text:
Science, the largest current religion, is it truth or does one follow actually on blind faith?
From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following science preaching totally based on blind faith with no personal prove?
And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect?
[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]

My person thinks it's a useless question, so good either to ignore it or to delete it, if wishing.

Maybe it's actually an ok question: If Asker could please clarify what is meant by the term 'religion' in this question & context, since in most places Science isnot classified as a Religion, could be helpful. And also what's meant by the parenthetical italicised text etc, or if the italicised text is intended to be smutty, And, does the person referred to in the comment refer to a servant of the Asker, or to a specific revered writer or acquaintance of the Asker. Thank you.

I voted to close this nonsense.

Science is not a religion, it is a method. Science does not "preach", has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.
In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:

Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.
Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms & particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.

“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific
investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact
emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And
suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist
theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the
scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama

I agree with your explanation of how science is conducted, but that being said there are a series of belief systems that serve as the foundation of science. Blind faith is required at the foundational level to take part in scientific discovery. These beliefs include but are not limited to materialism or the belief that shared experience is an accurate metric of measurement. Also, consider the dogmatic attitudes held by some who dismiss and invalidate phenomena that science is ill equipped to explain. Sometimes scientists tend to believe if science can not explain it, it can not be real.

"belief that shared experience is an accurate metric of measurement. " - on the contrary. the scientific method attempts to eliminate the dependence on human & subjective observation. This is why we develop detectors and measurements outside of the human sensory range.

"Blind faith is required at the foundational level to take part in scientific discovery" - this is demonstrably incorrect. For example, Newtonian Laws were though of as "final" until Einstein came along and extended them into General Relativity. If Einstein would have exercised blind faith in the Newtonian principles, we would not have discovered and proven general relativity. What you call "dogmatic attitudes in dismissing phenomena" is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative.

The only way you can experience detectors is through personal experience. Machines that take measurements exist within our experience. Is a machine observed in your waking experience and a machine viewed in a dream just as reliable? If they are not, what beliefs do you hold to differentiate between seeing and seeing? Without subjective experience, we would be unable to perceive any “objective” data. I do not disagree in the power of scientific discovery, history proves its usefulness. I’m just pointing out all scientific discovery occurs through subjective experience.

Differentiation between waking observation and dreaming does not require "beliefs". It has been adequately quantified by monitoring brain activity. Also, there is a difference between the individual subjective drive of inquiry that drives scientists, and objectifying observation and results. This is just like the difference between the individual drive to understand the true nature of things in Buddhism, which should not be confused with the common, verifiable realization that is shared by all these individuals who attain this realization.

Regarding science having no axioms... I remember the first page of my science textbook in middle school said: "the matter is that which exists objectively and independently of any observer". To this day, I don't remember ever seeing a proof of this. Similarly, in 8th grade math class, I asked the teacher: isn't this a speculative study of numeric relationships that we the humans have ourselves invented? She looked rather puzzled :)

Your science textbook from middle school may be a bit outdated. On the quantum level of reality there's the Observer Effect. From the atomic size to the galactic size, all matter, nor the laws governing them, do not change or disappear when observed by different, one or none observers. There are ample experiments and theories that are consistent with this, from Newton over thermodynamics to general relativity. Also, math is not a science, it has axioms. It is a language that fits describing reality, but language is not reality.

Pure science is simply science.  By definition, it ought to have no beliefs associated with it.  But as it is practiced by imperfect people, what we call science in the West is very much plagued by a substantial amount of clinging to views.
For example, the theory of natural selection is often touted as as unquestionable scientific doctrine.  Challenging it in anyway would get one labeled as a crank at best and end one’s career at worst. But it remains a theory - a well tested, fairly conclusive one - but it’s not scientific law.
I think one sees larger evidence of this especially in the softer sciences like psychology.  The American Psychological Association long ago decided that liberal politics were far more important than actual data and the scientific method.  You can see this manifest especially in their positions regarding gender expression. Any paper, however benign and well intentioned, that challenges their leftist orthodoxy on the subject is quickly censured and the author labeled a bigot.
So no, science isn’t a religion in theory, but remains one in practice.  Proving all that it espouses to ourself would also be largely impractical and, I’d argue, a complete waste of time.  But where we can benefit from science are in those places where it makes us feel uncomfortable.  That discomfort is where our unexamined biases lie and is the springboard for insight.

Science is not a religion. It is a category of human knowledge that is gained by following the Scientific Method, which is based on verification. So Science is a practice, the result of the practice (verified knowledge), and the practitioners of the method.
However, scientists are human, not gods, and they practice the method with varying degrees of expertise, honesty, and ego. Thus, there are well-known faults with the practice of Science today (“Science for sale,” “Science advancing one funeral at a time,” etc.)
Today, Science is practiced using technology that operates beyond the human scale (micro and macro levels) and the ability of the vast majority of humans to validate for themselves. Thus, non-scientists in general must accept scientific knowledge as it is given to them by a scientific authority, so it can have the appearance of religious belief.
And although scientists can question the findings of Science, the general public cannot, as some of the negative reactions even here to the OP’s question evidences. Thus Science takes on the appearance of a religion-like authority.
Lastly, because this is getting too long, the very fact that all scientific knowledge is falsifiable means that it is not absolute knowledge, and is never absolutely true, but only contingently true (two truths), thus, for non-scientists it must be accepted on blind-faith alone because the ‘evidence’ is also contingent. Thus, again, this knowledge takes on the specter religious doctrine.
The Dalai Lama is known to be a firm believer in Science and its findings. But does he accept the scientific understanding of what “mind” is? Absolutely not. To do so would undermine the deep wisdom of Buddhism which holds that enlightenment is possible, that an end of suffering is obtainable through mind-training, and that the physical reality that is the whole and complete range of the scientific endeavor, is in a certain way illusory (Emptiness). If the Dalai Lama was to do this, he would undermine his own authority, and in retrospect call into question the standing of the Buddha, who did not follow the scientific method, and thus, whose teachings were never verified by other scientists.
Science is not absolute truth and for all practical purposes its endeavors are beyond the ability of non-scientists to fathom, or verify, and thus, its assertions must be accepted on belief.

People often take the search for understanding and turn it into dogma: rites, rituals, habits, forms; silent imposing structures of thought and loud protestations and prostrations of belief. It's always easier to cling to a raft than to sail a ship, and this is true of everything in life, 'science' and 'religion' included.
People who argue about 'truth' are merely shoring up their raft, battling each other for choice pieces of driftwood to lash to the sides. Those busy charting a course pay it no mind.
'Science' isn't the opposition, and neither is 'religion'. They are tools that can help or hinder depending on how one uses them. Clinging is clinging, regardless of what one clings to.

Science is not religion but more like giving hints to the science development and rather compatible.
Buddhism and science are considered by various commentators beginning in the twentieth century to be uniquely compatible.[1] While downplaying Buddhism's theological attributes, they assert that Buddhism contains philosophic and psychological teachings that share commonalities with modern scientific and philosophic thought, or they assert that modern Western thinkers were variously influenced by Buddhist concepts. An example of such a claim would be that Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of Nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon) — the principal object of study being oneself. Some popular conceptions of Buddhism connect it to modern theories of evolution, quantum theory, and cosmology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
》》And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering
My personal understanding Buddhism teaches how to train ourself to adapt good habit(suffering) to achieve joy in the future (good karma) or does study or workhard or quit drinking is suffering ? Buddhism teaches study smart too. It depends how people interprete it.

In science, whatever is true today, is false tomorrow when a new paper is published; a new discovery is made. Hence, musa, mosadhammaṃ when compared to the Four Noble Truths.
The issue is really in the delusion (moha), the wrong view (micca ditthi) that one thinks he can exist and continue to exist using science, when in reality all he has is birth, aging, sickness and death.
A person who understands this, not holding on to any view, works his way towards the ending of this suffering.
In Dhatu-vibhanga sutta, Buddha explains what the highest determination for truth is:

"His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever
is deceptive is false; Unbinding — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a
monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth,
for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth."

Tassa sā vimutti sacce ṭhitā akuppā hoti. Taṃ hi bhikkhu musā, yaṃ
mosadhammaṃ. Taṃ saccaṃ, yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ. Tasmā evaṃ
samannāgato bhikkhu iminā paramena saccādhiṭṭhānena samannāgato hoti.
Etaṃ hi bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ.

Unlike science, this truth does not change.
One who is determined for this highest determination for truth - nibbana wins. One who holds on to any other truth, ultimately deceived, and continues in the cycle of suffering.

Sadhu, Sadhu And why, good householder, is it that so many bind follower take it for real, a refuge, sacrifices into it?

“'Everything exists' is the senior form of science, brahman.”
“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”
“'Everything does not exist' is the second form of science, brahman.”
“Then is everything a science?”
“'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of science, brahman.”
“Then is everything a Manyness?”
“'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of science, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come ...Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist (Scientist)

As it seems, since non of the answerer and follower of the religion science have ever looked by themself whether the stated by their priests is right, have never investigated and proved things and follow actually blind, the follwers of the various sects of science are also heavy fundamentalist.
As follower of other sects, not believing in the basics of right view and kamma, actually denying all factors of right view, lokayatika count as merely not so much desired, a stony field, and would need to undergo a long test phase before they possible would be accepted by the Sangha.
Brainwashed from childhood on, living in fundamentalistic religious countries, they are hardly in getting toward Dhamma and let go of their former believes.

...“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.
“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.
“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if praise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.
“He feels angered, displeased, and upset if praise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.
“Monks, this is the tell-tale sign of one previously of another religion in regard to not winning approval.[3]
“Monks, this is how one who was previously a member of another religion does not win approval.
“When one previously a member of another religion who is displeasing in this way comes, he should not be given Acceptance.... Aññatitthiyapubbakathā
The Discussion of Those Previously a Member of Another Religion

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel and blind following believes]


text:
Keeping a pet cat, without training or encouraging it to kill rats
Let's say a lay Buddhist has a rat infestation problem in his or her house.
Catching rats using traps and killing them is clearly breaking the first precept of not taking a life.
What about keeping a pet cat that is sufficiently well fed and taken care of, in the house, without training or encouraging it to catch rats, but nevertheless accepting the possibility that the cat may or may not choose to catch and kill rats, on its own volition, that it may find in the house?
If the pet cat does catch and kill rats, does this break the first precept?
Also, introducing a pet cat, may cause the rats to flee the house on their own, as they may find that it has become an unsuitable place to live in.

Serious or bored? Nevertheless, the kind of approach is why Bhikkhus are not given to share food or thing to householder, or "keep" them, take care of them, not to speak of animals, good householder.
Why seeking association with pets at first place? To gain an existance of a special animal in a vegan/vegetarian existance?
As for the moralistic-issue, maybe Ven. Kassapa is able to wake up good householder from his dreams:

One day, however, when Pipphali Kassapa was inspecting the fields, it happened that he saw, as if with new eyes, what he had seen so often before. He observed that when his people plowed, many birds gathered and eagerly picked the worms from the furrows. This sight, so common to a farmer, now startled him. It now struck him forcefully that what brought him his wealth, the produce of his fields, was bound up with the suffering of other living beings. His livelihood was purchased with the death of so many worms and other little creatures living in the soil. Thinking about this, he asked one of his laborers: "Who will have to bear the consequences of such an action?" — "You yourself, sir," was the answer.
Shaken by that insight into kammic retribution, he went home and reflected: "If I have to carry along the burden of guilt for that killing, what use is all that wealth to me? It will be better if I give it all to Bhadda and go forth into the ascetic's life."...

If it was a practical question: there is no problem in catching them in "box-traps", releasing them elsewhere.
To avoid them settle, like with all, don't give ways to food and shelter places.
Living with generations of forest-rats and snakes afyer them, and... my person made a wall around the rats favorite place in the cave (to more avoid falling dirt, babies snakes on ones rest and sleep place), seperated them, leaving them the generation old dwelling of their clan, and they became a seperate entrance from and out into the forest.
[note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades or for kepping, racing and feeding on pets, nor as food for pets]

If there is a rat infestation the best action is to take necessary measures so the environment is not suitable for rats. It is not possible to eradicate rat infestation by killing them.

OK. Like removing food sources for rats.

It depends on the intention behind getting the cat in the first place. Would the cat still be gotten if there weren't a rat infestation? If there's the slightest trace of accepting that the cat may or may not kill rats, it would be unwholesome. I'm not sure if it breaks the first precept but it's surely unwholesome.
What if the cat becomes sick or injured? Would you then have to kill it yourself or take it to the vet and have to make the decision that it has to be put down due to its injuries or illness?
I think in the end infestations are mainly humans own fault. Often people leave food out which attracts animals. So we should work on ourselves and try to become more aware of our actions.
I think in the case of a rat infestation one should try to deal with it in a harmless way and if that doesn't work, one should move from the place. Easier said than done but I think that would be the most sensible and "Buddhist" way to deal with the issue without harming any other beings or having other beings harming other beings.

I have adopting cats for decades. Get a lazy or non aggressive cat then it normally wont chase and kill the rats but rather scare them away. Hopefully it wont become friend with the rats.

In this case, it wont break the precept.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are these simple sentences right? They are about 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, craving, etc
The sentences I want to check with you are:

Reducing suffering (or eliminating it) is the main goal.
The main reason we keep suffering is desire and aversion.
We can experience craving to any of the five aggregates (e.g. thoughts) and also to the situation in general (e.g. become a teacher or become enlightened).
We have tools to reduce desire and aversion (or promote this reduction in others). E.g. not-self, impermanence and dukkha. Jhana.
This tools (3 characteristics, jhana, etc.) are truthful (they are not white lies).
This tools lead to a "desinterest" (equanimity) that gives freedom. For example, by
seeing pain as impermanent (as lasting briefly or nothing) then
there is "desinterest" in it (equanimity to it), and as such there is a freedom to
either experience it or not without suffering it.
Ultimately it's best to be equanimous even to becoming enlightened (a case of bhava-tanha?), the tools ("the raft" that is abandoned after crossing the river), no-thoughts (aversion to thoughts?), etc.

That's it, feel free to make little corrections or flat out tell me there are big mistakes there. Thanks.

People argue whether "suffering" is the best translation. Perhaps it depends on context. I guess dukkha has range of meaning from (extreme) anguish to (chronic) unsatisfactoriness to (eventual) insufficiency.
And whose goal?
And is it possible that the goal varies -- at the beginning people are caught up in suffering and want to escape it. Perhaps later they're not suffering so much, and there's a slightly different goal i.e. "liberation" or "unbinding".

The "root" poison is ignorance.

They're called "clinging-aggregates". To the extent that the doctrine distinguishes "craving" from "clinging", I think it's "clinging" to aggregates.

I think that tool is the noble eightfold path -- "right view" etc.
Seeing the three characteristics is an example of right view, Jhana is an example of adhicitta-sikkhā

Here I think I'd refer to the Dhammanusati and say, "The doctrine is effective etc.".

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


text:
Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why?
My preference would be a Theravada based answer to the following question:

Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and
why?

Thank you. :)

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the four most important texts within KN are:

Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")
Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")

The reason for this is that these texts contain the teachings of the Buddha himself, compared to other texts which only contain other things like biographies, stories, sayings of other monks and nuns, chants etc.
I listed Sutta Nipata on top as it is said to be one of the earliest texts of the Pali Canon, but the linguistic style of Sutta Nipata makes it harder to understand compared to the other three on the list. So, you're better off starting with the other three.
The Dhammapada is the easiest to read as it contains many chapters filled with short verses.
From the Dhammapada:

Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.

Better than reciting a hundred meaningless verses is the reciting of one verse of Dhamma, hearing which one attains peace.

You might want to read Dr. Hammalawa SADDHĀTISSA 's translation of the Sutta-Nipāta. Quoting the author:Only a handful of translations of the Sutta-Nipāta have been made in English but these are, doubtless because of their metrical rendering, generally archaic and stilted in expression; moreover, they are out of print. I was persuaded to prepare a prose version which would convey the spirit of this important text in contemporary language and, it is hoped, stand the test of time more effectively than its predecessors.

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the five most important texts within KN are:

Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")
Theragata & Therigata
Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")

The Dhammapada is hardcore and to the point.
The Itivuttaka is easy to read, heartwood and contains some important explanatory teachings that appear not found elsewhere (eg. Iti 44, Iti 49, Iti 96); even though these teachings are related to the core teachings of the suttas.
The Udana is fun but appears to contain some probably belated, miraculous yet amusing texts (such as new born children talking dhamma). It also contains lots of hardcore illuminating wisdom teachings.
The Theragata & Therigata are mature.
I listed Sutta Nipata on the bottom because, due to its nature of often being in "verse" (vs "prose"), the language is often more archaic thus vague. Also, it contains what appear to be belated texts, such as Metta & Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The other texts are best avoided, appearing to be belated texts loaded with superstition & wrong views, such as Jataka, other past lives books & Milindapanha. These texts do show however how quickly the Buddha-Dhamma degenerated. The Paṭisambhidāmagga commentary was obviously not composed by Venerable Sariputta and is often inaccurate.

Questions of King Milinda (the original ancient text only, i.e. parts 1 and 2, not the later additions) is by far my favorite text in KN. Unfortunately a good English translation of this text is hard to get by, as internet is full of abridged and approximately-translated (adapted) versions.
I like it because it provides excellent description of core Dhamma topics without using the same standard formulas that are copied word by word  all over the Pali Canon.

I recommend these first:

KN.Khuddakapatha, it means "the small canons for the beginners to recite and practice". According to KN. Kuddakapatha's commentary.

The elder masters have taught the way for laymen and monks to get start in Buddha's teaching by taking Threefold Refuge, then they are going to teach 10 precepts which laymen and monks should practice first...
evaṃ saraṇagamanehi sāsanotāraṃ dassetvā sāsanaṃ otiṇṇena upāsakena vā pabbajitena vā yesu sikkhāpadesu paṭhamaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ, tāni dassetuṃ nikkhittassa sikkhāpadapāṭhassa idāni vaṇṇanatthaṃ ayaṃ mātikā

KN.Patisambhidamagga, it means "the way to attain analyzing wisdom". It was authored by ven.Sariputta, The Marshal of the Dhamma.  This canon describes steps by steps of wisdom meditations from start, how to learn, to the end, how to be The SammasamBuddha, completely. Every commentary and sub-commentary, include VisuddhiMagga (Path Of Purification), base on this canon. Actually, the whole tipitaka's structure base on Sariputta's teaching because the Buddha often admire Sariputta.

The Mahāvagga, Mahākhandhaka

When (97) (Sāriputta and Moggallāna), who had reached emancipation in the perfect destruction of the substrata (of existence), which is a profound subject accessible only to knowledge, came to the Veluvana, the Teacher, who saw them, foretold about [\q 150/] them: ‘These two companions who are now coming Kolita and Upatissa -- these will be a pair of (true) pupils, a most distinguished, auspicious pair.’

Aṅguttara Nikāya 1. Ekakanipāta XIII. Ekapuggalavagga A Certain person.

Bhikkhus, I do not know of any other person who could follow up the teaching proclaimed by the Thus Gone One other than Sāriputta. Bhikkhus, Sāriputta follows up the teaching proclaimed by me.

DN 33 SangitiSutta-Reciting in Concert.

Soon after they left, the Buddha looked around the Saṅgha of monks, who were so very silent. He addressed Venerable Sāriputta, “Sāriputta, the Saṅgha of mendicants is rid of dullness and drowsiness. Give them some Dhamma talk as you feel inspired. My back is sore, I’ll stretch it.”
“Yes, sir,” Sāriputta replied.

So, most of 1st Buddhist Council leaders often go to listen his dhamma talk in MN32 Mahagosingasalasutta- The Longer Discourse at Gosiṅga.

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in the sal forest park at Gosiṅga, together with several well-known senior disciples, such as the 1. venerables Sāriputta, Mahāmoggallāna, 2.Mahākassapa, 3.Anuruddha, Revata, 4.Ānanda, and others.
Then in the late afternoon, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna came out of retreat, went to Venerable Mahākassapa, and said, “Come, Reverend Kassapa, let’s go to Venerable Sāriputta to hear the teaching.”
“Yes, reverend,” Mahākassapa replied. Then, together with Venerable Anuruddha, they went to Sāriputta to hear the teaching.
Seeing them, Venerable Ānanda went to Venerable Revata, told him what was happening, and invited him also.

In above sutta, everybody was the leader of 1st buddhist council, except ven. Sariputta. However, Sariputta's students were the leaders instead of him. This is in DighaNikaya's commentary.

As I've explained, 500 bhikkhus in first council recited 80 Bhanavara of Khandhaka (VN.Bhikkhu,Bhikkhuni,Maha,Cula) and 25 Bhanavara of Parivara together, then called it Vinaya-Pitaka. At the end of reciting, the land shook. 500 bhikkhus in first council ordered Upali "Teach VinayaPitaka to your students, Avuso".
...
500 bhikkhus in first council recited 64 Bhanavara in systematized language which included 34 Sutta 3 Vagga step by step (SilakkhandhaVagga, Mahavagga, Pathikavagga) together, then called it DigaNikaya and ordered Ananda "Teach DigaNikaya to your students, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited MajjhimaNikaya 80 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Sariputta's students "Keep it, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited SamyuttaNikaya 100 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Kassapa "Teach SamyuttaNikaya to your students, Bhante".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited AnguttaraNikaya 120 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Anuruddha "Teach AnguttaraNikaya to your students, Avuso".

The other canons in Khudakanikaya are important as well depending on the proper of the situation to use each one, ie. KN Gathadhammapada for daily life, KN Theragatha for seeing the sample view of Arahanta or important monks' life history.

In a hurry, or afraid to waste 'precious' time?
If, good householder, wishes to get the most important first, so as it was used to traditional (by the elders, not the market and consumers preferences), actually, if investigating, careful and with broader understanding, the collection of the Tipitaka is actually sorted, 1, 2...
If generally searching for inspiration, getting the right words at the right time for release, random selection is possible the best way, if still outside. Food and preferences are very different and if wishing to get the whole for an enter required, there is the requirement of a teacher, knowing which is good at certain time.
There are also many parts in this Nikaya which aren't really avaliable and also somehow "mobbed" in western, modern world. So not easy to find them anywhere promoted.
Most importand, in regard of having actually benefit, is getting the teaching as a real gift, not even demanded, and to come to such point, most importand: Better to Give than to Consume & Respect, Confidence and Patient
Since the Tipitaka isn't really thought as a common literature, but a collection for insider, this Nikaya's first Sutta starts with the right approach:
I go to the Buddha for refuge.
I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A second time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A second time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A second time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A third time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A third time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A third time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

And continues with the The Ten Training Rules of a novice, someone serious with the huge gift.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
Father-Son relationship
I have a father who left me when I was 5. He moved out of state when I was 7. We saw each other once every year or two. He returned to my area when I was 13. By the time I was 21, we still had a very limited relationship. He was/is an alcoholic and considering my own mental illness (I’m bipolar) and his own admission to the likelihood of him having something of the sort, he likely has a mental illness as well.
Through my 20s, we tried to get closer but it was not very successful. I was in and out of mental health facilities and he was stagnant in his own life, not really doing anything to change his behavior.
About two years ago, I was 29, we began talking on the phone every couple of days, attempting to establish a relationship. It was going well for a few months, until one night, when out of nowhere (it began with him criticizing how I ate a tostada) he berated me and told me vile things for over an hour that was amongst the most traumatic experiences of my life. Referring to my past suicidal tendencies, he was shouting at me that “he wouldn’t care if I killed myself” as I sat in meditation trying to calm myself from the painful attack.
After that night, we didn’t speak for over a year.
I forgave him, but I needed my space for a while.
As a Buddhist, I have always read that is important to love & deal compassionately with our parents, because we are not separate. My love is his love. His pain is my pain.
He has been living with my grandparents for the last year and now I see him quite a bit. I try and stay cordial as best I can. He’s only attacked me verbally a few times since. I thought things were getting better, but tonight he sent me a text message that makes me feel uncomfortable to respond to. He complains that I don’t treat him like he’s my father and I’m too casual with the way I talk to him. He says he’s been feeling that way for a while and is afraid of exploding on me again.
I’m having a tough time with what to do because I love him, truly. But trying to navigate our relationship is difficult for me and my mental health. I feel somewhat helpless in this situation and was hoping there was a perspective from this community that could help me understand how to handle this situation with guidance from a Buddhist perspective.

Your question is written with admirable/praiseworthy composure. The impression is you have practised the Dhamma very well; particularly from an originally challenging place.
I have previously answered a question at this link about the attitude towards authority figures found in the early scriptures.
Related to this, the scripture Iti 74 refers to the kind of son that is spiritually &/or morally superior to their parents.
In summary, the early scriptures are all about mutual obligations in relationship. While your compassion towards your father appears admirable, in Buddhism, there is an expectation a father must also abide with appropriate conduct before receiving full respect.

I am incredibly grateful for your response. I have read both links and feel more at ease with my world because of it. Thank you for your compliment as well. I am still struggling on the path, but on the path I remain.

A father-son (child) relation, good householder, is something which is based on debt in regard of the bound of the child toward to ones father and hard to ever pay off, but there is a way, as the Sublime Buddha taught: Parents
This kind of relation requires to fulfill ones duties, found in Sigalovada Sutta
Those duties could be abounded if one goes after higher, leaves home, family... for strive for Unbond.
Releation, in and off itself, with ones parents, would only "end" by change of ancestor-ship, meaning by reaching the path, yet still there is a matter of gratitude there, and sometimes wish of "repayment" is possible, sometimes not, sometimes one can not provide, sometimes the receiver wouldn't be able to take.
In regard of love, it's clear that such causes suffering, but that what is common seen as love is a desire or debt in regard of sensual pleasures and good to investigate whether ones undertaking to build up an active relation has "just" the purpose of possible pay depts really back or if one seeks for being provided by things, incl. identification.
As the topic is large and many things are to investigate, my person leaves it right here and, as parting is a matter one can not avoid, and maintaining relations is burdensome, maybe generally good to think in how far certain things open could be payed off and to leave not only a particular relation behind, but all, incl. that of the six senses, getting unbound, unrelated, someone really able to give.
And of course, relations need to be ended, if, with gratitude, for otherwise it would last, and the story wouldn't end.
A good talk on it: Karma & Gratitude
Since not really proper sphere here, good householder, one may feel given to investigate or ask further here.
A blessing:     friends when the need arises.
A blessing:     contentment with whatever there is.
Merit at the ending of life is a blessing.
A blessing:     the abandoning of all suffering
               & stress.

A blessing in the world:    reverence to your mother.
A blessing:     reverence to your father as well.
A blessing in the world:    reverence to a contemplative.
A blessing:     reverence for a brahman, too.

A blessing into old age is virtue.
A blessing:     conviction established.
A blessing:     discernment attained.
The non-doing of evil things is
       a blessing.

Dhp 331-333
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades or to nurish relations others then toward release, but food for an out of the wheel]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful response. I am still reading more of the links you have shared & appreciate you taking the time.


text:
Wing Chun Buddhism Zen Stance - Standing Meditation
I understand the Martial Arts namely Wing Chun basic stance has a form of meditation.
I understand Grand master Yip Man or Bruce Lee's master already modified it so it's easier to be absorbed and learned by public. Qi Gong or breathing technique been removed from syllabus as i understand.
There are too many versions and theories about this stance and breathing/meditation technique when i search online.
Anyone can share the closest original info about this stance meditation and breathing technique?

This question might be on-topic at https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/ Incidentally my Tai Chi teacher told me to also hold my "neck straight", and not to stick my chin out like that. The "knees bent and hips tilted forward" looks familiar to me -- that straightens/undoes the S-curve (i.e. lordosis) in the spine -- but the cocked fists look strange to me, perhaps like karate or something like that.

@Chrisw just close this if found inappropriate. Since this martial arts came from Shaolin then I would expect meditation shall come from origin from Buddhism too for study else I would not dare to practice. It could be a reason too Yip Man removed this breathing technique from his syllabus due to insufficient info or guide. Personally experience some odd side effect from this practices but now ok.

Let me post this on martial arts exhange soon

This is just another form of nei gong - not much different than Zhan Zhuang (standing post).  It has some things in common with samatha meditation namely the interplay of relaxation and upright posture.  It's good stuff, don't get me wrong, but it is limited as to the degree of one pointedness one can achieve at least as compared to sitting meditation.

It's likely derived form 経行 (Jap. kin-hin, Chin. jīngxíng) literally means "walking meditation". It  is a practice within several forms of Buddhism that involve movement and periods of walking between long periods of sitting meditation. During walking meditation each step is taken after each full breath.
The practice is common in Chan Buddhism and its extra-Chinese forms, Zen, Korean Seon and Vietnamese Thiền.


text:
Dhammapada is not "a teaching of the Buddha himself"?
A "moderator" from certain sect, corrected a post (not sure why it came up there...), telling:

Dhammapada is not "a teaching of the Buddha himself". Jains have a text which is 90% the same, so looks like it comes from before Buddha.

It would be interesting to read this pre-Buddha-Dhammapada, is such actually exist, to possible look then if it is "the same" or just as such assume-able, as:

...there are Jain anthologies that contain verses clearly related to some of those found in these Buddhist anthologies...

So the question here would be to react, either with support or with rejecing such claims (which have serious effects if wearing a mods hat), in ways that may provide things possible new to the Buddhas gathering.
Wishing inspired and concentrated googleing.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

If Asker would cite the quotes & writers, cite the referenced text/ texts/ manuscripts/ locations, names of texts/ manuscripts, languages written in, estimated specific dates, could be helpful. Interesting subject. Thank You.

"If answerer...", sure helpful. Useless subject, actually, inter-eating-ly, yes.

None of the teachings were from the Buddha "himself".
Although, that is the "truth" I cannot explain why; and neither can anyone else that knows.
Experience for oneself the teachings as real... that's all to be grasped at, until "beyond teaching" occurs. Living Dhamma is basically the same thing Christians call the living word. However, expecting anyone else to "save you" is delusion the concept of Christ is the same as the Buddhist concept of: Anagamin (once returner) To hell with all that waiting and suffering those those poor people are bringing and doing to the world!
Arhat same thing as a Buddha. A Buddha is said to arise once every hundred years from any and all traditions from all walks of life...
Get to know the skandhas... that's my advice; those are the bridges built between the three poisons. See Jealousy trying to be a bridge between greed and hate; without jealousy greed and hate can't even form can't even link up... the entire mass known as house builder falls apart.


text:
How do I control my mind?
How can I prevent harmful thoughts and intentions from coming into my head?
How can I remove them if they do come into my head?
Even if I try to forget about them, I will still remember it. So how can I forget about them and never remember it?

Try the strategies suggested in MN 20: https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/bodhi

Your thoughts are OK. Accept, treasure and move on.

I believe it was Joseph Goldstein who said "Don't try to stop your thoughts. You can't. The goal of meditation is not elimination, but illumination."

Practise what is explained in MN 19.
In other words, it is not sufficient to label a thought as "harmful" and then worry about it.
Instead, when the harmfulness of the harmful thought is thoroughly considered & examined, the harmful thought will end, due to truly understanding its harmful nature.

Upvoted for clarifying the fact that thoughts cannot be stopped, removed or forgotten.

Thoughts can be stopped, removed or forgotten. But this is not relevant to the current question.

First things first. The original question is literally asking about preventing, removing and forgetting thoughts. so how are those behaviors not relevant to the question?

Best you provide your own answer rather than make comments perverting & misrepresenting what others write. Your comments are not useful but are intrusions upon another's answers.

I think your answer sums up what i would try to convey myself, so my own reply would likely only repeat what you've already written. Regarding my perverting and misrepresenting, there has likely been a misunderstanding somewhere. One way to clear it up is to look into it (incidentally by refraining from removing or forgetting the discussion), in case you'd be interested anytime ahead.

The discussion is useful and not a perversion. Thank you both. Upvoted.

Who cares if they come or go?  They aren’t you.  Do you get upset when you breath in?  Or when you put a hat on?  Why frustrate yourself with externalities?  You have no more control of your thoughts than the sky controls the number of clouds.  Does the sky worry itself on overcast days?
The second patriarch came to Bodhidharma’s cave.  “Master, my mind gives me no rest.  How can I pacify it?” “Show me your mind and I will pacify it for you,” the western barbarian replied.
There is no mind.  There is no pacification.

To me this is an enjoyable answer. I see enlightenment here, not in the other answers.

Stop listening to them. Stop recalling them. Stop rolling them over in your mind.
If you stop doing all of that, they won’t draw your attention away from what is actually happening, they won’t bother you, or stress you out, and you won’t remember them because they will just evaporate as if they were never there.
You do all that by earnestly practicing meditation with the guidance of a qualified teacher—and preferably not a secular teacher of mindfulness because of their serious limitations.
Do that and you can become liberated from all the troubles of an uncontrolled mind.
Update:

When you attempt to suppress emotions, thoughts, or perceptions—when you forcefully try to control them—you are chaining yourself to them. You should never try to suppress anything that arises during meditation, nor during your mindful moments during your daily life.
Instead, you must train your mind not to wander distractedly along with your emotions, or thoughts, or all the myriad of perceptions that arise throughout your day and practice sessions. You train your mind to remain with that which you are mindfully doing. In the case of meditation, your mind remains in the practice, whatever it is, regardless of whatever happens.
Of course, there are times in your normal daily life when, not having fully trained your mind, you may be distracted by some, or all, of these things and you may feel the need to try to suppress them—but remember that when you engage with them in this way you are shackling yourself to them by doing so!
Trying to suppress emotions, thoughts, and perceptions is at best nothing more than a quick fix that will return frequently to haunt you in your practice, and even worse, trying to do so is a sure way to become disenchanted with meditation.
The better way, and the one that a trained mind provides you the faculty to follow, is that you are never more than momentarily disturbed because your mind doesn’t wander, doesn’t get distracted, is totally focused as you intend to be, and is never straining—you are at ease, like an unmovable mountain. The mind thus finds great ease and calm in all that it does, and easily lets thoughts, emotions, and perceptions pass without engaging with them.
In between these two—a mind not yet trained, and one that is—you should strive to notice what is arising at all times. When distracting thoughts arise you should note them and then redirect your mind back to your desired center of focus. And it should be the same for emotions, as well as distracting perceptions.

My article on the danger of secular meditation: https://medium.com/p/2a2fe0617ffd

I like that you say what to do and then give a method on how to do it. (Stop. Use meditation to stop.) Very clear and direct. Thank you for the link I asked about in my earlier comment! It makes some clear arguments.

Concentrating on stopping binds you to what you want to stop. Why not just let the thoughts come and let them go like fish through water, without wrestling with them?

That is true Timm. And language is fluid, it’s meaning often vague. I can stop my car by taking my foot off the accelerator and letting it slow down and then stop, or I can jam my foot on the break pedal and force it to stop. It was more the former meaning in my words, which for brevity, and while knowing nothing of the level of understanding of the OP, I left it vague. But see my article “Do Not Try To Suppress Anything” for complete clarity on my part: https://medium.com/p/d87b521a9807

Stopping gently gives you more time to bind. That's OK, you have one way, I another. Though I still think that these thoughts shouldn't be given that much attention.

Thanks for the update James. Seems we've been on the same path all along. I just don't make a big thing about it.

Are you addressing my answer to the OP’s question, Timm? I don’t understand what you mean by “I don’t make a big deal about it.” Is that why you didn’t answer the OP’s question? What are you on about? Can you be more clear?

Yes, I'm commenting on your answer. I read your last edit explaining – as I understand it – that the OP shouldn't focus on stopping the thoughts but train his mind to let them go. I didn't mean to criticise you. I realised that you and I are not so different in our approach, the only difference being that you would recommend meditation, etc. My approach is what I tried to express in my answer: there's no need to spend much time on the issue; the only need is to accept the thought and bid it farewell. I have answered the OP's question, but I think I'll expand it a bit. Is that more clear?

Yes, thank you.

This is based mainly on my experience and in my imperfect understanding of the Dhamma. So, take this with a grain of salt.
I think it's useful to define "control". If you understand 'control' as the act of making things go according to your desires, then such notion can be deceiving and illusory, if not nuanced.
Things arise and cease according presence of their required conditions and causes; if those don't come together in the requiered way, things will not arise.
Knowing the above one can should reflect on the possible way one acts on the world or in one's "own" mind: an action is the intervention of the present state of things of the world/mind, and which condition to come to be is intention. The result of the action will go according to your expectations if the action affects the state of things in the necessary way as to successfully bring the conditions of the desired things to come together in the necessary way it requires.
Action is the execution of changes in the state of things, preceded by an intention. The three main ways in which we can act is through thoughts (modifying the state of the mind), words (modifying other's state of mind) and bodily acts (modifying the physical world).
In order to "control" you mind, one should know what the desired state of things is, i.e. how you expect the mind to be after you have exerted "your" control and will. Once you know that, what should be done is to influence the state of things to bring the necessary conditions to the state of things desired to arise. To "control" the mind, you need to keep track of the state of the mind (feelings, intentions, perceptions, etc.) in every present context, and based on the context perceived, you can decide what to do with it: if the things detected are unwholesome, you can let it go or not feed it; of it's wholesome, you can keep it and develop it. The degree of success will depend on your familiarity and amount of practice with paying attention to whatever presents in the mind, and on the correct identification and effectiveness in the influence of the factors needed to lead the mind into the desired state of things.
Finally, the Buddha offers us a definition, categorization and explanation of what's wholesome and what's not: that is contained in the development of Right View
Kind regards!

The way my teachers taught me about this, it's not about "controlling your mind", that's the wrong way to look at it. It is about letting go of attachments which create those disturbances. Once you clearly see your attachments and their roots (prejudices, stereotypes, traumas) then resolving them is a matter of focus and firm intent. Once attachments are out, the disturbing thoughts still by themselves.

Pacifying the mind
Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it."
Huike said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it."
"There," Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazu_Huike#Pacifying_the_mind
There's not much more to say. I'll leave you with some thoughts that may help you to realise that what you're experiencing is really not a big deal.
Thoughts come. If you try to control them, they will become stubborn and call more loudly for attention. You need to deal with it, but in a more relaxed way. Look at the thought without judgement. Accept its coming, its stay, and its going. You are just a spectator, not involved.
Still you are human and your greatest strength is love. Let the thought not be unwanted and wither away. Treasure it for its message; it came to you at this time for a reason that may not lie on the surface. It is calling you, and only you can understand. That is the treasure. With this enrichment you can bid the thought farewell.


text:
Foundations of Mindfulness • Stages of Awakening
Are there hints, in the Theravada traditions, at  parallels to be possibly drawn between the progression through the four stages of awakening (stream winner, once returner, non returner, arahant ) and the penetration of the four foundations of Mindfulness ?
Thank you dearest friends for your insights and comments. May you be well and safe.

My answer to this question is "no".
The Anapanasati Sutta is about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It says:

Mindfulness with breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfils the four
foundations of mindfulness.

In the Anapanasati Sutta, each of the last 14 of 16 stages is preceded by the phrase: "a bhikkhu trains thus" or "he trains himself" (in Pali: "sikkhati").
In other words, while the Anapanasati Sutta using four tetrads describes fulfillment of the four foundations of mindfulness, the fact the Anapanasati Sutta uses the term "he trains himself" shows it is not the practise of Arahants because Arahants are no longer engaged in "training" ("sikkha").
This fact is shown in the suttas where the Buddha's own practise of Anapanasati is described, such as in SN 54.11, where the phase: "he trains himself" is not found.
In addition, each stage of Anapanasati is experienced with knowing of breathing. However, knowing of breathing is never mentioned in both the suttas and commentaries by highly esteemed monks as an experience in jhana. In jhana, there is no knowing of breathing, which shows, per Commentary teachings of three types of samadhi, there are different degrees of experiencing rapture.
Thus, while this distinction is not mentioned in respect to the Buddha's meditation in SN 54.11, in SN 54.11 the term anāpānassatisamādhiṃ (concentration due to mindfulness with breathing) is found. In other words, a Buddha or Arahant may start their meditation with Anapanasati but the concentration developed from it will quickly proceed to jhana.
In summary, what distinguishes stream winner, once returner, non returner & arahant appears to be the attainment and use of jhana. The suttas, such as Iti 96 & MN 14, say: (i) a non-returner never returns to sensuality; and (ii) a practitioner that has perfected jhana is no longer tempted by sensuality. Therefore, it appears what results in non-returning is the perfection of jhana.
Bhikkhu Bodhi has made a clear case (i completely agree with) that a stream-enterer has not yet reached jhana. Refer to: The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas.
In conclusion, it appears the progression through the four stages of awakening (stream winner, once returner, non returner, arahant ) is related to whether jhana or not is leading the insight (vipassana) of the four foundations of mindfulness.

"The Supernormal Eightfold Way has also become the final part of the practice of satipatthāna, instead of the satipatthāna being the final part of the Supernormal Eightfold Way. This mistaken interpretation of the Satipatthāna Sutta could be the reason for the failure of most serious meditators today to attain Arahatship or the final Awakening."
"Another fundamental mistake among many who practice Buddhist meditation today is to ignore the Supernormal Eightfold Way altogether and instead practice satipatthāna. They believe that the path to emancipation is satipatthāna, but satipatthāna is only the seventh step in the Supernormal Eightfold Way."
Page 18 from here
See chart here

Good householder,
At least in regard of first penetrating form before all others, starting with body (like with virtue), may hint to the fact, that there are actually certain stages displaying relation between the four frames of reference and ones grade of release. Similar is found often, one may take the four kinds of nourishment as another sample.
In any case, if not direct related, do the frames have increasing refined qualities.
Traditional guides, teacher, would also go in line of the series of frames, mentioned for example in the Satipatthana Sutta: Frames of Reference
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
Was it ever stated that monks can’t show their psychic powers to lay people?
I heard it was one of the monk rules. What sutta says monks can’t show their powers to lay people? The Buddha showed his psychic powers to many lay people so why can’t monks?

Perhaps you have confused with this rule from the Bhikkhu Patimokkha:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

This rule is more about attainments (e.g. jhana, stream entry etc.) rather than about psychic powers.

A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa. In the origin story leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an act: “Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden māsaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable wooden bowl.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0016.html

@Dhammadhatu Then this is the best answer to the question that "A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa".

Cv.V.8.2 is not sutta. Regards

DN 11 describes the drawbacks of the miracle of psychic power.
SN 41.4 is related to this topic.
Also, are we certain the Buddha showed his psychic powers to many lay people? Which suttas describe this?

It's right, good householder, that a Bhikkhu would do something like this - in showing his powers ('let them/him see my power') - isn't given by the Buddha to do so, and is breaking a rule with it. (mentioned as confused here already, but right: Pācittiya 8, as the 'smallest' transgression)
If mention over-worldly powers, yet not having such, it can even touch a crown rule, downfall rule, meaning no more Bhikkhu (yet not if simply over-estimating ones gains). If having, telling, showing, it's a break of the main rules Bhikkus use to cite all 14/15 days.
Although there are many instances found in the Suttas where Bhikkhus deliberately, even on request by lay-people, showed miracles and higher powers (thinking on Ven. Moggallāna, the foremost skilled in it, and praised for it by the Buddha), it seems that the Buddha later formulated this rule, some say maybe correct "he didn't trust his monks in this regard, and sure a corrupt instance (where such was made for gain or favor) gave reason to take care here.
This being one reason: using it not to inspire Faith and cut down pride (like for example the Uruvela-miracles, as maybe the most excessive sample, the Buddha made use of such)
Another, very important: if a monk does not really know the right time for a good use, even if well meant, most people are strong attached to such, would not be much attracted by the Dhamma and seek for such powers, or people able to do, as their refuge, cutting them off from Dhamma.
For the actor of such, there is huge danger to get attached to such skill, likewise mistakenly taking it as refuge.
Such is actually very common, such bad ways, even corrupt and as lies, if thinking on those providing spells, water cleaning, chanting for expelling, ... and goes up till higher powers, aside of what's called 'animal trade'.
It's, how ever, not to blame if Monks use there skills to turn others toward the Dhamma, path, yet not 'showing', letting know... how ever, sensitive (starting usually with Stream-enter) people might get aware.
Since people of this days would not even see miracles as such, would at large doubt all even if confronted, there is also less use of it in a 'god-less' society, under materialists and marxists. So one might need to go for a land of miracles to get such things known, loses doubts in regard of such.
(and as someone here as usual is up speading doubt with strawmans, although knowing it clear by himself, in saying 'we aren't sure that he did, which sutta says...': many, many Suttas, not to speak about Vinaya, commentaries...,  provide that the Sublime Buddha used them often, showed them at proper occasions)
[Note that this 'miracle' isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for increase of Saddha and toward vimutti from this wheel]


text:
Which Pali suttas describe the Buddha & monks demonstrating psychic powers to laypeople?
The suttas about the 32 marks of a great man, such as MN 91, appear to describe the Buddha used psychic power towards Brahmins however they do not appear to say the Brahmin layperson was cognizant of the fact the Buddha used psychic power. For example:

So the Buddha used his psychic power to will that Uttara would see his retracted private parts.
Then Uttara thought, “The ascetic Gotama possesses the thirty-two marks. Why don’t I follow him and observe his deportment?”
MN 91

In SN 41.4, a layperson discovers a monk has psychic powers. The monk later performs a demonstration of psychic power to the layperson but then, as a result, decides to leave that locality of the layperson that became enamored by his psychic powers.
In MN 37, Moggallāna performs an act of psychic power to Sakka the Ruler of the Gods but it is not clear whether Sakka can be classified as a "layperson", as follows:

Then Moggallāna used his psychic power to make the Palace of Victory
shake and rock and tremble with his big toe. Then Sakka, Vessavaṇa,
and the Gods of the Thirty-Three, their minds full of wonder and
amazement, thought, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! The ascetic has
such power and might that he makes the god’s home shake and rock and
tremble with his big toe!”

Please list any other Pali suttas that describe the Buddha & monks demonstrating psychic powers to laypeople. Thank you.

In MN 86 (quoted below), we find the lay bandit Angulimala cognizant of the psychic power displayed by the Buddha.

Then Aṅgulimāla donned his sword and shield, fastened his bow and
arrows, and followed behind the Buddha. But the Buddha used his
psychic power to will that Aṅgulimāla could not catch up with him no
matter how hard he tried, even though the Buddha kept walking at a
normal speed.
Then Aṅgulimāla thought, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! Previously,
even when I’ve chased a speeding elephant, horse, chariot or deer,
I’ve always caught up with them. But I can’t catch up with this
ascetic no matter how hard I try, even though he’s walking at a normal
speed.”

In the Vinaya chapter Cammakkhandhaka (Pli Tv Kd 5) quoted below, we find the example of the Buddha asking a monk to perform wonders of psychic power for eighty thousand villagers to see.

Then those eighty thousand village overseers approached the Lord;
having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a
respectful distance. Then those eighty thousand village overseers paid
respect only to the venerable Sāgata, not likewise to the Lord. Then
the Lord, knowing by reasoning of mind the minds of those eighty
thousand village overseers, addressed the venerable Sāgata, saying:
“Well then, do you, Sāgata, abundantly show a state of further-men, a
wonder of psychic power.”
“Very well, Lord,” and the venerable Sagata, having answered the Lord
in assent, having risen above the ground, paced up and down in the
air, in the atmosphere, and he stood, and he sat down, and he lay
down, and he smoked and he blazed, and then he vanished.
Then the venerable Sagata, having shown in the air, in the atmosphere,
various states of further-men and wonders of psychic power, having
inclined his head towards the Lord’s feet, spoke thus to the Lord:
“Lord, the Lord is my teacher, I am a disciple; Lord, the Lord is my
teacher, I am a disciple”. Then those eighty thousand village
overseers, saying: “Indeed it is marvellous, indeed, it is wonderful,
that even a disciple can be of such great psychic power, of such great
might. What must the teacher be?” paid respect only to the Lord, not
likewise to the venerable Sagata.

The story in the commentary to Dhp 124 (quoted below) has a demonstration of psychic power by the Buddha to Kukkutamitta and his family, but it's not clear if they were cognizant of it.

When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the
footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let
cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the
bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap
and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the
Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained
fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found
their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he
must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and
arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and
remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his
sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the
forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all
her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her
hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."
When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my
father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather";
and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to
them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father".
The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and
his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to
move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their
bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha
expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons
and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti
Fruition.

In the Vinaya chapter Mahākhandhaka (Pli Tv Kd 1) quoted below, the Buddha used his psychic power to temporarily hide Yasa from his father, both of whom were laypersons at the time. However, it appears that they were not cognizant of the fact.

The Lord saw the (great) merchant, the householder, coming in the
distance; seeing him, it occurred to the Lord: “Suppose I were to
perform such a psychic wonder that the (great) merchant, the
householder, sitting here, should not see Yasa the young man of
family, sitting here?” Then the Lord performed such a psychic wonder.
Then the (great) merchant, the householder, approached the Lord;
having approached he spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord has the Lord not
seen Yasa, the young man of family?”
“Well, householder, sit down. Perhaps, sitting here, you may see Yasa,
the young man of family, sitting here.”


text:
Where can this story be found?
In the story the Buddha creates a golden lotus and gives it to a monk who soon after attains arahantship.
Story is in attached screenshot taken from the book "Fundamentals of Insight Meditation", by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

In the commentary story of Dhammapada Verse 285, good householder.

Cut off your craving as one plucks an autumn lily with the hand. Nibbana has been expounded on by the Buddha; cultivate that Path which leads to it.

Withering...... old-age, sickness and decay...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape from the wheel]

Thank you Bhante


text:
How to show compassion for attention-seeker
I like the way this site tries to focus on practical advice so I have a specific question concerning compassion.
I have a close person that used to be closer in the past. Mainly I distanced somewhat because I can not really avoid to feel annoyed by some of their behaviour. I often describe them as a 'loud' person, but it is not only a problem of noise but of noticable behaviour.
Things like walking, eating and laughing loudly, taking as much room as possible if standing or sitting somewhere, excessive gestures while talking and so on.
Also they spend a probably unhealthy amount of time with consuming and producing social media.
I feel like the person has a hole inside them to fill somehow but I don't know the specific origin of their suffering. And I believe giving attention won't solve the problem.
Advice on compassion seems to focus on mostly revenge-relevant extreme themes like violent pirates.
This person has not harmed me in any form, still I can not really sympathize with their position.
Do you have any advice on how to develop compassion instead of annoyance? How come people can take what is considered 'mine' without me getting angry at them or frustrated about the loss but I can not bear somebody seeking my and the worlds attention?

Ah, the story of the Bengali Tea Boy:

When the great Buddhist teacher Atisha went to Tibet [...] he was told
the people of Tibet were very good-natured, earthy, flexible, and
open; he decided they wouldn’t be irritating enough to push his
buttons. So he brought along with him a mean-tempered, ornery Bengali
tea boy. He felt that was the only way he could stay awake. The
Tibetans like to tell the story that, when he got to Tibet, he
realized that he need not have brought his tea boy: the people there
were not as pleasant as he had been told -- Chödrön, Pema, "Start
Where you Are" (1994) 83–84

Being loud is an expression of life: a way of experiencing one's own existence in the reflection of others. It's a bit like screaming 'Hello!" off a cliff, and thinking that the echo that comes back is the mountains acknowledging you. Being quiet is a different expression of life: a way of experiencing one's own existence directly, internally. And note that it's not quite as clean-cut as it sounds; I've known people who meditate in an extremely loud, self-directed manner, and others who are thoroughly outgoing with a quiet, self-knowing grace.
Suggest to your friend that s'he sit with you, so that s'he can grapple with the vicissitudes of quietness. And remember that it isn't h'er loudness that disturbs you, but the loudness s'he triggers inside of you. Grapple with your own disquiet, and no outer noise can disturb you.

I have had similar experiences of both - being the observer (the quiet one) and the performer (the loud one) - neither is wrong. However, what a wonderful opportunity to practice compassion

There would be no need to show it, but how ever:
Much karuṇā toward good householder suffering so much.
metta & mudita
:-)
Got it? Or to practical, to much at the essence?
Help your self out first, since if not abound sense pleasure, there is less to help and meanwhile compassion is contained in simply not harming, meaning be very serious in the precepts. That is highest and real compassion, right resolve.
[Note that this hasn't been given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for a tool to escape from this wheel of "compassion"]

Loud harshness is the voice of suffering. The Buddha spoke with quiet kindness:

DN30:2.24.2: “He never spoke a loud harsh word, insulting, quarrelsome, causing harm, rude, crushing the people.

One might avoid loudness, but that might be cruel. It might be kinder to listen with equanimity. That listening may ease your friend's suffering somewhat.
That "hole" you mention is the desire to be heard. Desire is the root of suffering. With this in mind, the most direct response is to listen quietly, with equanimity.
And if one is pressed afterwards with, "So what do YOU think?". One might answer truthfully, "I think you feel upset about X". Acknowledged, your friend will feel heard and subsequent discussion will be quieter. This will require, however, practicing equanimity. And that practice will be of value, since there is an underlying tendency towards avoidance here.
Loud speech is often divisive. So one must be very very careful here. It takes skill to exercise love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity to bridge such divisiveness. If the skill has not yet developed, one might say, "I am sorry that I lack the love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity to solve X. I cannot help you."
Be a good friend as you can and keep company with other good friends.

SN45.3:1.3: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.”

Might not be the easiest or most pleasant exercise but advice the Buddha gives in SN 15:11 could be of use at some of the times:
...
When you see someone who has fallen on hard times, overwhelmed with hard times, you should conclude: ‘We, too, have experienced just this sort of thing in the course of that long, long time.' [transmigration] ...
Try imagining yourself being clueless in exactly that sort of way and others around not finding a way of telling you about it going for advice to one another asking "how can feel compassion for that person instead of being aggravated?" You, on a rare but periodic occasion spot a thought in your mind that "people are asking advice one another on how to feel compassion for me" but find no way to stop continuing being the same way (hard times in the mind). It's a strech of imagination, but if worked through gradually - might give a release to the mind for a while.
Then, try other methods before doing this sort of reflection again.


text:
Finding it difficult to cultivate mudita(empathetic joy)
I am finding it very difficult to cultivate mudita for people who are happier and have it all. I am finding it easy to have empathy for those who are suffering. But my ego feels threatened when I encounter happy people who are not even practicing dhamma or meditation. How do I train my mind? How to look at such situation when people are in better situation than me?

You see, our lives are set inside certain conceptual systems endowing them with relative meaning.
Sentient beings assume this system to be the world. In reality everyone's system is slightly different, depending on circumstances, culture etc. - but there are some common parts too.
As a sentient being grows up and starts constructing his/her world, it looks at the other sentient beings, to try and understand from their actions how the world works. If they are sad or happy about some things, we know those things must be important, and we make a note in our own systems.
Then we apply those rules to our own lives. "If other people are sad in this situation, I must be sad too." - that's one case, a linear 1:1 observation. "If other people are happy about something and I don't have it, I must be sad" - this is another case, an inference that depends on negation.
We do this automatically all the time. It's a kind of stereotype, an automatic assumption.
In Buddhism we train to be free from such things. We learn to see through our stereotypes and our assumptions. We learn to be free from them. The complete freedom from all conceptual boundaries is freedom from death and freedom from suffering the Buddha has taught.
Freeing up from such assumptions is a skill that can be developed. You learn it one time and you can use it to break out of other assumptions too. The key is to analyze the basic concepts at the root of the assumption. Once you see the root you must find the emotional connection to that root in your heart. You should meditate on it until you clearly see why this emotional connection is important to you. Once you clearly see it all the way to the bottom, it will dissolve with little to no effort. It's a matter of reconfiguring your system of assumptions to let go of the stereotype, and once you see it's emotional root it's a fairly trivial act, like removing a splinter.
In this particular case, you assume that happy people got something good that you are missing. Maybe they have family or maybe they have career. You assume that it must be important. You assume that's what makes them happy. As you can see, there's a whole bunch of assumptions on your part.
There's a large number of ways we can challenge and attack these assumptions, it depends on your style which one you choose. I will show you just one, but don't assume it is the only one, it's just an example.
You can say: I assume they are happy because they have something, and that I would be happy too, if I had the same. However, happiness comes not from the external circumstance or external possession. Happiness is quite literally a product of my mind, it is a chemical or energetic state generated by my mind. How is it generated? It is generated when in my mind there's no conflict, no discord. So if I can be in a simple peaceful state, just sitting - that's right there is a happy state. It is even better than a kind of happiness based on material success or on good worldly circumstances, because it is not subject to outside conditions. So why should I feel bad about not having the same happiness those people have, if I can have something much better?!!
This way you can stop feeling bad about yourself. This was just one example of constructing a narrative that flips your perspective. You can do it in a dozen other ways, get creative. The point is to learn to be happy with yourself. (Then eventually you can learn to live without relying on any such narratives at all, but that is the next jhana, out of scope for the present discussion)
Once you learn to love yourself and be at peace with yourself, then naturally you will feel compassion for other people who have lesser kinds of happiness than yours. And you will be happy for them when they will discover the kind of happiness that comes from the peaceful mind. At that point, you will rejoice with them, too - and it will be a real authentic joy.

Nice practical advise. Thank you. But the necessary requirement to apply the thought will be my own happiness. Correct?

Your happiness is what you construct or weave (the Buddha used the word 'fabricate') by moving your attention and perspective, and generating deliberate thinking towards a certain narrative. But yes, to love yourself (to be happy with oneself) is a firm prerequisite for loving others.

The problem is most people don't understand what mudita really is and what the goal of it is. It's not to just unilaterally develop non jealousy and partake of joy in any kind of success that others enjoy. For example, if you resent Donald Trump, it's not mudita to do, "I hope he gets reelected again and he stays happy for a long time.".
It's only proper mudita if the vicarious joy is based on kusala Dhamma activities. That is, if Donald Trump behaves in accordance to the Dharma and enjoys success and happiness from those Dharmic activities, then it would be mudita to vicariously experience joy and hope he continues that type of kusala Dharmic activity and reaps the benefit of it for a long time.

I get the impression that mudita was originally intended as the ideal towards people who were virtuous, wise, knowledgeable -- well-behaved, generous -- not necessarily those who "have it all" in a material sense.
Maybe that's an easier or more natural situation in which to feel "joy" -- i.e. not because of how rich someone is, but because of how good they are.

Or as MatthewMartin mentioned in this answer it might also be an appropriate attitude toward laypeople who are not exactly "rich" but are content:

If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

I doubt whether MatthewMartin's was an orthodox Theravada answer -- I think might have been originally taught as being applicable or appropriate towards "good/successful Buddhist monks" --  but I thought it was an interesting and useful way to expand the concept to lay and non-Buddhist social relations.

There is, btw, good householder, a possible similar question, at least answer to "how develope".. Envy (issa), stinginess, are the drives of counteract, common to beings not having gained stream yet.
Additionally, as just came accross: Bante Thanissaro gave shortly a talk on Muditas purpose.
[sure good as comment, or adding to answer before]

Mudita below is called "unselfish joy". Ven. Buddhaghosa has some recommendations with regards to the practice of mudita bhavana.
Please read this excerpt from the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification) authored by Ven. Buddhaghosa in the 5th century. It's entitled "The Meditative Development of Unselfish Joy":

One who begins the development of unselfish joy should not start with
dearly beloved person, a neutral person or hostile person. For it is
not the mere fact that a person is dearly beloved, which makes him an
immediate cause of developing unselfish joy, and still less so neutral
or hostile person. Persons of the opposite sex and those who are dead
are not suitable subjects for this meditation.
A very close friend, however, can be a suitable subject. One who is
called in the commentaries an affectionate companion; for he is always
in a joyous mood: he laughs first and speaks afterwards. He should be
the first to be pervaded with unselfish joy. Or on seeing or hearing
about a dear person being happy, cheerful, and joyous, unselfish joy
can be aroused thus: "This being, verily, is happy! How good, how
excellent!" For this is what is referred to in the Vibhanga: "And how
does a bhikkhu dwell pervading one direction with his heart imbued
with unselfish joy? Just as he would be joyful on seeing a dear and
beloved person, so he pervades all being with unselfish joy" (Vibhanga
274).
But if his affectionate friend or the dear person was happy in the
past but is now unlucky and unfortunate, then unselfish joy can still
be aroused by remembering his past happiness; or by anticipating that
he will be happy and successful again in the future.
Having thus aroused unselfish joy with respect to a dear person, the
meditator can then direct it towards a neutral one, and after that
towards a hostile one.
But if resentment towards the hostile one arises in him, he should
make it subside in the same way as described under the exposition of
loving-kindness.
He should then break down the barriers by means of impartiality
towards the four, that is, towards these three and himself. And by
cultivating the sign (or after-image, obtained in concentration),
developing and repeatedly practicing it, he should increase the
absorption to triple or (according to the Abhidhamma division)
quadruple jhana.
Next, the versatility (in this meditation) should be understood in the
same way as stated under loving-kindness. It consists in:
(a) Unspecified pervasion in these five ways:
"May all beings... all breathing things... all creatures... all persons... all those who have a personality be free from enmity,
affliction, and anxiety, and live happily!"
(b) Specified pervasion in
these seven ways:
"May all women... all men... all Noble Ones... all not Noble Ones... all deities... all human beings... all in states of misery (in
lower worlds) be free from enmity, etc."
(c) Directional pervasion in
these ten ways:
"May all beings (all breathing things, etc.; all women, etc.) in the eastern direction... in the western direction... northern...
southern direction... in the intermediate eastern, western, northern,
and southern direction... in the downward direction... in the upward
direction be free from enmity, etc."
This versatility is successful only in one whose mind has reached
absorption (jhana).
When this meditator develops the mind-deliverance of unselfish joy
through any of these kinds of absorption he obtains these eleven
advantages: he sleeps in comfort, wakes in comfort, and dreams no evil
dreams, he is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings, deities
guard him, fire and poison and weapons do not affect him, his mind is
easily concentrated, the expression of his face is serene, he dies
unconfused, if he penetrates no higher he will be reborn in the Brahma
World (A v 342).

Buddhism teaches to be generous. During covid 19 lock down and many shop closes, I spent a little and fed many stray cats. I happy to see them still around and get healthier.
In this case, my body release plenty of oxytoxin which is joyful hormone so it's a win win scenario. Its applicable to charity works too.
Teacher also taught me in most cases, people are born rich, healthy, charming and in harmony family due to their good deed in past life. But if they overspend their credit or misused it then could suffer either now or sooner.

Sadhu for effort wishing to go against this kind of stinginess, good householder.
One under the people incapable in such, are traders, and that goes deep in meaning, leading direct to the source of stinginess.
It's actually the most difficult of the four Brahmaviharas, good householder, yet very straight on the path.
Maybe some explainings here may help, as well as samples to practice.
Training by sharing merits and give aprove: Rejoice with others & sharing merits pattanumodāna & pattidāna
Explaining
Also a recent talk on it:  Happy for People You Don’t Like, by Bhante Thanissaro.
At 'least' a talk by late Ven. Nanaponika
To learn such under 'wester', modern people, marxists... such is merely impossible, so association is most supportive support.
metta & mudita
And the, there, reminding the Dhamma, toward release: Sukhita Sutta: Happy, but first things first, since envy-defilements can lead to similar, called househol-equanimity.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but to lead toward the 'Brahamas' and release]


text:
Help trying to find a sutta speaking of the pleasures of the householder
One of the suttas where the Buddha is critical of a monk as not living the holy life the right way and at the same time by not disrobing missing out on the pleasures of the householder's life.
In effect the meaning was:  missing out / depriving himself of both opportunities - not only the higher one but the lower one as well.

Update
Found the sutta, posted own answer.
Thanks ruben2020 for sharing the dhammapada suggestion, and Yeshe for the formatting of my own answer.

You could also give your update as an answer and then mark that answer as the official answer. This would be good for indicating the question is answered.

Your whole update should go into a new answer.

I happened to come across it after a while. It's SN 22:80  Almsgoers - Piṇḍolya Sutta:

“And although this son of a good family has gone forth in this way, he
is covetous, with strong passion for sensual desires, with a mind of
ill will, of corrupt resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert,
unconcentrated, his mind distracted, loose in his sense faculties.
Just as a log from a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, smeared with
excrement in the middle, fills no use as timber either in the village
or in the wilderness: I speak of this person with this comparison. He
has missed out on the enjoyments of the householder, and yet does not
fulfill the goal of the contemplative life."

There is one reference for this in Dhammapada 155 - 156:

Verse 155: They, who in youth have neither led the life of Purity nor
have acquired wealth, waste away in dejection like decrepit herons on
a drying pond deplete of fish.
Verse 156: They, who in youth have neither led the Life of Purity nor
have acquired wealth, lie helplessly like arrows that have lost
momentum, moaning and sighing after the past.

This is the commentary for it:

The Story of the Son of Mahadhana
While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155)
and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich
man from Baranasi.
The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of
age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no
education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty
crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were
ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to
make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering
their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and
gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and
helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had
to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning
against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the
samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled.
The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha
replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a
useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look
after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a
top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have
been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had
learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he
would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu
he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a
sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third
stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he
had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife
could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in
all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches,
he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and
Phalas."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 155: They, who in
youth have neither led the life of Purity nor have acquired wealth,
waste away in dejection like decrepit herons on a drying pond deplete
of fish.
Verse 156: They, who in youth have neither led the Life of
Purity nor have acquired wealth, lie helplessly like arrows that have
lost momentum, moaning and sighing after the past.

In this YouTube video, Ven. Yuttadhammo explains these verses.