text:
Today, I killed
At work, a tiny little flying insect landed on my desk. At first I thought he was dead because he wasn’t moving, so I gently pushed him to see if he reacted, and he moved so I left him alone. Some time later, when I picked up a call, I shoved my electronic cigarette and it unfortunately crushed him. So I thought I killed him unwittingly, I felt guilty. I took a closer look, and I could see that although crushed his antenna was still moving, probably in agony. I felt bad, now right away a being was suffering and was going to die because of me, was perhaps afraid? I decided to crush him for good, voluntarily this time, to alleviate his suffering.
What do you think of this story? Was I wrong the first time? The second?
If so, how can I mitigate this bad kamma?
And finally, how can we help him have a better rebirth, if at all possible?

What do you think of this story? Was I wrong the first time? The second?

I think these questions are displaying concern for what others might think. There's a risk that it contributes to throwing us off balance:
Now, gain arises for a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones. He reflects, 'Gain has
arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it
actually is...

Loss arises... Status arises... Disgrace arises... Censure arises... Praise arises...
Pleasure arises...

If so, how can I mitigate this bad kamma?

You can't mitigate bad karma. What you can do is try to be equanimous, and prevent the risk for more bad karma in the future.
...Pain arises. He reflects, 'Pain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject
to change.' He discerns it as it actually is.

 His mind does not remain consumed with the gain. His mind does not remain consumed with
 the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure.
 His mind does not remain consumed with the pain.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

And finally, how can we help him have a better rebirth, if at all possible?

If we agree that rebirth pertains to the notion of a self, it won't be possible because it's already dead, and besides, it's debatable whether animals actually have a perception of a self to begin with.
However, whether animals have a self or not is irrelevant for whether we should act based on the brahmaviharas or not.
(See this answer, for instance: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/38/11699)

Wrong second time. First time there is no factor of intention, second time you wanted him to die for whatever reason.
Take a hypothetical example of a person who is unable to kill another intentionally, it being not in his range he couldn't have done it. If not killing is classed categorically as good then the person who doesn't kill can not be blamed for not kiling in any circumstance.
It can thus be inferred by simple logic that the correct course of action with these premises is not killing in any circumstance. It does not require further analysis because it's such a simple equation in this context.
Therefore if one holds that wishing others to die is bad then the guideline is clear.
If one holds that compassionate killing is the lesser evil or is a good then one holds that killing is sometimes justified and that's a whole different story requiring a demonstrable basis for that assertion, as it goes against the norm of killing being bad it is then an extraordinary claim and assumes the burden of proof. If no proof then it's just a view that goes against the norm and what is otherwise held to be true.

Hi! What if what one wants is to stop suffering and extreme agony? Killing does not become the goal in itself, but the means to achieve it. Does that make any difference, kammically speaking?

It doesn't make sense logically. In the world whoever argues that position does it based on assumption that the killer and the killed will suffer less but this slips by taking into account suffering to be experienced after death for the killed and doesn't take into account the greatest good which is the destruction of taints of the killer and how this act has a basis in cruelty & wrong views which corrupt him. Whereas the not killing can be rightly inferred from experimemtally and otherwise demonstrable basis.

I think not everyone would agree on the nocive effects on the future of the individual being killed. I think most people would rather say that that assertion is not experimentally verifiable (which doesn't mean it's not possible or true). So I'd put that aside for now. I agree on the destruction of the taints being the greatest good, but taking into account the state of things at the time of the killing of the little insect, enlightenment was probably not likely at that very moment. Just in case: I'm not stating that killing is good; instead, I'm just honestly asking out of curiosity.

I don't think everyone agrees on anything. My point is that in general if killing is held to be bad then the person claiming it is sometimes good needs to make an extraordinarily good case for it because the claim is extraordinary. Ie muslims will say that defensive war is good because God permits it, their extraordinary claim is based on the extraordinary belief in a higher power for basis, since existence Allah can not be proven and shown to be true, it remains an extraordinary claim that is unfounded.

The starting point is that the act of killing is bad, hence the natural assumption is that it is always bad. Buddhism defines killing as intentional taking of life, making an extraordinary claim in that unintentional killing is blameless, that due to analysis as demonstrable basis. Therefore Buddhism asserts and fulfils the burden of proof.

I understand the generality of your point, but I still see something weird about the logic of it. Why should we all agree that killing is bad? Why is it the default position? Is it just because it is generally seem in that way? And just because it is generally assumed to be bad, does that necessarily mean that it is always bad? I think the burden of proof is on the one stating that killing is bad; and even before that, how to define 'killing' (which you already did) and how to define 'bad'. But even if you do that, why should anyone agree in those definitions?

You are correct, the premise for the reasoning was that killing is bad and it is here simply assumed as a matter of popular opinion and an interpretation of texts. The comprehensive analysis by which one establishes the definitions of good and bad in a way that wise people can agree on is far too lengthy to explore here as it gets into dependent origination as in the nature of existence itself. Since i don't show the analysis here it remains ubsubstantiated and to that extent can only be taken to be true on faith.

I understand. Just to be clear, I completely agree with you and with the buddhist analysis and criteria to differentiate acts as kusala and akusala. But I think that, for my limited and influenced (by ethical and philosophical arguments) mind, cases like the above shown are hard for me to reduced to "it's akusala because it involves killing", independent of the context. Thanks for your disposition, patience and time. Kind regards!

You are most welcome and thank you for providing an opening to explore these things.

The second?
I met a pigeon this year which was crippled with an illness.
I gave it shelter, food, and water, for about 10 days until it died.
I figure that was maybe kinder than trying to kill it when it was helpless.
If so, how can I mitigate this bad kamma?
"Stop doing it" -- see this answer which quotes SN 42.8.
And finally, how can we help him have a better rebirth, if at all possible?
Is "make a better/kinder world for him to be reborn into" a valid answer?

I don't think you can make a better world for a being to appear into, "beings are heir to their actions, no1 can purify another". Fwiw one can dedicate merit to dead relatives who are currently in the realm of hungry ghosts, that is the only "possible place" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than.html since transmigation is beginningless then we all are related at some point as i understand it.

If you stop killing then you've made a world which has one less killer: "better" in that sense, no?

That's an interesting assertion. I think one had to agree that it's obviously better to an extent. There are some circumstances that id have to consider to know that extent 1. there isn't a finite number of beings as i understand it. 2. If a being does bad, he will have bad results, going to a bad state, no matter how many people stop killing.

It's tricky. it's obviously better first and foremost for the one who stops killing. It is forunate for those who could've or would've been killed and if one stops for good then it is categorically "better" for all but at the same time it does not protect any being from suffering to be experienced as a result of their bad kamma and all existence is due to past kamma.

What do you think of this story? Was I wrong the first time? The second?

First time: no kamma ( unwitting/unintentional action ).
Second time: mixed kamma with bright and dark results ( active intention/action to kill + active intention to alleviate the state of prolonged suffering )

If so, how can I mitigate this bad kamma?

Be more mindful of whatever action you'll do at your desk and away from your desk in the future.

And finally, how can we help him have a better rebirth, if at all possible?

While there's no guarantee of benefit, definitely can't hurt to radiate your Metta/Karuna with sutta reciting and more mindful conducts thru the three gates of body/speech/mind.

Try to grab a snake by its mouth. It will bite you. Your wrong grasping of Dhamma can land you in many moral dilemmas and can create existential crisis. The precepts are meant for those who have seriously committed to the 8 fold path. Being a householder you have to take care of yourself , your family , your society etc. You can’t just sit worrying about killing an insect like this. Karma involves lot of common sense.Does killing an insect make you a bad person ? Is it your hobby to kill insects ? Or do you kill insects for the welfare of the society ? Clearly your intentions are good and you are not a bad person. Killing one insect won’t land you in any trouble. If you lie or steal or kill animals as a monk then you have serious problem at hand because it goes against the teachings of Dhamma and you will fail in your endeavour to liberate from samsara...

There is no comparison you kill the poor insect, than you kill your own soul. The soul is guide, own light, immortal. When you forget soul, you are in pain. Its not a wonder that one's body dies, but a great wonder that they think soul dies. Their soul is already dead. Shruti proclaim, 'Soul is immortal, my dear', its your guide, inner master, guide and refuge. Whoever awakes to the inner refuge, act of killing and sense of being killed by another is mere a phantom. But not in your case, as your soul already dead, so karma tends to be there.
Don't fall trap to Buddhist lore. They cling to scriptures. Give up that which is impermanent, which is not yours, you will see your own light. All suffering fades away.
Buddha said: Self is refuge, self is inner light and guide.
Upanishada says: Thou are that!
Many awakened ones still existed in Indian land, they don't bound to particular religion. They live in isolated places in Himalayas. They beg food and give instructions only to those who are interested in it.
Whoever find his inner refuge, all relationship ends right there, all properties flung aside, he trespasses from trap of good and evil, he lives in solitude with one with light. How can his happiness be compared?

The one like you that you have killed and the Buddhist monks put a sin for you are no different. Both reject the soul. So, there is universal law, whoever lost his own soul, will be punish and whoever finds it will be saved. That's more like Jesus's statement.

It's foolish to think soul is within the body and equally so without it! Where is it? Only eye of illumination knows it. Who have subdued his senses and desire for impermanent things and whose dispassion are intense gets Samadhi(Jhana). Only those who gets samadhi, the mind of the one come to an end. And only those can have vision of absolute, who have ceased all desires! Behold, your Soul is your own master. Dont seek it without!


text:
Does duḥkha apply to animals too?
Life is inherently full of suffering. I wonder if the concept of dukkha applies to non-human animals.

Dukkha applies to all realms of existences, from lowest hell-being, small, big, poor, rich...to highest refined being, heavens. All living beings (satta) are subject to birth, aging, sickness and death, good householder.

Yes.  Hell, Preta (hungry ghost), and Animal (non-human) often referred to as Dukkhathi Bhumi (realms of pain and suffering) by Buddha.

Yes.
Haven't you seen animals suffering from pain, hunger, fear, anger, anxiety, jealousy and other negative states of mind, which are based on the three poisons of greed/ lust, aversion and delusion?
All sentient beings with five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness), who are unenlightened, are subject to suffering.
All suffering is caused by craving, which is rooted in ignorance.
Plants are not sentient, as they do not have mental formations and consciousness, and so do not experience suffering (dukkha).

Ruben guruji, scripturally you are in all likelihood correct, however recent science seems to indicate the opposite, per the internet

Just to clarify, I meant my comment in the context of plants not feeling pain

@iruvar Plants experience feeling and perception. So, it can respond to physical stimuli, including the plant equivalent of physical pain. Studies show that plants can detect insect bites and respond with chemical signals. Plants like mimosa pudica and the pitcher plant can move in response to tactile stimuli. However, plants don't have mental formations and consciousness, so they don't experience mental suffering. What the Buddha taught as dukkha (suffering), is mainly of the mind. The Buddha himself experienced physical pain when he suffered from dysentery, but he did not suffer from it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Personal Geospatial Placement perspective terminology
What would be the proper terminology to define the different geospatial perspectives of myself?
If I envision myself inside my body viewing an experience in front of me, such as when I watch a movie, is there better terminology to use other than "first person perspective"?
What about if I envision myself still from a first person perspective, however with the added perspective of 3 dimensional awareness. Is there different terminology for this?
What about if I envision myself outside of my body looking at myself from a third person perspective?
Is there more descriptive terminology I can use to define these experience perspectives?

I don't think this is a topic is addressed in the suttas. Why do you think it's related to or answered by Buddhism?

Because to study the way is to study the self. And to study the self you have to understand the different aspects of the self and their corresponding perspectives on your personal reality. And to best understand and explain those corresponding perspectives on my personal reality I need to be aware of the proper terminology that would best describe these experiences.

The first perspective, watching TV, is called "ego-centric".You are using "I" as the central reference point, and all action is described in relation to that. (If you think about it, it's not necessarily that you watch TV. It maybe that a stream of information gets projected at a memory store, triggering reactions and associations.) To think that you are the one watching gives too much credit to the role of being a sink.
The second perspective is called "mixing mind with space". It is what we sometimes use in meditation. To be aware of the space around you helps avoid falling asleep.
The third perspective, people watching you, is called "imaginary importance". You imagine that people's eyes and thoughts must be directed at you, as if you were so important as to occupy the central place in their minds. But the people looking at you in your imagination are not real people, they are your projections, figments of your imagination. Real people are occupied with their own interests. Your importance to them is imaginary and is a sign of vulnerable and hungry ego. Cultivating this perspective is twice as bad as the regular egocentric perspective, so you should avoid it like a plague.
The right way to see things, according to Buddhism, is from thousand-miles-high point of view, the so-called "divine eye". Divine eye is the impersonal perspective, completely neutral, not taking any sides.
The ultimate way to see things is "Buddha's eye". This means, to see things from all perspectives at once.

I'd like to learn more about this. Who are you quoting?

I'm drawing on an extensive body of Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings I had the luck of encountering in both written and spoken form.

I understand it's buddhist teachings, but that is a bit general. Does this mean that there are no specific references?

That is correct. Well, something about this was in Trungpa's "The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma" Volume 2 or 3, I don't remember.

I think he most accurate technical expression would be in terms of this or that kind of perception.
This is actually a very good question but i don't think you will get a definitive answer.
There is this passage in satipatthana sutta;

"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

It is not clear to me what exactly all of the various instances are but i thinks the answer you are looking for is among those listed.

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


text:
What is called a promise in Buddhism?
I'm a 16 year old girl and at a time in my life,I have been used to watch inappropriate things.
When my parents found this out,my mom got me promised to her in front of Buddha to not to do it, and I promised her with pure intention of keeping it.
Then by the time, when I just turned out to be a teenager I just got and urge and curiosity to see them and I watched them again.
Is this even a promise, if it is a promise according to Buddhism then have I done a sin?

It wouldn't even seems you lied but when you feel to watch them again means you couldn't be mindful anymore. Urge, Curiosity so you desired and that cause of Dukkha. Try practicing Panchashila and eight precepts so you don't even need to promise that may you gonna break ever. Thank you. May Buddha Dhamma and Sangha bless you. Namo Buddhay.

Panchashila and Eight precepts are kind of promises themselves that you need to practice so that's why your mom got you promised to her in front of Buddha. If you break precepts you build bad karma. And not being mindful.

Yes it does break Buddhism precept at all may this question would help you Does not keeping a promise violate the precept on lying? What if I promised myself?

Talia, there is no 'sin' in breaking a promise made with pure intentions of keeping it. (In fact, if someone promises with all his heart to kill me, I hope he breaks it!)
Even for monastics, like me, we occasionally have to break our promise or agreement to do something (such as accepting a invitation to a meal or to give a talk) when something else more important crops up. It would be unwise to think we have to keep all our promises, made based on circumstances at that time.
It's only wrong if we 'promise' with the intention of not keeping it. In this case, the so-called promise is actually a deliberate lie.
Can you actually be sure that you wouldn't do something in the future? I can't. I know my mind now, but I can't know how it will be in the future. So, how can we promise what we cannot be sure of?

@roheet Can you tell us your purpose of quoting that sutta?

@roheet Nope, I wasn't referring to to first intention.

Comments section is not good for discussion, lets discussion here

@roheet and I had a good discussion (as linked above) and I think we seem to have come to a resolution. Please take a look. Ping me (@KumāraBhikkhu) if necessary.

MN8 has many sayings that apply. For example, you understand your action as breaking a promise:

MN8:12.15: ‘Others will have wrong action, but here we will have right action.’

And if your promise was insincere, then this would apply:

MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

There is another issue here however. I remember being very skeptical of authority at 16. I needed to understand directly the what and why of everything. Perhaps  you might feel the same. The nun Dhammadinnā expressed this as:

MN44:24.4: Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and painful when there is ignorance.”

While you wait to grow to the age of making your own choices and way in life, you can take a good look inside to understand the nature of your impulse and let it go.  The world today pounds us incessantly with things it wants us to want. Yet if we identify with those things that change endlessly, we will become unhappy and suffer. We will become hungry insatiable ghosts.
Your mom has seen more suffering and ugliness than you have. These things are difficult to talk about and very very real. Your mom understand this truth:

AN4.9:3.2: that craving is the cause of suffering—

She understands this truth and, loving you, does not want you to suffer. And perhaps if you approach her with an apology, she might be able to explain how she feels. Be gentle, however, because such things are very difficult to talk about.

First of all, and for the case it's a promise to abstain of bad thing (as breaking of a promise to abstain from bad coming with it, wouldn't be kammical a bad thing): Sadhu for openness and considering a fault, wishing to do things right, of which is actually very praiseworthy, making you a serious conducting person for many good people and a good example of acting for many others, that things can be solved by confessing and strong determination not to do it again.
The teachings to Rahula, the Sublime Buddhas will be good encouragement, starting about lying and guide for all days actions.
Yes. Twofold, no threefold, no fourfold grave, good householder's daughter. One is the cheating, breaking promise toward your mother, a child's first God. Second, it was a promise to do what is good, a 'holy' promise, for your own support, breaking which turns foremost against yourself, maybe not seeing the disadvantages of what the householder's daughter went for. Third, hurting oneself, causing long bad periods of consciousness, in violating a fundamental precept. And fourth, at least, 'cheating' the Buddha, of which can fast turn one away from the Jewels, requiring renewing refuge to walk on a good way.
So, but all of that can be solved by best confessing as fast as possible (both, your mother, not to speak of the Buddha, will highly praise your deed if doing so, and accept it), renewing the promise, best taking five precepts seriously, and keep a strong determination to follow it steady in mind. Confession itself has actually already been made by the question, and surely that gave already good release -- but also good, for good relation, to ask for pardon from your mother, and best doing it as well toward the Buddha, and the Jewels, a little cleaning ceremony, which brings sure a lot of joy and good self-estimation.
As for reduce the danger to do it again, best cut of ways of access to it -- including bad friends -- and inform yourself about the disadvantages of it: best if approaching wise people in detail of it.
It's totally the way the Buddha's path to liberation, peace, works: by confessing and steady better new begin, cleaning is it called, or lifting oneself out of a hole one has fallen into, by doing so.
Best wishes and never be shy in doing what is good. Mudita
[note that this has not been given for stakes, exchange, trades, to be used to bind, but for escape from this wheel]

I don't know whether your mom coerced you to promise, or persuaded you to do it willingly, and what difference that might make.

Saying that you won't do something, and then doing it, sounded to me like "false" or "incorrect" speech, which would be contrary to fourth of the five precepts.
My understanding of the term "false speech" comes from AN 10.176:

Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world.

IMO saying you'll not do something and but then doing it anyway sounds like not being "true, firm, reliable" -- and possibly a deceit, either at the time (when the promise is made) or afterwards (as you decide to break it).
But the answers to this topic, Does not keeping a promise violate the precept on lying? What if I promised myself?, especially Ven Yuttadhammo's answer, suggest that the word "false speech" as mentioned in the precepts is specifically to do with "lying", and that breaking a promise isn't necessarily a lie. You said "I promised her with pure intention of keeping it" which means it's not a lie -- the definition of a lie is narrow or precise -- something is a lie if it's a statement made with (or made as a result of) an intention to deceive.
So the orthodox Theravada answer seems to be that it's wrong of me to call it "false speech".

More generally, if you do something and promise not to do it again, I think of that as an "apology" -- and I think that according to Buddhism the components of a sincere apology include regretting the action (remorse), and seeing/understanding that the action was harmful, and therefore 'learning better' and resolving not to do it again.
The most relevant sutta might be the instructions to Rahula (MN 61) -- which implies that a person can't be a "contemplative" if they feel no shame at telling a deliberate lie -- and which says that, before taking an action, to consider whether it's afflictive or whether it's skilful (it also suggests "confessing" the fault to one's teacher).
MN 61 was taught to Ven. Rahula when he was young (7 years old according to the commentary).
If you didn't eventually keep the promise then an element which might be missing could be that it's also important for you to understand properly (to know, to be sure) whether and why an action is harmful (e.g. why it is inappropriate to watch). That (i.e. whether and how it's inappropriate and what some likely consequences might be) might be the more important topic, but a different topic i.e. not related to the question of what a promise is.

The suttas are not really very detailed in their descriptions and definitions of ethics and of the lay precepts.
The Vinaya -- the rules of discipline for monks -- is very detailed. So although the vinaya applies to monks and not to laypeople, you may find it interesting to see what the vinaya says.
See "The Lie Chapter" starting on page 363 of this book -- here are some exerpts:

A deliberate lie is to be confessed.

The Commentary explains the Vibhaṅga’s two exemptions as follows:
Speaking quickly means speaking before one has carefully considered the
matter. Saying one thing while meaning another means making a slip of the
tongue, either out of stupidity or carelessness.

Broken promises
Mv.III.14.1-14 imposes a dukkaṭa on the act of making a promise with
pure intentions but later breaking it. Because the texts make no mention
of any circumstances beyond one’s control that would exempt one from
that penalty, a bhikkhu should be very careful of how he states his plans
for the future.

Since she promised her mother with pure intention of keeping it (under duress), how is it false speech? Even for monastics, breaking a promise doesn't count as false speech (musāvāda).

I mentioned to possibility of duress but didn't assume that. I don't know how you define "false speech"? I guess my understanding of the term comes from AN 10.176 -- "Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world." -- IMO saying you'll not do something and then doing it sounds like not being "true, firm, reliable", and possibly deceit either at the time (when the promise is made) or afterwards (as you decide to break it).

When she spoke, she was telling the truth.

Well perhaps it's kind of you to focus on that, assuming (probably rightly) that the promise was made with good intentions. Maybe you'd like to post an answer of your own, to explain what's good to know about "promises" in Buddhism.

In OP, she says "I promised her with pure intention of keeping it."

I've posted my answer.

Your mom should've known better than to have you making promises you likely can't keep.
If one is coerced into promising to do something without being properly instructed nor given the tools to do, then it is  impossible and can not happen that one would be able to deliver on the promise.
You can't really promise something in front of the Buddha because he is long gone;

“Bhikkhus, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathāgata’s link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, devas and humans will see him no more.”— Brahmajāla Sutta

These two Nibbana-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.
Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being

When delight and existence are utterly exhausted,
when perception & consciousness are both destroyed,
when feelings cease and are appeased - thus, O friend,
do I know, for them that live
deliverance, freedom, detachment." -Saṃyutta Nikāya 1.2, Nimokkha Sutta

“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’”-Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.7, Sāriputta Sutta

Shaming people into reformation doesn't really work and no one can purify another. It is however possible for one to tame another but that requires a lot of wisdom and tactfulness.
I think you were definitely coerced and there wasn't much choice in the matter because i imagine the consequences of not going along could be quite harsh.
Quite frankly this is abusive on the part of the parent and using your faith against you in this way is very inappropriate.
If you want to learn how to control your behavior in a healthy way then you can develop good qualities as the Buddha instructed but this "promise in front of the Buddha" thing is terribly unfortunate and can be psychologically traumatizing, therefore i hope you don't worry about it and don't hold it against your parent who didn't know better.
As i see it there is no offense on your part in the Dhamma as you had no intention to deliberately deceive anyone and this whole ordeal is your mom's making who ironically had your best interest in mind as she acted with good intentions.
I think this all can be simplified like this;

OP conduct is held to be disagreeable by OP and Another.
Another suggests a solution which may or may not work.
OP says ok let's try it.
Solution doesn't work.

Idk what how one would rightly explain this as being false speech. Even if OP held that this probably wouldn't work she could still try what is suggested by another and especially if another is supersticious and not going along would cause problems.
If one held that a promise is false speech if and when broken it is refutable. A person often has no way of knowing the future and what circumstances might cause him to break a promise, there is so much variance in this. So how on earth does one hold that what was good speech in the past becomes wrong speech in the future, one contradict oneself saying what you was good became bad as the promise is evaluated as good until broken at the very least in that one shows iofnability to evaluating speech in the here & now, thus id question whether one such as this should advise another. Should we know the future to know if speech is good or not? Apparently that's what some hold...

I don't quite understand why this answer got downvoted. (I upvoted it.)

I didn't downvote but thought the post was a bit one-sided in blaming the mother for it all: for using shame, coercion, lack of wisdom and tact, and abuse (IMO given the story it's possible that was so, but is not proven). And given that you "can't purify another" the answer could have done with a bit more advice to the OP and less only blaming the mother -- ideally IMO you might reassure the OP without taking side against their mother. Or another reason for someone's downvote might have been the argument that "You can't really promise something in front of the Buddha because he is long gone".

Downvoters should have the guts to comment as asked.


text:
Doctrine to address or alleviate someone's sense of betrayal?
Does Buddhism say anything about suffering as the result of having a sense of "betrayal" -- perhaps a sense of someone else having committed an "injustice"?
I think that for some individuals it's an important and a very long-lasting type of suffering -- for example:

if they feel betrayed or mistreated by their parents
... or their spouse, their children
... or even become outraged as a result of criminal offence by a stranger
... or even just impersonal bad luck ("oh, that is so unfair!")

But although it can be important, I see nothing about it on Access to Insight.
The one possible mention of it that I can think of is Dhp 3:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

Another mention in passing might be the parable of the saw -- i.e. the importance of keeping a mind of good will even if you are abused -- but that's all: very few examples/mentions.
I understand it as being a specific case of a more general problem, i.e. of "craving" (for things to be other than as they are), and "I-making" -- but do you know any doctrine on this more specific subject, i.e. of betrayal and/or a sense of injustice?
Also is it right to say that Buddhist doctrine on the subject tends to "well actually, you deserved this misfortune" -- for example something like the origin story for Dhp 5 implies that if someone persecutes you, then perhaps that's a result of something you did in a previous life. If so, is there a way to paraphrase or explain that principle to a modern non-Buddhist audience? Because "actually it's your fault" might be quite unwelcome (therefore ineffective), the modern view tends to denounce that as "blaming the victim", and the victim themselves might want to know that you're on their side and not siding with their abuser.
If this is a 'reference request' question, it might be asking for doctrine from outside the suttas.

The way I was trained, it would fall under one of the subcategories of "attachment". Probably "attachment to high ideals" or "attachment to high ethical standards".
Attachment to anything, including the highest ethical objects such as Justice, Fairness, Kindness, Honesty etc. is a source of frustration or even hatred towards those who violate those principles (in your eyes) and towards the world as the place where wrong things happen.
Attachment to ideals is your problem, your inner problem, its a kind of grasping to an idea your ego identifies with, to elevate itself at the expense of others.
Every time you have such attachment you are bound to get into situations that will be its mirror reflections. So the more you identify with and cultivate the sense of putting the ideals of loyalty, fairness, honesty etc. above all else, the more you are going to get betrayed. This is partially due to karma you're creating by being like that, and partially your mind being supersensitive to the topic it is obsessed about. The external problems will manifest proportionally to the degree of attachment.
The way I was taught, victim and villain are both responsible (albeit in a different sense), and the sooner victim stops blaming the world and starts taking responsibility for creating that particular karma by being attached to those particular ideas, the faster he or she can move beyond recreating the pattern, get done with this lesson and move to the next.
The way this was introduced to me was not "actually, it's your fault" but more like "hmm, there seem to be deeper reasons behind this problem, something the world is trying to tell you, having to do with the pattern you are stuck in, that likely perpetuated for generations in your family. You seem to have a strong tendency to idealize X and correspondingly to hate the Not-X, which makes you go in these circles, creating a certain kind of situations. This is one of them". Etc.
Of course, you should gently probe into their life and lives of parents, confirming your theories about their attitudes and attachments to the object you suspect this is coming from, before you can speak about any patterns.
If they are spiritually-inclined, you may find it more effective to talk about all this in terms of karma. If they are materialists, then "patterns you recreate" is a more neutral term. In either case, identifying and letting go of an attachment is what you are aiming at.

The reasoning is along these lines and where the answer diverges that is due to self view and one then questions on whether it is appropriate to hold that view.
"Who hurt you? Did the head hairs, body hairs, the teeth, the nails, the skin.. did the earth element, the liquid element, the wind element, the fire element or the space element hurt you?"
"Did the intellect element hurt you?"
"No but the person who has these elements hurt me:("
"What do you think, bro: Do you regard form as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard feeling as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard perception as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard fabrications as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard consciousness as the person?"
"Not rly."
"What do you think, friend: Do you regard the person as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"Not really, no."
"What do you think: Do you regard the person as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness [taken together]?"
"Nah brah."
"Do you regard the person as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"Nope.."
"And so, Friend — when you can't pin down the person as a truth or reality — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, he/she betrayed & abused me:( '
"I guess not.."
In the end one can only think in terms of true elements and can delineate the elements of delusion as the corruption of intellect element which like the other elements can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for this or that being, corrupted knowledge can be shown to beget wrong resolve, wrong action etc
So one breaks this idea of a person being a true element and likewise with the idea of the self who got abused.

+1 that's quite funny, problem is I don't think it's accessible to someone who isn't already familiar with Buddhist doctrine. But it is an interesting argument, I hadn't seen before that depersonalising "identity view" argument used to deconstruct other people (i.e. one's alleged opponent).

From SN 36.21 (Bodhi translation - quoted below), we find that assault from others (also translated as "harsh treatment" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and "adverse behavior" by Nyanaponika Thera) is differentiated from kamma, as a cause of unpleasant experiences. This means that assault or harsh treatment of others upon us is not caused by our past kamma.

“Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a
doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it
be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is
caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say
about this?”
“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders:
that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can
know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now
when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as
this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or
painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what
was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and
they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I
say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.
“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
… caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot
what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this
is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

As you have rightly quoted from the Dhammapada (quoted below), the mind precedes mental states. If we feel hatred (or hostility or even betrayal or a sense of being unjustly treated) based on the actions of other people, then the real fault is on our part for not stilling the hatred in our minds, and seeking to settle the quarrel or injustice.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
follows him like his never-departing shadow.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

From SN 7.2 (quoted below), we find the Buddha himself setting the example for the above principle. He also gives the example of "returning back" harsh treatment back to the giver by not responding back with harsh treatment, which incidentally answers your question on "is there a way to paraphrase or explain that principle to a modern non-Buddhist audience?".

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

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

When this was said, the brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja said to the
Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he
were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden,
to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark
so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master
Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go
to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of
monks. Let me obtain the going forth in Master Gotama's presence, let
me obtain admission."

From Sutta Nipata 4.11 (quoted below), we trace back harsh treatment, quarrels, betrayal etc. back to craving and clinging i.e. the second noble truth. This applies to both the giver of, and responder to, harsh treatment, quarrels, betrayal etc.

"From what arise contentions and disputes, lamentations and sorrows,
along with selfishness and conceit, and arrogance along with slander?
From where do these various things arise? Come tell me this."
"From being too endeared (to objects and persons) arise contentions
and disputes, lamentations and sorrows along with avarice, selfishness
and conceit, arrogance and slander. Contentions and disputes are
linked with selfishness, and slander is born of contention."


text:
What are the bad kammas that cause the person to go to hell?
Is there any kamma that will definitely cause the guilty to go to hell, except the five anantariya bad kammas?

"Anantarika-karma" seems like the canonical answer. What other answer are you looking for, why do you think there is another different answer?

You can find some references in suttas of SN 42.
From Talaputa Sutta:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with,
who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on
things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin
with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more
aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage
in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion
to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even
more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on
stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
& heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

From Yodhajiva Sutta:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his
mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May
these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or
destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay
him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called
the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as
this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others
then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting
himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he
is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong
view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I
tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

From Kula Sutta:

"Headman, there are eight causes, eight reasons for the downfall of
families. Families go to their downfall because of kings, or families
go to their downfall because of thieves, or families go to their
downfall because of fire, or families go to their downfall because of
floods, or their stored-up treasure disappears, or their mismanaged
undertakings go wrong, or in the family a wastrel is born who
squanders, scatters, & shatters its wealth, and inconstancy itself is
the eighth. These are the eight causes, the eight reasons for the
downfall of families. Now, when these eight causes, these eight
reasons are to be found, if anyone should say of me, 'The Blessed One
is practicing for the ruin of families, the Blessed One is practicing
for the demise of families, the Blessed One is practicing for the
downfall of families' — without abandoning that statement, without
abandoning that intent, without relinquishing that view — then as if
he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell."

From Sankha Sutta:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this
doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a
state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal...
All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are
destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A
disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him,
'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take
life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell."
There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a
state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that
view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state
of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be
carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds
this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit
sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of
deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told.
I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.'
He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine,
doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then
as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.

From the Dhammapada:

Just as a border city is closely guarded both within and without, even so, guard yourself. Do not let slip this opportunity (for
spiritual growth). For those who let slip this opportunity grieve
indeed when consigned to hell.

Thank you. I have added "hell of" and "hell called" to search examples.

Breaking five precepts.
He then continues with reciting the five precepts:[47][48]
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings." (Pali: Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from taking what is not given." (Pali: Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from misconduct concerning sense-pleasures." (Pali: Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from false speech." (Pali: Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

The case of Mara Dūsī going to hell is instructive:

MN50:21.5: And with that look Māra Dūsī fell from that place and was reborn in the Great Hell.

Mara Dūsī intentionally caused harm in three ways. First he asked others to abuse the mendicants :

MN50:12.1: Then it occurred to Māra Dūsī,  ‘I don’t know the course of rebirth of these ethical mendicants of good character.  Why don’t I take possession of these brahmins and householders and say,  “Come, all of you, abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the ethical mendicants of good character. Hopefully by doing this we can upset their minds so that Māra Dūsī can find a vulnerability.”’

Then Mara Dūsī asked others to praise the mendicants (!):

MN50:16.3: “Come, all of you, honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the ethical mendicants of good character.  Hopefully by doing this we can upset their minds so that Māra Dūsī can find a vulnerability.”’

Then he caused a young boy to fling a stone and wound a senior disciple :

MN50:21.1: Then Māra Dūsī took possession of a certain boy, picked up a rock, and hit Vidhura on the head, cracking it open.

And then Kassapa Buddha turned around and looked at Mara Dusi, and down to the Great Hell Mara Dusi went .
This wonderful discourse also illustrates another critical point that the kamma of intention need not be our own:

AN4.171:7.5: Take the case of the reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to both their own and others’ intentions.

And it is Mara Dusi's first transgression that clearly illustrates the kamma of one's own and other's intention. Because those tormented mendicants also went to hell (!). It's not really about guilt. It's about intention and obsession and craving. After 50000 years in the Great Hell, Mara Dusi eventually become Mogallana, an arahant and one of the Buddhas chief disciples.

When I have heard Bhikkus speak on this topic, its generally thought that hell as an afterlife or plane of existence is reserved for very few. Those who murder their parents, things of that nature. But the 5 precepts allow us to walk the path of the Dhamma and avoid the hell in the here and now, to avoid suffering, to cultivate mindfullness and the other Factors of Enlightenment etc. So borrowing somewhat from Hindu teachings, and with more focus later in Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings, the hell plane is a place reserved for specific deeds spoke about in the other suttas, at least as far as Pali goes.

Puthujjana posting wrong views on the internet most probably lead to hell because these puthujjana obviously have not discerned the origin of suffering and its cessation.

the sentient beings who die as humans and are reborn as humans are
few, while those who die as humans and are reborn in hell are many …
Why is that? It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.
SN 56.102


text:
What does Buddhism teach about energy?
I am interested in what Buddhism has to say about the flow of energy in our lives.
(For clarification, by "energy" i am referring to the concrete aspects of stamina/fatigue, feeling tired or having the strength to go about your day. I realize the topic of energy is broad, and dealt with in different yogic, para-psychological or pseudo-scientific contexts, but those aspects are out of the scope of my question).
To the best of my knowledge, the extent of Buddhist commentaries regarding energy use concepts like indriyas/balanis and not least viriya. For instance, in AN 6.55 we can read that:

...when energy is too forceful it leads to restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa, you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.

https://suttacentral.net/an6.55/en/sujato
In SN 48.43 Buddha elaborates on the faculty of energy:

The faculty of energy is the power of energy, and the power of energy is the faculty of energy.

https://suttacentral.net/sn48.43/en/sujato
Possibly related, we can also read about piti, a feeling of energizing rapture (if you will) as a dhyana factor:

Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination.

https://suttacentral.net/an5.28/en/bodhi
Seeing as tranquility in Buddhism is - arguably - given precedence over energizing i am assuming that the latter is somewhat subordinate, and dealt with to lesser degree than other Buddhist topics. Or am i wrong?
What else can Buddhism teach us about energies? (This is a reference request.)

"There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?
"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought occurs to him: 'I have done some work. While I was doing work, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the third grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. While I was going on the journey, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?'[1] So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness. The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness. Now, there's the possibility that it could get worse. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness, not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. Now, there's the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy." - an8.95 https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_95.html

"May nothing remain but skin and sinews and bones; may flesh and blood dry up in the body! Not before having achieved what can be achieved by manly strength, manly energy, manly exertion shall my energy subside!"— MN 70

More on overcoming laziness and drowsiness;

"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors. - aggi sutta

Some translations

Viriya - Energy (1,2), Effort (3), Persistence (4), Energy (5)

Nyanasatta Thera as (1), Piyadissa Thera (2), Burmese Pitaka (3), Thanissaro (4) Bhikkhu Bodhi (5)

Abhidhamma expression;

The energy of his searching, investigating and reasoning out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom, is strenuous, unshrinking. This is called energy-awakening-factor. (3)Therein what is energy-awakening-factor? That which is the arousing of mental energy. right effort, energy-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called energy-awakening-factor.
The mental inception of energy which there is on that occasion, the striving and the onward effort, the exertion and endeavour, the zeal and ardour, the vigour and fortitude, the state of unfaltering effort, the state of sustained desire, the state of unflinching endurance, the solid grip of the burden, energy, energy as faculty and as power, right endeavour—this is the energy that there then is.

Arousing energy from other texts;
Things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
Changing the bodily posture;
Resolving the perception of light;
Staying in the open air;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation. -Vsm

These things, too, are helpful in conquering sloth and torpor:

The recollection of Death; Today the effort should be made, Who knows if tomorrow Death will come?— MN 131

Perceiving the suffering in impermanence

In a monk who is accustomed to see the suffering in impermanence and who is frequently engaged in this contemplation, there will be established in him such a keen sense of the danger of laziness, idleness, lassitude, indolence and thoughtlessness, as if he were threatened by a murderer with drawn sword.— AN 7:46

Sympathetic joy

Cultivate the meditation on sympathetic joy! For by cultivating it, listlessness will disappear.— MN 62

Contemplation of the spiritual journey

"I have to tread that path which the Buddhas, the Paccekabuddhas and the Great Disciples have gone; but by an indolent person that path cannot be trodden."— Vism. IV,55

Contemplation of the Master's greatness

"Full application of energy was praised by my Master, and he is unsurpassed in his injunctions and a great help to us. He is honored by practicing his Dhamma, not otherwise."— Ibid.

Contemplation on the greatness of the Heritage

"I have to take possession of the Great Heritage, called the Good Dhamma. But one who is indolent cannot take possession of it."— Ibid.

How does one stimulate the mind at a time when it needs stimulation?

If due to slowness in the application of wisdom or due to non-attainment of the happiness of tranquillity, one's mind is dull, then one should rouse it through reflecting on the eight stirring objects. These eight are: birth, decay, disease and death; the suffering in the worlds of misery; the suffering of the past rooted in the round of existence; the suffering of the future rooted in the round of existence; the suffering of the present rooted in the search for food. — Vism. IV,63

The five threatening dangers

If, monks, a monk perceives these five threatening dangers, it is enough for him to live heedful, zealous, with a heart resolute to achieve the unachieved, to attain the unattained, to realize the unrealized. Which are these five dangers?

(1) Here, monks, a monk reflects thus: "I am now free from sickness, free from disease, my digestive power functions smoothly, my constitution is not too cool and not too hot, it is balanced and fit for making effort. But a time will come when this body will be in the grip of sickness. And one who is sick cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy for him, to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in sickness."
(2) Reflect thus: "I am now young, a youth, young in age, black-haired, in the prime of youth, in the first phase of life. But a time will come when this body will be in the grip of old age. But one who is overpowered by old age cannot easily contemplate on the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy for him to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in old age."
(3) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now there is an abundance of food, good harvests, easily obtainable is a meal of alms, it is easy to live on collected food and offerings. But a time will come when there will be a famine, a bad harvest, difficult to obtain will be a meal of alms, it will be difficult to live on collected food and offerings. And in a famine people migrate to places where food is ample, and there habitations will be thronged and crowded. But in habitations thronged and crowded one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in a famine."
(4) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now people live in concord and amity, in friendly fellowship as mingled milk and water and look at each other with friendly eyes. But there will come a time of danger, of unrest among the jungle tribes when the country people mount their carts and drive away and fear-stricken people move to a place of safety, and there habitations will be thronged and crowded. But in habitations thronged and crowded one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in time of danger."
(5) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now the Congregation of Monks lives in concord and amity, without quarrel, lives happily under one teaching. But a time will come when there will be a split in the Congregation. And when the Congregation is split, one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even when the Congregation is split. — AN 5:78

At last a couple more Sutta excerpt;

“So, mendicants, when the senior mendicants left, why did you sleep until the sun came up, snoring?
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an anointed king who rules his whole life, dear and beloved to the country, while indulging in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as he likes?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an appointed official … a hereditary official … a general … a village chief … or a guild head who runs the guild his whole life, dear and beloved to the guild, while indulging in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as he likes?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an ascetic or brahmin who indulges in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as they like? Their sense doors are unguarded, they eat too much, they’re not dedicated to wakefulness, they’re unable to discern skillful qualities, and they don’t pursue the development of the qualities that lead to awakening in the evening and toward dawn. Yet they realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
So you should train like this: ‘We will guard our sense doors, eat in moderation, be dedicated to wakefulness, discern skillful qualities, and pursue the development of the qualities that lead to awakening in the evening and toward dawn.’ That’s how you should train.” - AN6.17

Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching,
Discontent, torpor after meals:
Because of this, here among beings,
The noble path does not appear.”
“Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching,
Discontent, torpor after meals:
When one dispels this with energy,
The noble path is cleared.” -sn1.16

The first one is a copy of AN 8.80 isn't it?

Looks identical yes thanks for the link. A very good practice this arousal of energy is.

Can you look into the downvote on this answer? Lately I am seeing some strange downvotes without comments on pretty solid answers.

The software isn't showing any "suspicious voting patterns". And you received only two downvotes today, the previous one was a week ago, and the one before that 19 days ago -- not at all many in total, whether strange or otherwise.

As i understand it a downvote marks an answer as wrong or not useful and this here answer is neither. Therefore you should look into the voting patterns of whoever cast the downvote on this.

I see -- and I guess you're right, I don't see why someone might downvote this one. But I (i.e. a moderator) can't see who cast each specific vote, though I've some tools for detecting "serial downvoting" and "voting rings (i.e. fraud)". I really don't know if an SE employee has that ability, but I don't think it's worth trying to involve them when it's a matter of a single downvote.

@Ruslan I voted this answer down, because it is wrong and useless. It's a collection of empty words that have nothing to do with the Buddhist teaching on energy, copy/pasted by someone who can't even manage his own energy . (I'm absolutely not interested in arguing with you, so don't bother to respond)

What a comment to wake up to xD get help mate

@AndreiVolkov Would you care to share your view on the topic?

@Erik Perhaps you might like to read these answers (though they're not specifically to do with "concrete stamina").

@AndreiVolkov I upvoted this answer just for its mentioning "food", which no other answer had. I once asked a Sifu "How are you so strong?!", he had very little English but answered me, "Rice" (which I thought was a great answer).

a collection of all sutta references to sleeping
http://lucid24.org/sted/sleep/index.html
The two most important passages occur in these two suttas:
AN 3.16 shows the daily moment by moment typical routine, with sleep schedule. (about 4 hours a day sleeping is the typical amount for a monk)
AN 7.61 teaches 7 methods to ward off drowsiness, with sleeping in lion posture the last resort, and not to indulge in pleasures (sukha) of sleeping.
A closely related subject, http://lucid24.org/sted/maranassati/index.html
marana sati, shows the attitude of the Buddha towards sleep and making maximum usage of one's viriya/energy to accomplish nirvana before death strikes, and this is in a context of rebirth, where most beings would be reborn forgetting the lessons of the immediate previous life.

Bojjanga is a good starting point to understand this
You can start here: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN46_8.html
There is a whole body of knowledge and practice behind bojjanga which is usually well explained by a priest who practiced it well; If you are interested in achieving bojjanga rather than mere curiousity you likely will achieve it to an extent where you don't need others to verify it. To this effect Maha Satipattana Sutta practice 7 years to 7 days applies.
Regarding references from a priest in relation to thripitaka for bojjanga: Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero (pardon me for any wrong reference here) is an excellent place to start. Though it is in Sinhalese. (I can consider translation if someone is really keen on practice).
Kaya Sutya MN 5 2 . Unable to find English version
http://www.thripitakaya.org/tipitakaya/Index/138?s=2152

A question about "stamina/fatigue" might be partially answered with doctrine about "torpor".
Here are several references about the causes of torpor -- Denourishing of Sloth and Torpor
One of these is ...

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
Changing the bodily posture;
Thinking of the perception of light;
Staying in the open air;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

... though I don't know what that's referencing (perhaps it's a paraphrase or summary, not a quote).
Several suttas mention "not creating new feelings (from overeating)"; and that (i.e. "the middle way") -- was sort of the first Buddhist doctrine even before the Buddha mentioned the noble truths:

In SN 56.11):

Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth.

And perhaps more especially in the introduction to the Jataka (not that physical stamina, which is what you're asking about, is the explicit aim).

On the subject of "food" you might see also the Puttamaṃsa Sutta (SN 12.63) which mentions not only physical food, but also sensual contact (feeling), volition (craving), and consciousness (name and form) -- I get the impression that these might be exhausting or fatiguing, in the sense that these might take or involve whatever energy you have.

Interesting question; ultimately, as energy is a corporeal realm sort of concept(cf existential sorts of concepts), energy is impermanent and illusory. Of course there 'are' various types of energy, but the actual Teachings of The Buddha & most Branches of Buddhism only don't discuss much about electricity & other forms of energy directly, except indirectly in reference to corporeal concepts, examples of which are nicely cited in several Answers to this Question; and many behaviours, such as eating habits & occupation certainly affect energy. But Buddhist Teaching is more at existential concepts rather than a corporeal sciences guide. Appropriate life conduct & interaction etc is carefully & specifically addressed re following The Noble Eightfold Path & discerning The Four Noble Truths, which are central to Buddhism, and for which literature for which is of course helpfully pervasive & extensive; Textual references translated as energy tend to be more re illusoriness considerations
Suggested Reference Source(of several):
A History of the Philosphy of India, 5 Volumes, S. Dasgupta, 1922-1955, includes meticulously researched & detailed specific doctrinal features of several hundred different Branches of Buddhism(s), and much additional material


text:
Why did Buddha refrain from finding knowledge of the whole universe?
I know that lord Buddha refrain from finding the all the laws of nature from science, everything in universe.(Understanding the whole truth of the universe). I like to know the reason for this.
Is it because our knowledge about the universe is so weak that we don't see anything, nor that the universe is so big that it is endless, (please correct me if i am wrong about this)? I know that lord Buddha mentioned the endless expansion and collapse of the universe. This phrase follows with Gibbs free energy theory, where everything goes to disorder. To make things into order it causes energy.
Like keeping the mind in one place is very hard. If I find nibbana in the coming up life, maybe I will realize that it is not meaningful. Currently I like learning new things in science, like I love reading books of prof. Hawkings teachings... Will all this knowledge be worthless if I find nibbana someday?
Also I am confused of the fact that Lord Mugalan did try to find the whole truth of the universe by meditation. Is it true that he got caught in a infinite loop and Lord Buddha saved him?

May I know where you got this idea that the "Buddha said that finding the all the laws of nature from science is not meaningful?"

It's better that you ask your questions separately. I think you have at least 3 up there.

OyaMist's answer has the answer for that there has to be a correction I think he did not say that Lord Buddha just refuses to answer those questions like OyaMist says

I like to know the reason for this.

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

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/thanissaro
In plain english, the reason for this is that these types of questions are not required for the path towards nirvana at best, or straight up misleading at worst.

Will all this knowledge be worthless if I find nibbana someday?

I wouldn't put down a physicists knowledge of the world, but it has little or nothing to do with buddhas dharma.

SN 56.31 seems relevant as well.

The value of knowledge about a system has diminishing returns. There is an infinite amount of relatively useless information and knowledge is thus inexhaustible since transmigation is beginningless.

The wanderer Vaccagottha once asked Venerable Moggallāna:

SN44.7:2.1: “Master Moggallāna, is this right: ‘the world is eternal’?”

To this and many other questions, Moggallāna simply answers:

SN44.7:2.2: “Vaccha, this has not been declared by the Buddha.”

Frustrated, Vaccagottha exclaims:

SN44.7:3.3: And what’s the cause, what’s the reason why the ascetic Gotama doesn’t answer these questions when asked?”

In this case Moggallana answers by explaining that the Buddha teaches the ending of craving:

SN44.7:4.1: “Vaccha, the wanderers who follow other paths regard the eye like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ They regard the ear … nose …  tongue … body …  mind like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’

SN44.7:4.7: The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha regards the eye like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ He regards the ear … nose … tongue … body …  mind like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’  That’s why he doesn’t answer these questions when asked.”

Unsatisfied with Venerable Moggallāna, Vaccagottha seeks out the Buddha and asks the same questions...
...and the Buddha gives exactly the same answers.
The Four Noble Truths concern themselves with the ending of suffering. They are all we need.

No one has enough life to learn the whole world because the whole world is not just now. The whole world includes past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near.
Although, this knowledge is important for the practitioner to understand 3 characteristics, the practitioner needs to avoid learning too much over their life time because the point is Nibbana, not only worldly knowing.
Time never stop and it's not easy to meet the Buddhism, so it's not ok if you die before enlightened.

He only wanted the end of suffering. He learned what he needed, and then some, but tought strictly only that which was needed. Otherwise, distractions occur, which are antithetical. Creation stories, based in science or otherwise, generally don't help end suffering. ;)


text:
What is the Samsaric Mind? How does it operate?
Quoted below is from 'A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Shantideva
For a western reader, I mean someone familiar with Greek Philosophy, the objective emptiness Shantideva expound with regards to atoms is not new. Zeno of Elea posits exactly the same idea.
However, what the Greeks don't say is that 'the mind that reason the emptiness in the visible and the imagined is itself nothing' which Shantideva say @ 103 below and the commentary expounds.
For example, Socrates says something like the following about the mind:

the mind is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and
being shine, the mind perceives and understands and is radiant with
intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and
perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is
first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no
intelligence?
as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole
body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of
the whole mind be turned from the world of becoming into that of
being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the
brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

So the questions are:
Is the samsaric mind the mind when viewing samsara only?
Is the knowledge of the unborn accessible to the samsaric mind? Or to put it differently, does an enlightened being samsaric mind access the knowledge of the unborn to guide other sentient beings.
I know there is a lot of duality in the above statement, but my question is once the Arhat attains the unborn, how do they descend to human affairs?

A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Shantideva

Even the parts can be divided into atoms, and an atom itself can be divided according to its cardinal directions. The section of a cardinal direction is space, because it is without parts.  Therefore, an atom does not exist. 354.  Tibetan:"... Since the cardinal directions have no parts, they are like space. Therefore, atoms do not exist

What discerning person would be attached to form, which is just like a dream? Since the body does not exist, then who is a woman and who is a man?

If suffering truly exists, why does it not oppress the joyful? If delicacies  and  the  like  are  a  pleasure,  why  do  they  not please someone struck by grief and so forth?

If it is not experienced because it is overpowered by something more intense, how can that which is not of the nature of experience be a feeling?

[Objection:] Surely there is suffering in its subtle state while its gross state is removed.
[Madhyamika:] If it is simply another pleasure, then that subtle state is a subtle state of pleasure.

If suffering does not arise when the conditions for its opposite have arisen, does it not follow that a "feeling" is a false notion created by conceptual fabrication?

Therefore,  this  analysis  is  created  as  an  antidote  to  that  false notion. For the meditative stabilizations that arise from the field of investigations are the food of contemplatives.

If  there  is  an  interval  between  a  sense-faculty  and  its  object, where  is  the  contact  between  the  two?  If there is no interval, they would be identical. In that case, what would be in contact with what?

One atom cannot penetrate another, because it is without empty space and is of the same size as the other. When there is no penetration, there is no mingling; and when there is no mingling, there is no contact.

How, indeed, can there be contact with something that has no parts? If partlessness can be observed when there is contact, demonstrate this.

It is impossible for consciousness, which has no form, to have contact; nor is it possible for a composite, because it is not a truly existent thing, as investigated earlier.

Thus, when there is no contact, how can feeling arise? What is the reason for this exertion? Who could be harmed by what?

If there is no one to experience feeling and if feeling does not exist, then after understanding this situation, why, O craving, are you not shattered?

The mind that has a dreamlike and illusion like nature sees and touches.  Since feeling arises together with the mind, it is not perceived by the mind.

What happens earlier is remembered but not experienced by what arises later. It does not experience itself, nor is it experienced by something else.

There is no one who experiences feeling. Hence, in reality, there is no feeling. Thus, in this identityless bundle, who can be hurt by it?

The mind is not located in the sense faculties, nor in form and other sense-objects, nor in between them. The mind is also not found inside, nor outside, nor anywhere else.

That which is not in the body nor anywhere else, neither intermingled nor somewhere separate, is nothing.  Therefore, sentient beings are by nature liberated. 355

If cognition is prior to the object of cognition, in dependence on what does it arise? If cognition is simultaneous with the object of cognition, in dependence on what does it arise?

If it arises after the object of cognition, from what would cognition arise?  In this way it is ascertained that no phenomenon comes into existence.

335  According to the Panjika, pp. 245-246, the mind that is not in the body nor somewhere  else  outside  the  body,  that  is  neither  intermingled  between  those  two,  the body  and  outside  thing,  nor  separate  from  the  body  and  present  somewhere  else,  is ultimately  nothing,  that  is,  it  does  not  truly  exist.  It is only presented by mental fabrication.  The  samsaric  mind  appears  like  an  illusion  because  it  lacks  an  intrinsic nature.  For  that  reason,  sentient  beings  are  liberated  by  nature,  because  the  natural nirvana  (prakrti-nirvana),  which  has  the  characteristic  of  the  absence  of  intrinsic  nature, is always present in the streams of consciousness of all sentient beings.

Is the samsaric mind the mind when viewing samsara only?
This question calls to mind Sāti, who once proclaimed:

MN38:2.2: “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati anaññan”ti.
“As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”

The Buddha's answer to this was stern:

MN38:5.13: Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?  But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make much bad karma.

So let us just say that the samsaric mind is conditioned.
Is the knowledge of the unborn accessible to the samsaric mind?
Yes, we can all have conventional knowledge of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Path is also conditioned and through practice, our knowledge will deepen. However, as long as that conditioning is rooted in identification and grasping, we will get stuck with the following at best, still needing to go beyond:

MN1:26.1: They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment.

once the Arhat attains the unborn, how do they descend to human affairs?
In freedom, arahants live without wishes in this very life:

MN51:5.10: They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.

MN128:32.3: ‘My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there are no more future lives.’” That is what the Buddha said.

The "without wishes" is quite crucial here. Wishes are the grasping and craving mentioned in the early parts of MN1 that discuss ordinary persons. In contrast, the arahant has relinquished the craving and the underlying tendency towards craving. That underlying tendency has to be completely relinquished, given up and extinguished for there to be Right Freedom. The samsaric mind leads to suffering and suffering conditions sentient beings with the faith required to follow the Noble Eightfold Path to Right Knowledge and Right Freedom.

MN64:6.3: That identity view, along with any underlying tendency to it, is given up in them.

i don't think you answered the question directly enough, but you have references and the question is a bit generic

Yes. That was an Epic question, so I gave an Epic answer. The short answer is that the Samsaric Mind is bound to Identity View and suffering via craving and rebirth.

What is the Samsaric Mind? How does it operate?
Samsaric mind is the mind taking appearance for reality, imputing its interpretations to the world, assuming the objects are delineated objectively, conclusively and non-ambiguously, projecting its opinions onto objects and assuming they are actual qualities of the objects, obsessing over categories, defending its definitions of categories as the only truth, identifying with its perceptions, opinions, interpretations, and judgements, getting eaten by and lost in all of the above, pursuing goals and avoiding trouble defined in dependence on all of the above, experiencing happiness and suffering when things go with or against the expectations inherent in the above.
Is the knowledge of the unborn accessible to the samsaric mind? Or to put it differently, does an enlightened being's samsaric mind access the knowledge of the unborn to guide other sentient beings.
In case of enlightenment, there is no samsaric mind, what there is instead is called Sambhogakaya - linking the unborn with samsara, translating the unborn into concepts accessible to the sentient beings.
It's like, when you know the magic trick, you no longer see the illusion - what you see is different, there is no return to illusion, but you can still reason about the illusion and discuss it with others.
Once the Arhat attains the unborn, how do they descend to human affairs?
Samsaric mind is the crude or naive mind, so there is no "descent" necessary, it is easy enough to imagine and simulate, for the purpose of teaching. It is the same as when talking to young children, you understand how their minds work and can explain things in terms they can understand - without actually regressing to their level.


text:
Freely available translations of the Dhammapada
I'm looking for translations of the Dhammapada that are freely available to quote in part or in full. I would like a variety of alternative translation so can anyone give a comprehensive list - online and/or printed publications.
Many Thanks

Here's a list:

AccessToInsight's Dhammapada - various translations (Buddharakkhita, Thanissaro, and a few others) - web-based
Suttacentral's Dhammapada - various translations (Anandajoti, Buddharakkhita) - web-based
Ven. Thanissaro's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF
Ven. Thanissaro's translation of Dhammapada - web-based
Acharya Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF
Ven. Anandajoti's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, includes Pali text
Ven. Anandajoti's translation of Dhammapada - web-based, PDF, epub and MOBI, includes Pali text
Ven. Narada's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, epub and MOBI
Bhikkhu Pesala's version of Ven. Narada's Dhammapada - web-based, enhanced with commentary
Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thero's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, includes commentary and Pali text
Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thero's translation of Dhammapada - web-based, illustrated
P. Lal's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF
Buddhist Legends, translated by E. W. Burlingame - in epub, MOBI - complete stories of the Dhammapada
Thomas Byrom's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, rendered into English poetry
Max Müller's translation of the Dhammapada - web-based, MOBI and epub

You can find many more Dhammapada PDF versions here.

Wow those are great.

https://nanda.online-dhamma.net/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/
Eight translations side by side

Pāḷi Tipiṭaka (PTS) [1]
Pāḷi Tipiṭaka (CSCD) [2]
Translated from the Pali by Ven Nārada Thera ) [3]
Translated from the Pali by Ven. Ācharya Buddharakkhita ) [4]
Translated from the Pali by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu ) [5]
Translated from the Pali by Ven. Varado Bhikkhu ) [6]
Translated from the Pali by Friedrich Max Müller) [7]
Cited from DLMBS [8]

The Dhammapada: Verses and Stories
Dhammapada is one of the best known books of the Pitaka. It is a collection of the teachings of the Buddha expressed in clear, pithy verses. These verses were culled from various discourses given by the Buddha in the course of forty-five years of his teaching, as he travelled in the valley of the Ganges (Ganga) and the sub-mountain tract of the Himalayas. These verses are often terse, witty and convincing. Whenever similes are used, they are those that are easily understood even by a child, e.g., the cart's wheel, a man's shadow, a deep pool, flowers. Through these verses, the Buddha exhorts one to achieve that greatest of all conquests, the conquest of self; to escape from the evils of passion, hatred and ignorance; and to strive hard to attain freedom from craving and freedom from the round of rebirths. Each verse contains a truth (dhamma), an exhortation, a piece of advice.
https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/

This answer is not useful. OP asks for "a comprehensive list".

Just Google it. I gave my best option here.

I thinks this answer is useful -- I don't think this one was mentioned in other answers, and this one is for various reasons one of my favourite editions.