text:
In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions?
In the trisvabhava theory, is the consummate nature inflected by past present and future conditions? Or is it always the same and independent of causal conditions?

Yes consummate nature is inflected by past present and future conditions but it is not inflected by time. Do any other mahayana object?
If something is composed of multiple parts and one of those parts is timeless and not inflected by time. Then the whole cannot be inflected by time even if it is composed of another part that is inflected by karma (including past present and future conditions).
My advice: become enlightened and try to prove whether or not you are existing in reality as we know it, or not.

It's good (though not required) if an answer is "based on" something -- perhaps a "reference" (to scripture), and/or personal "experience". A simple yes/no answer isn't very informative -- e.g. it doesn't tell the OP how to "know for themselves" whether something is true.

All conditions are impermanent. Consummate nature arises due to conditions created by conditioners. Because conditions change in future therefore consummate nature is inflected by a sense of future time when new conditions will arise and old conditions will decay.
Therefore not getting involved with sanskharas of consummateness , one should seek cessation of craving by breaking the chain of dependent origination.


text:
Are these translations of the Sutta Nipata correct?
A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas:

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:
Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.
People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.
Sutta Nipat 503:
Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….
One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.
Sutta Nipat 1059:
Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……
One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.
Sutta Nipat 1060:
Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..
I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.
Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….
One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.
Sutta Nipat 458:
Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi
I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.
Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't
  opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like
  animal sacrifice, caste system

Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

Please refer to the Introduction to the Sutta Nipata given here -  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/introduction.html

The Three Vedas were ancient religious texts that constituted the core of the brahmanical education. A person who had memorized these texts was called an attainer-of-knowledge (vedagū) or a three-knowledge person (tevijja). The Buddha adopted these terms and applied them to himself on the basis of the three knowledges he had gained on the night of his awakening: knowledge of previous births, knowledge of the passing away and re-arising of beings through the power of their actions, and knowledge of the ending of the mental effluents (āsava). He also asserted that the brahmanical use of the terms vedagū and tevijja was illegitimate, and that these words found their legitimate meaning only in a person who had mastered the same three knowledges that he had (3:9).

Also, this -

Arahants are also given the title vedagū—attainer-of-knowledge—as a way of asserting that their knowledge is superior to that of the three brahmanical Vedas (2:8, 3:4–6, 3:12, 4:9, 4:15, 5 Prologue, 5:4).

You're on this site as well? :)

Yeah, I am dissatisfied with vedAnta. I also find anattA more appealing. :)

Interesting, very curious to know about your story.
Back in 2012, I read the book What the Buddha taught just after reading a translation of the Bhagavad Gita, which I found impressive. The part when Anatta was explained really shocked me at the core. I sat in meditation and I realized suddenly, that my craving for meditative bliss was also suffering and stopped making things happen. Suddenly, my whole body was encompassed with bliss. That is how my Dhamma journey started.

The quotes may be real, but their translation is probably not.
Sanskrit (and Pali) root "ved-" stands for gnosis, knowledge, understanding. The name of Vedas comes from the same root, they are supposed to be collections of (religious) knowledge. Using this coincidence, it looks like instead of translating the words such as vedehi, vedagu etc. as e.g. having known, expert/erudite etc. - they left them untranslated and made it look as if they were referring to the Vedas.
For example in the first phrase they have quoted

...Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ...

probably means something like

...having known and having learned, thanks to encountering Dharma...

There is no way vidva and vedehi can refer to Vedas, because these are clearly verb forms, not nouns.
And so on.

As people have commented here, the Buddha used the same term prevalent at that time but gave his new interpretations. In these cases too, he was using brahmanical words setting a new bar for them from the point of view of his own Buddhist teachings. Try to check some of the recent translations done by Bhikkhu Bodhi or Thanisaro. You can also check these two excellent cites for any such issues in the future: (1)  sutta central (2) www.accesstoinsight.org.
Veda comes from the sanskrit or pali root "vid", which simply means to know or experience etc. There are many sanskrit or pali words constructed out of this root. Veda is one, which could mean "brahmanical text" but also could mean "knowledge" in general. In the case of these verses, it is more like knowledge, that is related with the fourfold paths such as stream-enterer upto arhathood.
I will give one example among the verses (mis)quoted. The translation is garbled, of course. This is often done in the "Hindu" sites to show that "Veda" is the foremost source of knowledge and there couldn't be anything in this world, including the teachings of the Buddha, which would not be related with their "almighty" Veda.

Suddhaṭṭhakasuttaṃ
798. Sayaṃ samādāya vatāni jantu,
uccāvacaṃ gacchati saññasatto;
Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ,
na uccāvacaṃ gacchati bhūripañño.

The second paada is glossed in the commentary in the following way:

vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammanti paramatthavidvā ca arahā catūhi maggañāṇavedehi catusaccadhammaṃ abhisameccāti.

It can be roughly translated as "A wise who knows the ultimate, an arahat, penitrates four noble truths by the knowledge of fourfold paths i.e., srataapatti etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom)
Although one can cultivate sati (recollection/mindfulness) through meditation & good conduct (silā), & one can learn wisdom via book knowledge as well as via direct seeing (for example rising & passing away of phenomena), how does one know (exactly) what to do/think about in every day life situations?

My teacher says it like this: You know what you're doing, why you're doing it, how you're doing it and that it's the four khanda doing it. It's short (hence as comment), but very practical and helpful.

Improving Sati-Sampajañña is actually right samadhi. When you want to improve  "every day life situations", then you do Sati-Sampajañña. this is exactly the purpose of Sati-Sampajañña: sorting thoughts and perceptions-feelings in  the casual life, when you eat, drive a car and talk to people, before being physically secluded to do the jhanas...
Sati-Sampajañña is a bridge between sila and samadhi, especially for people who already are inclined to the sila that the buddha explains. for people who behave differently than whatever the buddha calls sila, they improve their sila by training for Sati-Sampajañña, or Satipațțhāna, ie watching their speech, their thoughts, their body movements, whatever daily life involves for a lay people...
Most people cannot hold naturally sila for more than a few days, and they can prolong that by forcing themselves, but they will fail eventually.
So they have to develop the next step to fortify the first step. The people who are already well behaved as the buddha defines it, ie at the very least the ''5 precepts'', they can go directly to Sati-Sampajañña and they will fortify Sati-Sampajañña by going further than Sati-Sampajañña, ie training for the jhanas, ie samadhi.
Sati-Sampajañña is really for everybody: bikkhus and lay people, noble ones or not.
Jhana is for people who "have gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building" for a few hours or days, which will mostly be bikkhus, precisely because lay people prefer to be busy with something else.
Then the next step is to get the fruit of sati, proper intention, proper examination, proper samadhi, ie panna, ie to terminate the mixture of ''meritorious activities with the beginning of  investigation into ''reality'' '' that is the noble path, ie  Sati-Sampajañña, right samadhi and sila, in order to become an arahant, or at the very least a sotapanna.
You do that with carrying sati over samadhi, which would be called ''sati samadhi'', but that word does not exist in the suttas. Right samadhi is actually this ''sati samadhi''.
Is is like doing a recipe [for a say  an omelette] : when you cook, you have a result in mind and  you have raw food that you transform in order get the result you want

sampajanna is the raw food = vitakka, vedanna, sanna
sati sampajanna is (the beginning of) what you do with the raw food.

with sati you manipulate the raw food towards the direction of panna. Sati is a direction, a view, a goal where you want to go (and in this case the direction towards nibanna, panna, right view and so on).
Sampajanna is the raw food and you can do several things with that, just like you can  do several things with an egg. For instance, the people who invented vipassana mediation, they play with sampajanna, ie with thoughts, feelings, perceptions, but they go in another direction than sati-sampajanna (even though they love to claim otherwise), because they refuse to judge and remove bad vitakka, sanna, vedana from what they experience, they lvoe the idea fo ''doing nothing'' and just watching perceptions, thoughts and so on, then they claim that this watching will get you to see anicca, then fear of dissolution, then some fruition, then sooner or later first path....
then you have samadhi, which is a a better food than sampajanna, and it must still be cooked, ie manipulated, treated, influenced to get panna.
You can do several thing with the jhanas, typically you can just ''abide in the here and now'' to generate merit, or you try to reach nibanna.
People today always wonder how to combine vipassana with the jhanas. They also wonder how much active thinking there is in the jhanas (because they read the vitakka and vicara in first jhana, but nobody know what they mean). For instance,

some people say that there is zero thinking in any jhana
some people claim that there is only active thinking  in 1st jhana, and zero thinking in other jhanas
some people say that there is active casual thinking in 1st jhana, zero active thinking in 2 and 3 jhana, but in 4th jhana, there is active thinking again, but this time, with uppekha and sati, and this thinking is  when you do vipassana
some people claim there is active thinking in any jhana

well the answer to ''how to do vipassana in the jhana'' is precisely ''right samadhi'', because the buddha says it is with right samadhi that ''seeing things as they are'' occurs, ie the samadhi which comes from right view, right intention, sati and this right view, sati, and so on carries over to samadhi:
when you watch a tv show for several days, or read a big book, or hear a music  which stays on your mind, you start saying the words that they use in the book or the tv show. Sometimes you an even start dreaming about the book or the show. or when you start living with new people, you start to use some of the words they use (and that you never ever used before). It is exactly this that is needed to convert samadhi into panna: you must carry the sati into samadhi.
With Sati-Sampajañña you saturate your ''mind'' (mano, citta, vinnana, whatever it is which memorizes and cognizes thougths) with sati, ie you think about and ponder the dhamma all the time, and this sati must carry over into samadhi, just like when you read a book for a long time, you start dreaming about it.
And whatever thinking you have in whatever jhana you dwell, the ''mind'' (typically in the jhana, it is the citta which is more important than mano or vinnana, because it is the citta which determines the next birth and the casual jhanas are all about merits and births) will have to be influenced by sati, right view, right intention which is this stuff:

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’

and the result is:

Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

like when you give an impulsion to a boat on a water to make the boat go forward ''alone'', sati from Sati-Sampajañña must give a momentum to samadhi. If there is thinking in the jhanas, then it is good news since it gives a new chance to influence the citta in samadhi, if the sati of Sati-Sampajañña is ''forgotten''; but if there is no active thinking, then all this influence relies on Sati-Sampajañña.
it is exactly the same thing with anapanasati: the raw food is listed as ''kāyasankhāraṃ'' and ''cittasankhāraṃ'' and you have to influence them with sati, right view, whatever wisdom and little tricks are memorized, in order to be sensitive to them and calm them until the citta is in samadhi, as per tetrad 3, instead of being distracted by rupa...
And anapanasati suffers from the same situation as the samadhi above : nobody knows what ''sankhāraṃ'' means and nobody knows what it means ''to be sensitive to the sankhāras'', in order to calm them [tetrad 3] and abandon them [tetrad 4], so you have to wait for a buddha to explain all that.

I liked your answer very much. You referred to MN 118 at the end, do you believe that each of the 16 steps require upacara samadhi?

No, not exactly. I'm all for sati and silā, and while this cultivation is conducive to Samādhi, creates a beneficial environment for Samādhi, there is no direct linkage. This is why people who spend all their time following rules, regulations, and rituals have lost the art of developing Samādhi. Or why asexuals are not closer to Samādhi. Samādhi arises when it's own conditions have been met, whether it is suppression OR eradication of the fetters/defilements. Samādhi doesn't care how "good" you are, if you program your mind to shut out defilements for even a moment, Samādhi will respond in kind.  This is why Buddhism decays over time, because of a lack of direct comprehension of what Samādhi is and what it requires. The result of Samādhi - here's the important point - is energized and positive affirmation of the value of sati and silā, and rededication to it!
Wisdom is not gained from books, not even the Suttas. Wisdom arises in Samadhi, it pierces the false ignorance about identity (anatta), nature (annica), and the meaning of life (dukkha & Nirvana).
"how does one know (exactly) what to do/think about in every day life situations?" How then should we live? I would first put forth the challenge as to whether these things are true, because if so it's got vast implications and one actually must reconsider how to live.
Entirely from personal experience, but I would love to see proofs either for or against.

As the other answer explained, you start with Sila and the Right Effort:

"And what, monks, is Right Effort?

There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen.

This, monks, is called right effort."

The "Effort" component is the part where the practitioner "generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent" - or in modern terms, tries to establish the new habit (to keep doing those four things).
The part that makes this effort "Right" is the focus on "non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen", "abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen", "arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen", "maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen" - mostly in our own mind, but also in other minds too.
So we are trying to develop a habit of doing this all the time, in all situations, regardless of circumstances. Once the habit is fully established, you can't help but have Sati. Because you can't actually do those Four Things without being mindful of whatever you're doing and how it looks in terms of the four things.
It's like learning to drive. At some point your mind completely internalizes the new skill and the "non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen", "abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen", "arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen", "maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen" becomes a normal part of how you always function.
And of course, this habit of continuously managing your mind in terms of these Four Things affects the actual way you behave in everyday life situations, things you say and choices you make. This new level of awareness, that comes from the practice of The Four Right Efforts, is what's called Sati-Sampajañña.

P.S. the above may seem like a typical Pali Canon style "water" - like the many suttas saying that you should be good and not bad, and apply effort, and remember all that etc. It may seem so obvious as to be almost useless. "Come on, we get this part, we need to be good - get to the point already!"
However, the point here is that Buddha's teaching is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end". The Buddhist ethics, the Buddhist meditation, and the Buddhist Liberation are actually progression of the same principle. So it's not like Nirvana is a departure from Jhanas, or that Jhanas are a departure from The Four Right Efforts, or that the Four Right Efforts are a departure from the pancasila (Five Precepts). They are all based on the Buddha's fundamental insight into how mind works, as explained in the Four Noble Truths. Dharma is an amazing that system whose elements fit together perfectly like a puzzle!
This is why the steps of the Eightfold Path form a natural progression, with phases following one another, as one attains and masters each step.
But the principle remains the same: non-creation of causes of dukkha! - so first on the Pancasila level (steps 1-5) we don't create coarse causes of dukkha and create coarse factors of the Path; then on the Sati level (steps 6-7) we don't create subtle causes of dukkha and create subtle factors of the Path; then on the Meditation level (step 8) we don't create very subtle causes of dukkha.
The causes of dukkha are always of the same nature; they are of the nature of conflict, falsity, division, egoism, negativity, craving, aversion - on all levels they are the same issues: in external behavior, in day-to-day mind, and in meditation mind. The factors of the path are always the same factors: honesty; sobriety; understanding; perseverance; faith; positivity; being happy with very little etc. - in external behavior, in day-to-day mind, and in the meditation mind. The wisdom that develops from level to level is of the same kind: the wisdom of not-overgeneralizing, the wisdom of objectivity, the wisdom of clarity and seeing the essence, the wisdom of not getting swayed.
So in order to grow that wisdom we divide all our physical and mental actions (incl. thoughts) into two kinds: causes of dukkha, maintainers of Samsara (the nature of conflict) on one hand - and factors of the path, leading to Nirvana (the nature of peace) on the other, and this is what we practice on all levels: regular life, everyday mind, and meditation. And as we get better at this, we keep growing the factors of the path that help us to go forward, and growing the wisdom that shows us the way forward.
Which is why, in order to improve sampajanna (clear comprehension) we practice nothing else but the same principle: don't generate the causes of dukkha; generate the factors of the path.

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


text:
What did Buddha taught about space time?
It echoes in my mind that space time is not fundamental. I thought I read this in some psychics experiments, saw it in YouTube videos and/or read it in a book related to Buddhism. But I far from recall the details. I searched for space time not being fundamental on the topic of Buddhism but I am not really finding much about it.
With space time not being fundamental I mean to say that it is a construct of the mind. One can understand it is a mental construct, but still experience space time.
I am asking about the Buddhist view on space time, and the implications of that view.
I am asking because of the following experience I had. Recently I experienced some different perception during meditation. It was like my perception of the room I was sitting in vanished and there was no perception anymore of me having a body, sitting in a room. But I would not say I changed, I was still present. And I had my eyes closed all along. This experience of no longer having a body happened to me a couple of times during meditation now.
More recent I was doing a mental exercise to get the difference more clear about experience coming from sensory perception, and experience coming from the mind. I did so by focusing on my body, and then on some memory of how something felt tactically, and then switch focus back on my body, and so forth. I was switching like this continuously. Every time that I switched I mentally called out the difference (using my inner voice, so not out loud):

Experience from sensory perception

and

Experience from mental perception

At some point the distinction became more clear. At that moment it was clear to me the experience of space time arises because of a mental process.
At that moment I could solely focus on sensory perception, and the awareness of space time was gone. And I could go back as well to experience space time again. I then experienced having a body again, sitting in the car, on a parking lot in front of the office.
And I could go back again, focusing solely on sensory perception, where there was no experience anymore of me having a body.
It was like space contracted to be dimensionless and I had no awareness of my body anymore, nor the car I was sitting in. Or maybe I should say that there was nothing more but the experience of the body. The bodily awareness was different. All encompassing vs being part of something else. I am having difficulties to describe my experience. I could still think of my body and the car though, but the experience of having a body and sitting in a car stayed away. It stayed away for as long as I kept this focus on sensory perception. It was like I was withholding my mind from creating the spatial awareness or something.
I'm so curious to explore this more. Also how it relates to the self-awareness and experience of space time in dreaming (so a lucid dream).
And I am really curious if there is some perspective from Buddhism on this kind of experience.

In terms of meditation experiences involving space and time, it may be useful to read up on suttas that describe such experiences. For example in AN8.66 Liberations, we have:

Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space

However, these designations are subjective, so one has to be very careful assuming anything about one's own experiences without consultation with teachers.
For example, your experience might also be a pre-cursor to first jhana in its seclusion from bodily sensation:

It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

The Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) have many suttas that describe such meditative experiences. Study as many as you can to develop a feeling for the landscape of meditation. Don't get too caught up about attainment, however, since that would trap you in Identity View.
To understand this caution about identity view, it is useful to read MN44:

“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the cessation of identity’. What is the cessation of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”
“It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it. The Buddha said that this is the cessation of identity.”

MN44 also has critical advice on the cessation of perception (ant that includes time and space) per your question:

“But ma’am, how does someone attain the cessation of perception and feeling?”
“A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Note that since you feel that your body has disappeared, you are still perceiving and therefore not in the cessation of perception and feeling. There are many subtleties here. Read much and be very cautious about conclusions and easy answers.


text:
Fearful of Compassion
I started practising compassion meditation, and initially it worked very well. Yet, I feel more averse to it than initially, and when I meditate I sometimes experience a kind of distorted facial expression, almost as if I experienced pain. Part of my psychology-related background leads me to think this is either fear of compassion, or even repressed contents surfacing to consciousness.
1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?
2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?
3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?
Thank you

Study and listen to J.K. You will get your answer. Not that J.K. will answer your questions, but he will inspire you to think and by cross questioning yourself you will arrive at a answer which will be your answer. Not spoon feded by others. Question is whether you are interested in solving your problem or do you want a ready-made solution.

Compassion starts with self-compassion so fear seems an odd reaction. Perhaps you could have more compassion for your fear.  .  . . .

what are you thinking in this meditation? Is it about a person? And also where Buddha has adviced to practice this meditation.

1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?
2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?
3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?
Beginning with the third question, the most effective meditation to start with is that which brings up repressed or subconscious thoughts and feelings and gets rid of them. (Bodhidharma called this cleaning house.) Anything thought that makes you uncomfortable can help you to identify these negative feelings. Once you identify a negative feeling towards someone, use Lester Levenson's Release Technique to let go of it, and then change it to a feeling of love. While the Contemplation on the Four Sublime States has you begin with people you care about, I think it's better to do the opposite. Make a list of everyone you dislike, beginning with those you dislike the most. Go down the list and work on loving each person in order; don't move on until you feel only love for each. Do this daily until you feel love for everyone. Jeffery Martin calls this the Lester Levenson Love Exercise.

Brahma Vihara (Metta, Karuna, and Mudita) should be practiced in conjunction with Upekkha.
There is a near enemy and far enemy of Karuna. Generally, you should contemplate on Anicca Dukkha and Anatta. Please read the following article.https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/4_Brahma_Viharas#Near_enemies_and_Far_enemies_of_Brahma_Viharas

If we were to spread a bucket of clean water (i.e., metta) about the garden, it would bring joy to all. If we were to spread a bucket of filthy, smelly, contaminated water about the garden, we would hestitate, hold back the harm.
Or if we had resentment in our hearts towards some people, we would struggle to aim the bucket of clean water that way but not this way. We would exhaust ourselves in our stingy dispensation of clean water, struggling in resentment.
Resentment, ill-will and anger are toxic. If we hold these unwholesome things in our hearts, then we can't really invite others into our hearts without a little house-cleaning.
Consider the mildest of these, which is resentment. AN9.30 explains how to get rid of resentment.

Nine methods to get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me …’ … ‘They will do wrong to me …’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike …’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike …’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

This list of considerations is remarkable in its opposition to commonly held world views that uphold retribution as justified (e.g., witness the proliferation of revenge movies.)
Suppose we are driving with metta and someone cuts us off in traffic or honks their horn at us. At that very moment, metta tends to fly out of our hands as they clench into fists and our hearts fill with resentment. If we have any "chips on our shoulders", metta meditation is impossible. First we have to get rid of the resentment.


text:
Zazen to get an LSD effect?
In Zen the key practice is sitting meditation (Zazen or 座禅).
Is monks' experience in Zazen like the LSD effect (i.e. "ego is dead")?
Does Zazen give at least approximately some experience similar to LSD -- perhaps including, for example, "tears, laughter, and then everything becoming clear"?
Are there any scientific experiments, books, interviews with scientists about this?
I'm looking for, but can't find, any scientific information about it.

The best answers you're going to find are in James Austin's Zen and the Brain.  Austin is a neuropsychologist and long time zen practitioner and while I don't remember him explicitly comparing zen practice to psychedelics, he gives some extremely lucid, detailed accounts of the non-ordinary mental phenomenon that go on during deep states of meditation.  Specifically, he hits on a lot of those conditions of a specifically zen flavor that often coincide with states of sleep deprivation, etc.  It's a long, heavily researched, but pretty awesome read.
From personal experience, though, I can tell you that while there is some overlap between zen and psychedelics, the zen experience is much more controlled, less prone to extraneous perception, and on the whole, I'd argue much more transformative.  Remember, it's not the mental state that produces the change in personality but rather the effort, ego subjugation, and self-offering that gets you there.

Zen is very unlikely to produce LSD-like effects. It is just sitting. There isn't an object like breath or visualization to focus on, it's more like un-focusing the mind.
According to some ancient sources, some ritual substances produce effects that are called "siddhis," or in laymens' terms, psychic phenomenon. Ancient texts in yoga and Buddhism contain descriptions of states of consciouness associated with siddhis, or iddhis.
"Psychic powers arise by birth, drugs, incantations, purificatory acts or concentrated insight." - Patanjali Yoga Sutra
This web site is about Mindfulness Meditation, which like Zen practice, moves one AWAY from altered states, rather than to them. The effects of this are not "powerful" but are more permanent, if that interests you.
Siddhis: In Tibetan Buddhism it's much the same as Shaivism (not sure why Wikipedia did not list for Buddhism here):
"Shaivism
In Shaivism, siddhi are defined as "Extraordinary powers of the soul, developed through consistent meditation and often uncomfortable and grueling tapas, or awakened naturally through spiritual maturity and yogic sādhanā."
Eight primary siddhis according to Shaivism
According to some forms of Shaivism, the eight classical siddhis (Ashta Siddhi) or eight great perfections are:
Aṇimā: reducing one's body to the size of an atom
Mahimā: expanding one's body to an infinitely large size
Garimā: becoming infinitely heavy
Laghimā: becoming almost weightless
Prāpti: ability to be anywhere at will
Prākāmya: realizing whatever one desires
Īśiṭva: supremacy over nature
Vaśiṭva: control of natural forces"
Or in Pali text its called "iddhi" or "rddhi"
According to Bowker, there are eight ṛddhi powers:
Replicate and project bodily-images of oneself,
Make oneself invisible,
Pass through solid objects,
Sink into solid ground,
Walk on water,
Fly,
Touch the sun and moon with one's hand,
Ascend to the world of the god Brahmā in the highest heavens
According to the Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta (SN 51.20)
Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one.
He appears. He vanishes.
He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space.
He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water.
He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird.
With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful.
He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
In the book Great Disciples of the Buddha by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker, there are several additional powers described:
The Divine Eye (Clairvoyance)- this power allows one to see beings in other realms as well as see the future
The Divine Ear (Clairaudience)
Travel by Mind-Made Body(Astral Travel)
Travel with the Physical Body (to other realms)
Telekinesis (Supernormal Locomotion)
Flying
The power of Transformation
The ability to replicate one's body
Penetration of others' minds (Thought Reading)
Passing through solid objects
Diving in and out of the Earth as if through water
Walking on water
Touching the sun and the moon with one's fingers
Becoming invisible
Recollection of past lives (some would call this a power, some would call it true knowledge)
Even in the case of those who seek to develop these powers, it's not a matter of something temporary such as a drug. It's more like a life-long pursuit. Most Buddhist, even advanced ones, see this a a trap, only further attachment, and will try to avoid these as much as possible.

Thanks a lot, but your answer containing "non-scientific" text. I need only science.

@0-LevelUNIXMonk Hi! You asked about monks' experience when in Zazen. So most answers may come from personal experience rather than scientific papers. Most people here are practitioners, so it's probable that most answers may come from practice instead of science. Kind regards!

https://www.amazon.com/True-Path-Western-Science-Quest-ebook/dp/B001G8XGPG - this book might address some of your questions


text:
How many types of Buddhism exists in this world?
many times, I stumbled to start to dig something towards teaching of Buddha and at some point want to make focus on Buddhism. During my journey of looking bird eye of view, I passed through Vipassana, Therevada, Zen, Dalai Lama, Tibet, Nepal and Mynmar. Last read bit about Buddhism in Sri Lanka? How Arthur Schopenhauer inspired himself with Budda? Who guided him or how he came to know about terms like enlightenment.?

The world religions tree gives a bird's eye view of the development of all world religions.
https://external-preview.redd.it/e5i27HPcaGrDPApm2lyfRyn3JQlLZV_Ko6mSzmIXa7Y.jpg?auto=webp&s=305e5527d3e7f831b338c26e205840836f26edaf

During my journey of looking bird eye of view, I passed through Vipassana, Therevada, Zen, Dalai Lama, Tibet, Nepal and Mynmar.
These are different kinds of things:

Vipassana -- means "insight" ... and "Vipassana meditation" refers to forms of meditation, taught by schools, from which practice you're supposed to be able to get insight
Therevada and Zen -- these are the names of schools or traditions of Buddhism (though Zen or Zazen meaning "sitting" is also the name of a practice)
Dalai Lama -- this is the title of one of the leaders of Tibetan Buddhism (and refers to the current leader/title-holder)
Tibet, Nepal and Mynmar -- these are or were mostly-Buddhist countries (though it's reasonable to associate different countries with different schools)

How many types of Buddhism exists in this world?
People often identify three main types -- see Schools of Buddhism (Classifications) -- i.e. Theravada, *Mahayana**, and Vajrayana, with different traditions with different countries:
[
And there are branches, differences in emphasis or tradition, or of some detail of doctrine or practice, within each school.
Since the 19th century you could add Western Buddhism to the list.

Last read bit about Buddhism in Sri Lanka?
That's one of the Theravada countries.

How Arthur Schopenhauer inspired himself with Budda? Who guided him or how he came to know about terms like enlightenment?
I don't know his work at all.
Note that "enlightenment" is a Western European word, which doesn't exist in Buddhism! It's a word which Westerners use to translate various Buddhist words e.g. Bodhi, Vimutti, or Satori.
Students often find it helpful to use some of these original words -- dong that might be more precise in meaning, because other there are several English words that you might could use to translate each Buddhist word.
Wikipedia -- Arthur Schopenhauer (Buddhism) -- suggests there's not very much connection between Schopenhauer and Buddhism, i.e. that:

Schopenhauer developed his philosophy independently before he read about Buddhism
The philosophy which he developed isn't (according to other people) exactly Buddhism, though when he did begin to read about Buddhism Schopenhauer felt that it was like his own philosophy

If I recall correctly, Schopenhauer learnt about Buddhism from a eurocentric, superficial perspective, which gave him the -wrong- impression that buddhism was a pessimistic philosophy system, which made emphasis on how life is painful and full of suffering; in other words, he only used one of the multuple aspects covered by the concept of dukkha, and by doing that, he misunderstood how the Buddha understood the world.


text:
Advice for Buddhist meditation for OCD
So first I'd like to say I have permission from a therapist to ask this question, so this is not "asking for medical advice".
So I have OCD. It affects me all the time, I feel this constant stress, discomfort. Thoughts and stressors bother me a lot, and tons of things cause this emotional pain.
My therapist has suggested a long meditation is the way to do it. Sitting for several hours every day until it's dead. So this is what I'm doing and want to continue to do, but I'd like some help doing it more effectively.
So I've been studying Buddhism and meditation and very unsystematic way. I think I'm starting to understand alot of it now. But ultimatelly I dont fully understand what exactly I'm supposed to be doing/not doing in meditation. I've been doing some guided mediation on vedananupassana and so far I've been feeling better. But once again, I don't exactly know how to do it... Im supposed to look at the feelings but I dont know what im supposed to do?
If I wasnt so sick right now (fatigue, acid reflux) Id probably just study buddhism formally and just practice meditation until I start feeling better. But thats not feasible right now.
So what would your advice be for me to go about this? Are there any good online courses or something?
Also an important note: Several times now, in the midst of all this stress and discomfort all over my whole body I suddenly get these pretty short lived moments of bliss. My body glows with comfort and bliss and then after a while kind of fades out. This has happened several times now and it's pretty interesting. This is what fascinates me. What do you think is causing this? My guess is I must be doing something in those moments correctly, letting go and not resisting the pain or something
Thanks.

A lot of therapists out there are well-versed in both the mechanisms of OCD and mindfulness today, especially those working with methods like CBT, unified protocol, CFT or ACT.
Regardless whether you get the help from a clinician, or someone knowledgeable in meditation practices, i recommend proceeding with the aid from someone guiding you through the mindfulness practice initially. Until you find your own way of applying mindfulness, it can be a lot to deal with on your own.

Also an important note: Several times now, in the midst of all this stress and discomfort all over my whole body I suddenly get these pretty short lived moments of bliss. My body glows with comfort and bliss and then after a while kind of fades out. This has happened several times now and it's pretty interesting. This is what fascinates me. What do you think is causing this? My guess is I must be doing something in those moments correctly, letting go and not resisting the pain or something

Yeah, you've seem to have picked up on something important. It may be what's called sukha within buddhist meditation, a common emotion associated with the initial stages of meditation. Consider it a bread crumb trail for you to follow.

What you describe is the ideal. I think that going through like a program of personal instruction might be the best way. Thankfully as  a Tibetan I know a dozen monks lol. The only thing holding me back is my lingering illnesses. But maybe Ill consider doing it anyways... Based off of what I described what do you think I should do? Or what meditation should i practice?

Sorry to hear about your illnesses. I hesitate to give specific recommendations as the best choice probably will be the one you finally decide on. I write this since you already seem to know your alternatives, and because ultimately i believe you're the best judge for what's good for you. Whatever you decide on, i'd be happy for you if they have a good understanding of your difficulties, and a compassionate way of approaching you. Being certified in their area of expertise probably won't hurt either, haha...

I can speak from personal experience on both fronts here.  I suffer from OCD, and how I experience it is as an assault of mental images and intrusive thoughts that cause me great pain (more or less how everyone experiences it I guess).  For example, I will experience a stream of, vivid, mental pictures of me dropping my child to his death, or images of me tilting my chair back and crushing my dog’s skull.  These images are associated with the type of emotional pain that I would feel if they really happened.  I share so vividly in order to convey that I have a strong sense of how unpleasant OCD can be.
I’ve practiced mindfulness meditation with great success here.  One of the compounding problems with OCD is that it tends to gain strength the more you fight it.  Resisting, suppressing, or in any other manner attempting to “defeat” the thoughts almost always causes an increase in the severity and duration of those thoughts.
I’ve found that meditation is primarily about letting go and letting things be as they are and also letting things be as they’re not.  When I sit and practice, what will happen almost at once is that a stream of unpleasant thoughts will rush across my mind.  The immediate impulse is to respond in the same sort of way I always do in order to avoid the pain of the obsessions.  But instead, when practicing, I let the thoughts be.  There is no need to fix or change or suppress the thoughts in any way.  There’s no need to get pulled along with them either.
Then I notice that I got hooked by a thought, and I gently bring myself back to the present and let my thoughts be as they were.  Here I am - having thoughts - just thoughts and it’s okay.  And I practice letting go, and getting stuck, and letting go over and over and over again, and then, here I am.  And over time, I learn to let the thoughts be, and as I learned to let “it” be, “it” let me be.
Fundamentally the struggle against the monkey mind is the same whether you have OCD or not, but with OCD there is some trigger that gets stuck on autofire, so at it’s worst, the struggle can be much greater.
This is definitely a disorder brought about by differences in the way the brain of someone with OCD functions, but that said, no one really understands why.
My dad once said to me, “We’re all just chemical sacks.  Maybe somethings we do can bring about changes to those chemicals.”
In my experience, there has been an exponential lessening on the grip this disorder has had on my life, and much I attribute to meditation.
I know this has been anecdotal, but I hope it is of use to you.

How do I know if im responding or not? It feels like im responding. And I cant tell given that i make no progress either way

@mikeshinoda - it’s difficult to convey briefly in a post here... by way of a metaphor:  imagine you are in a river.  All these pieces of debris are floating by.  Instead of grabbing on to each one and letting it pull you along, just watch it go by.  If you notice that you’ve been holding on to a piece of driftwood and getting pulled along, then you just gently let go.  Just notice what’s passing by.  Each thought  exists in its own space and each thought is just a thought, and not ‘you’.  But that’s as much as I can do in a comment.

@mikeshinoda There may also be benefit in finding a teacher, and there are many good books on the subject.   Good luck

May I ask you what kind of intrusive thoughts run through your mind with your OCD?
Generally, Buddhism is never a bad thing & can alleviate a lot of problem, and at the same time, give you a lot of long lasting happiness, however you must expose yourself to certain stimuli in order to desensitize & to foster attitudinal change.
Meditation in & of itself won't do it because in-vivo exposure must occur. So if you have OCD which compells you to wash your hand 5 times after touching the bin for example, you must prevent the usual pattern & abstain from it as far as possible & do not seek any safety seeking maneuvers if possible.
Otherwise, use the principle "Challenging, but not overwhelming".
Patient endurance (khanti) is for OCD effective to circumvent a lot of those intrusive thoughts, but also equanimity, perhaps in day-to-day language called acceptance & willingness (?)

So the discomfort is in vivo because its happening all the time, as i write this. Its just like long term damage ive accumulated from perfectionism and panic disorder.
Its just an exaggerated form of what everyone has. Lots of little every day thoughts we get, annoying sounds, things i have to do just cause a lot of stress. So I am exposed to it all the time

So the OCD does not revolve around a specific theme?

I do have specific other themes of germs and such. But primarily what I experience day to day is this just severe stress. Even as I write this im stressing out over how Im writing it and if you'll understand etc. Im being more mindful of this now however :D

Almost all psychological problems are created because of rigid SHOULD & MUSTS (& their negatives). For example "I MUST APPEAR OUTSTANDINGLY WELL". If this rigid rule gets violated then three other extreme evaluations may take place, namely, (i) 'awfulizing': The event which will occur or occured is 100% bad & the end of the world;(ii) low frustration tolerance: You basically tell yourself you will disintegrate if the rule gets violated; (iii) Self/Other & World Devaluation: You give a global rating to you, or others, and/or world, but neglect their inherent fallibility & complexity

So it might be first important to identify your rigid rule and then guess which of the three last extreme evaluations you hold ('awfulizing', 'low frustration tolerance' and/or self/other/world devaluation) It might be the case that you hold all three derivatives that stem from the rigid MUST. Question these attitudes by their empirical nature (Is this really true? Where is this written that I absolutely Must?) , logical (does it logically follow that just because I STRONGLY WANT TO, DO I THEREFORE MUST?) & finally pragmatical question: Will this rigid rule help me in the long run?

What you are describing is right. For me I think alot of it is low level aversions and stuff that i dont notice. So I think ive identified these rigid rules but i dont know how to apply meditation fully yet

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Meditation can be done by most of the people-the reason it is not happening because they are not interested to it. So it is true that for some people dealing with thoughts, emotions and feelings is harder than others I don't think that it is a useful thing to judge yourself and say that "I have this disorder", "this is my sickness" etc.
I think that it is true to say that meditation can't be done by psychopaths, sociopaths or by the people who have serious narcissistic personality disorder and with illnesses like schizophrenia,or maybe mythomania etc.. but most people can go for it. Meditation is hard for everyone, and almost everyone is in the edge of the illnesses that I mentioned above(they are just don't aware of it or can't accept it) Also having serious emotional problems can be a fuel for a person to put more effort in meditation and s/he can potentially realize Nibbana in a very short period of time.
But whatever meditation you're doing it is important to expand it all the day, which means you're doing it all day long. Maybe in the beginning you would do it less but gradually-and even after few days or weeks-you can expand it and can do it all day long.
Mindfulness have the power to cure all kinds of mental sickness and can lead a person to permanent freedom from suffering. But is important to know that the habitual patterns of a person lasts for a long time, and solving the mental problems completely happens with two steps. First, you recognize and partially clear your mind from these patterns and then you start to clean it from the subconscious mind which leads to permanent freedom from these patterns and mind states. So the people who have these hard mental ilnesses must be patient and mustn't seek immediate results. But becoming completely free from these mind states and even going further is certainly possible with mindfulness.

Interesting. So where would be a good place to start on instruction? I follow Bhikku Syar Myats videos on YT where he does guided meditations for example


text:
Where is recorded that the Buddha said this (perhaps about microorganisms)?
I wish to verify the reference of events claimed by Bhante Vimalaramsi:

Buddha said there are 80 different kinds of beings in your body that are dying everyday;
Also, a certain Arahant with psychic ability saw death of living beings in ground, water, and air, so he stood in one spot, stopped drinking water, and started holding his breath, so Buddha replied the purpose of attaining Arahantship is so that we could get off the Wheel of Samsara and not have these kinds of problem again.

See the video at https://youtu.be/TSwtv7VqMh0?t=101 .

Do you guys have any idea of the source? Was this recorded in any of the suttas or vinaya, or simply a late commentary, abhidhamma, or modern scholarship, etc.?
The closest account I had came across is controversy of Cakkhupala stepping on ants during walking meditation (https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001), and Vinaya rules on filtering water before using (which is more likely referring to water-borne insects, rather than microorganisms).

1.
I found the closest source for the first question on 80 kinds of beings in our body:

§44
  Firstly, it is shared by the eighty families of worms (parasites).
  There too, creatures live in dependence on the outer skin, on the
  inner skin, on the flesh, on the sinews, on the bones, on the marrow,
  feeding on these things. And there they are born, grow old and die,
  evacuate and make water; and the body is their maternity home, their
  hospital, their charnel ground, their privy and their urinal.

— The Path of Purification, Chapter VII, 25
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel271.html
2.
Yet for the second one, still not sure where did Bhante Vimalaramsi quoted it from?

Read sections [5] [6] [7] & [9] in MN 119 about the various types of psychic powers.
As for claims made by Bhante Vimalaramsi on 80 kinds of beings in our body, I cannot answer this question.
As for an Arahant almost commit suicide out of compassion to refrain from harming "small living beings" (maybe either insects or microorganisms), this does not sound Buddhist.
As for the account of Cakkhupala stepping on ants during walking meditation, this is merely a Dhammapada Commentary composed probably hundreds of years after the Buddha.

For those interested in the principles of proper source evaluation, the primary source should ideally be asked about a quote or a reference first.
Seeing as Bhante Vimalaramsi is alive and breathing he is most suitable to substantiate/refute the claims you quote.


text:
What's the shortest path to eradicate Mana (self-view)?
Having come across someones attraction to the answer, it might be a good question into your community here: So how does the shortest path to liberation looks like? How to abound the five aggregates for a no more take on?
(note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or binding entertainment, but for your possibility to lay down the burden)

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

The shortest path and the "path" is not seperate from eachother really. The path to liberation is about practising mindfulness all the time with effort. Without that, it is really a questionable thing that a person can reach the goal at all.(Although reaching the goal isn't about desires because mindfulness leads people to really..nothing, but the desire for the goal can be fuel of the practise)
Maybe we can talk about the longest path, which is doing temporary, ritual-like practise most of the life and then discovering the true way to liberation which Buddha described here:
https://www.yourselfquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/buddha-inspirational-quotes.jpg

There is really only one path. Ekayāna. It's the same for everyone, female and male, laity, and cloistered. And there really is not a systematic approach. Systematizing it is just for the convenience of the learner. The highest Wisdom is not found gradually. The innate disposition of the mind is precisely liberation, emptiness, no mind. In this one "sees" that Liberation is always there. We are never separate from it. Then when we turn to look at the aggregates, we see that everything is just that: 5 aggregates. Who is it that sees them? That is, which cannot be seen or known. It's like pointing a finger at the moon. Don't bother studying the finger.

Without a Buddha to give you a customized teaching based on your personality and kammic past, your best option is to follow The Noble Eightfold Path as laid out in the suttas. I emphasize the suttas because we know or assume the Buddha was Enlightened, so we know he gave correct directions. When you learn from a modern teacher, they might be Enlightened or they might not. Most people don't have the wisdom to accurately tell who is and isn't Enlightened. So studying from the Buddha/suttas, is the most consistent choice.
The suttas are a series of instructions. You train and practice. Do the verbs. If the directions seem too abstract, go to a different sutta that has directions you understand. You can come back to the abstract sutta in a few months or a year and it might make more sense.
Sutta means thread and there is no one sutta that contains the entire directions. You get many threads and weave them together to form a tapestry.
My recommendation is to start with In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It's an anthology and gives an overview. Then read the suttas directly yourself. There's no order you need to read them in. My suggestion is to start with the Middle Length Discourses, but start wherever you want. https://suttacentral.net/ has all the suttas available for free. When you're researching a specific topic you can use the search engine https://find.dhamma.gift/

A short path is to develop at least a sufficient amount of concentration that prevents too many spelling errors when asking a question.
The shortest path is to view all external sense objects as "elements" ("dhatu"). In other words, to view there are no "beings" externally. SN 5.10 says Mara has the false view of "beings" ("satta").
Ajahn Buddhadasa answered this question directly for "elements" ("dhatu") or ("aggregates") "kaya" intelligent enough to be "university students":

13) Now I am going to talk about the Path. Suppose you are asked,
“Which way of practice constitutes walking the ordinary path and which
  the shortest and quickest path?”
The Buddha has taught a short cut as well. He said that when we do not
  grasp at the six sense organs (āyatanas) and the things associated
  with them as being self-entities, then the Noble Eightfold Path will
  simultaneously arise of its own accord in all of its eight aspects.
  This is a most important and fundamental principle of Dhamma.
Buddha Dhamma For University Students

Puthujjana obsessed with ideas of saving "beings" are on the longest path called "Mahayana".

Besides of preventing the idea of solid entities, what other benefits does reflection on the elements provide? Was it also taught to dampen craving?

Self-view is acceptable normal . The good god is giving us the view acceptance and normal. To cry as over to the freedom paradise means to forget the acceptance of me and mine, thus form is illusion, form of me and them as substantial. Now gone to that we are here in oblivion. The ultimate state of Buddha-believe? Or perhaps if goi g further the non-oblivious surrendering to all the useless periphery s


text:
Forgoing Enlightenment
On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

It's a dangerous question, because it invites potential arguments between supporters of particular sects, but I will try to answer in good faith anyway.
The goal of Buddhism is attainment of Nirvana. For simplicity, let's characterize Nirvana as "unconditional peace". As per the Noble Truth such unconditional peace is only possible when there is absolutely no craving. Now, what is craving? Craving is an obsessive desire for something other than what is present here and now. The absence of craving then is 100% satisfaction in the here and now. Such satisfaction can only be unconditional if craving is absent regardless of circumstances. In other words, unconditional peace is the absence of craving for the circumstances to be different than they are now.
Achieving this level of absence of craving and thus mastering the unconditional Peace is the culmination of the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, if someone has attained this Peace, would they have an inner reason to stay away from society? If we think logically, the answer must be a firm and resounding "no!". For one, because in the absence of craving there can't be aversion to society. Second, unconditional peace is, by definition, imperturbable. Finally, staying in society creates possibilities for teaching Dharma, which helps reduce global level of suffering†, something a true self-less Buddhist would be happy to facilitate.
So, as it turns out, an already Enlightened mind would absolutely choose to stay in society to keep helping others.
Now, if an Enlightened mind (~"a Buddha") would lead such lifestyle, why wouldn't we, his students, model after our teacher and lead the same lifestyle even now, before we are fully enlightened? Especially if working on our own Enlightenment, it turns out, is not in conflict with "staying behind"! In fact, upon a closer examination, dropping our aversion to society and our craving for a trascendental escape, is exactly the kind of "letting go" that is required for attaining the unconditional peace of no-craving.
So if we can drop our aversion to society, accept everything in its imperfection, and help other sentient beings reduce the level of dukkha, by abandoning craving - turns out we are de-facto living the state of Buddha that we have supposedly forgone! But if we abandon society and work on our own Liberation, it turns out we in fact are acting out of our selfish aversion and selfish craving! So the path of a Bodhisattva is logically consistent with Dharma while the path of an arahant hides a logical contradiction. Or perhaps the path of an arahant may be a valid provisional training, but at the advanced stages if one were to truly abandon craving, the switch over to Mahayana would happen anyway.
And this is roughly the line of reasoning that led to emergence of Mahayana's ideal of Bodhisattva. I may have made some minor mistakes in connecting the chain of ideas, but the overall argument is more or less valid, I think.
I can't speak for edge cases though. There's obviously a possibility that someone would use this logic to cover up their laziness and complacency. They may even have false views regarding the self, and engage in dukkha-creating activities such as stealing. This is not out of question. But this does not negate the core idea of Mahayana, which is based on the valid understanding of The Goal, The Second and Third Noble Truths, and their real-life implications.

__
†note how this says "global level of suffering" without mentioning any "sentient beings" - although suffering (dukkha) is, of course, a subjective phenomenon.
P.S.
As for the Right Intent (defined as intent directed away from Three Poisons and toward dispassion) and Right Effort (defined as effort to stop mindstates conducive to dukkha, and cultivate those conducive to Enlightenment & Peace) - I don't think they are in any conflict with the Bodhisattva's vow. You can perfectly practice both while living in society, and the subject of your practice doesn't even have to be limited to yourself. You can perfectly cultivate dispassion and wholesome mindstates in everyone, without artificially separating other people from yourself.

Is the premise of the OP true -- i.e. that "choosing to be a bodhisattva" implies "a person chooses to forgo enlightenment" and "intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened"?

In one sense, yes - in another sense, no. As I showed above, forgoing (a craving for) nirvana is in fact an act of cessation that serves as a factor of the path. As for the efforts and srivings... It depends what exactly we're talking about. Maybe OP had something specific in mind, some real-life case, but I don't know.

I imagined that forgoing the view that there's an "individual" to be involved in "individual liberation" might be an act of cessation too. But the idea of someone's saying "I could be enlightened but I won't be" -- like "I could study and pass the exam, graduate and leave school, but I won't, I'll stay behind to help the other students" -- sounds like a caricature or a (very) common misconception, or isn't it? And maybe an outsider's view of what the choice is.

Yeah, I think it's a typical case of not-enough-understanding turning into a caricature image. Another example of what I call "reification" (grasping at an invalid generalization out of partial knowledge). Correct about the "individual", too.

Is there something in the bodhisattva vow, or something like that, which suggests that aspirants intentionally try to forgo enlightenment? Is it only an implied choice, or an explicit one -- e.g. implied in that it (e.g. helping beings in the future) is) logically contradictory to the doctrine that enlightenment will stop future rebirth, and so whatever extent "bodhisattva" is associated with "rebirth", it's incompatible with that doctrine of enlightenment?

The traditional vow does not mention forgoing enlightenment or nirvana, it just says "sentient beings are numberless - we vow to save them" etc. It even says "the Buddha's way is incomparable, we vow to attain it". So, not forgoing explicitly, no. But I think in some other early Mahayana texts if I remember correctly there is an explicit assertion. Ahh, interesting, I see what you're saying. No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that attaining the no-rebirth would make one useless to others. Moreover, I think Mahayana sees arahantship more like temporary hiding than the final attainment...

... As for the Buddha and those who attained full Enlightenment, the official position I heard Tibetan lamas expressing is that these enlightened folks are "present in another way" and still helping, even if not incarnating in an individual way. (In my own interpretation, these are folksy references to the continuity of information, which is the actual ontological layer underneath the "entity-centric" perception that gives rise to both the naive materialistic notion that we are our bodies as well as the naive religious notion of reincarnation.)

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my question. What I am really asking concerns 2 of the 8 elements of the Noble 8fold Path; that is, right intention and right striving. I am referring to versions of the Bodhisattva vow (because I have many different descriptions of it) that specifically state that someone is forgoing enlightenment so they can work for the benefit of others. Does such a vow violate those 2 elements of the path (create wrong intention and wrong effort/striving) in that individual?

Enlightenment (bodhi) was never said to be the goal in "early Buddhism", there it was called liberation or nibbana. Enlightenment is a quintessentially Mahayanistic concept, attaining a full-blown Buddhahood. So Bodhisattvas forgo"entering Nirvana" (=the isolated peace of an arahant), not "attainment of Enlightenment" (=the knowledge of all modes & non-abiding Nirvana). Which means you still keep on working, just not for your own personal quiet peace anymore. You go "to the marketplace" and there keep working on the enlightenment, by dealing with everything and helping others, that's the idea.

In Theravada, stream-enterers, once-returners & non-returners have eradicated the view the five aggregates are a real self. However, they may have the ridiculous impossible aspiration to save others. While the Pali suttas say it is not possible to save all sentient beings, the Pali suttas also refer to "rebirth by aspiration" (MN 120). While the meaning of MN 120 may not be absolutely clear, it provides some doctrinal support that a Mahayana Bodhisattva can choose their future course.

Within the Hindu context of the Buddha's teaching it was common to worship Gods and intend to live with those gods after death. MN120 addresses that type of intention, I believe. My question involves someone also resolving on something other than complete destruction of the taints: continued efforts to help others and improve the world. Does such a choice fall under Wrong Intention & Wrong Effort/Striving?

My question involves someone also resolving on something other than complete destruction of the taints: continued efforts to help others and improve the world. Does such a choice fall under Wrong Intention & Wrong Effort/Striving?
I think that Mahayana doctrine is that there are two or three types of "obscuration" ...

Obscuration of disturbing emotions. The emotions of the five poisons: anger, desire, stupidity, pride and envy

Obscuration of habitual tendencies

Obscuration of conceptual knowledge. The subtle obscuration of holding on to the concepts of subject, object and action.
The final obscuration of dualistic knowledge preventing the full attainment of buddhahood.

... or four types if you add karmic obscurations.
And I think that the first two of the above are what you called "the taints".
Anyway I think that the Theravada doctrine is that the Buddha is or was an arahant but -- more than that -- also able to teach.
So I assume that someone who would aspire to be a bodhisattva isn't doing that "instead of" the destruction of the taints -- i.e. that they're motivated/intending to destroy the taints, and (as well as, not instead of) the karmic and cognitive obscurations.
And -- as outlined in these comments -- that it's not about "forgoing enlightenment".

My question only refers to those who choose to "forgo enlightenment or nirvana" so that they can "help others." Is that a choice the Buddha supported?

I think your question was about the bodhisattva vow, and that the question misunderstands or misrepresents what that vow is -- i.e. I think that it isn't a vow to forgo enlightenment. I realise it's a popular belief (that it's a vow to forgo enlightenment) but I think it's a misbelief.

So you are saying that one who chooses to forgo enlightenment for any reason is not supported within the Buddha's dispensation? That's what I'm asking. I know that the original formulations of the Bodhisattva vow in no way involves such a choice to postpone one's personal enlightenment but I know many people personally who practice this vow in the way I'm describing: choosing to work for the betterment of others instead of putting all their energy into gaining their own personal enlightenment.

A problem with labels like “is a buddhist” or “is not a buddhist” is that it can mean different things to different people. All you’re quantifying is how accurately a specific word pertains to the “being” of a Buddhist. If they are mostly Buddhist, then they are mostly Buddhist.
My problem with religion is that people take them too literally. First of all, knowledge and truth is a physical construct, and life is rather irrational if you think about it. Logically, it is illogical, but why would there be no purpose? I think life is an irrational gift, and that we should all respect the garden we’re grown it! Whether or not you are technically a Buddhist is irrelevant :)

Buddhism is grounded in the Teachings of a single man. What conforms to those Teachings is Buddhism and what does not, is not. I understand that many spiritual seekers today are not concerned with this but this forum assumes that there are some that do.

@KilayaCiriello I agree, just saying labels are human and physically comprehendible, and that basing spiritualism on reason seems flawed, from a logical standpoint.

Your questions, householder Kilaya Ciriello, seem to be very serious to get a release from doubt, so my person tries to answer them for this purpose:
On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist?
Taken the modern word "Buddhist" as Upasaka, lay follower, one can be considered as such if having gone for refuge to the Tripple Gems:

from the Mahanama Sutta
"Venerable sir, in what way is one a lay follower?"[1]
"Mahanama, inasmuch as one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone to the Dhamma for refuge, has gone to the Sangha for refuge; in that way, Mahanama, one is a lay follower."

It's necessary to note that the refuge does not require the desire to gain Arahathood, but can be for a good wandering on in Samsara, birth, aging, sickness and death, as well. No such needed to "be" a Upasaka.
(Worthy to note that actually less western, modern, those far away from Sangha, ever really having taken refuge, yet subsisting on something they assume as such.)
If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected?
There is no such base, but independent, say one has taken refuge, yet holds wrong views but does not "renounce" the refuge, one is still considered as follower as long as one, having taken the Dhamma as refuge, aware of it, not actually renounces in doing on knowingly. By rejecting deliberatly the Dhamma, one can hardly be expected as follower. One who merely sticks in wrong views would be, as an action by the community (spoken here form the monks, which has been given tools for such), suspended, send away, yet still part, still member (just in short mentioned as example)
Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others?
The same here like before. One, as a layperson, would simply be recognized as a "unvirtouse" Upasaka. As one who has left home under the tripple Gems, certain actions could lead one to be expelled from the community, even to an amount of no more able to rejoin. Note that householders, following, are not really considered as carrier and so do not underlie certain "justice", considered as being not that harmful for the religion as homeless, monks, could.
I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit.
"bodhisattvas", at large, can seldom be considered as refugees, seldom have gone for refuge. Do seldom anything the Buddha adviced, are seldom after such.
Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?
Bodhisattas, by it's nature, would fall out of their aspiration if having heard the good Dhamma, gained right view, wisdom. There can be no encouragement for such aspirations outside the heritage walking, be found, yet, as told at the beginning, if one is not really aware of ones wrong view, such a person can still be considered as "Buddhist", known as one holding on wrong views, if actually having gone to the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma, his Sangha, for refuge.
Some further food for thoughts on "Can a Bodhisattva be considered as 'Buddhist'", here, incl space for discussion: Is it possible that a Bodhisttva is a member of the Sangha?
More on what is called a Dhammika (Buddist by heart and deeds): Dhammika Sutta: Dhammika.
It's, how ever, possible good to note, that the Buddha did not expect all his follower to walk the most staight way. One after a good life here, a life dedicated merely to the world, the doing of merits, the increasing od Paramis, perfections... all this does not necessary, rather less, contradict the refuge and what is praised by the wise. So there is in now way something to blame on generosity, help... in harmless ways and in accordiance and following actually the Buddhas advices, of the Dhamma. It's btw. posible the best access to the path n t's whole to go after the aspiration seeking to help all beings an get on the way thing good and better understood, foremost the 1st Noble Truth, suffering and soon it's cause.
Sadhu for your ways, as displayed in your persons introductions, btw. and may they soon lead householder gain paths fruits and highest liberation.
(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange and entertainments, holding one in this wheel, but as a means for release from it)


text:
Samatha vs Vipassana. What are the mechanics?
So correct me if im wrong samatha and vipassna are the goals of all forms of meditation. Anapanasati can be either for the goal of samatha or vipassana (or both). Vipassana is very cognitive, contemplative, and samatha is often the exact opposite, one pointed focus?
Im curious how it works. How does it connect to doctrines of tanha and clinging? Is the samatha concentration lead to deep state of non-reactivity? Like this is how it leads to tremendous results (samatha anapanasati is the meditation used in psychotherapy as just pure stress reduction) . But despite it's results it's not sufficient for the Buddhist path because serious stages of enlightenment require real understanding and insight.
And vipassana on the other hand from what i understand is for insight. it doesnt mean tranqulity and mental strenght cant come from it, in fact the true peace and strength does come from understanding eventually, but thats not the point. vipassana on death is generally not that happy go lucky an experience...
So while insufficent samatha is a good powerful tool for overcoming barriers? If someone is consumed by hatred or anger or anxiety or impatience and they are too frenzied to really practice so it would be good to tranquilize them first? If I'm dealing with a lot of stress samatha would be the place to go?
Tell me if everything I've described is correct. :) thanks

What you say is well researched, that's the traditional view. There are some other sutras to look at in addition:
Ekottara Agama 17.1
https://web.archive.org/web/20110811122049/http://sites.google.com/site/ekottara/eaxv
Satipatthana Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 10
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta, Digha Nikaya 22
https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato
While it is possible to enter into samadhi by using samatha technique, it is said to not have liberating power. But one would have to be fully ignorant of the Dharmna teachings to fulfill such conditions, and it's probably unlikely. Vipassana is centered in the practice of investigation and arousing Wisdom, but each teacher seems to have slightly different idea what it is. Be patient in researching this. I think samatha acts as an anchor, and deep investigation into "reality" requires such calm and tranquility, so develop calm and tranquility, then go to Wisdom and Insight. I'm not of the opinion that this is anything but one practice ideally. Called by many names: Samadhi/Prajna. Calm/Insight. Tranquillity/Wisdom. Stopping/Seeing. Silence/Illumination. Emptiness/Fullness. Tiantai Master Zhiyi likens the pair as two wheels of a cart. You can indeed work with one wheel at a time (either samatha, or vipassana) but if you are planning to use the cart to get to Liberation (or just results) you need to use the whole cart.
Contemplation of death is never a bad idea, that is, if you are ready for it. Since we all invariably die.
And yes, calmness might be the first goal in starting this samatha/vipasanna practice.

Thanks for the response! So the danger with pure samatha is it could lead to something like a Deva state. Strength, calmness but with no insight. Samatha should be an instrument to practicing greater insight but can also be used as a first aid against stress and anger in daily life?

Dhyana practice that leads to Samadhi also leads to Sunyata, and directly to Anatta.

Vipassana (insight) is direct clear seeing thus does not requiring any thinking. Therefore vipassana it is not antagonistic to samatha (tranquility).
Both samatha & vipassana are natural results of the silent collected stable mind called "samadhi".
To answer the question: "how do I practice vipassana and how do practice samatha?", suttas such MN 149 say samatha & vipassana are products of developing/practising the noble eightfold, as follows:

Thus for him, having thus developed [practised] the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquility (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
MN 149

In short, the main meditative practice of the Noble Eightfold is abandoning craving or letting go. Thus the Right Mindfulness factor instructs:

A bhikkhu abides contemplating (observing)...ardent, fully
comprehending and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for
the world.

"Samatha" ("tranquility") is not "one-pointed focus" ("samadhi") nor is genuine "one-pointedness" ("ekaggata") an obstacle to vipassana. Its appears the questioner is reading the common non-sutta ideas of modern gurus.

In what sense do you mean by it not being one pointed? What I mean is that in the moment of meditation you are focusing on the breath completely (breath for anapanasati.)

In the west, & in various Buddhist traditions,  there is generally made a distinction between Vipassana & Samatha, but genuine vipassana cannot occur without tranquility. For example, vedanupassana does not focus on ordinary emotions & feelings, but has piti & sukha (ecstasy & well-being) as its object of meditation. If the mind is in samadhi, impermanence, non self & unsatisfactoriness is seen clearly. By seeing those 3 clearly, disentchantment & letting go of negativity occurs, as described in Dhammanupassana. The 4 satipatthanas are not chosen freely, instead, they happen sequentially.

So if im very stressed out and anxious in daily life I should practice samatha and attain a calm and strong mind that I can begin my investigation with?

IMO samatha and vipassana are two sides of the same coin. Calm and clarity as qualities of mind.
In terms of method, I would distinguish between absorption and observation. Practically speaking it involves a broadening of attention, from a single object to multiple objects, thereby seeing the conditionality of experience.


text:
Do I get more merits if I give more?
Do I get more merits if I give more? What is considered a reasonable donation?
Please give some examples.

The very intention of making merit is bound in craving & thus in egoism. Please refer to AN 7.49 how to give properly.

Is that the popular view in Theravada societies?

I would suppose that the popular view of 'Theravada societies' is that of a worldly one, namely, rebirth & kamma. If the thought 'I get more merits if I get more' appears & acted out, then that is a form of attachment.

People who claim to only want to be reborn in nice realms love their idea that they can get there by dana hoping they can avoid samadhi, The problem with dana is mostly that the result of dana depends of the cetana of the giver (that's a well known claim by the buddha https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/sujato) but also on how well behaved is the receiver of the gift
https://suttacentral.net/an7.47/en/sujato and https://suttacentral.net/an7.96-614/en/sujato and in fact, the receiver approaches first the well behaved giver https://suttacentral.net/an7.57/en/sujato
. And of course, when there is nobody to receive the gift, there cannot be a dana in the first place....
So typically giving stuff to noble ones work well, but giving stuff puthujjanas and animals is not ''of great fruit'', even with the proper cetana.

"And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.
"And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.
"And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.
"Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors.
"And it is not easy to take the measure of the merit of a donation
  thus endowed with six factors as 'just this much a bonanza of merit, a
  bonanza of what is skillful — a nutriment of bliss, heavenly,
  resulting in bliss, leading to heaven — that leads to what is
  desirable, pleasing, charming, beneficial, pleasant.' It is simply
  reckoned as a great mass of merit, incalculable, immeasurable. [1]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html
The best activity to generate merit is really samadhi, and the people who prefer dana to non-arya over samadhi fail to understand that  their choice does not give efficient result. It is like wanting to build a huge pyramid and those people built this with grain of sand after grain sand, instead of laying down huge bricks after huge bricks and actually building the pyramid quickly and with efficacy.
Dana to non-nobles works, but not as efficient as those people love to think and they better have good sila outside of dana in order to make it work....
When there is no buddha, no arya sangha to give stuff to, there is still the citta to control and this activity is always meritorious, so people who want to be reborn in nice realm better be skilled in the jhanas.

You talk as if Samadhi (or Jhana)  is entered by everyone effortlessly, when it's not. Sila & Dana is the foundation for Samadhi & talking about Jhana for lay-people is unrealistic, unless the person in question practises for a long time already with a diligent meditation schedule

Giving more requires greater Alobha(detachment). So yes, it is more meritorious. But make sure there's wisdom involved in the act.
Ex: if you give a cart full of food to just one monk who doesn't have anyone else to share it with, the food is just going to waste. In that case your ignorance can diminish the quality of the merits gained.

The answer to this is found in AN 7.52 (quoted below). It's not about how much you give, rather, it's the intention with which you give it. This is unsurprising, because kamma is mainly about intention.
The highest reward comes by giving a gift only because it supports and adorns the mind. In this answer, I've analyzed that this means that any kind of reward is not expected for giving, instead one gives because it makes the mind virtuous. The purpose of virtue is in AN 10.1.
The second best reward comes by giving a gift only because it makes the mind serene and joyful.
The lowest reward comes by giving a gift because a reward in the form of future enjoyment or future pleasures is expected.

“Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his
  own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up
  for himself [with the thought], ‘I’ll enjoy this after death.’ He
  gives his gift—food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, &
  ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp—to a brahman or a contemplative.
  What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as
  this?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Having given this gift seeking his own profit—with a mind attached
  [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought],
  ‘I’ll enjoy this after death’—on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then,
  having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that
  sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
“Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his
  own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to
  store up for himself, nor [with the thought], ‘I’ll enjoy this after
  death.’ Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, ‘Giving is good.’
  He gives his gift—food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland,
  perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp—to a brahman or a
  contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such
  a gift as this?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Having given this gift with the thought, ‘Giving is good,’ on the
  break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the
  Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted that action, that
  power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to
  this world.
“Or, instead of thinking, ‘Giving is good,’ he gives a gift with the
  thought, ‘This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father &
  grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family
  custom be discontinued’… on the break-up of the body, after death, he
  reappears in the company of the Devas of the Hours. Then, having
  exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he
  is a returner, coming back to this world.
“Or, instead… he gives a gift with the thought, ‘I am well-off. These
  are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to
  give a gift to those who are not well-off’… on the break-up of the
  body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Contented Devas.
  Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that
  sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
“Or, instead… he gives a gift with the thought, ‘Just as there were
  the great sacrifices of the sages of the past—Atthaka, Vamaka,
  Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha,
  Kassapa, & Bhagu—in the same way will this be my distribution of
  gifts’… on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the
  company of the devas who delight in creation. Then, having exhausted
  that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
  returner, coming back to this world.
“Or, instead… he gives a gift with the thought, ‘When this gift of
  mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise’…
  on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company
  of the devas who have power over the creations of others. Then, having
  exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he
  is a returner, coming back to this world.
“Or, instead of thinking, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes
  the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,’ he gives a gift with the
  thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.’
  He gives his gift—food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland,
  perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp—to a brahman or a
  contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such
  a gift as this?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind
  attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor
  [with the thought], ‘I’ll enjoy this after death,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘Giving is good,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘This was given in the past, done in the past,
  by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this
  old family custom be discontinued,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘I am well-off. These are not well-off. It
  would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those
  who are not well-off,’ nor with the thought, ‘Just as there were the
  great sacrifices of the sages of the past—Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva,
  Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, &
  Bhagu—in the same way this will be my distribution of gifts,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes the
  mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,’
“—but with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support
  for the mind’—on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears
  in the company of Brahma’s Retinue. Then, having exhausted that
  action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
  non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
“This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives
  a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great
  benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it
  bears great fruit and great benefit.”

Nyom Sarath, if all other factors, like the donors mind quality, the receiver, the usefulness of the gift is equal, one of course gains more merits by greater amount, but the factor of amout (over all objective value) has much lesser impact than the givers purity and that of the receiver. So if after much merits, those factors are better kept an eye on.
Think just one the poor merits of a gift not purified by the giver and not by the receiver. Most, especially large donations, are made at this level, also by the most.
Another thing on the amout of donation is, that not a "marked-value" counts here, not even the value for the receiver (given that it is of use), but the amount it costs the giver to let go.
For example one might have less problem to give $100 dollar for worker cost. Now he would not sacrify easy a day to work by himself, not even an hour. If this person would let go of 1h to work, he would make probably more merits then by giving the 100$ where he isn't that attached to, has already forgotten the sacrifices to gain such an amout. Or take a child having a diamond and a cheap toy. Or take an proud millionare to either order a monastery or bow down one time before a young (good) monk.
It's a huge topic, maybe some useful to find here in this collection.
If one considers a large donation, especially when it requires a good period of time and management, one is good advices to seek for assistance by a monks who knows the topic well not only from books and there are actually less monks who have fullfilled the perfection in giving till their current state. Otherwise, if not good informed, motivated and the mind not proper prepeared and turned to best objectivity, a large, long effort requiring giving can even produce more demerits if neither skilled in giving nor bad adviced and mostly in such cases the receiver are also far from benefiting, often even not worthy at all.
If after wishing to get the topic better known, since not a place that has much inspiring and visitors holding giving high, Nyom would know where given places are dedicated for such.
Anyway, much joy and shared pre-joy in/for giving and the more one does, the more with a satipatthana heard while, the faster fruits and to be not perfect at the beginning is normal but for a grow. One who does not, does neither gain sure small merits nor ever learn to make huge and grow even near borderlands till the base where stream can be reached.
And to react a little on foolish statements, it's total not wrong to seek for the most benefit from ones gifts. Only if thinking on low benefits, worldly pleasures fast to gain, than such might be not so good, yet still above normal trade. One who thinks carefully and askes people who know the skill, whether for heavens sack or beyound is a wise person. Good requires strong desire after it, how else could one let go of much, even all?
(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks and exchange for a bound in the wheel but for increasing debts toward release from it)