text:
Harsh speech and insanity
I am often harsh, though I don't think hurtful, in speech about others, because of my schizophrenia and psychosis. I often believe they are up to no good and need to be stopped verbally from doing that.
Can you advise on how best to work on that? I have not taken any precept that prohibits it, but then it is my default bad karma.

<3 haha. all is so strange

That people like you and me come out of it.

lonely fools? @DheerajVerma ha

Sometimes it is lonely. Sometimes it is crowded.

Can you advise on how best to work on that?

I think., you have stated the reason yourself as below.

I have not taken any precept that prohibits it,

Taking the precept is the best option that I can see.

but then it is my default bad karma.

Intention (action) is not a karma vipaka (result of past karma).
Intention is karma that gives a future vipaka.
Taking or not taking the precept is not a karma vipaka.
Taking the precept is a wholesome karma that gives beneficial results in the future.
Not taking the precept is an unwholesome karma that gives harmful results in the future.

I am often harsh, though I don't think hurtful, in speech about others, because of my schizophrenia and psychosis.

I guess Metta meditation would be a good remedy.

I often believe they are up to no good and need to be stopped verbally from doing that.

The Buddhist teaching is the world is not under the Authority of any one. Everything in the world is Anatta (devoid of hegemony). We can't control the world or change the world according to our wish. World is owned by causality. World functions according to the Dhamma-formulas.
Understanding the nature of the world makes our mind to work according to the Dhamma-formulas. Then we would not try to change the people in unskillful way. We can learn skillful ways of advising as well.
If you could read Nandivisala Jataka, then you would find the teachings on the drawbacks of harsh speech and obvious benefits of friendly speech.

Sometimes the idea of arguing reminds me of xkcd: Duty Calls (which kindly mocks that practice).
Conversely I think that Buddhist doctrine is more like this -- i.e. "Others will [...], but we will [...]".
A young Quaker -- i.e. a "pacifist" -- once told me, "I'll discuss anything with anyone; but if it turns into an argument then I [...] and walk away."
I think that gives you an option: to discuss, or maybe comment on a topic (perhaps to offer discussion) -- without a counter-productive argument that escalates into harshness.
When I think about "harsh speech" that I've very occasionally seen in comments on this site, I think that one of the remedies is:

To say what you need to say (e.g. to comment on an answer) but preferably without being harsh.
Someone might then reply to that comment.
At this point, don't forget you have a choice:

If your reply would continue a friendly discussion then why not
If your reply would be an argument then maybe you shouldn't -- you said what you had to say in your first comment, maybe leave it at that.

There may be a difference between in-person "speech" and on-line "writing" but I'm not sure what to advise about that.

I can't easily reply to the part of your question about insanity.
My experience of schizophrenia is of years of thought disorder (both, "content-thought disorder" and "formal thought disorder"), as well as of years of lucidity. The question (the OP) seems lucid, it's not a word salad, and my experience may not be applicable to your situation.
Even so, for what it's worth, my experience as a participant or care-giver is that it's essential to remain kind.

Discussion can be frustrating (if you're trying to persuade someone who won't "comply").
It can also be disorienting (to experience a disconnect in the "meeting of minds" that you might normally expect in a discussion).
Sooner or later it might be tempting to try something else -- e.g. "if kindness doesn't work then how about harsh speech?" -- but I think that's most likely a mistake, and you need to find another option (maybe talk with someone else instead).

One last piece of advice is, I think that maybe professionals don't indulge (don't participate in or encourage, but maybe also don't dispute) a person's fantasies, but instead interpret what they say in a way that keeps the conversation on "common ground".
For example, hypothetically:

Psychiatrist: "How are you feeling today?"
Patient: "I am the Supreme Being."

In reply the doctor needn't discuss the patient's statement that they are God, but might instead reply with something like, "So, you say you're feeling good."


text:
Was this world built by mistake?
Buddha does not deny God. He simply refuses to be any God because all Gods are impermanent… that is they take birth, age and then die … which is painful. Or source of sorrow.
My question is :Was this world built by mistake by some God ?

God is a metaphor.

Buddha neither accepted nor rejected the existence of god(s) because he felt the acceptance or rejection of such was merely belief, and beliefs are a source of dukkha and tanhā (discontentment and craving). This goes equally well for your question.

Why would you want to believe that the world was built by mistake by
some God?
Why would you not want to believe that?

What discontentment are you addressing in either case? What craving are you satisfying? What discontentments or cravings are you creating or destroying in others by holding this belief up for scrutiny?
The world is exactly what it is. Viewing it as a mistake is as confounding as viewing it as a perfection. You can choose to confound yourself that way if you like — sometimes that's entertaining, or interesting, or useful — but don't embrace it too heartily because it will inevitably become unwieldy.

Nobody asked good householder to take birth in what ever womb, realm, and so such questions are headed by wrong view and ingratitude.
Just as an example: BSE is surely far off from Noble intention, yet it wouldn't be proper to seek ways out which deny goodness done and taken on, even if thought as trap to supply ones own existence.
It would be certain foolish to approach one parents (first Gods) telling they made (the) a mistake in receiving the wished arrive and dwell.
May he take care of not falling to deep into the sphere of wrong view.
Support those of ingratitude is certain a mistake, or lets say, sacrifice that doesn't merit much: the path to orphanage and organized orphan use: marxism.

Do not misunderstand me. In “root of all things” Buddha says “ They perceive gods as gods. But then they identify with gods … Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.” Perception of God is there. I said mistake because who would create instrument of suffering?

@Dheeraj  The translation you quote offers the reader no help in comprehending the sutta. Try another one, which does: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html

@DeaneCameron I picked it up from suttacentral … didn’t know the translation differs.

The Buddha rejected the "Creator God" but not the "heavenly beings".
You can see the Brahmajala sutta for reference.
World is dependently originated and no creator, according to Theravada Tipitaka.
(Some people say they understand it using the "egg and hen puzzle" where we can't find what is the beginning.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to achieve stream entry in this very life?

What fetters must be destroyed in order to reach the state of stream entry?
Is it possible to reach the state of stream entry in this very life?
Do I need to renounce worldly life in order to reach stream entry?
Can I keep functioning in society by earning bread, and paying my EMI and still reach stream entry?
How will I know that I have reached stream entry once I am there?
Is there a list of instructions that, once followed, will surely take me to the state of stream entry?

Are there any finer details that I need to be aware of start on the journey towards stream entry?
I have been a Buddhist learner since almost a decade, I frequently visit the Buddhist monastery close by, worship the relics of the Buddha, profess my desire to cultivate mindfulness. I am asking the above questions as I have no clue on how to start the journey, how to sustain and how to share the same with my loved ones so that they too can enjoy the fruit and bliss?

A stream enterer loses the first three fetters: personality view/belief in a personal entity, belief in rites and rituals, and doubt in the Buddha's teachings.

Yes. And it's possible to go further than stream entry in this lifetime.

You can become a stream enterer while being married, having a job, and living as a lay person. You don't need to become a monk. However, you do need to live differently than a regular lay person. You need to keep at least the five precepts and practice the Noble Eightfold Path. Observing uposatha was highly praised by the Buddha.

Uposatha is a day set aside to practice more. It involves taking the Eight Precepts, one of which is celibacy. AN 10.46 and AN 8.41

Yes. You can work a job and become a stream enterer.

This is tricky. It's very easy to think you're a stream winner when you aren't. A sotapanna is a person with Right View. They understand Dependent Origination and The Four Noble Truths. Stream entry is not a "black out" or some funky druglike experience. MN 48 goes into some of the behaviors of stream winners. The suttas in SN 25.* and MN 9 go into Right View, which is the specific knowledge of stream winners.

How to know you are not a stream winner: The most obvious is doubt. If you ever wonder "was the Buddha an arahant? Was he actually Enlightened?" you are not a stream winner. The subtler delusions are personality view and rites and rituals.
Personality view is about having an identity. There are many ways to have the delusion of personality view. Common ones are "I am my body", or "I am my mind", or "I have an eternal soul".

The instructions is the Noble Eightfold Path. Also read MN 117

On Teachers:

Someone telling you they're enlightened probably means they aren't, especially if the teacher is a monk as that violates the Vinaya (monastic code).

It's safest to only learn from monastics. Since they are bound by the Vinaya (monastic code) it's easier to avoid bad teachers. Make sure your teacher(s) has/have good ethics. The Vinaya (monastic laws) can be a bit tricky to understand, but it's easy to know if someone follows the five precepts. You want to learn from someone with perfect or near perfect following of the five precepts.

They never intentionally kill anything, not even a mosquito. They never steal. They don't hurt people sexually and if they're a monk they are celibate. Celibacy means no masturbation and no sex. If a monk has sex it's an expellable offense. A truly celibate monk also practices verbal and mental celibacy. They don't leer, make sexual jokes, or make others feel uncomfortable. They never intentionally lie. While they might talk too fast and say something untrue by accident, never learn from someone who deliberately lies. White lies are still lies. Finally, they should not consume drugs or alcohol. Prescription medication is not a drug, if they are taking it according to their doctor's instructions and not recreationally.

I suggest learning from monks, not lay people. Monks are a safer choice. Good monks have committed their life to the Dhamma and have no financial conflicts. Good monks are not paid; they do not have an income. Financial donations should be handled by lay people on the monasteries behalf. Both cash and a credit cards are money. Money is the ability to buy whatever the monk wants, instead of accepting what the lay community gives. If you ever run across someone who teaches something obviously wrong like "arahants have sex" or "I can drink alcohol because I'm enlightened" run away.

Be safe. Trust yourself. Bad teachers are dangerous. If you notice something is harming you, stop! It is possible to have serious and long lasting problems from practicing too hard or in the wrong way, such as damaged knees or a mental breakdown. It's better to be cautious than risk having an injury.

What to know about the suttas:

The teachings were originally given orally. They were a talk. The Buddha was teaching to the specific audience in front of him at that moment. Keep this in mind. Talks for lay people and monks would be different. Different things are emphasized.
You don't have to take suttas on blind faith. For example, if you don't believe in rebirth or past lives, take a teaching you can try out and treat it as an experiment. See if your life gets better or worse. If your life improves, then you gain confidence that the teachings that other teachings could be true.
Think of the suttas as a set of instructions.

What’s wrong with merit badges?

@blue_ego The problem with merit badges is people aren't mind readers. If someone took a Calculus class, do they know Calculus? Maybe they studied hard and did well, maybe they skipped every lecture, maybe the material was too hard.

@blue_ego . However, the Calculus teacher would know who knew Calculus. However, in our case, the Calculus Teacher is the Buddha. Everyone else is just guessing. Only we can know our minds' quality. If we see fetter of greed, hate, and delusion, there is more work to be done. Don't settle for stream entry.

Sometimes, I wish the translation would be in plain day to day English that can be easily understood. "Belief in rites and rituals" is quite a mouthful whereas "abandoning all superstitious beliefs" is so much clearer. It highlights the fact that any claim that is not validated, is not true knowledge. Furthermore, it stressed that there is a necessary process of validation in the Dhamma as intended by the Buddha when he says, "Ehipassiko".

Q: What fetters must be destroyed in order to reach the state of stream entry?

The fetters are self view or identity view, doubt and grasping at precepts and practices.

And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views,
uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill
will.
AN 10.13

"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the wasting away
of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never
again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening: such are
the monks in this community of monks.
MN 118

Q: Is it possible to reach the state of stream entry in this very life?

Yes, if one meets certain prerequisites.

Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t disparage the talk, the speaker, or themselves.
They’re wise, bright, and clever. They don’t think they know what they
don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is able to enter the
sure path with regards to skillful qualities when listening to the
true teaching.”
AN 5.152

Someone with five qualities is able to enter the sure path with
regards to skillful qualities when listening to the true teaching.
What five? They don’t listen to the teaching bent only on putting it
down. They don’t listen to the teaching with a hostile, fault-finding
mind. They’re not antagonistic to the teacher, and not planning to
attack them. They’re wise, bright, and clever. And they don’t think
they know what they don’t know. Someone with these five qualities is
able to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities when
listening to the true teaching.”
AN 5.153

Also, one must not have committed the five incurable actions (AN 5.129).

"There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation,
inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who
has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who
has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused
the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in
the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of
deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."
AN 5.129

Q: Do I need to renounce worldly life in order to reach stream entry?

No.
Lay followers can attain stream entry and higher levels of jhana. An example is Citta, the householder. You can read about him in SN 41.

“But how is a wise lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of arising and
passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete
ending of suffering. Then they’re considered to be a wise lay
follower.”
SN 55.37

But it's unlikely to go beyond stream entry as a lay person, except at their deathbed (see SN 55.54).

Q: Can I keep functioning in society by earning bread, and paying my EMI and still reach stream entry?

Yes, if one takes the right effort.

Q: How will I know that I have reached stream entry once I am there?

Please read "Is stream entry an unmistakeable experience?".

Q: Is there a list of instructions that, once followed, will surely take me to the state of stream entry?

AN 10.92 lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled (basically the five precepts)
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

And also:

“Sāriputta, they speak of a ‘factor of stream-entry’. What is a factor
of stream-entry?”
“Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people,
listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in
line with the teaching.”
SN 55.5

Please read "Into the Stream" by Ven. Thanissaro and also watch the YouTube video talk "Characteristics of a Sotapanna" (by Ven. Dhammavuddho).
The video talk discusses SN 55.5 in detail.

What fetters must be destroyed in order to reach the state of stream entry?

Sakkayaditthi (self view), Vicikiccha (doubt), Silabbataparamasa (wrongly grasped rites and rituals)

Is it possible to reach the state of stream entry in this very life?
It is said possible, if one possess the relevant causes. (past merit, born wisdom, correct view, ardent practice etc.)

Do I need to renounce worldly life in order to reach stream entry? Can I keep functioning in society by earning bread, and paying my EMI and still reach stream entry?

Even after ordaining, it is not guaranteed. Being in a modern lay life it is considered unlikely by many people. (but nothing can be said surely about these matters)
Either way, the beginning of the practice is possible as a layman for sure.

How will I know that I have reached stream entry once I am there?

There are a series of wisdoms(nyanas) mentioned to be arisen before and after the stream entry. He is considered highly aware of it.

Is there a list of instructions that, once followed, will surely take me to the state of stream entry?

The classical path is extensively described in Visuddhimagga's chapter on Satta-visuddhi.

Are there any finer details that I need to be aware of start on the journey towards stream entry?

Visuddhimagga (the standard compendium of Tipitaka) elaborates finer details from the beginning of it. (details about required virtue, ascetic practices, required meditations, required analysis of mind and matter, gradual path of seven purifications)

I have been a Buddhist learner since almost a decade, I frequently visit the Buddhist monastery close by, worship the relics of the Buddha, profess my desire to cultivate mindfulness. I am asking the above questions as I have no clue on how to start the journey, how to sustain and how to share the same with my loved ones so that they too can enjoy the fruit and bliss?

I guess it is because you have not read Visuddhimagga which is the classically recommended book for meditators.

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


text:
Did the Buddha ever say, "I don't know"?
The fourth precept says we should be truthful. I think this means it's virtuous to truthfully admit to uncertainty when you don't know an answer, instead of pretending you do know or evading the question. Did the Buddha ever admit to not knowing something?

I can't find the reference, but no, and he isn't "holding anything back" either

idt so anyway. he's not conventionally omniscient. maybe people didn't ask trivial questions of him? no idea

@causative: Seems like you are trying to understand Buddha's state of mind based on yours... big mistake :)

In the sutta quote below, the Buddha clearly states that he is not all-knowing.
There are some things that he knows and others that he may not know (yet).

Vaccha: “Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing
and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus:
“Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me,
while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those
who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent
him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching?
Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
Buddha: “Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They
misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”
Vaccha: “So how should we answer so as to repeat what the Buddha has said, and
not misrepresent him with an untruth? How should we explain in line
with his teaching, with no legitimate grounds for rebuke and
criticism?”
Buddha: “‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this
you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an
untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would
be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.
MN 71

Also, please see this answer.

To not knowing something? Buddha? A "handful of leaves" appear to say Buddha only revealed a handful of leaves of an entire forest of leaves he knew of. And that handful, only related to how suffering/discontent originated, and how it could be halted, primarily. I imagine the 45 years of his dispensation was too short and too precious, to be spent on anything else? Regards

There are famously some topics that are "undeclared" i.e. questions to which the Buddha did not declare an answer.
They're "SN 44" (i.e. SN 44.1 through SN 44.11) and listed translated e.g. here or here.
There's an introduction here -- Introduction to the Avyakata Samyutta (Undeclared-connected) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu -- which categorizes the questions and reasons why they're unanswered.
They're summarised i.e. just briefly listed on Wikipedia -- The unanswered questions.

Ironically this doesn't answer your question -- i.e. "Did the Buddha ever say, 'I don't know'?" -- but I hope this reference (to what he did say) is closely-related enough, to be on-topic and of interest to you.


text:
Is secular Buddhism a religion?
I would like to know if the secular buddhism could be considered a religion. I have started to study about it a while ago and I think it's make much sense to me, could I consider me a buddhist, even though I don't believe in some of traditional buddhism beliefs?

The dictionary definition of "secular" is, "not connected with religious or spiritual matters."

Secular Buddhism is loosely associated movement of authors and teachers, Stephen Batchelor is one good example. It isn't an institution, so there isn't any well define orthodoxy to appeal to about what it exactly is. Roughly, Secular Buddhism attempts to do Buddhism in a way that is compatible with ideas of the European Enlightenment and modern science.
Religion is one of those difficult to define words. Dictionary definitions often appeal to similarity to Christianity, which isn't a useful definition here. In the case of Secular Buddhism, I'd say it is a religion on account of it being a philosophical project with goals that overlap with Buddhism's, the end of suffering and what not. I'd recommend looking to Religious Studies (e.g. Religion for Breakfasts youtube channel) for a scholar answer to the question. In Buddhist orthodoxies, anything outside of orthodoxy is heterodox (outer paths, etc) and dividing non-Buddhist things into religion and non-religion isn't an important way of viewing the world.
A common methodology of creating secular Buddhisms is to subtract out the parts of Buddhism incompatible with modern rational thought and science. Yes, this is a form of scientism (using science to form opinions about religious stances) and in my opinion, it is a good thing--usually scientism is a used a slur.
Because there is no institution, nor orthodoxy, Secular Buddhism is very heterogeneous and different authors have used different parts of Buddhism as their starting point and have kept or kicked out different parts. As an internet phenomena, the "Secular Buddhist" podcast, forums etc has a quasi religious belief that the earliest Buddhist texts are already secular and the parts that are incompatible with modern science were later additions. Scholars generally don't agree with that--Buddhism had elements of karma, reincarnation, etc from the first days.

Welcome back, after so many years. Nice answer. One comment on your last paragraph: some of the proponents of "Buddhism has always been secular from its start"  view (like myself) would argue that even karma, reincarnations etc. are all mere allegories used as skillful means, never meant to be understood literally.

“Religion”, in one sense, involves belief in something not available to be empirically determined.
The ability to arise as a Buddha is one of these things. Again, while ‘enlightenment’ can be fit into many definitions, it is hard to determine empirically if the cessation of suffering is available and if the Buddhist path is effective (the third and fourth noble truths).
Therefore any Buddhism which accepts the four noble truths is not strictly secular, while a system that doesn’t accept the four noble truths is not strictly Buddhist.

Buddhists understand and follow the noble eightfold path:

AN6.63:43.3: The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
AN6.63:43.4: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
AN6.63:44.1: When a noble disciple understands suffering in this way … they understand that this penetrative spiritual life is the cessation of suffering.

The noble eightfold path starts with right view:

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?
MN117:6.2: Right view is twofold, I say.
MN117:6.3: There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:6.4: And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:7.1: And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:7.2: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN117:7.3: This is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:8.1: And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
MN117:8.2: It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
MN117:8.3: This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

You ask about secular and tradition. In that regard, perhaps the words of the Buddha might serve here:

MN60:4.1: “So, householders, is there some other teacher you’re happy with, in whom you have acquired grounded faith?”
MN60:4.2: “No, sir.”
MN60:4.3: “Since you haven’t found a teacher you’re happy with, you should undertake and implement this guaranteed teaching.

Many Buddhist traditions exist. Some will speak to you and others won't. Study the words of the Buddha directly, be sensible and see for yourself:

MN80:16.4: Nevertheless, Kaccāna, leave aside the past and the future.
MN80:16.5: Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach and instruct them.
MN80:16.6: Practicing as instructed they will soon know and see for themselves,
MN80:16.7: ‘So this is how to be rightly released from the bond, that is, the bond of ignorance.’

According to the dictionaries: "Secular" and "Religious" are Antonyms.
According to the suttas: It is a wrong view. (diṭṭhivipatti)
Some or all points of 10-fold kammic right view (Kammassakatanana Sammaditthi) are not believed or looked down by the secular Buddhists.

‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no
fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are
no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously.
And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced,
and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own
insight.

Reference: Natthidinnasutta, Vipattisampadāsutta, Sāleyyakasutta, Apaṇṇakasutta


text:
Can I adapt Buddha’s teachings into science?
Science is not part of Buddhas teachings but the teachings of Buddha can be adapted into science.
For example : sabbe sanskara annica can be adopted by science (physics especially)
This will translate as : No experiment can be repeated forever. No system can function smoothly forever.
How do you think my small attempt to bring Buddha and science together.  holds ?
Can I adapt Buddha’s teaching into science ?

Buddhist teachings talk about the physics of the mind, and mind's interpretation of matter. So, its natural to draw parallels between branches of physics and Buddhism. But, there is a significant difference between scientific approach and Buddhism. Buddhist teachings are eternal, and non changing, and can be applied to all times (akaliko). However, scientific findings are evolving and changing over time. So, drawing parallels between a changing science and constant Buddhist teachings will leave you confused.
Maybe, when the scientists have concluded their findings where there is nothing more to find or clarify, both science and Buddhism could be looking at similar results.
Broadly, you can look at it this way; science is still a journey, where Buddhism is already at the destination.

Can I adapt Buddha’s teaching into science ?
I had quite a lot of education in physics, at school, and I think that perhaps you should not.
I think that the Buddha's teaching has almost nothing to say about the speed of light, about electro-magnetism, aero-dynamics, materials science, microelectronics, or anything else that's the usual kind of subject of modern physics.
I fear that claiming that Buddha’s teaching anticipates modern physics might be a discreditable claim, and therefore even risks inviting discredit on the teaching itself (as well as being not very good as physics).
I think that the subject and purpose of the teaching is other than physics.
How do you think my small attempt to bring Buddha and science together holds ?
Well ... science does consider it important whether "an experiment is repeatable", so your attempt sounds relevant.
I'm not sure anyone claims that an experiment is "repeatable forever", I think that physics predicts that the whole universe (or at least every discernable "thing" in it) will end eventually (one way or another).

I did not say that Buddha anticipates modern physics.  Some logic of Buddha can be incorporated in modern physics like Sabbe Sanskar Anicca.

"Arising and Vanishing trillion times per second (Aniccam Dukkham Anatta)" and "Imagination of them, arising&vanishing (Pannatti/Sammati)" are basis of every thing.
So, you can see science inside Dhamma.
However, there are many other Dhamma which still out of reach for science, so you can't use pure science to understand Dhamma. It's like when Einstein begin to explain his theory, he need the other's trust first before the others allow his theory into their heart.
For the example, the fastest and smallest element is Arising and Vanishing Dhamma, neither light nor particle, you can't see it without Mastery Jhana and the Buddha's teaching because nothing could be faster than mass except mind, etc.
Or another example, the ordinary don't know how much the past Karma is effecting their only this life until they see the first moment (in trillion time persecond) of life and their last moments of previous life (cutupapata) previous of previous, so they still think they can control everything by only this latest life effort. They have misunderstand whether their only latest life effort has power more than the uncountable past lives efforts. This misunderstood let them argue and battle to each others to finish their goal because they don't understand the truth at the end whether "the uncountable past lives karmas is the judge for the winner and looser of the battle, not their only latest life karma". When they don't know this truth the lower past lives' power have misunderstood they can win the battle by the only latest life karma then start the battle instead of doing new karma to be win in the next lives, etc.
By the example, you can see that you need trust in the Jhana Mastery who memorized Tipitaka first.

I trust Buddha and shit. Shit happens. That is why nobody is worth calling Self. Trust is developed.

We call shit because we can't see shit's real origin. Shit is called "luck" worldwide. Nothing is luck in Buddhism. It's only dependent origination. Shit's origin is hidden by a newer and newer lives. If one can see shit's origin then he call the shit as "resultant" of it's origin.

The Dhamma will "destroy" any refuge in what ever house within the world, and will also newer function as a home outwardly. When put into homes, stands, it disappears. So why does one try to maintain, decorate dirt with gold?

Buddhist meditation has been used in science as the basis for developing mindfulness-based medical therapies like MBSR and MBCT. Please see below for details.
While this answer focuses on mindfulness-based medical therapies that are derived from Buddhist meditation techniques, it does not directly promote original Buddhist meditation practices, for medical therapy.
This Feb 2015 article from Huffington Post reports that:

Mindfulness research pioneer and founder of Mindfulness-Based Stress
Reduction, Jon Kabat-Zinn, who was in the audience at Davos, stood up
at the end of the conversation to share his thoughts on the mindful
revolution in mental healthcare, which he noted has been well underway
for several decades. As Kabat-Zinn explained, research and
testimonials from patients and clinicians suggest that we can turn
"the medication down and the meditation up."
"We’ve seen this in the clinical domain for many years. People, in
concert with their physicians... actually going off their medications
for pain, for anxiety, for depression, as they begin to learn the
self-regulatory elements of mindfulness," said Kabat-Zinn. "They
discover that the things that used to be symptomatically problematic
for them are no longer arising at the same level."

Patients, in concert with their physicians, could seek to try two therapies derived from Buddhist mindfulness meditation techniques, namely, the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). More information can be found here and here.
MBSR was founded by Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn. You can find his books here. His book that talks about MBSR is "Full Catastrophe Living".
Another interesting book by Kabat-Zinn is "The Mind's Own Physician: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the Healing Power of Meditation".
MBCT description:

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) is designed to help people
who suffer repeated bouts of depression and chronic unhappiness. It
combines the ideas of cognitive therapy with meditative practices and
attitudes based on the cultivation of mindfulness. The heart of this
work lies in becoming acquainted with the modes of mind that often
characterize mood disorders while simultaneously learning to develop a
new relationship to them. MBCT was developed by Zindel Segal, Mark
Williams and John Teasdale, based on Jon Kabat-Zinn’s
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program.

There is a TEDx Talk video by Dr. Zindel Segal, which explains MBCT and provides research evidence.
The three founders of MBCT and Kabat-Zinn also published a book called "The Mindful Way Through Depression: Freeing Yourself from Chronic Unhappiness".
The 10th Global Conference on Buddhism (17 - 18 June 2017 in Toronto, Canada) had the theme of "Neuroscience and Mental Health: Making a Mindful Connection". You can find videos from it on their Youtube channel. There were three neuroscientists who presented on Day 1, Session 3. You can find a video of that here.


text:
Civilization based on the teachings of Buddha
Would a civilization based on the teachings of Buddha ever had a need for military force? It is said in Metta Sutta that one who practices metta is free from dangers of fire, poison and weapons. Is the practice of metta enough to protect the citizens from any aggression?

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, and business in weapons and poisons is wrong livelihood for a serious lay practitioner, it is ok for a ruler or government to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice
prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the realm.
DN 26

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."
DN 16

Would a civilization based on the teachings of Buddha ever had a need
for military force?

People who practice metta are always a minority in this world. And the people who attain a successful level of metta are minority of minority.
If we consider about the ancient kings:

The King Bimbisara who had unwavering faith and was the main
upasaka-king, had a military.
The King Asoka who was the Main emperor in Buddhism, had a military.

It is said in Metta Sutta that one who practices metta is free from
dangers of fire, poison and weapons.

Such a person is secure while in the Metta Jhana, I think.
Otherwise how can the "top disciple venerable Moggallana" was attacked to death by a gang of robbers.
Even the "top Upasika in metta" was burnt alive by another wife of her husband king.
Kamma can not be overpowered always by metta, I think.

Is the practice of metta enough to protect the citizens from any
aggression?

If one practice it properly, he will get huge protections from the dangers than a non-practitioner.
But everything can not be done by metta alone, I think.

You said "civilization", not "a country". You also said "based on" - not mere "practicing".
Of course, if the entire civilization were based on the authentic Dharma, there wouldn't be a need for military force because in a Dharma-based civilization conflicts would be prevented and resolved long before they become violent.
Understand, Buddhism is all about preventing conflict in its various forms because conflict is the essence of dukkha. Mahayana Buddhism teaches the arising of conflict: fundamentally it comes from attachment to simplified overgeneralized concepts that clash with each other and with reality. In a civilization based on the teaching of Buddha, the role of conceptual overgeneralization in the arising of conflict would be as clear to everyone as the role of germs in spreading disease is clear to our civilization today.
As the danger of not hearing each other due to attachment to concepts would be clearly understood, people would take care to listen to each other and understand each other's perspective. In a Buddhist civilization, appreciation of other perspectives would be the mainstream philosophy and this alone would prevent majority of conflicts and remove the need for the military force.
Not to mention other Buddhist teachings such as loving-kindness, compassion, minimalism (being happy with little), and boundlessness aka interbeing.

It's worth remembering that Chinese martial arts flourished in Buddhist monasteries, usually for the defense of monastic lands (which were comparatively valuable). Buddhists have rarely  been overly aggressive, but they weren't completely passive in the face of aggression, either.
It's worth noting that the 'dangers' of fire, poison, and weapons aren't the physical dangers of such things. The danger is mental attachment: finding fire, poison, and weapons fascinating or beautiful; taking them as tokens of power and virility. A sword and a plow are both tools, but a sword (unlike a plow) can give a sense of power over others, and that can lead to all sorts of craving and delusions. That doesn't mean that swords should necessarily be shunned, though. It merely means we should be careful to treat swords the way we treat plows: as tools that we take out at need and then store away again.

Perhaps that line is misinterpreted.
Here is a translation of the sutta, AN 11.15 or AN 11.16, in full:

“Mendicants, you can expect eleven benefits when the heart’s release by love has been cultivated, developed, and practiced, made a vehicle and a basis, kept up, consolidated, and properly implemented.
What eleven? You sleep at ease. You wake happily. You don’t have bad dreams. Humans love you. Non-humans love you. Deities protect you. You can’t be harmed by fire, poison, or blade. Your mind quickly enters immersion. Your face is clear and bright. You don’t feel lost when you die. If you don’t penetrate any higher, you’ll be reborn in a Brahmā realm. You can expect eleven benefits when the heart’s release by love has been cultivated, developed, and practiced, made a vehicle and a basis, kept up, consolidated, and properly implemented.”

I suppose that is saying that the mind will not be harmed -- e.g. harmed by anger, harmed by fear, etc.
From the Dhammapada, Chapter 3 about the mind:

Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness.

Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara.

Wisdom never becomes perfect in one whose mind is not steadfast, who knows not the Good Teaching and whose faith wavers.

There is no fear for an awakened one, whose mind is not sodden (by lust) nor afflicted (by hate), and who has gone beyond both merit and demerit.

Realizing that this body is as fragile as a clay pot, and fortifying this mind like a well-fortified city, fight out Mara with the sword of wisdom. Then, guarding the conquest, remain unattached.

Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.

Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.

I think it's the mind that's the focus of the early Buddhist teachings -- more-so than geopolitics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a lot of doctrine about "society" e.g. the Vinaya. But consider the Punna Sutta, (SN 35.88):

Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit.

So I think that's how we're supposed to learn to live -- i.e. empty-handed, not carrying weapons around with the idea of practicing "self defence".

To answer your question though, I think that every country, empire, or civilisation does or did have a military even if it is based on the teachings of Buddha -- even Bhutan now, apparently, though I don't know why. Maybe it's a requirement for Sovereignty in modern international law.
Is it, "to protect the citizens from any aggression"? Canada for example has an army, which has fought: but never in North America, in the last 150 years or more. It's arguably "metta" (not that Canada is officially Buddhist) that "protects Canadian citizens from any aggression" from the United States for example.
A more common reason for armed force in society is I guess not military but police. I think (but I can't find the reference) that Buddhist monks are advised to avoid personal danger by avoiding places where are there are known to be dangerous bandits.
I supposed that "known to be dangerous bandits" is just the sort of event or place where a "king" will sent a "police" force -- to protect citizens.
I think that in a Buddhist context you could say there are two co-existing societies, i.e. monks, and lay-people. Monks are generally very much unarmed (perhaps a few historical anomalies e.g. the Japanese Sōhei) -- and protected by lay society (and perhaps also protected by "Deities" as quoted in the metta sutta above).
Then again the ideal monk might avoid being a target for bandits by having little they might want to steal. I suppose they could be a target for an evil bully's sheer cruelty, even in that case there's Buddhist doctrine called the Parable of the Saw:

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.
"Monks, if you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind, do you see any mode of speech, subtle or gross, that you could not endure?"
"No, Lord."
"Therefore, monks, you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind. That will conduce to your well-being and happiness for long indeed."
That is what the Blessed One said. Delighted, those monks acclaimed the Teaching of the Blessed One.

Like I said I think that -- at least for monks -- it's primarily protecting the mind, not protecting the body or personal wealth. And it's protecting the mind from "experiencing" cruelty i.e. from actually being cruel itself.

I remember that when I learned a sword form, my wife refused, she called it, "un-lady-like"!  I wonder if that's another example of "Humans love you, non-humans love you, deities protect you": i.e. women being traditionally "non-combattants" (and protected). I have heard it suggested that if women had more political power, if they were national leaders, then there'd be fewer wars, though I don't know how true that is.

I think if your mental state is always that of metta, no one would want to harm you, hence you would not be harmed by weapons, poisons etc.

I suspect that's mostly true, maybe almost always true, but not always; if it were always true the parable of the Saw wouldn't be possible. I think there's also a sutta which says metta is a protection from dangerous animals (maybe snakes) in the forest.

I believe the answer to your question is contained in the Metta Sutta itself if you view it from a particular perspective.
Consider that resolving the inner conflict which we perceive as suffering, requires us to first open our mind to seeing things the way they actually are.
Consider that opening our mind to seeing things the way they actually are requires us to first open our heart so that we can release our craving and clinging to desired sensory experiences.
Consider that the Metta sutta, like all suttas, is meant to be memorized and recited and recitation is meant to guide us towards solving a particular problem.
Consider that the Metta sutta is structured to
first open the heart so that
craving for and clinging to the desired sensory experience can be released, so that
the mind can then be stilled to the point where the inner conflict (which we perceive as suffering) can be clearly discerned, so that
the inner conflict can be resolved by discarding the āsava (sabbe saṅkhāra annica),
and we might be reborn into a new world (perceiving sensory experience from a new perspective)
AKA “seeing the world the way it actually is”.
If you view it in this way, and recite the sutta, while the inner conflict which you perceive as suffering present, with the intent of allowing the Buddha’s words to guide you towards
(1) clearly seeing the nature of the conflict and (2) resolving it, insights will naturally arise to enable you to do so.
Consider that a world where technology is advancing faster than the moral systems needed to guide their usage is likely to destroy itself. However, if the minds of the people were fully liberated, we might not only be able to stop the world from killing itself. We might also be able to put an end to old age, sickness and death.
Finally, consider the possibility that the world which the Buddha described in the Metta Sutta was the world which we should actively strive to actually bring into being.
What preconditions would need to exist in order for such a world to emerge?
Mettā Sutta
This is what should be done
By those who are skilled in goodness,
And who know the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech.
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied.
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,
Not vain and demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: in gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!
Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upward to the skies,
And downward to the depths;
Outward and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down,
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.


text:
What did Vasubandhu and Asanga say regarding Nagarjunacharya?
Given that Vasubandhu and Asanga came after Nagarjunacharya, who was a proponent of a major Buddhist school with a different philosophy. Did they or thier students like Dignaga say anything about Nagarjunacharya?

If you are looking for personal remarks, I would not be able to help out much.
You can of course find salutations made to Nagarjuna.
As a slight correction, there are differences between presentation of (say as example) Nagarjuna [NA], Vasubandhu [VB] and Asanga [AA], there are also similarities. Just based on the fact that there are differences we can't say they have different philosophies. For then based on similarities, we would have to say they are same philosophies also. Which would mean, we would be saying there are differences and similarities. That would be a better way to present, in my opinion.
All three (NA, VB, AA) of them belong to Mahayana Philosophy. All refer to Buddha as the reliable guide (amongst many other things). All their students, Dharmakirti, Santideva, Candrakirti, Atisha, Tsong Khapa (etc.) speak about or refer to Nagarjuna. They respond to different philosophical points, agree on some and differ on others.
As example one, Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakosabhasyam [AKB] speaks of Nagarjuna's Middle Philosophy of Mulamadhyamakakarika [MMK] as Nihilist. In doing so, he falls for the nihilist interpretation of MMK and thus misunderstands Nagarjuna.
As example two, Candrakirti in Madhyamakavatara [MMA] presents Nagarjuna's views in MMK in a different light and demonstrates it to be in line with Buddha's teaching, and not as nihilism.
If you could specifically ask about 1 person, say, what does 'XYZ' student of Vasubandhu or Asanga say about Nagarjuna {in Nagarjuna's 'ABC' text}, it may make it easier to provide references.


text:
Waiting vs Acting?
What does Buddhism say about waiting vs acting?
For some context, I quit my corporate job a year ago because it felt so much against my skin to be working for aggressive profit. Since then I have pursued things I have wanted to do - passions (things that I dreamed of doing), volunteering (helping others) and I have continued my meditation practice.
I am quite content with my relationships, the state of my mind, my body and my meditation practise. But for some reason, I haven't yet found a job that I feel drawn towards and I am going through my savings fast now which causes me concerns.
I don't want to be acting on the fear of going broke, I also don't want to go back to my old job. I am often faced with the conflict of waitings vs acting. How does Buddhism prescribe navigating through such a conundrum?

Just curious - do you have to like your job? Isn't it just a way to earn money for rent, bills and to do the things you want/like? Maybe you can get a part time job that doesn't involve too much engagement?

i had a similar problem when i quit my tech job over 15 years ago and decided to become an artist but without any formal training.  i lost a lot with that decision.  i don't have a job now; for over 5 years, and although my financial situation is ok, not having work in a society that demands working is a huge problem.  "everyone must work".  i thought i was golden, but i am realizing i really screwed myself...i would be careful, but you seem smart enough...

In Zen and Vajrayana subcategories of Mahayana Buddhism, acting vs waiting is a core problem to be solved by the student as she or he transitions from studying Buddhism as a theory to mastering the Dharma in practice.
You see, the key point of Dharma is realization of suchness (tathata), and a key aspect of suchness is being authentic in one's relationships with the world. To be authentic requires finding one's so-called true self or true nature (which is usually stuck waiting), liberating it from mental and emotional obscurations, and nurturing its power to act.
As my Zen Master loved to repeat, trying to find a perfect job is "the hunting dog mind" - running around, panting, chasing the squirrels, getting itself exhausted in the hope of catching something worthwhile. Instead, he taught, the perfect job grows (right where you are, wherever you are!) from your authentic action, which itself grows from the root of having found oneself.
When you act from your authentic core, the crude dichotomy of action vs inaction no longer applies. At that point there's no waiting for the next thing to find you, nor hunting dog mind - there is authentic expression of truth unfolding moment by moment, and the truth never fails, even if you don't yet know where it is taking you.

The top lay disciple (Agga-upasaka) Citta Gahapati had chosen a Celibate life without using money. Even the Ghatikara Upasaka in Kassapa Buddhas time made living by exchanging goods without using money while being a Brahmacari.
For the people who are unable to live such a life there are suttas that worth reading to get advises and clues about the proper Upasaka life while earning money.
Eg: Mangala, Sigalovada, Upasaka, Alavaka ..etc.

You have defined your problem in a way that causes you stress and suffering.
You’re feeling the stress, but you’re not comprehending it. You don’t see exactly where the stress originates. You don’t know how to cause it to cease.
I’m redefining the problem for you by splitting into two problems. The first problem: how to mitigate or eliminate stress, and live a happy life instead of a stressful one. The second: how to meet basic physical and emotional needs, in a harmless way.
The Buddha had much to say about the first problem—suffering. In fact, it’s all he taught: stress, and the ending of stress.
In tackling the first problem, he also dealt with the second problem in what he called Right Livelihood. Right Livelihood is included in his teachings on how to distinguish skillful from unskillful action, and learning how to skillfully choose those actions that lead to long term welfare and happiness over those that lead to harm and suffering.
When we underestimate the importance of the stress we experience, it tends to get ignored, grow, and overwhelm. The teachings of the Buddha are all about dealing with stress and suffering—in very pragmatic and ingenious ways—and before we are overwhelmed and incapacitated by it.

From Awareness Itself:

Another student disappeared for several months, and on her return told
Ajaan Fuang, "The reason I didn't show up is that my boss sent me to
night school for a semester, so I didn't have any time to meditate at
all. But now that the course is over, I don't want to do anything but
meditate — no work, no study, just let the mind be still."
She thought he'd be pleased to hear how intent she still was on
meditating, but he disappointed her. "So you don't want to work —
that's a defilement, isn't it? Whoever said that people can't work and
meditate at the same time?"

If you want to remain a lay person, a householder, then you have no choice but to ensure you have right livelihood for lay persons (Vanijja Sutta). It should not stop you from meditation (Piti Sutta).

do you agree that not working is a defilement?  i'm not sure from the way you constructed your answer...i don't recall 'not working' being a defilement, but perhaps in some way i can make that register...obviously society wants everyone to work, but that's not like dhamma either...

What does Buddhism say about waiting vs acting?
I don't know, and I'm not sure it's possible to say something about so general a question.
Instead I guess it may suggest either of two courses of action:

"Acting to end kamma" -- in context perhaps this might mean, "seeing the samsara and dukkha of chasing after money, I abandon that pursuit" and instead perhaps take up life as a monk.
"Right livelihood" as it's prescribed for laypeople -- working to earn a living and using money well

How does Buddhism prescribe navigating through such a conundrum?
One answer might be that Buddhism recommends a "middle way" which "avoids extremes".
In this case your two extremes are

"I don't want to be acting on the fear of going broke, I also don't want to go back to my old job."

... so can you consider doing neither of those -- see also "false dichotomy".
Might there be any other work in the world for you, other than, "working for aggressive profit"?
I found a job with a company developing software for the medical devices in hospitals, and it doesn't pay as well as the "FinTech" industry, but I "felt drawn towards it" as a worthwhile activity or honest living.


text:
Why didn't the Buddha mention about the omniscience of "future of other beings", in suttas?
In many suttas, the Buddha affirms his omniscience about the past of all the beings.
Why didn't the Buddha say something about his omniscience about the future of all the beings, in suttas?

The sutta below states that the Buddha doesn't know everything. He is not all-knowing, and not omniscient.
However, he does possess three knowledges for sure:

He could recollect his own past existences
He is able to see using his supernatural powers, how sentient beings have their existences ceased and renewed based on their karma
He is able to understand undefiled freedom of heart and freedom of wisdom, based on the ending of defilements.

There is no indication in the three knowledges above that he could definitely foresee the future states of all beings.

“Sir, I have heard this: ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing
and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus:
“Knowledge and vision are constantly and continually present to me,
while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking.”’ I trust that those
who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and do not misrepresent
him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching?
Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
“Vaccha, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They
misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”
“So how should we answer so as to repeat what the Buddha has said, and
not misrepresent him with an untruth? How should we explain in line
with his teaching, with no legitimate grounds for rebuke and
criticism?”
“‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this
you would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an
untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would
be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.
For, Vaccha, whenever I want, I recollect my many kinds of past lives.
That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons
of the world contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons
of the world contracting and expanding. I remember: ‘There, I was
named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my
food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life
ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else.
There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this,
and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that
was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn
here.’ And so I recollect my many kinds of past lives, with features
and details.
And whenever I want, with clairvoyance that is purified and
superhuman, I see sentient beings passing away and being
reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a
bad place. I understand how sentient beings are reborn according to
their deeds.
And I have realized the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by
wisdom in this very life. I live having realized it with my own
insight due to the ending of defilements.
‘The ascetic Gotama has the three knowledges.’ Answering like this you
would repeat what I have said, and not misrepresent me with an
untruth. You would explain in line with my teaching, and there would
be no legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism.”
MN 71

This sutta rejects only the type of omniscience that constantly and continually present, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking. It doesn't reject the recollectable-omniscience. The commentary says the Buddha can seen anything if he recollects.

He can't see anything he recollects e.g. a discernable beginning of Samsara could not be seen.

A discernable beginning of Samsara is considered Non-existing. Therefore the Buddha can see it as non-existing when he recollects, according to the commentaries.

King Pasadena asked the Buddha about omniscience here:

MN90:5.1: Then the king said to the Buddha,
MN90:5.2: “I have heard, sir, that the ascetic Gotama says this:
MN90:5.3: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who will claim to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception: that is not possible.’
MN90:5.4: Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?”
MN90:5.5: “Great king, those who say this do not repeat what I have said. They misrepresent me with what is false and untrue.”
...
MN90:8.1: Then the king said to the Buddha,
MN90:8.2: “Sir, might the Buddha have spoken in reference to one thing, but that person believed it was something else?
MN90:8.3: How then do you recall making this statement?”
MN90:8.4: “Great king, I recall making this statement:
MN90:8.5: ‘There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible.’”

The king accepted the Buddha's answer.

MN90:17.3: So the king said to the Buddha,
MN90:17.4: “Sir, I asked you about omniscience, and you answered.

This sutta rejects only the simultaneous omniscience. It doesn't reject the non-simultaneous omniscience. The commentary says the Buddha has omniscience but not simultaneous.


text:
Advice from Devadatta
When given advice by Devadatta (or a Devadatta-like person), should that person be ridiculed as a Buddha (i.e. the Buddha that he pretends to be), or as what he is behind the mask? Or both?
When a hypocrite calls me up to behave in decent ways, then in order not to get tangled up in his net, I naturally get the urge to ridicule the Buddha into his face (possibly before ridiculing himself), in order to give a clear sign of not adhering to fake advice, even if giving that sign requires temporarily insulting the real Buddha.  It’s as if saying “I’d rather ridicule the Buddha himself than take his Dhamma from someone like you”.

So for example if an alcoholic tells you that the Buddha's advice is to avoid alcohol, then your immediate natural urge is to reply that, "The Buddha is ridiculous"?

an alcoholic is most likely not Devadatta.

Maybe the question would be clearer if you were more specific about why you call them "a Devadatta-like person", and what advice they're trying to give.  In any case, "ridiculing the Buddha" doesn't sound like it would be my first urge -- perhaps depending on what or who you mean by "the Buddha" etc.

If we consider the ideal way, then ridiculing is an Akusala.
If what he gave was a wrong advice, then we can stay away from following it.
If a wrong person gives a right advice, we can still follow the advice but not the person.
And if any wrong person is trying to climb into the "Advisor Role" in a group by trying to giving constant advices, then we can boycott or advise him, instead of ridiculing.
Even the monks' Vinaya has procedures like "advising, formal advising in a meeting, boycotting, formal threatening, temporary expelling and expelling."

ridiculing/debasing Devadatta is unwholesome??

Ideally ridiculing is unwholesome. Therefore the best way is not to ridicule but see his fault and take an appropriate action.

If the teacher understands the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach.
If the audience understands the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach. Here, whether the teacher fully understands or follows the teaching, appears to be optional.
If both teacher and audience understand the meaning and the teaching, then that's a good enough reason to teach.

“Mendicants, taking three reasons into consideration provides quite
enough motivation to teach Dhamma to another. What three? When the
teacher understands the meaning and the teaching. When the audience
understands the meaning and the teaching. When both the teacher and
the audience understand the meaning and the teaching.
Taking these three reasons into consideration provides quite enough
motivation to teach Dhamma to another.”
AN 3.43

The urge to ridicule is part of a power struggle. It amounts to:

"This person has tried to exert power by giving advice, so I will
destroy his power by making him seem foolish."

It doesn't matter whether you ridicule the Buddha, the man, his wife, or his dog. Power struggles are tanhā; you are merely embroiling yourself in the craving for power. We can entangle ourselves in the net by struggling against it as easily as by embracing it.
Humor can be a useful tool for bringing people back to their true selves, or it can be a brutal weapon meant to prod them into egoic reactions. Mind which way you use it.
If someone offers you advice — and pardon me offering you advice, by the way — I think it's best to smile politely and then do whatever seems right. Sometimes advice is useful, sometimes it isn't, sometimes the matter is too trivial to huff and puff about. The most sophisticated timepiece skips a beat on occasion, and a broken clock is right twice a day, so judge on the merits not the expectations.
As it says in the Daodejing (pardon the code switch)

One person hears of the Way and grasps it, practicing diligently
Another hears of the Way and is interested, applying it now and then
Yet another hears of the Way and laughs out loud and such foolishness
If no one ever laughed, it wouldn't be the Way.

Arguments, disputes, ridicule can also be found in Sutta Nipata 4.11.

should Devadatta not be ridiculed?

@ErikKaplun: Do you think ridiculing Devadatta will help you achieve liberation? Do you think ridiculing anyone will help anyone achieve liberation? Do you think that ridicule is right speech, right thought, or right action?

When getting in trade (give, serve, accept...) with Devadatta and his host, then of course one's relation toward the Gems is broken, no more prosperity is possible till it's restored.
That isn't a matter of merely hypocritical (wrong estimated): but simply evil minded and objected toward gains in the world.
But other than from Devadatta and his host -- if getting actually good advice, even if seeming being not from a perfect one, good to investigate them properly -- as one easy could mistakenly think the Buddha and his good disciples being the bad ones, in the deep net of trading fakes in your cyber world, being part of a large corrupted family.


text:
Where is the most knowledgeable Abhidhamma Community?
Who are the most knowledgeable Abhidhamma masters today? Where are the active Abhidhamma communities?

country
lineage
monastery
institute
teacher
group
website
forum

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi is highly skilled and experienced in teaching the Abhidhamma. He's my go-to-source for Abhidhamma material and teachings.
He made several Abhidhamma Study Retreats that can all be watched on Youtube and the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma".
May this be of use to you.

He is praised for his scholarship but somewhat looked down by classical abhidhamma masters because his writing style and foot-notes indirectly arouse doubts about Abhidhamma itself.

I don't agree on that. I think he is one of the best Abhidhamma teachers to this day.


text:
If the Tathagata exists after death, is there anyone to witness it?
This is different from asking, "does the Tathagata exist after death? or not? or both? or neither?"

What do you mean? Why do you think no one will witness it? Question unclear.

This question was not answered by the Buddha not because of "there is no one to witness it".
The reason is something else, according to the Commentary.
The question was asked from a position that believes in a "Person". The questioner thinks there is a person called Thatagata and ask what will happen to that person.
In Theravada there is no any real entity of Person or Self. There are only Phenomena.
If the Buddha answered as "tathagata does not exist after death", then the questioner would understand it as "the person (self of) tathagata does not exist after death".
If the Buddha answered as "there is no real entity called person", then it is not an answer to the question. The Omniscient Ones talk to the point and don't provide answers in whatsoever invalid way.
There is a lesson series by a renowned expert in Abhidhamma which clarifies many of such issues:  (Fundamentals of Theravada Doctrine)

Thus I heard: the Buddha was asked, "I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken word", and he did not answer, because the person asked about nothing, so there was no need whatsoever to reply. Theravada is limited in its' attempt at hierarchical proof here, in Sanskrit it means, "wisdom of the elders", which is a behavior, whereas what is Vajrayana, "diamond transcendetal vehicle" is just a cool concept. Behavior versus concept- what is theoretical always wins. Yet the theory of wisdom, especially among elders, is very valid. Buddha could only answer one way.

I am convinced that Theravada philosophy, as outlined by Blake's link, is identical in rhetorical and literal sense to computer science: there are sets of heaps of aggregates and discriminants and perceptions of a model but- and one must really jump to zen here- it all means nothing alltogether to someone who is attached in any way to its' process.


text:
Why are Concepts not Impermanent?
Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both?

Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and
not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca
or dukkha.
According to Abhdhamma:

dhamma = paramata + pannatti
paramata = sankhata + asankhata
sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa
asnkhata = nibbana
dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti

All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of
essence/self/ownership/hegemony.
Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti
are anatta only.
Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.
Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.

In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object). It is not the
Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a
concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept.

The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the
Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. Pannatti is an object. This
fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.

The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept
of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”.

What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept. It is a fake object
that “Conceptualizing” points to.
The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.
So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha.

Conventional Reality is not Impermanent!
Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)

Please be cautious for the source from where you read about Buddhism- whether it be online, books or people. Especially if one is new to it. "Conventional reality is impermanent" is something that is accepted by all schools of Buddhism.

The Theravada Abhidhamma, Vinaya Parivarapali and Commentary says that Concepts are not Anicca or Dukkha but only Anatta.

Please quote the actual source. Thank you

To my understanding, only two things are not impermanent.
The first is Nibbana, based on Ud 8.1 and Ud 8.3.
The second is the three marks of existence, based on AN 3.136.
For other concepts - let's take the example of the concept of a chariot from SN 5.10. If no one thought of it, would the concept of a chariot arise and exist on its own? I don't think so.

“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no
water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension
of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other
world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or
going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not
established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the
end of suffering.”
Ud 8.1

“There is, mendicants, an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned. If there were no unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned, then you would find no escape here from the born,
produced, made, and conditioned. But since there is an unborn,
unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, an escape is found from the
born, produced, made, and conditioned.”
Ud 8.3

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

Would the "Concept of Chariot" arise and exist on its own, even when someone thought of it? (Theravada always considers the Concept as an Object.)

the way in which the question is formulated is non-sense. concepts are mental constructs, sankhara. and all constructs, material and mental, are impermanent, sabbe sankhara anicca. from a buddhist perspective it is very straight forward and non debatable, actually.

concepts are not independent, but their meaning persists. concepts are not living, why does their permanence matter?

in case you find the original question irrelevant, you should take it up with the one asking it

As Buddhists, we should not take seriously those who engage in unsubstantiated speech. Whether or not what the poster said is true according to his beloved Abhidhamma Commentary is irrelevant. The poster has not provided any links to relevant texts, which makes their speech unsubstantiated.
At the DhammaWheel links, in defense of this unsubstantiated speech, another poster of unsubstantiated speech said:

What Eko Care has said is correct according to the Classical texts.
The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. Pannatti is an object. This fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.

In the Suttas, all conditioned things are impermanent, including objects perceived by the mind. There suttas explicitly on this subject, such as:

If anyone says, ‘mind-objects are self’, that is not tenable.The
arising and vanishing of craving is evident...
MN 148

Bhikkhus, Forms are impermanent... Sounds … Odours … Tastes … Tactile objects … Mind Objects are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself.
SN 35.4

Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to
destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
SN 12.20


text:
Are "Concepts about Real" Concepts?
In Theravada, the Concepts are considered unreal ("person", "chariot" etc.). Then what about the "Concepts about Real" ("red", "perception")? Are they Concepts? or Real?

It is an important question that I have seen many Abhidhamma learners asking. It might at first glance, seem like a childish question, if you don't think about it properly.

Seems like useless conjecture and proliferation to think about this and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

As an aside, in its form this question reminds me of the topic in Mathematics which asks something like, "Is the set of sets itself a set, and does it contain itself?" -- which can be paradoxical and discussed extensively -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set -- and I guess might be more-or-less related to the "completeness theorem". It's not a kind of topic that I've seen much of before on this site.

I'm not sure that "unreal" is the best translation. "conventions" might be closer to the purpose of the teaching.

There is a tendency in people who are already tired with worldly sciences, to think some important Abhidhamma thoughts as unnecessary or too mathematical. But it is not the case.

The purpose of this site is not to say, "Here is an important question, and here is my correct answer to that." Instead it's to ask other people to try to answer your question if there's something you don't know or want help with; and, to help answer questions posted by other people.

@Blake. Please stop spamming the front page with questions..

Actually "Concepts about Real" are Concepts. They are called "Vijjamana Pannatti". It is found in the Commentary.

Conventional Reality is two-fold.

Nama Pannatti: Name of the Concept
Attha Pannatthi: Meaning(idea) of the Concept

Nama Pannatti again is six-fold.

Vijjamana Pannatti : Concepts about Real (eg: blue, mind)
Avijjamana Pannatti : Concepts about Unreal (eg: person)
Vijjamanena Vijjamana Pannatti : "Concepts about Real" by "Concepts about Real" (eg: eye-consciousness)
Vijjamanena Avijjamana Pannatti : 'Concepts about Unreal" by 'Concepts about Real" (eg: blue-shirt)
Avijjamanena Vijjamana Pannatti : 'Concepts about Real" by 'Concepts about Unreal" (eg: mango-smell)
Avijjamanena Avijjamana Pannatti : 'Concepts about Unreal" by 'Concepts about Unreal" (eg: sissy-boy)

Conventional Reality is not Impermanent!


text:
What are the "Four Vinayas"?
The Mahāpadesa Sutta describes about the "Four Great Authorities (Mahāpadesas)" that a disciple should refer, if any one claims some new thing to be the word of the Budhha.

Mahāpadesa Sutta Summary:
The Buddha tells the monks of the four mahāpadesā to be respected by
them. If a monks says he has a certain teaching direct from the Buddha
himself, his statement should be compared with the rest of the Vinaya
and Dhamma; if these do not agree, it should be rejected; if they do,
accepted.
The same applies to that which is said to have been learnt from a
group of monks led by a Thera from a body of senior monks residing in
a certain place, or from a single senior monk, proficient in the
Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā. A.ii.167ff.; the sutta is
incorporated in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (D.ii.123ff).

Apart from the above four great authorities, Theravadins use another four Authorities called "The Four Vinayas". What are they?

According to the commentary on that sutta (via Ven. Mingun Sayadaw):

Suttas
Suttānuloma: the great authorities as described in the Vinaya and in the discourses
Ācariyavāda/Aṭṭhakathā: the ancient commentaries
Attanomati: views held by elder bhikkhus


text:
Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?
I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas?

Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha?
The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha
(aathaapi.org) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma
sutta.

Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Non-Buddhists
Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha (and
Alobha-adosa-amoha)

I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your
comments.

Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him.
So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating
other things mentioned in the Tipitaka.
If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above
“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ
paṭicca vuttaṃ.
So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in
reference to this was it said.
This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima
nikaya where,

An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first.
Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases)
Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned.
At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for
Niddesa.

Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc.
Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:
“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni,
…’ti – ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa. “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni
veditabbānī’ti – iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?
‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ
manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti – iti yaṃ taṃ
vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.
“‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ This is the
recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields. ‘The six
interior sense fields should be understood.’ – That’s what I said, but
why did I say it? There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be
understood.’ – That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

All evil is rooted in "just" Lobha-dosa-moha, and all good in a-*, so what's the point, good householder. And yes, the talk is given to those without refuge yet.


text:
English Translations of Commentary
Where are the English Translations of Commentary?
Have all of them translated in to English?

Could you please elaborate which commentary's English translation you want? No, not all of them have been translated into English


text:
Where does the Buddha say, There is no happiness without calm?
Where in the canon does the Buddha say, There is no happiness without calm?
I've heard the statement only second hand, and paraphrased.

"There’s no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace."

~ Dhammapada 202, transl. Thanissaro https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Dhp/Ch15.html

Thanks, I think this might be what I was thinking of. What I wanted to see was the phrasing: it should be "other than", as you quoted, and not "without", as I wrote. Venerable Thanissaro explains it's an important difference, here: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ePubDhammaTalks_v3/Section0079.html

is passion the same as lust?  it could be, but perhaps passion can still be good...

It's the other way round according to Kimattha Sutta.
Without joy, you cannot have serenity.
Without serenity, you cannot have concentration.
Without concentration, you cannot become liberated i.e. attain Nibbana.
Dhammapada 204 says that Nibbana is the highest bliss. And without serenity, you cannot attain the highest bliss. So the other way round is also explainable.

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse
as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from
remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as
its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its
purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose,
pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose,
concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of
things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of
things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of
things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose,
disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its
purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision
of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the
consummation of arahantship."
Kimattha Sutta (Ven. Thanissaro's translation)

The Pali terms used:

skillful virtues (or skillful ethics) = sīlā
freedom from remorse (or having no regrets) = avippaṭisāra
joy = pāmojja
rapture = pīti
serenity (or tranquility) = passaddha
pleasure (or bliss) = sukha
concentration (or immersion) = samādhi
knowledge & vision of things as they actually are = yathābhūtañāṇadassana
disenchantment (or disillusionment) = nibbidā
dispassion = virāga
knowledge & vision of release = vimuttiñāṇadassana

Please see here for Pali-English translation based on Ven. Sujato's translation.

Nice. And I noticed that in the updated version of Kimattha Sutta, Ajahn Geoff has replaced the word "Serenity" with "Calm". Thanks.

Wow this is great

I referred to the translator, but omitted the word "Ajaan" before his birth name. Very sloppy, but no disrespect was intended. Sincere apologies to anyone offended by my blunder.

And now I've edited that comment.

Am I right here that joy and rapture and serenity here is piti and sukha? As in one needs piti and sukha to then cultivate jhana (concentration)

@Remyla https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/piti

@Remyla it can be hard to get exact translations, but you can try...i think sukha means well-being (happiness)

@Remyla the entire dialog sounds like jhana unfolding

@Remyla In this translation by Ven. Thanissaro, joy is pamojja, rapture is piti, serenity is passaddha and pleasure is sukha. For the original Pali you can find it together with Ven. Sujato's translation here (click View and enable translation if you don't see it). He translated passaddha as tranquility and sukha as bliss. Ven.  Bodhi too translated sukha as pleasure. The sutta is definitely talking about piti and sukha of jhana.

I asked because it seemed like the bojhangas and at least a sort of successive stages or perquisites for jhana progression. Was just trying to clarify my assumptions and it seems from what you all replied with my assumption was correct.

@blue_hefe There's a readable dictionary here of frequently-used terms: sukha. And here. And in detail, quoting the PTS dictionary, here. Also Wikipedia. I suppose I think of it as the more-or-less the opposite of, perhaps more precisely the absence of, dukkha.

@ChrisW yes, i understand the same, opposites

@blue_hefe I was going to say that "it's the opposite thing", but to the extent that "every (conditioned) thing is dukkha", maybe sukha isn't a thing but maybe more like an absence (and maybe therefore not very attractive to some people) -- see e.g. this answer.

Calm (pasada) is the precondition of Sukha (heal, happiness) on the lokuttara-paṭiccasamuppāda, co-depending-path beyond, found in all teachings of the path.

https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2661/should-we-use-honorifics-when-referring-to-monks


text:
Talking to dead loved ones
Could talking with dead loved ones be in line with the proper practice of the Buddha? If proper practice permits talking to dead loved ones, then what is the proper way to talk to dead loved ones and/or the improper way to talk to dead loved ones?

how do you talk to loved dead ones?  i want to as well...

How can you talk to a bunch of phenomena ie. the 5 Aggregates that's constantly arising and perishing??

I don't know that it's the "practice of the Buddha" -- though there are suttas in which he tells the audience, the state in which a deceased person is [re]born. You might infer something about the proper practice of the Buddha, from the behaviour of his disciples at the end of the Parinibbana sutta.
However perhaps something like it is a "Buddhist practice", for some forms of Buddhism -- I don't know details (haven't experienced it) but see for example, Wikipedia: Ghost festival, and its links to various "related Buddhist traditions" in other countries.
I suppose the "proper" way is with metta -- "May you be well".
And, following the Kimattha sutta, "without remorse".
In my personal experience it has been, when I'm dreaming. And the "reality" of those dreams, in contrast to "reality" when awake, had me think twice about what "reality" is: for example how much of it, including perception of the loved one, is mind-made.
See also Various types of death

You can talk directly to someone not in the room with metta like everyone in the world but a dead loved one, are they supposed to be somewhere in samsara? Are there accounts of ghosts that were related to a living person?

You're asking about "somewhere" but I can't say "where" my wife is now -- because "where" generally seems to have a physical meaning, which maybe no longer applies -- she expected to be reborn and is I think still with me as a karmic imprint, result of her kamma and mine. I know exceedingly little of ghosts from the Pali canon, I do suspect there's doctrine about it in Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps "ghosts" aren't described as benevolent, on the other hand maybe "tulkus" are, so.

Communicating with a Departed Loved One
According to Buddhism, we are reborn time and again based on our karma. This means that immediately after death, we are sent to a place determined by our own actions. This cycle continues until an individual attains enlightenment.
We cannot predict with absolute certainty where we will be reborn after death. If an individual is reborn as a ghost or God, they may retain some memories from their past life. However, if they are reborn as a human or animal, they usually don’t have any recollection of their past life. Those in hell may also be aware of their past life and actions.
Buddhism teaches us that death is inevitable for all, so we should avoid forming overly strong attachments to anyone. The cycle of life, or Samsara, is very long and we may have been related to each other in some past life. Bond, desire,.. cause to rebirth.
You may be able to communicate with your departed loved ones, especially if they have been reborn as ghosts or gods (although this doesn’t always work). Gods usually don’t want to continue their past relationships with our world as they exist in a different time dimension and lead luxurious lives.
This communication can have positive or negative effects on you. (I think more negative)
There is also possibility for be together life after life some time even until end of samsara (according to their karma and strong wish).
It’s beneficial to perform positive karma when someone passes away and wish something like, “I am doing good deeds and I hope that my actions contribute to the well-being of my departed loved one.” If the departed one is reborn in a realm where they can receive another person’s karma (some ghost and God realms), they will receive it.