text:
Cessation of form vs. escape from form
EDIT: I've changed this question from SN 22.56 to SN 22.57, but the sutta content related to my question is very similar. And I've added a new question.
The term "form" in SN 22.57 below, seems to refer to the physical body. Cessation of form is "rūpanirodha". And the "seven bases" from the Thanissaro translation is a bit different from the Sujato and Bodhi translations which call it the "seven cases".
Question 1:
What does cessation of form through the noble eightfold path mean? Does it mean that physical rebirth is ended through the practice of the noble eightfold path? What else could it mean?
Question 2:
I guess it can be argued that the "cessation of form" (through noble eightfold path) and "escape from form" (through abandonment of passion and desire for form) are the same thing. But are these two the same or different? If they are the same, then why are they two different bases of the seven bases?
From SN 22.57 (trans. Thanissaro):

"And how is a monk skilled in seven bases? There is the case where a
  monk discerns form, the origination of form, the cessation of form,
  the path of practice leading to the cessation of form. He discerns the
  allure of form, the drawback of form, and the escape from form.
"And what is form? The four great existents [the earth property, the
  liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property] and the form
  derived from them: this is called form. From the origination of
  nutriment comes the origination of form.
From the cessation of nutriment comes the cessation of form. And just
  this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of form, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration.
The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on form: that
  is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful,
  subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of
  desire & passion for form, the abandoning of desire & passion for
  form: that is the escape from form.
"For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing form in
  this way, directly knowing the origination of form in this way,
  directly knowing the cessation of form in this way, directly knowing
  the path of practice leading to the cessation of form in this way,
  directly knowing the allure of form in this way, directly knowing the
  drawback of form in this way, directly knowing the escape from form in
  this way, are practicing for disenchantment — dispassion — cessation
  with regard to form, they are practicing rightly. Those who are
  practicing rightly are firmly based in this doctrine & discipline.

Translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here:

And how is a mendicant skilled in seven cases? It’s when a mendicant
  understands form, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that
  leads to its cessation. They understand form’s gratification,
  drawback, and escape. They understand feeling … perception … choices …
  consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads
  to its cessation. They understand consciousness’s gratification,
  drawback, and escape.
And what is form? The four primary elements, and form derived from the
  four primary elements. This is called form. Form originates from food.
  When food ceases, form ceases. The practice that leads to the
  cessation of form is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right
  view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
The pleasure and happiness that arise from form: this is its
  gratification. That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable:
  this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for
  form: this is its escape.
Those ascetics and brahmins who have directly known form in this
  way—and its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its
  cessation; its gratification, drawback, and escape—and are practicing
  for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding form: they
  are practicing well. Those who practice well have a firm footing in
  this teaching and training.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Q1: What does cessation of form through the noble eightfold path mean?
Form is one of the grasping aggregates. With relishing, it grows (see SN12.64). For example, first we like cake, then we like chocolate cake better, then we like dark chocolate cake even better. The forms grow elaborately. With cessation of form, we only see nutriment for the physical body.
Our senses are designed to recognize what we crave. That recognition is experienced as "contact". A smell or sight or taste announces itself through that contact as the object of craving and demands our attention to repeat a pleasant experience (i.e., rebirth of the eating of chocolate cake). That identification of the object of craving is a "form". It is the biased lens of craving through which we observe the world.
With the cessation of craving, the forms dissolve because they no longer serve any function. One looks at chocolate cake and sees sugar, fat, flour and spices. One understands their nutritional value and acts according to that understanding.
The example of chocolate cake is a simple example for practice. The principles can be applied to many things that cause suffering: fear of heights, anger, infatuation with one's own health and youth, etc.
In terms of the physical body, when one attends to the physical body, it becomes apparent that we do strange things like wonder if "my hair looks nice" or "should I wear this shirt?". These are all just forms based on craving. With the cessation of craving, all those silly suffering thoughts evaporate.
Forms include more than mental models (i.e., thoughts). Forms come into being to serve recognition and craving. When craving ceases, forms appear and disappear on their own as needed, they don't linger and hinder us through craving. The chocolate cake is still there but it does not have a form for craving.
Q2: I guess it can be argued that the "cessation of form" (through noble eightfold path) and "escape from form" (through abandonment of passion and desire for form) are the same thing. But are these two the same or different?
They are different. One can escape from the trap of a particular form (e.g., dark chocolate cake) but still be trapped by delight in another form (e.g., young redheads with a certain shape). Cessation is much deeper and requires relinquishing the craving the gives rise to forms.
It is very difficult to give up delight. We keep running around craving delight and trying to escape the suffering caused by that craving. We can't just turn off "Forms Switch" and arrive at the cessation of form immediately, because the cravings (i.e., forms) that define our identities are easiest to deal with one-by-one. And this is why we practice daily and diligently tossing out those delights and cravings and forms. At some point, we realize that forms have ceased for us. That would be with Right Wisdom. And then we achieve Right Freedom. (SN12.23)

For Q1, are you saying that cessation of form refers to cessation of the grasping aggregate of form (some kind of mental model), and not the non-grasping aggregate of form, which is the physical body?

I have expanded the answer to explain the role of recognition and contact rather than mental model. Even the physical body is experienced this way.

So form is a papanca, reification or objectification-classification of that which is derived from the four great elements. Craving is also because of  papanca.

Yes. That is my understanding and experience. Delight is the root of suffering. MN1 The Root of All Things. Understanding this has eased my own suffering and shown me how to practice towards that end.

No. Form is not a papanca, reification or objectification-classification of that which is derived from the four great elements. You are going from one extreme to another because you appear to have never comprehended Dhamma is all about abandoning craving & self-view. When craving & self-view are abandoned, it will be seen: (i) form is not a reification; and (ii) there is not such thing as post-mortem rebirth (aka reincarnation).

I don't mean the physical body is a papanca. I meant the Mahayana interpretation of the term "form" is a papanca derived from the body.  With that explanation, then cessation of form and escape from form can be equivalent without giving "cessation" a different interpretation than its literal meaning.

Yes, rebirth can ONLY be ended through the practice of the Noble Eight Fold Path. No other way.
Nutriment is four fold: Physical nutriment (kabaḷīkārāhāro) - the edible food as well as a person or object we take as "beauty", Contact as nutriment (phasso āhāro), Mental Volition as nutriment (manosañcetanāhāro) and Consciousness as nutriment (viññāṇāhāro).
When these four nutriments ceases, Form ceases. The practice (i.e. development, aka. meditation) that leads to the cessation is the Noble Eight Fold Path.
If you want to learn more about this, listen to this meditation on Suffering due to Four Nutriments. You can learn about these four nutriments and how we end up with four bad ways (agati) because of them.

That's the same with everythink/g. Taking Sangha. Don't giving interest toward it, it soon disappears, and no such as Sangha is traceable in the world of experiances by the six senses. Or Devas: think why there are no Devas anymore. Or Iddhi. It's the same with Nibbana as well. Soon it (traceable by one path) will be no more traceable in the world.
And with everything else the same: what gets no nurishment, inwardly and othwardly, disapears in ones world.
If one gives much food into words and "meanings" that a huge forest grows. Bigger and bigger, no more way out to trace.
Take care of what Upanissayapaccayena (strong condition "nurishment") you give into. "Push the breaks and avoid the stacks".
[note that this is not given to nurish the forests of trade, exchange, stacks and what ever makes one blind to the Unbond]

For the benefit of the readers, I will post an answer here to my own question (contrary to the rules laid out by the moderators), rephrasing what I think is the answer meant by other people here, but I will not accept my own answer.
The correct interpretation of this sutta is most probably:
From the origination of (craving for) nutriment comes the origination of (craving for) form. From the cessation of (craving for) nutriment comes the cessation of (craving for) form. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of (craving for) form.
Nutriment refers to edible food, contact, mental volitions and consciousness, according to SN 12.63 and SN 12.64.
This is consistent with the second and third noble truths that the cause of suffering is craving and the cessation of suffering is through the cessation of craving.
What I think is special and unique about this interpretation of the sutta is: From the origination of (craving for) nutriment comes the origination of (craving for) form. From the cessation of (craving for) nutriment comes the cessation of (craving for) form.
I would credit Dhammadhatu and Damith for their contribution to this interpretation above, although I do not claim that this is exactly their view, but rather, what I think they meant.


text:
Bhava Tanha & Vibhava Tanha
The above mentioned technical terms are respectively translated as Craving for Becoming (something) & Craving for Non-Becoming/Getting Rid Off.
Above said, how do we know that we're in Craving for Becoming (or not) whenever we're cultivating good? One of the limbs of the N8P, that is, 'bhavana', is about active cultivation. Where is the difference between the two?
Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly, the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it? This too, then, is Bhava Tanha?
Now with Vibhava Tanha:  Suppose I am overweight and must lose weight immeditately; is the 'getting rid' of my body fat then considered vibhava tanha and at the same time 'bhava tanha' (becoming a skinny person)?
Finally, when do we exactly know whether something is bhava tanha or kusala chanda? Is it primarily our motivation, i.e., in this case, for whom we're losing weight/what motivation causes us to lose weight, or is it something that we can't avoid at all, since 'identity birth(s)' ('I am this', 'I am not this') exists in everyone except in a fully enlightened being.

Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly,
  the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it?
  This too, then, is Bhava Tanha?

Dana is the perfect case to illustrate that merit depends on ''good deeds'' and the intention behind them, as usually claimed by the buddha. Never forget that deeds (thought, speeches, actions) are always tied to intentions (or rather to cetayanas). This is the novelty claimed by the buddha, instead of normal people who think that virtue lies either all on the side of deeds, or all on the side of intentions, or some even say that virtue does not exist.
that's the relevant texts about giving:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html
The dana of something to a ''renunciant'' (bikkhu or lay person) is always good, but the fruit of this deed depends on how the giver view the deed.  there are 8 good intentions listed in the famous sutta about dana

there is the famous case, where the giver focuses on meritorious rebirth
there is a famous case, where the giver gives stuff to an ascetic by tradition
there is the famous case where the giver thinks that ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'' and rich people must give riches to poor people

Then there is the most important case where the giver focus on his citta, because, by right view and right intention, dana is part of right action. People who cling to the famous views above do not have access to this higher view.
So   there is Bhava Tanha when you do act meritoriously, but do not have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta), ie when you do not understand why dana is good (and not dana is bad). This is normal for puthujjanas since at best they memorize right view, instead of knowing right view.
Puthujjanas who cling to their view that nibanna means loving everybody and being selfless are stuck at the level of ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'', and they think that caring about their citta is bad. In short, they worry to much on what the recipient feels and enjoys. They do not understand that the cultivation of right intention is about their citta and that metta alone is not right intention...
Right intention is metta+Nekkhamma. It is metta which gets you in meritorious states, but It is Nekkhamma which makes you avoid bhava Tanha.
The way to have sila, respect the precepts and all is precisely mindfulness. As long as you are mindful, you are assured to have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta). This is why mindfulness matters :

Being heedful, he achieves consummation in virtue.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.015.than.html
or even with Nanda here
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/08_eights/an08.009.than.ati.htm
It is the same thing with kusala chanda. When there is a buddha and people are inspired by him,  there is kusala chanda. When there is no buddha, it gets harder to have kusala chanda, because puthujjanas love to idolize people and do like their idols, so when there is no buddha, they only idolize only other puthujjanas and they make their life worse.
So 3 taṇhā you talk about, are about the object, kama, bhava, vibhava. But the object of right intention is indeed the samadhi of the citta, nibanna, dispassion, seeing things as dukkha and so on.

"Then there is the most important case where the giver focus on his citta, because, by right view and right intention, dana is part of right action. People who cling to the famous views above do not have access to this higher view'. What do you mean by 'focus on his citta'? Should I think that giving embellishes my mind?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
No compassion, goodwill for oneself?
Someone, possible thought it might be compassionate, stated:

Also (next to compassion), when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions.

Possible to have real compassion or/and goodwill, not to speak about mudita and upekkha, without having one self floated with it.
So is this true or the very base not traced? Possible Nihilist-Trap? Possible that certain Kings at Buddhas times have been wiser and more compassionate as intellectuals may ever be? Possible not seen the qualities of Ariyasāvakas and thought in common terms?
[Note: this question is one of compassion and not thought for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism, or whatever binds to the low.]

The metta sutta was probably addressed to monks because the stanza opens with already being established in the noble eightfold path, as follows:

This is what should be done
      By one who is skilled in goodness,
  And who knows the path of peace:
      Let them be able and upright,
  Straightforward and gentle in speech,
      Humble and not conceited,
  Contented and easily satisfied,
      Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
  Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
      Not proud or demanding in nature.
  Let them not do the slightest thing
      That the wise would later reprove.
  Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
      May all beings be at ease.

Also, the Buddha indeed mentioned to care first for oneself and then for others. This is not egoism, but intelligent self-care. The dhammapada states:

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only one should teach others. A wise man should not incur reproach.

Dhammapada 158

By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

Dhammapada 165

For the sake of another's benefit, however great it may be, do not neglect one's own (moral) benefit. Clearly perceiving one's own benefit one should make every effort to attain it.

Dhammapada 166
Also, the Buddha was a proponent of flexibility in his approach. You might know this as conventional language (to lay people) and absolute (to monks). The teachings on both addressee vary. Sometimes, the Buddha remained even silent because it was not connected to the goal, i.e., reduce suffering (& Nibbana).
Take  for example MN 20 or Capala Sutta AN 7.58. In both suttas Buddha gave a number of strategies that can be employed. The idea is to be flexible and to see what works in any given time. 'Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't'. 'If it doesn't, let me use this instead'.

Metta practise is allways discripet with "There is the case where a Ariyasāvaka..." i.e. Noble One. One not arived there did not have compassion and goodwill for himselve till now, not capable for this practice.

I would agree with others who say that it is often taken for granted in the Suttas that one is already dear to oneself.  The lesson the Buddha adds is that we should extend this regard to others.  When one regards others' lives as significant as one's own, this extension becomes natural.

Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others if you love yourself.

Ud 5:1 The King (Rājan Sutta)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.01.than.html

Samma sankappa, thought of renunciation, and samadhi is compassion and goodwill for oneself. It is how you behave when you are alone, so according to people who translate sila as morality, that's not sila (but it is indeed sila).
For other people, you have thought of non-arming, thought of amity, metta, mudita and so on.

That's how the metta sutta starts, yes. What about the Bamboo acrobatic? No compassion, goodwill for oneself first?

There's a modern metta gatha which is discussed here and which begins ...

May I be free from enmity and danger

... so I think that's considered normal these days.
I think I read that the rationale is that you should call to mind metta for yourself or your own friends and family -- i.e. people you can easily feel metta towards -- before trying to apply it to people you don't know, and/or to people you feel emnity towards.
Perhaps this strategy is incompatible with trying to practice anatta but I'm not sure that everyone tries to do that anyway -- but see also Metta meditation ever taught to householders?
Also Dhammapada 129:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

That seems to assume that people will inherently refrain from being hurting themselves.
Still I'm not sure metta is really applicable to oneself: partly, because I don't see how that doesn't encourage self-view and clinging; partly, because I suppose that might result in over-indulgence (i.e. accepting your own faults instead of making an effort to correct them), though you might counterargue that true metta would involve properly following the path; and partly, because of think of metta (brahmaviharas generally) as primarily social:

They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact

There's doctrine called "stages of metta".
For example the article -- The Six Stages of Metta-Bhavana -- references the Visuddhimagga (Chapter 9) as its source, and includes ...

Toward oneself
Toward our loved ones
Toward neutral beings
Toward those with whom we are in conflict
Toward all sentient beings

... or another source says six stages:

All four of the above
The whole unverse

You might see the Visuddhimagga for more detailed advice -- it is quite detailed (15 pages) and begins something like this:

Here is what it says after that, about developing it towards oneself:

(this was quoting The Path of Purification translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli, from the Buddhist Publication Society).

The Path of Purification is a commentary written by Buddhagosa - someone who was NOT even a stream-enterer and clearly has mislead the world on many accounts (metta to one self being one of many). Today, majority of the world is using this and therefore blocked from gaining the Noble Fruits of Buddha Dhamma.

I also encourage you to find a single place in the Sutta Pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka or Abhidhamma Pitaka where the Buddha is saying "may I be happy..".
Commentaries are mixed with correct and incorrect dhamma. (And mainly due to what Buddhagosa and Acariya Anuruddha introduced) therefore best to not use Commentaries.

What is said there is when you practice loving kindness, you should NOT say "May I be" or "May my so and so be" because in those cases you are putting your self before others.
Buddha never says "May I be well, etc." instead Buddha says in any discourse when he is talking about loving kindness (metta) he says to practice as "May all beings be...".
However, that does not mean disparage yourself.
On one hand it means boundless - no boundary around me or my ones. For example, if you put yourself or your child first, what happens to the loving kindness when a deadly snake is about to bite you or your child? Will you kill the snake?
Even more importantly, when you say "May I be...", you are feeding the identity view (sakkayaditti). Every discourse of the Buddha is a path to Nibbana. Good example is metta-sutta in Suttanipata. To attain Nibbana you need to remove identity-view. Therefore the practice of loving kindness that Buddha teaches will not say "May I be...".
Thanks to this great teacher and explanation of Loving kindness meditation, I too got to learn about this.

Maybe love/attachment is mistaken wirh compassion and goodwill?

And: So Billion of practicer since tausands of years got it wrong as well.

@SamanaJohann please see my comments to ChrisW.
On top of that, something to contemplate on is this: When spreading metta to all being in all directions, I'm clearly included in that. Even when that is the case, why is it that I'm so reluctant give up that view of putting myself in front?
Unfortunately, today the noble dhamma has gone to the wayside. Commentaries and other wrong ideas have spread in the world. Large number of people following a wrong idea doesn't make it the right idea.
If your goal is to attain nibbana, I suggest you follow word to word what the Buddha said.

Upasaka SarathW came across a wonderful sample on Buddhas answer to this question in a Sutta, shared here: Is it possible a person mortifies others but not mortify themselves and vice versa?
Meaning: Doing the right for oneself is compassion for both. Doing the right for others, is compassion for both. Doing where ever wrong, hurting oneself, other, is always lack of compassion (=wisdom=concentration=sila=giving)
May all be able to rejoice with his merits and gain with it!

In this excerpt of the Cakkavatti Sutta DN26 the Buddha makes the following statement about a monk's wealth.

And what constitutes a monk's wealth? There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

The key phrase that that I believe answers your question is "above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world". This statement makes it clear that he is talking about the whole entire world, not any particular slice or subdivision. Our bodies and our minds are as part of the world as anyone else, the idea that anyone could be separate from the world in any way is a fabrication.
Liberating yourself is an act of loving-kindness toward yourself, and it is only through liberating yourself that you can liberate others.

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


text:
I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.
But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.
I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.

Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

Maybe the dharma is important as a raft, but the practices of meditation and compassion are like the oars.

I've heard that for stream entry, meditation is unneeded and contemplation on the (meaning of the) higher Dhamma is enough — that seems to point to intellectual understanding being primary but not the goal.

You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!

This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!

Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
  dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
  to you."

This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities

Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points

Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom  - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers

Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

In the post in question:

You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"

When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:

The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"

I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.

A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though

I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.

nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here

Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").

yes, that's right

I tried posting there then. I don't know reddit's conventions, don't know whether what I posted is sectarian -- I hope it wasn't "disparaging".

Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16).  No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop.  That's the lesson.  IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop."  There is no answer.  Stop asking questions.  Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.

This would be a rather negative way of putting it. By denying the four extremes we are not giving up on logic, we are using logic to refute false views. The correct view would not be an extreme view. That is, we deny the extremes for the sake of a neutral theory or position, not for no position at all. There is much misunderstanding on this point.

I usually like to explain it this way. The thinking, rational mind is a tool, like a hammer or a saw. Tools are useful, and they should be well-maintained; we don't want a rusty hammer or a dull saw when we happen to need to use one. The problem with the thinking mind, however, is that we tend to forget it's there. Imagine if you walked through your daily life with with a hammer or a saw in your hand all the time. You'd scare people; you'd break stuff; you'd keep trying to do things with those tools that those tools are not at all suited for.
Buddhist practice teaches you to put that tool (the thinking mind) away in the shed. Being intellectual about Buddhism isn't bad, per se, and can be quite useful and interesting in the proper place. But in the end, using the intellect to understand Buddhism amounts to using the wrong tool for the job (like trying to knock a hammer out of your hand by hitting it with another hammer in your other hand). It's ultimately self-defeating.
A lot of Buddhist practitioners have an unwarranted aversion to intellect. That is an attachment like any other, and perhaps an unavoidable stage in spiritual development. It's likely useful to reject the mind entirely until you've mastered releasing it. But learning to put down the mind is key.

It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.

‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
  and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
  see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
  committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
  knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
  empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
  community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)

What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.

I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]

It's like you want to do X, Y and Z to get to the other shore but really all you need is Z but you insist on the X and the Y too when the Z is pure of the X and the Y. So someone says just do Z and your like but what about X and Y?

It's so simple but then we get intellectual and start believing things.
Intellect can be useful but we cling to what our intellects say and  that is precisely what keeps us from seeing what is clearly! What is,  isn't conseptual. What is, isn't a product of soneone's intellect.
All you have to do is see what is without having the intellect carry  you off in a direction were all you see are made up concepts.


text:
Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?
What's the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates?
For e.g. is the aggregate of form referring to the physical body, but the clinging-aggregate of form is a tainted mental model of the physical body?
From SN 22.48 (trans. Bodhi):

“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
  there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
  form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
  feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
  called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
  formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
  aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
  These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.
“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
  Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
  or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
  form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
  … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
  that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
  there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
  the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
  of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
  is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
  aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
  aggregates subject to clinging.”

IN short, taking five aggregate as I,  me and myself is the clinging-aggregate.
As Arahant does not have self-identification they do not have a clinging-aggregate.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23424&start=15

The sutta sources on this topic are analyzed in "The Fundamental Teachings
of Early Buddhism" by Choong Mun-keat, pages 30-33.
Basically, the suttas say that upadana-skandhas are skandhas that are characterized as "sasava" ("with asava" - which is variously explained as influx, outflow, intoxicant, contaminant, and is compared with a spice or drug we take to keep maintaining the interest in watching the otherwise boring movie). In corresponding Agama Sutra, it is explained that asava is meant as anything that "gives rise to sensual desire, anger,
ignorance, and various other distressing mental phenomena".
In another sutta Buddha explains that upadana-skandhas have their root in "chanda" and "chandaraga". In Mahayana, Chanda is explained as an impulse or inspiration to obtain some kind of object, to achieve some kind of goal, based on some vague idea of "taste" or "reward" - of doing something with the object or goal once obtained or achieved. Chandaraga seems to be a more explicitly negative term for the same.
We should also not forget that "clinging" is only one of the many translations of Pali word "upadana". Another theory explains this word as "fuel"  or "brushwood used as fuel".
Based on all of the above, it seems that the meaning of upadana-skandha is a bundle of aggregates contaminated and "sustained in motion" by impulses or ideas about what to do next. Such a bundle of aggregates gets constantly inspired by yet another imaginary object or goal: "oh, this would be nice to have", "oh, this should bring some satisfaction", "oh, how about this, I should check it out" - etc. Each moment after moment of such flow of existence is determined by a sequence of such impulses.
It is like a fire that constantly throws more fuel into itself, or a drunken person who keeps gulping down more vodka. It is a self-sustaining perpetual motion, which can only be stopped by not adding more fuel / not taking more shots.
Once it gets no more fuel, the file still burns a little by inertia, and then is distinguished. This distinguishment is called "Nirvana". While the fire gets no more fuel, it is called "anupadāna-skandhas" - this is a technical description of an arahant.

This definition that you have provided of "with fuel" and "without fuel" is a bit different in context from the one in Iti 44. In Iti 44, the Unbinding property with fuel (saupādisesā nibbānadhātu) means five aggregates still remaining albeit without passion, aversion, delusion; and Unbinding property without fuel (anupādisesā nibbānadhātu) means five aggregates have already ceased completely.

Right. The fire still burns on old fuel, but no new fuel is added, that is the meaning. So the fire does have fuel, just no new fuel, and then once the old fuel has burned, there is Nibbana. There is no controversion. In one case fuel refers to new fuel, in another case, to existing (old) fuel.

"and then once the old fuel has burned, there is Nibbana" - you mean Parinibbana?

ah, correct. Parinibbana.

Thought is the most destructive aggregate. It is wild tiger called as Mind living in individual. Mind generates thoughts, good or bad. It's core principle of clinging aggregate. Further six senses, body, sensation, are also clinging aggregates.
So when wisdom arises, first subtle sensation arises in body. Now you discarded clinging to body. Next arises whirlpool of chitta or mind . Now you discarded clinging to subtle sensation. Again you know chitra or mind is river of inparmenence, thought of good and bad. Doing good deeds gives it stable nature while making bad deeds it disturbs. When you feel it , that it is imparmenent and suffering. Then chitta starts to crumble and fall in front of eye of wisdom. There is complex start to unbound in front of eye. Now you won't cling to chitta. Again the complex devide itself into subject and object. Subject is brahma world with earth, heaven and hell. Then arise knowledge of previous dwelling places of chitta, in cluster. Now you don't consider subject eternal, it's impermanent. Nor the cluster of chitra as they are storehouse of past deeds and one clearly know that this object was caught in subjective chitta. It's it who goes here and there with various deeds. It's a seed of becoming. It's a seed of suffering. Then one listen heavenly sounds like flute playing, some drum making noises. Then he proceed further, and clearly see the object is also imparmenent and finally merge with that. That is eightfold path, dukkhanirodhgamini patipada, where object or dukkha goes or merge. Then he clearly know the cause of becoming, the prison where it has been caught and where it is bound. Finally the release. After release he back to body and know he is released. But who have faith in eightfold path doesn't stop at vision of object merging with it because it's only a shadow of truth. Instead he close his eyes in that very place of vision or shadow, he sees his beloved master. He sees that all human are his forms, although outwardly different but inwardly same. Then the realised one doesn't make difference between him and others. For him enemy and friend equally respected, others pain are his, giving others means to give oneself he clearly knows. He help others as his own being. He place equal eye on those who are suffering.


text:
Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible?
Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" to a computer impossible?
I was reading this question on philosophy.stack
I'd suspect that it's impossible to make sense of momentary rebirth / causal continuity in terms of computer data. Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment? A chariot's axle, for them, does not generate visual consciousness, only colour and shape do that. And so the same for computers.
But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism? Does rebirth consciousness actually form the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination? Because if it does, unless I've misunderstood 'consciousness', perhaps due to its coupling with 'rebirth', I don't see how anyone can claim that there is genuine continuity.
As surely my consciousness does not form the physical body of a computer: it's already been designed etc..

It is important to note that "Vinnana paccya Namarupa" and "Namarupa paccaya Vinnana".
In other words Vinnana and Namarupa dependent on each other.

I don't understand the question. I just try to help. I write this answer by my guess the question's meaning.
The past (vanished) moment does not "upload" anything to the moment which it affects. It just causes its effect to arise. However, the effects are able to arise as the same habit, e.g. same object and same feeling, because of Upanissaya Paccaya.
The vanished moment is hypochondria. It cannot pass or upload anything to the future, although it still is able to cause new moment effects.
For example, I can smile when I thinking of my dead sister however she vanished and doesn't upload anything to me, she just causes me to smile.

don't want to sound like a git, bonn, but i can't parse some of your sentences... so i can't tell if i agree with what you mean

Please help me to improve my english by asking me a question, etc. Thank you.

@user3293056 I think I could maybe parse the sentences, I edited. I think the answer is saying it wouldn't be the same consciousness uploaded. At best you'd have old (consciousness in a body), present (some computer system), and some kind of relationship (e.g. "effect" but not "identity") between them -- but the answer doesn't mention identity, it talks about the relationship between past and present moment -- that relationship is described as upanissaya paccayo which the chart in that YouTube video suggests to me is Abhidhamma ... i.e.

doctrine like this.

@user3293056 I suppose Bonn is trying to emphasize that there's only causal relationship between two consciousness. Nothing left in present consciousness from the previous consciousness. In Abhidhamma, it's clearly mentioned that two consciousness does not appear at the same time in a stream of consciousness. So there cannot be two consciousness in two different places at the same time which belongs to the same stream. This affirm that uploading of consciousness impossible. Why? You cannot capture consciousness and copy it to a computer.

The only way is to make it arise in the computer memory because only a causal relationship can be seen between two consciousness. But this is also impossible because the arising of next consciousness and its place already determined by present causes. I think Bonn's answer is far more correct than mine.

I confirmed to ChrisW and Damith helpful explanation. And thank you.

OP: Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible?

Yes, as mentioned in dependent origination Viññāṇa (consciousness) is the main cause for Nāmarūpa (name and form) to be arisen. (Note: there are many causes other than Viññāṇa which help Nāmarūpa to be arisen. Viññāṇa is also be the cause in different ways/conditions. So each of these can be considered as a different cause.)
Computer programs are dependent on computer hardware but computer hardware are not dependent on computer programs. There's no mutual causal relationship between hardware and software. But as mentioned in many suttas, there's a mutual causal relationship between Viññāṇa and Nāmarūpa. (SN 12.65 - Nagara Sutta, SN 12.67 - Nalakalapiyo Sutta)
Yes, it's impossible to upload consciousness into a computer. How could we make something to arise in an entirely different environment (without all the required conditions) which it supposed to be.

OP: Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment?

According to Teravadins, all conditioned things exist in this very moment. But not in the past (already decayed) not in the future (yet to be arisen). All the conditioned things exist as a stream subjected to momentary uppada (arise), thiti (exist), and bhanga (cease).
Sarvastivadins have a different idea on this. They believe all exists (sarvām asti) and holds the idea every dhamma exist independent of time (past, present, and future). Suppose you cut down a tree and made a table out of it. According to Sarvastivadins both tree and table exist.

OP: But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism?

I have already discussed this in the answer to your first question.

OP: Does rebirth consciousness actually form the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination?

Yes, according to Abhidhamma, the re-linking consciousness causes name and form at the reappearing in the following way.
Re-linking consciousness be the cause for vattu-rupa with 9 conditions.

Co-nascence condition (Sahajāta paccayo)
Mutuality condition (Aññamañña paccayo)
Dependence condition (Nissaya paccayo)
Kamma-result condition (Vipāka paccayo)
Nutriment condition (Āhara paccayo)
Faculty condition (Indriya paccayo)
Dissociation condition (Vippayutta paccayo)
Presence condition (Atthi paccayo)
Non-disappearance condition (Avigata paccayo)

Re-linking consciousness be the cause for remaining rupa-kalapa (bundles of form) present at the reappearing moment with 8 conditions.

Co-nascence condition (Sahajāta paccayo)
Dependence condition (Nissaya paccayo)
Kamma-result condition (Vipāka paccayo)
Nutriment condition (Āhara paccayo)
Faculty condition (Indriya paccayo)
Dissociation condition (Vippayutta paccayo)
Presence condition (Atthi paccayo)
Non-disappearance condition (Avigata paccayo)

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

If using the word "knowing", "recognize", classical words for vi (seeing) - ñāṇa (knowing), "knowing by sense", its possible all easier. Close the eye and open it. New "body", kaya, rūpa?
Maybe Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances? is of help to understand inclination to food of what viññāṇaṃ is one sort.

sorry, i don't understand your answer

No problem, it give less food for birth, of cause, and actually no lose for my person, so possible no need for pardon. In the case Nyom @user3293056 wanted to ask further, may he let it be known.


text:
Metta meditation ever taught to householders?
Are there references that the Buddha taught such as metta-meditation to householders (wordlings, without complete Sila), giving ground for hypocritical practice, agree with such, in manners of: "There is the case where a householder..."?
Didn't he not focused on getting right view and Silas first?
Was modern householder-metta-meditation ever taught, even trained by the elders, such as doing it inbetween business as usual?
[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to maintain houses but for liberation and with non-hypocratical metta: may all beings give causes to find there way out for themselves with ease.]

"Pannawanthassayan Dhammo, Nayan Dhammo Duppannassa." - This Dhamma has been preached for those who are wise enough to understand in order end this suffering. So there's no division as householders, lay practitioners, monks, etc... All these are suffering from eleven types of fire.

@Damith Anuruddhamahāvitakkasutta

Not so, housholder, two or onefold. Housholder has not only an outwardly meaning. What is a householder: one who still holds on the six sense objects, and gives into it.

Here's one about householders and the four pleasant mental abidings. But I think this refers to the four rupa jhanas rather than the four brahmaviharas.
From Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179):

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. So the Blessed One said to Ven. Sariputta:
  “Sariputta, when you know of a householder clothed in white, that he
  is restrained in terms of the five training rules and that he obtains
  at will, without difficulty, without hardship, four pleasant mental
  abidings in the here & now, then if he wants he may state about
  himself: ‘Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the
  hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad
  bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again
  destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!’

Not metta specifically but I can find a sutta where the Buddha recommended some lay people to allocate some time to practice jhana meditation.
From the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
  to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
  robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
  you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the
  community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
  requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s
  periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you
  should train yourself.”

"provided the community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick." :-) or even paid a householders medi-center... it points to the six anussatis, btw. Only if things are rightous gained, one is not in debts, ones wealth can be enjoyed.


text:
Possible for worldling to practice the Ariyamagga, to walk it?
People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path for whatever purpose, but is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first?

"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release.
"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success."
— AN 10.103

[Note, this question is not thought to keep one there where he/she is bond, for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism, but to offer release and go beyond]

I think that to ask "Is it possible for a worldling to walk the path?" is similar to asking "Is it possible for a person to become enlightened?"
I think the usual answer to the latter question is that enlightenment isn't personal and that notions of being a person aren't helpful, they're even a hindrance.
But the way the question is phrased -- "people with wrong view" -- sounds definitive, doesn't it.
I suppose it's useful to distinguish right from wrong view, maybe less helpful to judge people like that, to associate that with people, to condemn people, judge them, to assume they can't learn, and so on.
Imagine being a school teacher at the beginning of the year, and asking "Can these students pass the end-of-year exam?" An answer might be, "No they can't" -- because they haven't learned (haven't been taught) the subject yet, and therefore maybe can't practice properly either -- but that isn't the right way to see people (students).
From there I guess there's doctrine about buddha-nature or the seed of enlightenment, including Joshu's Dog

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
  This is the most serious question of all.
  If you say yes or no,
  You lose your own Buddha-nature.

The answer might be obvious, but the last line suggests that the question wasn't about the dog.

If it would be not possible to gain right view, Buddha and his Noble disciples would teach it. The answer sounds like a child not willing to go to school "the teacher teaches, but i am i" Is a student of elementary school a student of the university? What sense makes it not to work for the base first.

OP: People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path

This is impossible because right view is the first step in noble eightfold path.

OP: Is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first?

It's not required someone to attain stream entry first in order to practice noble eightfold path. Actually noble eightfold path is what leads a sentient being towards stream entry.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

No.
The Noble Path includes celibacy plus entering the path actually requires stream entry first. MN 117 says about the path that is "noble" that "Right View" is the leader or forerunner.
For example, about developing jhana, the Buddha taught (in SN 48.9 & SN 48.10) the noble disciple makes 'letting go' ('vossagga') the object of meditation. If 'self' cannot be let go of & abandoned, even developing jhana is difficult (because even samadhi can dissolve the self construct and the self instinct can fight back against the samadhi dissolution stream).
This is why, on certain chat sites, there are always posts about the over-estimated attainment of what is imagined to be 'jhana'. Some minds experience some samadhi and some momentary bliss but because ego self cannot dissolve, the opposite to dhamma occurs. These minds spend the rest of their life claiming their "self"  attained jhana. They can even become famous jhana-lite teachers; particularly if they are Americans or Jews socially conditioned from youth to talk & boast a lot.
Because we are noble practitioners who practise noble right speech, we will not disclose these chat sites or fake jhana-lite gurus. MN 117 says the noble practitioners desist from wrong speech that creates internal & external self-views of imaginary "beings". SN 5.10 says only Mara believes in "beings"; that, in reality, there are no "beings" to be found. All that can be found by the luminous clear mind is aggregates (khandha), elements (dhatu) & sense objects (ayatana).
[Note, this question is thought to not keep one to where he/she is bound; to offer release from clinging to the world of illusion & creating the illusion of "beings to be saved" and to go beyond and join the Noble Sangha or Noble Dhatu. There is not much time left for ego self to die before dying]

Who is "Because we are noble practitioners who ..." :-)

met(t)a: since when are "aggregates (khandha), elements (dhatu) & sense objects (ayatana)" to be found and by what?

@Dhammadhatu Hi! Is celibacy and jhana shown to be a requirement for SE? Is Jhana the only way to abandon sakkayaditthi? This latter point seems to be the position of Ajahn Brahm, but it's not held by most practitioners. What are your thoughts on this? Kind regards!

@ Brian I remember DD elsewhere saying for Stream Entry one does not need to be celibate, but some level of letting go & non-delusion towards precepts and superstitions must be in place. Also, one must have experienced quiteness during meditation to realize that attachment leads to dukkha, thereby starting to comprehend the four noble truths.

My answer above is strictly tailored for the question and questioner.

A person needs right view, but he doesn't need to be a stream entrant to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.
He needs to be either a faith follower or Dhamma follower according to MN 70 (below).
A faith follower may not have perfect right view, but he needs to improve his understanding of the Dhamma through reflecting on them sufficiently with wisdom, in order to become a Dhamma follower. A faith follower is obviously not a stream entrant.
Is a Dhamma follower necessarily a stream entrant? - that's a good question to ask. Perhaps I will ask this.

“What kind of person is a Dhamma-follower? Here some person does not
  contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful
  and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet
  destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, but those teachings proclaimed by
  the Tathāgata are accepted by him after reflecting on them
  sufficiently with wisdom. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the
  faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
  concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
  called a Dhamma-follower. I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has
  work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable
  one…into homelessness. Seeing this fruit of diligence for such a
  bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to do with diligence.
“What kind of person is a faith-follower? Here some person does not
  contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful
  and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet
  destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, yet he has sufficient faith in
  and love for the Tathāgata. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the
  faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
  concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
  called a faith-follower. I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has
  work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable
  one makes use of suitable resting places and associates with good
  friends and nurtures his spiritual faculties, he may by realising for
  himself with direct knowledge here and now enter upon and abide in
  that supreme goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen
  rightly go forth from the home life into homelessness. Seeing this
  fruit of diligence for such a bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to
  do with diligence.

Actually they are called "low-steam enter". How ever, is there any evidence where a "there is the case where a non-noble disciple..." would be mentioned? And one with right view is always a Nobke One.

They would, how ever, complete the path latest when dying, better, would not be able to die before completed. The "big problem" here is whether the love the Tathagata and understand his teaching, or their ideas, overestimate themselves.

Sutta. Ma. U. Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ:

Ānanda, of an offering made to an animal the results expected are by hundreds. Of an offering made to an ordinary not virtuous person the results expected are by thousands. Of an offering made to an ordinary virtuous person the results expected are by hundred -thousands Of an offering made to a not greedy one, turned away from sensuality the results expected are by hundred thousand millions. Of an offering made to a person fallen to the method of realizing the state of entry into the stream of the Teaching, the results expected are innumerable and unlimited. What would be the results for offering a gift to a stream entrant of the Teaching? Or one fallen to the method of realizing the state of not returning? Or one who would not return? Or one fallen to the method of realizing worthiness? Or a worthy disciple of the Thus Gone One? Or the silent enlightened One? Or the worthy, rightfully enlightened Thus Gone One?

It's Atthakatha:

"a person fallen to the method of realizing the state of entry into the stream of the Teaching" means at least a(n ordinary) upāsaka who goes to the Three Gems for refuge.

Why the ordinary upāsaka is included?
As I explained it here:

It is similar to when you are following an expert guide and you are going to arrive the right destination surely, no one can't say "you are going the wrong way" although you do not understand the map by yourself at first.

However the ordinary is included only when he still trust in the three gems.

That has less to do with the Question, and yes of cource it has far more fruits to sacrifices toward one having taken refuge then to a dog... Total out of context and no ariya magga needed to gain heaven or wealth. Be mindful rather to go after bias and desire for winning, fight back, Nyom. Possible seek for purification of Dhamma gifts on one side.

Briefly, no, it is not possible to hold onto wrong view and expect progress on the Path. See AN8.29:

Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world. And a person is reborn in a central country. But they have wrong view and distorted perspective: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is the sixth lost opportunity …

DN33 has a similar passage and lists wrong view as the seventh lost opportunity.
Your own quote in the OP says much the same.

While the Buddha teaches right conduct for best and happiest dwelling and wandering on in the world for those not seeing the dangers in the world, i.e. suffering and stress, this Dhamma and religion at it's heart, the Dhamma of the Ariya, is not one graspable for ordinary people. It's the path of the Noble Ones, the path of wisdom and compassion, the path of goodness in a forest of blindness and defilments, an even path under the uneven, right between the tracks of corruption.
There is the case where a son of good family realizes: "This homelife is a dirty and dusty road..." and looks after The Fruits of the Contemplative Life.
As for those believing that pulling the heritage of the Noble Ones into their world, suggesting that all are worthy and ready for hot-dogs and creat their specials, disregard the wise, elders, contemplatives, not only that they actually walk themselves for a poor lifelihood toward degeneration but also work for the long term pain and suffering of many.
Only if one is honest in regard his/her incapacities and comes to really take refuge to those and that on a real Ariya Domain, only then one could be guided toward a borderland and the door to the Noble path leading to the deathless and end of all suffering and stress.
Householders are wise if seeing their all is on fire, lower their heads and seek for escape following those walk, having walked a tiny path.
Sadhu OyaMist for the try to share, "sadly" this teachings are already occupied by the worlds greates thieves, and lost to be given at the right time for those ready to receive. The "We have right"-leaders of "red (marxist) buddhism", those with grave wrong view and ingratitude and disrespect toward the Noble Ones and the Gems.
[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, and whatever binds but for release, for a tiny door of escape]


text:
Possible for "Hungry Ghosts" to gain path? Possible to help them out?
Is it possible for states/beings of that of hungry ghosts to gain path? Is it possible to help them?
Or is providing food, in the case they had done merits before, all what one could do for them in their state?
For context and understanding, see also: Escape possible for internets “hungry ghost”? and What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?

What kind of question is this, what kind of answer are you looking for -- are you looking for canonical reference/doctrine, about literal hungry ghosts? Or answers based on personal experience about metaphorical hungry ghosts?

The fact that you use scare quotes around "hungry ghosts" imply the latter, is that right -- i.e. you're not looking for answers based on canonical dharma?

Some think realms are just mindstates some just individuals some have no problem with both. That is why it is put under as scare quote, so leave way for those not so flexible, Nyom Chris. What ever one might own he could give as Dhamma-gift.

@SamanaJohann Sir/Rev. Sir, I heard that only Paradattupajivi hungry ghosts can observe merits given by others and have a better status within their realm.

That"s right Nyom @Damith . Given the case that one has been generous and is not cut of by ones former family, near, a hungry ghost could receive certain food and short stilling of hunger. That"s why one should always dedicate gifts to the ancestors and ghosts around, even in the internet-realm here.

In the traditional presentation, pretta (hungry ghosts or shadows) are stuck in a (subjective) world where everything is fake, particularly food - including the metaphorical food of love - but also anything of value: gold, gems, everything. Even friendship is fake. Even Dharma is fake.
They see something that looks like it might be real, and being extremely under-nutritioned, they run and eagerly jump on that promissing source of happiness - but alas, as everything else in their world it turns out to be fake.
What's interesting about a pretta state, in their world they have the same sun, same moon, same rain etc. as we have. However, because of their distorted perception, the sun does not warm them, the moon rays burn them, and the rainwater appears as pee.
It is said that the predominant emotions of prettas are those of frustration and disgust, with regular swings of momentary hope and bitter disenchantment mixed in. Because they are ever energy-hungry, they're constantly looking for something, anything (they don't know what), they see something that gives them hope, but when they come closer it looks as fake as everything else.
It is said, that in order to help hungry ghosts, Buddha must lure them with metaphorical gems, lure them with something shiny and valuable. So when Buddha descents to pretta worlds, he wears his best clothes, carries along a very rich entourage, and in general creates a rather strong impression. The goal is to give them confidence in the Buddha (and by extension Dharma) by being rich, happy, satisfied, strong, and stable.
When presenting Dharma to prettas, Buddha emphasizes that Dharma is the only reliable, infallible, invariably true teaching, and the only real, satisfying, nutritious, healthy food.
Prettas crave something real to rely on, so the way to lure them out of their misery is to give them something firm they can hold on to, something that works - but also something that will keep them busy for a long time, so they don't get tired of it and switch back to seeking new food.
Which is why when going to pretta world and teaching prettas, Buddha emphasizes gradual step-by-step practice. Every step must be directly verifiable and practice must have visible outcome, so students have a sense of progress. This sense of progress and pride then becomes their food that finally gives real nutrition.
For example, the first step for pretta may be a vow to not kill dragons. Of course, there are no dragons in the pretta world, so they can't kill them - but by taking this vow and feeling good about successfully keeping it, they start the good cycle. Small wins like this are the kind of steps that provide energy to move in the right direction.

Don't ask them for more than they can give -- ask for as little as possible -- ask that they be harmless or good perhaps, rather than generous. I think a person might become needy because someone else is always making excessive/impossible demands on them -- make sure that other person isn't you.
Let them have what they need: food, clothing, shelter, medical care. These are considered "requisites" for monks. Maybe people (e.g. children) benefit from something else too, beyond those requisites -- social security, acceptance ... just basic friendship ... maybe opportunities to be kind, as well.
Have some faith in their good nature. Instead of trying to control them it may be that, after their needs are taken of, they'll be able to be generous in their own way.
Be or demonstrate a good example. I think people easily underestimate how important the social environment is, that it's easier to behave badly with people who behave badly and so on. I think that's evident in the modern world -- what people know about education or working together -- and in the suttas. For a similar reason beware of becoming needy yourself -- needy for status for example, for payback. Perhaps the gift you're trying to give is "liberation" or freedom.
If you'e a householder then consider whether the house is safe, a refuge. I think the suttas teach that "safety" is associated with nibbana and with metta, even so you might keep a house free from "drug taking" (e.g. as mentioned in Dhammadhatu's answer), and/or from "poisons" such as anger.
I think you have to learn to be not-needy yourself. In swimming (life-saving) class in school we were warned that if you swim out to a drowning person then in their panic they may try to climb on top of you (to climb out of the water) and in doing so push you under-water -- and so instead there are special "life-saving" techniques to learn, to do it safely and/or successfully.
As for helping them to "gain the path", as well, perhaps that's possible too. Part of it might be changing your own perception again, but to the extent that the Dhamma is "evident" and so on maybe it isn't too difficult to share, with someone who is willing. Explaining it might be harder than understanding it (I think that true of every language, that it's easier to hear than to speak) but reading a text or visiting a teacher together might help sometime[s].

In the paintings of Dependent Origination, the Buddha:

Teaches the practise of renunciation to humans.
The practise of beautiful behaviour to devas.
The practise of morality to animals (such as Angulimala).
The practise of generosity to hungry ghosts.
The Four Noble Truths of non-attachment to hell beings with heavy dukkha.

Therefore, it appears the Mahayana Tibetans suggest hungry ghosts should practise generosity; to transform their lust for receiving love into the joy of giving love. I have noticed the hungry ghosts I know gain joy when they give me a gift. Hungry ghosts need to connect with other people so giving wholesome gifts & helpful acts (rather than engaging in desperate impulsive casual sex and group drug taking) is a healthy way for hungry ghosts to gain some happiness.
Note: Hungry ghosts should not give gifts of sexual favours to Tibetan lama gurus. This is not wholesome and will lead to more rebirth in hell.
Note: Hungry ghosts won't gain the Noble Path until they are reborn 'human' ('high minded'); until they understand moral right & wrong clearly. If the hungry impulse remains to engage in sexual misconduct & intoxicants, the hungry ghost cannot attain the Noble Path.

Wow, applauds! Best answer you have ever given :P

OP: Is it possible for states/beings of that of hungry ghosts to gain path?

In Piyankara Sutta (SN 10.6) it has mentioned that Piyankara Mata tell her son that they should abide by precepts to quit from that suffering birth. Even this sutta is categorized under Yakkha Samyutta, it's said that Piyankara Mata is a vimána peta (hungry ghost). The noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). According to the above sutta, we can say hungry ghosts can at-least follow few steps of noble eight-fold path under the moral virtue category.

OP: Is it possible to help them? Or is providing food, in the case they had done merits before, all what one could do for them in their state?

According to my understanding, only Paradattūpajīvī hungry ghosts can observe transferred merits (Pattānumodanā) by others and have a better status within their realm. So we should transfer our merits (Pattidāna) for their well-being.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

The Buddha told also animals (Nagas) to simply observe the Uposatha because in their state they are incapable to grow into Dhamma but may increase their "paramis" and Upanissaya. In that way they are able to do some on virtue, yet, of cause, it's not that of the eightfold path but just an outwardly observing. There are areas void of any Pattānumodanā, so not much hope for hungry ghost having found dwelling in housholder online Dhamma groups.

@SamanaJohann Sir/Rev. Sir, "The Buddha told also animals (Nagas) to simply observe the Uposatha because in their state they are incapable to grow into Dhamma but may increase their "paramis" and Upanissaya." -- "non-humans" can be used rather than saying "animals" when addressing Nagas. However I totally agree with your statement quoted above.

Thought Nyom would respectfully toward non-human point on in: In the Vinaya Pitaka, Mahavagga, the Buddha used to call Nagas animals, once one had ordained and he made the case to a rule not to ordain animals, non-humans.

Seldom is it, that one of faith, a refuge, crosses this areas here. May Nyom be careful not to adopt not so good ways and slowly may lose his good ways. How ever, a blessing for those who would be attracted and observe, possible are guided out, giving into Upanissaya. May Nyom be able to guide his lost relatives well, may they be reminded.

@SamanaJohann Sir/Rev. Sir, I've been thinking about your first comment  and need to clarify something. Will edit the answer accordingly after clarifying that by asking another question here.


text:
Is a Dhamma follower always a stream entrant?
Is a Dhamma follower always a stream entrant?
According to MN 70:

“What kind of person is a Dhamma-follower? Here some person does not
  contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful
  and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet
  destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, but those teachings proclaimed by
  the Tathāgata are accepted by him after reflecting on them
  sufficiently with wisdom. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the
  faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
  concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
  called a Dhamma-follower. I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has
  work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable
  one…into homelessness. Seeing this fruit of diligence for such a
  bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to do with diligence.

Do you mean "stream-entrant" ? We can safely say a "stream-entrant" will always be a Dhamma-Follower. But not so safely about the other way round.

Yes, updated to stream entrant.

It appears that the Dhamma-follower has assured Strem entry in this very life. He is in the Sotapanna path (Magga) but not experience fruits (Phala) He is a stream entrant to be.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

SN 25.1
See also this topic Regarding Cula Sotapanna

Yes. A so called Sekha (noble disciple), as proper pointed out by Nyom Sarath in his answer. Sadhu!
One might be a better try-to-Dhamma-Follower but will be still a so called outsider, one who has not accessed the path, one who does for now not train and walk the Ariyamagga. See also: Possible for worldling to practice the Ariyamagga, to walk it?.
One eager to reach the path, even if called "lower"-stream-enterer, when either a Faith-, or Damma-Follower, althought he/she is destinated to reach the path before breaking up of the body, is still a neither-sekha-nor-asekha, one who has not "left home yet", one who has not taken on the task. Asekha denotes and Arahat, one who has done the task.
One might now understand that dwelling with kalyanamitta always means "Noble Ones" in regard of path and fruit attainings (right view, and path development)
[Not given to maintain house, trade, stacks, exchange... but to take on the task to be done for liberation]


text:
Māgha Pūjā, traditional celebrating and todays
Not only as a reminder today, on Māgha Pūjā, it is possible of interest to know more about "Buddhist" secound large Pūjā and it would be interesting to get known different traditional customs (of course not that what is found on wiki, which has "real" info) and one or another might share "first hand" information around it, in Sangha spheres.
What are the customs, their reasons, their ways of putting them into deeds?
May all use the lasting hours for their long time benefit and cleaning!

Māgha Pūjā celebrated the Lord Buddha's Sangha, which no longer exists. There are only two Gems, namely, Buddha and Dhamma. Today, Buddhism is comprised of multitudes of different doctrines followed by various different individuals & communities. Therefore, Māgha Pūjā should be a day of mourning (like a funeral) rather than a day of celebration.

I don't know why some Buddhist people are ungrateful to the people who help the Buddha constructing the Buddhism and Tipitaka.

Mendicants, these four are worthy of a monument. What four? A Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha; a Buddha awakened for themselves; a disciple of a Realized One; and a wheel-turning monarch. These four are worthy of a monument. (AN4.247)

MaghaPuja is the very important day of the Buddhist structure. It means there is no Buddhism today if Buddha couldn't completely found MaghaPuja day.
The members of MaghaPuja meeting were the very early monks and some were the elder monks in first Buddhist council, such as 250 sariputta's followers (The Memorizers of Entire MN, KN patisambhidamagga, KN Niddesa, KN Cariyapitaka, Abhidhamma).
Sariputta was the first model of Buddhist coucil in DN Sangitisutta. Sariputta leaded the major members of first councils in MN Mahagosingasalasutta.

Venerable Mahāmoggallāna getting up from his seclusion in the evening approached venerable Mahākassapa and said; Kassapa, let us go to venerable Sāriputta, to hear the Teaching. Venerable Mahākassapa agreed and venerable Mahāmoggallāna, venerable Mahākassapa and venerable Anuruddha approached venerable Sāriputta. Venerable Ānanda saw venerables, Mahāmoggallāna, Mahākassapa and Anuruddha approaching venerable Sāriputta to hear the Teaching and venerable Ānanda approached venerable Revata and said, friend, Revata, the Great Men are approaching venerable Sāriputta to hear the Teaching, shall we too go to hear the Teaching. Venerable Revata agreed and venerable Revata and venerable Ānanda approached venerable Sāriputta.

From above compare to DN Atthakatha that...

(My conclusion, see above link for the origin) the 1st council members gave each nikāya and commentary to 5 arahanta-groups at 1st saṅgāyanā meeting cave, upāli school got vinaya-pitaka, ānanda school got dīghanikāya, etc, to recite for the received nikāya, and there were somebodies in each school memorized more than 1 nikāya, too. Then about each 100 years later their relayed students met each other school members again to recite them together, 2nd and 3rd saṅgāyanā, again. Each saṅgāyanā, they did it on the same rule in (c) and (d).:

Ānanda and his students keep to memorize DN.
Sāriputta's students keep to memorize MN.
Kassapa and his students keep to memorize SN.
Anuruddha and his students keep to memorize AN.

(The others have learned and memorized dhamma, too, but buddha said "ānanda is the best", so everyone need him in 1st saṅgayanā).
So, it is impossible that Tipitaka still appear today without MaghaPuja and Sariputta.
And there were  1000 Jatila, too. They ordained before the Buddha enlighten. They had many Magadha-householder-follower in their hands, so the Buddhism was very stable when Buddha could let Jatila be his followers.
And Sariputta and Moggallana were sons of a Magadha's village leader as well.
It means Buddha already holded entire Magadha state by letting 1000 Jatila followers and 250 Sariputta followers change their minds.
And Magagha state was the state of all three times council. Many country outside india, including Cambodia, Thailand, Srilanka, PTS, received the Pali Canons that arranged three times Buddhist councils at Magadha state by the supporting of Magadha state's people, various kings and emperor.
Those are how MaghaPuja is important for today Buddhism. Buddhism going to vanish long time ago without MaghaPuja day.
All above is from Vinaya Pitaka Mahākhandhaka by UpaliThera, the hair dresser of Sakkya dynasty who became the best Vinaya Memorizer in Buddha living time.