text:
Buddhism texts which have least amount of disinformation
I am interested in learning about Buddhism.
But I want to learn it from teachings of Buddha or other those texts which have not disinformed over the course of history.
For example , if you read the book: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
you will come to know how Hindu priestly caste ( Brahmins)  were keen to do harm Buddhism as they were against equality. I think there is a possibility disinformation might have added in buddist texts in other regions of the world also.

So, can you please tell which text about buddhism contains least amount of disinformation and are best to learn about buddhism for a beginner?

I shall be really thankful!

disinformation is definitely the wrong word. buddhism is a syncretic religion and not only the buddha has authority in it. if you simply mean "truest" then the question is opinion based

I feel the core teachings of the Buddha that he taught over and over again in different ways are the most authentic teachings that always fit with themselves.

All Buddhists texts acknowledge the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are not disinformation. They are simply the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are not obvious and they are worth studying in depth:

MN141:8.1: “Near Benares, in the deer park at Isipatana, the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha rolled forth the supreme Wheel of Dhamma. And that wheel cannot be rolled back by any ascetic or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or by anyone in the world.
MN141:8.2: It is the teaching, advocating, establishing, clarifying, analyzing, and revealing of the four noble truths.
MN141:8.3: What four?
MN141:9.1: The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

The Buddha also instructs us to determine by our own practice what is true. We have to study and practice with proper attention to what is skillful in the context of the Four Noble Truths.

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,

One can get lost in the vast sea of books about Buddhism. But at some point, we always end up studying the suttas and discussing them with teachers and good spiritual friends.  The Pali Canon or Tipitaka is an excellent resource that has been extensively verified and compared with other historical references in many countries.  We no longer speak Pali, and therefore must rely on translations into our own language. Such translations can be found in many places (e.g., suttacentral.net). However, in our search for truth we will often need to learn some Pali for the clearest understanding.

if the 4NTs are not understood, mistranslated, etc, they also become disinformation.

There are Three Refugees, namely, The Buddha, The Dhamma & The Noble Sangha.
The Dhamma is defined as follows:

‘The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.'
SN 16.3

It follows, the Buddha taught as follows:

“Do you speak only of what you have known, seen and understood for yourselves?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
MN 38

Therefore, if you wish to learn Buddhism, it is ideal to view thus interpret the teachings as something your mind must experience.

I like Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's work. He's like the go-to monk in the West. I have all his books and he made several major works on the Nikayas. My dream is that he will one day make a translation of The Dhammapada.


text:
Question about vitakka and vicara. How to reinforce upper jhanas (without vitakka and vicara)
Sometimes i am keeping some mental object in mind, free from anger or greed, and for a moment i feel piti and sukha over my entire body. Sometimes this piti and sukha keep with me for a long time.
But even in first jhana i keep my mental object in mind, like blue kasina (whondering world all blue) or parts of body.
Sometimes the piti and sukha leaves.
I read that after the first jhana we need to abandon the vitakka and vicara. But how?
I need to keep my focus in some mental object or just let the things go at their own pace, in my mind.
How to i reinforce the upper jhanas if i need to abandon the mental objects?
Ps: sometimes i feel piti and sukha, when concentrate into the kammathana, both in public and in my cave (bedroom).

Hello, there are plenty of answers on here specifically about the second jhana, please use the search feature.

I read that after the first jhana we need to abandon the vitakka and vicara. But how?

The practice you're doing, is based on Vism. and their redefinition of jhāna, vitakka, etc.
If you want to follow the Buddha's definition of jhāna, then you have to follow the buddha's definition of vitakka so you know what V&V is in first jhāna and what you are removing to enter second jhāna, as described here: (my collection of notes, contains links to all the sutta passages that use vitakka in jhāna context)
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/vitakka/index.html
If you prefer to follow the LBT (late buddhist teaching) redefinition of 'jhāna', then just keep doing what you're doing, and it will improve naturally. They redefine 'vitakka' and vicāra as the subverbal attention on your kasina. As you become skilled in staying on the kasina with very little effort or resistance, that's the gradual  removal of V&V. Vicāra is redefined as keeping your attention focused on the kasina. "second jhāna" with V&V removed is redefined to mean you no longer had to exert so much force and energy to keep your mind from drifting away from the kasina.

Leave house first, as higher Dhamma isn't taught to householder by Noble Ones and what's the use of blind teaching blind, good householder.
Holding on house they just have the stand: there is no house, or there is, caught in this or that view, extreme, incapable of even understand kāya. So penetrating through house opens the path, yet who could if not even aware of it. No Saddha (no surrender), no path but just any certain stand, even Jhana is taken as a stand by those not surrender.
Doubters (on house/stand-holders) might give (already gave) of course 'smart' answers, good householder, so nothing to worry.

There is no awareness of the physical body in jhana. In MN 119, the word 'kaya' does not refer exclusively to the physical body.
Also, piti & sukha do not cease in the 1st and 2nd jhanas.
Also, there are different degrees & levels of piti & sukha therefore not all piti & sukha are factors of jhana.
The Buddha taught jhana is reached by making 'letting go' or 'surrender' ('vossagga') the meditation object (SN 48.10). Therefore, willfully asserting the mind upon a meditation object is not related to jhana.
Vitakka & vicara in jhana does not mean 'ordinary thinking'. Instead, in jhana, vitakka & vicara are subtle movements of the mind drawn towards the piti & sukkha. Vitakka & vicara end in the 2nd jhana by the mind itself directly seeing the non-peacefulness of vitakka & vicara. Thus the suttas say the 2nd jhana is "born from concentration" ("samādhijaṁ").
In summary, vitakka & vicara do not create jhana or make jhana more firm. Instead, vitakka & vicara are like obstacles or impurities in jhana.
In conclusion, jhana is free from the five hindrances, which includes 'doubt'. Minds that have reached real jhana are totally free from doubt about it therefore don't ask questions about jhana on internet forums.

Except that doubt will rearise once the conditions of jhana have passed.  If there wasn't rearising, then even the first jhana would be anuttara samyak sambodhi.  The first paragraphs are correct, the last isn't Buddhism.

@asd123 thanks for the elucidation

@Dhammadhatu in spite of you discourage people for questioning about jhana, you have an answer from another question that brought light to my mind. Thank you so much

no. doubt will not rearise when jhana has passed. For example, the Buddha did not always abide in jhana yet obviously the Buddha was totally free from doubt.

Right, because he had eradicated that obstacle with insight.  Just because one attains jhana does not mean that doubt, et all are permanently eradicated.  If that were the case, the Buddha would have become the Buddha as a baby under the rose apple tree.

Show the sutta passages  that define vitakka and vicara you described.

Show the sutta passages that define vitakka and vicara as you described. –

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the websites to learn Buddhism from start?
I am a 25 year old who has become interested in Buddhism due to personal reasons.

Are there any good websites which have material to understand Buddhism from the start?

Can you please recommend them if there are any?

Ken Ward's website is pretty straightforward, fuss free and tidy

I am going through a really tough period and that's why I am unable to check all answers and accept one. As soon as I feel better and have time, I will do it. Please bear with me.

A classic book for a beginner to read is "What the Buddha Taught" by Ven. Walpola Rahula, which can be downloaded here.
The ebook "Without and Within" by Ven. Ajahn Jayasaro, available in PDF and epub formats, is 127-pages long and is meant to be a collection of questions and answers on Buddhism for beginners.
The Basics of Buddhism podcast series by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) seems to be good. Ven. Ajahn Brahm, who features in some of these podcasts, is also a famous speaker on Youtube.
Two good beginner articles to read are The Buddha and His Dhamma by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Tricycle's Buddhism for Beginners has some nice articles.
If you want to feel close to a Buddhist community, watch the live and recorded videos of the BSWA on their Youtube Channel. During the live sessions, you can submit questions. Sometimes they have live events like the five precepts initiation ceremony on Wesak Day and the occasional monk ordination ceremony.
You can learn the basics of Buddhist meditation as taught by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu either using the booklet or the Youtube videos. You can join the online meditation courses also, where you could have interaction with other course participants.
Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has also written many great answers on this website, which would be helpful to a beginner. His YouTube channel also has many good videos for beginners.
When you want to deep-dive into the teachings of the Buddha, use the accesstoinsight.org website's Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings. The book "In the Buddha's Words" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi is also highly recommended.

I am not sure this will be useful for English speaker but some contents are in English
http://watnapp.com
I like this approach which based on the Buddha words.

To begin with, good householder, as it's a path of surrender (saddha):
Respect, Confidence and Patient
Sensitivity through Generosity
and a most seldom noble domain, What is a boarderland, how to recognice?.
Others are just consume places and dedicated for trades in the world and to increase debts.

"The essays in this book present views on basic elements in the Buddhist path: the attitudes, concepts, and practices that lead to total freedom for the mind. If the views are right, they themselves form a part of the path."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Noble Strategy: Essays on the Buddhist Path" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/NobleStrategy/Section0001.html

Community forums like suttacentral.net and dhammawheel.com are a good way to participate in public discourse, learning basics and seeing how confused people are.
The archaic texts are primarily included in the Pali Nikayas & Vinaya, those directly attributed to the Buddha and disciples during the first 300 years of the dispensation. Anguttara, Samyutta, Digha, Majjhima, Suttanipata, Udana & Itivuttaka and some like Dhammapada & Gathas (poems of elders) are generally held to be the earliest. These texts are found on sites like accesstoinsight and suttacentral.
Later texts from 200BC-0 and particular from 1st century and on such as Abhidhammas, Mahayana and commentary literature comprise most of Buddhist literature and there is no general doctrinal alignment between them as they are interpretative works.
I think the most important thing is

The mastering & learning of Sutta expression
Penetrating the meaning of Sutta expression

Participation in public discourse can be useful to get oriented & familiarizing yourself with the Buddhist community as well as being around texts being discussed but it can be misleading as well because people post as they see it and are usually somewhat self-righteous in their assertions.
There are also various Buddhists who produce content online as to their best ability, eg the monks Yuttadhamma, Brahm, Sujato, Bodhi, Nyanamoli and others. My recommendation is to listen remaining skeptical because they are also not in alignment but can help you develop intellect because nobody is wrong about everything even tho some are wrong about essentials.

If you're interested in the earliest version of Buddhism, rather than later versions of Buddhism which can differ quite radically, I maintain a list of recommended teachers and their resources here. Your best bet would be any books from Thānissaro Bhikkhu.
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/04/teachers-who-teach-4-jhanas-correctly.html

You can learn Buddhism on this very website called Buddhism Stack Exchange.
You learn Buddhism by asking questions that are relevant to improving & developing your life.
If you are interested in the history of Buddhism, you can start with

The First Three Sermons of the Buddha
The story of the Buddha after his awakening.

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


text:
Does the material, make, physical properties of a Mala/Rosary matter? Is there more to it than just a counting device?
I have a 108 bead mala (Rudraksh) which I use to chant a single mantra. I also have another bodhi seed mala which I use to chant a different mantra.
I've always wondered what the difference was between a physical, 'authentic' mala versus using something like a digital counter. I get that there is some kind of tactile/memory related property to using a physical mala, but is it really significant? Is a mala simply just a tool to help one keep count, or is there more to it?
I've heard explanations that the physical make of the mala actually matters, confers some kind of energetic benefit to the user, stores the power of the mantra depending on the material, so on and so forth.
I ask because I recently saw an Asian electronics company release a set of 'smart prayer beads' which are a lot more portable than your traditional 108 bead mala and it got me thinking about whether the make of it really matters more than its ability to keep count.

Eight precepts incl. not to use malas, and of course such has nothing to do with eighter merits nor with the path, good householder. Not to speak of greedy swifts to media...
The One-hundred-and-eight Exposition

The mala of the eight or ten precepts is flower garlands while the mala of the question is rosary or counting beads, probably used more in Tibetan Buddhism or Pure Land Buddhism than Theravada.

Nevertheless nothing to do with the Dhamma of the Buddha, but simply a useless ritual.


text:
Historical works to know why Buddhism diminished from India
I am interested in knowing how buddhism diminished in India.
1 year back, I read this book:
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/History_Of_Hindu_Imperialism.html?id=51dWPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
But the author is not a historian.
Can you tell me references by Historians about how Buddhism diminished from India?

I closed this question as a duplicate of existing questions. Please see if the linked questions answer your question also.

Also from [history.SE] SE: The decline of Buddhism in India around the 12th century


text:
Reflecting duties of good friends near conflicts
My person thought it's possible good to count and remember the reaction of Dhammikas when "fellows" get in conflict. Not taking side, what are the useful supports in regard of conflicts in other single relations?
While common fools, group-identifying, increase conflicts, how does a wise give helpful support for all? How do faithful householder, faithfull Brahmans, wise recluse, pull out nourishment of heat?

What ever reason, what ever one might feel right in his ways or wrongly treated: A Dhammika advices to abstain from wrong doing, reminds that letting go leads to peace. Gives comment-less what's needed: dwelling, food, medicine, cloth. A wise person does not take side, does not give any anchors that conceit and heat can grow, either on this or on the other side. A wise person reminds on the root thinking which leads upward and beyond and remembers that to take on it is nothing one should demand from others but ones own goodness and liberating way:

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
AN 10.176

While the fools take side, even provide means for killing each other for their own sake, gains, impure and defiled, the wise person, having not only done his duties in this way, but acted like a Brahma, takes then leave, renounces in the forest, becomes even one never to return again in this world, letting the world burn in accordance to beings own kamma.
Saying so, it's time to leave the slaves of their desires, unwilling for any skilful efforts, here behind with this gift of Dhamma, providing with deathlessness.

The Path of Buddha-Dhamma has three aspects, namely:

sila (morality)
samadhi (concentration)
panna (wisdom).

For example, DN 31 says the duty of bhikkhus is to teach laypeople sila (morality).
Therefore, in many cases of conflict, the solution is morality rather than abandoning self-identifying.
For example, the corrupt monk teaches laypeople to do evil that monks are forbidden from doing, such as making false declarations about superhuman states, such as jhana. This example is about sila (morality). Its not about self-identifying. Fake overestimated jhana is fake overestimated jhana regardless of self-identifying with it. Here, the solution is to abandon false speech rather than to abandon self-identifying.
In summary, in DN 16, the Buddha taught his good disciples refute (annihilate) heretics with wrong view. This is about morality (speaking the truth about the Buddha's Teaching) rather than about self-identifying. The fool with wrong view that also mistakes vibhava for non-identification (atammayata) still goes to hell. In hell, the heat is very hot.

I was trying to see the answer to the question, "how does a wise give helpful support?" From the way the answer started, I thought the answer might be going to say "morality" (so maybe it started well); and then, that the summary of next paragraph about so-called evil might be "no lying" and no deception about "jhana" (less on-topic but still ok). But to my ear though the last paragraph about annihilating heretics sounds like fanning conflict -- the opposite of denourishing heat -- and being self-righteous about "speaking the truth about the Buddha's Teaching", i.e. māna,

sorry but your comment is wrong Chris. Refuting heretics is about upholding truth, as my answer said. That is why DN 16 literally says to refute false doctrines.

If in DN 16 you're referring to the Buddha's talking to Mara, he says per Ven. Sujato's translation "refuting the doctrines" -- that's not "refuting heretics" (let alone trying to annihilate them) -- I think the difference is important.

Same same just different words - refute & annihilate appear to be synonyms. For example , there is a suttas where the Buddha calls himself an annihilator.

also as moderator of this forum, u should know by now to never use Sujato as an authority. This would only lead to more conflict.

I meant I think that there's an important difference between refuting a doctrine and refuting a person.

adverse opinions = heretical opinions


text:
What happens to the abusive monk?
I know a person who is fairly expert on Dhamma and in early times practised well; meditating up to 10 hours per day. But today this person spends at least five hours per day doing physical rehabilitation due to an unfortunate injury. Yet this person is constantly harassed by a troll monk who insists this rehabilitating person become a monk. While this person spends 5 hours per day doing rehabilitation, this monk appears to spend 5 hours per day trolling the internet rather than practising meditation. For example, sometimes when this person wants to sit, their body must walk. Other times, when this person wants to walk, their body must sit. Sometimes they want to quietly breathe, but the body may cough (which would disturb other monks).
What happens to the abusive monk whose actions can cause distress & trauma (to a similar fool)? Are there any suttas about what happens to evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe?

Kamma isn't different working for monk or householder, good householder. Yet sure, people love victim-blaming. To judge right could be just made for both individual seperate. Neither can be assumed that the one experience discomfort really knowns the reason, nor could it be garanted that assumed 'trolling' is really such. Sick people tend to blame even helping hands, like dogs easy bite even their keeper.
Of what's kusala, what's not, good householder knows, at least literary. Why trying to pain a pointless outwardly judgement? Buddhism doesn't work like that.
Why not seeking direct approach and solve the issue, but instead seek after a small world-war approaching others when kamma starts ripping?
It may of course happen that somebody used to troll gets trolled, or at least feels as if. Remembering a little on own old deeds might help, not only to be able to bear vipaka but also to finally stop doing evil minded things.
If the answer doesn't releases, but even causes anger in addition: well, no way to help one already on the road downwardly.
Good householder knows well the reason of his vipaka, and if he would have practiced correct at any time of his life, instead of developing samadhi based on wrong view, he would have arrived at right view already, would no more have doubts nor would he try to charge others for his own heritage, his past and present deeds. Who would have compassion with someone who used to harm, still harms, Noble Ones, aside of a Noble One? Others might take side in hope for own gains, of course.
Just stop it, and turn to good friends. Confessing, pardon and simply leading a good and virtuous life, having found refuge maybe right here for the first time.
While others might provide happily weapons, my person likes to remind that there isn't much time left and real duty, that of leaving house and stand, still not done. Sure, some believe that there is no life after, but why they then nevertheless seek for heavens and fear hell even here... Stop it! For goid householders own sake, nobody else bears the fruits, here or in next existence. Remember, much sickness is caused by tendency of harming others and trolling around.
Understand?

this answer appears to confuse Buddhism for Christianity; trying to save others. it appears contrary to the life of a Buddhist renunciate

Fools already on the road to hell usually can only increase the speed. Nobody can help good Dhammadhatu... what ever disguise, any more. It all started by harming the Noble ones. Here you "are". Nothing but own kamma can be blamed.

sorry but this is not an answer to the question. the question is about uncontrolled monks trolling in internet and not following the Buddha's Path

which Noble Ones was harmed? what happened to those Noble Ones? how were they harmed?

Only a fool or a silly dog, regard a helping hand as enemy. Only one who stopped trolling (disturbe with evil mind) knows the different. For a fool help appears as trolling.

Good householder, as often told, harmed good monks and nuns a lot and now cries for victim-blame, now as he can no more escape the kamma. Calls for "EU, US...Nato" See, I am poor! Simply stop and leave home/stand. Good to stop the Asura within own heart first.

This comment appears to be victim-blaming others for harming Noble Ones. Its a very confusing comment.

Not at all. The "abusive monk" lives comfortable under the Khema, holds neither any rights, nor hinders one in doing either good or bad. It's householders good choice that leads to increase or leaving suffering behind.

sorry but the "abusive monk" trolls the worldly internet and is not viveka. the "abusive monk" appears engaged in false speech declaring false attainments which is a parajika offense. Defeat.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Good householder is always welcome to access Noble Domain forum.sangham.net if wishing for going to refuge under all three Gems. Why using the "enemies" means? That's inhonest, the lefties ways, not that of dhammika.

sorry but MN 95 says the householder examines the monk for states of greed, hatred and delusion. sorry but this householder has zero faith in Johann. forum.sangham.net = Mara forum

work finished for the day. layperson must work to make money; just like monk must be virtuous to earn a livelihood (unless the monk lives in dependence on a virtuous monk). time to finish with internet now.

Dont must: like, desire. What ever one desires, there he is bond. Some have already done all duties, but one without right view thinks all are as equal foolish and bond like him. Not willing to leave house, one stays slave of his desires, stays slave and even heads down.

No one escapes their kamma (good or bad). Doesn't matter if its a layperson or monastic.

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. The system flagged this as a low quality answer. This answer is too short and doesn't contain enough details. Also, if possible, it is preferred to cite sources to support the answer. Did you intend it to be a comment under the question? If not, please see this guide on how to write a good answer.

The suttas appear to provide one answer as follows:

There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because
of their evil deeds.

It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
people.

Dhammapada


text:
I have a question about mantra, and Vajrayana Buddhism?
My question is this is the mantra Om Ah Hum Benza Guru Padma Siddhi Hum a Vajrayana mantra? Can I chant it? I am asking because, I’m wondering why I’ve had the company of hallucinations? Will the mental health problems be permanent, until I see a Lama to give me my refuge vows?

If reciting a mantra is causing you to hallucinate, I would recommend immediately stopping that practice.
Formal refuge under a Vajrayāna guru cannot cure mental illness. It can't even cure depression. The Buddhadharma isn't about making one's life more comfortable (not claiming you said so).
I don't know anything in-depth about the Vajraguru mantra (that is the name of the mantra you inquired about). Because it is Guru Padmasaṃbhava's mantra, you chanting it without initiation is likely a mishandling of the mantra according to the traditions that use that mantra.

Thank you, sorry I am feeling fine but I did start to hear things. But I remember now I heard things here and there all the time. Sorry if I raise concern. I was just scared it could possibly have to do with the mantra. Because I read if you practice Vajrayana Buddhism it can cause you mental health problems, if your not initiated by a lama and you take your vows first. Sorry but thank you for your knowledge.

It doesn't "cause" mental health problems. If you already have them, then certain practices have the risk of leavening them.

Thank you!!!!!!

If one takes a measured approach, mental health can indeed be cured. The whole principles of Buddhist logic pivots on the notion that we are suffering from mental delusions; we are neurotic and that neurosis is just a stones throw away from psychosis - for everyone!. Therefore, it figures that, for some, they will venture into the area of psychosis. When this happens, the general response is to somehow refute it, deny it, and call it wrong. This isn't helpful. Any form of practice that erodes your routine defense mechanisms, can unearth various psychiatric symptoms.


text:
How not to feel helpless against the fact dukkha is everywhere?
While meditating today, I realized that I am very very far away from attaining any kind of relief from suffering. In particular, I am referring to suffering from the endless/insatiable human condition of wanting something else/new.
I kind of see how me wanting to feel better about this goes in opposition to the realistic view proposed by Buddishm, in which suffering must be accepted as a inherent part of life. Nevertheless, there is something still not clicking in my head, which makes me feel at constant unease.
I saw this answer, in particular the part

Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and many people have already gotten cured.

but I can only think that getting "cured" may take decades and is only attainable by monks and people devoted solely to getting cured.
How can I approach this situation? Thanks in advance.
For context, I am new to meditation and Buddhism.

Remember the story of the monk going to the far off mountain. He stops to ask an old woman how long it would take him, but she refuses to answer twice. He .eaves her and shouts over to him "three weeks. I needed to see how fast you walked and how determined ". I think that is a paraphrase from Without and Within. Well worth reading by the way, the online pdf is free.

Congratulations! You have uncovered for yourself the initial hard truths which will enable your movement toward enlightenment and away from this seemingly insurmountable suffering. Most of humanity ‘sleep-walks’ through existence without understanding the real reasons for their underlying dissatisfaction with their lives – the truth about suffering and its source.
Once one has first discovered the Buddha’s teachings and awakes, I think it is natural to be overwhelmed somewhat by the significance of that truth; like opening your eyes from a sleep to the bright sunlight. But do not despair.
While learning of the ubiquitous nature of the suffering which surrounds us and is within us, you have also learned that it is not hopeless and that there is a path out of this cycle. You now understand the true source of the dissatisfaction which led you to learn of the Buddha’s teachings and, with that understanding, you now have the tools to deal with it effectively.
What helped me when I was in your situation was to focus my thoughts and early meditations on the joy, hope and understanding that these teachings and the practices I had begun would be the way out. Despite the enormity of the problem and the time and effort it would take, it did offer a solution and I knew that countless others have been able to follow that path. And not just the Buddha, monks and teachers but lay folks like me were able to do it. So why not me (and you) too? Again, congratulations and best to you in your journey!

People are coming into this confused about the particulars of their experience. However one can generally notice feelings of apathy, general vexation associated with fear, regret, shame, anxiety, worry, anger, lust, confusion and etc.  One may want to get rid of these in near future.
Even tho we may not be able to immediately identify why we feel a certain way and what to call a particular sensation, we may assert that our behavior has not been optimal as to result in that and to implement Buddha's teachings in order to start our training of good behavior.
Good behavior starts in abstaining from behaviors that are a cause for regret & downfall. It is essentially so that our understanding should come to be with a sense of fear & shame of wrongdoing.
In avoiding the bad behaviors we are engaging in skillful development of the intellect and are avoiding bad consequences of the foregone bad behaviors which avoids that trouble and allows us to calm down due to non-regret. We can reflect on our success in that and be gladdened before further stilling & learning through meditative composure and on account of due contemplation.
Our brains rewire all the time as cells are replaced & new networks are formed. We can rewire a lot in say about 7 years such that there are no pathways left by which evil behaviors associated with greed, anger & delusion would exist.
There is a part to Buddhism which is paradoxical, going against norm and it is the reason why it was never enough for every person to just have the Dhamma explained to them. Not to downplay the importance of proper translations but even when Buddha explained it many would not be able or willing to see the point he was making because for a long time they relish opposing views.
There is a point of convergence between those who know and those who do not know in the ability of one to guide another going by faith in one's ability to train.
One must learn a lot a and do as the teacher said as to see the results of that properly undertaken training and it's point. This would require some sort of a full time dedication to development of good behavior in a long-term retreat environment.

By entering the stream, by gaining right view, good householder, reasonable fear decays and first step to secure is done, having already abond huge amount of suffering and heading toward liberation. Meditation, right Samadhi, will then come by this cause itself, nothing to worry, then. So may good householder study the guide well and ask those having left home for advice.

"The world is swept away. It’s one of the reasons why we meditate, because someone like the Buddha found that there’s something that doesn’t get swept away, and it can be attained through human effort.

As we were saying today, when he set out in his quest, he had no guarantee that there would be a deathless happiness. But he felt that he wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less. He was motivated by a very strong sense of samvega. You work, work, work to gain pleasures, and then find them taken away. As the Buddha says in a passage devoted to the drawbacks of sensuality, you work really hard and either you don’t gain anything — say you’re a farmer and you plant your crop and it gets wiped out by forces beyond your control — or you do harvest the crop you want and you gain the profit you want and either it gets stolen or hateful heirs take it away. That’s material things.

Then there are relationships. The Buddha compares the happiness that comes from relationships to borrowed goods. If your happiness, your sense of who-you-are depends on someone else, they can take it away at any time. It was seeing this that the Buddha-to-be said there’s got to be something better.

Now, we’re fortunate that he did find that something better. We of course don’t have one hundred percent guarantee that he did until we ourselves have found that within ourselves. But at least there’s someone who offers the hope and sets out a path. He gives us the opportunity of testing the path, of seeing if it works. And fortunately, it doesn’t save all of its rewards for the end. There’s a lot of good to be gained as you practice: finding a sense of well-being inside where the mind can settle down and have a clear sense of solidity, security — a sense of nourishment that doesn’t have to depend on other people, doesn’t have to depend on situations outside being just this way or just that way. In other words, we’re not depending on borrowed goods here. We’re creating goods of our own.

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Don’t Be a Traitor to Yourself" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations11/140324_Don%27t_Be_a_Traitor_to_Yourself.pdf

Buddhism is currently subjected to ma$$-market marketing.
Only relatively few people can overcome craving. The scriptures say:

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Dhammapada

For example, if your mind/body still lusts about sexual things, it is very far from the Path.
Please do not create more suffering by creating an 'ideal' out of Buddhism.


text:
False Virtue and True Virtue
Does any Buddhist school teach about False (fake, hypocritical) Virtue (goodwill, goodness)?
What it is, how common it is, how it differs from the true authentic virtue, perhaps its causes and its results - those kinds of things.
Is virtue in Buddhism objective, so that we can speak about true authentic virtue as something definite and timeless, or is all virtue always necessarily subjective and partial? Or perhaps there are two kinds of virtue, mundane virtue - partial and subjective - and supramundane virtue of non-attachment and non-identification?
If so, is there continuity and/or a single principle in common between both the worldly virtue and the supramundane virtue, so that we could simultaneously behave in line with both, or does behaving in line with supramundane virtue require going against or leaving behind the worldly virtue?
Is the authentic virtue something we can side with, against both the vice and the false virtue or is it something that requires going beyond the dichotomy and accepting all virtues and vices (or rejecting all virtues and vices)?
Basically, can we side with the Virtue&Truth in opposition to Vice&Hypocrisy, or is juxtaposing the two a wrong way to look at it, according to Buddhism?
What do the Pali Canon, the commentaries, and the Mahayana texts and commentaries teach about all this, if anything?

Wrong view is wrong, meaning ingratitude and deny of more Sublime, lack of metta and not respecting fathers, leaders, gods. Taking side and home/stand, is wrong. All cause by sensual desire and craving for unwise identification. Not asking and listening to the Samanas and Brahmans of Noble domain.
Wrong action is wrong: taking existance, banner, destroy, deprive from dwelling. Taking what isn't given (and give with binding strings toward homes), is wrong. Abusing and unification with others outwardly ones traditional relation, "sex" for gain, is wrong. Not speaking truth, but biased by ones desires is wrong. Consume of what makes shameless, what leads to revolt, is wrong.
May good householder lay down side taking and seek by right ways, right conduct, not to fall into hell for another time. Kamma has effects, yet new must not be made and old fades when wrong doing is abound.
False and wrong can only be avoided by striktly stick to simple rules, for the uneducated mind isn't able to see through the net, is used to hold on what isn't real and easy misleaded by Mara and his host, google, facebook, exchange... having become slave of them.
The fake colors of the evil Tibetan sect, once adopted, are sure to become ones heading downwardly. One should not follow any sozial nationalism. NS is always cause of fear and not supported by wise and peaceful.
As soon as taking a stand in neutrality, turn toward right and Dhamma, conflicts will as quick disappear as quick they had been arosen.

Yes, right view: there is mother, father, this, next world, effects of good and bad deeds and those knowing of what they tell, others than on-householder. Don't suffer already enough? "We" isn't valide, but another social nationalism. The wise.

The try it, if possible gained faith. And stop talking without leaving, good householder. Wrong view gives wrong Sila...

Not even the Buddha could prevent even his relatives from ripping kamma. He simply left fools.

If Asuras and Devas are willing to come into the Domain of the Khema, ask, seek advice, of course they could receive the Dhamma, but they wouldn't. Like householder isn't willing, prefers to suffer further. Nobody can help you.

Try to gain peace for yourself. That's my persons and the Buddhas advice, for one not free from sensual desire and craving after home/stand, is incapable to help others. Get your own desires under control => Silas based on metta, right view (gratitude).

Fool, why victim blaming after wrong doing, instead of simply stopping.

Then, do your work to get out of the mud by leaving home/stand (the 6 senses, beginning with the five, world).

Everybody can leave home. Of course, if outwardly bond, might not live confortable (but thats old kamma, one has to bear)

And change your foolish user-name, stop encouraging toward harm. Asuras are as foolish as Devas, if wrong view. Side with the snake or the rat?

DN 31 says to be free from the four types of prejudice or bias (agati), namely, prejudice due to (i) love; (ii) hate; (iii) fear & (iv) foolishness (idiocy, stupidity, absurdity, ignorance, lunacy, nonsense, silliness, asininity, absurdity, cretinousness, daftness, half-wittedness, inaneness, moronicness, etc).
SN 55.7 is about the Golden Rule (not doing to others that which you don't want done to you) and says to not only practice virtue but to speak in praise of the practice of virtue.
MN 8 says to not engage hypocrisy.
DN 31 refers to false friends & true friends. A false friend:

(1) he who appropriates a friend's possessions, (2) he who renders
lip-service, (3) he who flatters, (4) he who brings ruin. (i) he
appropriates his friend's wealth, (ii) he gives little and asks much,
(iii) he does his duty out of fear, (iv) he associates for his own
advantage. (i) he makes friendly profession as regards the past, (ii)
he makes friendly profession as regards the future, (iii) he tries to
gain one's favor by empty words, (iv) when opportunity for service has
arisen, he expresses his inability. (i) he approves of his friend's
evil deeds, (ii) he disapproves his friend's good deeds, (iii) he
praises him in his presence, (iv) he speaks ill of him in his absence.

As a worldly example, currently, there is a military operation in Ukraine to demilitarize Ukraine; similar to 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis. Sure, it sounds rather contradictory to use military to demilitarize. Ukraine is a weak country but the false friends offer to sell it weapons so its own people can be killed as geo-political pawns and then blame the bigger neighbor who felt threatened by the false friend of the prodigal little brother. This situation appears so prejudiced I heard in the 1st time its modern history, Switzerland is not taking a neutral position on a war conflict.
But, to answer this question, false or fake or Mara virtue is to only be virtuous under the power of prejudice (agati). For example, you change your user name to "I Hate Hitler" when Hitler invades Poland but you don't change your user name to "I Hate Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden" etc, when these individual invade Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Worse, you immigrate from a country that saved Syria to the country that invades, bombs and currently practises scorched earth policy in Syria. Like European Protestants who imagine Jesus had golden hair, blue eyes & white European features, you think the Buddha supports Western Hegemony & Woke Cultural Marxism.
In summary, the metta is not universal. The metta or virtue is tribal rather than Buddhist. One becomes a clown instead of enlightened. One holds hypocritical double standards. One claims to be against militarism but, in reality, are in favour of militarism. For 8 years, the user-name didn't change, despite all of the wars in the world, including in Eastern Ukraine where an estimated 14,000 people were killed since 2014. Instead of following Buddha-Dhamma, we follow the MSM. We support those who make countless wars around the world but when these warmakers are halted we come to their defense, claiming we are against war. We even claim Ukraine was against the Holocaust and Russia was for the Holocaust. It becomes this insane & crazy when there is no universal metta and only MSM imperialist prejudice (agati)

When I used to quarrel with my little brother, and my mum intervened, we'd tell her, "But he started it!" -- and she'd reply, "I don't care who started it: you both have to stop."

sounds wise but who is the Mum in this case?

I mentioned earlier, I think it's the doctrine that's important (and benefits everyone). And the question of whose doctrine it is, or whose is better, or which person has which role, or is superior, is part of the dispute (the "conceit"). So I think it's always (and maybe ever only) important to assess doctrine and to see how it informs you (and not try to use it to like, "criticise heretics"). Like I said I think it's "wise" to criticize (or to try to stop) bad behaviour, hopefully people can relate to that, that's instead of (as a matter of intention and of expression) criticizing people.

I think it's part of the genius of the dhamma and of how it's taught -- ... paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti. -- it's offered in a way or manner that people can take (needn't reject, maybe the speech isn't "harsh") and adopt.


text:
How are Noble Ones harmed?
I read the following on the internet:

It all started by harming the Noble ones.

How can Noble Ones be harmed? Does the Buddha's Noble Path lead to increased susceptibility to being harmed?

By disregard, by wrong view, by not wishing Noble Ones to resist, by encouraging to do not give to Noble Ones, by cheating, by taking not given, by what ever deed opposing and harming the Noble truth.
Of course, like Ven. Moggalana and others, might have rippen their kamma, they aren't touched at all by harm, but knowing the straight way to hell for those conducting gravely wrong, out of compassion, they might warn the fool without demand. That is, if a Noble One wishes, all he would, could, do.
Not even Devadata the Buddha could help in this way, yet for others, at least, it was a lesson.
Nobody can help good householder, as he for a long time avoided to follow Noble Ones advices and instead harmed the Gems all around. Long will be his helpless suffering unless he would came to mind and stop.
Four things declared by the Buddha one should approach with utmost carefully conducts, even if small, young: a snake, a fire, a young soldiers of good family and what ever young and new Samana.
The pain of touching the fourth lasts imessureable longer that being hit by fire, biten by a snake, imprisoned by a new King...
Still good householders view is directed toward fruits of deeds outwardly, and not of the cause of just own kamma.
The Noble One is freed of both, yet the fool not, and with wrong view able to kill even mother, father, hram and splitt the Gems. The Gems, those at the other shore, stay untouched. Fool! The fool not.
Understand?

So may good householder do what ever he thinks is proper or stay at home, stand and cry in pain. His choice.

thank you for this but it sounds wild

sorry but avoiding your advice is not avoiding advice of a Noble One. it seems Puthujjana monks are not Noble Ones. My impression is "Noble" = "Supramundane" = "Sunnata"

the monk in the photo looks like their mouth is open and drooling saliva.

Good householder has become a blind fool in householder-equanimity, regarding this as Noble. Because of this he heads with no turn back to hell. Even if understanding intelectual now right. His changes in this life had been played off already.

sorry but the last comment is not free from I & mine and the underlying tendency to conceit.

Noble has no impression. Good now. The other fools here will now go on and slayer him. There is no use in endless trying to give exists for fools as they are bond accoring to their evil deeds done toward the Gems. metta

Sorry but internet troll is not The Gems. The Noble Sangha is the Enlightened Sangha realised Emptiness.


text:
What is the "Noble Truth"?
I read the following on the internet:

what ever deed opposing and harming the Noble truth.

What exactly is the Noble Truth?
How is the Noble Truth opposed & harmed?

To quote Sutta accurately & succinctly:

Noble = noble, without effluents, transcendent (MN 117)

Transcendent = transcendent, connected with emptiness (SN 20.7)

Emptiness = empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self (SN 35.85; MN 43)

Emptiness = empty of the canker of sense-pleasures, becoming & ignorance (MN 121)

Noble = without effluents, transcendent, empty of a self

I marked this answer down because it appears you only asked the question as an excuse to proselytise your views. Disingenuous and tiresome behaviour

Telling of what is subject to decay, not real, no refuge, it's real, a refuge. Dwelling in householder-equanimity and telling "this is sunnata", this is also thief and harm. Crying around "oh, my health, oh my house, oh my burdens", while claiming to be Noble, this is also one of the bigfest thieves.
Denying goodness, thinking "i can, could", using the parents gifts to harm them, also this is haming the truth.
Telling that actions have no effects for householders: also this is harming the truth.
Telling there is no next world, no Devas, no Hell: this is also harming the truth.
Telling that beings come from nothing and go to nothing: this is also harming the truth.
Declaring liberation as here and now: this is also harming the truth.
Saying liberation can be attained without leaving house/standn this is also harming the truth.
Caught in wrong view, harming the truth, denying obligations, the offender, the one who opposes the Gems, headed by the Sublime Buddha, is destinated right here and now, to fall into pain, finds no more way out, slayed by this evil deeds and nobody can help him, make him stop stupidity, again and again, good poor householder.
The list of opposing and harming the four Noble truth would be long, as long as poor good householders ongoing wandering on.

thank u for your answer however i  recommend u read MN 117 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html which says teachings about goodness, mother, father, etc, are connected to asava (defilement) & upadhi (attachment; acquisition) therefore are not "Noble"

Dhamma Dhatu for many years now has been posting Noble Dhamma on this forum. Please do not be like Ananda, to whom the Lord Buddha warned in MN 122: "So, Ānanda, treat me as a friend, not as an enemy. That will be for your lasting welfare and happiness".

Noble Truth=The truth to get out of all suffering by the completely developed person.
Suffering truth is every arising and vanishing stuffs such as electron-particles and minds.
Suffering's origin truth is every craving and clinging of both wrong and right suffering.
Suffering's cessation(suffering's opposite) truth is the cessation of the suffering and the suffering origin. This is unable  to imagine because it will appear  only to the one who can cease the suffering's origin completely.
Suffering's cessation operations truth is the practices to cease the suffering and suffering origin truth.


text:
MN 122: Was the Buddha unsociable?
MN 122 says:

Ananda, there is this abiding discovered by the Tathagata: to enter
and abide in voidness internally by giving no attention to all signs.
If, while the Tathagata is abiding thus, he is visited by bhikkhus or
bhikkhunis, by men or women lay followers, by kings or kings'
ministers, by other sectarians or their disciples, then with a mind
leaning to seclusion, tending and inclining to seclusion, withdrawn,
delighting in renunciation, and altogether done with things that are
the basis for taints, he invariably talks to them in a way concerned
with dismissing them.

Was the Buddha unsociable? If not, what is the meaning of the above verse?

Ven. Sujato translates it,

In that case, with a mind slanting, sloping, and inclining to seclusion, withdrawn, and loving renunciation, he invariably gives each of them a talk emphasizing the topic of dismissal.

Again, "dismissal" is the topic, the doctrine: which (the doctrine in general and, in context, this passage of this sutta in particular) is to do with dismissing "sights" and so on, dismissing infatuation...
That's what the "them" is in your quote -- I think it's not about dismissing people, being harsh to students.
Though it is about not "relishing" company, becoming infatuated with the pleasures of company, and engaging in "low" speech.

Interesting, the dictionary says: uyyojanikapaṭisaṁyutta - connected with rousing action; coupled with a dismissal https://suttacentral.net/define/uyyojanikapa%E1%B9%ADisa%E1%B9%81yutta

Was the Buddha unsociable? If not, what is the meaning of the above verse?

Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Commentary's explanation:

MA: The Buddha begins the present passage in order to ward off the criticism that while he enjoins his disciples to live in solitude, he himself is often surrounded by a large retinue.

As good householder wouldn't listen, nor understand, the Arahats could not do more then to dismiss him with with metta "may he conduct in ways that he may find the path to peace for himself with ease." Metta gives others all freedom and prevents one to get touched by what's bond. So now again free to act more wise, or further unwise, if wishing so.
Those who could receive the Dhamma, are dismissed as well. Who would miss liberated, if liberated by oneself?

i marked this answer down because for me it clearly contains false unsubstantiated speech or slander, what the Bible calls "false testimony".


text:
Is Buddhism a teaching of ethical neutrality
In situations involving lies and/or violence, does Buddhism teach siding with truth and peace against lies and violence, or does it teach ethical neutrality i.e. not taking stance on such subjects?
Specifically,
If someone is obviously lying or is simply badly misinformed, should a Buddhist defend truth or is it preferred to remain uninvolved (to avoid making things worse)?
If someone violently attacks someone else, does Buddhism teach pacifying the attacker and defending the victim, or does it teach staying out?
Are there examples of such situations in the Pali Canon and later texts?
I mean this question literally as written and am sincerely looking for answers.

In situations involving lies and/or violence, does Buddhism teach siding with truth and peace against lies and violence, or does it teach ethical neutrality i.e. not taking stance on such subjects?

IMO, your question dances around the delicate subject of "Should Buddhists go to war in defence of the side that is innocent?" Should Buddhists fight aggressors? The answer isn't simple, because what constitutes "a Buddhist" isn't simple. Which "Buddhist" do we mean when we ask this question? Do we mean the members of the Bhikṣusaṃgha? Do we mean "the four communities" of laypeople and mendicants? Do we mean just anyone who is "into" the Buddha and the Dharma?
Buddhism has difficult advice to-do with dealing with war, with conflict. When Virūḍhakarāja massacred the Śākyas of Kapilavastu, the Buddha watched passively from the top of a hill while shaded by the canopy of a sparse tree. He didn't rush down with his hand held out in the "stopping mudrā" in the manner that it is said that he supposedly stopped the elephant. While Russia attacks Ukrainians, the Buddha unfortunately would have likely sat at the top of the hill, shaded by a tree, and watched. That's a difficult look. It certainly seems "ethically neutral."
Yet, we know that Buddhism, that the Buddhadharma, is not actually "ethically neutral." Karma itself is predicated upon morality and ethics.
No Buddhist textual tradition records the thoughts of the Buddha while he watched the Śākyas of Kapilavastu, the members of his own family, die. Buddhist tradition passes down several accounts that give various hagiographical details, such as that those Śākyas were Arhats, and that they refused to fight, not taking up their weapons, meeting death gracefully. I read that hagiography in a Pāli source, but am having difficult finding it again at the moment. In the meantime, I also found this version of the events, which somewhat corresponds to the mythohistory that I had read previously...

Everyone was killed except those who entered the battlefield and symbolically rejected violence by holding blades of grass or reeds between their teeth. Everyone was killed: man, woman, child. The Buddha did not stop the slaughter.
While returning home, Vidudabha and his soldiers slept on a dry riverbed. Ants came at night and carried those who were sinless to the riverbank. The rest, including Vidudabha, were drowned in a flash flood, and their bodies were swept away by the raging river into the sea.

(Devdutt Pattanaik summarizes)
I know a version of this which has the incredible (and rather unbelievable) detail that all of the Śākyas rejected violence, that all of them were holy, and that all of them achieved liberation. Either way we tell the story, the Buddha watched from either the top of a hill or from under a tree outside the city boundaries.
If the Ukraine had been invaded during the Buddha's time, if the aggressing troops had been much more bloodthirsty than contemporary Russian soldiers, if there was a genocide, if the Buddha had been born there, would Buddhists today be saying that all of the Ukrainians of Kiev were Arhats and that all of them died holy and noble?
It's a very impressive hagiography, but it does little to help the theorized massacred Ukrainians of the past in this thought experiment.
Modern democracies are unlike the kingdoms of the Buddha's time as much as they are like them. Democracies are states, just like those kingdoms, but "kinghood" is participatory through the institutions of the democracy. When King Louis XIV was arrested by revolutionary soldiers in the name of the French State, he said, "L'État, c'est moi," or "The State? That's me." The king is the state, is the body politic, in such a system of governance. In a democracy, the body politic is diluted through several offices and institutions. When persons have a say in their country's politics, they become part of that body politic. When the ministers obey the will of the people, both the ministers and the people are the body politic.
When the Buddha speaks of kings and their ministers, he does not universally condemn them per se, even though talk of kings and ministers, etc., is talk of "lowly topics" (Sāmaññaphalasutta, DN 2, as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro). Concerning armies, he says that:

"When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

(Yodhājīvasutta SN 42.3 translated by Ven Ṭhānissaro)
This reads like a blanket condemnation of all soldiers, but is technically a condemnation of the "warlike mindset." Maybe it's a difference without distinction.
Kings are worldlings, worldlings entangled in the world, entangled in the geopolitics they were born into. These were, after all, hereditary monarchies. When an aggressor attacks a dominion under the care of a king, the Buddha says:

Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.

(Cakkavattisutta AN 3.14 translated by Venerable Bodhi)
Having provided righteous protection, the Cakravartin "turns the wheel" via the Dharma. There is a sequence of events there. Having provided the protection, having established the prosperity, the Wheel-Turner then rules by the Dharma and "turns the wheel." Compare:

in the royal capital of Ketumati a king named Saṅkha will arise, a wheel-turning monarch, a just and principled king. His dominion will extend to all four sides, he will achieve stability in the country, and possess the seven treasures. He will have the following seven treasures: the wheel, the elephant, the horse, the jewel, the woman, the treasurer, and the counselor as the seventh treasure. He will have over a thousand sons who are valiant and heroic, crushing the armies of his enemies. After conquering this land girt by sea, he will reign by principle, without rod or sword.

(Cakkavattisutta DN 26 translated by Venerable Sujāto)
After he conquers, the Wheel-Turner forsakes the rod and the sword. This one is a little more difficult, because it is about conquering, not about defending (like the other one was). I will point out, however, that what was conquered in this version of the Cakkavattisutta was "the armies of his enemies," implying, to me, that this is a situation of traditional perpetual warfare over territory. The Wheel-Turner needn't be an Alexander-like figure who conquers for the sake of conquest. Perhaps that is an unjustified reading on my part, softening this difficult passage by asserting that a Wheel-Turner would not strike an unprovoked blow against a neighbouring "non-enemy." Maybe that's naïve.
Either way, as in the previous example, the Wheel-Turning King must establish a peace before he can establish a Dharma.
This, IMO, is the closest the Buddha comes in the Pāli Canon (I've not yet read the Humane Kings Sūtra, but I have it on good faith that it also addresses these matters similarly) to a direct answer to the OP. In a democratic society, where "kinghood" is diluted, the widely-distributed composite body politic must work to establish peace and to diminish chaos and warfare. After that, focus can be re-aligned to "establishing the Dharma," such as the teachings of renunciation and inaction that are so fraught in times of war. The inaction of Gautama Buddha, who renounced the world and did not re-entangle himself in the world for the sake of saving the Kapilavastu Śākyas, is difficult if we look to the Buddha here as our direct guide. Certainly, an Arhat practicing for individual liberation might not take any measures at all to right wrongs. "Such is saṃsāra," we might imagine them dispassionately saying.
The path of world-renunciation is not the path of politics. The path that transcends the world is not the path of the world. The Buddha could not be both a Cakravartin Dharmarāja and a Samyaksaṃbuddha, despite the Brahmanical prophecy of the 32 marks being shared between the two.
In times of war, worldlings must defend themselves for the sake of the peace that makes practice possible. Certainly, it's not impossible to practice Buddhism in a country under attack, but it is not "ideal conditions" either. To suggest that all non-Buddhas must abstain from all violence is impractical and foolhardy advice. It is expecting all of the people of the world to be saints and sages, like the supposed saints and sages of Kapilavastu who met their death willingly. It is not humane to expect this conduct of persons who are not saints and sages and who are simply ordinary persons. It is extraordinary conduct, and to expect it of the ordinary is foolish. The ordinary man is not wicked, but he isn't a saint either. Them not being wicked but also not being saints, it would not be reasonable or humane to suggest that the Ukrainians adopt behaviours based on the precedence of the mythology surrounding the fall of Kapilavastu. The Ukrainians are not collectively saints and sages. They are ordinary human beings. We oughtn't expect them to act like sages from a medieval Indian story. That's an example of getting one's wires crossed, if you're expecting a population of ordinary people to just lay down and let themselves be trampled.
IMO.

Thank you . I'll accept your answer to show how much I appreciate it. Does not mean this is the only right answer and other views are still very much welcomed.

If the Shakyans were virtuous, they would not have given Vidudabha a slave girl as a wife.

My impression is the Buddha attempted thrice to stop Virūḍhakarāja massacring the Śākyas of Kapilavastu. "Towards the end of the Buddha's life, Vidudabha did become king and on several occasions he marched with his army towards Kapilavatthu, although on each occasion the Buddha was able to persuade him to turn back. Eventually though, Kapilavatthu and several other Sakyan towns were attacked and Vidudabha had the personal satisfaction of having many Sakyans massacred". http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples04.htm

The version I know simply has Virūḍhakarāja turning his army away upon seeing the Buddha near Kapilavastu. Specifically, he turns them away (presumably second-guessing himself) when he inquires as to why the Buddha is not cold and hearing the Buddha state that the love of his family keeps him warm. Then, later when the king doesn't turn his army away, the Buddha watches passively while the clan is massacred.

For a global perspective, we should probably all review DN16. The wisdom that follows this introduction is worth reading in its entirety. It is subtle and not easily summarized. The problem, however, is summarized succinctly:

DN16:1.3.5: Master Gotama, King Ajātasattu wants to invade the Vajjis.
DN16:1.3.6: He has declared:
DN16:1.3.7: ‘I shall wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I shall destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!’”

For actions, let ethics guide us:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
MN8:12.7: ‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’
MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’
MN8:12.11: ‘Others will have ill will, but here we will not have ill will.’
MN8:12.12: ‘Others will have wrong view, but here we will have right view.’
MN8:12.13: ‘Others will have wrong thought, but here we will have right thought.’
MN8:12.14: ‘Others will have wrong speech, but here we will have right speech.’
MN8:12.15: ‘Others will have wrong action, but here we will have right action.’
MN8:12.16: ‘Others will have wrong livelihood, but here we will have right livelihood.’
MN8:12.17: ‘Others will have wrong effort, but here we will have right effort.’
MN8:12.18: ‘Others will have wrong mindfulness, but here we will have right mindfulness.’
MN8:12.19: ‘Others will have wrong immersion, but here we will have right immersion.’
MN8:12.20: ‘Others will have wrong knowledge, but here we will have right knowledge.’
MN8:12.21: ‘Others will have wrong freedom, but here we will have right freedom.’
...

And if anger arises, let us all remember what the Buddha said:

SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama,
SN1.71:2.4: whose killing you approve?”
SN1.71:3.1: “When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease.
SN1.71:3.2: When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.
SN1.71:3.3: O deity, anger has a poisoned root
SN1.71:3.4: and a honey tip.
SN1.71:3.5: The noble ones praise its killing,
SN1.71:3.6: for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

Thank you. DN 16 is helpful.

should a Buddhist defend truth or is it preferred to remain uninvolved
Maybe it depends, on the topic perhaps?
When the topic is Dhamma there is for example MN 22:

Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, quizzed him back and forth and rebuked him ...

So when the monks were unable to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, they went to the Blessed One ...

I'm not certain they did right; but then the Blessed One himself called, and rebuked, and corrected him.
Although, that's within the context of a pre-existing relationship: i.e. where the Buddha is formally the monk's teacher.
Outside of that relationship maybe what you do is "offer" the truth (especially but perhaps not only when asked), rather than being bossy about it. The Buddha himself started his mission only for "those with ears" in MN 26:

Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, [...] those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
"Having seen this, I answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:

'Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
Let them show their conviction.

On other types of topic, "the truth" tends to be like an elephant (i.e. people's perception of it is subjective and partial):

"He started!" -- "No, he started it!"
"I am wronged!" -- "But what about [etc.]"

... which according to the Dhammapada might be "endless" if you're not careful, and which may call for a certain type of "neutrality".
Regardless, I think that Buddhism teaches that at least some things are an "absolute truth", and not only relative, for example (quoting from Getting the Message):

The early texts report that a group of wanderers, in a discussion with one of the Buddha's lay disciples, once accused the Buddha of not taking a position on any issue, and the disciple replied that they were mistaken. There was one issue on which the Buddha's position was very clear: what kind of behavior is skillful, and what kind of behavior is not. When the disciple later reported the conversation to the Buddha, the Buddha approved of what he had said. The distinction between skillful and unskillful behavior lies at the basis of everything the Buddha taught.
In making this distinction, the Buddha drew some very sharp lines:

"What is unskillful? Taking life is unskillful, taking what is not given... sexual misconduct... lying... abusive speech... divisive tale-bearing... idle chatter is unskillful. Covetousness... ill will... wrong views are unskillful. These things are called unskillful...
"And what is skillful? Abstaining from taking life is skillful, abstaining from taking what is not given... from sexual misconduct... from lying... from abusive speech... from divisive tale-bearing... abstaining from idle chatter is skillful. Lack of covetousness... lack of ill will... right views are skillful. These things are called skillful."
— MN 9

Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

On the subject of "the elephant" I try to keep in mind:

Ud 6.4 (a war of words, "wounding with weapons of the mouth", arguments that generate more heat than light)
The definitions of "conceit" given by Ven. Yuttadhammo and by Wikipedia, given that canonically conceit is a major cause of dispute
A "young Quaker" telling me once, "I'll discuss anything with anyone; but as soon it turns into an argument then I [...] walk away"

And I should possibly reference Right Speech also.
If someone violently attacks someone else, does Buddhism teach pacifying the attacker and defending the victim, or does it teach staying out?
As I remember it, when someone was going to make war on the Sakyans, the Buddha tried to dissuade them (verbally) -- but when that failed he (of course) didn't participate in the war.
If you want to know about "violence" specifically, I think it's not completely unheard of -- the Vinaya says something like, that if a monk is (physically) seized then "they may, desiring freedom, strike a blow".
My personal experience (if that's on-topic) of intervening in a fight is not extensive, but in an immediate emergency my recollection is of acting without a lot of introspection: see or hear a commotion; perceive who's involved; feel it would be better for it to be more peaceful; move to act on that intention. And you do it because you're there and you can. And it doesn't feel personal, it feels (rightly or wrongly) like a case of "anybody would have done the same, or should have if they could", or (for better or worse) "instinctive" (maybe like this quote, "I would have no hesitation") -- like saving somebody else from danger, from drowning. There's one instance I recall vividly, I don't regret (feel remorse about) doing it. I'm not proud of how skilfully I did it -- I grabbed the attacker's hair from behind and dragged him off -- but other people were already standing around shouting, apparently I computed that "direct action" was the solution then, it was effective and mostly harmless.
As for "defending the victim" perhaps that's always an option too, especially for a lay-person. I mean it's traditional for concientious objectors now to go to war as "stretcher-bearers" i.e. to help the victims. It must be a bit different for monks -- they can't give money to the Red Cross, obviously. I suppose the Vinaya even technically forbids their giving medical assistance (but possibly "first aid" would be another case of "do it if you have to, confess it afterwards").

One more thing on the subject of "lies and violence", one of the first things they had me memorize from school was La Fontaine's "The Wolf and the Lamb". With that, and with what I know of causus belli historically, it's entirely unsurprising to me, old news, that violence is associated with lies -- see also, "ultima ratio regum".
Given that, and given how it's possible to become swept up in unproductive argument -- if "the Wolf" will not take "no" for an answer, and if you have yourself renounced the "last argument of kings" -- then sometimes "the only winning move is not to play". Or to do it elsewhere -- "right speech" being "spoken at the right time".

Very helpful, thank you.

Not exactly what you're looking for, though the Bodhisattva Never Disparaging story from chapter 20 of Lotus Sutra contains some similar elements. The story is popular where I live, but I haven't seen it around here much so I assume members of BSE might not all be familiar with it.

"At this time there was a bodhisattva monk named Never Disparaging.
Now, Gainer of Great Authority, for what reason was he named Never
Disparaging? This monk, whatever persons he happened to meet, whether
monks, nuns, laymen, or laywomen, would bow in obeisance to all of
them and speak words of praise, saying, ‘I have profound reverence for
you, I would never dare treat you with disparagement or arrogance.
Why? Because you will all practice the bodhisattva way and will then
be able to attain buddhahood."
“This monk did not devote his time to reading or reciting the
scriptures, but simply went about bowing to people. And if he happened
to see any of the four kinds of believers far off in the distance, he
would purposely go to where they were, bow to them, and speak words of
praise, saying, ‘I would never dare disparage you, because you are all
certain to attain buddhahood!’
“Among the four kinds of believers there were those who gave way to
anger, their minds lacking in purity, and they spoke ill of him and
cursed him, saying, ‘This ignorant monk—where does he come from,
presuming to declare that he does not disparage us and bestowing on us
a prediction that we will attain buddhahood? We have no use for such
vain and irresponsible predictions!’
“Many years passed in this way, during which this monk was constantly
subjected to curses and abuse. He did not give way to anger, however,
but each time spoke the same words, ‘You are certain to attain
buddhahood.’ When he spoke in this manner, some among the group would
take sticks of wood or tiles and stones and beat and pelt him. But
even as he ran away and took up his stance at a distance, he continued
to call out in a loud voice, ‘I would never dare disparage you, for
you are all certain to attain buddhahood!’ And because he always spoke
these words, the overbearingly arrogant monks, nuns, laymen, and
laywomen gave him the name Never Disparaging.

This particular Bodhisattva (later revealed to be a previous incarnation of Gautama)

Spoke the truth but was perceived by others to be lying (which did nothing to hinder him).
Was subjected to many extreme reactions, often violent (which also did not hinder him).
Was always respectful to others and never stopped believing in the Buddha nature of all sentient beings.

Nichiren comments that, as the story is set in the age of set in the age of mappō, a lot of people, monks and lay alike, cannot discern what is or isn't authentic Dharma. Therefore those who say the absolute truth in the most direct and unobscured way is also the most authentic.
The Bodhisattva's way of dealing with extreme reactions is to have a healthy boundary - running away when necessary, but still comeback to enlighten beings when things are more cooled down. A form of non-violence that is not too naive or passive.

For my health issues, I recently worked with a healer who emphasizes a vegan diet.
[BTW he's also a staunch Buddhist, and no I've not been 100% successful as a vegan ]
One day, while really enjoying my smoothie I had an epiphany:

Its not that veganism is not to eat this or that. But rather its a positive: to eat and enjoy and relish some wonderful things we neglect to remember/try.

I believe your question, like my vegan experience, suggests exploring a frame inversion from an implied negative to an actual positive.
I'm new here and its a bit strange that I am answering a moderator, especially to what certainly looks like a sincere question.
It is somewhat a truism but still reasonably true to take as a starting point:
The Eastern religions are wisdom-oriented, the Abrahamic are faith-and-value oriented.
Of course one can find as many exceptions to this as one likes. eg

How much better to get wisdom than gold, to get insight rather than silver!
Proverbs 16.16 from Bible

Still if we allow the stereotype a little room it becomes possible to consider that your question has a framing problem:

Is Ethics/ethicality a central Buddhist concern or is Buddhism closer to wondering…
What is ethics? Why ethics? Which then inches towards: /What/Whither/Whence suffering? And thence pragmatic answers to that.

And if we would tarry a little with the wisdom angle it may help to connect with one of the greatest figures of wisdom in the western world: Socrates.
Socrates famously said: I do not know. Or more strongly: I know that I do not know. But there's something about Socrates' attitude that is not in any mere words: He seems to enjoy and relish his un-knowing!
My own teacher [who BTW has a comprehensive book on Buddhism] once said to me:

Its not just that Socrates said that I do not know. He said that since I do not know what death entails, I cannot possibly fear death!!!

And this shows why the earlier quoted biblical proverb is so true: True wisdom saves from the greatest of all fears.
It is from this view that (I feel) we need to hear Buddha.
To me the Buddha does not say:

I am the authority, I am the ultimate, believe and obey me.

He seems more to say:

Ive pondered reflected suffered and researched the problem of human suffering.  These are my findings. I invite you to reflect on them and then research them in your own frame of reference.

In short Buddhism is not a weak negative toward ethics but a strong positive towards wisdom.
Comes to the reason of this post
You have — I assume recently — assumed a name for yourself out here.
That name conveys a strong view, an opinion, a conclusion on a matter that seems of great importance.
Does that conclusion leave room for a question?
Try this thought experiment. Lets assume some figure such as say the Buddha who you regard as unequivocally, vastly wiser than you were here with us today.  Would he have agreed with you? Are you sure?
Let me end with again a quote from my teacher from his book on the Bhagavad Gita

The eastern religions are consciousness oriented;
the middle eastern religions are conscience oriented

Today we are all neither eastern nor western, or both eastern and western.
We all need to practice the good Samaritan, turning other cheek, forgiveness in the face of provocation — the conscience-angle
But also, we need to put aside all this, to put aside all relationing and take to our meditation seats — the consciousness angle.
We simply do not have the time for This? OR That?
It must be This AND That!
Even (and especially when!!) the bombs fall!

Welcome and thank you.

The story of the Buddha stopping his relatives, the Sakyans and Koliyans, from getting into a war over water rights of the Rohini river, comes from the traditional commentary to Dhammapada 197 - 199.

The Buddha uttered Verse (197) to (199) of this book, in the Sakyan
country, with reference to his relatives who were quarrelling over the
use of the water from the Rohini river.
Kapilavatthu the town of the Sakyans and Koliya the town of the
Kolyans were situated on either side of the Rohini river. The
cultivators of both towns worked the fields watered by the Rohini
river. One year, they did not have enough rain and finding that the
paddy and other crops were beginning to shrivel up, cultivators on
both sides wanted to divert the water from the Rohini river to their
own fields. Those living in Koliya said that there was not enough
water in the river for both sides, and that if only they could channel
the water just once more to their fields that would be enough for the
paddy to mature and ripen. On the other hand, people from Kapilavatthu
argued that, in that case, they would be denied the use of the water
and their crops would surely fail, and they would be compelled to buy
from other people. They said that they were not prepared to go
carrying their money and valuables to the opposite bank of the river
in exchange for food.
Both sides wanted the water for their own use only and there was much
ill will between them due to abusive language and accusations on both
sides. The quarrel that started between the cultivators came to the
ears of the ministers concerned, and they reported the matter to their
respective rulers, and both sides prepared to go to war.
The Buddha, surveying the world with his supernormal powers, saw his
relatives on both sides of the river coming out to meet in battle and
he decided to stop them. All alone, he went to them by going through
the sky, and stopped immediately above the middle of the river. His
relatives seeing him, powerfully and yet peacefully sitting above them
in the sky, hid aside all their weapons and paid obeisance to the
Buddha. Then, the Buddha said to them, "For the sake of some water,
which is of little value, you should not destroy your lives which are
of so much value and priceless. Why have you taken this stupid action?
If I had not stopped you today, your blood would have been flowing
like a river by now. You live hating your enemies, but I have none to
hate; you are ailing with moral defilements, but I am free from them;
you are striving to have sensual pleasures, but I do not strive for
them."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 197: Indeed we live very happily, not hating anyone among those
who hate; among men who hate we live without hating anyone.
Verse 198: Indeed we live very happily, in good health among the
ailing; among men who are ailing we live in good health.
Verse 199: Indeed we live very happily, not striving (for sensual
pleasures) among these who strive (for them); among those who strive
(for them) we live without striving.

At the end of the discourse many people attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Dhammapada 197 - 199

On the other hand, monks are not allowed to participate in political activities which are divisive in nature.
Political activities often include divisive speeches to break people apart, and speeches where political opponents are belittled.
Political activities may or may not include false speech, transfer of money, possible bribery or deception, relaying of messages or running of errands for other people, making forecasts for political victories or failures, scheming, persuading, hinting and belittling.

"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? ....
"Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the
truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the
world. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What
he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart
from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell
here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus
reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are
united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks
things that create concord. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"He abstains from accepting gold and money.
"He abstains from running messages... from buying and selling... from
dealing with false scales, false metals, and false measures... from
bribery, deception, and fraud.
"He abstains from mutilating, executing, imprisoning, highway robbery,
plunder, and violence.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and
scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside;
women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of
the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past
and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of
whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly
topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, are addicted to running messages and errands for people such
as these — kings, ministers of state, noble warriors, brahmans,
householders, or youths [who say], 'Go here, go there, take this
there, fetch that here' — he abstains from running messages and
errands for people such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, engage in scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and
pursuing gain with gain, he abstains from forms of scheming and
persuading [improper ways of trying to gain material support from
donors] such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; ...  ; making predictions for state
officials; .....; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
Samannaphala Sutta (DN2)

So, in conclusion, truth, non-violence, unity and peace is good. Lies, violence and divisiveness is bad. Speaking the truth and calling for peace, unity and non-violence is the right way in Buddhism.

I don't know how helpful this will be in your situation but I'll make it short:
IF you know the truth and somebody lies it is right to call it out. If you witness violence it is right to stop it if you can without being violent yourself (main options are: help the victim get away or restrain the aggressor and then get away). But the reason might suprise you.
You do it for the lier and the attacker not for the lied to and attacked. It is unbeneficial to lie or be violent so if you can you should prevent people from lying and attacking for their own sake.

As in regard of the Dhamma, right view, good householder gains a broad overview here: How to address wrong view?
Only if not harming or breaking precepts, one leaves neutrality, while inwardly, of course, right view, not left view or wrong view, always domains for the Dhammica.
Loss of everything, beginning with relations, isn't that bad as to lose right view, metta.
AN 1.071-080: Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others

The question here appears faulty. To suggest some rewording to generate an answer to the question:
In situations involving lies and/or violence, often Buddhism teaches (siding with truth) that lies and violence often beget lies and/or violence. For example, merely about speech, the Dhammapada says:

133. Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

Thank you. "Retaliation may overtake you" is a helpful reminder.


text:
Are virtuous humans reborn as Devas and sinful humans reborn as Demons?
Or is it more complicated than that? i.e random?

The Buddha connects rebirth with morality. Right view and shining morality leads to the heavens. Wrong view and hellish conduct leads to the hells.
It is a little bit difficult to translate the Buddhist term "hell-dweller" as "demon." They are not quite the same as "demons" which we know from Judeo-Christian folklore.

my impression is 'asura' are demons

While it's certainly a bit more complicated that that, it definitely doesn't happen randomly. Refer to the 31 Planes of Existence. Notice the 3rd column on each table for each realm lists the various causes that lead to rebirth into that particular realm. It also provided backup sutta references.

the chart says that being reborn as a Deva is much more common than being reborn as a human again, why is that besides humans being a balance of pleasure and suffering?

@Orionixe, I already checked the web page and it only says "Rebirth a a human being is extraordinary rare", but nowhere does it say that "being reborn as a Deva is much more common than being reborn as a human again".

I would be reborn as a Deva if I perform 10 wholesome actions and express virtue and generosity? According to the chart.

not just "express", but actual development of virtues and generosity as specified in AN 10.177 on the same chart. It's that simple. But then again, just because something is simple doesn't mean it's easy.

The suttas describe beings reappearing in different realms, according to their actions, ie kamma. Skillful actions are said to lead to rebirth in a "higher" realm, and vice versa.

In the Pali scriptures there are various teachings on 'rebirth', which give the impression The Buddha was inconsistent or, otherwise, scriptures were added after the Buddha passed away.
For example, the following stock phrase indicates two general 'rebirths' of 'heaven' & 'hell':

When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the passing away and
reappearance of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and
surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing,
inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate. I
understood how beings pass on according to their actions thus: ‘These
worthy beings who were ill conducted in body, speech, and mind,
revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong
view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death,
have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in
perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well
conducted in body, speech, and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right
in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the
dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good
destination, even in the heavenly world.’ Thus with the divine eye,
which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away
and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and
unfortunate, and I understood how beings pass on according to their
actions.
MN 4

Yet the following teaching indicates five potential 'rebirths':

And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced
in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades [ghosts], kamma to be
experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
AN 6.63

The following teaching indicates six potential 'rebirths', which includes 'demons':

Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, Existence
in the animal realm, Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.
Iti 93

The following teaching indicates the virtuous can have 'rebirth' in 'hell' and unvirtuous can have 'rebirth' in 'heaven':

the evil-doer who goes to hell (or some other low state of birth)
the evil-doer who goes to heaven
the good man who goes to heaven, and
the good man who goes to hell (or other low birth).
MN 136

The following teaching indicates all of the virtuous (puthujjana) who have not gained enlightenment will be 'reborn' in 'hell':

… the sentient beings who die as humans and are reborn as humans are few, while those who die as humans and are reborn in hell are many …
Why is that? It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.
SN 56.102

I marked your answer down because it doesn't answer the question. You seem more interested in questioning the idea of rebirth in the suttas, a familiar agenda in your case.

sorry but my answer is on topic.  ignorance is free to make bad kamma

No, your answer is an off-topic rant about the "inconsistency" of rebirth teachings on the suttas.