Nirvana/Kensho/Satori is only a "goal" as long as you haven't experienced it. The experience conveys the one-ness, emptiness and interconnectivity of all phenomena. In some Buddhist schools, this is referred to as "the Great Death", as this reveals the "I" as an illusion.
But from that point onward, attainment has been achieved and is no longer the "driving goal" of practice. In Zen, for example, this is illustrated in a sequence of drawings called the "Oxherding Pictures". The first nine pictures illustrate the stages toward attainment. The tenth however, shows the practitioner:

10. Return to Society Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I
am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me,
the dead trees become alive

A good book about life after attainment is Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry".
As to whether attainment stops the cycle of birth and death, the answer depends on what you ask is being born and dying. If you ask for the "I", then attainment will show this "I" to be an illusion. If you ask it for the emptiness of all phenomena, the most honest answer is "we do not know". "I"

Thank you for beautiful picturesome quotes. The picture depict the attainment as perfect it is. My clothes are ragged and dust laden.....Ah what a marvelous phrase. He is saying my inner cloth is been coloured as that the colour of Nirvana. The original meaning of 'Chiver' or buddhist robe not of cloth but of inward attainment.  The picture also speaks in my opinion as after attainment, 'Meditator is realised himself as meditation'! 'Seer turn into seen'..What a miracle!

You attained Nibbana while you are alive not after death. The best simile I can use is the undoing a knote. Consciousness raises due to causes and conditions. When the conditions are not there, there is no consciousness.
It appears your view is similar to Brahmanism or Hinduism.

Sorry sir, i am of no religion. No 'ism' ever exist in me. Pardon me for labelling as such.

Sorry. I did not say that you are a Hindu. What I said was that the idea is more close to Hinduism than the Buddhism.

No no my fault. I supposed that way. Yes, as far as Truth is concern, I believe, it is of no Authority. Buddha in ancient times didn't convert from one faith to other or his faith. He said, follow your religion whatever it may be, but The Eightfold path is the true way. In edicts of Ashoka, it's written, one must not praise one's own religion and condemn other's. But praise the other one also for which is upright, in this way, you will foster your own religion.

Freedom from birth and death means freedom from concepts and boundaries. Especially ones like "i am this organism". When you see beyond the organisms, then how can someone die or get born?
When you see the continuous change and the interconnectedness, how can "one arise again"?
Who is "one"? Where is it?

Yes sir. You have put it right. Only one who see his individuality as mere illusion, only for him death and birth can't apply.  But for others it's there. I will put forth in example. 'If lamp flame with oil of 'I' is burning, and when it extinguished, who will know that the flame is no more?!'

Buddha said it very clearly, 'When this dependent origination dawns on the meditative Brahmana, then all doubts of the 'One who know' passes away!' The one who knows is not you nor different from you nor both nor neither. 'The one who knows' is beyond expression and limit.

Buddhist theories all summed up to the point of Nibbana. They have reached the goal, gone there(Tathagat). They conclude holy life is lived and goal attained. Cessation of becoming(No new formation).

Right.

But, when asked, Do Tathagata exist after death? is absurd question.

No, it is absurd question when the absurd person asking only.

It is that our individuality arise and ceases. So, why the buddhist assume there is stopping of birth and death?

According to Abhidhamma and DN22, birth is arising, death is ceasing.
There is no personal birth because a person is the combination of many various realities arising and ceasing relatively. It is not "nothing", but there are many realities which  we are thinking it is real person.

Tathagata is synonym for ocean, where waves are arise and passes away, which we calls individuality. Tathagata is the root of Tree of Samsara. It's branches and leaves are species and karmic stations respectively. So, when one attain to the root, the whole tree(Samsara) appears as mere bubbles or foam, rising and falling, absolute impermanent. So, having so, why do they preach after attaining the Root, one attain freedom form birth and death? They are not. Because from root, a new one is formed and rolled on, in this continuous existence. That's why, its been asked by some of recluse of higher wisdom, Do Tathagata (the one who goes to that, the one who ceases) exist after fall of body and life? Buddha answered: Silence! I feel that doesn't stop the new creation or new forming of individual. Hence I conclude, there is no such freedom from birth again. Why?
My assumption is that, the one who arise and ceases, doesn't exist in reality! It's like dream of someone else's and dream can't be true or real. It's only the dreamer tends to be real. Tathagata(gati of the one)literally means to merge in Brahman. The dreamer. And see this universe as mere dream. So,it appears that no new dream arise after cessation of current dream, but not so. You can control the dream but not the dreamer. The Brahman. That's why in Indian village, Saint Chokha says, 'What a miracle! The God of god is gone mad!' He is saying about Brahman. Also in Bhuridatta Jataka, The Arhats said the same thing.

If you learn Patthana in Abhidhamma, you will see how it work. And if you meditate like Pa-auk Tawya, you can see how hard is it to let it done.

When there is still desire for becoming (bhava-tanha) Nibbana isn't reached, the task not done and the source not uprooted, destroyed and so jati in another womb, taking on another stand, is to be expected.
Nobody would arise here, if no more will for becoming.
Looking aboit the foolish speculating answers, that popular under the secular justifing objected miss out "neither exist nor not exist" or both... still incapable to take no stand (jati).
"...With the ending of jati, birth, aging, death... the whole mass of suffering ends."
If there would be still birth, aging,... death, the task had failed. Pointless question and even more pointless answers at large. But it's by an element that beings find together, again and again... Full of pains, desires, restless, they feed each other like the dogs slander yoling and barking through the nights... "we are free of identification, wroof, wroof..."
Even a foolish baby-boy, not to speak of consuming pets, have no identification view... yet, age, suffer die...
Sure, the more confused the more one wouldn't see why having taken birth nor why one again and again ages, decays, not even being aware of suffering, still finding things to consume.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for liberation]

My dear sir, If there is no permanent self then how can be there rebirth? Due to ignorance he was perceiving as 'I' am bound! Ignorance is the root. Universe is rotating wheel from time immemorial, it's axle is the ancient. How you can break the wheel? One don't have to break the wheel, no you can't, but to be one with axle and bear as witness. You only witness it without reacting to what goes in the universe. Whether you live or die is of no consequences to you. Being one with Ancient Axel or Witness is the relieving of all doubts and suffering. Remember Axle never rotate, only the wheel!

My person does no more maintain a refrigerator, does good householder still do? Brain-mastubation isn't the way out of the wheel, so excuses aren't refuges if still turning around, seeking food for ones stand. Ehipassiko, "come, do, and then see".

My beloved, In India Kabir the Weaver(Householder) got the refuge, Ravidas the footwear maker (Householder) got it, Meera the Sole housewife got it(Householder). Many like Nanak, Tukaram, Gorakhnath, Namdev, Pipa(householders got the refuge). Colouring outward robes doesn't mean (Chiver) but the inner robe stained with dye of Love. Your words are not pleasing to the accord to the word Samana. But, still I believe, the Monk with wisdom, is even higher than householder with wisdom.

Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again?

Depending on the context, there's the Nibbana-with-residue-remaining(sa-upadisesaNibbanadhatu), where the Arahant attains while still living (the Five Aggregates still exist, hence the "residue-remaining"); And there's the Nibbana-without-residue (anupadisesaNibbanadhatu), the Final Nibbana with the Arahant's final passing away. It's the latter context that guarantees no further rebirth, as per that Arahantship's signature stock phrase being mentioned repeatedly throughout the Canon:

Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." ~~ Refs ~~

the stock phrase is not about Nibbana-without-residue. also, both types of Nibbana end "birth". as for "rebirth", the word "jati" does not mean "rebirth". based on the three errors out of three sentences in your answer, i had to mark this answer down.

@Dhammadhatu, don't put your own words into the Buddha's mouth. It's clear that the Buddha taught literal rebirths thru-out the suttas. Since you keep misrepreseting the suttas, I had to mark your answer down.

the word "jati" does not mean "rebirth".

Useless argument. The OP asked about literal rebirth and I've provided related quotes. Nothing to do with your "jati" red herring.


text:
Mindfulness with medications and difficult situations
With certain antihistamines I get very drowsy and confuse.
I seem to get clingy in these sensations and then when I’m aware of the clinginess, I try to detach the sensations. I just somehow do the opposite of detaching by forcing the detaching and hook up with mind talk.
How to keep mindfulness in these situation? And how to be mindful in difficult situations in general?
What would be the Buddhism direction  on these situation?

Antihistamines have side effects that can include drowsiness or restlessness.
Drowsiness is tough to conquer. Venerable Moggallāna struggled with that a lot even though it was not from antihistamines. Perhaps the longest sutta on drowsiness is AN7.61, which has a list of many things to try:

AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.

Discuss your medication with a doctor. Treatments very tremendously between individuals. For example, my allergies were gone after I became a vegetarian. And meditation itself helped:

MN62:5.3: “Rāhula, develop mindfulness of breathing. When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial.”

In general, whatever you experience, the Buddha's advice to Rahula may help detaching:

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.’”

I occasionally take antihistamines, and I too get extremely drowsy and muddled for up to 10 hours. I only take them before going to bed, but even the next morning I feel like I'm in slow motion and weighted down.
Given the unavoidable side effects of these medications, have you tried all alternatives? This includes environment changes, dietary changes, trying a non-drowsy allergy medication, acupuncture (I knew a Western allergy specialist MD who said studies have shown acupuncture to be effective with allergies), or an interesting treatment known as Soliman’s Auricular Allergy Treatment (SAAT), which is something my wife wants to try once we feel it's safer to travel.
If nothing else works and you absolutely have to take antihistamines, my thought would be to carefully plan your meditation and medication schedules to not conflict. I personally feel fine meditating in the first hour after taking an antihistamine. And I only take an antihistamine at night, so generally anytime in the afternoon or evening is fine for meditating as well. Hope this helps, best wishes to you.