text:
Understanding Right view
From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.
So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.
So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.
So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.
If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?   If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view? Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

You only become master of your mind states and become completely objective and detached from them when you attain high enlightenment stages. So what you are describing is not particularly your problem but maybe 99.9% of the meditators problem. Untill you attain these very high stages it is a very normal thing to fall back to  negative feeling and thinking without being able to observe them objectively.

Right View means having a non-perverted - not upside-down, but right-side-up, understanding of how things work. Specifically this includes basic understanding that some things are good and some things are bad, and which is which. Generally speaking, peace and harmony is good, and war and pain are bad. Next, that some actions are smart and some actions are stupid. That stupid actions get us in trouble and smart actions get us out. That stupid means not understanding how things work, and therefore pushing wrong buttons - and smart means understanding exactly how things work. That if we act with this right understanding, we can actually improve things. And finally, that we can't jump there immediately, because our situation has restrictions that come from the past, therefore it takes time to build a chain of good steps and gradually the situation will change. This is right view, more or less. Basic understanding of how things work.
Then from this right view comes idea - oh, so if peace and harmony feels good, and conflict & pain feel bad - then maybe I should start paying attention, what actions get me into conflict & pain, and what actions get me in the direction of peace and harmony. Then you keep watching for a while, and see how that works in your life.
Specifically, I noticed that anger definitely gets me in trouble. Also, craving to be something I am not, and to be somewhere I can't be - definitely makes me feel bad. Also, thinking about society in terms of how wrong it is, makes me feel bad. There maybe other things in your case, you have to watch and take notes yourself.
And then from this comes very logical idea, that maybe I should stop being stupid and doing things that get me in trouble. Of course, the problem is, that we don't just do stupid crap because we enjoy it. We do it, because we think something is great, or because we think something is wrong. Something gets us triggered. These are called attachments.
Attachment is this deeply ingrained stubborn narrow-minded conviction that something is great or something is wrong. Usually these ideas were pushed on us when we were young and weak, and then we adopted them as truth and identified with them. Or maybe some situation did some horrible pain to us in the past, and based on that experience we came to a stubborn narrow-minded conviction about how things work. Either way, these attachments to narrow convictions is what gets us triggered and then we either get ourselves in trouble by acting, or just torture ourselves mentally.
So the gist of meditation, is to keep noticing these cycles in our minds that cause inner pain, to keep noticing these convictions about how things should and should not be, and about ourselves - what we should and should not be - and to really seriously let go of them. Because letting go of these painful cycles and convictions gets us out of trouble and leads us to peace and harmony, therefore it's the smartest thing we can do. So in terms of good and bad action, meditation is literally the process of sitting and doing the best thing one can possibly do - stop creating pain in one's mind and establish peace.
You see? So it's not sitting and suppressing your reactions. That sounds like torture. Meditation is noticing how you get yourself in trouble mentally and then actively letting go and stopping those cycles to attain peace. The noticing part is called "vipassana" (or watching the grazing cows) and the letting go part is called "samatha" (stopping the rogue cows and bringing them back to peace and harmony - these are traditional metaphors). It suddenly starts making sense, right?
In your example with anger, you need to watch yourself until you know your trigger, until you see the attachment. Then you can sit down and look inside that attachment to see where it came from, so you can deconstruct the illusion and free yourself from it. Then you won't need to catch yourself when it's stirring, you will remove it at its root. That's the idea.

Right View is actually not "seeing things as they are". "Seeing things as they are" (yathābhūtaṃ passāmī) is a high level of insight that leads to liberation; as follows:

For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no
need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
actually are feels disenchantment.
AN 11.2

Right View is much more basic. Right View is having an understanding of the basics and can be intellectual at first. Right View includes the following:

And what are the roots of what is unskillful? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful. These are termed the roots of what is unskillful.
And what are the roots of what is skillful? Lack of greed is a root of what is skillful, lack of aversion is a root of what is skillful, lack of delusion is a root of what is skillful. These are termed the roots of what is skillful.
The Discourse on Right View.

So, yes, if you have dark angry thoughts is it too late. You have already entered into the territory of wrong view.
However, it is certainly good (actually ideal) that you are noticing then not reacting! You don't want to react because that leads to big trouble & danger.
When it happens in a split second, its OK. When its Anger - Boom; its OK. Just don't act upon it.
The suttas say:

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering
into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.
MN 117

Even the Buddha-To-Be had angry thoughts, as follows; but used reasoning to think about his angry thoughts:

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued
with ill will arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill
will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the
affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
discernment, promotes vexation & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will
had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of
existence.
MN 19

I tried to read that discourse but as usual I lost interest rapidly. I just can't maintain focus on that style of writing. Its so rambling and repetitive. I wish there was something simple and to the point.

Well, while you are reading you can skip the introduction and most repetitions. If you read a number of suttas you will realise that their essence is connected to each other and that it's all about abandoning evil and cultivating good

In Buddhism, Right View refers to understanding and applying the Dhamma (teachings) correctly.
"Seeing things as they are" is insight, especially into seeing how the five aggregates and dependent origination actually works.

OP: If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger
  and then try not to lash out and react? If I have dark angry thoughts
  is it too late? ... Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting?

As long as you're noticing that you're becoming angry and you can identify that this is bad for you and others, then this is already great. You're definitely not too late. Too late is never noticing it.
In fact, this is found in the suttas, in MN 20:

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or
  delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other
  theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the
  drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are
  unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of
  mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those
  thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire,
  aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their
  abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it,
  and concentrates it.

So, you're pretty much on track, doing precisely the right thing. As you soon as you notice the anger, think about the drawbacks of the anger, and it will subside. Perfect!
The sutta continues with the next step:

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or
  delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the
  drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no
  attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no
  attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and
  subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within,
  settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

When you watch a sad movie, you may feel sad at some points. But you won't carry the sadness with you and become depressed, would you? When you stop watching the movie, you immediately forget about it.
Similarly, you treat the evil unskillful thoughts here like they were some movie appearing in your mind, and ignore them.
So, just repeat these steps from MN 20:

Notice when you become angry (or another evil unskillful thought). It doesn't matter if you notice it only AFTER you become angry. The sooner the better.
Switch to another theme of thought which is skillful and good. (I did not quote this part of the sutta)
If that doesn't work, think about the drawbacks of the evil unskillful thought and emotion.
If that doesn't work, simply ignore it, like it's a dream or movie in your mind that is unrelated to you.
Repeat the above, in such a way that this kind of response happens sooner with practice. Practice makes perfect.

Another important point to note is that you should not feel guilt or remorse AFTER experiencing anger. That is not skillful. It only leads to another kind of delusion, which is remorse and anxiety.
What is skillful is to feel ashamed and responsible for one's thoughts and actions, and their consequences BEFORE thinking or acting unvirtuously.
From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

I think you're on the right track. You just need some minor tweaks and you would be doing it just right.

Great. You have given me some confidence. Thank you

''seeing things as they are'' is wisdom, ie panna, ie

(7) “When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who is wise, not for one who is unwise,’ with reference to what was this said? Here, a bhikkhu is wise; he possesses the wisdom that discerns arising and passing away, which is noble and penetrative and leads to the complete destruction of suffering. When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who is wise, not for one who is unwise,’ it is with reference to this that this was said.

the arising and passing away is the knowing the condition for dukkha, knowing dukkha, knowing the condition for the nirodha of dukkha, as explained here http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-002.html.
more generally it is knowing all that stuff here https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html
If you want to be ''unreactive'', then you need the 3rd jhana, as explained

Then, by the fading out of zest, he abides indifferent, mindful and
  composed, and experiences ease through the body.
Having entered on the third trance, which the Ariyans describe in
  these terms:
'He who is indifferent and mindful dwells happily,' - he abides
  therein.
  https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.53.001-012.wood.pts.htm

the puthujjanas who invented the dry insights confuse udayatthagāminiyā  with sati for instance, or discernement. Because they confuse ''changeability'' of vedana, of sanna, of thougths, with '''knowing the conditions for the arising and the condition for the cessation'' for sanna, vedanna, thougths, contact, karma and so on.

"There are, bhikkhus, these three conditioned characteristics of the
  conditioned. Which three? Arising is manifest. Disappearance is
  manifest. The changing of what persists is manifest. These, bhikkhus,
  are the three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned." (AN. i.
  152)

They also claim that knowledge of the path happens before stream entry, they also claim that ''fear of dissolution'' belongs to the dhamma. They also confuse anatta with anicca, since they claim that phenomena are not self, because they change a lot, instead of saying that phenomena are not self because they are dukkha (and they are dukkha because they are anicca).
Right view is about knowing what to do and not what to do. Right resolve is mobilizing your energy towards the culture of right actions, right sati, right samadhi, right release. Right sati is the tracking and judgement of vedana, sanna, thoughts, to know what is a toxic mind and what is not a toxic mind. Right samadhi is the result of right sati, because only thoughts and good will and renunciation remains when sati is done, ie the jhanas from the perceptive of right view which is knowing that samadhi is about renunciation and cessation. Just like sati is already about renunciation. Puthujjanas always ask what is the object of the contemplation,well it is cessation and renunciation. It is not the breath or vedanas or whatever aggregates puthujjanas are infatuated with.
This is what the philosophers who created dry insights and mahayana and vajrayana will never ever understand. The result of sati and samadhi is right discernment, meaning vipassana.
THis is how samadhi is viewed from right view,

For one who has attained the first jhāna speech has been
  tranquillized.
For one who has attained the second jhān, ought and examination have
  been tranquillized.
For one who has attained the third jhāna rapture has been
  tranquillized.
For one who has attained the fourth jhāna in-breathing and
  out-breathing have been tranquillized.
For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  perception and feeling have been tranquillized.
For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has been tranquillized,
  hatred has been tranquillized, delusion has been tranquillized."

(instead of the Brahmins who cannot help themselves from using the word ''self'' or ''true nature'', so when they manage to set the citta into samadhi, they see that the personal self [=likes and dislikes] does not make senses, so they resort to idea of cosmological self, of fusion of the personal self with god, of ultimate essence, nature).
But then puthujjanas always ask how to combine samadhi with discernment. THat's because puthujjanas do not have right view. Right view is what converts sati-sila into samadhi and what converts samadhi into release. So when you set the citta into right samadhi, you do what the buddha did. THe  buddha explains how he got right samadhi here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html#renunciation
a page witha few quotes on nekhamma is here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/nekkhamma/index.html
for instance, since ānāpānassati begins with the theme of renunciation, you get right sati and right samadhi and the 7 factors of enlightenment and of course right release.
This is what to do with ānāpānassati :

Thus cultivating, bhikkhus, thus developing ānāpānassati-samādhi,
  when he experiences a sukha vedanā, he understands: 'it is aniccā', he
  understands: 'it is not grasped at', he understands: 'it is not
  relished'. When he experiences a dukkha vedanā, he understands: 'it is
  aniccā', he understands: 'it is not grasped at', he understands: 'it
  is not relished'. When he experiences an adukkhamasukha vedanā, he
  understands: 'it is aniccā', he understands: 'it is not grasped at',
  he understands: 'it is not relished'.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn54-008.html
the usual formulas for samadhi is here:
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/arupajjhana.html#9-cl
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/4jhana.html#3-cl

removed the word "idiotic", which may be offensive to some readers.

When you typed the following, it really caught my eye:
"I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom."
It took me a lifetime to find the answer. I found it in MN1:

delight is the root of suffering

Look for the delight that gave rise to the anger. Relinquish the craving for that delight. This one phrase unlocked a door that stumped me for decades. That one phrase clarified my Right View. Instead of fighting anger, I relinquished delight, equanimity returned and anger vanished.

For a start I guess I'd recommend this answer, to help explain what's meant by a "view" -- as opposed to a momentary state -- a transient state which happens but which you don't necessarily hold to.
The examples in this answer were of "conceit" and "greed" (i.e. distinguishing those from "view"), but I expect the same may be true of "anger" (i.e. that too isn't necessarily "a view") as well, i.e.:

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.

As a simple example, one might eat a whole packet of cookies in a few moments of greed.
One may or may not have the "view" that it's "proper" to eat a whole packet of cookies. Perhaps one would hold the view that it isn't proper. Even with "right view" (which might be the view that it isn't proper), though, it might be possible to eat the packet in a moment of greed.
If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?
I'll tell you my experience, and not say what you do or should do.
I haven't been exposed to the "just noting" theory of what meditation is, so it may be that what I do could be at odds with what you've been taught to do.

When I first become aware of anger, I don't necessarily think of it as a "reaction".
Sometimes it's obvious what the rising anger is a reaction to (e.g. somebody has been shouting at me).
Sometimes it's not obvious what the anger is a "reaction" to (e.g. somebody has been talking to me normally, e.g. making a reasonable request)
Anyway I think of anger as arising "unbidden" -- I can feel it, but the feeling surprises me, I don't expect it, and I don't know what caused it.
I see it as an "action" on my part, not a reaction -- but maybe not yet an "intentional action" on my part, it's as yet unintentional.
It's not that my anger is a reaction but I have a reaction to the anger. I don't just "note" it, I react to the feeling, the feeling of anger, of beginning to feel angry.
My reactions are -- This is unpleasant! I don't like feeling anger. I'm out of control. This is inept (on my part). A person in this state becomes difficult to love ... unsympathetic ... a victim. And I might become socially ostracised for this behaviour (e.g. showing anger -- in a work environment, or with friends).
If I had to justify my reacting like this, from Buddhist scripture, some suttas end with the Buddha's saying ...

"Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

I take that as a summary of the entire Buddhist doctrine, a summary of the four noble truths -- "I describe unpleasantness and how to end it." ("stress" and so on being a translation of dukkha of which IMO anger is one manifestation).
Maybe my reaction to rising anger is to note it -- what I'm noting is, "this is the arising of dukkha".
That reminds me of the Zen story titled The Gates of Paradise (sometime titled, Heaven and Hell) -- so my reaction to anger is like, "here open the gates of hell!"
Another reaction I have to it is, surprise. I'm angry so little, so rarely -- I have so little reason, so few occasions, to be angry -- that it surprises me to find I'm capable of it, that I'm not immune to it.
I guess there's a lot I could feel angry about, if I wanted to. War for example, famine, political repression, the news from various countries, what's to like about that? The way that animals get treated, by humans and by other animals, is that meant to be seen as fortunate? People assaulting children, that happens. Assaulting each other. Lying, boasting, stealing.
But, that's not happening here, and I'm not sure it's good to get upset about it.
The "surprise that anger is happening to me" is probably I guess a form of "conceit" (as defined by the answer I linked to at the top).
Because a view that "I am not" (or that conversely, "I am") "the sort of person who gets angry" derives from some kind of self-image, a view of self (which, i.e. holding any self-view, is something that Buddhism maybe warns against as being a source of dukkha).
Instead of having a "view of self" -- e.g. "I exist" in some way that's distinct or independent of other things -- I think we're instead supposed to understand things as being "dependently originated".
So, "things arise" when the conditions for their arising exist -- and cease when the conditions cease.
The question then, is, "What are or were the conditions which allowed or caused this anger to arise?"
And the answer tends to be some combination of external and internal circumstance (external environment and other people's actions, versus my internal expectations).
And so to cause the anger to cease again (since I find it unpleasant) I'm motivated to understand its cause -- "what caused it, why did I act/react like that?" -- and to change something of myself, e.g. my expectations, what I'm ready for, how I relate with that person. I'm motivated to change myself somehow because that's the one thing can change.
Or not "myself" since there's no such thing. Buddhism is also classified as a Threefold Training -- virtue, concentration, wisdom. To fix anger (to let it cease and prevent its reoccurring) I guess I want to learn from the experience, and gain something good or to let go of something bad. A "something gained" or "learned" might be in any of those three categories:

virtue (learn to become more harmless, perhaps, more generous)
concentration (a reason for anger is if something unexpected happens, I'm interrupted; maybe that was me not concentrating, or concentrating on the wrong thing)
and wisdom (an area ripe for improvement, can I be wiser, bring more wisdom to, my interactions with people? note that "views", what views you choose to have and hold, are included in the "wisdom" category ... views might be wise or unwise)

In summary, anger is caused by, and causes, some unskillful interaction between "me" and whatever the situation is, and the goal is to change/improve that, perhaps by letting go of what ever (e.g. view or attention) is unskillful, or by adopting/learning what could be more skilful.
If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view?
I think it's maybe "too late" and "wrong view", if you think not only "I'm angry" but also "And my anger is justified and good, righteous, and by heck I'm going to beat this guy or girl to a pulp, or at the very least I'll give them some really harsh words for my troubles".
You might have a little little residual bit of that view in you, since you said, "Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat."
I like the opening verses to the Dhammapada ...

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

... especially verse 5.
Assume that "anger", "hatred", "aversion" are all the same side of the coin ... there's a "fake Buddha quote" which says that "anger is like swallowing poison", IMO another colloquial analogy is that anger is like "trying to put out fire by pouring gasoline on it".
You don't have to be a doormat but you can try (and prefer) to get by without being angry.
There are other emotions recommended (instead of anger) as appropriate for all social interactions -- i.e. the "brahma viharas".
There's also, maybe, seclusion -- don't associate with fools, avoid bullies, etc.
And this answer recommended, "Find wise people who cause no fear or worry". These people may -- and/or may not be -- teachers, monks, doctors. Maybe there are neighbours like this. Maybe there are fellow-students. One of my early introductions to people like this (who fit this description) was when I took up some Tai Chi lessons/practice -- so I met a group of 20-or-so neighbours of different ages, and what they had in common was that they wanted to spend a couple of hours on Saturday mornings in the park, practising Tai Chi -- quite a harmless, beneficial activity, low-fear and low-worry (with a competent Tai Chi teacher).
Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people.
That reminds me of this Zen story: Obedience.

"You see, I think you are a very gentle person.

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are
That might be slightly incorrect, vocabulary-wise.
I think that "right view" (samma ditthi) means something like, "knows the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', understands what causes 'stress', and perhaps more specifically sees things through the lens of the Four Noble Truths".
What you're describing might be something slightly different (e.g. something to do with Yathā-bhūta, and yoniso manasikāra something else again).
I know you don't want an answer which parrots religious scripture, I just wrote this in case it's important to not misunderstand/misstate what "right view" is.
A style of meditation that involves "just noting" may be intended as a kind of vipassana, or intended to lead toward vipassana, but I don't think it's meant to be the definition of "right view" though (and that's important because right view is important).

I'm not sure but there may be some difference in emphasis between e.g. Theravada and Mahayana: with the former emphasising "right view -- there's right and there's wrong" (i.e. quite dualistic); and the latter "everything is empty" (and just is, or isn't even that, i.e. non-duality).

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

It's after the virtual and concentration meditation. It's good to see things as they are, but it can't develop to be perfect if your virtual and concentration meditation still not be perfect.
See: Sutta. Ma. Mū. Rathavinītasuttaṃ.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.
So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

You told us "right view is seeing things" then you said "I don't need to see it" because you think "I have some pain it is just pain" is the meditation, but actually it is not the meditation. The meditation is when you thinking(seeing) to avoid to think 'I hate this pain, why me' and 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. The problem comes from your unstable basis, virtual and concentration meditation.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?

Yes, everyone should do. But if you can not you should check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late?

Yes, it's too late. It's because you have not concentration meditation, such as Ānāpānasati, to control it.

Have I already entered into the territory of the wrong view?

Angry is not the wrong view. But when your angry increase to be immoral, i.e. hitting the other, that angry comes from the wrong view. Check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. Because you never meditate the concentration meditation, you can't control your angry, pariyuṭṭhāna.
For virtual: https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.


text:
What is the difference between papanca and sankhara, and in particular citta-sankhara?
While contemplating both terms I could not find a difference between mental elaboration and mental fabrication. Aren't they one and the same?

yes it is not easy. First people  say that there are 2 triplets of sankaras : (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, mano sankhara) and (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, cittasankhara). they claim that they are not the same. See http://www.suttavinaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf
 Citta sankharas are vendana and sanna and they do not produce karma.
They claim that because they say that for instance, kaya sankhara  is the breath, but obviously the arhats still breath, therefore kayasankhara  still exists for the arhats.
Since they read that the arhats do not create karma, they infer that the kaya sankharas cannot be karmic.
The famous bikkhu analayo lists all those sankharas here https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/encyclopedia-entries/sankhara.pdf
For papanca, people translate that as ''objectification'', like here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.030.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&ie=UTF-8&q=objectification&sa=Search
some say ''proliferation''. It means thinking this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling,
  or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing
  perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as
  possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
  "Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities),
  there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there
  occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not
  be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall
  be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall
  be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

I marked this answer up however i am going to post a new question based on it.

The word 'sankhara' has an extremely wide diversity of meanings. For example, it is used in 'ayu sankhara', which means 'life force' (MN 43); or 'sankhara khandha', which means mental 'aggregate of thinking' (SN 22.79). A Buddha or Arahant has ayu sankhara (DN 16) & sankhara aggregate (SN 22.85) therefore 'sankhara' here does not inherently refer to something defiled or unwholesome.
'Citta-sankhara' is perception & feeling (MN 44). It means that which conditions (sankhara) the mind (citta). For example, a pleasant feeling can condition the mind to have lust. An unpleasant feeling can condition the mind to have anger (MN 148). Thus 'citta-sankhara' means 'mind-conditioner'. Citta-sankhara is not sankhara khandha. Citta sankhara is vedana khandha (feeling aggregate) and sanna khandha (perception aggregate).
Papanca is uncontrolled defiled mental proliferation (MN 18). Papanca is always unwholesome. Papanca is the activity of a defiled sankhara khandha.
A Buddha does not produce 'papanca' because the sankhara aggregate of a Buddha is undefiled. A Buddha only deliberately generates pure thoughts, which are still 'sankhara' but are not 'papanca'.
You may refer this blog I wrote: The word ‘sankhara’ in context

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The four noble truths
H.E Tsem Rinpoche says the following on his website.

"Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.”
The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering."

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things. This seems to be saying that we shouldn't bother trying to be anything because it's all dukkha, anicca and anatta anyway. Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up. I can't see the point of doing anything creative.  I do creative things because I want to create something great that can inspire  others and that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do what they love for a living everyday. What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something?
Responses quoting scriptures and linking to rambling repetitive suttas will be down voted.

Make sure not to confuse desire with craving. Being motivated to do something is not craving, but chanda. The problem with a lot of our pursuits is that we have a craving to reach the goal. We identify with it & the process of bhava (becoming) takes place. I am this, I am that. As a lay person it's important to cultivate good & abstain from doing bad (as any practioner as well), PLUS not getting entangled with the idea of nibbana. If most suffering can be reduced, that's sufficient. Realise that there is a difference between suffering & unsatisfactoriness. Both are dukkha though.

Also, the problem with "becoming" is that we're identified with that thing. What if that actor loses his job? What if a successful & eminent manager loses his job? There you have it. As mentioned above, don't think in terms of avoiding all suffering and all bhava (becoming), simply try to remind yourself "I am not this", "This is not my entirery", "I am more than just that". Having ambitions is fine. Be devoted without being devout.

@Val 'Chanda' is not always translated as a "good kind of desire". Just consider the five hindrances (nivārana), where kāmacchanda (sensory desire) is the first one described.

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things.

There's no contradiction between the 4NT vs. great achievements and accomplishments. Matter of fact, the greatest achievements/accomplishments are those driven by a selfless nature:
The polio vaccine - Dr. Jonas Salk

"Matter of fact, the greatest achievements/accomplishments are those driven by a selfless nature." - well said! This also applies to the greatest achievement in this universe (attaining Nibbana).

So true. What are often called achievements are no use to man nor beast. .

The four noble truths are  about suffering, its origin, cessation and path. As long as human mind is in the "clinging mode" it is normal to want to do something or be something.  Until a person becomes an Arahant, wanting to be something or wanting to do something will continue to arise in the mind. Only Arahant is completely free from karmic intentions.
Clinging to anykind of intentions/desires brings suffering sooner or later, so it is certainly not a sane thing to cling to any kind of intentions. Buddhism doesn't require suppression of one's intentions/desires but it tells that even the good karma has to be given up. Nibbana is freedom from all of the karmic intentions and it is the highest bliss and freedom. In an experiental level, wanting to be something or do something must be transcended temporarily to experience Nibbana. And to attain Nibbana permanently one must have complete purification in the mind that makes he/she free from all of the karmic intentions which includes desires like wanting to be something or wanting to do something.
But in the high enlightenment stages (before the Arahant stage) it is possible to become detached from the karmic intentions even If they continue to arise in the mind or the person continues to act based upon these intentions. The important thing for the meditators (who haven't attained these stages yet) is to try to become detached from the actions/desires as much as possible. That's why mindfulness and meditation is very important. If one falls back to egotistical thinking, pride etc. he or she mustn't cling to the "I'm doing something wrong" like thoughts because human mind works this way until finally the meditator comes to a point that his/her identity is no longer based on the ego/self.

The Four Noble Truths is only about dukkha. Its not about everything.
The Four Noble Truths is saying when there is dukkha; its cause is craving.
Its not say all desire leads to suffering.
Compare it to "bacteria". The digestive system needs bacteria to operate. But bad bacteria causes disease. When the doctor gives you antibiotics to cure a disease, you don't complain & object saying 'bacteria is good'. Instead, you take the medicine.
So if you desire to get a job, for example, this is not necessarily suffering.
But if you are suffering about not having a job, the cause of this suffering is craving.
You take the medicine when you are sick (rather than when you are well).

The fourth noble truth points to the noble eightfold path, as the balanced middle way towards ending suffering. If you look at only the first three noble truths, you might think that extreme asceticism is the best way to end suffering, but it doesn't work that way.
The Buddha taught that in order for a lute to make music, its strings must not be too loose or too tight. Similarly, we must adopt the middle way to nibbana.
Buddhism shows the path towards permanent happiness (nibbana). This is achieved by ending craving and ending becoming. This is the long term goal of happiness in Buddhism.
However, Buddhism has the medium term goal of stream entry and the short term goal of happiness in one's worldly life.  As part of this short term goal of happiness, one should not just earn and enjoy his own good fortunes, but he should also help others.
From AN 5.41:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
  my dependents supported,
  protected from calamities by me.
  I have given supreme offerings
  & performed the five oblations.
  I have provided for the virtuous,
  the restrained,
  followers of the holy life.
  For whatever aim a wise householder
  would desire wealth,
  that aim I have attained.
  I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
  When this is recollected by a mortal,
  a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
  he is praised in this life and,
  after death, rejoices in heaven.

But of course, such joy never lasts forever. The dissatisfaction arising from the fact that joy cannot last forever and pain cannot be avoided forever, constitute suffering (dukkha). And that's why eventually we need to move from the short term goal to the medium term goal and finally the long term goal of happiness.

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things.

Buddhism's greatest achievements and accomplishments are only Enlightening Nibbāna, no craving. The Buddhist people do the other greatest achievements and accomplishments to support the Enlightening Nibbāna. The other greatest achievements and accomplishments are not our ultimate goal.
So, the greatest achievement and accomplishment, core, of Buddhist people are driven to cease all craving. However, if the practitioner can not cease all craving now, the practitioner can choose to cease only "three fetters" first -- see below.
There are ten fetters -- of which "craving to become" is one of the "higher" fetters, which may be overcome at a high stage of enlightenment. The first three fetters include "belief in a self" (mentioned in the quote), all Buddhists should aspire to at least overcoming those first/lower fetters to begin with (and when they do they're called a "Stream-Enterer"). A stream-enter has overcome the first three fetters and is also "established in virtue"

Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up. I can't see the point of doing anything creative.

That's the point of the four noble truth. Buddha teaches to give up everything except the meditation and Nibbāna.

I do creative things because I want to create something great that can inspire others and that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do what they love for a living everyday. What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something?

That's why we have four pairs of persons. If one still want to crave in creation they can enlighten Nibbāna as the Stream-Enterer first.
The meditation steps still the same, contemplating Dukkha in the Dependent Origination cycle to see Anicca Dukkha Anattā clearly, but the meditator attends to cease only three fetters first.

Are you still caving to misunderstand in the Dependent Origination?
Are you still able to do the Immoral Action, i.e. killing, which inherited from above misunderstood?
Are you still doubt, which inherited from above misunderstood, in the Dependent Origination and in people who understood in the Dependent Origination?

It's the way to the cessation of Dukkha, hell, from doing the Immoral Action, i.e. killing, which happens from the misunderstanding in the Dependent Origination.
However, the craving in the other seven fetters still going on, so the Stream-Enterer can create the creative worldly works by the wholesome or unwholesome mind, except three fetters, **while Arahant can create only the four pairs of persons, e.g. clean the floor to let people admire in Buddhist moral and give a chance to listen to Dhamma for the chance of their enlightenment.

Responses quoting scriptures and linking to rambling repetitive suttas will be down voted.

This is the way that Tipiṭaka of the other Nikāya, except Theravāda, disappeared nowadays. We should learn the past mistake to avoid doing that same mistake again and again.
And my English is not that good to write the answer without the reference.

I added a paragraph (with a Wikipedia link) to introduce what you were saying about "fetters" -- the three lower fetters, stream-enterer, and so on. I don't know though how your three list items correspond to those three fetters -- I've read that a stream enterer is established in virtue, maybe has virtue pleasing to the noble ones; and "misunderstanding DO" may be related to "belief in self" -- but you mentioned immoral action, e.g. killing, is that related to one of the three lower fetters?

@ChrisW It's The the ordinary does SīlabbataUpādāna (2nd Fetter is the same as Clinging Of Immoral Physical Behavior in Dependent Origination; See MahāNidānaSutta and CūlaSīhanādaSutta), such as killing, because they have DiṭṭhuPādāna (Clinging Of Misunderstood-of-Self-as-Doer-of-SīlabbataUpādāna Mental Behavior; 62 Diṭṭhi in BrahmajālaSutta). These both behaviors' origin is AttavādaUpādāna (1st Fetter; 20 SakkāyaDiṭṭhi; Clinging Of Misunderstood-of-Aggregates-as-Self Mental Behavior).' The misunderstood let the ordinary doubt (3rd Fetter) in Dependent Origination.

I think it's good to start new question to talk because I can quote the texts and links to make the clear answer. Actually, it maybe my mistake of chosen vocabulary, and you can see my mistake by comparing with the quote. My english still not well enough for an academic topic like this.

I think your question is asking,

Why can't I be a craftsman (for example), and make great stuff? Useful, helpful stuff? What's wrong with that? And what's wrong with wanting to become a craftsman?

I guess there are several answers.

One is maybe that you can and should do exactly that: i.e. that this is what a typical layman does, to make a living and to benefit others. There are (the Buddha defined the rules such that there would be) two "societies" in Buddhism: i.e. lay society. and the society of monks and nuns ("the sangha"), and the two societies more-or-less depend on each other for different things ... and they each have a different definition of what "right livelihood" is.
"Right livelihood" for a layperson might well involve making useful things, or farming, or etc.
Some cultures even get into "Zen and the Art of ..." (that may be a bit unusual, i.e. Japan is at the far edge of the continent and an island, but I don't doubt lay and artistic endeavours are affected/inspired in other Buddhist countries too).

So I think about your question, "Let's say I want to become a potter and make nice dinner plates that will benefit people, what's wrong with that? The Four Noble Truths say that what's "wrong" is craving and attachment. So how about doing that without attachment, is it OK then?"
And I re-read Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?
So I think that part of the answer to the question is that it is possible to be an artist, a musician, and craftsman, but without being a happy one.
And producing something, a new plate, even if that's enjoyable, does the enjoyment last? Look at all that's been produced by humanity to date, does that make people happy? Well "yes and no".
What happens when you're forced to retire, to cease activity -- infirmity, lack of customers -- how will you cope with that? Have you been training yourself to cope with that?
And if I imagine being an unhappy craftsman, that might be for the very reasons quoted ...

Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant

... i.e. I don't think that what you quoted is wrong.
It's also maybe inherently a source of dissatisfaction: if I wanted (i.e. craved) to be what I'm not, e.g. a potter, a sailor, a house-builder -- if I had that "craving to-become" then I might be unhappy. But if, I don't know, if that were a wholesome desire rather than an unwholesome craving, if I did what was appropriate to achieve it, if I were satisfied with that effort, then maybe it's alright.

Also there's a time or a sense in which ambition is appropriate.
I think the Pali distinguishes between unwholesome and unsatisfiable "craving", versus a "wholesome desire".
For example there's this sutta which says it's OK to have a (wholesome) desire for nibanna, and that's not even a contradiction because once you arrive there then that desire is allayed.
Similarly I suppose that wanting what's attainable and beneficial via lay activity  isn't necessarily wrong, it might be normal and sensible.
Perhaps "wanting to become something" shouldn't be an end in itself, though, because even if it's achievable it can't be permanent. You might want to become a doctor, but even if you succeed you couldn't remain so forever. You might want to become-a-doctor-in-order-to-help-people though -- I think there's a sense in which, if you do help someone, than having-helped-someone will remain a fact more-or-less forever, so that might be some satisfaction if you are ever retrospective (which maybe people are even if only when they're dying).
I kind of like this sutta, The rewards of virtue. Some people say that you need to get your "virtue" (ethical behaviour) in order before you can meditate successfully, others say that meditation begins to be successful when you experience joy when doing so. The intermediate stage there, between them, appears to "freedom from remorse". Maybe that's a guide: aim to do what you don't regret, and to not regret what you do.

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great
  achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven
  and about things. This seems to be saying that we shouldn't bother
  trying to be anything because it's all dukkha, anicca and anatta
  anyway.

So what's so great about seemingly "great achievements"? What does that mean exactly?

Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and
  evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up.
  I can't see the point of doing anything creative. I do creative things
  because I want to create something great that can inspire others and
  that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle
  to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for
  example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do
  what they love for a living everyday.

The life expectancy is still around the same controlling for the infant mortality rate all those supposed "creative achievements" so far haven't mattered for anything. So someone could pose the opposite question "what's the point in pursuing useless achievements?".
What if people were happier, healthier, less stressed out, and more joyful without pursuing those types of achievements?
A better achievement for mankind "generate pleasant feelings or good kamma even when mistreated, regardless" that would be a great human accomplishment. Most humans it seems when hating others don't realize that it generates painful feelings or bad kamma even if it's perceived as a rational thing to do in their mind.

What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something?

Well let's see:

Does wanting to become something lead towards the ending of suffering and the highest happiness?
After becoming something would you still experience painful feelings like anger, fear, sorrow, and physical pain?

The Four Noble Truths are misunderstood.
Having desire in the right way is part of the Noble Eightfold Path (Right Effort).
Having no desire as in laziness or sluggishness in doing things that lead towards arahantship is strongly opposed.
When people are happy and satisfied they naturally have no cravings but not in the painful way of suppressing a desire. The painful way of the ascetics who practiced painful austerities was strongly opposed by Gautama Buddha as being worse than the practices of many laypeople who enjoyed sensual pleasures.
Also keep in mind that many rules for monks were designed for those aspiring to become arahants here and now and may seem impractical for many laypeople.
Most people are laypeople not monks.

yes toxic people always try salvage desire, to salvage their craving for building fantasies. THe most toxic people even claim that not being selfish leads to the greatest achievement because they fail to understand the path and how the result of the path is way greater than not being selfish. It is part of their toxic dichotomy being selfish-being selfless.
It is easy for those people to claim that whatever actions are done, as long as the people who do those actions think they are being generous and not acting from being selfish, they claim that they are good people. For instance, there are people who use and kill, or use and dispose of animals, like earth worms, mice, dogs, spiders and so on, in order to create drugs, vaccines, new materials, and they always say that they are good people because they use animals only in order to make life more bearable for humans.
Those toxic people even claim that, since they crave with money, if you give them money to support them, you will be a good person too.
THe usual puthujjanas  try to salvage their craving for entertainment, art, creation, philosophy, sensual pleasures and they always claim that they are not bad people for that. As usual with any idea created by puthujjanas, it is completely stupid.
The way to be a good puthujjana is to have sila, which is the result of mindfulness whose sole purpose is to greatly weaken lust. So the puthujjanas who claim that there is nothing wrong with sensuality will never ever be good puthujjanas, let alone a good person like an Arhat...

Sila, is that when divisive or harsh speech are given up?

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


text:
Is finding a teacher necessary to practise dhamma?
Many times I hear people say it's neccessary to have a teacher. I'm a bit lost as how one finds one. I've been to sanghas, talks, retreats but haven't met anyone who ive felt I could approach and ask to be my teacher. The Buddha never had a teacher. If he became enlightened without one then I presume anyone can. I find that the more people I talk to the more confused I become because so many people have so many conflicting condradictive perspectives.  From what ive heard and read if you sit and practice mindfulness of breathing etc you will gain insights into the true nature of reality.

I think you'll find the Buddha had a teacher or two. He outgrew them but that's the idea of having a teacher, to outgrow them. I don't think it;s necessary to have a teacher to gain the insights you mention, (in this age of books and videos) but it ought to be easier with one and some say there comes a point where a teacher is necessary.      .

Do you need teacher to practice Buddhism?
No you don't - but you need to know how to practice. And with so much contradicting information about Buddhism on the Internet and in books, to know the right practice requires insight into principles of Buddhism. Once you understand the principles, you can see for yourself which practice is real and which is a confused echo of real.
Do you need teacher to gain insight?
No, you don't. You can piece the puzzle together from books and videos, and integrate it all together into your own insight.
However, that requires an extremely good memory, very good intuition for the implied/inferred meaning, and a very good ability to connect the pieces of information that you may have received in different context, many years apart.
In real life, I'm a professional software architect at a large US company. As a software architect, I have an extremely well-developed capacity for remembering thousands of little pieces of information that I don't fully understand, and then slowly integrating it together into a meaningful whole that I can reason about and often see problems that others can't see.
And even with this ability, it took me almost 15 years of studying Buddhist texts, across Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen - to have even the basic understanding of how it all fits together. I'm not talking about the theory, I'm talking about understanding the basic idea, the framework, the "spirit" of Buddhism. Knowing the theory without understanding the "spirit" is useless. Someone like that can quote the texts but can't explain it in his own words. It's only when you get the "spirit" is when you "find the ford" and become "independent of others in regards to the Buddha's message" (the label on my profile).
Anyway, imagine my surprise, when after those 15 years I went to a live Zen Master and from his few replies and the overall behavior realized that he had a perfect intuitive grasp of all the principles that it took me 15 years to even begin to discover! I could have saved so much time! More than that, in two years of practicing meditation under Master Shin, I learned more about the real meaning of Buddhism than in 15 years of reading books.
Alternatively, you could in theory repeat Buddha's path and figure it all out in meditation, without any guidance or books, - but unless you're a genius like the Buddha (although as @PeterJ pointed out, even the Buddha had some teachers), the chance you'll strike gold is one in a billion.
So, do you need teacher to gain insight? No. In fact, it is impossible for any teacher to give their insight to someone. Insight is something that happens in your head, as you build the puzzle and see what it means in real life. But a live teacher who already has the insight, can save you years or even decades of time you'd either spend accumulating theory (like I did) or stumbling in the dark.
So even though I myself spent 15 years studying books and only 2 years learning from teacher, and now 6 years practicing on my own again, when anyone asks this question I always say: yes, go to a live teacher. If you can't find a live teacher, then at least talk to me. I will do my best to share as much insight as I can. Do not repeat my path.

That's right. The time is what forgotten by the practitioner. We should have a professor to save the time of the basic study. Many people, who I knew, died before they enlighten because of the unskillful professor.

I have the same or very similar professional background as you, and concur that it's helpful in putting pieces of the puzzle together. Previously, I was interested in Advaita Vedanta, before moving to Buddhism. My favourite part of Buddhism is the Pali Suttas, which contain discourses that often hit the nail on the head. I must say that Buddhism.SE, with its participants who are knowledgeable in various traditions, has been extremely helpful as a "virtual teacher" to help me put pieces of the puzzle together, which I am still trying to do. The hardest puzzle for me is dependent origination.

Yeah. Regarding D.O., I don't think many people get it. Certainly not in Theravada community, with all due respect. Tibetan and Zen schools explain the spirit of D.O. but not the details. I don't think I ever saw a detailed explanation that would make clear sense.

You needn't read Kipling's Kim but I read it when young, it has some likeable characters, one is a Tibetan lama, a former abbot, on a pilgrimage through India, I mention it because in the novel he stops on the road to give an impromptu lecture to some people he meets, and starts by drawing the Wheel of Life. That's how I think of it as a Powerpoint version of a lecture, the 12 nidanas are like talking-points or chapter titles. The relationships between them aren't simple/clear. The suttas lack detail, as if the talks were originally 2-hour lectures which can scarcely be summarised concisely.

Even though the monks, full-time practitioner, still required the Buddhist Meditation  Professors, why do lay people think they can understand Tipitaka by themselves and enlighten without teacher's taking care? Are they already have memorized Tipitaka enough to taking care of themselves?

The knowledge, experience, and proficiency are very important.
People cannot manage their listened to others' perspectives, so they hate to listen to the others' perspectives.
People will know how to understand the others' perspectives by the Buddhist Meditation Professors' advisement, then they can be happy to listen to the others' perspectives.
"People's heart is a deep ocean of secrets." The methods to heal and meditate people's heart are so complicated as well, so Tipitaka Memorizer is required to teach those complicated methods like a doctor who took care of his patient.

The similitude is the chemist who has recited, memorized, and learned about the periodic table and the formulas from the past chemist generation to generation.

If the science students want a science teacher, the professor is required, not just want, for Buddhist students.
In Vinaya-Pitaka Mahakhandhaka, Bhikkhu can't live alone without his teacher. Buddha blames and makes a law that a bhikkhu must lives with a Tipitaka Memorizer every day until he can finish Nissayamuccaka Course. Even though he already finished the course, he still has to live with Tipitaka Memorizer until his ordination time is five years old.
It's legal punishment as "dukaṭa-āpatti" for the new Bhikkhu who sleep without his professor in the same monastery every morning, each new offense per day.
Even bh.Potthila, Tipitaka Memorizer, he still needs Tipitaka Memorizer Ariya to teach him the method to enlighten.
In the path of purification and Atthakathā said it required Ariya teacher to teach the meditation and go to meet him about one time per week. And it is better if that Ariya is Tipitaka Memorizer because Tipitaka Memorizer Ariya has more tips and tricks from Buddha than normal Ariya.
The path of purification Part II—Concentration (Samádhi) CH. III TAKING A MEDITATION SUBJECT page 94 (online):

Because of the words beginning, “Ánanda, it is owing to my being a good friend to them that living beings subject to birth are freed from
  birth” (S I 88), it is only the Fully Enlightened One who possesses
  all the aspects of the good friend. Since that is so, while he is
  available only a meditation subject taken in the Blessed One’s
  presence is well taken.
But after Buddha final attainment of Nibbána, it is proper to take it from anyone of the eighty great disciples still living.
When they are no more available, one who wants to take a particular meditation subject should take it from someone with cankers destroyed,
  who has, by means of that particular meditation subject, produced the
  fourfold and fivefold jhána, and has reached the destruction of
  cankers by augmenting insight that had that jhána as its proximate
  cause. But how then, does someone with cankers destroyed declare
  himself thus: “I am one whose cankers are destroyed?” Why not? He
  declares himself when he knows that his instructions will be carried
  out. Did not the Elder Assagutta [99] spread out his leather mat in
  the air and sitting cross-legged on it explain a meditation subject to
  a bhikkhu who was starting his meditation subject, because he knew
  that that bhikkhu was one who would carry out his instructions for the
  meditation subject?
So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If not, then one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a
  stream-enterer,
an ordinary man who has obtained jhána,
one who knows three Piþakas, one who knows two Piþakas, one who knows one Piþaka, in descending order [according as available].
If not even one who knows one Piþaka is available, then it should be taken from one who is familiar with one Collection together with
  its commentary and one who is himself conscientious. For a teacher
  such as this, who knows the texts, guards the heritage, and protects
  the tradition, will follow the teachers’ opinion rather than his
  own. Hence the Ancient Elders said three times, “One who is
  conscientious will guard it.”
Now, those beginning with one whose cankers are destroyed, mentioned
  above, will describe only the path they have themselves reached. But
  with a learned man (Tipitaka Memorizer), his instructions and his
  answers to questions are purified by his having approached such and
  such teachers, and so he will explain a meditation subject showing a
  broad track, like a big elephant going through a stretch of jungle,
  and he will select suttas and reasons from here and there, adding
  [explanations of] what is suitable and unsuitable. So a meditation
  subject should be taken by approaching the good friend such as this,
  the giver of a meditation subject, and by doing all the duties to him.
If he is available in the same monastery, it is good. If not, one
  should go to where he lives.

Your fundamentalist viewpoints and beliefs don't resonate with me at all and I don't subscribe to them.

I answer the question and qoute Tipitaka for the readers who interested in the quedtion , Pali Canons, and the evidences, not only for you. We are in the community, not private chat. Either you want my answer or not, I have to answer the question for them, not only for you.

Agreed. All answers are welcome, for the benefit of other readers.

Well then no I don't want your answer. I would have thought that was perfectly clear by now after my responses to your previous replies.

I still want to see your questions, and I still want to answer your question. I like the practitioner question more than the only-readers' questions ^.^

I never had a meditation teacher in real life but I listened their dhamma talks etc.. through using modern day's technology. I think teacher has a very important role for a meditator's progress in his/her path of freedom from suffering. Because teacher tells all of the details in meditation practise that is necessary for the meditator to know, the teacher guides and helps the meditator in the difficult periods of the meditator's spiritual path. Also the dhamma talks that the teacher gives is more than just informations and teachings about Buddhism, meditation, etc.. but it has the effect of changing the mind of the meditator. The dhamma talks literally have the effect of purifying the meditators mind. That's why many people in Buddha's time became enlightened just by listening to dhamma talks. But in most cases, it is necessary to practise meditation first to get that benefit from the dhamma talks.
So as a person who never had a meditation teacher in real life(but followed them through using internet), I think that it is possible to keep your practise alone, but it is better to have a teacher in real life. If you don't have a meditation teacher in real life you can follow meditation teachers by using modern day's technology. That's also kind of a teacher-disciple relationship, but it is not good as having a teacher in real life.


text:
'Sankhara' Dependent Origination: Bhikkhu Analayo vs Bhikkhu Thanissaro. Which is right?
About 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination as found in SN 12.2 of the Pali suttas, Bhikkhu Analayo said the following:

Bhikkhu Thanissaro said the following:

Which is right and why? Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Thanissaro?

I like how Sankara has explained in Abhidhamma it is very easy to understand and eliminate all these other issues.
In summary, there are three types of Kamma (present wholesome and unwholesome actions), vipaka (the result of wholesome and unwholesome actions) and Kiriya (neither wholesome nor unwholesome actions of Arahants) http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf

Is anyone observing and mindful of dependant origination without creating sankhara. What is the purpose of comparing these monks? Can we find out the answers without only these 2 options? From our own experience?

where is B. Analayo's quote coming from (reference), and where is he trying to go with that? If he continues that line of reasoning, then his 12ps is broken for many other links as well.

After reading all of the above, — analysis paralysis. Meaningless speculation like debating whether you walk around a squirrel clinging to a tree trunk as you circumambulate the tree and the squirrel adjusts for your movements. It was a silly and meaningless discussion with no practical consequences. How do each of us concoct our own sankhara anyway?

Ajahn Thanissaro’s description is accurate. The 3 sankharas in MN44 is the same as SN12.2.
Arahant’s sankhara is NOT conditioned by ignorance. Arahant’s sankhara arises and ceases with knowledge. Feeling still arises and ceases in an Arahant, but it’s not conditioned by ignorance, which is why it doesn’t lead to craving. Contact conditions feeling. So long as the Arahant is still alive, there will be contact impinges on the 6 sense bases, and feeling will arise. As stated in SN12.51, the Arahant feels a feeling detached. Please note that the “sankhara” that Arahant does not generate (as stated in SN12.51) is kamma, and not the sankharas in MN44/SN12.2.
There are 2 sets of sankhara used in the Nikayas. First set is used in dependent origination discourses (MN44, SN12.2). Second set is used in kamma-vipaka discourses (SN12.51).
The dependent origination essay below discusses sankhara in more detail (including the above 2 sets of sankhara). It’s very concise and informative.
https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf

I'm with Thanissaro on this one even though most of the time I find Thanissaro's interpretations uninsightful but here he hits the mark. In context of DO, sankharas are those phenomena Thanissaro describes (namely,  breathing in & out and subtle thoughts, perceptions & feelings) which are stirred up, affected or tainted by accumulated tendencies.
In the Pali suttas, "accumulated tendencies" are called "anusaya". When these "anusaya" flow out of the mind, they are called "asava". MN 9 includes "asava" within the 1st condition of ignorance, as follows:

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance... From the origination of ignorance comes the origination
  of fermentation.
MN 9

Thus, AN 7.11 includes "ignorance" as an "accumulated" or "underlying tendency", as follows:

Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven? The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt,
  conceit, desire for becoming and ignorance.
AN 7.11

It follows I think Thanissaro is correct here, when he says the breathing in & out and subtle thoughts, perceptions & feelings get stirred up or created by ignorance-asava.

Also, since the very 1st arising of "intention" in mentioned in Dependent Origination at the "nama-rupa" condition (and then later at the "craving" condition), its seems Analayo is again incorrect in his viewpoints.

What about the following quote from SN 12.39?: “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form" It puts intention before consciousness. Not at name-and-form.

This comment appears irrelevant since SN 12.39 appears to refer to how what one intends & what one plans (in the near past) creates what one has a tendency towards. As I posted, the tendencies form part of ignorance. One of the asava is (past) becoming (bhava). Please do not make any further comments about what appear to be views of a willful self that spins dependent origination. If you read MN 19, it will be read how sankharas arise without volition, just as hindrances obviously arise in your meditation beyond your control. If you wish to discuss SN 12.39, I suggest to start a new question.

I also suggest to read the suttas about "old kamma". These suttas say "old kamma" is something previously intended, which is to be "felt" in the present. "New kamma" is when the old kamma is not merely "felt" but reacted to with craving, causing the arising of "new kamma". In SN 12.39, what one intends & plans is "old kamma". The dependent arising is "new kamma". I also suggest reading AN 3.76, which similar to SN 12.39, uses the word "establishment" (patiṭṭhā & patiṭṭhitaṃ), which refer to "becoming". Thus it seems what is planned and intended refers to past becoming, which creates tendencies

Also, SN 12.39 shows dependent origination is not about reincarnation since it refers to "descent (avakkanti) of name-and-form" (rather than descent of consciousness). This shows Analayo is probably wrong, again. "Avakkanti" merely means "development" rather than descending from space into a womb. How nama-rupa develop is explained in MN 149: "For him ... His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.".

In summary, you should ask separate questions on the forum about SN 12.39, SN 35.145, SN 12.37 and AN 3.76 if they cause views about Dependent Origination that are like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds. Since SN 12.39 and SN 12.38 (which are similar) come after SN 12.37, as I suggested, they are reliant on SN 12.37, which discusses "old kamma" generated from past intentions. Based on SN 12.37, it appears the "intentions" are past intentions that create accumulated tendencies (anusaya). The accumulated tendencies are included within ignorance (1st link).

Also, reading SN 12.39, it says: "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness." This shows "sankhara" is not this "intention" & "planning" since SN 12.39 also refers to dependent arising without the specific "intention" & "planning" refer to.

Answering your own questions is frowned upon here, you know.

Its looks bad when no one else answers. I posted the question for a certain member. I did notify the member I would post the question. This said the SE structure appears to be set up to answer your own question. But as i said, i did notify a member i would ask this question and i was hoping that member would answer since i took the Analayo quote from an answer of that member. This said, it is a very good question. That there are no answers to the question is not a good sign. The other member calls others "puthujjana". I hoped this non-puthujjana had conviction (saddha) to answer the question.

Yes so there are several positions. Instead of the 2 exposed above, you can create position3 below:
position 1 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + each sankharas is linked to karma of actions
nibanna = nirodha of any sankhara + nirodha of any karma
parinibanna = same as nibanna + lack of heat element?

but then people say ''obliviously arhants breath, so kayasankhara is still here, but since arhants have destroyed karma, and karma is tied with sankharas, those sankharas remaining in an arhants were never linked to karma in the first place
position2 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + only the sankharas which are not cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara are tied to karma
nibanna = cessation of each sankhara tied to karma
parinibanna = cessation of any remaining sankhara+zero karma

one problem with that is that with the path of ''jhanas only'', meaning going up to ''cessation of perception and feelings'' because the disciple does not do vipassana while the citta is in right samadhi,  it is indeed the cessation of ''perception and feelings'' which destroys any link between karma and the sankhara found in an arhant. SO it is weird to say that cittasankharas are not linked to karma ever.
THe people who invented position 2 do not say how the cittasankhara which are never linked to karma in the first place (compared to position1) manage to kill any future karma of any action.
It is like the famous problem of ''mind-body'' created by the intellectual christians: if cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara never relate to karma, then how does their cessation manage to kill karma and rebirth?
position3 :

samsara = all sankharas are here + each sankharas is linked to karma of actions
nibanna = cessation of each sankhara tied to karma. However,  the cittasankhara, kayasankhara, vacisankhara are still here, but no longer tied to karma. Perhaps it is even those 3 sankharas which are subject to the ''past karma''
parinibanna = cessation of any sankharas + zero karma

Said like that, Position 2 is the weakest.

if time is taken to watch breathing, it can be observed how ignorant outflows (asava) stir up the breathing. In other words, when the suttas describe Nibbana, they refer to the "samatho" (calming) of sankhara rather than the destruction of sankhara. "Nirodha" does not literally mean "cessation". In other words, i mostly have no idea about what you have posted because you seem to speaking another language when your write "cessation" , "sankhara", "kamma", etc, attributing one meaning to these multi-faceted words.

in other words, if sankhara ends for Nibbana, consciousness must also end; therefore an arahant is unconsciousness.


text:
Why is "idle speech" one of the ten unwholesome actions?
According to the Suttas, "idle speech" is one of the ten unwholesome actions which generate bad karma. I understand why the other nine unwholesome actions would generate bad karma, but I have a lot of questions about the Buddha's claim that idle speech does the same.
First, let's take a look at some relevant suttas to determine what the Buddha meant by "idle speech". An oft-quoted passage, found in DN 2, suggests that practitioners should only talk about dharma-related topics and nothing else:

Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

This passage, however, describes the behavior expected from buddhist monastics, not ordinary lay buddhists. So where do the suttas talk about idle speech for laypeople? One example is MN 41, in which the Buddha explains to a group of laypeople which actions lead to bad rebirths. About idle speech, the Buddha tells his audience the following:

He engages in idle chatter. He speaks out of season, speaks what isn't factual, what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring.

The words "what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya" seem to imply that just like monastics, lay followers should restrict their speech to topics related to the practice of buddhism. I have two issues with this idea.
First, it's impractical. Laypeople lead social lives, and in DN 31 the Buddha himself talks about the importance of good friendships. It would be practically impossible to establish and reinforce social bonds without engaging in any conversations about worldly topics.
Second, the reasons buddhist teachers usually give for avoiding idle speech are practical rather than moral. Teachers generally tell their followers that by engaging in idle speech, they are wasting their time and distracting themselves from the study and practice of the dharma. While these are undoubtedly good reasons to cut down on idle speech, it doesn't explain why idle speech creates bad karma. If distracting yourself from studying and practicing the dharma creates bad karma, why aren't other distracting activities included in the Buddha's list of unwholesome actions? Engaging in idle speech isn't inherently more distracting than other leisure activities, such as consuming entertainment (i'm aware that in DN 31, the Buddha discouraged his lay followers from attending public spectacles. However, the reason given for this rule is that frequenting public spectacles has negative consequences in this life, not that it generates bad karma).
So how should I interpret the Buddha's teachings on idle speech for lay followers? I'd like to hear what prominent teachers have to say about this topic, but everyone's perspective will be appreciated as long as it's well substantiated.
Thanks in advance for your answers!

You might like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qiEdmuekL4&t=442s

So how should I interpret the Buddha's teachings on idle speech for lay followers?
Opening pleasantries are not idle talk; they frame a discussion by providing social context:

He went by carriage as far as the terrain allowed, then descended and approached the Buddha on foot, and exchanged greetings with him. --DN16

And neither is talking about suffering, its origin, its escape and the path to escape.

“Mendicants, do you remember the four noble truths that I taught?"

Have you noticed that although people may idly brag about their wealth, good family and good fortune, what they often really wish to talk about is their...suffering? Indeed, there seems to be a high correlation between idle talk and suffering.
Therefore, from a practical point of view, I've found that we can all talk about our own suffering and its escape. Such talk is not idle and often leads to friendships and trust.
In terms of movies and shows as idle talk, even these are opportunities to discuss suffering. Movies and shows are all about suffering.
So when someone approaches with idle talk, gently listen and ask them about their suffering. Then listen and speak with an open heart. Become a quiet person known as a good listener and a good friend.

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life. --SN3.18

If distracting yourself from studying and practicing the dharma creates bad karma, why aren't other distracting activities included in the Buddha's list of unwholesome actions?

Aren't other distracting activities included in the Buddha's list of unwholesome actions?

However, the reason given for this rule is that frequenting public spectacles has negative consequences in this life, not that it generates bad karma).

I'm not sure i understand how you discern "consequences in this life" from bad karma. (As a layperson) my understanding of karma is that it's generated in the present. In other words, your actions now - in this life - determine your future karma.

Nyom,
Giving into something, associate (by body, signs (speech, gestures) and mind), nurishes the object, inwardlt outwardly, causing craving and arising of all kinds of unskilful minds, speeches and bodily actions, yet there are objects leading to and end of "holding on", (upadana), entertainment.
Thought, spoken, played around, done. Young dogs play to learn to harm. One playing killing games, speaks obout such, inclines to such, nourishes him to become an all around killer. Sensual pleasure alike...
If entertaining your self that is low, you nourish you inclination to it. Animal like entertaining (livelihood, gain of certain pleasure to walk on), leads to such existence... (for example Association with pets - Associated rebith?, or Association with the Devas - associated Rebirth ) entertaining oneself with the right topics, one increases inclination toward freedom from desire after entertaining: Noble Conversation: A Study Guide.
Btw.: most beloved idle topic of "livingroom" Aharahats: whether things exist or not. :-)
[Note: this Dhamma gift is not thought for any commercial use, exchange, stacks, entertainmaint for worldly purpose and might be deleted is the sphere for such is not given here]


text:
Why does the Buddha blame Ananda asking him to remain living forever?
in the Digha Nikaya 16 The Buddhas Final Nibbhana , the Buddha blames Ananda for not requesting that the Buddha live for aeons, three times.  he had only asked him twice.  Why does the Buddha blame him ? And the Blessed One answered, saying: "Enough, Ananda. Do not entreat the Tathagata, for the time is past, Ananda, for such an entreaty."

50-51. But for a second and a third time, the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord! May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!"

Then the Blessed One said: "Do you have faith, Ananda, in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata?" And the Venerable Ananda replied: "Yes, O Lord, I do."

"Then how, Ananda, can you persist against the Tathagata even up to the third time?"

Then the Venerable Ananda said: "This, O Lord, I have heard and learned from the Blessed One himself when the Blessed One said to me: 'Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it.'"
"And did you believe it, Ananda?"

"Yes, O Lord, I did."
"Then, Ananda, the fault is yours. Herein have you failed, inasmuch as you were unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting given by the Tathagata, and you did not then entreat the Tathagata to remain. For if you had done so, Ananda, twice the Tathagata might have declined, but the third time he would have consented. Therefore, Ananda, the fault is yours; herein have you failed.

aeons

It's not aeons, not living forever. It's living only until Buddha's old 100 years.
Rhys David:

kappa (adj. n.), anything made with a definite object in view

So, the translation should be something like this:

"O Lord!  May the Blessed One remain, O Lord! May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the defined median age (Buddha defined it in DN14, AN 7.70).

Kappa in  DN 16 (Kappāvasesaṃ) means the defined median age of Gotama Buddha.
Kappa in AN 5.23 (PubbenivāsānussatiÑāṇa) means the defined age of the universe's occurrence cycle (from Brāhma's Veda which derived from Anāgāmi Brahma of KassapaBuddha, previous Buddha).
Kappa in AN 4.156 (AsaṅkheyyaKappa) means the defined uncountable years of each procedure in the universe's occurrence cycle (4 procedures per 1 cycle).
See the defined median age in Tipitaka:
DN Mahāvaggo MahānidānaSutta:

Vipassī lived for 80,000 years.  Sikhī lived for 70,000 years.  Vessabhū lived for 60,000 years.  Kakusandha lived for 40,000 years.  Koṇāgamana lived for 30,000 years.  Kassapa lived for 20,000 years.  For me these days the life-span is short, brief, and fleeting. A long-lived person lives for a century or a little more.

KN Buddhavaṃsa, 24 Buddhas foresaw:

Gotama Buddha's age is 100 years old.

KN Buddhavaṃsa, our Buddha said:

Even though my age is 100 years old and lesser than the other Buddha, I can let many people enlightened, too.

***Search "vassasataṃ" and "vassa sataṃ" here. I will not post the search result direct link because it maybe overuses of a website resource.*
Atthakatha described the same.

the Buddha blames Ananda for not requesting that the Buddha lives until touch the defined median age, three times. he had only asked him twice.

Buddha asked Ānanda only 1 time per question after Ānada request the Buddha three times. Buddha's questions are:

Do you have faith, Ananda, in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata (who has already renounced his will to live on)?
Then how, Ananda (who accepted in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata), can you persist against the Tathagata even up to the third time?
And did you believe in what you said that you have heard and learned from the Blessed One "'Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a defined median or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a defined median or until the end of it.'"", Ananda?
So, they are not the same question.

Why does the Buddha blame him ?

Buddha blames him in the second question because of the first question. Ānanda already memorized DN29, so he knows that the Buddha can't change his decision renouncement. If the Buddha didn't ask him, people will misunderstand "Ānanda, Sotāpanna, can doubt in Buddha". But after Buddha asked b.h.Ānanda by the second question, people will understand right "Ānanda, Sotāpanna, didn't ask Buddha because of the doubt, but he asks because he trusts in both Buddha's speeches (renouncement and DN29) and tried to let Buddha does follow the DN29". By the second question, people will not misunderstand in Ānanda.

See DN29:

From the night when the Tathagata understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise.
That’s why he’s called the ‘Tathagata’.

And the Blessed One answered,
saying: "Enough, Ananda. Do not entreat the Tathagata, for the time
is past, Ananda, for such an entreaty."

As I quoted DN29 above that Buddha can't change the renouncement.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The Buddha did give the hint to Ananda 3 times about His PariNibbana, but Ananda didn't get it. By the time Ven. Ananda recognized his error, it was already too late for Mara already came and requested the Buddha to go to PariNibbana right after He told Ananda. See DN 16's The Third Chapter of Recitation: 17. Ananda's Failure for more details. Actually the entire DN 16 is a great sutta worth reading from start to end.

This answer can be improved, if the author has the knowledge or the resources from his Canon on the part about Mara's request. Mara had requested Buddha to enter Parinirvana right after his enlightenment. Buddha responded that he had to do three things first, the last was establishing the Samgha - because Ananda didn't request Buddha to stay living until the end of the world (representing the Samgha) that meant all his three things were done. Therefore he had to fulfill his promise to Mara.

Mishu, just write the answer so we can upvote it. :D

@OyaMist thanks but I'm too lazy to search the suttas/sutras to quote for making an answer

I don't think that the Buddha entered  his Paribbana because he 'had' to fulfil his promise to Mara, but rather, because the time was right.  The Buddha didn't 'have' to do anything. So, this response can be improved, if the author has the knowledge or the resources from his/her Canon on the 4  personifications of Mara. Mara, I posit is a part of the 'I ' conceit, the other part is the Khandas, also I think 4 of them.  So there is a deeper meaning here, but don;t you agree that the Buddha did not 'have'  to do anything.?

Nyom Karen,
Aside of the useless duration extent discussions, to the point: real independent teaches have to be asked timely to stay, since it's not his duty to teach but actually a burden and of no use if others do not desire.
Asking serious meant to ask three times to be sure that one has certain resolve toward gaining something and not just acting in moods or out of boredom.
Since Ananda was to foolish to ask at proper time to stay, he is called the one who failed. Many of you might know similar situations of lack doing things at proper time, later run arround facing the results.
Oneself is the ones who votes and seeks for Maras easy play to make the reality of decay his portray of being the one with real power.
The misery and gospels of the Bind Guardians...
[This, being a leson on Dhamma, is not given for trade, exchange, stackes... for wordily purposes and should be possible deleted if the enviroment does not provide toward liberation]

Ananda was possessed by Mara when the Buddha asks him three times whether to extend his lifespan. Ananda remained silent all three times. The Buddha would have known that Ananda was possessed by Mara.
Maybe the Buddha did this so that later on when Ananda asks him to extend his lifespan, Ananda is not grief stricken when the Buddha says that he must attain Parinibbana, since Ananda was the one who enabled it in the first place. So he might feel more of guilt than grief
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/51/1/51_1_464/_pdf

I cannot provide a definitive answer however the impression is the Buddha tested Ananda to show the Buddha had achieved His mission; which was to fully establish the Sangha and to fully teach the Dhamma. Since Ananda did not immediately respond with urgency when the 80 year old Buddha dropped the hint to Ananda, it demonstrates Ananda was inherently content with the Dhamma teachings provided.
As for the word 'kappaṃ', it obviously does not necessarily mean "forever". According to the Pali dictionary and according to DN 16, it simply means "a very long time".

I thank you for this answer, thanks for pointing out that Ananda did not respond with urgency, in other words, he did not desire something different than what was and the Buddha was successful in his teachings and considering the role that Ananda would go on to have, in establishing the suttas and just remembering all the suttas, it is a positive message. I will read it again from this point of view.