text:
Is anicca impermanence &/or uncertainty?
I've seen teachers translate anicca as uncertainty. Is that a good translation? I mean, you can be certain when something is going to end. I'm just kind of trying to put these translations together and see if any intellectual insights are known by anyone. What about anatta with impermanence &/or uncertainty? One minute I am thinking that they go together and the next I'm thinking that they don't go together. It seems hard to see. Why is it hard for me to see? Am I trying to see intellectually in order to see experientially? What about all of the 3 characteristics &/or uncertainty?

Impermanent things can make people feel uncertain. Thats why in some examples, uncertainty is connoted. But literally, anicca means impermanence. It specifically means that things are not permanent. There are diffferent words available in pali and sanskrit for uncertainty or changing.

It is not that everything is impermanent or permanent. What is generally understood as impermanence in the Buddhist context is the incessant need to find something reliable, long-lasting and substantial. Therefore, it is the behaviour that stems from the word impermanence rather than the word itself, or better still, it is the fallacious ideas we hold about a form-based pseudo-reality that can provide any sense of safety: the body is subject to the ravages of the world whether the self likes it or not. It is termed impermanence as a way to challenge these ideas and behaviours, but even the idea that things are impermanent must be let go at a certain point.
Those ideas and behaviours give rise to various degrees of suffering. The idea is that when one understands this, it is seen that there is no-self in any of it and that there never was.
Therefore, impermanence is an illusion we generate in the six sense field and comes directly from the idea that we exist as a central perceiver from the six sense organs, but it is helpful to frame it within an introspective context so that one can come to see that.
In summary, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self point to the immediate and direct experience that we construct inside the human condition, and how that experience is perpetually looping back onto itself for a remedy to the turmoil it generates. Since we have an intellect alongside a well-versed vocabulary and complex social needs, this perpetual self-referent need to find answers to the human condition looks rather sophisticated, when it is actually rather childlike - and I don't mean childlike in any derogatory fashion.
Impermanence, in the Buddhist context, will help you understand how uncertainty (a type of suffering) are actually very convincing illusory qualities stemming directly from a misperceived and mis-projected six sense experience.

nice answer, but what's wrong with viewing the self as an anchor to a ship?

@blue_ego - Principally, the Buddha asks, in many creative ways, what it is that could be anchored. One way he does this is through inspection of the aggregates. The idea that one is trapped - or anchored, as you put it - is a switch-and-bait method of getting you to look introspectively at this supposed anchor. The surprise is, when one looks, the anchor isn't there and never was. The sense of being trapped is just one of many ways the great suchness shows itself, and other people are seen as the perfection of this, thus; they are not there, yet they are.

i suppose i meant 'what's wrong with a self if it keeps an individual stable?'  to question the stability of the self generates uncertainty...it's like do you prefer stability or. emptiness?...hmm

@blue_ego - self keeps an individual in a perpetual state of neurosis. Interestingly, this is the generally accepted state of the human condition. But yes, you're partially correct. We need to firstly entertain the idea of ourselves in order to appear gathered and functional. It helps us keep safe in an ever-changing and uncertain world - but it's still an illusion which ever way you look at it!

Anicca is impermanence. Things change. You're happy now, but later you become sad. Then you stop being sad and experience some other emotion.
There's also impermanence of objects. Shit breaks.

"Anicca applies to everything that changes. Often translated as “impermanent,” it’s actually the negative of nicca, which means constant or dependable. Everything that changes is inconstant. Now, the difference between “impermanent” and “inconstant” may seem semantic, but it’s crucial to the way anicca functions in the Buddha’s teachings. As the early texts state repeatedly, if something is anicca then the other two characteristics automatically follow: it’s dukkha (stressful) and anatta (not-self), i.e., not worthy to be claimed as me or mine.

If we translate anicca as impermanent, the connection among these Three Characteristics might seem debatable. But if we translate it as inconstant, and consider the Three Characteristics in light of the Buddha’s original question, the connection is clear. If you’re seeking a dependable basis for long-term happiness and ease, anything inconstant is obviously a stressful place to pin your hopes — like trying to relax in an unstable chair whose legs are liable to break at any time."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "All About Change" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/PurityOfHeart/Section0008.html

Anicca according to wisdomlib means:

anicca : (adj.) not stable; impermanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

From the AccessToInsight Glossary for A:

anicca: Inconstant; unsteady; impermanent.

This is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 17:

See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and
perished.
Passānanda, sabbete saṅkhārā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā.
So impermanent are conditions,
Evaṃ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unstable are conditions,
evaṃ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unreliable are conditions.
evaṃ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.
Yāvañcidaṃ, ānanda, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu
nibbindituṃ, alaṃ virajjituṃ, alaṃ vimuccituṃ.

You may be happy and confident today, based on your close-knit family, dependable friends, good looks, fantastic health, abundant wealth, productive career or business etc.
But all these will not last forever. They are impermanent (aniccā), unstable (addhuvā) and unreliable (anassāsikā). I suppose uncertainty too fits into this, as anassāsikā means something like being unable to provide security or certainty, if you refer to the Pali-English dictionary.
To peg your happiness or sense of self (atta) to these things will bring suffering. That's the relationship of impermanence to suffering.
Also, please see SN 22.93. It links all three characteristics/ marks of existence together.

What you call "experiential" I might think of as "subjective".
Western reasoning has an objective/subjective dual -- which I'm not sure whether that's also a feature of classical Buddhist reasoning.
But the question, "Is it 'impermanence' or 'uncertainty'?", seems to be an example of objective/subjective:

"It [the object] is [objectively] impermanent"
"Therefore I [the subject] should evaluate its [subjective] relationship with me as being uncertain/unreliable".

A similar dual might be "stable" (a characteristic of the thing) and "dependable" (whether I'd be wise to rely on it).
In a Western or "scientific" worldview I think those are logically primary and secondary characteristics: i.e. something is unreliable because it's impermanent -- not vice versa, impermanent because it's unreliable.
Since I read Ursula Le Guin's Bryn Mawr Commencement Address I beware of objectivity

... many believe this dialect - the expository and particularly the scientific discourse - is the highest form of language, the true language, of which all other uses of words are primitive vestiges.
And it is indeed an excellent dialect. Newton's Principia was written in it in Latin, and Descartes wrote Latin and French in it, establishing some of its basic vocabulary, and Kant wrote German in it, and Marx, Darwin, Freud, Boas, Foucault - all the great scientists and social thinkers wrote it. It is the language of thought that seeks objectivity.
I do not say it is the language of rational thought. Reason is a faculty far larger than mere objective thought. When either the political or the scientific discourse announces itself as the voice of reason, it is playing God, and should be spanked and stood in the corner. The essential gesture of the father tongue is not reasoning but distancing-making ...

In fact one of the reasons I admire and value the Buddhist (instead of the scientific) system of thought, find it practical, is that Buddhism is concerned with what is of benefit to people and with subjective experience.
The usual definitions of anicca that I read -- for example here -- are the more objective adjectives:

adj: inconstant, impermanent, momentary.
n: inconstancy, impermanence, momentariness.

In using that word I don't think that Buddhism intends to exclude the subjective characteristic ("uncertainty"), in fact I think that it's because of the subjective effect that Buddhism considers it an important element of doctrine.
A subjective effect is dukkha, arising as a result of unwisely relying on what's impermanent.
I hoped that the etymology might clarify its meaning, but it doesn't -- this PTS dictionary definition says,

formation fr. ni, meaning “downward” = onward, on and on; according to Grassmann (Wtb. z. Rig Veda) originally “inwardly homely”

It's too basic a word.
I think you can reach a level of wondering exactly what the precise meaning of a word is, and what's the exact translations, and whether it means the same thing is another language. But each word is a blunt instrument -- imprecise or general -- it's when it's used in context, i.e. with other words and/or with real-world experiences, that it acquires "meaning".
And I think it's generally possible to have good translations but not exact translations, and so you must (as you are doing) "make sense" of a text, its direction ("the moon, not the finger").

So words are like fingers... Leave it to Zen to obscure the obvious. But you make an excellent point.

Great Answer! Subject/object duality is certainly a feature of classical Buddhist reasoning. In Theravada, the subject/object illusion becomes rather apparent at the 6 & 7th fetter. Those two are all about perception; the perception of outside and inside are ideas that support each other through psychological dissonance or stress. That stress is then identified with: "I am these thoughts and feelings of separation". It is the state of being in dis-harmony or off-kilter, and Buddhist reasoning aims to address this dis-harmony.

think this:
all you experience/cognize falls under 'what you are able to experience/cognize'.
what 'your experience is' is form/feeling/perception/preparations/conciusness.
within wich feeling/perception/consciusness act as the direct appereance of the phenomenon.
whatever you cognize is there because there are causes/determinants/preparations/formations that act as a cause for your experience of those causes/determinants/preparations/formations.
all those preparations on account of wich any experience arises are themselves dependent on preparations on account of wich they arise that are themselces dependent on (etc...)
if anything that arises depends on things that depend on things that depend on things that depend on things than nothing can stand on its own. There is nothing that lasts, there is only a this/that relationship.
in other words, there is nothing that you can hang on to. the floor will eventually collapse on its own nature. the only solution is dispassion for causes/determinants/preparations/formations. the dhamma is for dispassion, for relinquishment.

another way to view the problem...uncertainty is a form of stress, and as you know, the whole of the dhamma is about eradicating stress.
In any case, here is a quote from Means of Escape
Nissāraṇīya Sutta  (AN 6:13):

“And further, there is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although “I
am” is gone, and I do not assume that “I am this,” still the arrow of
uncertainty & perplexity keeps overpowering my mind.’ He should be
told, ‘Don’t say that. You shouldn’t speak in that way. Don’t
misrepresent the Blessed One, for it’s not right to misrepresent the
Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn’t say that. It’s impossible,
there is no way that—when “I am” is gone, and “I am this” is not
assumed—the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity would keep overpowering
the mind. That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from
the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity: the uprooting of the conceit,
“I am”.’

and some more food for thought from the wiki:

According to Thích Nhất Hạnh,[5] the three seals are impermanence,
non-self and nirvana. He says in "The heart of the Buddha's Teaching"
that "In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of
completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than
suffering, is one of the Three Dharma Seals."

The answer is yes. :)
To understand the meaning of a term used by the Buddha, it helps to understand the context within which the term was used by him.
1: sabbe saṅkhāra annicā
2: sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā
3: sabbe dhamma anattā
How to interpret this?
sabbe saṅkhāra annicā =>
All saṅkhāra [are] annicā.
This is not referring to the impermanence of the material world.
This is referring to the impermanence of our perception of the material world.
What are saṅkhāra?
saṅkhāra = saṁ + kṛ = “come together” and “do something”
Think of a saṅkhāra as the individual habitualized predictions of sensory experience that guide our movements in this world.
“in THIS context with THIS aim” + “make THIS move”
“I am HERE” and “I want to be HERE” + “make THIS move”
A saṅkhāra is a sensory motor prediction of sensory experience which we construct to guide our movements in the world.
They start off as hypotheses with high “uncertainty”.
But as they predict sensory experience correctly over and over again, and enable us to move skillfully, they become habitualized and we forget that they were ever hypotheses.
99.9% of the time, our saṅkhāra guide our movements skillfullly.
However, when they fail to do so, we experience the first arrow in the heart: The dukkha of misprediction.
This tells us that we SHOULD have “uncertainty” about the saṅkhāra which guided us to make that move. We SHOULD consider that saṅkhāra to be “impermanent” because it is predicting sensory experience incorrectly.
This is what dukkha is.
Dukkha is a notification of misprediction.
The Budhha called such saṅkhāras āsava.
Āsava are saṅkhāra corrupted by avijjā (the choice to ignore unpleasant truths) and sustained by craving and clinging.
The Buddha advised us to destroy the āsava by uprooting craving and releasing the 10th fetter of avijjā which sustains the entire chain of the dependent origination of suffering.
Obviously, that which is to be destroyed should be considered to be “impermanent/temporary”.
And the reason WHY it should be considered to be “impermanent/temporary” is because sensory experience has shown it to be an unreliable predictor.
So it would be more correct to say that …
All saṅkhāra should be considered to be “temporary/impermanent”
because if and when they lead to the arising of the dukkha of misprediction, we WILL experience the “uncertainty” of mixed feelings about them.
Mixed feelings because, on the one hand it guided us well for many sensory experiences but, on the other hand, it failed to do so at least once.
Holding this uncertainty/discomfort in spacious non judgmental awareness, teasing apart the inner conflict and then resolving it such that the dukkha of misprediction no longer arises leads to both (1) greater understanding (pañña) and equanimity (upekkha).
This is the reward for destroying the āsava.
This is the reward for summoning the courage to “see the world the way it actually is.”
Think of the dhamma as being a collection of saṅkhāra which constitutes a navigational map of a domain of sensory experience. (The 36 streams of craving describes how saṅkhāra are strung together in this fashion.)
Translation:
1: sabbe saṅkhāra annicā
2: sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā
3: sabbe dhamma anattā
1: All habits should be considered to be impermanent.
2: All habits are subject to the discomfort of misprediction. (When this happens, we feel “uncertainty” about them.)
3: All navigational maps should be cleansed of self-absorption in the narrative. (Conceit is the primary reason our maps remain infested with āsava.)

so you're saying 99.9% of the time things are normal?

I don't understand the question.

Not exactly. I think I'm describing the reason why dukkha should not be seen as a negative thing. Rather it should be viewed as an enticing call to adventure. A mystery to be solved so that the treasure of deeper understanding can be claimed. To the extent that we change our perception of what dukkha is in this fashion (a notification of misprediction in our model), that which might be called "worry" does not arise. Instead, something like "excitement" arises.

@blue_ego: dukkha = notification of misprediction in saṅkhāra. i.e. āsava. i.e. saṅkhāra = sensory motor prediction = predicting sensory experience = in THIS place with THIS aim, make THIS move = saṁ + kṛ = get oriented and go; Where is the error? kāmāsava = with THIS aim; bhavāsava = in THIS place. :)

Ashwada. Adeenawa. Nissaranaya.
Ashwada or Assada means what every person — excluding Arihat — chase every moment by whatever amounts. One guy play video games all night. Another takes care of their parents. And another guy sleep and try to live a calm life 24/7.
Everyone tries to find happiness, satisfaction by doing various activities. How do they do it? They assume by doing X, they would find happiness. That process or the endeavor is known as Ashwada or Assada.
Nirukthi definition of the word "Assada" means As + Sadaya. As = Remove, Stop. Sadaya = Attachment via 6 senses — Eyes, Ears, Tongue, Nose, Body and Mind.
Adeenawaya means the problem with that program, process or the endeavor. It has 3 root level problems or qualities. This is known as the Trilakshanaya.

Anichcha
Dhukka
Anatta

It flows like this.
→ If something is Anichcha, it has to cause Dhukka. If it causes Dhukka, then it has to be Anatta.
Nissaranaya means stopping that blind-desire chase with Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger) or Moha (Delusion), first by learning what really happens and then brainstorming that which you learned through Arya Meditation.
The famous English translations given for these 3 words are,

Impermanence
Suffering
No Self

Does it always flow like this?
→ If something is impermanent, it causes Dhukka. If it causes Dhukka, it is no self.
It makes no sense. You feel like something is wrong because these English translations are wrong!
Why is it wrong?
Let me start with the First Noble Truth. The first one in the 4 Noble Truths is not Dhukka. It is Dhukka Arya Satya or the Ultimate Suffering.
It's not the same as dying, being born, being ill and other bad stuffs along the line.
Ultimate Suffering is what we create by expecting happiness from things which it doesn't exist. We create happiness in our mind and then expect it from people around us, objects around us.
This blind desire is the ultimate suffering. It has the same 3 problems,

Anichcha
Dhukka
Anatta

Anichcha means Insatiable — The desire never gets fulfilled or satisfied in an absolute level. It can also be said as things being not the way you want, desire, expect.
Dhukka means the obvious initial sadness/pain coming due previous Karma's outcome + the pain v2 you're creating next thinking about that.
(e.g. You hit your leg on a chair. Pain from that hit is Karma's outcome. Pain you create by thinking about that situation, blaming the chair, the person who created chair etc. and etc. are Pain v2.)
Anatta means Unworthy — that the endeavor and the world is worthless/meaningless due to first 2 problems or qualities.
Why the famous English translation is wrong?
→ Because impermanence does not cause Dhukka every single time, but Insatiable causes Dhukka every single time.
Let's take the following example:
You and your friend is on the streets. A thief stole your iPhone. Both of you started to chase the thief. Your friend is faster than you. And the moment he caught the thief, a huge truck hit both your friend and the thief in front of your own eyes. Friend and the thief died instantly. Your iPhone is broken into pieces.
Now what was your thought about the Thief a moment after he stole from you?

"Freaking thief stole my iPhone! Freaking lowlife give it back!!"
The slightest discomfort towards that situation, about the thief means you're on Dwesha (Anger) mode. You dislike the situation.

WHY?

Because you had this blind desire to keep the iPhone with you.
Because you thought having that iPhone would give you happiness all the time.

What was your thought about the friend when he caught the thief?

"Wow! what a friend. He saved my iPhone"
The slightest comfort towards that moment, about your friend means you're on Raga (Lust) mode. You like that moment.

WHY?

Because you love the friend and attached to him.
Because you thought having that friend would give you happiness all the time.

What was your thought about the thief who died?

"Yeah! Karma is a b*tch! So happy the lowlife died because he stole from me."
The slightest comfort towards that moment, the death of the thief who wronged you means you're on Moha (Delusion). You like that moment.

WHY?

Because you thought you didn't do anything to have your iPhone stolen, so you developed a discomfort, disinterest and anger by whatever amount towards the thief. You thought what a justice!

What was your thought about the friend who died?

"OMG! OMG!! my friend ... is gone! Why the freaking universe did that ..."
The slightest discomfort towards that moment and the death of the friend who was trying to help you means you're on Dwesha (Anger). You dislike that moment.

WHY?

Because you love your friend and attached to him.
Because you thought your friend didn't deserve to die like that.

What was your thought about the pieces of your broken iPhone?

"What the f*ck happened to my beloved iPhone! My contacts! My data!!"
The slightest discomfort towards that moment and the broken iPhone means you're on Dwesha (Anger). You dislike that moment.

WHY?

Because you thought to keep using that same iPhone for a long time.
Because you have given so much value to that iPhone.

The point of this story is to allow you realize why "Impermanence" and "No Self" are wrong translations. If you're not sure how, let me explain.

When the iPhone was stolen, you felt sadness and pain. You continued to feel the same even after that initial suffering.
When the friend caught the thief, you felt happy and cool. You continued to feel the same even after that initial happiness till the next event.
When the thief died, you felt so happy and relieved. You continued to feel the same even after that initial happiness till the next event.
When the friend also died, you felt extreme sadness and pain. You continued to feel the same even after that initial suffering.
When the iPhone broke, you felt sadness and pain. You continued to feel the same even after that initial suffering.

As you can see, the impermanence of the thief caused you to be happy. While the impermanence of your friend and the iPhone caused you to be sad.
If the Anichcha, Dhukka, Anatta is a universal flow and the qualities of that Blind Desire — Assada —, then it should apply for all the situations exactly the same without a single difference.
Impermanence of the thief didn't cause you Dhukka, because you were having a blind desire to your iPhone.
Impermanence of the friend caused you Dhukka, because you were having a blind desire to your friend.
If you never had that blind desire to the iPhone and Friend, it couldn't have caused you Dhukka even if Impermanent things occurred 24/7. Therefore, Anichcha means Insatiable — Not impermanence.
In the Dhammachakka Sutra, Anichcha is expanded like this.

Yampichchan na labathi thampi dhukkan
Not having the thing which you desire causes you Dhukka.

If your blind desire to the iPhone and Friend caused you Dhukka, then it should be Anatta. How does the "No Self" translation matches with the flow?
iPhone and Friend which cause you Dhukka are not you. Those 2 things are not yourself. You already know that, right? Samma Sambuddha is born to tell you the things you don't know and the things you can never understand by yourself alone without first hearing it from Lord Buddha or one of the 4 awakened persons.
Therefore blind desire isn't "No Self", but a meaningless endeavor.
Just like that Anichcha (Insatiable), Dhukka (Ultimate Suffering) and Anatta (Unworthy) matches with any situation.
Hope this answers your question!

Why the downvotes? Any explanation?

I downvoted because anicca is impermanence, not insatiable. This is explained in this answer. On SuttaCentral (this page), "Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence" is considered a non-hateful extremist view that is banned from the website.

It's true that a sankhara, which is impermanent, cannot permanently satiate a desire or craving. That's a consequence of its being impermanent and shorter-lived than the person's craving". But the word itself means "impermanent", so far as I know. Maybe it's the desire/craving/lust that could be called "insatiable". Also saying that the first noble truth is "not the same as dying" didn't seem like a clear explanation, it was maybe mixing the first and second noble truths. And I wasn't sure of the logic, which said it cannot mean "impermanence" because impermanence doesn't always cause dukkha.

@ruben2020 SuttaCentral threads and Questions + Comments on this site have enough explanations + sutra references for one to see a problem with the "Anichcha is Impermanence" conclusion. I'd recommend doing a solid analysis on what you take as the truth. What causes you pain: The death of your mother? Or the death of my mother? Keep brainstorming why.

@ChrisW The First Noble Truth doesn't mean the usual death, illness or things along that line. Because everybody can see/understand that initial pain. You don't need a Lord Buddha to tell you that it hurts when you're ill. Instead, Buddha comes to tell you what you couldn't recognize — By attaching to that pain with Raga, Dwesha, Moha to create new Karma which causes the Ultimate Suffering. ▬ Anichcha, Dhukka, Anatta applies to everything like 1→2→3. If impermanence does not cause Dhukka some times, how do you justify it as the meaning of Anichcha?

The first noble truth literally begins by associating dukkha with death etc. It's the second noble truth which (cleverly) says that dukkha arises with craving etc. Also, I think that impermanence is an inherent property of sankharas whether or not there's dukkha , e.g. even an arahant would find that a sankhara is impermanent -- see for example SN 35.74 "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."


text:
Avici in the Mahayana
It is very well known that it is "terrible karma", beyond even Amida's assistance, to physically draw the blood of a Buddha. Is that any kind of Buddha, a zen or vajrayana or scholastic master, or only Sakyamuni and the next Buddhist messiah?

Is this question for Mahayana only?

Sounds like more cause & effect stories. All things are instantly forgivable regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't remove one's voice, in fact it enhances that voice.

I'm. not asking about the status of the idea in general @ruben2020

Yeah @Max forgiveness was probably a bad way of phrasing it anyway

The Mahāyāna recognizes up to four classes of Buddha: Āryabodhisattva, Śrāvakabuddha, Pratyekabuddha, and Samyaksaṃbuddha. A Śrāvakabuddha is an Arhat. These are not always classified as "Buddhas" in the Mahāyāna. Their Buddhahood is only with respect to the (lack of) defilements. They lack the particular bodhicitta-stabilizing insight into śūnyatā that is associated with the Bodhisattvas, and they lack the particular knowledge of the dharmadhātu that characterizes a Samyaksaṃbuddha.
Two of the above categories, the Āryabodhisattva and the Samyaksaṃbuddha, are known as "Tathāgatas" in the Mahāyāna. See the description of the 10th bodhisattva bhūmi in either the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra ("Flower Garland Sūtra") or the Abhisamayālaṃkāra treatise of Venerable Maitreyanātha for more.
Even the above four are not universal. With respect to the buddhadhātu, all living beings are Buddhas (for this I would direct the OP to any one of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras or the Ratnagotravibhāga). It depends upon your frame of reference.
Traditionally, shedding the blood of any one of the four listed would qualify.
In some very early Mahāyāna sūtras, this terminology is much looser. "Arhat" can mean "Samyaksaṃbuddha" in some circumstances, such as in the opening gāthā of the Threefold Lotus Sūtra (which is addressed to Gautama Buddha):

We all, the eighty-thousand throng of many, entirely, without
exception, with oneness of intent and gesture, bow together in worship
and homage to the Arhat who has ended proliferation, ended attachment,
ended ideology, ended discourse, ended consciousness, ended thought,
ended mind, and ended will; who instructs elephants; who trains
horses; who is the Sage unrivalled in liberation.

thanks. i guess the idea is kind of an extreme symbolism about what you have deprived the world of. hope that makes sense!

It's also the distance at which you have personally placed yourself relative to the Beacon of Light in the ocean of saṃsāra. When you direct wicked energy towards your saviour, salvation retreats into the distance. Drawing blood, wounding a Buddha, is an extreme example of this.

AN 5.129 uses the term Tathagata. It refers to Buddhas.
Please see "Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?".

“Mendicants, these five fatal wounds lead to a place of loss, to hell.
What five?
Murdering your mother or father or a perfected one; maliciously
shedding the blood of a Realized One; and causing a schism in the
Saṅgha.
Mātā jīvitā voropitā hoti, pitā jīvitā voropito hoti, arahaṁ jīvitā voropito hoti, tathāgatassa duṭṭhena cittena lohitaṁ uppāditaṁ hoti,
saṅgho bhinno hoti.
AN 5.129

In "Arahants, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas" by Ven. Bodhi, we see an explanation on the difference between Buddhas and Arahants:

At SN 22:58, the Buddha says that both the Tathāgata and the arahant
disciple are alike in being liberated from the five aggregates: form,
feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. So,
what is the difference between them? The answer the Buddha gives
points to temporal priority as the distinction: the Tathāgata is the
originator of the path, the producer of the path, the one who declares
the path. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path,
the expounder of the path. His disciples dwell following the path and
become possessed of it afterwards. But they both walk the same path
and attain the same final goal.

“The Tathagata, bhikkhus, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One,
is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the
path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He
is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled
in the path. And his disciples now dwell following that path and
become possessed of it afterwards.
SN 22.58

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to treat the dispute?
I have recently started studying the teachings of Buddhism, so I have a lot of questions that I can't find an answer to yet.
Help me understand Buddhism better. Thanks.
What types of disputes are there?
What does the teaching of Buddhism say about disputes?
Is it necessary to take part in disputes?

Could you please elaborate what you mean by dispute. Are you talking about disputes of suttra, disputes of philosophy, dispute in some story of Buddha, etc.

@HomagetoManjushri, I mean, about different kinds of disputes.
Dispute with the boss.
Dispute in the family
Dispute in some story of Buddha
And others...
In what cases is it possible? In what cases is it impossible?

Didn't I already ask about this and the mods freaked out? They just had to protect us babies from the suffering that dispute brings, just like The Bodhisattva's father. Hopefully, the mods have stopped the silly helicopter parenting that is totally out of alignment with the Dhamma.

The following sutta quotes are helpful.
From Sutta Nipata 4.11:

"From where have there arisen quarrels, disputes, lamentation,
sorrows, along with selfishness, conceit & pride, along with
divisiveness? From where have they arisen?    Please tell me."
"From what is dear there have arisen quarrels, disputes, lamentation,
sorrows, along with selfishness, conceit & pride, along with
divisiveness. Tied up with selfishness are quarrels & disputes. In the
arising of disputes is divisiveness."

You have things dear to you and your friend has things dear to him or her. "Dear" here means clinging or attachment. For e.g. you cling to your religion and political ideology, while your friend clings to his or her religion and political ideology. This difference causes the arising of quarrels and disputes.
The best thing to do is just agree to disagree, out of friendliness or kindness. That should settle the quarrel.
In MN 128, the Buddha gave this advice:

For enmity in this world
is never settled by enmity.
It’s only settled by love:
this is an ancient principle.
Others don’t understand
that our lives must have limits.
The clever ones who know this
settle their quarrels right away.

The word that was translated as "love" above is avera in Pali, which is translated by some dictionaries as friendliness or kindness.

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


text:
Controlling earworms during meditation
I've been practicing and managed to access first jhana, but I haven't found a solution to one obstacle that often frustrates my meditation: earworms.
(Earworms are musical fragments that play repetitively in the head, and which I experience the majority of the time.  Outside of meditation I have tried to control earworms using various anecdotal techniques, but the best I have ever been able to do is replace one earworm with another.)
When I sit to meditate and I have an earworm going I find it impossible to break free of it.  The problem is that whatever part of my mind is playing the earworm seems to be running on a separate thread from my attention.  Without an earworm running I can focus on breathing and then feeling and everything else fades into the background.  With the earworm running everything fades into the background and then the earworm grabs more attention.  It's like trying to fall asleep with a fire alarm going off, and the closer you get to sleep the louder the alarm gets.
I've tried running white noise machines and focusing on the white noise, but the earworm seems to be independent of outside audio stimulus other than music.  Is there some music-like sound that is still conducive to vipassana?

What kind of meditation are you practicing?

How have you managed to access jhana? Are you still living an ordinary life or have you been able to find solitude away from worldly affairs? I am genuinely curious.

This is part of a much more fundamental problem that may take a serious practitioner years if not decades to resolve: stopping the Inner Dialog aka inner monolog aka inner gossip.
Inner Dialog is a samsara-typical (that is, "normal" yet pathological from the dharma-path perspective) habit of the samsaric mind to reinforce and sustain itself through continuous reproduction of samsaric narratives. If you carefully observe your mind throughout the day you'll see how this goes on almost non-stop all day long: the mind talks to itself replaying parts of its conversations with people, having imaginary arguments, giving imaginary lectures, posting imaginary tweets -- and playing fragments of songs. This serves to sustain and reinforce the samsaric view of the world and keeps the mind tied to - and entrapped in - the said view and the corresponding reality.
(Nowadays scrolling through social media to consume a stream of news, memes, jokes, and comments serves the same function. Social media is society's inner dialog, capturing people's attention, reproducing Samsara. So before you can even start working on stopping your inner dialog you have to wean off the mobile phone and SM feeds.)
Learning to overcome and stop Inner Dialog at-will takes years of unceasing efforts. Having stopped Inner Dialog you effectively stop a tiny part of samsara cycle reproducing itself inside your mind. It is a big deal!
There's not much to suggest in terms of the actual practice outside of just making repeated attempts (both during the day and inside meditation session) to include the Inner Dialog in one's awareness and to stop generating it. Focusing outwardly on the external perceptions and bringing attention completely in the here-and-now helps to remove resources from the background chatter.
What you called earworms is but a small part of this very important practice. Sorry, no silver bullet!

A piece of advice on dealing with ear-worms in general (i.e., not in a specifically Buddhist sense)... One trick you can use is to monkey-wrench it. Focus on the ear-worm directly, and then (mentally) add in discordant notes, out of synch rhythms, animal sounds, etc; nothing to break up that catchiness of it. Make a joke of it, and it should close its hold.
Ear-worms happen because the egoic mind is over-stimulated and bored. The act of producing them keeps the mind occupied, and the repetitiveness of them keeps the mind soothed. In meditation you can deal with them either by expressly focusing the mind — on a fixed visual point, on the breath, on a physical sensation, etc — or by stepping back (mentally) from the tune and watching it as though it were an object separate from you. The egoic mind wants the ear-worm to be immersive, something that seems inseparable from the self. Your job as a meditator is to disentangle yourself from it. Let the tune live its normal life as a (mental) object, but train the mind not to make the tune its entire world.
Things like this come and go. They only stay if the egoic mind latches onto them as though they were an integral part of the self. cut that latter bond and they won't trouble you.

liked "the egoic mind latches onto"

Lol... it's the way in which the earworms are framed that gives you a clue to their repetition. I used to get these - when I used to meditate - and dealt with them by including them as part of the session rather than framing them within a critical light.
All you are noticing is the learning part of the mind. The mind likes to know things, and if those things are bundled into a rhythm, it loves it simply because it appeals to its restless nature to know something, anything.
I once saw a young, beautiful child on the bus. She was about 3 years old and she was singing "Old MacDonald had a farm
Ee i ee i o" on repeat for the entire 30 minute journey, and when she wasn't singing it, she was humming it. The parents looked at each other, smiled and the mother said, "ahh... we helped her learn that", but little did they know that this marked the child's maddening descent into the world of neurosis. It has to be this way. A child must succumb to the world of form otherwise they will grow to be mentally malformed. Neurosis is the better option of the two.
Back to your question: try to notice, not the earworms, but the particular quality of whatever it is that notices the earworm. Does it have a critical texture or is it kind?
Spoiler: mindfulness is never critical.

responding to Max's comment: "Spoiler: mindfulness is never critical." - That's wrong mindfulness. Right mindfulness is always judicious, discerning, right wisdom conjoined with right view, being critical in the best way.
The way 'mindfulness' is usually taught, has more in common with Idiots, who can be non judgmental choiceless awareness zombies.

If an earworm is happening, then first jhāna is not happening at the same time.
It seems insurmountable because you've spent your whole life training to let the earworm and mind do whatever it wants. It takes lots of practice to unlearn bad habits and retrain and replace with good ones.
MN 20 is a good sutta to read. The secret is to practice the elements of MN 20 all the time, not just 20 minutes of "formal meditation" a day for example.
All the time, you train your mind to think what it wants to think, and to cease thinking what you don't want to think.
The Earworm doesn't keep going by itself. It goes because your mind is giving it permission. You can interrupt it. Note your progress in how quickly you can interrupt and temporarily halt the earworm. Just like practicing your golf swings or shooting basketballs into a hoop, it takes time and repetition. The earworm gets interrupted more and more frequently by your right mindfulness, and the silence between the next infestation of the earworm grows the more you practice.

If you quit listening to music, you should eventually stop having earworms. The Buddha praised sense restraint. On Uposatha, one of the extra precepts includes not listening to music. AN 8.41

‘As long as they live, the perfected ones give up dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows; and beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. I, too, for this day and night will give up dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows; and beautifying and adorning myself with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. I will observe the sabbath by doing as the perfected ones do in this respect.’ This is its seventh factor.

The Buddha giving instructions on sense restraint MN 107

When they have ethical conduct, the Realized One guides them further: ‘Come, mendicant, guard your sense doors. When you see a sight with your eyes, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of sight, and achieve restraint over it. When you hear a sound with your ears … When you smell an odor with your nose … When you taste a flavor with your tongue … When you feel a touch with your body … When you know a thought with your mind, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of mind, and achieve its restraint.’


text:
Preparing for the Bardo while remaining detached
In the "Tibetan Book of The Living and Dying" it is said that the state one dies in, is the state one enters the Bardo in. Are there any resources someone can point me to that can clarify how to live in a state that makes on better prepared for the Bardo, but at the same time not be attached to the thought of it.
I figure that if one is always concentrated on being in a certain state in preparation, that this would be considered attachment, or even become an obsession.

The state that is being referred to are the mental states. Since each moment of mind, is influenced by the immediate past moment directly and past moments indirectly; influences the next immediate moment directly and the future moments indirectly and that we want happiness and not suffering; it is being asserted that one should have a happy mental state. Of course, happy mental state as resultant state is achieved by certain causal mental states. The majority of the entire corpus of teachings is about this transformation of the mind. To be prepared for Bardo for the mere sake of it is of course harmful and to be avoided. Such distinctions (like Bardo etc.) have a specific role. What makes the last moment of mind of this life important than other moments of mind of this life is that the nature of the last moment directly impacts the next birth in a significant way.


text:
Can a being be reincarnated as multiple beings which exist simultaneously?
After a sentient being dies, it is said that it gets reincarnated in one of the realms as a human, god, animal, hungry ghost, etc. Always it is implied that one being is reincarnated as one being.
Why would it not be possible for one being to be reincarnated as two or more beings (existing simultaneously). My thinking is, if form is emptiness, then there is not much difference between one body and two bodies. Then, there does not seem to be much difference between reincarnation in one body vs two bodies. In addition, if there is no such thing as the self, it seems there is no singular object (the self) which must transmigrate to a single body.

It is not really a person that gets reincarnated, you are seeing it from a point of view that is clinging to an inherently existing self.
You or I as in the form of our human name, when this life ceases, so too does that person, that form, cease.
What "carries on" is karma.
In this case the proclivity to cling to a self. As well as the proclivities to do X actions, seek desire, seek sensuality, and also results of what actions were created in this form or previous forms, will arise again to "decide" as to where a new form will arise in relation to the previous actions and proclivities.
Now the question you want to be asking as to answer your question is when in the past or in past forms has desire been created and/or has actions been performed where in relation two forms will arise simultaneously.
It is a conundrum, but we can see in some way that things like multiple forms resulting from pervious karma can be possible if only to look at things like twins or multiples human babies being born in tandem. (or other animals that have litters of children)
Or look at people with multiple personality disorder, which could be a result of either multiple forms existing in one human form, or just simply a broken mind with mental formations that are not stable (I know too little of the phenomena to make a biased judgement)
The real wisdom in this is that the Buddha himself would not explain the intricacies of karma simply because it will lead one to ruin. It is unable to be knows.
It is one of the 4 imponderables. So anyone claiming that they Know the answer to your question would be fabricating it of their own as this would have never been taught by the Buddha.
What is and should be more prevalent to you is as to not create causes for future unfortunate rebirth into such a horrid state as well as to create causes for a more positive rebirth and current scenario.
Being overly concerned as to where "I" will end up after the human death experience is just a form of strong clinging, the clinging that is described and explained as the second of the four noble truths, the clinging that brings suffering with it as they are intertwined.
There are specifically 4 (technically 8) milestones where one can say with conviction that you will know where your next rebirth will take you.
Firstly if you committed any of the 5 heinous actions in this life, you will know for sure you will be reborn in a hellish state.
If you reached the state of the fruit of sotapanna, after your experience of nibbana you will know for sure you will be reborn in a form conducive towards leading to liberation.
If you reached the state of anagami, you will know for sure you will be reborn in a pure realm and never have to come back to a human form.
If you reached the state of arhant you will know that there will be no more rebirth for you at all, as there is no you to be reborn and no more causes created that will cause a rebirth.

Correct, it doesn't have to be one to one. In fact, I knew a Tibetan Lama who was considered one of the three reincarnations of a previous Lama.
According to the Tibetan tradition, great teachers produce multiple emanations in subsequent lives, as to help as many students as possible.

Yes, they nearly always seem to be pretty stories, those reincarnation claims. I once passed through the mind of a psychopath. A difficult undertaking indeed, but I learned a fair bit about the lower realms and how those places impart their influence in the human realm. Once one has - figuratively - broken the bond, the causal links evaporate up into the heavens and down into the hells. A great deal has been achieved, but since it is all an illusion, nothing has been achieved yet sharing the message happens.

Yeah, well... Buddhism has its vocabulary...

Is one being reborn into one being or is one being reborn into many beings?
How many beings are there?
The following suttas describe the deeper understanding into this.

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and
terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from
concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that
recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it
occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse
desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to
make me fall away from concentration."
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil
One," replied to him in verses:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,"
sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10)

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as
the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?...
Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In
perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?...
Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85)


text:
Correct posture while sitting seiza for spinal alignment
While sitting seiza, should most of your weight fall on your butt, hips, or coccyx (base of spine)?
I have read that you should try to sit really straight or even to lean back to prevent spinal load.
I personally sit with a seiza bench.

This isn't really a question about Buddhism; it would do better on a physiology site. Energetically you want to keep your head-top suspended, and your weight dropping vertically from the head-top through the dontien into the floor.  If you focus on outer posture you'll get stiff; try to feel the energetic alignment.

Depending on your experience level.
For beginners, best to focus on generally keeping body straight, but staying relaxed and keeping it sustainable for long sits. People tend to have problems and deformities, don't force it into what you imagine a correct perfect straight posture is. Just have the intention to be straight, relaxed comfortable, let the body slowly correct itself over the years (doing yoga, other kinds of therapy to address problems with posture outside the meditation sit).
For intermediate, this article dealing with spinal alignment specifics will help:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/04-ujum-kayam-panidhaya-maintaining.html
For advanced, there's what I call the Jazzy effect:
https://lucid24.org/tped/j/jasi/index.html


text:
If you are reborn into a different realm, does that mean you just live in that realm, or you are reborn as the inhabitants?
When Buddhist texts mention "realms of rebirth", it sounds like you are only living in those realms and not actually becoming one of the inhabitants.
Like for example being reborn into the Deva realm, you reborn and live there but aren't reborn as a Deva.
Could somebody help me?

What makes you think that you may not be a deva when you're reborn into the deva realm?

@ruben2020 Usually the texts I've read stay being reborn into this realm, which to me sounds like only living among Devas and not actually becoming one yourself. If that makes sense

I think you are comparing the deva realm with the human realm. It is very different, devas are born fully developed both in body and mind. There is no gestation period as in human birth. If you are attracted to the deva realm upon death, the sutras indicate you will just appear there as a fully formed being. What is your social status there, would be another story.

Some of the deva realms are actually a very interesting description of what Theravada calls superiority conceit, which becomes more visible when one has entered the stream. In fact, for some, many of the realms will open up after that first ground-breaking insight. Personally, I found myself visiting a plethora of interesting realms. I guess what I'm saying is, keeping things rather down to earth, the realms largely describe many of the mind states you may encounter on the journey. There's no harm in entertaining the idea that they may exist somewhere, but this will always be an internal conception until all fetters have been broken or all bumis exhausted.
One of these superiority conceits concerns being lost in emptiness (arupa ayatana) where the practitioner falls under the pleasantries that emerge from the absence of form-based perceptions and unconsciously asserts that people of the physical world are lowly in nature, thus bypassing conventional reality. Emerging out of those conceits - which can take many years for some - can be quite agonizing and embarrassing, to say the least!
These conceits are not necessarily a lie, they occur directly from what has been known thus far about the nature of reality; they are progressively informative in their own way and in accordance to the temperament of the practitioner.
In answering your question: since the human mind is very complex, so too is the expression of these conceits; hence one can be 'born' into any number of conceited mind states brought on by various deva classifications, and thus determine for themselves a particular social standing that is over-inflated and at odds with conventional reality.
However, the overall theme is always the same: the 'I' conceit. That central figure that appears to be looking out of those eyeballs into a world, when it's only looking at its own internal creations. Therefore, the conceit - or even the fetter - isn't the deva realms themselves, it is the conceit 'I'.

"all bumis exhausted."  Bumi?

@DeaneCameron - Bumi refers to the progressive scheme that Mayahana follows as a guide. They have a similar function to the ten fetter model in Theravada, in that one can use the scheme as a reference to gauge and thus navigate the territory. There are 10 bumis; similarly, there are ten fetters, but the only striking convergence between the two seems to be at fetter seven alongside Bumi seven.

Thanks Max, I'll check it out.


text:
Experiences in Meditation: Am I stucked?
I meditate (Shamata) since a few years now. According to my meditation time I have 430 hours meditated. (Just for context related to my question). I stopped smoking weed a few months ago. Practicing now daily. Around 1 hour. My concentration is far better. I realize bodily experiences – mainly feeling "light", sometimes "happy". Body / muscles are sometimes twitching mainly in spine area and nape of the neck. All in all I feel fine and realize that this is a huge motivation in meditating now. It also happens that in ordinary life I can switch (a bit) into this body mode. Fine. But I am a bit anxious, that it will stop here and I do not make further progress – except for maybe feeling better. How do I not get distracted from the ultimate goal? Should I switch now for a time into analytical meditation? But I've once read, that you should switch to this, when you have mastered Shamata for far more than an hour. I have no teacher, no meditation group or whatever. So I am asking here. What are your experiences on your path related to this feeling of "bliss" (light, in my case) I also asked, because I read, that you can be a good meditation practitioner, but it will not help you for your rebirth, if you are distracted / dwelling in this "bliss" moments. Thank you for your time. All the best

anxious, that ... I do not make further progress... ultimate goal.

This idea of progress to the ultimate goal is a fetter. Your meditation has to be free from petty concerns like this.
Recognize this for what it is: the monkey of samsaric mind looking for a next branch to grab onto. Your meditation has to stop grasping at ideas of future existence, whether positive/desirable or frightening/undesirable.
Do not worry about the bliss that comes from meditation, in fact that's the kind of bliss that works like the soap to wash the mind, that's what the Buddha said. Enjoy it and use it.
At some point the bliss will start wearing off, so at that point do not cling to it. That's it, do not attach to the bliss when it ends. No need to worry about it when it's here. Do not cling to it nor chase it nor go against it.
The idea of Buddhist meditation is to arrive at this very open, boundlessly open mind, with no conceptual ground and no boundary conditions.
In this mind, vast and open like the open ocean, there's no ultimate goal and no attachment to any condition, including bliss. It is attained by letting go. It is much much bigger than smallish things like the ultimate goal, experiences of bliss and  suffering, concepts of birth and death.

Practicing now daily. Around 1 hour. My concentration is far better. I realize bodily experiences – mainly feeling "light", sometimes "happy".
With developing momentum in the practice, concentration is readily available. With the lightness, the first thing you're noticing here is the perception of the body begins to change. It moves from a state of solidity to one of fluidity. In my personal understanding, this could be the beginning of breaking into the first arupa ayatana where the perception of space is undermined by its potential non-perception of space, resulting in lightness of the body and eventually free-floating in boundless space, which is the opposite of your 'limited' understanding of space. The happiness is a symptom of letting go of these solid-like perceptions, which are elaborate illusions. It's not actually fully arupa, you're just knocking on the door, so to speak. When you get to the last arupa ayatana - neither perception or non-perception - and penetrate that, all ideas about space, whether limited, boundless or otherwise disappears. It took me 18 months to work through that particular phase. I then found myself at the doorstep of the 8th fetter.
The other possibility is that first jhana may be opening up for you, so bare that in mind, too. In any case, one does not need to have worked through an experiential understanding of the 4 jhanas in order to get to the arupas (formless spheres). The arupa ayatanas are all about our perception, the way we see ourselves and the world, the way the mind brings into form whatever the senses are exposed to (perceptions).
The 4 jhanas are largely about developing a familiarity with hightened rapture and pleasure - which sometimes might seem other-worldly and fascinating - such that one breaks into equanimity, the last two jhana states. My first and second jhana exploration sometimes caused my muscles to tremor, the rapture was so intense!
How do I not get distracted from the ultimate goal?
Distraction is part of the exploration. In fact, it is the disturbances that are produced by these distractions that motivate us to find answers to the human condition. Distractions won't go away, but the way in which you think about them will. In essence, all mental resistance resistance will stop.

As a starting reference, we can all consult MN10 as taught by the Buddha:

MN10:2.1: “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.

There are four kinds of mindfulness meditation:

MN10:3.1: What four?
MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.3: They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.4: They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.5: They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Finding feeling unsatisfactory (i.e., "feeling stucked"), perhaps it might be worth studying mind and principles. MN10 is a good source for study and discussion.

You need to stop doing samatha meditation and do cultivation instead. Samatha meditation is difficult. Unless you are working closely with an excellent teacher, you won't be ready for samatha until stream entry.
Cultivation is bringing up wholesome qualities. Examples are: loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, equanimity, and the nine virtues of the Buddha.

hmm, thank you very much for your answer. But I don't understand, why one could only do Shamata when reached Stream entry. because "Right concentration" is part of the 8-sold path – and I tought, that Shamata trains  "Right concentration". Best,

Anālayo cites SN 47.10 in which the Buddha states that if one is distracted and sluggish while practicing satipaṭṭhāna, one should switch one's meditation towards a calm (samatha) meditation, in order to cultivate joy and serenity.  Once the mind has been calmed, one can then return to satipaṭṭhāna.

@S.H  By shamata, I mean the four jhanas, which are defined as Right Concentration. You can become a sotapanna never having meditated. A sotapanna has Right View. They don't necessarily have the meditation parts of the path. Being skilled in meditation is necessary for anagamis and arahants. It's easy to misunderstand the jhanas and do them incorrectly. You either need Right View or you need a good teacher. Ajahn Nyanamoli has a similar opinion and recommends not meditating until after stream entry.


text:
Odds of nirvana
What are the odds of getting nirvana during this lifetime? I suppose, given a worldwide population of 8-9 billion, of that what percentage is likely?

an arahant whose effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment,
done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally
destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right
gnosis.

It is easier than to preserve this small one body and make it last.

If you take time and apply effort to actually penetrate and understand Buddha's teaching, you will see that Nirvana is a metaphor for the perfect realization of the Noble Path, rather than a lottery that one has a certain odds of winning.
The Noble Path is a training system that gets one away from suffering and towards peace, and here's an important detail: it is a gradual system - first you stop the worst causes of suffering then the more tricky and subtle ones and so on. So, like, first we stop physical and verbal violence, lying, sowing conflicts, getting intoxicated, dealing in weapons and drugs, stealing, and other such obvious sources of dukkha. Then we learn to overcome negative thinking, obsessive desires, anger, hatred towards the world, jealousy, and other inner sources of dukkha and learn to be in a nice (positive, confident) state of mind. Then we learn to see and transcend our own prejudices, stereotypes, generalizations, reifications, assumptions, expectations, and other conceptual sources of very subtle very fundamental dukkha. At the end of this process we learn to transcend even the dichotomy of dukkha/sukha itself. What's left at this point is a very refined, very mature, very wise, very robust, stable, and peaceful type of intelligence that does not have a single point of reference. This is what we lovingly and somewhat humorously call attainment of Nirvana. It's not a lottery, it's a culmination of behavioral, emotional, and mental development.
So in terms of how many people can reach it, I don't think it's one in a million or anything like that. It is about all the people who understand the path, follow the path, and methodically refine one's practice of the path.
Just like with the hygiene: it's not about how many people can be 100% perfectly germ-free, it's about the overall principle that cleanliness and sanitization reduces the spreading of pathogens.
Same with Buddhism, whether an individual person gets 100% perfect dukkha-free or only 95% or even 60% is not important in the grand scheme of things, what's important is the shared understanding that realization of the Path is fundamentally beneficial to humanity in general and to each of us, because it reduces suffering and the causes of suffering for all.

It's very rare and extremely difficult to become fully liberated in this lifetime, though we do not have statistics.

“What do you think, Ānanda? Which is harder and more challenging: to
shoot arrows from a distance through a small keyhole, shot after shot
without missing? Or to take a horsehair split into seven strands and
penetrate one tip with another tip?”
“It’s more difficult and challenging, sir, to take a horsehair split
into seven strands and penetrate one tip with another tip.”
“Still, Ānanda, those who truly penetrate suffering, its origin, its
cessation, and the path penetrate something tougher than that.
SN 56.45

Blind is the world;
here only a few possess insight.
Only a few,
like
birds escaping from the net,
go to realms of bliss.
Dhp 174

Excellent sutta quotes. However, the personal idiosyncratic notion of "lifetimes" is probably one of the great obstacles to Nibbana. If stream-entry is not attained in this lifetime, I doubt it can be attained in future imaginary lifetimes. The suttas have the phrase: "Not poor,, their (this) life is not wasted".

I find it hard to read SN 56.45 as the Buddha's saying that the task is almost impossibly difficult. Instead I interpret it as saying that it is greater, more worthy of admiration (and of practice), than the skill with an arrow that was being reported. He redirects Ananda's attention, away from admiring the youths' activity and onto understanding the four noble truths. Similarly I think that SN 56.47 and 56.48 isn't meant to be saying how impossible it is: instead it's what a fortunate opportunity this is.
Piya Tan writes that the theme of these suttas is, "The human state is rare; seize the moment for awakening":

SN 56.45
SN 56.47
SN 56.48

That's absolutely true. The Buddha makes it worthy of admiration and worthy of effort.

With all due consideration,
If by odds, it is implied that enlightenment is a matter of luck, there are 0% odds for one to reach it, since progressing on the path that leads to the eradication of suffering is not a matter of chance, but a process based on decision making and causality.
In terms of it being likely to happen in the sense of a possibility, if the noble eightfold path is treaded upon correctly and completely, and there is no trace of attachment left, the likelihood of attaining Nibbana is 100% for anyone taking up the endeavour.
For a thorough explanation of what Nibbana means, how it is reached and how it is described once it is reached, please read the answer written for specifically this purpose: Can you explain "nirvana"?
Respectfully

If you imagine each person being cut in a particular unique fashion from the top layer through to the innermost subtle layers - worldly attainments, physical features, egocentric charms, personality attributes and ethereal qualities - then the realised one has, in some sense, chipped off the rough edges that come from being exposed to the cycle of samsara leaving behind a smooth, resistant-free surface. Since we are all cut differently, we all take a very different journey experientially and in length of 'time' - conventionally speaking.
Therefore, the odds of attaining enlightenment are determined on the quality of your cut, what you've been exposed to, what sankharas you've brought from previous lives - essentially all the factors that perpetuate the illusion of separation, many of which are bound together as a belief structure. Stacked high and weighty, those beliefs press down hard on the six sense experience. Having said that, some people's 'cut' are already partially smoothed off. As such, their belief structure is quite flimsy, and those people tend to have a high functioning ego, meaning that their degree of emotional intelligence is such that it doesn't take much for them to 'get this' - I've met these people, and they're wonderful to work with!
However, even this smoothed-out analogy no longer holds true at a certain point as one even transcends any associations with the wisdom that naturally ensues from such a position, which is illustrated in the heart Sutra as 'there isn't even any wisdom to attain'. Hence, as soon as the words are delivered, they are gone, but in the time-referenced mind those words linger for the benefit of whosoever applies themselves. One is then left with the life force that keeps the body going and the various functional tensions that come from that life force, which the Buddha described as ...'there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.'.
Just to clarify, it's not possible to give an odds value in terms of the global population to something like this. You either want it, or you don't. Incidentally, everyone actually wants it, but they don't know that, yet.

I would submit that the question and any possible answer given can have no useful meaning.
To ask who might have a better chance, Adolf Hitler or the 14th Dali Lama, might have an answer. To ask what are the odds you could attain it, might have an answer. But achieving of full enlightenment is an individual effort based on the person who is trying to achieve it, their internal efforts toward it, and commitment to the path.
Maybe a million people living now can; maybe just one; maybe none. My assertion is that this is not an “odds” question/answer. As @ruben2000 said, no statistics exist or could possibly exist.
Given this, 100% or 0% or anything in between would be equally valid/invalid – and totally useless – answer.


text:
Is S. Dhammika's book The Broken Buddha, a misleading angry reaction?
Recently I happened to read the following review and comments about the book "The Broken Buddha."
The Broken Buddha and its Implications
The Broken Buddha: The revenge of the unfaithful monk

By Carl Stimson:
The book is the work of Shravasti Dhammika, an
Australia-born man who ordained as a Theravada monk in 1976. It was
published in 2008, though as he states in the preface, most of it was
written several years earlier and he only decided to publish after an
“unauthorized draft” appeared online. I am unsure how much the
official version differs from this draft, but the text retains a rough
feel. At less than 80 pages, it is somewhere between long essay and
short book, and is at turns angry, funny, cutting, astounding, and,
unfortunately, sometimes poorly researched. For some, Bhante
Dhammika’s casual relationship with facts and tendency toward
generalization may limit their ability to take the thrust of his
arguments seriously.

Both of them says most of the S. Dhammika's views are angry and and misleading.
Is S. Dhammikas work poorly researched and baseless?

what's its message? if you cannot find anything via google, then you're asking for opinions: vote to close

I cannot cast judgment on the whole book, but let's test a small excerpt.

Fourthly. Discouragement of Superstition. Pure Buddhism has today
become overgrown with a mass of superstitions which the Buddha himself
would be the first to discourage and which prevents its progress as
people become more educated. The waste of money on innumerable
candles, gold leaf, building pagodas, etc. is particularly deplorable
when it could be much more wisely and humanely spent. Some Bhikkhus
actually encourage superstition among ignorant people, teaching for
example, if gold is put on a pagoda the giver will become rich, ....
So many false customs, traditions and beliefs are now associated with
Buddhism that the educated layman naturally laughs at them, and our
religion is likely to make poor progress in the West until we can get
rid of all these excrescences and show it to be the rational religion
that it really is. The better education of the Sangha would be one of
the best ways of achieving this.
The Broken Buddha (by Ven. S. Dhammika), pages 75-76

Is it misleading, poorly researched and baseless?
I don't think so.
Evidences of Theravada institution-sanctioned superstitious practices are well recorded, for e.g. below, from this news article:

This leads to the highlight of the (Wesak) day - chanting and blessings by
monks and ending the short session (which lasts no more than 5
minutes) with a shower of "holy water".
The monks softly chants a Thai variety of the Ti-Ratana Vandana
(homage to the Triple Gem), five precepts and punnanumodana (sharing
of merits). For most however, these chants are exotic and spiritual,
and are perceived to have "supra mundane" powers. It is no wonder then
that many devotees place their personal belongings - amulets,
religious icons and even car keys - onto a tray held by the monk who
performs the chanting.
Their belief - mistaken or otherwise - is that these chants contain
"spiritual powers" which are then transcended into their items, which
when worn or used, protects them from harm or danger. The ceremony
ends with the tying of yellow coloured strings on the wrist, a
symbolic notion of the presence of the Sangha in the laity. Of course,
if one wishes, they can also make a donation to the monk concerned for
his service by putting money into a metal box.

Even Ven. Ajahn Brahm, of the Thai Forest Tradition, has openly admitted to monk-sanctioned superstitious practices in this YouTube video talk.
Does this look angry? No.
In fact, the following statement shows that Ven. S. Dhammika feels Buddhism is "our" religion, says that the bad image portrayed does not reflect the truth, and is proposing how its image can be improved.

.... our
religion is likely to make poor progress in the West until we can get
rid of all these excrescences and show it to be the rational religion
that it really is. The better education of the Sangha would be one of
the best ways of achieving this.

So, is it better to smear him and his book, or is it better to solve the real problems that may exist?

I think you should be careful about generalising.
My impression of the book is that it was mostly based on his own, first-hand experience -- "I saw and heard a monk say such-and-such".
If it is first-hand experience, and his experience as a monk, then how can it be called "poorly researched"?
It reminds me of suttas, which begin, "Thus I heard."
But generalisations are difficult. Consider for example the first sentence which ruben2020 quotes above, "Buddhism has today become overgrown with a mass of superstitions". I can easily imagine someone resisting that conclusion, and replying, "That's not true! The Vinaya is unchanged..." and so on.
Incidentally I searched the two texts you cited for the words "baseless" and "misleading" and didn't find them. The word "researched" appears in the first:

At less than 80 pages, it is somewhere between long essay and short book, and is at turns angry, funny, cutting, astounding, and, unfortunately, sometimes poorly researched.

You ask, "is it poorly researched" when the exact quote is, "sometimes poorly researched" -- I think that's a big difference, i.e. the first ("it is poorly researched") implies that the whole of it is "baseless", and the second ("it is poorly sometimes researched") implies that more could be added on certain topics.
In summary it seems to me that Ven. Dhammika made some personal observations -- and from these he generalized somewhat -- and I'm not sure why, perhaps he was wondering whether other monks might make similar conclusions, have any similar "views".
Your quote ends with,

For some, Bhante Dhammika’s casual relationship with facts and tendency toward generalization may limit their ability to take the thrust of his arguments seriously.

... and I think that's what I'm saying, i.e. that it's the "generalization" if any that makes it questionable, or perhaps not easily "actionable" or something like that.
Incidentally I think that American law -- I don't know if you're interested, but I am because law tries to define which might be difficult to define -- distinguishes between "opinion" and "false statement of fact". For example if someone said, "I think you're an idiot" then that's an opinion, and if someone said "I saw you stealing" then that's a statement of fact (which may be true or false). I'm not aware of Ven. Dhammika's making any false statement of fact; it's possible you may disagree with some of his opinions. It's been years since I read it but from what I remember he narrates (or "is transparent about") experiences on which he based or from which he formed his opinions.
I admit that some sceptics might prefer data based on more than only one person's experience.
I found what he wrote interesting -- whether or not I share ("agree with") his opinion, I liked being able to share some of his experience -- to "see though his eyes".
As for "angry" I don't remember that. Perhaps that means it evoked no anger in me: that I didn't read it as angry. I read it more as "disappointed" sometimes, perhaps "sad", "disillusioned" even -- and worried, that the Vinaya isn't being practiced properly and so people don't benefit as they otherwise might. I also saw it as looking for leadership and/or suggesting direction -- "This is right, that is wrong, we should not behave like that".
Incidentally I think that part of the genius of the suttas is their making generalisation which are true -- which isn't easy, and may be a science. Usually though when someone makes a generalisation you might be able to say, "That isn't always true" But maybe personal experiences are "true", "This is what I saw", and leave people better informed, i.e. with a more complete, more factual, more detailed picture for what that's worth.


text:
Sutra Opening Verse
I have noticed that most sutras (Mahayana) have this opening verse.
What is the story behind it?
Do all sutras have this opening verse?
Is it compulsory to have it, say, if it's for Mahayana?

In the picture that is attached to the opening question of this thread, there are three "hànzì" (漢字, lit. the "letters of the Han" people, i.e. "Chinese characters"). These are 開, 經, and 偈. The Latin-script transliteration given in that picture is "Kai Jing Ji," which corresponds to the pīnyīn "kāi jīng jì." These three words refer to the "Gāthā of Opening the Sūtra." 偈 refers to a "gāthā," and 開經 means "opening the sūtra."
A "gāthā" is a sung or chanted hymn in a poetic meter, which is to say that it is in verse rather than prose. Specifically, the Shabda-Sagara Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines "gāthā" with the following five entries:

Gāthā (गाथा).—f.
(-thāṃ) 1. A verse, a stanza. 2. Metre, rhythm. 3. A song, a chant or verse to be chanted or sung. 4. Prakrita or any language not Sanskrit. 5. The same as the Aryya Metre, in which the verse contains sixty syllabic instants, variously arranged.

The first three entries above, which I have bolded in the excerpt, are what is directly relevant to us here in a specifically Buddhist context. A gāthā, in Buddhism, is a melodically chanted verse or set of verses.
"Opening the sūtra" (開經) refers both to the literal unfurling of the scroll that the sūtra is written on (or the book that it is written in) as well as the "revealing of the sūtra" by way of oral recitation. Oral recitation of the texts of the sūtras enables the teachings of the Buddhas, that is to say the Buddhadharma, to be heard and received by those who listen to them. The Digital Dictionary of Buddhism defines 開 ("opening") as:

開
Basic Meaning: to disclose
Senses: To unfold; uncover, clarify, explain in detail (Skt. prakāśana). Clarification of a provisional teaching as such. Divulge, expose, unmask (Skt. pransanga). To open, begin, institute. [Charles Muller; source(s): Nakamura, Soothill, Hirakawa]

With the knowledge that this verb is being nominalized, and is thus acting as a noun grammatically-speaking, in a "gerund-like" fashion, we can read out of the above definitions the following senses of the phrase "開經" ("opening of the sūtra"):
 - the unfolding of the sūtra
 - the uncovering (or "the revealing") of the sūtra
 - the clarification of the sūtra
 - the exposition of the sūtra
 - the exposure of the sūtra
 - the unmasking of the sūtra
 - the opening of the sūtra
 - the beginning of the sūtra
 - the institution of the sūtra
All of these diverse English senses are included and covered by way of the Chinese word 開, especially if we read "exposition" as "discourse which is intended to inform an audience about something or to explain it to them," and if we read "institution" as "the act of starting or introducing something." Both of those two definitions that I've put in italics can be found in their respective entries of the online Oxford Reference resource.
And so, with the knowledge that the "開經偈" is the Gāthā of Opening the Sūtra or the Hymn of Opening the Sūtra, we can see that the 開經偈 is, in fact, a dedicatory hymnic preface that is added to the beginning of certain recitations of the sūtras, and it is not a part of the texts of the sūtras themselves.
After all, Buddhist sūtras begin with the phrase, "Thus have I heard" (evaṃ mayā śrūtaṃ / 如是我聞). In the case of the sūtras addressed to the śrāvakas (i.e. the sūtras of the Five Āgamas¹ and also the Pāli suttas of the Pāli Canon), it is said that Master Ānanda spoke these words. In the case of the sūtras addressed to the bodhisattvas (i.e. the Mahāyāna sūtras), it is said that Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Samantabhadra, Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Mañjuśrī, Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Maitreya, and Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Guḥyakādhipati spoke these words (see Tarkajvālā IV² from Master Bhāvaviveka and sections 517a & 756b³ from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa).  The sūtras are not said to begin with a dedicatory expositional piece of hymnography.
This 開經偈, which is realized as "kāi jīng jì" in the Chinese tradition cited by the questioner who initiated this thread, is known as the "Kaikyōge" in the Japanese tradition of Buddhism. The lyrics of the gāthā are completely the same, but they are pronounced according to the Sino-Japanese custom, and here they are offered with an alternative translation. This Japanese version appears in the morning and evening gongyō liturgies of the Tendai-shū sect in Japan, but it also appears in the formal liturgies of many other traditions. It is recited before the sūtra chanting:

無上甚深微妙法
百千万劫難遭遇
我今見聞得受持
願解如来真実義
Mujō jinjin mimyōhō
hyakusenmangō nansōgu
gakon kenmon toku juji
gangenyōrai shinjitsugi
The unsurpassed, deep, profound, hidden Saddharma, in even hundreds of tens of millions of aeons, is rare to find. Presently, I will now see it and hear it. I will inherit, receive, and uphold it. May I unfurl the meanings of the perfect truths of the Tathāgatas.

The author of this gāthā is unknown to us today, and it is very old. It is older at least than the 500s AD, because versions of it appear in Chinese liturgical texts dating from that period.
To answer the remaining two questions:

[Do] all sūtra[s] have this opening verse?

The gāthā is traditionally sung/chanted by the Saṃgha before the chanting of a sūtra or a large section of a sūtra, but it is not mandatory. The gāthā is not a part of the sūtra itself, but it is often sung before the sūtra in the context of formal liturgical chanting.

Is [it] compulsory [to have] it, say, if it's for Mahayana?

Because this is a liturgical text, it does not have to be sung/chanted before a sūtra if the sūtra is being chanted or read in a non-liturgical context or if the rubrics of the liturgy in question specify something else be done. There is nothing wrong with personally choosing to chant it before you chant or read a sūtra privately either.
Footnotes:
¹ The "Five Āgamas" are 1) the Dīrghāgama, 2) the Saṃyuktāgama, 3) the Madhyamāgama, 4) the Ekottarikāgama, and 5) the Kṣudrakāgama.

² Tarkajvālā IV: "The Mahāyāna was taught by the Buddha [Gautama], and it was collected firsthand by its compilers: [the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas] Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guḥyakādhipati, and Maitreya. The śrāvakas did not compile our root-collection, because the teachings of the Mahāyāna were not in their purview. As it is said in the Śiṃśapāvanasūtra: 'Ānanda, I have understood an extremely large number of dharmas, as many as there are leaves in this grove of śiṃśapā trees, but I have not taught [all of] them to you, for they are not [all] profitable for you; [for] they do not [all] cause you to be disillusioned with saṃsāra and freed from the passions.'"

³ Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: “It is so said that Mahākāśyapa, as the leader of the Bhikṣusaṃgha, compiled the Tripiṭaka on the Gṛdhrakūṭa mountain after the Buddha’s death. The Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas Mañjuśrī and Maitreya, together with the Venerable Ānanda, compiled the sūtras of the Mahāyāna. The Venerable Ānanda understood deeply the goals and the roots of the various classes of beings, and this is why he did not speak of the Mahāyāna sūtras to the śrāvakas." (k. 100, p. 756b)

It's a sort of preamble that highlights the profundity of whatever follows and how auspicious it is for the reader/hearer to have access to it. It also primes the mind into a state of receptivity, alertness and poise.


text:
Is Shakyamuni Buddha Siddhartha Gautama?
This is very similar to Did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?
It is also kinda separate/different, and since I have not "realised all phenomena are non-self" I might ask my own question, especially as I am more interested in Mahayana Buddhism, just not what 'nothing to attain' means.
Is our historical Tripitaka Buddha also Siddhartha Gautama, the prince who left home? Clearly they are not identical, because the latter has undergone complete and perfect enlightenment (so not the same question as the above). But are they in any sense the same?
Follow up questions like whether the Jataka stories are about Shakyamuni Buddha, whether the dharmakaya is Shakyamuni Buddha, would also be appreciated.

:( sad that i annoyed you so much you couldn't leave a comment

They are the same, but they have been given different expressions from different people in different traditions. Those expressions have certain appeal to certain people, but some of those traditions try to point to the Buddha in you, and not some external representation of a Buddha.
Some traditions, however, encourage one to focus quite heavily on a Buddha figure out there somewhere, or even a guru. Amazingly, some people find that helpful, but others may find it a bit of a trapping. I've seen this happen, and it can be quite a terrible affliction, because they invest so much of themselves into their order, it's unbearable for them to even consider the idea of packing up and trying something else; hence, they become silent sufferers.

Based on the sutta below, if you say Prince Gautama and Shakyamuni Buddha is exactly the same person, that's eternalism, and if you say they are completely different persons, that's annihilationism.
The middle ground between the two extremes is dependent origination. Also, related is anatta. This answer on the continuity of consciousness is also useful. Explanations can be found in the linked answers.
They are related, but they are neither exactly the same, nor completely different.
A related analogy: you can step into the same river at two different moments, but the river would have subtly changed. The water molecules, temperature, pressure etc. would have changed. It's not exactly the same river, but it's also not completely different. The rivers of both moments are related. The change in the river from one moment to the next, was dependently originated based on conditions.

“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” “Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
SN 12.17

Is the Dharmakaya the same as the Shakyamuni Buddha?
That's answered below:

Vakkali: "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on
the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and
see the Blessed One."
Buddha: "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He
who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly
seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."
SN 22.87


text:
What to do when experience is different to teaching examples?
What does Buddhism say to do when a specific Buddhist teaching or example of a teaching, is in disagreement with lived experience?
This is not about rejecting the whole way but maybe small parts based on lived experience not wants.
(Example, Brother Phap says when we are strong we are more likely to hurt people and when suffering or hurt we are nice and sweet. In my experience, hurt people hurt people more so it seems false to me.) https://youtu.be/6P-NrCNUSJU

Ignore both the teaching and example...thus you are fresh for a discovery

Note that your two ideas don’t necessarily contradict. It is possible both for hurt people to hurt people, for hurt people to be meek, and for stronger people to hurt people, all in the same world; it obviously depends on the person.
Buddhists do not necessarily have to prove every proposition they hear to be true or false. In fact, it often does the opposite; see for example how in the Aggivacchagotta Sutta, it is claimed that a Buddha is neither ‘reborn’, ‘not reborn’, ‘reborn and not reborn’, nor ‘neither reborn nor not reborn’.
In practice, try to meditate on these apparent contradictions. They may resolve themselves into a synthesis; you may find that your lived experience is warped by your perception; or even you might find that you completely disagree, which is fine! ‘Agreeing with every last sentence a monk has ever said’ is not a requirement to reach enlightenment.
Finally, from the Dhammavandana:

Well communicated is the Teaching of the Richly Endowed One,
Immediately Apparent, Perennial,
Of the Nature of a Personal Invitation,
Progressive,
to be understood individually, by the wise.

We may particularly flag up ‘immediately apparent’ as an issue with your problem here, but was the teaching behind the example immediately apparent? It may be, even if you disagree with the way it was explained.

Thank you…………..

The concept of the multitude of where a person who has reached liberation  one will be or not be reborn after death it simply a means to test your own intellect that you cling to a person being there, who could then be reborn in the first place. The answer to the question "where does the buddha go after death" is from an illogical point of view that there was a person, a Buddha there to begin with.  That is what the full explanation is getting at. iirc the original teaching is actually from the maha parinibbana sutta.

It is fitting for you to be perplexed, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Do not go by
oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of
texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by
the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence
of a speaker, or because you think, ‘The [practice] is our teacher.’

-Words of Lord Gautama Buddha from the Aṅguttara Nikāya, “The Book of the Threes” (3.65. Kesaputtiya)

AN 3.65 translated by Ven. Bodhi can also be found here.

I think you have to keep in mind the person teaching and their experiences are their only way of comprehending a concept.
I had a similar thing where I was taught anger has no use and can never be used to benefit anyone, where already I had used anger to benefit myself and others, righteous anger for martial and exercise purposes as an example.
The persona was quite clearly dogmatically spouting out quite simply positive platitudes that do not actually relate to conventional reality or the Buddhas teachings themself.   It is that persons opinion based on their own experience in samsara and/or dogma spouting religious concepts that are read from a book rather than actually sought out within oneself.
My suggestion would be to only take the words of the Buddha as actual dharma, and see other words from others as watering down, diluting or making more easily accessible to others, in a form of simple teachings.
The Buddhas teachings have a very distinct formula, or flavour as you will.
Specifically they are enumerated.
The Buddha spoke in numbers and lists as he often spoke to the sangha not only as advice for them at the time but advice for them to mentally retain and spread on to others for centuries.

4 noble truths
8 fold path
12 dependant links
4 immeasurables
4 imponderables
37 factors of enlightenment

List goes on, the Buddhas teachings are genuinely formatted in a enumerated way.
If you then hear someone talking about X subject, question first in which way is it linked to one of the Buddhas enumerated formula. If it is not taught in such a way, you could often ascertain that it is not actually the Buddhas teachings. While that does not mean it cannot have use, you can pretty much completely ascertain it does not lead to liberation.

If that's true of 'anger', then you could apply the same reasoning to justify it as 'killing', 'stealing', etc.

I suppose you could put it like that if you like but I think you missed the point entirely. For examples of stealing and killing then. Someone is about to launch a nuclear bomb that will kill 75 million people....but you just stole the nuclear keycard first and destroyed it... Or same scenario but you killed the person first instead.  Things are not so black and white. Strict moral discipline does not actually lead one to liberation and ultimately there is no inherent good or bad.

in your hypothetical example of stealing nuclear codes to save people, it wasn't anger that is the cause, or desire and greed to steal, it's desire to save people from death. similarly, righteous anger doesn't need to have a component of anger, it can just be a pure intention to do good. Anger is never necessary, it's unnecessary baggage.  Anger is never skillful or right.

Anger can be used in a multitude of ways to benefit other or oneself. The above examples of theft and killing actions can be done out of anger, as too can the anger for being "lesser" than others galvanise one to become better. In my personal case of martial art training righteous anger, as in generating anger towards others as a means of encouragement is using anger itself as a tool and in turn is benefiting me, and by proxy others.  The type of mentality of seeing things so black and white where anger itself is negative is just a form of ignorance. In of itself it is just a mental formation.

"Anger can be used in a multitude of ways to benefit other or oneself. The above examples..." They could all be done without anger. Anger is a separate entity, unnecessary baggage. The sankhara (mental formation) that were beneficial in motivating positive actions, are different than the sankhara for the anger baggage. It's a difference between correlation and cause. You can see this in the example of people who get angry, but then DON'T do the positive actions that help others. Anger is separate sankhara.