text:
The knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth
What exactly is the "bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" or "insistence that this is the only truth" in the sutta below?
Why is it a bodily knot or tie?
Please provide examples.
The Pali term is "idaṁsaccābhiniveso kāyagantha".
SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Bodhi:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of
covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of
distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to
dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots.
This Noble
Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four
knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter
destruction, for their abandoning.”

SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Sujato:

“Mendicants, there are these four ties. What four? The personal ties
to covetousness, ill will, misapprehension of precepts and
observances, and the insistence that this is the only truth. These are
the four ties.
The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge,
complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these four ties.”

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (of which Bhikkhu Bodhi is general editor) says,

The bodily knots are so called because they tie the mind to the body or the present body to bodies in futures existences.
Here the term "body" (kaya) applies to both the mental and physical body in the sense of an aggregation.
Of the four knots, covetousness means craving or greed, which pulls beings towards desirable objects.
Ill will is identical with the cetasika hatred, which is manifested as aversion towards undesirable objects.
"Adherence to rites and ceremonies" is the belief that the performance of rituals constitutes the means to liberation.
Dogmatic belief is the firm conviction that one's own view is the only truth and that all other views are false. There last two bodily knots are both aspects of the cetasika wrong view.

You might recognise the phrase, "only this is true, all other views are false", from other suttas.

The Buddha taught 4 yokes;

The yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance. - AN 4.10

4 clingings;

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
views clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana)

The expression

Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots.

As i understand it, one can interpret the knots as untied by unyoking, unyoked one enjoys non-clinging. 1st & 2nd knots are fully untied at the unyoking from sensuality as anagamin, 3rd & 4th would be untied by a stream enterer as the 3rd is silabattaparamasa fetter and the phrase in question i assume is an untieing due to unyoking from the yoke of views, & the yoke of ignorance, a non clinging to the doctrine of self & pernicious wrong views, these too are abandoned by a sotapanna.
As to why it's a bodily knot, i guess because it binds to getting a body due to being yoked becoming/existence but some say Kaya is a tricky word and if one makes those assertions then one can pull different interpretations.
Also one can interpret the knots closer to the tangle sutta.
There is this verse (SN 7.6):

A tangle within,
a tangle without,
people are entangled
in a tangle.
Gotama, I ask you this:
who can untangle this tangle?

[The Buddha:]
A man established in virtue,
discerning,
developing discernment & mind,
a monk ardent, astute:
he can untangle this tangle.
Those whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
have faded away,
arahants, their effluents ended:
for them the tangle's untangled.
Where name-&-form,
along with perception
of impingement & form,
totally stop without trace:
that's where the tangle is cut.

From a Zen standpoint, I quite like the Bodhi translation (though I feel that that Sujato version might be a more accurate translation).  What strikes me about it is how viscerally "right" it feels.  Anyone who's ever spent more than 15 minutes on the cushion knows what a knot is.  We're made of knots.  They are the woven karma of our experience.  When we first sit down on the cushion, our mind is knotted but so is our body.  Our body-mind is tangle of tensions.  We can't sit more than twenty minutes without feeling the need to shift, to loosen, and relax our efforts.  The more we persist, the tighter those knots seem to become.  We may even find a place in our practice where they threaten to strangle us on our cushions.
Knots are frustrating.  The more we claw at them, the tighter and more impossible they seem.  But if you keep coming back to that place of tension, eventually, the body-mind begins to loosen.  Sometimes that loosening is gradual.  We only notice it in retrospect...like pounds lost over a series of weeks.  Other times, it happens in a flash of insight.  On those occasions, it's like being stuck in a game of solitaire only to have that "one special card" appear in your draw.  Suddenly the game moves at an accelerated clip and scores of cards suddenly fall into place.  We sigh in relief and feel that opening down to our very bones.
If you've ever struggled with your meditation, if you've ever wondered how people can sit for hours with seemingly little effort, it's because they've undergone this process over and over again.  Having cut off all grosser bodily knots, they sit with easy.  The tensions that now they face are subtle, deep, and can only be addressed in the deep samadhi that is available to them now that the baser knots have been untied.

You discussed knots. But what about the knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth?

It's just another knot.  Same as any other.  For what purpose was it tied?  What is it tied to in our psyche?  How is it keeping us bound?  That knot serves different functions for different people.  Some may experience out of an abundance of piety, others from fear, still others to their precious but incomplete insight.  It's a common theme, but its manifestation is unique to our psychology.  Only by identifying the nuances of our knot will it unravel.  Sit with it and see.


text:
What is the effect of giving 'Dana' to the gift recipient's mind?
The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

What is the effect of giving 'Dana' to the gift recipient's mind?
Well, the recipient can become attached to receiving gifts. But this is not the fault of the giver. This is due to the recipient's craving and clinging. It's up to the recipient to not become attached to gift-receiving and to practise moderation in accepting gifts.
The Buddha told monks not to be too attached to gifts and alms that they receive, and be moderate in accepting gifts. Monks should be contented with what they have. Also monks accepting gifts is a chance for the lay people to make merit. The sutta quotes below provide more info.
In addition, AN 3.94 and AN 8.13 also define qualities a monk should have, that would make him worthy of gifts, offerings and respect from others.
Don't be addicted to luxury - from DN 2:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, are addicted to high and luxurious furnishings such as these —
over-sized couches, couches adorned with carved animals, long-haired
coverlets, multi-colored patchwork coverlets, white woolen coverlets,
woolen coverlets embroidered with flowers or animal figures, stuffed
quilts, coverlets with fringe, silk coverlets embroidered with gems;
large woolen carpets; elephant, horse, and chariot rugs, antelope-hide
rugs, deer-hide rugs; couches with awnings, couches with red cushions
for the head and feet — he abstains from using high and luxurious
furnishings such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

Don't have cravings for alms and gifts - from Snp 2.11:

"Associate with good friends and choose a remote lodging, secluded,
with little noise. Be moderate in eating. Robes, alms-food, remedies
and a dwelling — do not have craving for these things; do not be one
who returns to the world. Practice restraint according to the
Discipline, and control the five sense-faculties.

Accept alms and gifts in moderation - from AN 7.64:

"And how is a monk one with a sense of moderation? There is the case
where a monk knows moderation in accepting robes, almsfood, lodgings,
& medicinal requisites for curing the sick. If he didn't know
moderation in accepting robes, almsfood, lodgings, & medicinal
requisites for curing the sick, he wouldn't be said to be one with a
sense of moderation. So it's because he does know moderation in
accepting robes, almsfood, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for curing
the sick, that he is said to be one with a sense of moderation. This
is one with a sense of Dhamma, a sense of meaning, a sense of himself,
& a sense of moderation.

Be contented with what you have - from AN 4.28:

There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at
all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at
all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or
inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth,
he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the
drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them.
He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at
all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful,
energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk
standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk is content with any old almsfood at all. He
speaks in praise of being content with any old almsfood at all. He
does not, for the sake of almsfood, do anything unseemly or
inappropriate. Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated. Getting
almsfood, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing
the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from
them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old almsfood
at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful,
energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk
standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

Monks accepting alms and gifts provide a means to lay people to make merit - from MN 39:

The Blessed One said, "'Contemplative, contemplatives': That is how
people perceive you. And when asked, 'What are you?' you claim that
'We are contemplatives.' So, with this being your designation and this
your claim, this is how you should train yourselves: 'We will
undertake & practice those qualities that make one a contemplative,
that make one a brahman, so that our designation will be true and our
claim accurate; so that the services of those whose robes, alms-food,
lodging, and medicinal requisites we use will bring them great fruit &
great reward; and so that our going forth will not be barren, but
fruitful & fertile.'

So far as I know the Buddhist perspective is that the Sangha is a "field of merit", that giving to the Sangha is an opportunity for laypeople to acquire merit -- and therefore, I suppose, that the Sangha are giving -- giving this opportunity -- and making their alms round with this in mind.

If there are gifts then there should be a recipient, gifts do not come to be without. It is better recipient be a good person because he is good at utilizing and it is good to be given gifts, gifts given to the bad are badly utilized because recepient is bad. A good person is good because he does good things. Buddhists say Nibbana is the highest good. Therefore those who develop the path leading to the highest are most worthy of gifts & hospitality and are an incomparable field of merit.
Whether gifts can be given such that they corrupt the recipient only and whether that qualifies as a gift is interesting but is also offtopic i think.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can everything be explained as the result of Kamma or not?
In his brief introduction to Sivaka Sutta, SN 36:21, Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Sutta has been misinterpreted as saying that there are certain things not explainable as the results of Kamma. His argument, it seems to me, is that because the body is a result of Kamma (through rebirth), necessarily, the illnesses of the body are also encompassed as results of Kamma. But I’m not sure I understand his argument, as in my view, though the body is a result of Kamma, that doesn’t necessarily explain the arbitrary functions and conditions of the body.
Am I missing something? Does anybody have an alternative explanation for Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument?
Furthermore, I read this other translation of the Sutta by Nyanaponika Thera and the meaning seems to change slightly. In this translation, it seems that the Buddha is censuring the Brahmans who fall into the absolutism of saying that everything is the result of Kamma because they haven’t attained that knowledge for themselves, and are instead just following the common views of the time. This would seem to be more in line with MN 101, in which the Buddha refutes the views of the Nigaṇṭhas through a series of very compelling logical arguments.
I am somewhat confused at the moment, and I would really appreciate it if someone could provide some clarity regarding this. I understand that the results of Kamma are not equal to predestination, and that it’s a very important component of the Buddha’s teaching, but how exactly it is that the law of Kamma allows for freedom of choice and variation is what I don’t understand.
Thank you, and Metta.

This is a very good question.
Ven. Thanissaro translated SN 36.21 as saying very clearly below that not everything that happens to us is caused by that which was done before. The sutta gives examples like bile, weather, harsh treatment etc. As you have said correctly, MN 101 reinforces the message of SN 36.21.

So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither
pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip
past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the
world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
wrong."

And yet, in his commentary to the translation of SN 36.21, he wrote that this is not the correct interpretation of this sutta, citing SN 35.145 as stating that the body and mind is old kamma.
SN 35.145 states that the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma, capable of being felt. But, it doesn't say WHOSE old kamma it is.
The suttas below (SN 12.17 and SN 22.85) answer that question.
So, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind definitely arise due to old kamma. After all, they cannot arise spontaneously - they definitely arise due to old kamma. But we cannot ask WHOSE old kamma it is. It is dependently originated - with ignorance as the condition.
This is in line with sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self).
Based on the following sutta quotes, if we say that OUR body and mind arises due to OUR own past kamma, that's an indication of self-view and it's also the view of eternalism.
If we say that the old or new kamma is not done by anyone, that's annihilationism. But this is also a type of self-view.
Instead, the Buddha taught dependent origination. That the self is impermanent, changing and dependently originated.
So, there is volition and there is suffering, but we don't connect them to a specific permanent self identity.
In AN 5.57, it is stated that one should have the view of "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". But this is only skillful means (upaya) to cultivate hiri and otappa (shame and fear of wrongdoing).
From SN 12.17:

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself
and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created
neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know
suffering, I see suffering.”
“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.”
“Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism.
But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”

Also from SN 22.85:

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful (suffering). That which is stressful has
ceased and gone to its end."

Also SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

I think karma explains everything if you are able to reach that level of understanding.
It doesn't mean that karma is fair in a sense of justice. Something bad might happen to someone good because he said that(or not), in that place, at x time to the other person. He might had not said anything wrong but it might be misinterpreted.
For ex: Because he was not enlighten or he had mental obscurations that didn't allow different words/gestures to come out and ended in a bad result to him.
Others Karma are also in presence always even if you aren't near. As a whole that influence this world and you.

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


text:
At what age does a person becomes capable to understand Buddhism?
Further to my question about discussing Buddhism with children, I want to ask that, at what age does one becomes capable of understanding Buddhism?
The very first time I came across Buddha and Buddhism was in my school textbook where I read the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path. I must have been around 14 or 15 at that time and raised in a liberal Hindu family. But I still remember at that time, I thought to myself, 'this is so simple and has nothing to do with the all power full Hindu gods that I worshipped and adored'. I underrated the Buddha.
Fast forward 20 years, after going through intense mental suffering, breakups, and craving and desires which never got fulfilled, and then starting contemplating about the whys, and spending time reading about religions and science and meditation, I now call myself a practicing Buddhist.
So at what age does one becomes capable to understand Buddhism? Is going through suffering a necessary part of one's path? Does failing to have a romantic relationship act as a trigger to start contemplating about life and turn to religion? Does exposure to the absurdity of life somehow turns a person look inwards?

7 year olds one can go forth into homelessness and  Arahantship can be sustained, younger than that is unheard of.

When I was seven
& newly gone forth,
having conquered with my power
the great powerful serpent,
I was fetching water for my preceptor
from the great lake, Anotatta,
when the Teacher saw me & said:
"Look, Sariputta, at that one,
the young boy coming there,
carrying a pot of water,
well-centered within,
his practices — inspiring;
his bearing — admirable.
He's Anuruddha's novice,
mature in his powers,
made thoroughbred by a thoroughbred,
good by one who is good,
tamed by Anuruddha,
trained by one whose task
is done.
He, having reached the highest peace
& realized the unshakable,
Sumana the novice
wants this:
'Don't let anyone know me.'"

Thag 6.10

It's difficult to set the 'age of understanding' for Buddhism because it is not intellect that is required but Virtue.
Someone could be well developed in virtue from previous life he could be a bodhisattva so who can say at what age in this lifetime he would understand the dharma?
Visakha, the great female supporter was only seven years old, when the Buddha visited her birthplace... Though she was so young, she was religious and virtuous. As such, immediately after hearing the Dharma from the Buddha, she attained the first stage of sainthood.


text:
Difference between the Scientific Law of Causality and the Buddhist Law of Conditionality
What is the difference between the scientific law of causality and the Buddhist law of conditionality (Paṭiccasamuppāda)? I am not convinced with the way Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, for example, has drawn the distinction between the two. According to him, the scientific law of causality is linear with one cause giving rise to one effect which in turn becomes the cause of a second effect, so on and so forth. The law of conditionality on the other hand, he says, is a structural principle based on a complex interplay of various conditions wherein an effect arises due to an array of causes that interact with each other in a complicated fashion to give rise to an effect. Well, it is not that the scientific principle does not recognize that. It clearly does!
What I have understood is that the law of conditionality is a much wider extension of the scientific principle of causality that is strictly applicable to material phenomena only. In addition to material realities, Paṭiccasamuppāda also deals with what may be referred to as metaphysical and ontological phenomena. The rules of science do not allow it to venture into these fields at all!
What is the actual Buddhist position on this?

From which source did you read Bhikkhu Bodhi's comments?

There is a video of his on Paticcasamuppada.

Causality as it is defined in science today does not match the description given in the question. According to Einstein, it is not linear, it is relativistic. And according to quantum mechanics, effect can precede cause

There is an explanation of Buddhist conditionality in the Bundles of Reed Sutta (SN 12.67) below, together with an analogy.
Name-and-form (mind-body) is a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name-and-form. If any one of these ceases, the other will cease too. This is like two bundles of reed leaning on each other.
However, the rest are linearly dependent. Name-and-form is a condition for the six sense fields, the six sense fields are conditions for contact, and so on.
But the dependency model here does not mean that they arose sequentially in time. What is more likely the case, is that they arose together. And they will cease together.
Please see SN 12.2 for the definition of what name-and-form, consciousness etc. refer to.
However, please remember that these refer only to the clinging aggregates (SN 22.48), and not the non-clinging aggregates. A living arahant does not have the clinging aggregates, because there is no longer clinging. However, the living arahant still has functioning aggregates. This is discussed in Iti 44 (also please read Ven. Thanissaro's comments in the footnote to the Iti 44 translation).
There's another bundles of reed relationship between ignorance (avijja) and fermentation (asava). Please read this question for details.
From SN 12.67:

Well, Reverend Sāriputta, are old age and death made by oneself? Or by
another? Or by both oneself and another? Or do they arise by chance,
not made by oneself or another?”
“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, old age and death are not made by oneself, nor
by another, nor by both oneself and another, nor do they arise by
chance, not made by oneself or another. Rather, rebirth is a condition
for old age and death.”
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is rebirth made by oneself? Or by another?
Or by both oneself and another? Or does it arise by chance, not made
by oneself or another?”
“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, rebirth is not made by oneself, nor by
another, nor by both oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance,
not made by oneself or another. Rather, continued existence is a
condition for rebirth.”
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is continued existence made by oneself? …”
… “Is grasping made by oneself? …” … “Is craving made by oneself? …” …
“Is feeling made by oneself? …” … “Is contact made by oneself? …” …
“Are the six sense fields made by oneself? …” … “Well, Reverend
Sāriputta, are name and form made by oneself? Or by another? Or by
both oneself and another? Or do they arise by chance, not made by
oneself or another?”
“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, name and form are not made by oneself, nor by
another, nor by both oneself and another, nor do they arise by chance,
not made by oneself or another. Rather, consciousness is a condition
for name and form.”
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is consciousness made by oneself? Or by
another? Or by both oneself and another? Or does it arise by chance,
not made by oneself or another?”
“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, consciousness is not made by oneself, nor by
another, nor by both oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance,
not made by oneself or another. Rather, name and form are conditions
for consciousness.”
“Just now I understood you to say: ‘No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, name and
form are not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both oneself and
another, nor do they arise by chance, not made by oneself or another.
Rather, consciousness is a condition for name and form.’
But I also understood you to say: ‘No, Reverend Koṭṭhita,
consciousness is not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both
oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance, not made by oneself
or another. Rather, name and form are conditions for consciousness.’
How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”
“Well then, reverend, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a
simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said.
Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.
In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness.
Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are
conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are
conditions for contact. … That is how this entire mass of suffering
originates. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled
away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled
away, the first would collapse.
In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When
consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease,
the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact
ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
“It’s incredible, Reverend Sāriputta, it’s amazing! How well spoken
this was by Venerable Sāriputta! And we can express our agreement with
Venerable Sāriputta’s statement on these thirty-six grounds.

Two books leaning on each other:

Your detailed reply is wonderful @ruben2020. I can now find deeper layers of meaning in all this notion of conditionality or rather 'co-arising'. I'll get back with what I have understood, observing all the rules this time. Being a doctor, I'm presently in the thick of a Covid tsunami in New Delhi, India, so I may be forgiven the delay.

Science deals with the physically measurable. Buddhist teachings focus on the end of suffering. Both discuss causality, but in different ways.
The scientific method emphasizes reproducibility of results for a given hypothesis. In schools we can all drop large and small weights to observe they fall at the same speed. However, we have to be very very careful about using words such as "scientific law of causality". We have to be careful because scientific hypotheses change. In particular, Newton asserted that gravity is a force. Modern science asserts instead that mass bends space-time in such a way that falling objects move at the same rate. So there is no law of causality. Science is a simply a body of hypotheses that are verifiable under specified conditions. As we learn more, our hypotheses change. For example we still haven't figured out dark matter and dark energy. Science is our current best guess for the physically measurable.
In contrast, the Buddha taught about suffering, its origin and its end. With regard to suffering, the Buddha also discusses causality and views (i.e., hypotheses). Here, he discusses bad kamma arising out of bad actions.

MN60:24.7: So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct.
MN60:24.8: And that is how wrong view gives rise to these many bad, unskillful qualities—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
MN60:25.1: A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
MN60:25.2: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe.
MN60:25.3: And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Science relies on the reproducibility of physical measurement. Buddhism relies on the reproducibility of subjective measurement of suffering. Both science and Buddhism assert reproducibility of experience. However, science is not really concerned with the end of suffering. And Buddhism isn't really concerned with the rate of falling objects.

Re. the first point.
There's a truism according to scientific logic, "correlation doesn't imply causation" -- i.e. that "if I do X and then Y happens" that doesn't mean that "X caused Y".
The answer to "what's the cause?" can become debatable in fields like sociology or politics.
Sometimes the question is important -- people don't want to spend money on changing a condition, if that condition doesn't cause the problem or if changing the condition will not solve the problem.
Sometimes the question is counter-productive -- people ask the question to raise doubt and argue against doing something useful.
And the question can be carried to great length -- people might argue about whether something is a proximate cause or a root cause.
I think that simple theories of "causation" also tend to imply a chronological sequence -- "if A caused B, then A happened before B" -- which isn't well-suited to answer questions about a perpetual cycle like for example, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

I think that Buddhist doctrine explicitly avoids this controversy, by not always emphasizing a causal (or linear) sequence. Instead things "co-arise", they happen together.
That might be similar to a complex scientific view. Consider fire for example ...

Does heat happen because it's burning inflammable gas?
Or is it the other way around, i.e. that inflammable gas happens because of heat?

... and so far as I know, a scientific answer is "both" -- the latter being called "pyrolysis" (which precedes combustion). So the heat and the inflammable nature "co-arise" and once they start they continue.
A similar loop -- sometimes pathological -- might happen in psychology, "I drink because I'm unhappy and I'm unhappy because I drink", or the ways in which some enmities perpetuate.
But perhaps Buddhism doesn't try to argue about "Which came first?" -- may simply observe that they arise together, and might stop together.
I think this is so in the Noble Truths. The Second Truth is that craving is the origin of suffering, but I think the converse is true also i.e. that suffering causes craving (and so it perpetuates), what's clever is the Third Truth explaining how to stop the cycle.
I think it's also true in the analysis of the 12 nidanas -- I try to read the Wheel clockwise as if each causes the next, but I think that's simplistic -- there's two-way interaction or feedback especially between adjacent nidanas.

I'm not sure this is correct. In fact, this question of causation vs correlation seemed to be a very hotly contested and important debate in Indian Buddhism ... and for that matter, all the ancient Indian philosophical systems. Do you mind if I respectfully pose a question that gives references for this @ChrisW?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you're suggesting you post a separate question (or another answer) which suggests this answer is mistaken or misleading then in general I might welcome that.

This is what I was referring to. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44869/how-did-ancient-indian-buddhists-describe-causation-vs-correlation-why-were-the Interested to know if this would change your answer above. It might very well be in complete accordance...

The difference is that the law of causality is a general principle whereas paticcasamupadda is a special case of it's application.
Special because it's about something specific.
The law is like an abstract mathematic forumulae of xyz that can be applied to any calculation whereas dependent origination is more like doing physics where one uses the forumulae to think about certain circumstances substituting xyz for the real values of 123, special case not generalized.


text:
How does craving cause self-identity or self-habit?
From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit.
But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected?
Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

It's kind of complex and would take a long time to explain in full details, but here's a simplified version:
There's a chain of reifications leading from craving to selfish action to self.
This is what was supposed to be explained in Dependent Origination but unfortunately most of the detailed descriptions  seem to be lost. From bits and pieces available in Theravada and Mahayana traditions we can try and recover what the full explanation probably looked like.
The exact sequence of reifications is likely impossible to determine, indeed that would require a detailed record of a developing mind, experience by experience and thought by thought, but getting at that level of details is not important anyway. What's important is to understand the general principle, the mechanism. Without further ado let's dive in.
When we crave something our mind projects a memory of a past experience onto an imaginary contact with an object. We reify this projection as "that object is nice". There's no "nice object" in reality, both "nice" and "object" parts come from our mind. The "object" is a reification as explained in my Emptiness answer. "Nice" is a past memory turned into an imaginary quality. Combining the two parts together and playing a game of make-believe pretending that there's in fact an actual "nice object" - is reification.
When mind gets obsessed with this idea of "nice object" it keeps coming back to it again and again. It keeps feeding this reification by adding more and more imaginary details and associations. It imagines the circumstances that would precede a contact with the object, a kind of automatic planning. Then at some point it elevates this obsession to the status of intent. That's when we feel that we have made up our mind, decided to pursue the object, made it our goal. This is the second reification, of obsession becoming an intent, a fixation on a plan of action towards a goal.
(Of course when I say "when we crave something the mind gets obsessed and keeps coming back" or "the mind imagines" etc. - the subject of such sentences is only a figure of speech. There's no mind apart from its content; the cravings, obsessions, reifications, projections - are the mind. In other words, the mind is not an agent that does things, it's just a process that's "happening".)
Then as we pursue the object and obtain it, we navigate the space (either physical space or the space of intermediate objectives) to get closer and closer to the desirable object. As we navigate the space we have to track our progress. We have to evaluate our position against the background of the circumstances. As we do that, we mentally "split" the totality of our mind into "the world" (our idea of the world to be precise) and the subject of navigation whose position we're tracking. The world serves as a semi-static background for the imaginary point moving towards its goal. We then reify this moving point to the status of "I".
Craving for an experience (just like its negative twin, aversion, or craving to get rid of something) creates motivation to act deliberately and selfishly - towards a goal. Deliberate pursuit of a goal requires position evaluation and status tracking, which creates an imaginary pair of "object & its background": the world vs the current position. This position is what gets reified as the self.

It is with the clinging aggregates that the world becomes solid. One common word that describes this is reification. Andrei Volkov gives some details about that in his answer. This is true even when people have lost arms and legs. They are convinced that they can still feel that arm or leg. Through craving their aggregates cannot let go of the concept of body-form.
This same thing happens when we die. When we lose our body the idea of who we are experiences trauma. This trauma is the self-identity or denial of emptiness. As a response to that trauma it re-conceptualizes a new body-form just like the person who loses their arm. Through craving, the concept of arm continues; through craving the concept of body-form continues. The karmas of the previous body-form appear as sankhara-potential in the new body-form. It is a potential because it needs to develop an understanding of the world it now finds itself within so that its sankara contours can be played-out. Babies are abundant with sankara-potential, you can sense it in them, but due to their innocence they are not able to fully display those sankharas. Their actions, thoughts and speech are barely operational. Therefore, sankharas are the etchings, contours or indentations truncated into an individualized claimant and the claimant represents prior craving through here-and-now ignorance, but of course, we cannot see that bigger picture!.
The repetitious nature of it all makes it difficult to see the details, and so I don't think your question can be answered with any degree of accuracy. At best, only a theoretical understanding might quench your curiosity, but only temporarily. It's almost as if you're asking which came first, self-identity or craving. Maybe this section of DN27 might help with understanding self-identity, craving and especially reification leading to coarse and dense forms.

'There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long
period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are
mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell,
mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air,
glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or
later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At
a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world,
having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here
they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving
through the air, glorious--and they stay like that for a very long
time.
'At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all
was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no
constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not
distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no
male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or
later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself
over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin
that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with
colour, smell and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and
it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
'Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?"
and tasted the savoury earth on its finger. In so doing, it became
taken with the flavour, and craving arose in it. Then other beings,
taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their
fingers. They, too, were taken with the flavour, and craving arose in
them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the
stuff in order to eat it. And the result of this was that their
self-luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of
their self-luminance, the moon and the sun appeared, night and day
were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and
its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.
'And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this
savoury earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. And as they
did so, their bodies became coarser, and a difference in looks
developed among them. Some beings became good-looking, others ugly.
And the good-looking ones despised the others, saying: "We are
better-looking, than they are." And because they became arrogant and
conceited about their looks, the savoury earth disappeared. At this
they came together and lamented, crying: "Oh that flavour! Oh that
flavour!" And so nowadays when people say: "Oh that flavour!" when
they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without
realising it.
Agganna Sutta

When we lose our body the idea of who we are experiences trauma. This trauma is the self-identity or denial of emptiness.  - do u think this is why we dream?

@blue_ego - When I broke the eighth fetter, I went through a bit of mild delirium where my dream world spilled over into my waking reality. All defence mechanisms fell away at the eighth, as there was no sense of inner & outer, no self whatsoever. Whatever is in the lower regions of the mind comes rushing up. Like the dream world, most of it made no sense. So think of dreams as like a locked & unorganised filing cabinet, which, when opened, causes a little confusion. It eventually settled, and I broke through into the tenth fetter!

What one craves that one also clings to.
A newborn baby doesn't have self-identity ideation but it is not without an inclination to it's development due to past circumstances.

Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes?

The adherence to the doctrine of self and ideation based on the doctrine of self are not something that not having been arises.
A baby is then without an adherence to the doctrine of self but the body is the result of past adherence coming into play.
It is the delusion which is without a beginning. The  intellect goes through stages of devopment and it's default undeveloped course of understanding & thinking is in terms of the doctrine of self, that doctrine of self & adherence are evidence of delusion and what sustains existence.


text:
Infinite rebirth, finite kamma?
If we have been transmigrating in samsara infinitely via rebirths, then doesn't that mean that kamma which we have earned too is infinite? And if so, doesn't that imply that enlightenment is imposible to reach since it would take one infinite amount of time to reach? I know this is classified as something that is unconjecturable and drives one insane, but this one is driving me curious. Any takers on this?

According to this Jainpedia page on Jain teachings on karma:

The karmas accrued over a lifetime trap the soul in the cycle of
births. The karmas mature by affecting the soul or the physical body
of its next lifetime or birth. When the body dies, the soul is born in
a different body, which is shaped by karmas from the previous birth
and the ones before that. The condition of the soul in that lifetime
is also influenced by karmas from previous incarnations. This cycle of
birth, death and life repeats endlessly while the soul has karmas
attached to it.
The soul yearns to fulfil its true nature, which it cannot do while it
is imprisoned within the cycle of rebirth. Only a soul without karma
can be liberated from the cycle of birth, reaching self-realisation.
Following the teachings of the Jinas and developing spiritually lead
to the prevention of new karmas entering the soul – saṃvara – and the
removal of existing karmas. ....
Destroying karmas that are attached to the soul requires ascetic
practices such as fasting, meditation and denying bodily needs and
comforts.

In MN 101, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:

All the happens to a person is due to past karma
Elimination of past karma is possible by penance
Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma
With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.
From MN 101:

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.

agree with what you said. Thanks for clarifying on that. Also kind of reminded of the zeno's paradox. It's only mathematical as it doesn't reflect the real world. So do the Jains interpret kamma and rebirth.

@NithinManmohan Yes. The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to have really bad karma and get enlightened anyway. There is a famous story of someone that killed many persons and got enlightened on that same life (though I think they end up killing him because of his past). The story should be easy to find, he was called Angulimala.
And I think it wouldn't be possible to accumulate infinite karma because a being with a ton of good karma would end up in a really long life in a heaven and burn that good karma away. And someone with really bad karma would get a long life in hell and burn the karma away too.

They don't end up killing him!

A determination can become inevitable or cancelled due to development. This is like a person sometime changing his plans & determinations, whereas at other times actions & determinations have a fixed determined effect that can't be changed.
Some actions cancel & override the effects of other actions and change the course of experience.
Existence occurs for this or that person because something is true, because it is true we know that existence has been and will be as long as the factor is true & in play.
An infinite past doesn't mean that it includes every possible element or factor.
ie the numbers less than 0 are infinite but they do not include any numbers higher than 0.
If everybody remembered & knew all past in-formation, this would be an impossible amount of data and would require an infinite amount of matter for storage, let alone storage if someone was to to objectify the immeasurable & incalculable by rememberance & thought then it would take an infinite amount of nutriment & time for one to do so, the universe would grow cold before one is done.
These are incalculable & immeasurable, therefore there is no counting & measuring of it, this never occurs.
There is only a counting & measuring as conception & perception of countable & measurable elements conceived of as being resultant of an indeterminate development.
The immeasurable & incalculable philosophical principles are basis for conception.
It's much like a person not acting on what he doesn't know & remember, knowing & remembering only particulars due to past development and acting on those unaware of what one is unaware but he is not exempt from the unconscious conditioning whether he knows it or not and it will come into play if there is an opening.


text:
How can I accept losing control of my mind and will?
After some reflection, I've noticed many of my mental hangups / dispositions (sankhara) were formed due to a deep seated fear of losing control over my mind / volition.
Examples that come to mind include:

Being deceived into doing something against my principles
Being coerced into doing something unethical
Performing negative actions caused by a mental illness (Alzheimer, ...)
Having my ideas changed through to physical torture

How can I overcome this fear?

My understanding of the Dharma is limited, so I would appreciate help understanding the situation from that perspective.
Is this fear caused by attachment to mental dispositions?
Is this a fetter? In particular, is it caused or conditioned by belief in self? Are dispositions part of self?
I understand that theoretically mental dispositions should be impermanent? But in practice some dispositions are very hard or impossible to change.
Does it make sense to focus on changing unhelpful dispositions? Would it make more sense to keep analysing the causal link of the dispositions, practising more meditation to notice the fear when it arises, or practising acceptance of the current situation?

Fear is a reoccurring companion on the spiritual path. It doesn't mean that something has gone wrong. The particular fear that you describe seems fairly common, but fears can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes; all sorts of feelings and thoughts.
How can I overcome this fear?
The overcoming of fear happens when we become curious about it rather than adhering to its demands which generally push the practitioner towards form-based experiences or sensuality - that is the habitual response. This only serves to cover over the those fears and the practitioner loses sight of some critical knowledge. However, approaching fear with curiosity suggests that there is another way to understand those fears. Therefore, fear holds previously unseen knowledge... knowledge about uncertainty and not just the uncertainty of our mental faculties, but the uncertainty of every single second that passes by.
When one consciously choses to look towards those fears, slowly they lose their power over you. One does not need to analyse why they are there rather, just to notice that they are present. You see, fear is like a snotty-nosed child trying to play a sinister melody with a trumpet, but if we don't turn towards its comical absurdity, we perceive fear as something much greater, something that has much more substance; fear then continues as a deep intrapsychic governor giving determinations on how we live our lives.
Fear only perpetuates when there is an applied force. We can recognize those applied forces in our thoughts and if we buy into those thoughts fear quickly takes the upper hand. One common fear is the fear of going crazy.
Is this a fetter? In particular, is it caused or conditioned by belief in self? Are dispositions part of self?
It's not quite a fetter, but a pre-emptive response to the practice as a whole. The fetter model has its quagmires; it's not a solid base for practice, so I wouldn't hold that model too tightly.
The practice uncovers these deep fears and allows us the opportunity to view them in more healthy ways. It's time to start doing that now. This calls upon a certain degree of wisdom, perhaps some faith, and an ability to find some contextual awareness.
In an nutshell, the fear is the anticipation of its own ending, but it can only express this through negative thoughts. It is fearful because what lies beyond our internal conceptual world cannot be conceived by it, by the feelings it generates or by the thoughts it weaves.
The amazing thing is, we fear the loss of control but none of us ever had any control and never will.
How can I accept losing control of my mind and will?
Chiefly, you'll have to feel your own way with that. When you've accepted it, then you've cracked the entire thing!

Fighting fear makes it grow. Letting go of fear, it will disappear just as it arose. Fear is temporary. Temporary things are not worth clinging to:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

Instead of fear, be mindful. If there is fear of transgression, simply relax into mindfulness of ethics:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’
MN8:12.22: ‘Others will be overcome with dullness and drowsiness, but here we will be rid of dullness and drowsiness.’
MN8:12.23: ‘Others will be restless, but here we will not be restless.’
MN8:12.24: ‘Others will have doubts, but here we will have gone beyond doubt.’  ...

Yet while being mindful of ethics, cravings may bother mindfulness. But cravings are temporary. And if they are temporary, then cravings are unsatisfactory. Let go of cravings, thinking:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

Ethics belong to us all. They can be ignored but not lost or possessed. So be mindful of ethics with each breath, relaxed and content. Be free of suffering. Be free of fear.

I think you can reflect on the mind's changing being inevitable as old age.
If intellect has knowledge about how mind changes then the course of development will reflect that.
Past conditioning can not be undone and bad mental & physical behaviors will come into play.
One should reflect on conditioning and let wisdom steer as much as possible.
There is essentially nobody commanding the faculties of knowledge & bodily functions. It's nature in development and mind seeks knowledge like roots seek nutriment.
Whatever one sees or thinks about that one gives attention, what is given frequent attention becomes the inclination of the mind.
Executing a complex learned behavior requires strategy, effort and concentration and one can develop these.
Basically i am telling you to develop the recommended lines of reasoning

old age
not-self
impermanence
death & birth
appreciation
defining elements
appreciation & gladness
metta & compassion
equanimity
on the drawbacks
on the danger
on the unattractiveness

When these themes develop into one another by inference then a lot has been done imo. Then they will come to mind often and together directing behavior.
I have sutta excerpts here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit?usp=drivesdk
Reflection, contemplation and stlling of the mind is what you want to do.
You can also develop kasina meditative states by contemplation or some sort of mindfulness of the body training & stilling of distractive thoughts.
Then one should also learn about hindrances & factors of enlightenment.
If successful in contemplation & stilling of thoughts then one should have little difficulty attaining jhana.
Training like this one will grow equanimous to mind's changes.

Before you aim to lose control of your mind I urge you to read this answer with regards to what Volition (conditioned free will) is.
Unless you are fully liberated don't be too quick to say there is no controller. You are the owner of your volition.
It is not wise to say volition, including all bad volition, is uncontrolled because it offers a free license for unaccountability.
the quote below is from Attakārī Sutta

So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
self-doer, there is no other-doer’?*

Also reads the notes:

Although the Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal,
immutable, independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught
that there is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful
to speak of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions
and deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
being.

-You overcome the fear by paying attention, continuously, on purpose, on a moment by moment basis and you see the experience of the fear not the concept of fear.
-Listen and chant up a loving kindness attitude for temporarily  destroying anger  or fear(aversion).

If you think you aren't helping as much as you wished you should try to see how you could.
Even if it would be to go to a doctor, practice ex Medicine Buddha, following your Guru advices.
If you are already doing what you can, as much as it's possible right now, don't worry so much, it's not you fault, things take time to heal and they do change, even if that doesn't you will change the way you deal with it or just forget it's there.
I hope this helps,
Blessings


text:
Studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" (Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, Mādhyamika) in English
I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama.
"The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: Vaibhashika (Skt. Vaibhāṣika), Sautrantika (Skt. Sautrāntika), Chittamatra (Skt. Cittamātra), Madhyamika (Skt. Mādhyamika).
I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction.

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly?

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written?

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts?

Thank you in advance.

I would recommend Insight into Emptiness by by Khensur Jampa Tegchok and Thubten Chodron. This book discusses the tenets of all four of these schools and compares and contrasts them. Further, the authors are of the same branch of Tibetan Buddhism as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the latter author also works very closely with the Dalai Lama and is a co-author with him on many books for the western audience.
Here are images of some handy charts you can find in this book that talk about the four schools views:

If you want a short free resource, please read the 13-page "The Four Buddhist Tenet Systems: Variations on a Theme of Wholeness" by David Paul Boaz.
On Youtube, there's a summary in the video "Elucidating The Tenet Systems of Buddhist Philosophy" by H.E. Abhaya Rinpoche.


text:
What do the words of the Mahayana Buddhist mean?
A Mahayana Buddhist said:

Mahayana Buddhists agree that there other sentient beings exist, that
they have discrete mindstreams, and ingest and interpret reality in
accordance to their own karmic dispositions.
If I encounter you, I believe you are a sentient being, and that you
are not me. But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only
with the impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory
contact.
So my experience of you is 'imaginary' in the sense that all I have is
this mental representation that was constructed within my own mind,
using limited data from where our actions and sense systems have
interactions.
But you clearly exist on some level, because you can perform actions
that I did not cause, which means that you are not some kind of
phantom my mind created.

Can you please explain to me what this means.
What does the following mean?

But I also recognize that I never interact with you, only with the
impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory contact.

That is, does it mean that when he talks to me, he thinks he is talking to an imaginary person?
Thank you!

From whom is this quote? A similar statement was once made to a Zen master. The master slapped the questioner in the face and asked "am I real now?"

Thanks. I read it on Reddit Could you explain what it means: "I never interact with you, only with the impressions of you that my mind has recreated from sensory contact"? If he didn't interact with me, he wouldn't have the impression of me, would he?

Frankly, it sounds more like phenomenology than Mahayana Buddhism to me. Most branches of Mahayana actually believe that everything is interconnected and therefore interacting. This is sometimes called Indra's net

Thanks. Could you explain as Indra's net the explanatory interaction of two people.

Simply put, you could view each dewdrop on a spiderweb as reflecting all other dewdrops, which in turn reflect all other dewdrops, etc. ad infinitum. If you regard the drops separate, that is the dualistic interpretation of reality, which is what one would also do when stating questions in the form "interactions of two people". However, Mahayana teaches non-duality (emptiness and interconnectedness), so in essence, there are no two separate entities interacting. The quote you cited only grasps the dualistic view of interaction (my mind, you are not me, etc.)

It's like the skepticism of other minds, isn't it?

More like the skepticism that a thing like "my own individual mind" exists separately from other minds, or that "I" as an individual am separate from all things I see as "not me". Unfortunately this is very hard to put in words since language itself is dualistic. It is ultimately something that needs to be experienced, not argumented.

Thank you. Ok, let me ask you again:
When a Mahayana Buddhist meets a person on the street and communicates with him, he think that he is communicating with a living person who has consciousness, sensations, feelings, thoughts, emotions (an individual mind stream), and that this person will have consciousness, feelings, emotions , sensations and thoughts, even when he leaves for another city?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Let's say there's a person called George, who is a lay single unmarried man, aged 39, and is strongly interested in Buddhism.
Now let's take a look at other people around him.
Let's say his friend Tom, is of the same age and is happily married with 3 kids. He looks at George and pities him for being single and not having his own family. He thinks about advising George to try more diligently to achieve the goal of marital bliss in the near future.
Another friend of his, Bob, is an openly gay man. He looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is a closeted gay man and that's the reason why he's single and unmarried. He pities George for not being true to himself and opening up to his fullest potential of happiness.
And then there's his colleague, Jim, who went through a bitter divorce, separating from his ex-wife who cheated on him with another man. Jim is very emotionally hurt from his divorce. He looks at George and envies him for having made the right choice to remain single and unmarried.
Lastly, George knows a Buddhist monk by the name of Sadhu Bhikkhu whom he met at a Dhamma talk. Sadhu Bhikkhu looks at George and thinks that perhaps George is single and unmarried because he is considering joining the monastic order in future. Sadhu Bhikkhu is hopeful that more interested men and women would join the monastic order.
So, in each case, Tom, Bob, Jim and Sadhu Bhikkhu, all know the real person George, but they each form a different mental model or mental image of George. When they interact with George, they are interacting based on that mental model that they have created, and not based on the real situation of George.
I believe this is what is meant by the Mahayana Buddhist.

An amazing answer!

Thank you sir. But my question is just this: Does the Buddhist George believe that all these people(Jim, Tom, Sadhu Bhikkhu) who surround him and whom he sees every day have sensations, emotions, feelings, thoughts, consciousness?

@Arny Yes, he does.

Thank you. Japanese and Chinese Buddhists also believe that all the people they see and with whom they communicate have sensations, emotions, feelings, thoughts, consciousness?

@Arny I don't see why not. Please read my answer again.

No. Imaginary things are fancies generated by the mind. Your eyes and ears do not "imagine." Your mind does. Your eye-consciousness does not imagine visions, but you can use your mind-consciousness to imagine whatever.
When someone interacts with another person, they are not interacting with something that they made up in the manner of a daydream. They are interacting, just like the person quoted in the OP said, with impressions generated via sensory contact. There is no reason to determine from the quoted material that anyone thinks that anyone is something imaginary thought up in the manner of a daydream.

I agree, but we do perceive people and in that perception we reduce their fundamental nature to mere feelings and perceptions, which can often seem dream-like or like we're daydreaming. But yes, there can be said to be a clarity beyond that; what that actually is I'm not sure, but for conventional purposes it seems reasonable to call it the physical world, even though that's not strictly the case.

Thanks. Could you explain what this means: "with impressions generated via sensory contact."?

No. You have asked me that question too many times. You have been told on DharmaWheel too many times that the Buddhadharma is not solipsism. You are so desperate for Mahayana to be solipsism that you will twist any words I give you.

Sorry sir, but on the contrary, I want to prove that Mahayana is not solipsism. I cannot get a simple answer to my simple question: When Mahayana Buddhists (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) meet people, they believe that these people have their own minds, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions and memories. And when these buddhists come to enlightenment and they meet people again, will they also believe that each of these people has consciousness, feelings, sensations, emotions and thoughts(individual mindstreams)?

But you've had so many simple answers. I just gave you one.

Here is another simple answer: Vairocana Buddha is not Gautama Buddha, just like I am not you. When I come to enlightenment, if the Tathāgatagarbha mysticism is correct, I will perceive you as an exalted Buddha covered in defilements unaware of your actual status, thinking yourself a worldling. I will not, however, perceive you as myself or purely imaginary.

@NeuroMax, Venerable Vasubandhu defends "cittamātratā" by claiming that dreams are like reality. However, there is one significant difference between dreams and reality. Reality is shared and dreams are not. There is precedence in the Buddhas' sūtras that the world is both shared and unshared in different ways. They say that the ghosts see rivers of puss and foul substances where we see rivers of water, because we are in the same "world" as the ghosts. There is still a river. You and I can see a river and it is "shared" between us, unlike the experience of our dreams.

I am considering "dreaming" here a heightened form of imagining that is semi-involuntary.

Thank you Caoimhghin. We could say perceptions aren't shared either, they are very personal. Without this risk of sounding Freudian or Jungian, whatever perceptions and dreams are they are certainly informed by the collective unconscious which spans far beyond the earthly realm, so I guess they are the product of this informational flow in its grand spectacle, however deep and wide you would wish to go with that. It seems bottomless if I'm abruptly honest.

We don't share the "qualia" of experience, but two humans with healthy functioning eyes without perceptual impairments can see the same river. This is how we know that rivers are not imaginary, however imaginary the associations we make concerning them are and however unshared the qualia of the experiences might be. That is what was meant to be stressed in the above. Even ghosts, supposedly sharing the same "world" as us, see rivers where there are rivers, however differently they may experience/perceive those rivers.

First let's take a simple example. Here you are, reading something I wrote in the internet. But what do you really know about me? Am I male or female? How old am I? What ethnicity am I? What are my attitudes about Buddhism, or politics, or pizza? Doubtless you'll look at my name and make some assumptions, but what makes you think that's my real name? Just because I chose a screen name that looks like a real name doesn't mean it's my real name...
The internet is an interesting test-case because it's such a restricted mode of communication. You can't see me; you can't hear me; you can't get any of the subtle or obvious non-verbal cues you'd have if we were talking in person. You are building an image of me in your head as you read — based in part on what you read, perhaps (though by no means necessarily) — and you will respond to what I write as though it were written by the persona you have lodged inside your head. To that extent, the person you are communicating with (aka 'me') is completely imaginary; it is a set of presumptions and assumptions drawn from your expectations of what a person who says the kinds of things you are reading would be like.
This isn't qualitatively different from an in-person conversation. The only different with face-to-face communication is that you have more sensory data on which to base the assumptions you use to create that inner persona. Possibly my posture would lead you to assume I have certain characteristics, or the way I gesture with my hands, or the intonation of my voice... With an in-person discussion you might paint a richer persona of me inside your head, but it wouldn't be any less of an imagined persona.
But there's one obstacle you will consistently run into that keeps me from being entirely imaginary. Every now and then you will see me do or say something utterly inconsistent with the presumptions and assumptions of the persona you've assigned to me. For instance, I might type the word 'fuck', which may shake up some of your expectations of what a poster on a Buddhist site would say. Mentally-crafted personas of this type are boilerplate: stereotypical, standardized, fixed, and thoroughly un-alive mental objects. Actual living beings never fit well into the mental personas we impose on them; actual living beings are subtle and complicated; they don't sit nicely in boxes.
Now, we could walk through life holding to the principle that people are exactly as we imagine them to be. In fact, most people do exactly that; that is the essence of karmic existence. People hold that others are exactly as they imagine them to be, no matter how shallow or thin that internalized persona might be. People get angry, frustrated, or frightened when others violate the mental personas assigned to them; people make friends, fall in love, or show loyalty when others conform to the mental personas assigned to the; people generally like the world (and the people in it) to match the mental expectations they have developed. They are uncomfortable and discontent when the world or the people in it fail to comply.
However, Buddhism aims to help us release those expectations: both expectations of what ought to happen in the world and expectations of what other people ought to be like. Buddhist practice teaches us to slide past those expectations and see the world (and the people in it) exactly as is, without imposing the constraints of mental objects. Before we start the path, you are talking to a mental construct of me that lies in your head and I am talking to a mental construct of you that lies in my head; We will both occasionally be surprised and discomfited when one of us does something that doesn't fit with the other's preconceptions. The farther we go along the path, the less we rely on those mental personas, and the more we speak directly to the other without mental filters. You exist and I exist, and the problem we both have is getting through our imaginary mental constructs to actually see each other.

Thank you sir. Can you give an example of how a Buddhist sees me with mental filters and without mental filters?

@Amy: It's merely a question of what expectations I have, and what attachments I have to those expectations. For instance, I could notice that your name is Amy, assume you're female, start wondering whether or not we would be a good match romantically, and begin acting towards you as a potential love interest. I might even go so far as to become infatuated with you, merely based on all of the above assumptions.

@Amy: I certainly know people who regularly fall into that kind of fantasy (and may have done so once or twice myself), but because I practice I'm much more aware of the illusory  aspect of that mental process. Because i practice, I deal with you exactly as you present yourself, no more, no less, an don't worry about trying to fit you into unimportant categories (like 'female', or 'potential soulmate').

@Amy: Buddhism doesn't object to the illusions or fantasies, exactly; it just asks us to be aware of how deep the illusions and fantasies run, so that they don't control us or cause us to behave in odd or unfortunate ways.

Thank you, I understand you.
Let me ask another question:
That is, when you communicate with me face to face, you believe that I have consciousness, emotions, feelings, sensations and thoughts?

@Arny: This is a trickier question than you might realize. Part of the stereotypical persona we assign to other people is that they have the characteristics of 'consciousness, emotions, feelings, sensations and thoughts'. Well... that's true of everyone except sociopaths, who don't seem to understand or believe that other people have inner lives. So it's perfectly possible for someone to believe that other people have those characteristics, yet still be surprised and dismayed when other people's 'consciousness, emotions, feelings, sensations and thoughts'  make an appearance.

@Amy: In other words, I can believe you have free will, and yet still become perplexed and angry when you exercise free will by doing something different from what I expect. I can believe that you have the sensation of 'taste', yet still argue with you if you tell me you don't like Brussels sprouts (because, you know, anyone with tastebuds ought to appreciate the sprout).

@Amy: There's a sharp difference between 'believing' something is true and 'experiencing' the truth of it, if you follow me...

Thank you sir, but I didn't understand your answer. That is, when you talk to me you doubt that I have consciousness, sensations and feelings?

That is, when a Buddhist decides to become a psychologist, he does not think that the people with whom he works are actually experiencing emotions or sensations?

@Amy; Why wouldn't a Buddhist believe that? As I said, we tend to believe that by default (unless one happens to be a sociopath), and there is nothing in Buddhist teachings that says otherwise. The only thing Buddhism warns against is getting attached to the idea that people have to conform to our mental representations. If a Buddhist makes assumptions about a person that is the Buddhist's mistake, because the person in  question is inevitably something different than the assumptions that the Buddhist made.

Thanks. I realized. That is, when I meet and talk to a Buddhist, he knows that his assumptions about me may be wrong (for example, he may think I'm a firefighter, but I'm actually a doctor).But he believes that I have consciousness, thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions, who would I not be in his assumption or without his assumptions?

@Amy: I'm not sure i understand the grammar of this last statement: "who would I not be in his assumption or without his assumptions?" Can you rephrase it?

That is, when I talk to Buddhists face to face, they may think that I am a firefighter or that I am a doctor or a pilot or a Buddhist, but they believe that I have consciousness, feeling, sensations, emotions and thoughts and that I am not an imaginary person?

@Ann: As a rule, Buddhists would not think you were an imaginary person. They would recognize that you have a mental conception of a 'self' (which from the Buddhist perspective is an mental persona we hold about ourselves); they would recognize that they might think things about you which are imaginary (placing you in categories or giving you characteristics that might not pertain). But they certainly would acknowledge your existence as a separate entity.  Or perhaps better put, a Buddhist would see you as no more and no less imaginary than they themselves are.


text:
How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena?
How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena?
There is one such person amidst a crowd of other people. Somebody shouts their name, and they say, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"
After hearing his name, how does he make the connection between the hearing of his name and referencing that name to himself, so that he then responds thus, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"

An "enlightened mind" could be referring to different things... do you intend to refer to the mind of a fully enightened Buddha or that of an Arya being in meditative equipoise with the non-conceptual perception of emptiness or do you mean an Arya being not in meditative equipoise? The answer depends upon what you are referring to by "an enlightened mind."

@Yesha Tenley - I would rather not define that term, but instead encourage you to approach the question in whatever way is suits to you. :-)

If I tell you: "Your future is in your hands."
Would you look at your physical hands and reply, "but where is it? I can't see it!" I don't think so.
"In your hands" is a mere conventional figure of speech, not to be taken literally.
Similarly, the terms "I", "my", "mine", "you", "your" etc. are simply conventional terms when used verbally by the enlightened ones. They don't literally think that "I" refers to their body or consciousness or mental fabrications or feeling or perception.
And similarly in the Buddha's time, they looked at him and referred to him as "Bhante" or "Venerable Sir" in the second person or as "Bhagava" or "Blessed One" in the third person. The Buddha referred to himself as "Tathagata" (or "the one who has thus gone").
These are just conventions.
From SN 1.25:

“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
would they say, ‘I speak’,
or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
they would say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit
if they’d say, ‘I speak’,
or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,
the ties of conceit are all cleared away.
Though that clever person has transcended identity,
they’d still say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

The mind of a fully enlightened one is completely empty of discursive thoughts. It does not conceptualize at all. In fact, this has already occurred to an Arya being at the 7th Bhumi let alone a fully enlightened Buddha. So the answer to your question is that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena.
For references I draw from this commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.
Here is a screenshot and highlight of the table of contents of the pertinent sections:

When we turn to page 369 we see a verse describing the way in which an Arya being achieving the 11th Bhumi (full Buddhahood) knows suchness and associated commentary:

Right after this passage the next verse is an objection. I think the objection is coming from someone espousing the Cittamatra tenet system as this is the last labeled objector in the text. Anyway, here is the objection:

A little further down we see a verse by Chandrakirti himself giving a simile of how it can be that a Buddha's mind can be totally free from discursive thought all the while being of benefit to other sentient beings. This seems to be the thrust of the OP's question if I'm not mistaken:

Here's the really dispositive part. A little bit later in the text Rinpoche affirms that the standard interpretation of the text and of Tibetan Buddhist schools is that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is entirely free of discursive thought and elaborates a bit. He says the answer to your question is basically that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena:

There is so much more in this commentary and I encourage you to read all of it as it is an absolute treasure. Of course, this commentary and root text are from the masters of the Prasangika Madhyamaka and so keep in mind this as the basis for understanding the text.

Interesting. Yes, I agree the Buddha's primary mode of cognition is as described above, but I still stand by my opinion (or rather, certainty) that Buddha can understand the dualistic perspectives of others, as in my Santa analogy. +1 for the effort!

If I'm honest, this has thrown me a little... (in a good way!).

As explained in Maitreya’s "Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes" (Madhyāntavibhāga), Enlightenment is not going back to the primal state of ignorance and nondifferentiation, nor does it mean to abandon the relative to only dwell in the absolute, no.
The relative and the absolute are two descriptions of the same ground. Enlightenment superimposes and harmonizes all the various descriptions, even contradictory ones, and can juggle the limited perspectives with ease.
It's the same process as with adult playing a Santa. When children call "Santa, Santa, I have a question", how do you know they are addressing you? Because you know for them you are Santa. For your wife you are her husband etc.
Buddha is not the body nor the mind, it doesn't have boundaries nor is it the universe, it's beyond all definitions. But for the sake of sentient beings that childishly think "that is the Buddha" when they address the Buddha they get an answer "I'm here, what do you want?"

Can you recommend a resource for Madhyāntavibhāga, or pull out any excerpts that would help me understand your answer more?

@NeuroMax that would be me doing your homework for you :)

Ah, straight-up homework 'n' stuff! ;-)

Lol :^) seriously though, when it comes to buddhahood you can't just point to a line and say here is how it works, it's written between the lines and you have to get it by yourself.

Yes, I understand. Thanks for your input. ;-)

MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

Communication does not require identity view.
Calling out "Tom" in a room full of people named "Tom" will generate multiple contacts via all the sense fields in the room. Multiple faces will turn. Yet "Tom" is a common name, so there will not be a perception of self. Additional sense field contacts will be required to generate a perception of recognition requiring response. Eventually, communication will be established.
Communication does not require identity view. Our individual phones answer when called. And phones do not have identity view. A phone number is a name. Phones answer in response to a cascade of contacts through the sense fields of the phone network.

Communication is just phenomena then? - Apparently over 2,000 Kupreški Kosci's gathered in one location in 2017. I'm not sure if one of those Kupreški Kosci's was an enlightened being, but Tom doesn't seem to care about that. ;-)

Tom is not mine. Tom is not this. Tom is not myself. :D

I see. Using ruben2020's answer, Tom is at best just a figure of speech, and cannot really be found. Would you agree?

Yes. I have upvoted reuben2020's answer. The MN121 quote helps clarify what exactly remains for arahants.


text:
Right Livelihood and Working in Technical Support
Currently, I work at home taking calls for tech support for a cable company. I work to help solve customers' issues as best as possible over the phone and send a technician if need be. The one thing I have been able to get past now is getting people onto the newest service available. The way that I see this being right livelihood is due to the fact that I am relieving suffering through poor cable services and possibly stress with paying too much (only sometimes is it paying more for the new service). I would like some thoughts on this as this has been running through my mind lately. No harm is being done through this job from what I can tell.
Thanks in advance and Big Love!

Welcome to this Stack Exchange! As it stands, imho, this post is more like a call for opinions than a concrete question. I would suggest that you add a question (however broad it may be) to make your post more useful for other readers. Metta.

At the core of The Right Livelihood training rule is the same principle as behind the rest of the Eightfold Path: to stop creating causes of suffering.
The jobs and professions that involve creating suffering, either directly - by killing or torturing others, or indirectly - by creating latent conditions for conflict, confusion, physical or mental sickness etc - are obviously unwholesome.
Jobs that focus on healing, rescuing, reconciling, educating about healthy lifestyles, etc. - in other words those that create direct or indirect causes of peace and harmony - are obviously wholesome.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. A job that you describe definitely falls on the "good" side of the spectrum, since like you said it saves the people from frustration and reconciles the potential conflict between them and the company providing the service.
Perhaps if you transmit enough warmth in your communication you can even make a deep and long-lasting difference in someone's life. This definitely sounds like a good livelihood, in my opinion.

Thank you so much! This helped a lot, and having warmth in my tone is something I work hard to ensure is coming across while over the phone as it is much harder that way when body language is taken out of the equation.

As long as a person engages in professions or businesses or trades that do not fall in one of the five types of unwholesome businesses or trades stated below and undertakes the observance of the five precepts stated below, it is considered fulfilling the criteria of Right Livelihood for lay followers.
From Vanijja Sutta:

“Mendicants, a lay follower should not engage in these five trades.
What five? Trade in weapons, living creatures, meat, intoxicants, and
poisons. A lay follower should not engage in these five trades.”

A business in living creatures is like prostitution or slavery. Intoxicants refer to alcohol and recreational drugs.
The five precepts:

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Incorrect speech here refers mainly to telling lies or misleading others. Sexual misconduct refers mainly to infidelity and adultery i.e. cheating or inducing the cheating of a partner in a committed exclusive relationship.
Professions like butcher or soldier may violate the first precept.


text:
Word that refers to a "second chance" or redemption?
Is there a specific word in Buddhism that refers to a "second chance" or perhaps redemption?

Yes Vajrasattva 100 syllable mantra to purify karma, to regret, confess wrong doings ... (:

If you mean "redemption" as used in the Christian sense, then no, there would be no comparable concept as gods are irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism, which is liberation through personal experience. Otherwise, you could consider attaining Nirvana as the ultimate redemption. See Concept of Redemption in the World Religions:

Skill in offenses and skill in rehabilitation from offenses.
Āpattikusalatā ca āpattivuṭṭhānakusalatā ca dn33

I think this is close to redemption from wrongness.
As i understand it, the semantics are close to 'rising up & emerging' as a recovery from wrong-doing.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vutthana

Perhaps it's words including nirodha (cessation, disappearance, extinction) ...

Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ

... and vimutti (freedom, release, deliverance) ...

The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, mahāsamuddo ekaraso loṇaraso;
In the same way, this teaching and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.
evamevaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ayaṁ dhammavinayo ekaraso vimuttiraso.

I think that the word "redemption" is too explicitly Christian. Its ordinary meaning is "gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt", and theologically it refers to the Christ's "paying for people's sins in order to liberate them from hell", which I think has no direct equivalent in Buddhism.
A Buddhist equivalent is simply cessation -- which, I understand as including "cessation" of being harmful, so being and becoming harmless, and cessation of remorse, and so on.
One example is in the Angulimala Sutta (MN 86) -- maybe not a relatable example because it's an extreme, but it shows that even in this extreme case what's required is cessation:

... There is a bandit in my realm, lord, named Angulimala: brutal, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. He has turned villages into non-villages, towns into non-towns, settled countryside into unsettled countryside. Having repeatedly killed human beings, he wears a garland made of fingers. I am going to stamp him out."
"Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine character: what would you do to him?"
"We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard, protection, & defense. But how could there be such virtue & restraint in an unvirtuous, evil character?"
Now at that time Ven. Angulimala was sitting not far from the Blessed One. ...