text:
A Buddhist guide to overcome self sabotage
Does self-sabotaging instincts come from the ego? Where does the urge to self-sabotage come from and how to break free from this cycle?
Here is what I found from the internet

The cause of our suffering is clinging to what we believe to be our “self” or “ego.” When we feel unsafe or uncertain, our habitual defenses arise, and we tend to cling even more defensively to our ego.  Self-sabotage is a defense mechanism of the ego to protect us from some sort of pain or suffering – it's our own survival instinct working against us.

I don't know what "self-sabotage" means? Maybe add some examples of what you're asking about.

@ChrisW I think self-sabotage is a psychological term.

That link says, "There are many reasons", as well as, "different forms" -- so a more specific question might be better.

The one place I found the quote was at https://www.believerspray.com/what-is-the-concept-of-self-in-buddhism/ I don't think that's a good summary of Buddhist doctrine. For decades this kind of thing -- i.e. modern authors writing their opinions of what Buddhist doctrine -- was all I had. There's a Buddhist "canon" though i.e. original texts (translated), and a lot (or most) of the questions on this site are about that.

In my observation, people ask abstract questions like this when they don't feel comfortable sharing the details of their actual situation that prompted the question. And yet, having a glimpse into that would make it way easier to write a specific helpful answer... As Chris W said, self-sabotage is a rather broad term, and is context-dependent.

While 'ego' is a core teaching of Buddhism, Buddhism points out ego is caused by underlying defilements or cravings, namely, greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, self-sabotage would be from some type of anger, hatred or aversion.
How to break free from this cycle is developing gratitude & appreciation for what has been developed & to have vigilance to guard what has been developed from the underlying tendency of self-sabotage.
In the Pali Suttas, a term similar to 'self-sabotage' is 'attaghātāya', translated as 'self-destruction'.

Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones — that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction.

Dhammapada

Does self-sabotaging instincts come from the ego?

In a way, yes. Like all beings, we want what is best for ourselves. We want to be happy but we have a deluded understanding of happiness, one that is narrowly focused on ourselves resulting in selfishness and short-sightedness. I believe this came from an innate instinct that is partly evolved for our species’ survival. And this is the reason, I believe, why our brain constantly hungers for immediate rewards. We can see this in the behaviour of babies and their need for sensory stimulus. I observed a baby who was crying seemingly out of boredom. The mother picks it up and cradle it in her bosom. For a while, it was pacified but then it started crying again. The mother placed the baby in a pram and pushed it around. This pacified the baby until the next cycle. The baby wasn’t sick, hungry or soiled. It was just craving for sensory stimuli and had not yet developed the ability to inhibit this urge.
In Buddhism, this craving for sensory stimuli is defined as craving for sensual pleasure. As we grew older, we learned to modulate this craving through higher cognitive pathways. In fact, unlike other animal species, our species had evolved a large cerebral cortex that seems devoted to the inhibition of sensory stimulation. Inhibiting our urge for immediate rewards is important in several ways. First, to satiate this urge, we often rely on sensory stimuli. However, such reliance causes addiction, selfishness and anti-social behaviour. It is self-destructive in nature and, in my view, the root cause of self-sabotage.
Second, in order to maximize our overall welfare, we need to be able to see and understand what is the future consequences of our actions. This is necessary for us to plan ahead and perform actions that result in greater welfare in the long run. However, this objective conflicts with the constant urge for immediate rewards. An analogy would be a person playing chess. A poor player only focuses on the immediate gain or advantage in front of them without looking at 6, 7 or more steps ahead. Then several moves later, they end up in a severe material or positional disadvantage or may even be checkmated.
Third, higher cognitive capabilities in individuals are associated with the emergence of restraining behaviour that makes it easier for a species to co-operate and live harmoniously in a community. Selfish behaviour in the community is punished precisely because it is very destructive. However, this does not mean our ability to restrain this innate urge is always successful. As we grew older, the means of satisfying this immediate urge also grew more sophisticated. We get addicted to smoking, drinking, gambling, mobile games, social media and so on.

Where does the urge to self-sabotage come from

As above, it arises from our innate craving for immediate rewards. It causes us to be short-sighted in various aspects of our lives. For example, our craving to boost our ego could result in a habit of condescending behaviour e.g. making disparaging remarks. While this gives us an immediate feel-good effect, it causes a stain in our relationships with our husbands, wives, parents, friends and so on. Even though there was never any intention on our part to sabotage our relationships with our loved ones, unintentional damage had been done.

how to break free from this cycle?

The approach taught by the Buddha is that when we are acting, we need to understand if our actions lead to long-lasting happiness and well-being or long-lasting harm and sufferings. This is a counter-intuitive training that aims to offset our instinctive tendency to focus on immediate gain, rewards and gratification. It also help us not to ignore potential harm to others, to the environment and to ourselves that usually happens many, many years later. This is one approach that requires a willingness to reconstruct of our view and understanding of good and bad, gain and loss, right and wrong (i.e. right view or understanding). It forces us to focus at the long-term rewards versus the immediate ones. However, it can be a slow process that takes potentially years or decades.
Another approach is to be disciplined and regimental in the way we think, speak and act (right action and right speech). If we observed the relatively happy people around us, one common observation is the good habits that these people possessed. They are careful with their words and act appropriately when alone or with others. They are disciplined and regulated in their daily activities, not prone to activities that are heedless, complacent or throw caution to the winds.
Whether we adopt the first or second approach, the aim is the same i.e. to maximize our overall welfare (in Buddhist terminology, this is our long-lasting happiness and well-being) while minimizing the probabilities of self-sabotage. To achieve this, restrained behaviour must emerge in the individual. In Buddhism, this is achieved through right understanding (first approach) or the practice of sila or virtue (second approach). Both are in turn supported by right intention i.e. aiming for our long-lasting well-being. With Metta.

Here is what I found from the internet
I found that quote here on the internet (and nowhere else) but I don't really trust it -- it's someone's description, summary, interpretation, explanation of Buddhism.
There's a Buddhist canon i.e. the original Buddhist texts, which you can read for yourself (translated). Some of my earliest questions on this site were about that, and a lot or most of the questions on this site are  about that canon.
But now I'll mostly link to Wikipedia articles instead of to the canon!
Does self-sabotaging instincts come from the ego?
I don't think so.
What I think -- though I've never been taught nor studied psychology -- is that the "ego" was a term invented by Freud, and that Freud was a 19th century quack (or a more charitably, a "pioneer"). He didn't invent the word of course, it's the Latin word for "I" the first-person pronoun, but maybe the first to apply it that way.
Have you heard of medieval medical theory, Humorism? It's nonsense to talk to a modern doctor about "humours", it's the wrong vocabulary and the wrong state of mind, the wrong theories. To me the word "ego" is a word in search of something to refer to -- "the word 'ego' exists so there must be such a thing as 'ego' or 'an ego'" -- but not a useful word.
This theory of mine is based on what I've read of the Pali suttas (which I'll explain in more detail soon, below). But there are other forms or schools of Buddhism, perhaps more modern, and I've read other people on this site write about "ego" as if it's an entity which tries to continue (hence "ego-defence"), and I'm not saying they're wrong (see also the parable of the blind men and the elephant), and they do say to beware of ego-driven behaviours.
What I do read in Buddhism is a lot of analysis:

Three poisons -- lust, aversion, ignorance -- mentioned in Dhammadhatu's answer
Twelve nidanas
Noble eightfold way
Five hindrances
Seven factors of awakening

There's a lot more than only "analysis" in the suttas, but there is a lot of analysis -- by which I mean identifying (lists of) things-which-exist, phenomena, dhammas.
Curiously none of these so far as I know correspond exactly to the modern word "ego" which I why I say that Buddhism does not describe "self-sabotaging instincts" as "coming from the ego".
I don't even know what "self-sabotaging" means in this context. I guess it means "action or non-action which isn't in your best interest" and quite probably "something which you judge to be 'harmful' but you do it anyway".
There are many behaviours that might fit this description:

Smoking cigarettes and other addictions
Being angry with people
Procrastination in your duties (including "displacement behaviours")

The "three poisons" is maybe the most basic description:

Ignorance (don't understand what's good for you, misjudge things)
Greed (wanting some short-term pleasure)
Aversion (avoiding some short-term discomfort)

There are other descriptions, like "the five hindrances" linked above -- of the kleshas/kilesas.

Kleshas, in Buddhism, are mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions. Kleshas include states of mind such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc. Contemporary translators use a variety of English words to translate the term kleshas, such as: afflictions, defilements, destructive emotions, disturbing emotions, negative emotions, mind poisons, and neuroses.
In the contemporary Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist traditions, the three kleshas of ignorance, attachment, and aversion are identified as the root or source of all other kleshas. These are referred to as the three poisons in the Mahayana tradition, or as the three unwholesome roots in the Theravada tradition.

There's a lot of talk about "the self" or "non-self" in Buddhism, which may be related to "ego". One of the first is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta which I understand to be saying, "the idea of 'self', for example 'this is me' or 'this is mine', is not a useful idea".
See also A thicket of wrong views which I think implies that the idea of self isn't useful -- doesn't help to solve problems, isn't an actionable explanation of phenomena, is a useless theory.
how to break free from this cycle
I don't understand the specific question.
The general answer is probably, "the noble eightfold way" (and "the four noble truths which precede that") -- possibly starting with "right view", or possibly starting with "virtue" of the Threefold training.
The Kimatha Sutta (AN 11.1) identifies "skilful virtues" as fundamental, the bases.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is [etc]

Where does the urge to self-sabotage come from..?

One reason might be to induce samvega - a strong feeling of disgust, wretchedness, etc. that propels one towards seeking liberation.  It might help like that, but I'm not so sure, so I am not recommending it or anything like that.


text:
Identification with form
I have a pretty strong identification with body. I have listened to many Buddhist talks which tell me the body is not self. While I understand this on an intellectual level, I still can feel shame or embarrassment about this body.
Does anyone know of any meditations or practical ways to uproot this?
:)

I can suggest 2 ways to overcome this problem. But first I think we should understand why we feel ashamed or embarrassed with our body. I suspect we tend to feel more conscious of our self-image or physical attributes when we are young with impressionable ideas of what a good or bad physical image might be. This is usually a result of peer pressure, social expectations and other external influences and can lead to shame or embarrassment.
The best way to overcome this identification with our body or image is to realize its true nature i.e. it is impermanent (anicca). We will all grow old, ugly and frail one day. We have no control over this process i.e. it is not-self (anatta). One practice is to train our mind to pick out the old and unattractive people in a crowd. In doing this practice, we will notice our mind naturally gravitate towards identifying youthful and attractive people despite the fact there are way more ordinary people with ordinary physiques than people with attractive physiques. By forcing our mind to identify and focus on the old, ugly and ordinary, we begin to see the biasness in our mind.
After specifically picking out the old and frail, mentally tell ourselves, “This is what I will be like in X number of years”. This is not brainwashing ourselves, just a practice to remind ourselves the reality that is waiting for us many years from now. It will lessen our mind’s infatuation with youth and beauty. I think this practice is not as extreme as meditating on rotting corpses. It maybe not be as effective but is definitely more accessible.

And further, monks, as if a monk sees a body dead one, two, or three days; swollen, blue and festering, thrown in the charnel ground, he then applies this perception to his own body thus: "Verily, also my own body is of the same nature; such it will become and will not escape it."

Another approach is to watch and catch the train of thoughts when you start to feel shame or embarrassment about the body. There is usually a trigger. Were you comparing yourself to someone who just walked by? Or an advertisement of some models you saw? Or an implicit trigger behind all these explicit triggers like a sudden recollection of a nasty comment from someone you respected about your physical attributes from a long, long time ago? This is not an easy approach as it requires a high degree of mindfulness, alertness and concentration as we go about our daily activities. But the advantage is that identifying these triggers allows us to see the deluded mind which believed that satisfying all these artificial criteria will bring happiness. No, it may bring attention but attention is not a cause for happiness. Otherwise, all celebrities and well-known figures would have been the happiest people alive. These people are just like us, they faced difficulties in their lives too.
Lastly, not all shame or embarrassment with our body is bad. For example, if we had been overindulgent in our intake of food and beverages, a protruding tummy in the mirror might look a bit embarrassing. But it is a signal we need to be more health conscious going forth. Shame can be a good thing if we utilize it skilfully. But don’t let it goad you into unskilful thoughts or actions. With Metta.

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this out. I have been practicing the methods you recommend, both being mindful of ageing and the triggers to the shame and embarrassment. And both do help! And I will continue to practice them :)I think another reason these feelings come up for me is that I care what others think of my body. And they probably don’t which is the irony of it all. Anyway thank you again :)

@Deepscarcity I am happy to help. The practice of mindfulness is not easy, keep at it with patience and perseverance. May peace and delight follow every thought, breath and step we make. With Metta.

Are you trying to avoid the shame? I practice Satipathana insight meditation and it was hard for me to realize that I can really just witness the shame without reacting to it or getting involved with it. One's feelings and mind events are not entangled with other mind states when one looks at them on a continuous moment by moment basis. They are just unconnected mind objects that one can isolate and witness with properly concentrated mindfulness.

Hi, thanks for your response! Yes, this is something I have recently noticed. When I begin to feel shame I have strong aversion. I try to make it go away by obsessing over it and thinking about it. But this just fuels it and keeps the emotion alive. I find it hard to let go of these thoughts when I am feeling it. But I am trying to just observe and let go as best I can. :)

Why do you feel shame or embarrassment about the body ?
Look at your body as a wound which needs to be taken care of until you fully realise you are not body.

Hi, thanks for your reply! I feel shame, as I think others may crtizise my body. Even thought logically I know they probably aren’t. And then i find it hard to let go of these thoughts. And I will take care of the body. All the best :)

Do not feel ashamed because remember, the body you think is yours is not yours. You are not even 1% of your body. Therefore you should not feel ashamed of what is not yours.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How should I take the concept of the following sentence?
In this following context, how should I take the bold and italic sentence?
Should I take it as: 'it is no longer known more important than all.'?
Should I take its concept meaning as: 'the matter is known nothing rather than all changing.'?
Context:

Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible
atom. “For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a
series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that
mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series
of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The
question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether
these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a
living body and other occurrences which take place after that body is
dead.”
As C. E. M. Joad says in The Meaning of Life, “matter has since
disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no
longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws;
and more important than all, it is no longer known. The so-called atoms, it seems, are both ‘divisible and destructible.” The
electrons and protons that compose atoms ‘can meet and annihilate one
another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a
wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both
as regards shape and position than that of a thing.”

Source: P. 59
Buddhism in a Nutshell
by Narada Thera

You need to give more context.

Thanks @Dheeraj Verma. I put more context there. I hope your explanation to this.

“It is no longer known” means that science now says that everything is now quantum mechanical. It is no longer known how to interpret quantum mechanics…

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


text:
Doubt regarding correct meditation technique
I have been doing meditation for around 20-30 minutes a day for 5 years. One thing I have noticed is I absorb my mind in both the awareness of my whole body (as in physical sensations such as pressure etc), and also the sensation of the breath in the whole body, I can reach a state where thoughts slow down lots, sometimes even stopping for a while. It’s a pleasant state, but I doubt if I am practicing correctly as I’m not sure if this was the method recommended by the Buddha.
Any advice would be appreciated.
All the best :)

Buddhism has four main types of meditation practices. The first is Metta, which involves spreading kindness to oneself and the entire universe, avoiding anger, and wishing happiness, health, and even Nirvana to all beings. The second is Anapanasati, which helps you relax and focus your mind by concentrating on your breathing. The third type of meditation is Buddhanussati/Dhammanussati/Sangha, which involves thinking about the characteristics and specialties of Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha to develop faith. Finally, Vipassana involves contemplating oneself and the universe as impermanent even souls, recognizing that everything has an end. This practice helps one avoid attachment to oneself or the world, view one's body parts as disgusting, and avoid bonding with them.

Your method is similar to as taught by the Buddha, such as in MN 118 & MN 119.
This said, doing meditation for around 20-30 minutes a day will be like having a mental health check up. It won't progress meditation very far.

Thanks for your reply :) How long should I meditate?

Thank you. I suppose my final comment was in response to another answer that referred to "jhanas". "Jhanas" cannot be reached practicing 30 minutes per day. As for your post, it sounds like you are doing OK if the mind is calmed & meditation feels "pleasant". Duration of meditation is up to you, your motives & your lifestyle.

Its nice achievement.

If you master it you can get there quickly.
If you master staying there for long. Your mind and body will benefit like a deep sleep. i.e your mental and physical health will improve.
and as you rightly said you get joy. its a pure entertainment.

However There is danger there
It has nothing to do with buddha teaching,or nibbana.
You master the art of retreating when your mind is disturbed. Instead of doing observation of what arised and why it arisen, what is danger in what is arising, and how to escape from what is arising, and how long it will stay. You turn your attention away from this vipasana and turn toward the joy of breathing. So whatever has arisen will get suppressed. and stay with you always. and there is no more probability of arising something else too.
The joy that is arised due to seclusion from 6 sense thoughts. is also of anicca nature, its not in your control, it arises on its own, stay  and goes away. you should also  see danger, escape even in that joy.
You are also wasting time, since you are not doing vipassana of thought or that joy. people can stay in this state for days. and at the end  its nothing but entertainment. it is one kind of sensual pleasure only. as long as 6 Sense are there even this joy is sensual joy. A joy by seclusion of sensual pleasure is also sensual joy.

@Deepscarcity FYI, the question of whether the jhanas are necessary in the path to enlightenment had been covered in here. The relationship between jhanas and insight (vipassana) had been discussed in this answer as well.

I’m not sure if this was the method recommended by the Buddha.

The method with the most detailed instructions recommended by the Buddha can be found in the Anapansati Sutta. There are many different interpretations of this Sutta among different authors, practitioners, monks, etc.
You would likely find it useful to read the Sutta. It may seem unclear though, and so after reading you can look up various authors interpretations of the sutta.
Some authors to choose from include Ajahn Brahm, Bhikkhu Analayo, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and more (these author recommendations reflect my biases). You will note there are competing interpretations.
Another sutta is the Satipatthana Sutta, although it is not clear if this is really “meditation instructions.” Again, there are different interpretations of what this sutta entails.

It is good to be able to enjoy the physical comfort and ease that arises during meditation. This is something that we can always fall back upon in difficult times. Moving forth, I would suggest that you look into the subject of your meditation object. While attending to the whole body (i.e. various parts of the body) can give rise to a pleasant state, there is too much flux and information, I feel, to allow the mind to develop absorption or one-pointed concentration (samadhi).
I would suggest you read some meditation techniques that specifically aimed to develop the jhanas. One freely available source is provided by Venerable Pa-Auk Tawya Saydaw. Another meditation teacher that I find helpful is Ajahn Brahm. Though, the narratives and explanations can be quite a fair bit and personal but nonetheless helpful as references. May these sources provide you with even more joy and bliss in your journey in meditation. With Metta.

Thank you. I will look into them :)


text:
How should I take the concept of 'non-entity'?
In this following context, how should I assume the concept of 'a perfect non-entity'
Is it 'non-consciousness' or 'non-existence' or 'non- perception' or 'non- ego'?
I think it refers to 'non-perception' according to this passage. But I'm not sure what should be taken here.
let me know your idea.
Thanks All.

When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so
long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And
were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think,
nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my
body, I Shou’d be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is
farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity

Source: BUNDLE THEORY OF THE SELF: Unit 2: Metaphysics
by David Hume

I’m voting to close this question because this question doesn’t meet a Buddhism Stack Exchange guideline. The terms "entity' & "non-entity' do not exist in Buddhist language, at least in Pali. The question about Metaphysics by David Hume obviously does not belong on this forum.

@DhammaDhatu With all due respect. I would like to comment that just because the words do not exist in Buddhist Language (which is itself ambiguous- there is no Buddhist language- there is Buddhism in many languages) does not implicate the question is not for this forum. This is 'doing' Buddhism in English. A question has been asked (not cynical or totally different topic) to a Buddhism forum. If a question is asked to Buddhism (either through Hume or some other philosopher or their own question or whatever way), it does not make it invalid. Let's take the opportunity to use this as a bridge.

I also think this question should be closed as it is about the ambiguous language of a non-buddhist philosopher. If the language were not ambiguous and we could agree how to translate it into Buddhist concepts or language, then it would be acceptable. That isn't the case.

According to Buddhist teachings, nothing is permanent except for Nirvana. This means that the universe and our bodies are not permanent, and are constantly changing. Our souls are also not permanent and change from birth to birth (as human/god/hell/animal, etc) until they reach Nirvana. After reaching Nirvana, the soul also reaches its end. Therefore, everything in the universe is impermanent, and every beginning has an end and is always changing.

From what I understand it surely isn’t non-perception.
Non-perception is the affirmation of absence.  For example, when wind is not detected one can say, “there is the non-perception of wind”.  Surely one must exist to claim non-perception.
From its definition, an entity exists apart from other things. Perhaps Hume felt a strong sense of otherness to which death or deep sleep was the only remedy.  And perhaps for Hume non-entity was not objective enough, so he says “perfect non-entity” upon death.  So I guess he doesn’t believe in transmigration.

An entity has independent, separate, or self-contained existence. Emptiness, in its various interpretations in the differing schools of Buddhism, refers to the absence of those qualities. So emptiness could be defined as non-entity-ship of all appearances. In the materialism/physicalism prevalent in European/Western philosophy, entity-ship is a foundational understanding.

Do you mean, emptiness (suñňata), @StillJustJames?

Yep, I think you got it right, in this passage Hume identifies being a self with being the subject of perception (or we can say, experience). So, to him, having no perception equates to not existing, even if temporarily (during sleep).
In Buddhism, we don't define it the same way. Identifying perception as the self, or really anything impermanent as self, is a source of dukkha.
Now, the question of entities plays a prominent role in Mahayana Buddhism where all entities (not just self) are understood to be transient bundles of causes and conditions, without any intrinsic essence at their core, hence Emptiness (Shunyata).
I'm not very familiar with Hume but it seems like he is saying something similar about the self being a bundle? In both cases there's no need to become a perfect non-entity because being a bundle means there was no entity to begin with.

I have not come across this concept of a “perfect non-entity” in Theravada. From a pure logical perspective, it does not make sense. First, a “perfect non-entity” only makes sense in the context of an “imperfect entity” (similarly for concepts like existence/non-existence, perception/non-perception and ego/non-ego). This means that this concept is dependent on an imperfect entity or else it will be meaningless. If something (even a concept) is dependent on another for its existence, then it cannot be perfect.
Second, the reason why an entity is imperfect in Buddhism is because it is dependent on other causes/conditions for its existence. Inherently, it does not have an intrinsic and independent nature. So, this means a perfect non-entity must have an intrinsic and independent nature. In the context of Buddhism, everything in samsara is dependently originated. Even non-living phenomena like the seasons, the winds and rain are dependently originated, not to mention living beings like you and me. Therefore, the question is can there be a perfect non-entity in samsara? In Buddhism, my understanding is only temporarily but not permanently. An example is a living Arahant whose existence in samsara ends upon Parinirvana. If something perfect exists in samsara permanently and interacts with it then the entire definition of samsara is dubious.
Lastly, I don’t think we can ever grok a concept which is beyond our experience, no matter how hard we try to imagine or extrapolate it. An analogy would be someone who lived all their life floating on the sea, they may see the shore (a perception) but they would never understand what it is like to be dry and standing on solid ground (an experience). Another aspect of independent and intrinsic state such as the Deathless state is that they are orthogonal to known samsaric states. For example, the Deathless state may contain characteristics opposite of the samsaric states but it would also contain characteristics that has no opposites and vice versa. Because samsara and Nirvana did not existed for one another, they are independent.
Even the concept of Emptiness (Sunyata) is different when experienced and perceived by an Arahant versus as experienced and perceived by a non-enlightened being. While I believe that the philosopher Hume is alluding to something that is independent and intrinsic in nature; unless he is enlightened and talking about the Deathless element, the closest Buddhist states to his theory would be the sphere of Nothingness or the realm of asaññasatta where no perception exists. However, as Buddhists we understood neither of these attainments are perfect. With Metta.

I believe this 'non-entity' concept is laid out in the Maalunkyaputta Sutta

Well then, Maalunkyaputta, in things seen, heard, sensed, cognized: in
the seen there will only be the seen, in the heard only the heard, in
the sensed only the sensed, in the cognized only the cognized... Then,
Maalunkyaputta, there will be no 'thereby' for you. Having no
'thereby' you have no 'there.' Having no 'there,' Maalunkyaputta,
there is for you neither this world, nor the next, nor anywhere in
between. That in itself is the end of suffering.

By forbearing to form thoughts on things seen, heard, sensed, cognised, no self-consciousness is generated and one is self-emptied as in suññatā.

An entity is a form. Therefore, to consider "non-entity", we find that the Buddha says:

AN9.41:11.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space?’

Beyond that, the Buddha introduces:

AN9.41:12.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that “consciousness is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite consciousness?’

Beyond that, the Buddha introduces:

AN9.41:13.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness?’

Beyond that, the Buddha introduces:

AN9.41:14.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception?’

And finally, the Buddha steps away from attachment to any of these dimensions, saying:

AN9.41:16.1: As long as I hadn’t entered into and withdrawn from these nine progressive meditative attainments in both forward and reverse order, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.

In other words, the Buddha did not get stuck in the search for the perfect non-entity. He let it go.


text:
Interpretations of the fifth precept
The fifth precept, in Pali, reads

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I do not know Pali, but from what I understand, this is literally interpreted as a prohibition against alcohol only. (Avoiding fermented drinks that cause heedlessness).
There are several levels of interpretation that I could see here:

The most literal would be to intepret the precept as being against alcohol only. This level is fermented drink + intoxicant + heedlessness.
The next level might be to intrepret it as prohibiting any substance which could cause heedlessness - although what counts as "heedless" might be open for debate. Does marijuana cause heedlessness, for example?* This level is intoxicant + heedlessness.
The next level would be against any type of substance that causes "intoxication" more broadly speaking. You might argue that marijuana does not cause heedlessness, for example, but it is certainly an intoxicant. Any type of drug which the government forbids you to operate heavy machinery on while under the influence would be an intoxicant. This level is intoxicant alone.
The next level would be against any substance which causes a shift in mental state. This would include things like caffeine, but it looks like most monks allow themselves to drink tea. (Tea also contains L-theanine). Mild over the counter sleep supplements would also count. (It should be noted that nicotine, viewed as a substance alone, seems to be more in category 4 than any other category). This level is a step below “intoxicant,” but still mind altering.

There are other wrinkles as well. What about drugs prescribed by doctors with side effects? Or antidepressants? Psychedelic assisted therapy?
My question here is if there is a consensus as to the correct level of interperation among academic/monks currently practicing.
*I would say yes it does cause “heedlessness”. But the point here is not to debate this; the point is that there might reasonably exist a class of drugs which are intoxicating but do not cause heedlessness.

Sura = spirits
Meraya = fermented liquor
Majja = intoxicants

Does marijuana cause heedlessness, for example?

Yes.

You might argue that marijuana does not cause heedlessness

You might try but you cannot.

Any type of drug which the government forbids you to operate heavy
machinery on while under the influence would be an intoxicant.

Yes.

What about drugs prescribed by doctors with side effects? Or antidepressants?

Yes. Cause heedlessness & generally prescribed to the heedless.

Psychedelic assisted therapy?

Yes. Intoxicant.

My question here is if there is a consensus as to the correct level of
interpretation among academic/monks currently practicing.

No.

This answer reads like a dogmatic opinion instead of a well crafted response.

dogmatic = irrelevant

You would then need to dichotomize what intoxication and headlessness is. So you think someone who has a thimble or less full of 0000.1% proof of alcohol is then headless? Does eating a semi unripe apple then make you headless? What about eating a bad apple?  The point here is headlessness, which in an extreme level for a hardened alcoholic could mean 7 litres of 50% proof spirits until they reach the point of headlessness.  Headlessness is the issue, not the consumption of the intoxicant. The quantity or quality of the intoxicant is then left up to the individual meditator to judge,

Though of course for sangha any amount of intentional intoxication is a break of the precept and it is wise for the laity to completely stay away from intoxication. Though I have never heard of the Buddha saying or the sangha saying a person should not take medication prescribed by a doctor for an illness, and even if that medication required anaesthesia or morphine which would indeed cause headlessness, how is this a breaking of the precept?


text:
How should I take the concept of 'identical being'?
In this following context, how should I take the concepts of 'identical being' and 'identity in process'?
Can the concept 'identical being' have 'unchanging entity'?
Would you give any idea about this bold and italic sentence?
I'm confused about these usages.
Context:

Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its
predecessors together with something more. There is, therefore, a
continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any
interruption. The subsequent thought-moment is neither absolutely the
same as its predecessor since that which goes to make it up is not
identical—nor entirely another—being the same continuity of Kamma
energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity
in process.

Source: P. 61
Buddhism in a Nutshell
by Narada Thera

By "identical being" he means someone who is exactly the same today and tomorrow. Obviously, that's impossible and yet most people think their identity stays the same over time, and that's what he calls "identity in process" - if you steal something last year and they catch you next year, you are still responsible even though you have changed.
In jurisprudence this is called "a legal successor". Even though you may not be the same entity, you inherit the karma of your last year self.

I believe what Narada Thera is saying is the karmic seeds we planted and the karmic effects experienced will result in the identity we possess. It is this karmic process that give rise to our identity. There is no intrinsic or independent identity within this process. The example he gave is how our identity arises from our thought process. A person who habitually inclined to impatience and irritability and respond with anger to unfavourable events (a process) is a “hot-tempered” person (an identity). Likewise, anyone can possess a “hot-tempered” identity by participating in a similar process.
This means that there can never be two identical beings as it is impossible for two persons to have the exact same karma. However, two beings can generate very similar identities by participating in very similar karmic causes. So, I can look, behave, speak and even think like you (e.g. twins). Likewise the me now maybe very similar to the me a day, week or month ago. But we are not identical because the karmic seeds planted and effect experienced then and now will never be exactly the same i.e. the specific us that existed in a specific time in our life is unique and will never be encountered again. This also means that we should treasure each moment of ourselves. With Metta.


text:
Lying while playing a game
I have been looking into Buddhism and this is the question I found hard to answer.
I do understand that lying in Buddhism is breaking the 4th precept. I also know that in case lying is required in order to save someone's life for example is something that should be done(unless there is a way to bend the truth) but it still would break the 4th precept. But now I found one example I have no idea if it breaks the 4th percept. Let's say I am playing a game where you are supposed to spot the odd one out(someone that is playing against everyone else). That person has to lie in order to hide the fact that they are the odd one out. The reason why I do not know if this breaks the 4th precept is because all players are aware that one of them is lying. So does playing this game as the odd one out break the 4th precept?

Lying is deception for worldly gain.

“He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.
AN 10.211

Lying is also something than can diminish one's trustworthiness & safeness in the eyes of others; even if the lie or exaggerated speech is merely a lighthearted joke.

In the same way, when someone is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no bad deed they would not do, I say. So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a joke.’
MN 61

But if lying is part of an actual recreational game of lying, such as when people bluff when they play poker, then, "no", it does not break the 4th precept because no one is being deceived or potentially upset. The purpose of the precepts is to not hurt oneself & to not hurt others.

When you want to act with speech, you should check on that same deed: ‘Does this act with speech that I want to do lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both? Is it unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result?’ If, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with speech that I want to do leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ To the best of your ability, Rāhula, you should not do such a deed. But if, while checking in this way, you know: ‘This act with speech that I want to do doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should do such a deed.
MN 61


text:
What are the cause(s) of a biased or sticky mind?
Over the years I observed in myself and others a tendency to get stuck (to be biased) in our views, thoughts and behaviour. This appears to be the result of cognitive biases in the mind resulting in adverse effects to ourselves and others as the examples below illustrate:
Case 1: Someone with end stage renal failure and had to undergo a graft placement in her arm to prepare her for haemodialysis. The first operation failed as there was non-stop bleeding and the surgeon re-do the surgery but that too failed with the same issue. A third attempt was scheduled but the surgeon warned if that fails too then the patient is considered unsuitable for haemodialysis. The patient’s daughter who was not medically trained, decided to check the daily medication the hospital was giving her mother and noticed that she was still on aspirin, a known anti-coagulant. Luckily, the discovery turned things around swiftly.
Case 2: Years ago there was a shipping accident involving a ferry ship called MV Sewol in South Korea. The tragedy would have been avoided if steps were taken to improve safety but those in charge assumed that it was business as usual.
Case 3: Analysts believed the current war between Ukraine and Russia arose due an overconfident Russia miscalculating its military capabilities and assuming it will be another “Crimea-like” walk in the park.
My question are as follows:

What could be the cause(s) for such biases from the perspective of Buddhism?
From Buddhist teachings, what can be done to reduce or stop such biases?

Please answer freely from any insights you may have. I believe this is a problem that has grave consequences to the world with its effects greatly magnified with modern technology. Therefore, any contribution or idea would be appreciated.
Appendix (I)
Some time back, I came across a study that linked mindfulness practice and its positive effects on cognitive biases. As it is popularly known, mindfulness practice has its roots in Buddhism. Thus, I suspect Buddhism compared to other religions may be able to suggest cause(s) and solution(s) to this problem which is plaguing us and the world.

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

The question is about "cognitive bias". You provide a hyperlink to https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963 which says there are 12 types and 5 causes. So perhaps the question is too broad? Perhaps it would be a better or more focussed question if you selected and quoted one to three sentences from the article you hyperlinked, to identify a more specific topic.

@DhammaDhatu Please don’t take this badly and correct me if I am wrong. But so far, I have never seen you with a follow-up question (like what ChrisW did) before attempting to close questions or downvote answers. If your intention is to create a forum atmosphere that is vibrant, that illuminates and deepens understanding in Buddhism, I am afraid your actions are having the opposite effects.

@ChrisW Thanks, I added an appendix to give a background as to how this question arose. Please let me know if there is anything else I should improve or elaborate.

Hi. The question contains questionable worldly narratives; which can result in political debate. Its not a Buddhist question. Buddhists see the world clearly.

@DhammaDhatu I am not sure what to make of your latest comment. If Buddhists see the world clearly then they won’t be raising any questions here. The examples in the question are given to stress its importance and relevance. If this question is deemed off-topic, you then proceeded to answer it as you did a number of times in the past when you vote to close questions. I believed my observations here and above can be verified by the system records. Again, this is rather inexplicable and has a chilling effect in this forum.

I doubt any enlightened Buddhist would take the mass-media seriously. Even when I was a child, the television was called "the Idiot Box". The most basic Buddhist practice is Truthful Speech (MN 61). Therefore we only speak what we believe is true after thorough research/examination. Mass-media exists to make money & to promote corporate & political propaganda.

This is a very good, very important question, touching on an essential topic. I wish more people asked this question, in fact I hope one day this will be common knowledge taught in schools.
The problem of biases/stereotypes/overgeneralizations/reifications is studied extensively in Mahayana Buddhism, albeit not always in the modern explicit manner. It comes up as part of Yogacara analysis of perception, Madhyamaka analysis of the nature of dharmas, and in pithy form as numerous anecdotes of historical teachers putting historical students in funny situations to make them see their biases.
That said, the way it is often with Buddhism, sometimes it's hard to see the forest behind the trees. Let's try and clarify it.
The teaching of Dependent Coarising or Pratityasamutpada explains development of the object-centric materialistic mind and eventual arising of the notion of self.
The initial phase of this process is accumulation of tendencies or samskaras. Tendencies are cyclic self-sustaining causal patterns. One particular kind of tendencies are behavioral-perceptual tendencies, when you see something you do something you get a reward. Or in more technical terms, recognition of a sign leads to associated behavior reinforcing the meaning of the sign. Like all tendencies, these tendencies evolve through natural selection.
Long story short, our entire mind is made of billions of such tendencies trained to do pattern recognition. Each pattern and every sign is essentially a generalization. It always boils down a bunch of evidence to "this is what it means". So generalization is the very principle our mind is made of. Our entire mind is generalization upon generalization, association upon association, recognition upon recognition, which are all different flavors of the same principle.
Naturally, for a sentient being who's every idea about its world is some kind of generalization, it never comes as something to doubt. From the very childhood we learn that mommy is always like that, daddy is always like this, when it rains it pours, the dog's nose is cold, and so on and so forth - everything we learn about the world is a generalization. Why would we question them?
And so by the time we are adults, we have a certain idea of what the world is like, how things work, what's possible and what's not, what's good and bad, whom we can trust, what signs indicate the person is smart or stupid or kind or whatever. And every single one of these observations is a generalization.
What's even worse, we generally want these generalizations to fit with each other, because we want them to connect into a consistent model of the world as we know it. Having inconsistencies and contradictions is uncomfortable for a sentient being who's mind is made from information. Contradictions destroy meaning. So sentient beings prefer to avoid them.
And so by the certain age we start filtering our new observations/generalizations to only accept ones that fit with what we know, and drop the ones that contradict what we know.
On the surface it seems like a greatly efficient mechanism, generalize our observations so we don't have to waste time analyzing things again and again - instead as soon as we see a familiar pattern - boom! and we know what it means. And we don't waste time processing things that don't make sense given what we know - we build on top of our knowledge and experience. Sounds great!
But then of course we get to all those issues you describe in your question and more. It is the flip side of intelligence, it's like, the same power that gives us ability to be intelligent creatures, is a curse that makes us blind.
The special term used in Madhyamaka (in English translations) is "reification". Reification is when we take an observation/generalization and elevate it to a status of "this is the way the world is". In other words, we confuse the map with the territory. We think the map is the territory and then we stop looking at the territory at all! All we see is the map!
And so a lot of teaching and practice of Mahayana Buddhism is to learn to undo that habit and get back to seeing the world as it is and not as we know it.

Good stuff….while I agreed with @OyaMist about ignorance and the five hindrances being potential causes. But I could not reconcile with the fact that younger people appeared to be less affected. E.g. young children adapt effortlessly to mobile gadgets while older seniors struggled. I was trying to understand what was causing the mind to become more rigid as we grow older. Your answer hits the spot.

You mentioned about tendencies, I wonder if it is similar to the concept of anusaya? Sorry, I know it is Theravadin. I am still trying to understand the exact mechanism how these tendencies worsen our objectivity, situational-awareness and mindfulness as we grow older. Is it because of the presence of mental defilements (asavas)? Perhaps, I will ask another question. Thanks again.

It is ignorance, my friend, the good old avidya that is the cause.

What you describe as a biased mind or sticky mind, and also cognitive biases, are part of what I would describe as a mental model, or a sort of mentally constructed world one lives in, or a mental reality.
A lot of these cognitive biases have a connection to the mental idea of the self.
From your quoted article:

Actor-observer bias: This is the tendency to attribute your own
actions to external causes while attributing other people's behaviors
to internal causes. For example, you attribute your high cholesterol
level to genetics while you consider others to have a high level due
to poor diet and lack of exercise.
Confirmation bias: This is favoring information that conforms to your
existing beliefs and discounting evidence that does not conform.
Optimism bias: This bias leads you to believe that you are less likely
to suffer from misfortune and more likely to attain success than your
peers.
Self-serving bias: This is the tendency to blame external forces when
bad things happen and give yourself credit when good things happen.
For example, when you win a poker hand it is due to your skill at
reading the other players and knowing the odds, while when you lose it
is due to getting dealt a poor hand.
The Dunning-Kruger effect: This is when people who believe that they
are smarter and more capable than they really are. For example, when
they can't recognize their own incompetence.

So, just imagine that. A person has a mental model, or mentally constructed world, in which he is the hero, highly optimistic about his probability for future success, thinking he has the best opinions and beliefs, not blaming himself when things go wrong, and believing himself to be smart and competent, without being able to recognize his own incompetence.
There are two elements here - a "mentally constructed world" (loka, or sankhara loka, as labelled by Piya Tan) and the "mental idea of the self" (atta). They both have basis in objectification-classification or reification (papanca).
Please see this question and this answer for mentally constructed world (loka, or sankhara loka).
Please see this answer for objectification-classification (papanca). This answer also shows the connection to the mental idea of the self (atta).
Also, please see this answer to understand how all of these are connected to dependent origination, which is the main Buddhist model of how the mind-body system works and how it results in the birth of a being, who lives and suffers.
Hence, everything you have investigated - cognitive bias, sticky mind, biased mind, self-centered thinking, are all closely linked to Buddhism, as taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon. The links above contain all the relevant sutta references.

Thanks for this insight and the links. It does throw up a few questions. I will try to consolidate them and perhaps put up another question related to this topic.

All these cases lead me to read:

AN10.61:1.1: “Mendicants, it is said that no first point of ignorance is evident, before which there was no ignorance, and afterwards it came to be.
AN10.61:1.2: And yet it is evident that there is a specific condition for ignorance.
AN10.61:2.1: I say that ignorance is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.2: And what is the fuel for ignorance?
AN10.61:2.3: You should say: ‘The five hindrances.’
AN10.61:2.4: I say that the five hindrances are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.5: And what is the fuel for the five hindrances?
AN10.61:2.6: You should say: ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’
AN10.61:2.7: I say that the three kinds of misconduct are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.8: And what is the fuel for the three kinds of misconduct?
AN10.61:2.9: You should say: ‘Lack of sense restraint.’
AN10.61:2.10: I say that lack of sense restraint is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.11: And what is the fuel for lack of sense restraint?
AN10.61:2.12: You should say: ‘Lack of mindfulness and situational awareness.’
...

And that is enough for me.

The link you cited says,

If you had to think about every possible option when making a decision, it would take a lot of time to make even the simplest choice. Because of the sheer complexity of the world around you and the amount of information in the environment, it is necessary sometimes to rely on some mental shortcuts that allow you to act quickly.
Cognitive biases can be caused by a number of different things, but it is these mental shortcuts, known as heuristics, that often play a major contributing role. While they can often be surprisingly accurate, they can also lead to errors in thinking.

It seems to me that, for lay-people at least, Buddhist doctrine gives you a better set of "heuristics" -- i.e. "decision-making tools" or "lens through which to filter".
So for example, someone might ask,

(I don't know what the doctor's problem was, but kudos to the daughter or muditā)
Can I increase profit by overloading the cargo?
Can I increase profit by winning this war?

Whereas instead I think that Buddhist doctrine encourages us to ask questions like,

Is this harmless (safe)?
Is this beneficial?
Is this kind?
Is this ethical?
Is this skilful?
Is this motivated by anger or by avarice?
Is this cessation?

These are (in my opinion) a "better" set of heuristics. The cognitive bias inherent in using them is a a bias towards ethics and kindness and so on -- or towards "liberation".

Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation.

Ud 5.5

In summary, you wrote,

This appears to be the result of cognitive biases in the mind resulting in adverse effects to ourselves and others.

It seems to me that one who "sees danger in the slightest fault" (AN 3.88) could still be described as having cognitive bias, but that bias is towards reducing "adverse effects".
Also the definition you cited starts with,

A cognitive bias is a systematic error

I'm not sure that the type of bias which I'm attributing to Buddhist doctrine is in fact an "error" -- if so it's at least of a different category, a different type of imperfection.

Yes, a better set of heuristics is definitely one solution to overcome these biases. It makes me feel so glad that Buddhism is not a goody-goody religion but one that can give a solid science-driven rationale and justification for adopting certain virtuous behaviour. Unfortunately, I am accepting @AndriyVolkov answer as it explains both the cause and the possible solution as well as how the process unfolds. Thank you.

What are the cause(s) of a biased or sticky mind?

The Buddha had the Divine Eye, a psychic power, which allowed him to understand the finer points of the world, its people & their motivations. In contrast, the Arahant disciple Sariputta, did not have the Divine Eye, therefore occasionally made errors of judgment, such as in MN 97, guiding the Brahmin Dhanañjani towards attainment of the Brahma World, rather than guiding the Brahmin Dhanañjani towards the attainment of stream-entry. Sariputta did this because he did not know the mental capacity of Dhanañjani, unlike the Buddha.

Case 1: The patient’s daughter who was not medically trained, decided
to check the daily medication the hospital was giving her mother and
noticed that she was still on aspirin, a known anti-coagulant.
Luckily, the discovery turned things around swiftly.

The above is very common. I myself did a similar act, when I once simply went the public library & researched medications used for thyroid conditions. There were three different medicines & one caused persistent cough in 1/3 of people. I then took my mother to a different doctor, who then referred my mother to different specialist, who then prescribed my mother a different & appropriate medication. This simply may occur for many speculative reasons, which are pure speculation & unrelated to Buddhism, Only a person with the Divine Eye could precisely assess why my mother's former doctor & her former specialist were so medically negligent in giving her the wrong thyroid medication & then continuing to give her anti-biotics for her new developed persistent cough .
Currently in the world doctors are not free to practice medicine as they wish. At least in most Western countries, doctors are highly regulated in how they practice & what medicines they can prescribe. This was acutely evident with the Covid-19 plandemic. For example, my mother's doctor was a devout Christian & was also originally against the mRNA experimental vaccine. But later, due to pressure & orders from his employer, he changed his view. Today, for example, merely general practitioners are prescribing anti-depressants as though these medicines are like candy. Previously, only a specialist psychiatrist was allowed to prescribe anti-depressants. In short, medicine doctors are now heavily subject to industry regulation & political correctness. They are no longer allowed to intelligently practice medicine. Many are now no different to drug dealers, just prescribing party drugs (antidepressants) to anyone who asks. This causes many of them to become irrational. Note: this answer is not really related to Buddhist philosophy because it is speculative, even though it does give a speculative view about how loss of morals affect judgement. The Buddha taught the nutriment of the five hindrances is the three unskillful actions (AN 10.61). Thus doctors have mental hindrances to making the right decisions because their ethical behaviour & personal integrity has become worse.

Case 3: Analysts believed the current war between Ukraine and Russia
arose due an overconfident Russia miscalculating its military
capabilities and assuming it will be another “Crimea-like” walk in the park.

There are no objective analysts above. These so-called analysts are simply engaged in political propaganda. There is no war between Ukraine & Russia. All that is occurring is a "Special Military Operation". Since 2014, Ukrainian military has been murdering people in the Donbass. Ukraine did not abide by the 2015 Minsk Agreements (also NATO). Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has not kept its promise to not expand beyond Germany. NATO even attempted to include Georgia in NATO, which is not even near the Atlantic Ocean. Russia is not over-confident. Russia has engaged in a strategy designed to minimise loss of life & damage. It is Ukraine doing things like blowing up its own bridges. Russian is conducting a ground military operation rather than all out war, such as using aircraft bomber to destroy Ukraine. Ukraine is being supplied weapons & logistics by the West, which is prolonging the Special Military Operation. Ukraine has lost at least 400,000 soldiers, according to objective accounts. The Russians simply play games of advance & retreat & suck the Ukrainians into ambushes and slaughter them or make them surrender. The Ukrainians are being slaughtered in a NATO Proxy War yet we have so-called Buddhists promoting NATO propaganda that results in supporting more & more deaths & damage. Russian is now occupying most of Eastern Ukraine and will probably control all of the land, in the future, east of the Dnieper River. Plus it will probably control Western Ukraine politically & completely demilitarize Ukraine.
As soon as the Special Military Operation began, Ukraine should have surrendered. As soon as the Special Military Operation began, all Buddhists without cognitive biases in the mind should have supported a Ukrainian surrender. But, no. There were Buddhist chatsites with moderators & monks demonizing Putin & Russia. This indirectly supported the massive loss of life that has now occurred, which is around 500,000 people. Ukraine can never win therefore they should have immediately surrendered & granted Russia its request that Ukraine remain neutral & not connected to NATO.
Today, Western Buddhism is saturated with Cultural Marxists who hate Christianity & Islam. When Russia & Hezbollah saved the oldest Christian towns & monasteries in Syria from NATO-Gulf-State backed ISIS & Al Qaeda, hardly any Buddhists cared. Western Buddhist monks & nuns were feverously cheering for Hillary Clinton, who with Obama & NATO, destroyed Libya & attempted to do the same to Syria (refer to this BSE link from 2016). In December 2016, when the oldest most pluralistic city in the world, Aleppo, was liberated from Obama's & Clinton's proxy forces, a certain cabal of Western monks & nuns were literally lamenting Clinton's loss to Mr Trump.
In conclusion, the Buddha taught most people are subject to ignorance. Also, those who have no ignorance still cannot understand the world completely if they do not have the Divine Eye. This is why there is cognitive bias.

I believe the Divine Eye has its limitation. We can argue that the Buddha should have known Venerable Sariputta would not have guided the Brahmin into the fruits of liberation through the Divine Eye faculty and given him clearer instructions. In any case, the Venerable is merely giving the Brahmin what he yearns for. Is this right or wrong? Perhaps, I could be posed this as a separate question.

Lastly, I am neither for or against the Russia/Ukraine conflict. I just want to find a way to help myself and others to make better decisions by overcoming our cognitive biases using Buddhist approaches. I believe this is something the world needs badly to prevent problems such as misdiagnosis, bad operational decisions that cost lives and ongoing conflicts that inflicts tremendous casualties/costs with neither side willing to back down.


text:
How to distinguish dukkha ñanas from the arising of psychological issues?
As the question states, is there a clear way to distinguish the pair? I understand that stopping one's meditation practice causes the affects of the dukka nana to end. Are there any other signs?
Love and gratitude

In original Buddhism, the word 'ñāṇa' means 'insight knowledge'. It is the culmination of the Noble Eightfold Path, as described in the following Pali Sutta:

Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
Sammādiṭṭhissa, bhikkhave, sammāsaṅkappo pahoti, sammāsaṅkappassa sammāvācā pahoti, sammāvācassa sammākammanto pahoti, sammākammantassa sammāājīvo pahoti, sammāājīvassa sammāvāyāmo pahoti, sammāvāyāmassa sammāsati pahoti, sammāsatissa sammāsamādhi pahoti, sammāsamādhissa sammāñāṇaṁ pahoti, sammāñāṇassa sammāvimutti pahoti.
MN 117

I am not sure the term 'dukkhañāṇa' formally exists in the scriptures however 'dukkha', as a 'knowledge', is part of the Three Characteristics, as taught in the Buddha's 2nd Sermon, as follows:

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory (dukkha) or
satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory (dukkha), O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory (dukkha), subject to change, is
it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied
of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets
wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being
wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is
emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge (ñāṇa) that he is
emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life,
what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'
SN 22.59

In the later commentary literature, such as in the renowned Visuddhimagga, from which modern (particularly Burmese) monks have contrived various systems of meditation, what is contemporarily and formally referred to 'dukkhañāṇa' forms part of the 'KNOWLEDGE OF DISSOLUTION/Bhanga Nana'

[2. KNOWLEDGE OF DISSOLUTION]

When he repeatedly observes in this way, and examines and investigates material and immaterial states, [to see] that they are
impermanent, painful [unsatisfactory], and not-self, then if his knowledge works keenly, formations quickly become apparent. Once his knowledge works
keenly and formations quickly become apparent, he no longer extends
his mindfulness to their arising or presence or occurrence or sign,
but brings it to bear only on their cessation as destruction, fall and
breakup.

Page 668

Therefore, regardless of the scripture text, be it Sutta or Commentary, the experience of 'dukkha-ñāṇa' results in liberation/freedom/release.

As for how the term 'dukkha-nana' is used by 21st century bloggers on the internet, such as to refer to 'Dark Night' experiences, in reality, this does not refer to any type of Buddhist Knowledge ('ñāṇa'). Instead, in reality, it exclusively refers to psychological issues, neurosis & psychosis.
We should be aware certain Western societies have strong social & childhood conditioning for worldly success & achievement. Therefore, when highly conceited worldlings have neurosis experiences when trying to practice meditation & solitude, their social conditioning makes their mind publicly boast they have attained Stream-Entry & other Insight Knowledges when, in reality, it is only psychological neurosis they are experiencing. For example, this type of social phenomena is particularly apparent on a certain chatsite operated by a self-declared married worldly Arahant.
In conclusion, in real Buddhism, the term 'dukkhañāṇa' refers to the liberating knowledge that conditioned things (sankhara) cannot bring lasting pleasure because of their impermanence. But in the contemporary financial business of 'Buddhism', the term 'dukkhañāṇa' refers to the  claiming/boasting of psychological neurosis as a stage of enlightenment.


text:
Metta Meditation
When we say the phrase may I be healthy may I be free from suffering? Isn’t that kind of not accepting where we are if we are suffering or in pain or not healthy? Can someone help me understand what we’re trying to achieve by saying that?

Maybe you got the wrong idea about metta.
Metta is loving kindness. This term metta has also been translated as benevolence, friendliness, amity, good will and universal love.
It's not about wishing only yourself to be happy and free of suffering. If you think only about your own happiness and not of all beings, then that's not metta at all.
Cultivating metta is about changing YOUR state of mind.
Loving kindness is about you changing your thoughts, emotions, intentions, attitude, outlook and conduct, in such a way that it radiates with benevolence and friendliness to all beings (including yourself). It is so that you become the true friend who wishes everyone, without discrimination, to be happy and at ease with themselves.
Loving kindness is a cure for one's ill will towards others (and presumably including yourself).

Metta meditation
meditation is a Buddhist technique primarily used for relaxing the mind, such as Metta/Samatha, and developing skills that aid in understanding the nature of the universe and ourselves, like Vipassana.
Metta meditation mainly focuses on relaxing our mind and spreading kindness to ourselves and the entire universe. This meditation technique is helpful in reducing our hateful mindset and fostering a peaceful heart.
In this meditation, you wish for your well-being and the well-being of the entire universe. You wish for good health, relief from every problem faced, a happy life, and a relaxed mind for yourself and the whole universe.
Metta Meditation can generate powerful positive karma and relax our mind.

It is not the purpose of Buddhism to accept suffering. The purpose of Buddhism is to overcome suffering.
While we can certainly accept suffering happens in life, the ultimate purpose of Buddhism is for an individual to end the suffering within their mind.
Even if acceptance is used as a coping strategy & as a means of gaining perspective, ultimately, the goal is to be free from suffering.
Even if acceptance of suffering may help overcome suffering, the ultimately goal remains to end suffering.
Generally, acceptance is used as a strategy when the suffering is overwhelming. But when the suffering is manageable, acceptance is not a tool of practice. Instead, when suffering is manageable, mindfulness, wisdom, calming, concentration & the other tools of Buddhism are used to end suffering.
I have not read the Buddha use any word that means "acceptance". "Acceptable" seems more of a Western word introduced into Buddhism. I suppose the closest word to "acceptance" the Buddha used may be "forbearance" or "patient endurance".

Sadhu. Words from the heart.

If we can agree that "acceptance" entails "enduring", then the following teaching may be of interest:

AN5.140:12.2: It’s when a mendicant endures cold, heat, hunger, and thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; rude and unwelcome criticism; and puts up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening.

In this regard, it is also worthwhile noting that the same perspective is applied to "conventionally pleasant" perceptions:

AN5.139:23.1: And how is it that a mendicant can endure sights?
AN5.139:23.2: It’s when a mendicant, seeing a sight with their eyes, is not aroused by a desirable sight, so is able to still the mind.

From these two suttas, we can consider that freedom from suffering is the freedom from grasping at circumstance, be that painful or pleasant. It is freedom from the five grasping aggregates.

As long as we are not enlightened, full acceptance of who and what we are can never be guaranteed. At times, this manifests itself in the form of disappointment, frustrations and ill will towards ourselves. Metta practice was originally taught by the Buddha to overcome such negativities towards ourselves and others.
To understand such negativities, we need to understand their origins i.e. desires that have been thwarted. When we have desires and expectations upon others or the world and they disappointed us, there will be feelings of anger, disappointment and frustrations. Similarly, if we failed to live up to our own expectations, we become disappointed, frustrated and possibly angry with ourselves. Such self-negativities are not necessary a bad thing if we used them appropriately to self-motivate, self-improve and adopt the right attitude. But they are subtle forms of sufferings and can be very harmful if not carefully managed. This is especially true when our negative feelings towards ourselves become so strong that we become depressed and self-destructive.
May we be happy, may we be free from suffering is a reminder to ourselves. Despite all the difficulties, our ultimate aim is to achieve happiness and well-being for ourselves. This is where the benefits of Metta meditation show. As our negative feelings towards ourselves reduce, our inner well-being improves. Likewise, as our negative feelings towards others reduce, our inner well-being too improves. So, don’t just stop at ourselves, practise Metta towards the world as well. The benefits grow, the more we spread it.


text:
How does mindfulness practice (sati) lead to jhana?
How does mindfulness lead to jhana? How does contemplating the four frames - body, mind, feelings, dhamma (phenomena) lead to jhana? Is mindfulness the first jhana (Vitarka-vicāra)?

The word mindfulness (sati) does not mean contemplating (anupassana).
Mindfulness refers to 'remembering' to keep the mind clear of unwholesome states.
When mindfulness keeps the mind clear of unwholesome states, the act of 'contemplating', i.e., 'seeing closely', naturally occurs.
When the mind is quiet & clear, the breathing & body naturally becomes the predominant meditation object. Then when the breathing calms down, feelings become the predominant meditation object. Then when the feelings calm down, the mind itself naturally becomes the predominant meditation object. Then when the mind becomes very clear & free, Dhammas or Realites naturally become the predominant meditation object.
When body, feelings, mind & Dhammas are 'seen closely', mindfulness again acts to ensure or 'remember' to abandon any wrong views that may arise towards body, feelings, mind & Dhammas.
Also, contemplating (anupassana) is a state of 'seeing', i.e., a state of 'non-active-thinking'. When the mind only sees & does not actively think, the mind calms down, the breathing calms down & the body calms down.
Thus, when when mindfulness maintains clarity & contemplating, certain 'nirodha' ('cessation') processes naturally, occur. The breathing becomes calmer & calmer, longer & longer, more & more refined. Internal stored stress progressively comes into awareness & dissolves. This calming & purification build a certain momentum, resulting in mindfulness being easier & easier to maintain because the mind, breath & body are becoming calmer & calmer; purer & purer. The happier & more content the mind is, the less effort required to maintain mindfulness.
When the body becomes very purified from stored mental stresses & formations, jhana will occur. This can be compared to continuously using mindfulness to rinse out dirt. When the dirt is finally rinsed out,  water naturally flows into the cleared space. This naturally 'flowing' of the mind's momentum into a unity is jhana.
The mind flows into a 'unity' because the breathing has also become so refined that it cannot be felt anymore within the physical body. Therefore, instead of the mind naturally feeling/tracking the breathing in & out, down & up, within the body; the mind naturally creates a luminous mental image & absorbs into the mental image. This is jhana. The bliss that has generated within the body due to purification is now experienced intensely because the mind is absorbed into one-point with the mental image & the bliss is only felt in the brain.
In summary, mindfulness acts to remember, moment by moment, to keep the mind clear of unwholesome states & wrong views. This constant maintenance of mental clarity then, eventually, transforms into jhana.

If you do 4 satipaṭṭhāna (equivalent to sati) with proper passaddhi (pacification/relaxation) awakening factor, then it's in the 4 jhāna spectrum of samādhi. If the passaddhi is insufficient, then it's just sati. If it's sufficient, it's both jhāna and sati.
MN 125 is particularly clear in showing this, since it explicitly removes the first jhāna formula and replaces it with a second satipaṭṭhāna section.
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn125/index.html#125.3.10.3
And here is a collection of all the sutta references I've collected over the years showing where sati and jhāna overlap, in all postures, activities, etc.
https://lucid24.org/tped/s/samadhi/smd247/index.html
MN 125 alone should clear up many modern misconceptions.
If you can hear sounds, think verbal thoughts in sati, walk while doing sati, you can also do that in first jhāna.
If you're in a samādhi where the mind is divorced from the body, you're no longer in 4 jhāna territory. You're in either in a formless attainment, or 8 vimokkha, or 8abhibhayata.

Is mindfulness the first jhana (Vitarka-vicāra)?

wikipedia vitakka-vicāra definition is not quite right.
vitakka and vicāra is verbal, linguistic, communicable language. Otherwise, how could the Buddha's instruction, which is encoded in a communicable language, ever get decoded by your ears from sound, into a silent verbal mental talk of Dharma that sati and mind can think about?
You hear dharma, memorize it (sati), and recollect and apply Dhamma (sati again).
In first jhāna, this would be done with verbal thoughts (vitakka and vicāra).
Beyond first jhāna, it's subverbal mental processing. For example, you cultivate an attitude of kindness and compassion, or your observe sensations of breath in the body, it doesn't require any verbal thought.
In short, sati can be verbal (with vitakka and vicāra), or subverbal.

I have no idea what you're referring to. Not MN 125, probably something in my very large article on smd247?


text:
What is a "True Buddhist"?
I was reading a book titled "Buddha Dhamma for Inquiring Minds" by Ven. Buddhadasa. In this book he says ordinary people are Buddhists in name only and "To be a ‘true Buddhist’ is to be ariya, those of noble practice who understand everything around them correctly to a far higher degree than ordinary people."
He also says "The reward you will reap with nobility is to rise from the level of ordinary commoner to become a true Buddhist in the ariyan discipline."
Does anyone know what he means here? I thought a true Buddhist was someone who took refuge and sincerely follows the Buddhist path. I know the ariya sangha, including stream enterers, are at a higher level and are more knowledgeable, but isn't it wrong to say only they are true Buddhists?
If it was just some random person saying this I would simply ignore it, but Ven. Buddhadasa is renowned and highly respected, so I take what he says seriously.

True Buddhist can not be found.

Ven. Buddhadasa's intention is merely to motivate and encourage Buddhists to raise their understanding and practice. I don't think we should read too much into it.

Who the "true" Buddhists are, are clearly defined in the sutta below:

“Mendicants, these eight people are worthy of offerings dedicated to
the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation,
worthy of greeting with joined palms, and are the supreme field of
merit for the world.
What eight? The stream-enterer and the one
practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry. The once-returner and
the one practicing to realize the fruit of once-return. The
non-returner and the one practicing to realize the fruit of
non-return. The perfected one, and the one practicing for perfection.
These are the eight people who are worthy of offerings dedicated to
the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation,
worthy of greeting with joined palms, and are the supreme field of
merit for the world.
Four practicing the path,
and four established in the fruit.
This is the upright Saṅgha,
with wisdom, ethics, and immersion.
For humans, those merit-seeking creatures,
who sponsor sacrifices,
making worldly merit,
what is given to the Saṅgha is very fruitful.”
AN 8.59

But what does "true Buddhist" even mean really. Like I said, I know the ariya sangha, those you listed, are at a higher level and are absolutely more knowledgeable than an ordinary Buddhist, but it doesn't seem right to limit the definition of true Buddhist to just them. That leaves out millions of faithful Buddhists.

@AlphabatSoop There are no official "true" Buddhists at all. The suttas talk about Dhamma followers, faith followers and the eight types of higher level practitioners.

What do you think then of Ven Buddhadasa's language and his use of the term "true Buddhist"? Do you think he meant to imply that all non-ariyas aren't real Buddhists?

@AlphabatSoop He is probably differentiating serious practitioners who aim for Nibbana, and casual practitioners.

He is meaning that the ariyas are walking the path and the non ariyas are hoping to walk the path. As a petty analogy it is like someone who is trying to become a doctor, they are not a "true doctor" until they get their PHD certificate etc, yet micro seconds or even years before being awarded the doctorate they still had the Knowledge and skill a doctor has, yet they were not a (real) "true" doctor until getting the certificate.  This is clearly the distinction. Essentially it is being pedantic and using the discriminatory description of "true" and "non true" to differentiate between...

an ariya and a ordinary being.   As for the answer Ruben explained it clearly with sources. My answer I tried to explain the same from my own understanding.

@ruben2020 so you don't think he meant to imply that non-ariyas aren't true or real Buddhists?

@AlphabatSoop Like I said previously, I think he is probably differentiating serious practitioners who aim for Nibbana, and casual practitioners.

A true Buddhist should at least adhere to the five precepts of Buddhism. They should have faith in the teachings of Buddha and strive to live a peaceful life, free from violence. It is important for a true Buddhist to continually learn and follow Buddha's teachings.
The main teaching of Buddha was the "path of enlightenment". Anyone who follows this path can indeed be considered a true Buddhist.
Buddha once said, "To see my Dharma (understand my teachings) is to truly see me". This is encapsulated in the phrase "yo dhamman passathi so Mang passathi".
One's status as a true Buddhist is not determined by what is written on their birth certificate or National Identity Card (NIC). Rather, it is their understanding and practice of Buddha's teachings that define them as a true Buddhist.

Buddhadasa is pointing out the distinction between religious and philosophical practices. Religious practices are more or less passive activities, in which people rely on rituals, symbols, liturgies, the authority and guidance of clergy, the intercession of divine or transcendent masters, or other sorts of revealed or esoteric leadership. Philosophical practices, by contrast, imply a search for understanding through and beyond the superficialities of religious teaching. In specific, he's distinguishing between:

Lay Buddhists, who burn incense, chant invocations or teachings, place offerings of food or flowers before statues of the Buddha, do ritualistic bowing, etc., and…
Monastic Buddhists, who may or may not do any of those things, but who follow the precepts, study the texts, practice meditation, and generally seek out the true substance of the teachings beyond the mere forms and gestures of lay practice.

This isn't specific to Buddhism, incidentally, but is a truism is every faith. For most people a faith is a mere source of authority which they either accept over their lives or reject. For a few, a faith is a path to understanding that needs to be embraced and absorbed. Buddhadasa is suggesting that embracing the faith is more profound and wholesome than merely accepting it as authoritative and I can't disagree, though I suspect he may be dumbing it down a little for his audience (i.e., presenting the philosophical view in an authoritative tone that lay practitioners might respond to).

What he is meaning by using the word ariya as a noble person as in a person who has experienced the goal and is actually following the path. A sottapanna onward on the stages of liberation.
He is making the distinction between ordinary beings who are embroiled in the swirl of emotions of the world, Puttajanna, and those who have experienced the goal and are walking the path towards liberation, Ariya.
For the latter liberation is secured, for the former they could spend lifetimes practising and bear no security that liberation will be attained.
There are faith followers who follow the precepts or pray to statues or meditate on what they were told who may not be "true Buddhists" where as there are those who have experienced right view, have experienced nibanna and are walking the path to cessation.

I think I understand. Still, I'm bothered by the way his use of the term true Buddhists seems to imply that millions of faithful Buddhists aren't real Buddhists because they aren't "ariya" or enlightened.

What other word should he use? "attempted Buddhists" what word can he use to describe the phenomena so that you can understand the concept. Ruben gave sources above as to the Buddha explaining the phenomena, those who are "worthy" (ariyas) of offerings, as a distinction to those who are "not worthy" Which this commentary is just simply explaining as Buddhists and true Buddhists.  The Buddha made the distinction himself with putajanna, faith followers, dharma followers and the 8 ariyas.  Seems you are being more hung up on the translation/wording than the understanding of the concept.

I think I understand the concept, and the difference between the levels of attainment. It's like you said, Buddhadasa's wording and tone is what is really bothering me. I don't really like the word "true Buddhist" because, like I said before, it implies other Buddhists aren't real Buddhists.

@AlphabatSoop I think the talk was in Thai; it's translated, so I don't think we can assess Ven. Buddhadasa's wording and tone. The Preface talks about the translation of some of the words.

@Remyla Do you think he meant to imply that non-ariyas aren't true or real Buddhists?

The Editor's Foreword says that it's translated from talks given in 1966 to students in Bangkok. It spends a few pages explaining the translation of the words in the title (which I take as warning that translations are approximate and inexact). Obviously Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu didn't use the English word "true", that's a translation.
In English the word "true" -- see No true Scotsman -- can mean something like, "conforming to an ideal".
In context I think that Ven. Buddhadāsa is trying to draw a clear distinction, between "ordinary people" who are merely born into a Buddhist society and who don't actually practice, compared with the ideal.

12) ‘How do the minds of ordinary people and dedicated
Buddhist practitioners differ?’
We shall consider a perspective that gives some understanding of the difference in level between the minds of ordinary
people and the minds of Buddhists who actually practice.
‘Ordinary people’ refers to people who have never been
proper Buddhists, know nothing of genuine Buddhism, merely
follow customs, are Buddhists in name only, or according to
birth records through having been born of Buddhist parents.
To be a ‘true Buddhist’ is to be ariya, those of noble practice
who understand everything around them correctly to a far
higher degree than ordinary people.

The distinction may be exaggerated to more clearly illustrate the difference -- black and white, instead of shades of grey -- I assume his purpose was to tell the students about the "true" Buddhist doctrine and practice and to encourage them to be 'heedful'.

so you don't think he meant to imply that non-ariyas aren't true or real Buddhists?

Nobility starts with understanding. As adults, we are so busy with our careers, our spouse and children and chasing after wealth, fame and power. There are times when we would pause for a moment in our worldly pursuits and wonder if this is all there is. When we understand and grew weary with such worldly pursuits and yearn for something more meaningful, that’s when we begin to understand the difference between the ordinary and the noble. Knowing the ordinary is to understand what the world has to offer. Knowing the noble is understand what the mind has to offer.
Nobility begins with seeing reality. When the Buddha saw old age, illness and death, he could no longer bear to live in a façade, in an illusion that nothing bad will happen. When we are young and intoxicated with the vigour of youth, nothing can stand in our way. We may experience personal crisis like the loss of our jobs, the loss of our loved ones, the loss of our reputation, the loss of a marriage and so on. But we can shrug it all off and push ahead with confidence. But as we grew old and come closer to the greatest loss of all, our life; we are not so sure anymore.
Nobility grew with the practice in the Dharma. Struggling to understand, reflect and penetrate the Buddha’s teachings. Doing our regular meditation despite our busy schedules. Seeing the futility of our habitual thoughts, speech and actions in helping us achieve truly meaningful well-being and peace, we begin to change. Strangely, the change in behaviour just happens to align to that described of a Dharma practitioner. It is like we did not mean to visit certain places or attractions. But as we followed the prescribed path, these places just appeared.
We are lucky to be born as Buddhists or to come across Buddhism whether we considered ourselves as true Buddhists or not. In an age where the Buddha’s teachings existed, we have the opportunity to ponder and investigate the Dharma. And if we did make sincere efforts then as we grew older and more mature, many of these teachings began to make sense both logically and experientially. This is when we are genuinely thankful for being Buddhists. As to the question of being a true Buddhist or an Ariyan one that is not important anymore; having peace and well-being within is all that truly matters.

I suppose the uniqueness of the Buddha's Dhamma is realizing not-self & emptiness & knowing Nibbana. The Suttas use the word "true" in relation to certain Dhammas, such as:

For that which is false has a deceptive nature, while that which is true has an undeceptive nature — Nibbana.
Tañhi, bhikkhu, musā yaṁ mosadhammaṁ, taṁ saccaṁ yaṁ amosadhammaṁ nibbānaṁ.
MN 140

As long as my true knowledge and vision about these four noble truths was not fully purified in these three perspectives and twelve aspects, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.
Yāvakīvañca me, bhikkhave, imesu catūsu ariyasaccesu evaṁ tiparivaṭṭaṁ dvādasākāraṁ yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ na suvisuddhaṁ ahosi, neva tāvāhaṁ, bhikkhave, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya ‘anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti paccaññāsiṁ.
SN 56.11

Therefore I guess Buddhadasa may be saying a True Buddhist is one that has realized the True Dhamma.
I suppose if these & other higher unique Buddhism truths have not been directly seen, whatever Buddhist 'path' one is practicing is probably not much different to other religions. This said, the suttas appear to contain teachings saying a non-Ariya is a disciple of the Buddha, such as:

Inasmuch, young householder, a disciple of the Noble Ones (1) has
eradicated the four vices in conduct, (2) inasmuch as he commits no
evil action in four ways, (3) inasmuch as he pursues not the six
channels for dissipating wealth, he thus, avoiding these fourteen evil
things, covers the six quarters, and enters the path leading to
victory in both worlds: he is favored in this world and in the world
beyond. Upon the dissolution of the body, after death, he is born in a
happy heavenly realm.
DN 31


text:
Reference request: Skulls higher than the Himalayan mountains
I’m looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha talks about the aimless wandering in Samsara and gives several analogies, one of them being about taking all the skulls one has left behind and piled them on top of each other and the pile would become taller than the Himalayan mountains.
I can for the life of me not find that anywhere. I know I read a while ago but now it can’t find it anywhere.
Does anyone know about this sutta?

The sutta is SN 15.10 (although it is unlikely the Buddha would engage in false speech like this, such as saying: "Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries".)

Thank you. It was heap of bones and mount Vepulla - not skulls or Himalayan mountains.

@Dhamma Dhatu, could it be that Buddha addressed the sentient beings at large, "long have you, [the countless generations of beings, ] have experienced dukkha, etc"?

Na, doesn't apply to me. I cannot recall long have I thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries.  Sure, life has its stresses, losses & pains but its not that "long" and cemeteries i have not noticed very much.