text:
What is the different between first path attainer from a meditative commoner?
During meditation can path attainment be identified? How ? Is it gradually progressing  of the path in first path attainers?how this is differ from a meditative commoner?

The common meditator [outsider] has wrong views, wrong conviction, wrong opinions in regards to the instruction generally presented by the Buddha to his disciples and is considered an outsider.
A person who doesn't hold wrong views, one who has faith in the parts of the dispensation generally presented by the Buddha is called a faith-follower. This person is guaranteed to attain the path-fruition of Sotapatti before passing away.
A person who has penetrated the meaning of that instruction & has come to an agreement through pondering those elements, is called a dhamma-follower but this not yet an awakening to the truth. This person is also guaranteed to attain the path-fruition of Sotapatti before passing away.
A person who having exerted himself, has both realized the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body & has seen with discernment, is said to have gone beyond conviction. This one has awakened to the truth, he knows & sees having realized the path of Sotapatti & lives having attained it's fruition.

Would  faith follower  and dhamma  follower attained fruit immediately after the path or after sometime?

During meditation can path attainment be identified? How ?

Yes. The noble right view is what the ordinary have been before, so they don't find any view and paths like this before by the past-lives-recollection, when the practitioner meditated the 4th Jhana at mastery level and look back his past lives with analysis the arising and vanishing trillion times per second of Nama and Rupa, they will realize "this right view never happen before even in the lives which I was a Jhana-Mastery-Attainner".

Is it gradually progressing of the path in first path attainers?how this is differ from a meditative commoner?

No any ordinary has the right view before in the past lives, never.
So, when the ordinary look back on the past lives, nothing like the first path appeared.
An enlightening moment never happens in an ordinary person's past lives.
However, the difference from the common concentration meditation attainment is insight meditation, the viewing of trillion times per second mind arising and vanishing. This happened before in past lives but never access an enlightenment moment for an ordinary.

How to identify the access an enlightenment  ,is it mind shut down?

No, mind is shut down form 5 strings on Jhana-Attainment as well. So, the first core is
the right view, of the dependent origination,  which never happens in any past lives before.

So if you see through  the meditation ignorance  cause mind fabrications will it leads to enlightenment?

According to many Suttas, Sotapanna to Anagami still have an ignorance and mind fabrications, except wrong view. 2. Stop thinking is good because the practitioner can stop knowing 5 strings to focus on 8 Jhana Mastery for 8 Vijja. They all support each others step by step. However, stop thinking is not
only  enlightenment moment. The ordinary's jhana also stop thinking too.

Reduction of obsessive thoughts as noticed when they were appearin, samadhi  leads to reduce clinging will that put on to the right view?


text:
Question on salayatana
From Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma:
His note on Mano:

Note that just as the eye, as cakkhāyatana or cakkhudhātu, is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī ('[that] by which, in the world, one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world') (Salāyatana Samy. xii,3 <S.iv,95>), i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely a spherical lump of flesh set in my face; so the mind, as manāyatana or manodhātu, also is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī, i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely various ill-defined parts of my body, but principally a mass of grey matter contained in my head (physiological and neurological descriptions are strictly out of place—see PHASSA).[c] This is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni—see NĀMA & PHASSA [a]. For 'perceiving and conceiving' see MAMA [a].

Why does he say "this is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni."?

This is a typical case of the famous dependent arising of Indra's net for all contingencies (contingent truths if they exist), one unique interpretation could be that the well-known 5 khandhā is like five mountains, that is, huge huge and thick darkness in the form of ignorant confusions is covering human mind and all its derived senses like the five encircling mountains wherein puthujjanas never escape by their six internal sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind)... For example, whenever their eyes see something unknown they'll get puzzled and upset...

In Pali, there are at least two words translated as 'arise':

Samudaya - what is the arising (samudayo) of form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness? It is when a monnk approves, welcomes and keeps clinging. SN 22.5
Uppajjati - eye consciousness arises (uppajjati) dependent on the eye and sights. MN 148

The 2nd type of arising (uppajjati) pertains to the five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni. All this means is the five aggregates are known/experienced by the sense bases. This is not related to Dependent Origination.
Per SN 22.5 quoted above or MN 9 or MN 28 (below), samudaya is Dependent Origination.

“One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
“yo paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passati so dhammaṁ passati;
One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.”
yo dhammaṁ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passatī”ti.
And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṁ pañcupādānakkhandhā.
The desire, clinging, attraction and attachment for these five
grasping aggregates is the arising of suffering.
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chando ālayo anunayo ajjhosānaṁ so
dukkhasamudayo

Uppajjati is not Dependent Origination because when the cessation of Dependent Origination occurs, uppajjati still arises & occurs, as follows:

Eye consciousness arises (uppajjati) dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for the arising of what is felt as pleasant, painful or neutral. When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you don’t approve, welcome and keep clinging to it, the underlying tendency to greed does not underlie that. When you experience a painful feeling, if you don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion, the underlying tendency to repulsion does not underlie that. When you experience a neutral feeling, if you truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback and escape, the underlying tendency to ignorance does not underlie that. Mendicants, after giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, after dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, after eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, after giving up ignorance and giving rise to knowledge, it’s quite possible to make an end of suffering.
MN 148

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
MN 38

In summary, SN 12.48 refer to two types of five khandha:

The mere five khandha arise (uppajjati) in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni.

The five aggregates subject to grasping arise (samudaya) in connexion to ignorance, craving & grasping.

you  are saying  "Panca-khandhā arise/upajjati in connexion with  six āyatanāni " do you also means  panca-upadan-khanda samuday hoti?

I mean Panca-khandhā upajjati whereas panca-upadan-khanda samuday hoti.??

yes. thank you. panca-khandhā upajjati whereas panca-upadan-khanda samuday hoti

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are these positive terms?
Again another passage from Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma, Cetana:

It will be seen that intentions by themselves are a purely structural affair, a matter of negatives; and when the question is asked, 'What are the intentions upon this occasion?' the answer will be in the positive terms of nāmarūpa and viññāna.

What are the positive terms of nāmarupa and viññana?

It's not clear to me how he uses the words "positive" and "negative".
The usual meaning of these words is something like, "negative is bad, positive is good", or perhaps, "negative is non-existent, positive is existent", but I don't think that's what he means.
I think the word is (like most "models" or "theories" are) an analogy -- and that the way he uses the word, or the meaning the word has for him, is the meaning implied by a photographic negative -- which was a contemporary meaning in his lifetime, but is obsolete or archaic now because we use digital photography instead of photographic film.
The reason I say that is because of his use of the word "negative" on this page:

Fundamental Structure >> Static Aspect
...

... where the "negative" is an inverse (i.e. o becomes x and vice versa) like a photographic negative.
There's a more detailed example use his use of "positive" and "negative" on this page:

Shorter Notes >> Attā
...
'Self' as subject can be briefly discussed as follows. As pointed out in PHASSA [b], the puthujjana thinks 'things are mine (i.e. are my concern) because I am, because I exist'. He takes the subject ('I') for granted; and if things are appropriated, that is because he, the subject, exists. The ditthisampanna (or sotāpanna) sees, however, that this is the wrong way round. He sees that the notion 'I am' arises because things (so long as there is any trace of avijjā) present themselves as 'mine'. This significance (or intention, or determination), 'mine' or 'for me'—see A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [e]—, is, in a sense, a void, a negative aspect of the present thing (or existing phenomenon), since it simply points to a subject; and the puthujjana, not seeing impermanence (or more specifically, not seeing the impermanence of this ubiquitous determination), deceives himself into supposing that there actually exists a subject—'self'—independent of the object (which latter, as the ditthisampanna well understands, is merely the positive aspect of the phenomenon—that which is 'for me'). In this way it may be seen that the puthujjana's experience, pañc'upādānakkhandhā, has a negative aspect (the subject) and a positive aspect (the object). But care is needed; for, in fact, the division subject/object is not a simple negative/positive division. If it were, only the positive would be present (as an existing phenomenon) and the negative (the subject) would not be present at all—it would simply not exist. But the subject is, in a sense, phenomenal: it (or he) is an existing phenomenal negative, a negative that appears; for the puthujjana asserts the present reality of his 'self' ('the irreplaceable being that I am'). The fact is, that the intention or determination 'mine', pointing to a subject, is a complex structure involving avijjā. The subject is not simply a negative in relation to the positive object: it (or he) is master over the object, and is thus a kind of positive negative, a master who does not appear explicitly but who, somehow or other, nevertheless exists.[c] It is this master whom the puthujjana, when he engages in reflexion, is seeking to identify—in vain![d] This delusive mastery of subject over object must be rigorously distinguished from the reflexive power of control or choice that is exercised in voluntary action by puthujjana and arahat alike.

He seems to be saying that intention isn't a (positive) thing but is a instead structure created by or around the existence of some (real) thing.
Conversely (to answer your question), it's not that nāmarupa and viññana have positive and negative terms -- it's that he's saying that nāmarupa and viññana are positive terms, things which exist in their own right.
Instead of saying "... in the positive terms of nāmarūpa and viññāna", he might have said, "... in terms of nāmarūpa and viññāna which are 'a matter of positives'."
Incidentally this discussion of positive and negative puts me in mind of a line from the Tao Te Ching -- describing a house, it says, "it's the empty space in a house (i.e. the doors and windows and rooms) that make it useful". I think that's another example, the "empty space" being the "negative" created by or from the house's solid (existing, filled, positive) form.

Ah I see! The way he phrased it threw me off! Thanks a bunch!

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


text:
Have you seen evidence that Gautama Buddha visited Shambhala?
While preparing the huge online-conference "Life of the Most Worthy" on the topic of the life of the Buddha, we came across information that Gautama Buddha, in his spiritual aspirations, was looking for contact with Shambhala. And also that in the end his search was crowned with success and he was accepted by the Bodhisattvas of Shambhala. However, no documentary evidence of this has yet been found. Have you met ancient sources in any language of the world that speak of this? Maybe you know what direction to look for?

No, and you're not likely to find any. The concept of a Shambhala in Buddhism comes from the Kalachakra tradition, which originated sometime in the 10th or 11th century. You haven't found any evidence because the concept didn't exist while the historical Buddha was alive. If Shambhala is taken to mean Sambhal (UP), as per some of the early Puranas, then the historical Buddha was already in that region (Kushinagar), though I'm unable to find when the town of Sambhal was actually founded.

There are too many later added mysticism attributed to the Buddha, when clearly anyone with logic can see that they are religious dilutions or additions, perversions of the Buddhas teaching.
Tibetan Buddhism as a whole is rife with these type of perversions. From basic doctrine additions attributed to the Buddha, like nagarajunas philosophy then written as the heart sutra and told to have been written by the Buddha, kept secret by naga spirits until the "right time" when people were ready for it and found by nagarajuna in a lake... to the entire pantheons of deities supposed to be Buddhas in different worlds, or dimensions, or realms. Heck there is even attributes to Buddhas teachings which asanga added (creating more mental formations of consciousnesses) and said to have been taught to asanga by matreya in the brahma realms.....Yes it really is this perverted.
More recently there is a general schism created in Tibetan Buddhism as a whole via belief in a fictional deity, dorje shugden. Let alone Tibetan Buddhism itself is unable to unify the Buddhas teachings and have 4 major (and many minor) sects within the country that vastly differ in what IS and what IS NOT the Buddhas teachings.
The point is, over 2500+ years since the Buddhas death, there have been countless people claiming they are a Buddha, or have new teachings from the, or a new Buddha, or written teachings as if it was the Buddha talking, or changed the words of the Buddha in sutras... Essentially it is chinese whispers.
A lot of this added mystical elements originate from hinduism, which in a lot of cases have converged, where just simple name changes (like adi-Buddha and vishnu) of hindu deities have "allowed" these deities to then be attributed to the Buddha-dhama.
It would be wise for you yourself to be able to discriminate, as per the kalama sutta as to what is really needed and what is to be practised, and to rid yourself of unnecessary mystical elements that bring no benefit.

Shambhala like Mount Kailash, is best understood as a spiritual or metaphysical location, which at best only correlates weakly with a real physical place. We might compare it with Atlantis, or Camelot, as a place with pretty sketchy and minimal 'original' mentions, which went on to take up an outsize role in historical and mythological discussion. I think we have to understand that kind of dynamic, as how an idea can speak to a wish we have, to something many people want to be in the world or to show something about the world from it being part of history.
The core prophecy about Shambhala, derived from the Kalachakra or Wheel of Time sutra, has to be unserstood in the context of the decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent, happening around the time modern scholars considered the sutra to have been written (1025-1040 CE). Especially, the decline of Nalanda Mahavihara and the Great Library there which formed the centre of what became Mahayana Buddhism and the transmission of Buddhism to East Asia. Shambhala symbolised a place of security in retreat for Buddhism, as Islam was spreading, and especially persecuting the way of life and funding for Buddhist monastics.
Consider the Four Buddhist Persecutions in China, which caused the monastics that survived to retreat to the high mountains, to such an extent the Chinese word for monastery is 'shan', meaning mountain. The Zen Golden Age, followed the Great Huicheng Persecution, which can be understood as a kind of stripping away of the wealth and social approval for Buddhist practice, requiring a focus on the very core of the practice, worth continuing to do even at risk of life and liberty. So a monastery becomes a mountain even if it's in a city, a place of retreat and purification.
Mahayana and Vajryana Buddhism have literally had this journey, of retreat into the Chinese and Tibetan mountains, and a kind of recentring and refocusing of purpose, followed by a spread back out into the world after a position of weakness and near-extinction, resulting from their new clarity of teaching and purpose.
The Shambhala tradition and the Maitreya tradition, implicitly says 'real' Buddhism will (almost) cease, and the kind of practice that leads to awakening or the full teaching however that is framed, will need delivering again, or renewing from the place where it has survived. Humans change, society changes, and the challenges we face change. So I would understand Shambhala as  a metaphor for the renewal of Buddhism, the retreat from rich trappings and social approval, into conditions of simplicity and confrontation with the purpose our practice serves, from which we can renew the teachings and restore the vigour of our practice and the directness with which it speaks to new times.
The real Shambhala, is the true teaching seperated from rewards and approval which over time can obscure it. It is a place that's to be found within all practicioners. And of course the Buddha has been there, just as the sutras describe him going to Tushita Heaven, and delivering the (Pali) Brahmanjali Sutta teachings to Maha Brahma. It is a description of spiritual not literal geography.


text:
Pali Patimokkha versions and recital
Is there a standardized version of Pali Patimokkha to be memorized?
Is there a difference in the recital of the Pali Patimokkha among the monks?

For a Pali recital of the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, together with romanized Pali subtitles, please see this Youtube video by Ven. Ariyadhammika. The pronunciation here is perfectly clear.
Please see the book Analysis of the Patimokkha by Ven. Nanatusita for the romanized Pali version, a translation of each rule and a word-by-word analysis. There are online versions here and here.
For a romanized Pali version of the Patimokkha without the translation, please see Bhikkhupātimokkhapāḷi compiled by Ven. Anandajoti.
An English translation by Ven. Thanissaro can be found here: Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha: The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline.


text:
How to fix a broken vow?
I recently broke my vow (do not harm).
I purchased a pack of cigarettes for a homeless guy.
What should I do to fix this? is there a ritual to do or can i make an offering?
Thanks in Advance...

I remember being homeless. I sure appreciated a packet of cigarettes! ;-)

Simply carry on your practice in accordance with The Four Right Exertions.

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk
generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts
his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful
qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire,
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have
arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence,
upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful
qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire,
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, &
culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is
called right effort.
SN 45.8

How to fix a broken vow?

Take the precept that was broken again and make a greater effort not to break it in the future. Don't be too hard on yourself.

First, it's worth taking a broad (karmic) perspective on the issue of harm. Being homeless is a misery all its own, and any act of kindness — even if it carries a risk of harm — can be a positive good. Remember, there is always a danger that moral uprightness can become a rigid, unfeeling, cold-hearted craving, talking your progress and harming others through slights and rejections. Better to err on the side of human warmth...
What you did was sympathetic, if not perfect. Appreciate the good in it as well as the bad, and then dig a bit deeper for a more compassionate response. The vow is for your sake, not for anyone else's, so you don't need to worry about it being broken. Think of it as a guide-rail leading you in the direction where the 'right' response will arise naturally.

Avoid people telling you that wrong doing for doing favors isn't wrong, suggesting wrong as right, since association, good or bad, matters most.
So good to take the precepts, renew them, after having confessed the wrong to someone abstaining from wrong, someone pure. It wouldn't work if confessing toward thieves and impure individuals.


text:
Is All-Is-One a buddhist belief?
As I underestand, buddhists beliefe there is no-self, means no permanent soul in creatures like us humans.
Would a buddhist say, we all are part of one absolute consciousness?
If so, is the degree of enlightenment someone has equivalent to the area of the absolute consciousness someone experiences?
In other words: A buddha is 100% enlightend and thus he is equal to absolute consciousness?
Sorry this sounds way to mathemetical, but I'm relatively new to buddhism, so I don't know the right words.
Hope you can help me.

You mean non duality?

I say - as I say to many I speak with - "abandon the idea of oneness, my friends, or else it will carry you off in the same way a lion carries off the lifeless carcass of an impala." Some listen, but some don't! Lol
Having said that, there is what one might call a 'region' along the way where the sense of an all encompassing oneness captivates you, but if you notice, very carefully, there are very tenuous fragments of an objectified 'self' claiming the oneness. In the Theravada tradition, this usually occurs around the six and seventh fetters, and is often called the 'I AM'. It may have been what Ven. Khemaka was struggling with when he said, "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession." It is the case that, in some traditions, this is seen as somewhat of an endpoint, but, no! it is not! Ven. Khemaka was clearly on the ball!
The mind can make objects of the world appear luminous, bright and enchanting, and borders between the body and the outside world begin to fall away. In this state of oneness, the sense of self falls under its spell. One may walk around for decades pretending they are enlightened, trying to hanker onto that very luminosity and all the other interesting things that occur in that region. Fools!

"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not
present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where
someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death I will be
constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just
like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's
disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all
view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions;
for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all
acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated!
So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not
exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows
delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally
not present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is internally not
present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where
someone doesn't have this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death
this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I
will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a
Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all
view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions;
for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all
acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
The thought doesn't occur to him, 'So it might be that I will be
annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I
will not exist!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep,
beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is
non-agitation over what is internally not present."
Abandoning Possessions & Views "Monks, you would do well to possess
that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent,
eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an
eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which
would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that
would stay just like that for an eternity?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the
possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject
to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.
"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of
self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of
self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief, & despair?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of
self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief, & despair.
"Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency
(ditthi-nissaya), depending on which there would not arise sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency,
depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain,
grief, & despair?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency,
depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain,
grief, & despair.
"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,]
'belonging to my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the
thought,] 'my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a
truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self.
After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject
to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it
utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"
"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's
teaching."
Alagaddupama Sutta
Khemeka Sutta

SN 35.23 - Sabba Sutta: The All
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."
(translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro
Bhikkhu)

Would a buddhist say, we all are part of one absolute consciousness?

There's no Sutta references that I know of that mention such concept.

If so, is the degree of enlightenment someone has equivalent to the area of the absolute consciousness someone experiences? In other words: A buddha is 100% enlightend and thus he is equal to absolute consciousness?

Instead of seeing it as part of some abstract absolute consciousness, try to see it in a more pragmatic lense, ie. 100% enlightenment means 100% removal of defilements/impurities of the mind, or 100% perfection of Sila/Samadhi/Panna ( perfection of Moral Virtues/Meditation/Wisdom ).

I used to admire and subscribe to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism which speaks of a cosmic consciousness.
Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he is a butterfly flying through a garden. When he woke up, he wondered whether Chuang Tzu dreamt that he is a butterfly, or whether the butterfly is dreaming that it is Chuang Tzu. The only thing common between the two is "I" (consciousness), hence this "I" must be the "permanent" thing?
There are many beings, but only one "I" (consciousness) according to Advaita. The "I" (consciousness) is identical between beings that Advaita says is the same Supreme Consciousness, that is the silent witness behind and beyond all beings. And this is also the Atman, the Self, which manifests as the Supreme Consciousness through all beings.
As nice as that sounds, when I read the Buddha's description of consciousness, it met my observation of my own consciousness more accurately than Advaita's.

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
& aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
MN 38

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.

When you write,  "buddhists beliefe there is no-self" is not true. The Buddha teaches that the five aggregates are no-self/anatta. He does not teach there is no-self/natthattā. There is no-self is an annihilationist teaching.


text:
A text where The Blessed One calls "a monk" a 'householder'?
I recall reading a text where Buddha addressed a supposed monk saying "householder".
If i recall correctly, the monk said that he wasn't a householder and Buddha explained the meaning of that.
I am pretty sure it's in the pali canon and am looking for the text.
Thanks

I've found it, mn54. Remembered it wrong.

Potaliya the householder, while
walking and wandering for exercise, wearing full dress with parasol
and sandals, also went to the grove, and having entered the grove, he
went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When this
courteous and amiable talk was finished, he stood at one side. The
Blessed One said to him: “There are seats, householder, sit down if
you like.”
When this was said, the householder Potaliya thought: “The recluse
Gotama addresses me as ‘householder,’” and angry and displeased, he
remained silent.
A second time the Blessed One said to him: “There are seats,
householder, sit down if you like.” And a second time the householder
Potaliya thought: “The recluse Gotama addresses me as ‘householder,’”
and angry and displeased, he remained silent.
A third time the Blessed One said to him: “There are seats,
householder, sit down if you like.” When this was said, the
householder Potaliya thought: “The recluse Gotama addresses me as
‘householder,’” and angry and displeased, he said to the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, it is neither fitting nor proper that you address me
as ‘householder.’”
“Householder, you have the aspects, marks, and signs of a
householder.”
“Nevertheless, Master Gotama, I have given up all my works and cut off
all my affairs.”
“In what way, householder, have you given up all your works and cut
off all your affairs?”
“Master Gotama, I have given all my wealth, grain, silver, and gold to
my children as their inheritance. I do not advise or blame them about
such matters but merely live on food and clothing. That is how I have
given up all my works and cut off all my affairs.”
“Householder, the cutting off of affairs as you describe it is one
thing, but in the Noble One’s Discipline the cutting off of affairs is
different.”
“What is the cutting off of affairs like in the Noble One’s
Discipline, venerable sir? It would be good, venerable sir, if the
Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma, showing what the cutting off of
affairs is like in the Noble One’s Discipline.”
“Then listen, householder, and attend closely to what I shall say.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” Potaliya the householder replied. The Blessed
One said this:
“Householder, there are these eight things in the Noble One’s
Discipline that lead to the cutting off of affairs. What are the
eight? With the support of the non-killing of living beings, the
killing of living beings is to be abandoned. With the support of
taking only what is given, the taking of what is not given is to be
abandoned. With the support of truthful speech, false speech is to be
abandoned. With the support of unmalicious speech, malicious speech is
to be abandoned. With the support of no rapacity and greed, rapacity
and greed are to be abandoned. With the support of no spite and
scolding, spite and scolding are to be abandoned. With the support of
no anger and irritation, anger and irritation are to be abandoned.
With the support of non-arrogance, arrogance is to be abandoned. These
are the eight things, stated in brief without being expounded in
detail, that lead to the cutting off of affairs in the Noble One’s
Discipline.”
“Venerable sir, it would be good if, out of compassion, the Blessed
One would expound to me in detail these eight things that lead to the
cutting off of affairs in the Noble One’s Discipline, which have been
stated in brief by the Blessed One without being expounded in detail.”
“Then listen, householder, and attend closely to what I shall say.”
[...]mn54


text:
Buddhist deathbed advice
What Buddhist advice can be given to a dying Buddhist/Christian in order to facilitate the letting go and acceptance many people experience on their deathbeds?
The particular Buddhist/Christian I'm speaking of worries about eternal hell and all the bad karma in her life. Does worrying about Hell have something to do with samvega?

All of the advice below is comforting for one who has "ethical conduct loved by the noble ones". Is there any consolation for one who could not say they've had such conduct?

@simon I'm sure everyone has done some good in their lives and can be reminded of it.

The Gilāna Sutta below provides deathbed advice to a lay follower.

At that time several mendicants were making a robe for the Buddha,
thinking that when his robe was finished and the three months of the
rains residence had passed the Buddha would set out wandering.
Mahānāma the Sakyan heard about this. Then he went up to the Buddha,
bowed, sat down to one side, and told him that he had heard that the
Buddha was leaving. He added, “Sir, I haven’t heard and learned it in
the presence of the Buddha how a wise lay follower should advise
another wise lay follower who is sick, suffering, gravely ill.”
“Mahānāma, a wise lay follower should put at ease another wise lay
follower who is sick, suffering, gravely ill with four consolations.
‘Be at ease, sir. You have experiential confidence in the Buddha … the
teaching … the Saṅgha … And you have the ethical conduct loved by the
noble ones … leading to immersion.’
When a wise lay follower has put at ease another wise lay follower who
is sick, suffering, gravely ill with these four consolations, they
should say: ‘Are you concerned for your mother and father?’ If they
reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your nature to die.
Whether or not you are concerned for your mother and father, you will
die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for your mother and
father.’
If they reply, ‘I have given up concern for my mother and father,’
they should say: ‘But are you concerned for your partners and
children?’ If they reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your
nature to die. Whether or not you are concerned for your partners and
children, you will die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for
your partners and children.’
If they reply, ‘I have given up concern for my partners and children,’
they should say: ‘But are you concerned for the five kinds of human
sensual stimulation?’ If they reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘Good
sir, heavenly sensual pleasures are better than human sensual
pleasures. It would be good to turn your mind away from human sensual
pleasures and fix it on the gods of the Four Great Kings.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the gods
of the Thirty-Three are better than the gods of the Four Great Kings …
Good sir, the gods of Yama … the Joyful Gods … the Gods Who Love to
Create … the Gods Who Control the Creations of Others … the Gods of
the Brahmā realm are better than the Gods Who Control the Creations of
Others. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Gods Who
Control the Creations of Others and fix it on the Gods of the Brahmā
realm.’ If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir,
the Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”
SN 55.54

Not Buddha but Ven. Sariputta gives a talk here

[Ven. Sariputta:] "Then, householder, you should train yourself in
this way: 'I won't cling to the eye; my consciousness will not be
dependent on the eye.' That's how you should train yourself. 'I won't
cling to the ear... nose... tongue... body; my consciousness will not
be dependent on the body.' ... 'I won't cling to the intellect; my
consciousness will not be dependent on the intellect.' That's how you
should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to forms... sounds... smells... tastes... tactile sensations; my
consciousness will not be dependent on tactile sensations.' ... 'I
won't cling to ideas; my consciousness will not be dependent on
ideas.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to eye-consciousness... ear-consciousness...
nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness; my
consciousness will not be dependent on body-consciousness.' ... 'I
won't cling to intellect-consciousness; my consciousness will not be
dependent on intellect-consciousness.' That's how you should train
yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to contact at the eye... contact at the ear... contact at the
nose... contact at the tongue... contact at the body; my consciousness
will not be dependent on contact at the body.' ... 'I won't cling to
contact at the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on
contact at the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to feeling born of contact at the eye... feeling born of contact
at the ear... feeling born of contact at the nose... feeling born of
contact at the tongue... feeling born of contact at the body; my
consciousness will not be dependent on feeling born of contact at the
body.' ... 'I won't cling to feeling born of contact at the intellect;
my consciousness will not be dependent on feeling born of contact at
the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to the earth property... liquid property... fire property...
wind property... space property; my consciousness will not be
dependent on the space property.' ... 'I won't cling to the
consciousness property; my consciousness will not be dependent on the
consciousness property.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to form... feeling... perception... thought-fabrications; my
consciousness will not be dependent on thought-fabrications.' ... 'I
won't cling to consciousness; my consciousness will not be dependent
on consciousness.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of
the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness; my
consciousness will not be dependent on the dimension of nothingness.'
... 'I won't cling to the sphere of neither perception nor
non-perception; my consciousness will not be dependent on the sphere
of neither perception nor non-perception.' That's how you should train
yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to this world; my consciousness will not be dependent on this
world... I won't cling to the world beyond; my consciousness will not
be dependent on the world beyond.' That's how you should train
yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't
cling to what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought
after, pondered by the intellect; my consciousness will not be
dependent on that.' That's how you should train yourself."
When this was said, Anathapindika the householder wept and shed tears.
Ven. Ananda said to him, "Are you sinking, householder? Are you
foundering?"
"No, venerable sir. I'm not sinking, nor am I foundering. It's just
that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks
who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the
Dhamma like this."
"This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay
people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to
those gone forth."
"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the
Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with
little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing
[this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."
Then Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to
Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then,
not long after they left, Anathapindika died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Mn143


text:
How to prolong post meditation emotions, feelings and thoughts?
Whenever I get a good meditation, meaning pleasant feelings arise, they subside after some time. I know that's not the goal of meditation and I should let go of anything, not cling to anything. But still, I would like to prolong the post-meditation pleasant sensations and not go back to other emotions. How can that be achieved?
After a good sitting of calming down the mind, desires come rushing in, how to deal with that?

That's why it's advisable to add the Vipassana part even if one does mostly Samatha:

“He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence. ’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating fading away’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating fading away.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating cessation’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating cessation.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment.’ ~~ MN 118 ~~

Well this is the crux of things, isn't it?  If meditation was a solution to our negative tendencies, the Buddha would have never left his original teachers.
What the Buddha discovered, and what sets him apart from the other yogis of the time, wasn't that he used meditation to achieve some state or to feel better.  Uniquely, the Buddha leveraged his bright and purified mind for the purposes of uprooting his obstacles and habitual patterns.
When you emerge from meditation, rather than indulging in those feelings of bliss, you would be much better served observing those desires.  What are they?  Why do they appear?  What are their roots?  With your brightened and purified mind, removed from your conventional ways of thinking, you are in a much better position to discover the answers to those questions and, with time, you might be able to disentangle yourself from them for good.

If you feel that post-meditation pleasantness slipping away, and desire to prolong it, that is an excellent moment for conscious choice. Choose one of the following:

Go back into meditation for a while and experience it again, or...
Allow it to slip away naturally, knowing you can return.

Neither is right or wrong, so make the choice by your own lights, and don't allow desire or regret to enter into your practice.
I vaguely remember a story (about Shunryū Suzuki, maybe?) in which he saw a graduate student in some-field-or-other meditating in the center. He walked up to the student and said: "What are you doing here? Go home! Study! Write!" There's a time for spiritual attainment, and a time for worldly endeavors. Unless you are seriously pursuing the monastic life, do not allow one to interfere with the other. Only by being clear about what you are doing at any given moment can the spiritual life grow out into the secular world.


text:
Is it necessary to study Abhidhamma?
From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma? Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?

Highly important. The preface of the Abhidhamma commentary explains it. At least one has to know Abhidhamma fundamentals from a modern manual.

1st Q:

Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?

For some people even the gist is enough

Then Sariputta the wanderer spoke
thus to the Ven. Assaji:
Speak a little or a lot,  but tell me just the gist. The gist is what
I want.   What use is a lot of verbosity? Then Ven. Assaji gave this
Dhamma exposition to Sariputta the Wanderer:
Whatever phenomena arise from cause:      their cause         & their
cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata,     the Great
Contemplative.
Then to Sariputta the wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma
exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: "Whatever
is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
Even if just this is the Dhamma, you have penetrated  to the
Sorrowless (asoka) State  unseen, overlooked (by us) for many myriads
of aeons. Upatissa-pasine: Upatissa's (Sariputta's) Question

For some a discourse is enough, for some two discourses and for others thousands won't do.
Some people are just too dull

An6.87. Kamma Obstructions
“Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
“He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.

Whereas others are too invested in thinking otherwise

But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment,
enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited
by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and
dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see:
the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. Ayacana Sutta: The Request

“No wonder you don’t understand, Vaccha, no wonder you’re confused. For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. It’s hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, preference, practice, and tradition.With Vacchagotta on Fire

People are generally afraid of non-existence and are delighting in existence, which prevents them from understanding how to give up the wrong views in regards to existence & non existence

(8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. 10.29. Kosala (1)

"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence[2] or to non-existence.[3] But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is,[4] 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply. SN 12.15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)

Of course meditation is the way to overcome this but people don't generally want to go

9.414.With the Householder Tapussa
“Sir, Ānanda, we are laypeople who enjoy sensual pleasures. We like
sensual pleasures, we love them and take joy in them. But renunciation
seems like an abyss. I have heard that in this teaching and training
there are very young mendicants whose minds are eager for
renunciation; they’re confident, settled, and decided about it. They
see it as peaceful. Renunciation is the dividing line between the
multitude and the mendicants in this teaching and training.”
“Householder, we should see the Buddha about this matter. Come, let’s
go to the Buddha and inform him about this. As he answers, so we’ll
remember it.”
“Yes, sir,” replied Tapussa. Then Ānanda together with Tapussa went to
the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. Ānanda told him what had
happened.
“That’s so true, Ānanda! That’s so true! Before my awakening—when I
was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too
thought, ‘Renunciation is good! Seclusion is good!’ But my mind wasn’t
eager for renunciation; it wasn’t confident, settled, and decided
about it. I didn’t see it as peaceful. Then I thought, ‘What is the
cause, what is the reason why my mind isn’t eager for renunciation,
and not confident, settled, and decided about it? Why don’t I see it
as peaceful?’ Then I thought, ‘I haven’t seen the drawbacks of sensual
pleasures, and so I haven’t cultivated that. I haven’t realized the
benefits of renunciation, and so I haven’t developed that. That’s why
my mind isn’t eager for renunciation, and not confident, settled, and
decided about it. And it’s why I don’t see it as peaceful.’

2nd Q:

From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma?

I am not an expert on Theravadin Abhidhamma, merely familiar with it, and would want to compare it to the Sarvastivadin Abhidhamma before i can give a real educated answer but i'll share my thoughts.
It is my impression so far that it's main utility & value is two-fold:

Cross-referencing with Sutta, that might be a great way to study both in tandem.

'Interrogation' for the purpose of conformity, preventing people from saying wrong things.

Abhidhamma is inside of a person who fulfilled perfection of wholesome, Parami. A person who seeing the fastest-of-trillion-thousand-arising-and-vanishing-mind-moments-per-second  is a person who understood abhidhamma.
It's hard for a foolish one who has no perfection of wholesome and wisdom. But it Tipitaka there are many people who have fulfilled perfection of wholesome, so it looks like easy to enlighten in Tipitaka when one just read, not memorize Tipitaka Pali.
So, the question is something like making an unequal person to be equal such as  "Is it important for  Albert Einstein to learn physic to understand the Theory of relativity" and "Is it important for a normal person to learn physic to understand the Theory of relativity".
Remember whether one important reason to meditate Jhana is because of the hardness of the insight meditation. The practitioner's wholesome need to be perfect enough, by Jhana, to study the hardest part of wisdom, the insight meditation. It is not only Abhidhamma, but it is seeing Abhidhamma in the past lives and the next lives until enlightenment like the Buddha did in his enlightening night.
Science is hard because of it's detail, the Dhamma is hard because it included all sciences as a little part of the whole Dhamma, Abhidhamma.
However, practice Jhana before study Abhidhamma. And it is very important to study Abhidhamma whith Jana-Mastery who memorized entired Tipitaka. The practitioner don't know who is Jhana-mastery without meditate by himself.

The traditional Theravada view is that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha himself and traditionalists view it as "advanced Dhamma".
But modern academic scholarship and monk-scholars like Ven. Bodhi and Ven. Analayo (from this answer) say that Abhidhamma means "about the Dhamma" or "analysis of the Dhamma" and it's basically a body of work that evolved over the centuries based on discussions by monks of the sangha, and serves to provide additional explanation on the Dhamma taught by the Buddha himself.
On the other hand, the Buddha stated that he has taught everything necessary for liberation, for example, in the Simsapa Sutta. There's no absolute need for sutta commentaries and the Abhidhamma.
However, traditional sutta commentaries and the Abhidhamma are useful for improving our understanding of the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha. The traditional sutta commentaries provide context for the suttas (for e.g. the Dhammapada stories), or explain some cryptic statements (for e.g. this question).
The Abhidhamma provides meta-explanations or study guides on the sutta contents for e.g. explaining perception (saññā) as being related to memory, the enumeration of various mind states like wholesome mind states, unwholesome mind states etc. It also formalizes the concept of mind-moments and the linking of mind-moments.
So, in conclusion, the Abhidhamma should be treated as an optional study guide on the suttas.
Also, as explained in this answer, the main suttas are mostly common between different schools, but the Abhidhamma or Abhidharma, being a later work, is highly divergent between different schools.

This is a good reference to complement this answer; https://budsas.net/ebud/ebsut065.htm

It's a good analysis and worth reading, i'll excerpt "I.B. Horner says that the term abhidhamma occurs not more than ten times in the first two pitakas (the Suttapitaka and the Vinayapitaka), three of these being in the Vinaya.’ (Book of Discipline III, p xi). She says that the word abhidhamma (apart from its use in interpolated material) should be ‘taken as referring to some material or method in existence prior to the compilation of this [Abhidhamma] Pitaka, and out of which it [the Abhidhamma Pitaka] was gradually elaborated and eventually formed.’

If you enjoy beating your head against a brick wall, then abhidhamma might be for you.
Abhidhamma came a hundred years or so after the Buddha died.
If the Buddha thought it was important and worthwhile to teach the general public, he would have done so.
If proponents of Abhidhamma are trying to tell you the Buddha secretly taught it to only his advanced students, you should be suspicious.
In the suttas, the Buddha said there was no secret teachings he was hiding.

From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma? Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?
With all due consideration,
In order to accurately understand the response, one needs to clarify what is understood by knowledge. If it refers to reading, reciting, or discussing any text, discourse or instruction, no such conditioned type of knowledge will ever lead to liberation from suffering, or Nibbana. Only if it refers to the unconditional knowledge of truth, which can stem only from the practical application of any instruction, thus truly knowing said instruction to be accurate or not, then the essence of knowledge from a purely old school Theravadin perspective is to acknowledge that, truthfully, “this is suffering”, “this is the origin of suffering”, “this is the eradication of suffering”, “this is the path that progresses towards the eradication of suffering”.
Bearing this in mind, a thorough and exhaustive study of the Sutta Pitaka is more than enough for understanding the four noble expressions of the truth about suffering and for applying them in order to progress towards the unconditioned and perfectly liberated state of Nibbana. What could prove even more useful for such an endeavor is the reading of at least the key elements of the doctrine in the original Pali, so as not to be confused by the several and at times imprecise variations of translations.
One who might have read the entire Sutta Pitaka and who might have taken up Pali courses for precisely this purpose could tell that especially for the key notions of the doctrine, it is very rarely possible to translate them word by word. For now, only reading them in Pali and using as a filter the direct practical application of the perfectly enlightened one's teachings can help one understand their occurrence in the different expositions and the relationship between different terms that make up the core of the doctrine.
All-in-all, reading any text or commentary that revolves around the developing of mindfulness or the noble eightfold path can prove useful for a more thorough understanding of the terminology, mainly in the original dialect. But, just as reading about food does not quench hunger, nor does talking about water quench thirst, although it is useful to gain a theoretical understanding of the instructions for the attainment of Nibbana, in order for them to quench suffering, practical application is crucial.
Respectfully

Non of the Arahats, non of those gained path, fruit in the past, present, future, did study, study, would study literary Abhidhamma to gain path and fruits.
Yet, non of those who seeked, seek, are up to seek fruits and path by means of study literary Abhidhamma, as the very means for it, have, do, or will gain path, fruit. Why is that? Because the path requires right view as base and the understanding of the practice, both hard to trace in literaly Abhidhamma, where such as path and Vimutti can hardly be found.
Why is that: because literary Abhidhamma suggests "a" stand, views, beside of required right view. Abhidhamma's arising has it's causes, gained by doing the right path, doing.
May one, falling out of the stated, correct the stated if wrong.

If the Abhidhamma, such as the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅga & Saccavibhaṅga, is actually read, it openly offers a different explanation to the Suttas. This appears obviously why many well-read Buddhists ignore the Abhidhamma.

You asked "Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?" The problem here is that Pali canon contains two layers of suttas. An Early version closer to Buddha and a later version compiled by abhidhammikas. Latter is infused with ideas of the elders and their methods of meditation that contradict the original teachings. Hence, contradictions exist in the Pali canon, which might confuse the naive reader. If you have the time to read "Studies in Abhidhamma literature and the origins of Buddhist phiilosophical systems" by Erich Frauwallner then you will be in a better place to approach the Pali canon, and create a pathway to Nibbana.
Sincerely,

Short answer on Abhidhamma is no. Not only is it not necessary, it is advisable to be avoided and it has no practical application. All it can offer is a form of pseudo-intellectual entertainment.
Short answer on Sutta Pitaka is yes. A few select chapters represent the essence of the teaching of the Enlightened One. When put to practice, they bring about the eradication of suffering.

From a purely Theravada perspective,

Basic Abhidhamma is necessary to interpret Suttas. It is the primary usage.
If one didn't learn the basic Abhdhamma, he would interpret the
Suttas in the wrong way and it would lead to wrong views.
The analysis of Abhidhamma doesn't allow any wrong view to arise.
If one doesn't learn basic Abhidhamma, he will most probably trap in a subtle "permanent entity" or "comfortable entity" or "self entity" in the world.
The well-analyzed nature of Abhidhamma keep the student away from
such dangers. This is the major advantage.

Look for the beginning of the Dhammasangani Atthakata for reference.

Citation please.

Look for the beginning of the Dhammasangani Atthakata for reference.


text:
Is empathy discussed anywhere in the suttas?
Empathy defined as

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Is there any discussion or steps to improve or a skillful way to utilize empathy mentioned anywhere in the suttas? scriptures

Ven. Sujato uses "empathy" once in his translations here:

SN10.2:4.1: If you instruct others
SN10.2:4.2: with a mind clear and confident,
SN10.2:4.3: your compassion and empathy
SN10.2:4.4: don’t create attachments.”

In general however, we have this about understanding the minds of othes:

DN2:91.2: They understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having comprehended them with their own mind.

DN2 continues in detail:

DN2:91.3: They understand mind with greed as ‘mind with greed’,
DN2:91.4: and mind without greed as ‘mind without greed’.
DN2:91.5: They understand mind with hate …
DN2:91.6: mind without hate …
DN2:91.7: mind with delusion …
DN2:91.8: mind without delusion …

It takes time to understand our own minds. It takes time to understand and let go of defilements so that true compassion and empathy can guide our thoughts, speech and actions.

I'm not sure if it is discussed in the suttas. From what I currently observe, there is a kind of empathy that exists as a primitive social function, in which one perceives and thus feels the experience of another; one imagines the world of another and attempts to feel what they may be feeling as a way to share the collective human conscious.
Those people who are good at doing this have what I call an exceptional degree of emotional intelligence, for being good at this means you don't allow the perception of others - and what you feel from those perceptions - to drown your objectivity.
Those who remain in the primitive functions, empathy can cause all sorts of issues including mental health problems, simply because one invests too much of their thoughts and feelings in what they perceive of others.
Principally, empathy is a primitive social function that once served the survival of the human, but its function is now caught up in thick and dense neurosis. Even teachers are guilty of this, asserting that: "you must give your thoughts to this group of suffering people. What they are going through is hideous. You need to suffer with them!". Rubbish!
Every emotional investment we make in another person, we invite the potential for pain to arise. That is the price we pay for giving ourselves in this way to another person. In doing this, all of our autonomous energy is absorbed by the relationship and our individuality disappears down the messy, unkempt toilet of behavioural dysfunctions and passive emotional coercions. Strangely, we find that we need these dysfunctions to feel whole, noticed and worthy; its the global culture's way of feeling connected because society teaches that one must 'feel' our fellow's pain, and if you don't, you're seen as cold and heartless! What a terribly silly philosophy!
Now, you asked about a skilful way to utilize empathy: firstly, one must claim back their autonomy. Secondly, one must then see what is actually happening in the world before setting back in. Thirdly, having seen the state of affairs, and having access to the bigger picture, one finds they no longer have to do anything, for everything is doing itself. Yes, there can be listening and feeling, but it is much more efficient because there is nobody there thinking that they are part of the show. The show of appearances appears in a non-relational and non-experiential none-event called the absolute!

“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: ‘I love life & don’t love death. I love happiness & abhor pain. Now if I — loving life & not loving death, loving happiness & abhorring pain — were to be killed, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to kill another who loves life & doesn’t love death, who loves happiness & abhors pain, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking life, he gets others to refrain from taking life, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking life. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I, by way of theft, were to take from another what he/she hadn’t given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, he gets others to refrain from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking, by way of theft, what hasn’t been given. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from sexual misconduct, he gets others to refrain from sexual misconduct, and he speaks in praise of refraining from sexual misconduct. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to damage my well-being by telling a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to damage the well-being of another by telling a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from telling lies, he gets others to refrain from telling lies, and he speaks in praise of refraining from telling lies. In this way, his verbal behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to divide me from my friends with divisive speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to divide another from his/her friends with divisive speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from divisive speech, he gets others to refrain from divisive speech, and he speaks in praise of refraining from divisive speech. In this way, his verbal behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from harsh speech, he gets others to refrain from harsh speech, and he speaks in praise of refraining from harsh speech. In this way, his verbal behavior is pure in three ways.

“Further, he reflects thus: ‘If someone were to address me with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to address another with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he refrains from idle chatter, gets others to refrain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of refraining from idle chatter. In this way, his verbal behavior is pure in three ways."

~ the Buddha, Veḷudvāreyya Sutta: The People of Bamboo Gate, transl. Thanissaro https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN55_7.html


text:
What is access concentration?
When sit for the meditation ears were blocked. Just like sink into the water. But sounds were heard.  With the time it's  heard in less intensity. Is that access concentration? Before  this developed experience the momentary  nature  of the in breath and out breath. As well as the momentary nature  of consciousness along with that withe the break of the in breath and outbreath.

One of the defining attributes of access concentration is dissociation with thoughts. Thoughts may be there, but one is not caught inside them.

While  walking  suddenly thought disappear and noticed of foot steps appeared . After that sitting  meditation thoughts disappear. Thoughts removed and cool and peacefulness of mind appear.

Sounds to me like you're making great progress! :-)

Thank you. Is it permanent?

Remember the entire of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOqZ43MKSqg and  https://medium.com/capoeirawellness/instructions-on-anapanasati-meditation-for-beginners-38db38787fe3 Then you will understand the only way is getting mind's focus back to breath in and out. Don't be bored, don't desire to the resultant, just be happy and relax to watch on breath.

Is it permanent? I try not to answer questions like that, because they arise from longing. At best, one might say there is an abiding that knows no time or causality.

Obviously the surefire way is to consult a qualified meditation teacher. For the mean time, you could read more about access concentraion from Ven. Bodhi's "Eightfold Noble Path":

When the learning sign appears, the meditator leaves off the preliminary sign and fixes his attention on the new object. In due time still another object will emerge out of the learning sign. This object, called the "counterpart sign" (patibhaga-nimitta), is a purified mental image many times brighter and clearer than the learning sign. The learning sign is compared to the moon seen behind a cloud, the counterpart sign to the moon freed from the cloud. Simultaneously with the appearance of the counterpart sign, the five absorption factors suppress the five hindrances, and the mind enters the stage of concentration called upacara-samadhi, "access concentration." Here, in access concentration, the mind is drawing close to absorption. It has entered the "neighbourhood" (a possible meaning of upacara) of absorption, but more work is still needed for it to become fully immersed in the object, the defining mark of absorption.

With further practice the factors of concentration gain in strength and bring the mind to absorption (appana-samadhi). Like access concentration, absorption takes the counterpart sign as object. The two stages of concentration are differentiated neither by the absence of the hindrances nor by the counterpart sign as object; these are common to both. What differentiates them is the strength of the jhana factors. In access concentration the jhana factors are present, but they lack strength and steadiness. Thus the mind in this stage is compared to a child who has just learned to walk: he takes a few steps, falls down, gets up, walks some more, and again falls down. But the mind in absorption is like a man who wants to walk: he just gets up and walks straight ahead without hesitation.

Pāmojja, joy out of letting go, surrender (Saddha, Sila), is what marks the entrance of the path.


text:
What is the Sanskrit for "Universal Gate"
The "Universal Gate" is referred to in chapter 25 of the Lotus Sutra. I've been trying to find the Sanskrit for this, but no luck.

It's "samantamukha."
See here: http://www.dsbcproject.org/canon-text/content/54/481
You'll notice that it's chapter 25 of the Chinese, but chapter 24 of the Sanskrit. This is because the Chinese translation splits one of the chapters into two chapters.


text:
Mindfulness as Heartfulness
Jon Kabat Zinn explains that Mindfulness in Asia means 'Heartfulness'
He describes integrating buddhist tenets such as beginner's mind, non-judgment, letting go, acceptance, trust, gratitude and generosity into mindfulness as part of informal meditation.
My difficulty with my formal and informal meditation practice through the course of the day seems mechanical because I don't know how to cultivate and integrate heart into it. I am aware of my senses. I have the mind be still with little or no thought. But there doesn't seem to be anything warm, understanding, loving or appreciative. It doesn't feel rewarding at all beyond discipline of the mind.
I ask myself, if mind must be still and thoughts silent, how to I cultivate matters of the heart in my meditation. Or do I allows for cultivating a 'Heartful' narrative that explores the buddhist tenets mentioned above.
It all just feels like cold discipline to me at the moment and nothing more.
Please help me understand what mindfulness may look like in the context of heartfulness.

It may be useful to read the Mettāsahagatasutta, whose title has been translated as "Full of Love". In the west, "love" and "heart" are closely associated. And in this sutta, we see that the focus of meditation is not just the being on the cushion. It is much much more.

SN46.54:12.1: And how is the heart’s release by love developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end?
SN46.54:12.2: It’s when a mendicant develops the heart’s release by love together with the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion,
SN46.54:12.3: and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.
SN46.54:12.4: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.
SN46.54:12.5: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive,’ that’s what they do.
SN46.54:12.6: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive and the repulsive,’ that’s what they do.
SN46.54:12.7: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive and the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.
SN46.54:12.8: If they wish: ‘May I meditate staying equanimous, mindful and aware, rejecting both the repulsive and the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.

An open heart is not a cold heart locked into stillness. It is an open heart without walls. As the heart opens, a beautiful clarity emerges as walls dissolve.

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

The sutta continues with the further releases of the heart: compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. In all of these, there is, without limitation, an open mindfulness of the infinite expanse of heart.
In that very stillness you have found, open your heart to all around, beyond the cushion, beyond the room, beyond the city and on. Be mindful of your heart and open it. Don't still your heart into coldness. Open and release that heart into the beautiful and beyond.

One of the difficulties with how Buddhism is moulded is that one brings with them a conditioned message from society that one is not perfect. Once within the confines of Buddism, that message prevails and takes on the form of spirituality; hence, it is the same troubled message but it now wears drag, with lipstick and huge earrings. In other words, it looks a little more prettier, but it's the same damn message: "You're not perfect, yet!"
Ask yourself, why must you need to feel a particular way? You would do far better to address what you perceive to be imperfect about yourself rather than covering those things up with silly fabricated feelings called "warmth" and what not.
Having said that, there is a particular kind of person that this approach might be helpful towards, but you'd have to be pretty far gone, neurotically, to appreciate the practice in that way. Most people have the ability to look directly at what they perceive to be imperfect and question the validity of their perceptions, assumptions, beliefs and ideas.
By and large, this won't make you anywhere near perfect, and trying to mould yourself into the idea of a perfect Buddhist will cause more issues; you can only remove enough conditioning to just not give a shit about the rest of it.

Jon Kabat Zinn explains that Mindfulness [sati] in Asia means 'Heartfulness'

That's Jon's definition of 'mindfulness', not the Buddha's.

Basic function and Pre-buddhist meaning of 'sati': High level of proficiency in memorizing and 'remembering' what was done and said from long ago (SN 48.9 sati-indriya).

The Buddha's definition of sati incorporates the above, but imbues it with a very specific function. The mindfulness [of the Dharma]. The default value of 'Dharma', if context doesn't call for a more specific set of Dharma instructions, is the satipaṭṭhāna formula:

(Disclosure: My sutta translation and notes on 'sati')
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/7sati/index.html
"Monks, what is right remembering [of ☸Dharma]?"

He meditates continuously seeing the body as a body [as it actually is].
He meditates continuously seeing sensations as sensations [as they actually are].
He meditates continuously seeing the mind as a mind [as it actually is].
He meditates continuously seeing ☸Dharma as ☸Dharma [as it actually is, the only way to nirvana].

[In all four modes of right remembering of ☸Dharma],

He is ardent , he has lucid discerning , he remembers  [to apply relevant ☸Dharma],
vanquishing worldly avarice and distressed mental states.

"This, monks, is called right remembering [of ☸Dharma]."

It may be useful to read the Mettāsahagatasutta, whose title has been
translated as "Full of Love". In the west, "love" and "heart" are
closely associated. And in this sutta, we see that the focus of
meditation is not just the being on the cushion. It is much much more.

It would be more useful to read a better translation of that sutta than Sujato's, who erroneously translates and interprets 'metta' as 'love'.
'metta' in the EBT (early buddhist teachings) is absolutely not 'love', which  is an ambiguous modern word. In the EBT, the 4 brahmavihāras, of which metta belongs, is closely related to the word 'mitta' which means 'friend'.
EBT 'metta' is a platonic, neighborly friendliness. It has no component of defiled lust and entangling attachments to objects of one's affection, which characterize the primary definitions of 'love'.
The pre-Buddhist meaning of 'metta' is uncertain. What we know for sure about it, is it leads to rebirth in the Brahma realms, genderless beings of highly developed virtue who have no interest in 'sex' and lust.

May be you can intertwine the practice of mindfulness and hurtfulness.
in that sense Hearfuness is emotion part of mindfulness.
So how you can practice that. Whenever you get into Aha moment( Aha I was just thinking etc) .
What you typically do( In dry mindfulness practice) is Gently come back to meditation object. Instead now add a little emotion into it.
(1) Just smile, be joyful, be thankful of this grace by which you are able to notice . this aha moment.
(2) If you find aversion.. say sorry. Cultivate thoughts of mudita, metta, karuna  to yourself or two the other person involved in your thinking.
(3)Even Joy (pamojj, pamudita) is considered important element of Jhana. So just smile, before you gently come back to meditation object.
Not only in case of 'aha' moment , but also you can frequently  come back to inducing thoughts of Brahmvihara even when you are silent.
Thus you can add some moisture into the dry practice of mindfulness. and thus you can intertwine the practice of mindfulness and hurtfulness together.


text:
Inner strength as a great river
I was watching the old movie "Kung Fu" (1986) and there is a really interesting moment near the end where Caine is lectured by Master Po who speaks to the effect of the following: "Do not go in fear, fear is eternal darkness, but go instead with inner strength which is like a deep river into which all streams flow; it increases, always moving forwards and soon there is nothing that can stand in its way."
It seems like an empty sentiment at first, but on reflection there is something in this statement that makes me think it must come from some long lived idea. Is this just a screen writer's fancy or some reference to an old Buddhist idea?

Buddha spoke of people of integrity. They surely have the inner strength. "And how is a person of integrity endowed with qualities of integrity? There is the case where a person of integrity is endowed with conviction, conscience, concern; he is learned, with aroused persistence, unmuddled mindfulness, & good discernment. This is how a person of integrity is endowed with qualities of integrity." -- Cula-punnama Sutta

The term "river" is used in the Pali suttas, but usually referring to the flood of sensuality or samsara which carries people away (SN 35.200) -- or see also "River" in this brief "Index of Similes"
The closest Buddhist reference I know of, to the analogy you cited, is this more-or-less famous "Zen story":

Great Waves
In the early days of the Meiji era there lived a well-known wrestler called O-nami, Great Waves.
O-nami was immensely strong and knew the art of wrestling. In his private bouts he defeated even his teacher, but in public he was so bashful that his own pupils threw him.
O-nami felt he should go to a Zen master for help. Hakuju, a wandering teacher, was stopping in a little temple nearby, so O-nami went to see him and told him of his trouble.
"Great Waves is your name," the teacher advised, "so stay in this temple tonight. Imagine that you are those billows. You are no longer a wrestler who is afraid. You are those huge waves sweeping everything before them, swallowing all in their path. Do this and you will be the greatest wrestler in the land."
The teacher retired. O-nami sat in meditation trying to imagine himself as waves. He thought of many different things. Then gradually he turned more and more to the feeling of the waves. As the night advanced the waves became larger and larger. They swept away the flowers in their vases. Even the Buddha in the shrine was inundated. Before dawn the temple was nothing but the ebb and flow of an immense sea.
In the morning the teacher found O-nami meditating, a faint smile on his face. He patted the wrestler's shoulder. "Now nothing can disturb you," he said. "You are those waves. You will sweep everything before you."
The same day O-nami entered the wrestling contests and won. After that, no one in Japan was able to defeat him.

It's possible that if the movie's script-writer knew anything about Buddhism, they might have known this story (it was published in Zen Flesh, Zen Bones).
I'm guessing that it's Mahayana if anything.
The Pali does has doctrine about "strength" -- see Vīrya.
But the term "inner" strength puts me in mind of what may be later concepts -- like "Buddha nature" or "original face" -- of something primordial that remains if you can escape superficialities.
But one of the topics that's central to both forms of Buddhism is escaping from "obscurations" or "hindrances" -- which could include "fear" (as in the OP), or "bashfulness" (presumably a form of conceit) as in the Zen story.

I'm not sure it needs to be said, but we can't really take Kung Fu (the movie or the series) as a proper representation of Buddhist thought. At best, it's a Hollywoodized representation of generic East Asian mysticism. The river analogy is far more prominent in Daoism that Buddhism, and while Chan Buddhism did incorporate a lot of Daoist philosophy, this doesn't strike me as quite on point.
I suspect what you're hearing is '80s martial arts mysticism, which worked its way into US culture through Bruce Lee and his students more than Buddhist meditative centers. The sentiment is quite similar to things I've heard in discussions of Tai Chi, and probably extends to other 'circular' martial arts as well.

It seems like an empty sentiment at first, but on reflection there is something in this statement that makes me think it must come from some long lived idea. Is this just a screen writer's fancy or some reference to an old Buddhist idea?

While there's no 1 to 1 exact matching between what's said in a movie and the Buddha's teaching, the idea's always been there:

There are no painful mental states, chieftain,
in one without longing.
In one whose fetters are ended,
all fears are overcome.
With the ending of [craving]
the guide to becoming,
when phenomena are seen
for what they are,
then just as in the laying down of a burden,
there's no fear in death.

I've lived well the holy life,
well-developed the path.
Death holds no fear for me.
It's like the end of a disease.

I've   lived well the holy life,
well-developed the path,
seen states of becoming
as devoid of allure,
like poison spit out
after it's drunk.

One gone to the far shore
without clinging
without effluent
his task completed,
welcomes the ending of life,
as if freed from a place of execution.
Having attained the supreme Rightness,
unconcerned with all the world,
as if released from a burning house,
he doesn't sorrow at death.

Whatever's compounded,
wherever a state of becoming's obtained,
all that has no one in charge:
so says the Great Seer.
Whoever discerns this,
as taught by the Awakened One,
would no more grasp hold of any state of becoming
than he would a hot iron ball.
I have no 'I was,'
no 'I will be.'
Fabrications will simply go out of existence.
What's to lament there in that?
For one who sees, as it actually is,
the pure arising of phenomena,
the pure seriality of fabrications,
there's no fear.
When seeing the world with discernment
as on a par with grass & twigs,
finding no 'mine-ness,'
thinking, 'There's nothing of mine,'
he feels no sorrow.
Dissatisfied with this carcass,
I'm unconcerned with becoming.
This body will break up
and there will not be another.
Do as you like with this carcass.
From that I will feel
neither hatred nor love.
~~ Thag 16.1 ~~

That sounds very much like something a Buddhist master would say.

"Do not go in fear, fear is eternal darkness, but instead go with inner strength which is like a deep river into which all streams flow;"

Sounds like what happens when a person practices Satipatthana mindfulness:
They look at what is coming through the streams of seeing, hearing, thinking and feeling continuously on a moment-by-moment basis as a part of the Eightfold Noble Path.

The Buddha taught about fear in several ways. Here is one:

AN9.5:5.1: A noble disciple who has these four powers has got past five fears.
AN9.5:5.2: What five?
AN9.5:5.3: Fear regarding livelihood, disrepute, feeling insecure in an assembly, death, and bad rebirth.

What has the strength to overcome those fears?

AN9.5:5.4: Then that noble disciple reflects:
AN9.5:5.5: ‘I have no fear regarding livelihood.
AN9.5:5.6: Why would I be afraid of that?
AN9.5:5.7: I have these four powers:
AN9.5:5.8: the powers of wisdom, energy, blamelessness, and inclusiveness.
AN9.5:5.9: A witless person might fear for their livelihood.
AN9.5:5.10: A lazy person might fear for their livelihood.
AN9.5:5.11: A person who does blameworthy things by way of body, speech, and mind might fear for their livelihood.
AN9.5:5.12: A person who does not include others might fear for their livelihood.
AN9.5:5.13: I have no fear of disrepute …
AN9.5:5.14: I have no fear about feeling insecure in an assembly …
AN9.5:5.15: I have no fear of death …
AN9.5:5.16: I have no fear of a bad rebirth.
AN9.5:5.17: Why would I be afraid of that?

As you can see, this may raise more questions whose answers can also be found in the suttas.
May your journey into the suttas be fruitful and bring you peace.


text:
What is stream entry?
While  doing meditation I had experienced sudden  stop of mind for a second. Then restart again  reflecting that is peaceful. What was that experienced?is it stream entry?

Stream Entry (Sotāpanna) is a particular state in which someone practicing the dharma has broken the first three fetters (impediments to advancement).  These are:

The fetter of self-view: the belief that there is an I/me (a self) that is eternal and unchanging, or by contrast the rejection of such a belief. One comes to realize it is an unimportant question that causes headaches.
The fetter of rites and rituals: the belief that one can reach liberation merely through the observance of rites, rituals, ethical strictures, or other 'formal' practices. One comes to realize that one must engage the dharma more deeply through meditation.
The fetter of doubt: an intellectual understanding of the dharma that is subject to question, which is replaced by an experience of the fruits of practice that is beyond doubt.

The cessation of mental activity for a brief moment may or may not be sufficient to break the third fetter; only you can say whether you still have doubts. It is a useful and interesting experience in any case, one which demonstrates that your practice is sound. But don't worry (or think) too much about it. An undue focus on the meaning or significance of events can lead you back into the second fetter, where you ritualize the appearance of certain states as symbols of progress.

Again that was happened i was sick and was on the bed trying  to noticed bodily  pain suddenly experienced that I was gone to sleep  when waking  up reflecting i was in that state. Is it 8th mundane  jhana?it try to occur most  of the time  when I go to sleep.

There are 3 fetters called "Self-view", "Doubt", "Grasping mere rules and rituals" to be eliminated by the Stream entry.
And there are conditions that a stream enterer must have already fulfilled, according to the Theravada Texts. (Suttas, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, Visuddhimagga)

He must have born with very higher level of merit and wisdom. (Pubba-yogavacara, Tihetuka-patisandhi)
He must have practiced the correct interpretation of the path among various representations of Dhamma. (in Visuddhimagga prologue)
He must have gone through the each step of Seven-purifications. (last half is very higher level wisdoms)
He must have gone through a series of "Paccavekkhana Nanas" after the attainment. (Paccavekkhana Nanas means wise minds that reflect back how he attained, after the attainment)

3rd point demands very higher knowledge and awareness about the degree of the elimination of fetters/defilements he has done, at each milestone of the path.
Especially the 4th point says "if one has attained stream entry, he knows what he has done, very well."