text:
Does the Lankavatara Sutra exist anywhere online in Tibetan script, Sanskrit (Devanagari), or Chinese?
Not sure what the earliest copy is we have of the Lankavatara Sutra, but wondering if it can be found online for free in copy/pastable text format (i.e. not PDF or image).
I am looking through The Kangyur on Thlib but not finding it anywhere. Does it exist in the Kangyur even, is it this?

Per Wikipedia there's a Multilingual edition, Bibliotheca Polyglotta, University of Oslo.
You can use its UI to select how much is displayed -- i.e. one sentence or one chapter at a time, or the whole text at once -- and which laanguages.
The Tibetan and Sanskrit versions are in Roman text, plus there seems to be three Chinese versions/editions, written using Chinese characters.
http://www.dsbcproject.org/ has machine-readable Sanskrit editions of various suttas, you could also try browsing there and/or writing to sanskrit@uwest.edu to ask them.
I think that Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra might be also known as the Saddharmalankavatarasutram.
You're right though that what I see online is mostly non-text image scans.

Is my tibetan link correct do you know? http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/0108
It might be -- see the "Non-Tibetan Title" -- but I can't read the Tibetan to confirm that.
Also here is a copy from the link you posted:

That more-or-less matches what the Tohoku catalog says on page 25:

I say "more-or-less" because the page numbers match i.e. pages 56 through 191, however the section number is off by one (i.e. 108 instead of 107).

Is my tibetan link correct do you know? http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/0108

I edited the answer.


text:
Scriptural source for the lost son story
I vaguely recall reading this story before, possible from the Suttas. Can anyone tell me the scriptural source? (Not looking for modern re-telling such as those by Ven Thich Nhat Hanh.)

THE LOST SON
"A young widower, who loved his five year old son very much, was away
on business when bandits came who burned down the whole village and
took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and
panicked. The took the burnt corpse of an infant to be his son and
cried uncontrollably. He organised a cremation ceremony, collected the
ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag which he always kept with
him. Soon afterwards, his real son escaped from the bandits and found
his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and
knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked: "Who is it?"
The child answered, it is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated
state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that
some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted: "Go away" and
continued to cry. After some time, the child left. Father and son
never saw each other again."  After this story, the Buddha said:
"Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling
to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your
door, you will not open it."
(http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/buddhist_stories.html)

Fwiw Ven. Yuttadhamma Bhikkhu has been telling this story in his videos, no closer to the source tho.

As mentioned in another answer the story as written is published in at least one book by Thich Nhat Hanh. The following is copied from Being Peace, it's slightly more elaborate than the version you posted (e.g. "velvet bag" instead of "little bag") but with many of the same phrases:

Thay doesn't attribute a source for this story.
The next story on the page of stories which you linked to, i.e. Angry Buddha, is attributed to Being Peace -- so I suppose that probably is where they found the Lost Son story too.
I gather that the Vietnamese tradition is eclectic so in theory Thay might have gathered that story from anywhere, but I think the content or 'moral' of the story suggests it probably is from the Mahayana or Zen tradition.

I did search on https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ to see whether this might be listed there -- sometimes that site reveals that a misquote is an inaccurate paraphrase of something from a sutta -- but it didn't list this one. I do think that the moral of this one sounds like a Zen preoccupation i.e. that "the illusion of knowledge is an obstacle". Warning people against "wrong views" is a feature of the "early Buddhist doctrine" too, but... this seems to warn against "fixed views" or "attaching to a view", which might also be inferred from the suttas but isn't so prominent a theme.

I know of Ven TNH having this among his stories. I believe it has a scriptural source though.

Venerable, sadly, I could find no such reference in SuttaCentral. I performed a search for son, which revealed 730 results. None of those results had the words "ashes". And of the 20 results with "father", none revealed a story related to your search.
If there is such a story, it lies beyond the scope of what I could find in SuttaCentral, which does include Jataka stories. Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure of the extent of English translations on SuttaCentral. Perhaps such a story has yet to be translated and recorded in SuttaCentral.
What I did find was a relatable sutta addressing the panic/fear of the first part of the story:

SN1.55:1.1: “What gives birth to a person?  What do they have that runs about?  What enters transmigration?  What’s their greatest fear?”  “Craving gives birth to a person. Their mind is what runs about. A sentient being enters transmigration.  Suffering is their greatest fear.”

And I found a relatable sutta addressing the delusion in the second part of the story:

AN3.111:1.4: Any deed that emerges from greed, hate, or delusion—born, sourced, and originated from greed, hate, or delusion—is unskillful, blameworthy, results in suffering, and leads to the creation of more deeds, not their cessation.

The story illuminates these two principles in a very concrete way that is easy to understand.

Thanks, but does SuttaCentral have suttas in English translation?

Yes. SuttaCentral has multiple English translations where copyright permits. Ajahn Sujato and Brahmali's own English translations are without restriction. Jatakas will eventually follow with contemporary translations as possible. SuttaCentral is also actively engaged with translations to other contemporary languages, such as German, Portuguese, Japanese, Russian, etc.

Oh, sorry. I meant to say "does SuttaCentral have all suttas in English translation".

@KumāraBhikkhu I think so yes. Its Introduction says, "We have gathered translations of early texts in over thirty modern languages. ... We have published an entirely new translation of the four Pali nikāyas by Bhikkhu Sujato, which is the first complete and consistent English translation of these core texts. And Bhikkhu Brahmāli is producing a much-needed modern and accurate translation of the Pali Vinaya." I think that Ven. Sujato translated all the suttas except for the Khuddaka Nikāya, plus they have other people's translations of most everything.

Thanks, @ChrisW. I'm aware of Aj Brahmali effort as he asked us for help some years ago. I knew Aj Sujato had many translations there but didn't know he has done all of the 4 nikayas. Thanks for telling me. I don't follow his translations though.

@KumāraBhikkhu It has a discussion forum too, in case you'd like to ask your question there -- https://discourse.suttacentral.net/. One of the good things IMO about Ven. Sujato's translations is that (by changing the Settings) you can display them side-by side (line by line) with the Pali, i.e. to see what (Pali words) he translated.

The way it is told seems like a jakata tale, ie a little story about lay people being morons, then some sentence from the buddha, so probably a story from the jakata (in pali or some equivalent version in other collection) and mixed with the twisted version by the mahayanists of the Discourse to Dīghanakha
https://suttacentral.net/mn74/en/sujato
to feed their infatuation with ''enlightenment as having no views'', the ''two truth'' doctrine, the ''four noble truth and 8 fold path  of the suttas is just a skillful mean given by the buddha to non-mahayanists  and not the real teaching" and so on.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kl8QBwAAQBAJ chapter 32

Is there an animated GIF here for slow nodding?

Nice link to MN 74

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the sets of things in SN 1.44?
What are the sets of one, two, three, five and twelve things mentioned in the sutta below?
What does it mean?
From SN 1.44 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

“One is the root, two are the whirlpools, three are the stains, five
the spreads, twelve the ocean’s whirlpools: such is the abyss crossed
over by the hermit.”

From SN 1.44 (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi):

“The seer has crossed over
the abyss
With its one root, two whirlpools,
Three stains, five extensions,
An ocean with twelve eddies.”

There's a really long footnote here, which starts with a paraphrase of the commentary ...

This is a riddle verse the clue to which lies in the identification of the metaphors used. According to the comm., the root is craving; the two whirlpools (ie. 'dviraava.t.tam': rendered above as 'turning-twice') are the eternalist and annihilationist views; the three stains are lust, hatred and delusion; the five arenas are the five types of sense-pleasure; the ocean is craving itself in its insatiable aspect; the twelve eddies are the internal and external spheres (of sense) and the abyss is craving in its 'bottomless' aspect. (Note that craving plays a triple role in this interpretation).

... and which then goes on to doubt the commentary by pointing out that some of these metaphors are used to refer to other things in other suttas.

Well those are all significant numbers in buddhism, especially utilized to remember teachings during oral transmission, but still hold significance sometimes in multiple ways. Like the 3 Poisons, but also the Triple Gem etc. Otherwise the significance could verywell be just that the numbers are there for structure and recall. It may be worth looking on Dharmaseed for a talk by Bhikku Bodhi on the sutta or someone/somewhere else.

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


text:
Is arguing and coming to conclusion is better, or ignoring the conversations is the new normal?
Every now and then we (close friends) start some discussion on some topic, then we put our sides, but unfortunately, this conversation takes a path towards argument, where both the sides want to prove that they are correct. This is forcing me to not to start any type of conversation among us in future because I don't want to hamper my peace of mind.
What should be the right suggestion over here? Shall we dig deeper into the conversations more and more, and until the conclusion does not comes up, just don't stop. Or, just tell your friend that you are right, and try to wrap the conversation over there itself. Or is there any other good way to reaching out to a pleasant end?

If it gets out of hand i consider whether they are fit to talk to. If they are unfit to talk to, not up to sutta standards i don't talk to them at all or i narrow the range of communication.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,[1] doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.[2] Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than.html

It is my impression that some people aren't used to a formal format of discussion but do come around embracing the due process.
In general if people want to discuss something i evaluate whether they actually want to get to the bottom of it, if they are willing to have their views challenged and whether they will respect my time and the process.
These things are non negotiable. I do my best and expect others to do their best but if it's too stressful and is not yielding worthy results, then i just don't engage them.
If people appreciate talking to you and your demands are reasonable then  losing access to you is a more or less of a bad outcome for them, if they realize this they might try harder. If otherwise you let people argue they are likely to just keep at it, it's my general impression.
Other aspects of this is our own behavior and the choice of topics. Some things are hard to express correctly and the timing for the expression is crucial.
It is very hard to get these things right, to make one's point step by step and in due time. Therefore one shouldn't just cut people off hastly and one should take responsibility to improve what can be improved.

Arguing could be related or equal to grasping a view (ditthupadana) by telling ourselves that our own view is the right way to go.
Getting into arguments could also be considered grasping a perception of one self (attavadupadana) by perceiving ourselves as right.
From MN11:

There are these four kinds of grasping. What four? Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.
...
When that mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t grasp at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, or theories of a self. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.

https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/sujato
Based on the above, for your own - and others sake - there isn't much point in trying to coerce others. It doesn't do any good to any of you.

Hi @Erik, I read this wonderful article, learnt new thing. and navigated to this one also: https://suttacentral.net/sn35.79/en/sujato   But I didn't understand properly how to give up ignorance, and how would I know that my thinking is ignorant/unaware.

@Deepak Essentially, the antidote to unawareness is to learn more about Buddhas dharma. Learning about the four noble truths in greater detail could be one way to proceeding giving up ignorance.

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."

Basically 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.

What should be the right suggestion over here? Shall we dig deeper into the conversations more and more, and until the conclusion does not comes up, just don't stop. Or, just tell your friend that you are right, and try to wrap the conversation over there itself. Or is there any other good way to reaching out to a pleasant end?

There's no one-size-fits-all solution here because it all depends on the content of the conversation. If your friend advocates some kind of wrong view that affects the safety or well-being of himself and/or others ( ex: advocating smoking/drinking/endulging in sensual pleasures as beneficial, advocating unrestraints in stealing, lying, cheating, abusive bodily/verbally toward others, etc... ), then you'll have to be firm and clear in stating your disagreement, even when knowing that your friend will never change his wrong view.


text:
Types of LHA in the tibetan tradition
According to Tibetan Buddhism, what does it mean LHA? (LHA body?)

Please check out the second link (Tibetan Medicine Education Center) for more details.
From Nalanda Translation's "Lha or is it La?" page:

Lha La (lha bla)
Some confusion exists between two Tibetan words, sometimes used
interchangeably:lha and la. The first, lha, is the Tibetan word used
to translate the Sanskrit deva, meaning “deity,” “god,” or “divine.”
This is also the term used in the Shambhalian sense of natural
hierarchy: lha, nyen, and lu. (If we were to be more daring in writing
this word like it is actually pronounced, we might spell it hla!)
The word la (bla) literally means that which is “higher” or “above,”
as in the word lama, the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit guru
(which literally means “heavy,” —heavy with good qualities, as the
tradition explains). Lama Ugyen once explained lama as “one who looks
down from above (la) with the love that a mother (ma) has for her
children.” La is also a Pön term, meaning “soul,” “life force.”

From the Tibetan Medicine Education Center's page on "Lha and Lha Ceremony":

THE LHA BODY
What is the lha?
“Lha” (bla) in Tibetan means ‘superior body‘, or
‘energy body‘. According to the Tibetan medicine and astrology
concepts, between the physical body and the mind is the Lha body,
which develops like a body copy, a shadow or reflection of the
physical body. Therefore it is called subtle or energy body. It can
hardly be seen by naked eye. The Lha body is very important to the
health of the body/mind, as it always protects, nourishes and gives
energy to the physical body, keeping it strong, stable and powerful.
It gives psychological confidence, sense of ego and it plays a
defensive role. The natural shape and form of the Lha body is exactly
like that of the physical body and therefore they can be thought as
dual bodies. When the subtle Lha body and the physical body are in
correct position, it could bring harmony, the person feels well, has
only few doubts and confusion, has a good concentration, a stable mind
and a good immune system. If our physical body is healthy and in good
condition, of course our mind and emotions are more stable and
function well. But the modern stressful life, traumatic situations and
many natural conditions can weaken the equilibrium between the
physical body and the subtle Lha body, creating the conditions for a
possible division, weakening, or loss of contact between the two
bodies. This result of losing the Lha body is called: «lost Lha ». Lha
can be damaged, become ill or leave the physical body, which could
cause serious effects for the person.


text:
Suffering caused by uncertainty of whether actions will cause more or less physical pain to dying family member?
What is the Buddhist approach to dealing with the suffering caused by the uncertainty of whether your actions and efforts will cause more or less physical pain to a dying family member?
My dad is dying from stage 4 pancreatic cancer.  Life expectancy will be less than 1 years (more likely a couple of months).  He is in a lot of physical pain because the pain medications are losing their effects.  It is not clear to us what options are left to manage his physical pains (if any even exist at this point?).  No one in our family caring for dad are trained in the profession of health care.  My mom, brother, sister-in-law and I are working around the clock to coordinate and consolidate the disjointed/broken communication between several medical teams responsible for my dad's care (family physician, palliative care, occupational therapist, emergency team etc...).
My dad has a strong desire to live, but not at the expense of prolonged agonizing physical pain.  Our whole family echoes this sentiment.
During these times, the family members caring for dad is suffering from uncertainty of whether we are:

doing enough to ease dad's pain - how far do we go to address dad's situation?  How do we know if we're doing enough?  How do we know if we're wasting time?  If we knew with certainty there's nothing more we can do, then we will relax and execute the final steps of closure.  If we knew with certainty there are still possibilities to explore, then we will do as much as we can and use the feeling of "hope" to mitigate our feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, fatigue and other forms of suffering.  As of today, we assume there are still possibilities to explore, but we really don't know for sure, which causes suffering.  We have found solutions to alleviate dad's suffering when doctors have said there are none, which tells us that even the professionals may not know what they are doing (or they've lost interest in our health case), which also means sometimes we need to try things ourselves. But we are uncertain on whether we are able to keep up with the new problems that arise each day.  How much runway do we have left to alleviate the agonizing physical pain my dad is in?  How do Buddhist's manage the suffering caused by uncertainty on whether you are doing enough to alleviate the pain of people you care about?

doing the right thing to ease dad's suffering - eg. if palliative care team does not respond in time to an urgent request, we will exercise our own actions without sufficient medical guidance which sometimes makes things better, and other times makes things worse (we have not documented all actions and their results, and hence we are uncertain if we have produced a net positive or net negative outcome during this saga).  How do we manage the suffering caused by not knowing in advance if you are improving or hurting your family member?

At the end of the day, if we were certain of our actions, we wouldn't be suffering. But our uncertainty causes not only our own suffering (eg. are we over-exerting ourselves researching futile efforts?), but tremendous physical pain to someone we care about.  What is the Buddhist philosophy to addressing this scenario?

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Approaches I've considered:
A1. Detach from my family and not care about them at all.  Now I feel no emotional connection to their pain.  My family will probably never speak to me again and call me an ingrate, but at least I don't have to take part in their suffering.
A2. Do a half-ass job in caring for my dad.  I just need convince /brainwash myself to think that I'm doing enough, and keep myself oblivious to the reality of whether I really am or not. I've now relieved myself of suffering from the uncertainty of actions caring for my dad.  I will also coincidentally not feel any guilt of whether my other family members have taken on responsibilities that were formerly mine, because I'm blissfully ignorant..
Is A1 / A2 the Buddhist way?

I think part of the Buddhist doctrine is that you should try to do what's ethical -- decide what's ethical, the "right" thing to do, and do that.
And then even if the outcome is sad, at least you don't regret (or feel remorse about) your action -- because your intention was correct, you did the best you could or knew at the time.
What's considered "ethical" is spelled out in some detail for monks. I believe it includes looking after each other in times of sickness ...

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Buddhism is less detailed on the subject of lay ethics, but I believe it does include supporting one's parents as may be possible (SN 2.4 and DN 31).
It may be that the right thing to do -- or the best you can do in the circumstances -- varies from person to person, time to time, place to place.
I'm sorry to hear you feel responsible for managing physical pain, even though you're not a doctor.

When I've been in a situation like yours I understand it's my responsibility to ask the patient, "Would you like me to take you to see a doctor?", and make another appointment or perhaps go to a hospital's Emergency department with them.
I feel it's also my responsibility to understand the doctors' diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, and care plan -- especially to whatever extent the patient can't -- to help the communication between the patient and the doctors and nurses.
I also want to not cause the patient unnecessary worry or grief, when I'm with them and able to talk with them.

I don't want to tell you what a doctor should, but my understanding is that one should expect pain to increase as cancer progresses, and doctors should expect to adjust the prescription as time goes by. I'd generally expect from my experience that a doctor will change the prescription only when they see the patient (i.e. not without seeing the patient), so when you think it's time for a new prescription then it's time to arrange another doctor's visit. I also expect that nurses (or sometimes other care-givers like family, if they're told how) might administer a prescription -- count pills, keep an eye on the time of day -- but only a doctor decides what the prescription is.
You might find this helpful too -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying.
I think I read somewhere that on average fewer opiates are used/prescribed in palliative care in Buddhist countries. I can't tell you whether that's good or bad, I suppose it's a topic for doctors and patients (and families) to negotiate in specific circumstances. There's a little mention about the trade-off in that article for nurses -- see the paragraph which begins "Taking into consideration overall well-being" ...

However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opiods for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices. In concordance with good practice and recognizing that the individual needs of each patient will differ,nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain relief, and should clearly document the preferences of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly during initial patient assessment regardless of the setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

... though I imagine that's an "FYI" for nurses and the actual decision is to be made and agreed between the doctor and the patient (or the family who acts as the patient's "guardian" or "parent" if the patient isn't conscious enough to decide).
Also I'd add that so far as I know, doctors are quite careful not to kill their patients -- not to give an overdose, too much too soon. Part of what happens is that the patient's tolerance for the medicine might increase -- which is sometimes part of the reason why the doctor can (safely) and/or must (for it to be effective) increase the dose -- but it's the doctor's job to know how, what, when, and how much to prescribe, so that it continues to be effective (beneficial) without being unduly harmful.
Lastly it may be worth mentioning or remembering the brahmaviharas. According to this author

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I think that the four include, "I don't want to harm you", "I admire your goodness" (as well as, "equanimity").

Personally, I don't think you are worrying about the right thing. Whether you are easing the pain enough or not. Is not the most useful thing to worry about, IMO - given the circumstances.
My father passed away a while ago, and it is too late for me to fix it now. But I think the most important thing to worry about is having some of your fathers best ideas disappear with him. If I were you I would spend this time listening. This way I would be able to ensure that these things lived on. Whatever I learned from my father is alive in me now.

Maybe I'll look through old photos to see if there's anything else I want to ask.  My dad lived with us in the same house all our lives, so we communicate a lot. For the last 20 years, he hasn't said anything we haven't heard before, recounting the same stories for the zillionth time.  Maybe going through old photos might reveal something else I want to ask.  I'd love to hear any suggestions you have on topics or things that are useful to talk with my dad?

Maybe ask him, what he thinks is important?


text:
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"
Wikipedia uses "the Buddha" to refer to the founder while a book uses "Buddha" without the definite article.

from "Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho"
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"? If yes, when should I use which?

I think "the" Buddha is more normal and more formal.
Without "the" sounds to me more casual -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as several languages don't use articles.
If you think of the word "Buddha" as being a title like "Teacher", well in formal English you'd usually include the article and say something like, "The Teacher said, ...".
It's not incorrect, perhaps a bit familiar, to say something like, "Teacher said, ...".
Also "Buddha" without an article would be right if "Buddha" were a proper noun, i.e. a name -- but I think it's more like a title or a common noun (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about is Gautama Buddha).

I think "Teacher said" and "the teacher said" have the same meaning and even degree of formality; the difference between them is in how we get to that meaning. The latter, "the teacher", is a just a common noun "teacher" with "the" to make it refer to a specific one of the class. The former, "Teacher", treats "Teacher" as almost a name. [continued]

[continued] Analogously, a child may refer to "the mother" in a book he's reading or to "Mother"; they both refer to a specific mother but "Mother" because that's what the child calls her and "the mother" because she's a specific mother in context. I don't know anything about Buddhism so can't relate this thereto. But I'll note that "the Teacher said" (capitalized) or "teacher said" (lowercase without "the") seems wrong to me.

If I refer to my mother as "Mother", I think that's "familiar", and so it is IMO not the same degree of formality.

Also it's conventional in English to capitalise some titles -- perhaps as a mark of respect -- they'd write the Queen for example when using the title as a substitute for a name.

Right, I agree with your last comment, and for all I know maybe the same is true of "the Buddha".

Also sometimes 'The Buddha', especially re Buddha Gautama, where 'the' is capitalised in the middle of a sentence.

This answer is more or less the same as ChrisW's.
The term Buddha means "awakened one" or "enlightened one".
It's a title or description, and not a name, just like King.
So, you would say "the King" or "a King" but not "King". Similarly, we say "the Buddha" to refer to a specific person, or "a Buddha" to refer to any generic person who fits the description.
But if you say "King George" then it becomes a name with a title. Similarly with "Gautama Buddha", "Kassapa Buddha", "Kakusandha Buddha" etc.
This is related to the use of definite articles in the English language. If you consider another language like German, then the definite article becomes more complex with gender, and declension such as nominative, genitive, dative and accusative.
From my understanding, there is no definite article in Pali or Sanskrit. In the Pali suttas, the Buddha is usually referred to, in the third person, as "bhagavā", meaning "blessed one" which is usually rendered in English as "the Blessed One".
For e.g. from SN 44.10:

But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. (Sujato translation)
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. (Bodhi translation)
Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.

bhagavā = Blessed One, tuṇhī = silent, ahosi = was
There is also no uppercase or lowercase in Pali and Sanskrit.

Is it correct that bhagava = Blessed One cause I read that bhagava meaning restrained from all of desire. That's why we called Bhagavan Gautama Budhha.

@Swapnil See here also here so maybe "Fortunate one". The first glossary says, "the term is derived from the word bhaga (luck, good fortune)", while the PTS dictionary seems to warn that there are "fanciful exegetic explanations of the term" in the Visuddhimagga and elsewhere. In any case it's a word used as some kind of title (a noun, not exactly a proper name): which is conventionally written with an article "the" when it is or isn't translated into English.

@ChrisW Bhaga I know the proper word is bhagya meaning luck but bhagava I read that it means restrained from all the desires.   So what is the meaning of Bhagavato? Thank you

Please also see The proper meaning of Bhagava.

@ruben2020 Yes see Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena answer.

Apparently there are multiple meanings, if you read all the answers.

@ChrisW Bhagavan and bhaga/bhagya meanings are very different. Bhagavan it is used in hinduism for god but in terms of Buddhism it's philosophical meaning so sure luck , good fortune such things aren't there in Buddhism.

@ruben2020 and ChrisW here you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavitra_Bhagya

Bhagwan itself is an acronym of the combination of the 5 elements of nature. Bha means Bhoomi (Earth), Ga means gaggan (Space/Sky), Va means Vayu (Air), A means Agni (Fire) and finally, N means Neer (Water)  ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan

Yes wiki document also mentioned that it means Blessed One but still I was interpret it as Restrained from desires.

In the entirety of the Pali Canon, the oldest known collection of the Buddha's teachings, "the Buddha" is used as opposed to "Buddha".

Buddha The name given to one who rediscovers for him/herself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of time of its having been forgotten bu the world.

Buddha (the title) comes from the pali term 'buddha' meaning awake, hence using 'The' is semantically analogous to saying 'The Awakened One'.

Pali language doesn't have any equivalent for the English article "the". "The" is added in English translations to make it English.

Interesting question; in standard English usage, all (three) namings can be seen in reasonable text: rather technically perhaps: when noncapitalized article the, it would be used more in a context re a specific but nonparticularly named Buddha; for the name Buddha without a particle, it could be more of a friendly conversational type name, sort of like Bob or Jim, & perhaps somewhat less formal; with capitalised The, The Buddha would often respectfully refer to (The) Buddha Gautama


text:
A path to another university outside of Buddhism
This post is a revision of Buddhism Or Christ? which already closed.
I posted that Buddhism or Christ? question on a Christian forum too, and after quite a response from them, I felt I have some clues.
I used to be a loyal person and have been studying Buddhism for 6 years. Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person and almost 100% of my doubt and direction can be found from the legacy of Buddha. Now I have been in Church as an observer for 1 year.
I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity. They even speak at country council level for all the Christian activities. But, I really miss so much of Buddha's teaching and I really want to do something for Buddhism before I turn to Christianity.
But it will create a lot of complications; but I found the below is necessary to clear the misconception and Buddha's name. I believe all Buddhist has responsibility on the below.

There are too many misconception especially to Buddhism and Taoism -- Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM.
Many Buddhism or Taoism disbelief the belief because they don't even know who is Siddhartha Gautama but claimed is a Buddhist. Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.

How they view Buddhism and other religion -- 4 Ways Christians can respond to a Satanic statue.
"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts". They will see Buddha is opponent and some really harsh wording from many Christian seniors is really hurting us as Buddhism Student. My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.

Respect and be tactful to those Buddhist visitor to Church - I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion and Church sharing on how to handle the 2 above. This URL for example speaks well on how to handle this.

You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants, in addition to determining which school of Buddhism your friend embraces. When in a discussion, do not be afraid to ask respectful probing questions.

My #2 issue above was shared online today during their Church service and it really touched my heart. I didn't request them to do it during Church services too, but I did share many of the above to them.
I am not sure Bodhisattva or Jesus (God) sent this high level Christ family as messenger to me.
Question: Let me know your thought for my action for item #3. What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc). That's the basic manner of human being.
Cheers,

Regarding the question about "handle this better", how is "better" defined in your opinion?

Better base on Buddha's teaching

What's the question? Ive voted to keep your 1st Q open but i don't see a question here. Id advise to pose a Q thus; "How would one fìgure out the appropriate course of action in these circumstances [...] according to Buddhist norm and scripture?" Then they won't have to close your questions as they will be suitable for this site.

You might also want to discuss this in a chat. Otherwise if this Q is deemed ok by the moderators i will share my thoughts as requested in an answer (just don't want to post an answer that will be in a closed Q or have thought sharing flagged as opinion based answer)

@Ruslan I thought this question was OK, that it's quite similar to How to explain what Buddhism is? It's not easy to answer because it's not specific, but if a question is too broad or not clear it's OK to answer any little bits of it.

@chrisw the only question mark in this Q is the link and reference to the link (which you closed). The other answer given also starts by pointing out that there is really no question posed. I don't understand the reasoning behind this moderation. I just wonder why this style is deemed ok as it is very unusual, it's a bare "share your thoughts on my situation request".

I think i get the general issue OP is facing and i think community can help him so it's more of a formatting issue for me. I think this format isn't conducive to this Q/A being easily referenced in the future (avoiding duplicates etc), no tags, no question, bad title

@Ruslan I posted a meta-topic here.

Perhaps OP meant, a path to another universe as in going to heaven, another world.. i am intrigued

@littlestar We don't understand the title, especially the word "university". Did you want to write something like, "A path to another 'world' outside of Buddhism" or something like that, is that what you meant? If you rephrased the title as a question with a "?" question mark, what would that short summary of the question be?

@ChrisW It's mean i am moving from Buddhism to Christianity Life for further learning, does this sound more meaningful? My command of English is limited too. I cant change the title by the way.

This isn't easy to answer because I'm not sure what the question is.
It seems to be:

How can I explain Buddhism to Christians?
How can I reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?
How can I answer Christian's attacks on Buddhism?

You found already, and posted in your question, some topics like "Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM."
They don't make this question easier to answer -- they're too long to review and comment on in detail unless you have a specific question.
There have been a lot of other introductory books and so on referenced on this site, many of them listed here.

To begin with I guess I'd recommend the answers to this topic: How to explain what Buddhism is?
I thought that this, for example, might be good advice:

I'd rather start with what practices I do and to what goal.
You can't help but say something about what you personally think, else you'll be parroting the party line of a particular institutionalize form of Buddhism or boring people with an encyclopedic listing of Buddhist schools.

Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person
Christianity and Buddhism might have a lot in common -- for example I suppose that Buddhists would agree with this Christian list of "sins", which includes anger and so on. And apart from the commandments related to "God", about half of the 10 commandments match the Buddhist precepts.

I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity.
I think you implied in your earlier post that you want to ally with these people for a personal relationship and business partnership.
This was meant to be some advice about choosing a partner -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?. One of those answers actually starts with, "Leave aside unproven traditional criteria (including creed)".

Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.
I don't like to criticise other people.
It's true there are many schools and forms of Buddhism. The one you're describing might be Pure Land Buddhism is it?
It seems to me to be one the things which Christianity and Buddhism share or have in common, i.e. that

some people think it's about going to temple (rites and rituals)
some people think it's about praying (or meditation)
some people think it's about reading scripture
some people think its about daily practice
some people think it's about whether you "self-identify" (as "I am Christian" or "I am Buddhist")

Incidentally I thought that one of the more interesting answers on this site was this one.

"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts".
This sutta might be relevant, SN 7.2 -- if that wording nourishes anger and/or hurt, you don't need to share in that nourishment.
Some people, including Christians, are kind of "sectarian" even amongst themselves. Here was a fairly famous joke

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

When I was taught Christianity as a child they definitely taught me that Christianity was correct and that non-believers couldn't go to heaven, also that only that specific sect/Church of Christianity was correct.
It happens in Politics too sometimes: "Either you're a loyal member of the Party or you're not!"
There's a famous Buddhist sutta on the subject -- Sectarians (Ud 6.4) which describes "the blind men and the elephant", and people "wounding one another with weapons of the mouth" -- I think that implies some Buddhists might have done it too i.e. quarrelled like that.
I think that Māna (pride or conceit) is identified as one of the causes for such quarrelling:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

It's hard to argue with -- some (not all) Christians might think, "I know better than you do", as well as, "I'm trying to persuade you for your own good, so that you too will experience the benefits I believe I experience for myself."

My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.
That kind of controversy happens sometimes within Christianity too -- see Iconoclasm in the Byzantine and Reformation eras.
I think the premise is that people shouldn't be worshipping statues (of which the most famous prototype was the golden calf).
In the Reformation some people grew to dislike the statues found in Churches.
Some Christian churches are deliberately austere (not very decorated).
In churches which do have statues, I think they'll teach (if you ask them) that they don't worship the statues (e.g. statues of Jesus and Mary and the Saints), that the statues are "representations".
I suppose that some Buddhists may say the same, i.e. that a statue is meant as a reminder or a representation of the Buddha -- but there are rituals and veneration associated with statues, see for example:

How does one do an "eye opening" for a new statue?
What’s the Eye-opening ceremony

Even so I think that statues weren't a feature of early Buddhism -- see Pre-iconic phase (5th century – 1st century BCE). And, perhaps as with Christians, some Buddhists are and some Buddhists aren't keen on statues, see for example this answer:

Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view?
Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.
Why do you need statues for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Ananda Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue (aprati samo). Venerate the dhamma within you, recollect your generosity, virtue, compassion, dhamma knowledge and wisdom. Practice and develop the satipattana. Let the statues made of corruptible wood and baked clay and trinkets be.

I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion
This site is more intended for Question-and-Answer than for discussion.

You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants
That's hard to do, arguably all modern Buddhism is a modern variant by definition.
Still some people say that the Pali suttas -- or perhaps the Chinese Agamas are the closest thing we have to "early Buddhist texts". If you want to explore those then this topic might be helpful:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc).
If that's what you really crave, then you might "suffer" if you don't get it! The Dhammapada warns against repretitive thinking such as, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." etc.
My understanding of Buddhist doctrine is that you must control yourself, and cannot necessarily control what other people do and say.
One the one hand we're advised not to keep company with "fools", on the other to maintain a mind of good-will towards others.
That's another doctrine which is similar between Christianity and Buddhism, if not quite the same -- the Parable of the Saw (MN 21), compared with Turning the other cheek and non-violence in Christianity -- also the Punna Sutta (SN 35.88).

Many thanks for the comprehensive answer. f that's what you really crave, then you might "suffer" if you don't get it! The Dhammapada warns against repretitive thinking such as, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." etc.--> i will take it easy and carefully cause it's been few thousands years of this misconceptions.

@ChristW. Thumb up x 100

I can see your dilemma. If you read the original teachings of the Buddha (in the Early Buddhist Texts) and compare it with what is practised today, you will find a lot of differences.
For e.g. in the original teachings, there's no statue-worship, deities-worship, chanting for blessing, trances, rituals, offering of food or flowers or incense to statues etc.
In the original teachings, the Buddha was not a God or deity who can provide salvation. He was also not omniscient or omnipotent. He was simply the one who had awakened to the four noble truths and had freed himself from suffering.
If you read the original teachings of the Buddha, you would find that suffering is primarily a disease of the mind, and the Buddha is the psychologist and teacher who taught us how to treat and cure that disease.
It's all about the mind, as seen in the Dhammapada:

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

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

Please watch Ajahn Brahm's YouTube talk on Superstitions in the Buddhist world. Also, please watch this Youtube talk (at the timestamp already part of the URL) by Ven. Dhammavuddho on worship of statues in Buddhism.
If superstitious practices of the Buddhist world was all I was exposed to, I too would have rejected Buddhism.
The Buddha said the following in the Dhammapada, that there are people who chant the sacred texts but do not practise it:

Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others
— he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.

Little though he recites the sacred texts, but puts the Teaching into practice, forsaking lust, hatred, and delusion, with true wisdom
and emancipated mind, clinging to nothing of this or any other world —
he indeed partakes of the blessings of a holy life.

I don't think it's our place to criticize Christianity here. In fact, there are others who are more qualified to do so, than us.
Christianity rose out of Judaism and still has Jewish scripture as part of its texts. As such, to listen to criticism of Christianity from its religious roots, please check out the YouTube Channel of Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish Rabbi.
If you want to listen to the criticism of Christianity by atheistic scientists, you can find YouTube videos of talks by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a professor of evolutionary biology. From the perspective of science, evolution has been proven without any doubt whatsoever. Buddhists have no problems in accepting the facts of evolution.
If Buddhists have something worth criticizing, it's putting one's "salvation" or liberation from suffering into the hands of someone else - be it a real or imaginary person.
The Buddha said in DN 16:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma (teachings) as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

I posted that Buddhism or Christ? question on a Christian forum too, and after quite a response from them, I felt I have some clues.
I used to be a loyal person and have been studying Buddhism for 6 years. Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person and almost 100% of my doubt and direction can be found from the legacy of Buddha. Now I have been in Church as an observer for 1 year.
Buddhism help you to be a better person – check
I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity. They even speak at country council level for all the Christian activities. But, I really miss so much of Buddha's teaching and I really want to do something for Buddhism before I turn to Christianity.
True Christianity is a denial of a will to live a worldly life and a harsh asceticism for expiation which end in dispassionate love.
There was nothing about being an influential and high-level family who speak at the country council, etc.
Dear, there was no Pope with a Gold chain in a high palace with in the early Christian, I dare say these you speak off are charlatans.
This is a Buddhist platform so I won’t go any further, but trade carefully and hold on to that makes you a virtuous person.
But it will create a lot of complications; but I found the below is necessary to clear the misconception and Buddha's name. I believe all Buddhist has responsibility on the below.

There are too many misconception especially to Buddhism and Taoism -- Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM.
Many Buddhism or Taoism disbelief the belief because they don't even know who is Siddhartha Gautama but claimed is a Buddhist. Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.

Well’ there may be something on what you say, but maybe not so much.
The Buddhist know that the statue in front of them is not a god so they are not worshiping it.  And they pray Oh, they do pray very different from the Christian, saying ‘all sentient beings be happy and free of suffering’ it was astonished to hear on my first encounter.

How they view Buddhism and other religion -- 4 Ways Christians can respond to a Satanic statue.
"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts". They will see Buddha is opponent and some really harsh wording from many Christian seniors is really hurting us as Buddhism Student. My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.

Do worry too much. I see you want to protect the Buddha? But the Buddha is free from any affliction as Shantideva says as quoted below.
My hatred toward those who revile and violate images, stupas, and the sublime Dharma is wrong, because the Buddhas and the like are free of distress.
Bodhicaryāvatāra - The Perfection of Patience

Respect and be tactful to those Buddhist visitor to Church - I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion and Church sharing on how to handle the 2 above. This URL for example speaks well on how to handle this.
You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants, in addition to determining which school of Buddhism your friend embraces. When in a discussion, do not be afraid to ask respectful probing questions.

My #2 issue above was shared online today during their Church service and it really touched my heart. I didn't request them to do it during Church services too, but I did share many of the above to them.
I am not sure Bodhisattva or Jesus (God) sent this high level Christ family as messenger to me.
Let me know your thought on how can I handle this better.
Learn a lot, read a lot, question everything. Befriend people who elevate you in virtue, not in community life or a church hierarchy.
Don’t overlook that both the Buddha and Jesus abandoned the worldly life.
If as you say Buddhism helps you to be a better person keep it close to your heart.
You’re working on your mind, not on religions, let virtue be your guide.

Buddha is Satan/Do worry too much. I see you want to protect the Buddha ->Under Blasphemy Law under certain country, this word "Buddha is Satan" could make the person jail more than 10 years. Yes, i would like to protect people like us not Buddha but law is simply to make the world peace right. Buddha spent 500 lives to achieve full enlightenment, what about others not even quarter of it? People will just quarrel about it. This applicable to those low or moderate EQ level and their quality level of understanding of script or Bible

but trade carefully and hold on to that makes you a virtuous person. --> thanks for advise

Do worry too much. I see you want to protect the Buddha? --> Ya to protect but us not Buddha and most of the time i have this attitude for me is a weakness. Why would Buddha need me to protect? So just leave it like this even it's a crime?
Somehow too defensive will kill our self if not handle well. I will try best to follow Buddha teaching, be low profile, mindful and any credits out of above will return to the temple as mentioned by my previous Buddhism teacher. I just wanna do something before i leave.That's why i feel doubt and just post here my friend.

It is my impression that one might accept, believe and hold that greed, anger & delusion are traits that are corruptions in a person but find it difficult to evaluate which set of ideas are faulty and what is the optimal way to develop the good and eliminate the bad traits.
One such as this could hold the foremost wrong view on the matter of there being a god creator; 'Maybe there is a God-Creator of all things; maybe it's not possible that there could be such a God-Creator of all things'.
Similarly on the matter of there being a beginning of time; 'Maybe there was a beginning; maybe it is not possible that there could've been a beginning of time'.
These are foremost [best] wrong views because they neither assert nor deny the truth and it's better than asserting what is not true saying; 'it is impossible, it cannot happen [in regards to the truth]' and thus becoming fixated in wrong view.
I imagine that one such as this could get quite sad about not being able to decide beyond that foremost wrong view and feel the pressure to do so [choose one or the other and to put one's eggs in one basket] because other people either due to of superior insight, stupidity or faith are seemingly taking a categorical stance on the matter.
In actuality as i see it, all those who go by faith have not gone beyond the foremost wrong view, it cannot happen that one who takes on faith that 'only X is true and everything else is worthless' would be one who has gone beyond doubt and everyone who claims otherwise Buddhist or Christian does this out of stupidity and is lying to himself because one who has faith can still have doubt.
The person who says 'i don't know which statement is correct, i am one who has not gone beyond faith' protects the truth and is intellectually honest.
If one's faith is strong one has less doubt and if one's faith is weak one has a lot of doubt. Faith can be so strong that people fear not death or it can be next to non-existent so that one for the utter most part bets against it, either way it just a faculty and it isn't seeing & knowing the truth.
If one's faith is weak either way it is natural that upon seeing good qualities in others, one is drawn towards these people here and then drawn towards those people there.
I think the most important tjing is to remain intellectually honest and  not fear being drawn to people's good qualities and the development of good qualities that one holds to be such.
If one is steady in the development of good qualities one's wisdom [insight] will get stronger and one's faith [confidence] will also become stronger being supported [founded on] knowledge.
There is really no need to say i am Buddhist or i am a Christian because both can be such that go on faith and are not without doubt. In particular christianity, afaik it does not claim that one can go beyond faith in this life and the point is to cultivate the faith.
One could easily say "i am christian/buddhist to the extent that i hold that certain essential parts of the doctrine may be true but i am one who does not know for certain" and that would be very honest and accurate, probably 99% of either group is like this anyway. Some people would not like to associate witj one who openly says this about themselves if they are trying to surround themselves with people of strong faith in order to keep doubts away.
In regards to the abandonment of wrong view one should ponder the positions [explore with intellect]. One should not fear to entertain an idea without accepting it.

I see that the Q was edited since i last read it and my answer is probably not what OP was looking for

answer to this post -
-->If that's what you really crave, then you might "suffer" if you don't get it! The Dhammapada warns against repretitive thinking such as, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." etc.
If the above is tough then i will slowly below and create a writing suitable to my culture to clear the misconception with help of Christians. Once completion will fully accept Christ. All credits shall return back to the Temple as taught by my previous teacher.
Respect and be tactful to those Buddhist visitor to Church - I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion and Church sharing on how to handle the 2 above. This URL for example speaks well on how to handle this.
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/buddhism/

By the way, this is a Q&A site and not a forum. So, the answers others post or you post, is only to your question. Then you can upvote or downvote the answers, and select the one you think best answers your question.

FYI I kind of disagree with "the fundamental and irreconcilable contrasts between the two faith systems are quite stark, as highlighted in the following table" -- I might argue that several of those differences aren't as stark as they were made out to be there -- not entirely reliable, like it's a partial truth. On the other hand this might be true, "Engaging in too much comparative religion (i.e., highlighting common ground) can be a diversion. Focus on Jesus, Jesus, Jesus." -- that being a defining characteristic of Christianity. But there is IMO a lot of variety within Christianity too.


text:
Do any Buddhists say that everyone's Buddha nature repeats an infinite number of times?
Do any Buddhists say that everyone's Buddha nature repeats an infinite number of times? To be specific, I mean that everyone's -- including Sakyamuni's -- life, or perhaps just karma, is repeated over and over again, timelessly and forever. I'm asking, because I think that's what I believe [that's all].
The Fan Wang Ching says that Sakyamuni manifests billions of times, but does anything claim he appears an infinite number of times, or eternally [I don't mean permanent].

Previously on this site the first version of this topic -- How could we have so many past lives without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment? -- generated a lot of answers which eventually moderators deleted as off-topic, because they were trying to explain modern-Mathematical understanding of what "infinite" means. Let's not repeat that...

Could you give an example of how you mean life repeats itself?

Infinity is surprisingly complicated, so let's look at what the Buddha said:

SN15.14:1.2: “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. …  It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.  Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

Given this understanding of transmigration leading back to "infinity" (or more precisely, "with no known beginning"), it is natural to ask about all the various Buddhas. So let's see what the Buddha says about the Buddha:

DN1:3.73.1: The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.  But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

In this way, Buddhas appear and disappear, never to be seen again.
Regarding "Buddha-nature", one might perhaps refer to this:

MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

If you have a system with infinite distance and infinite elements, you will have infinite variance.
What does not change is the principle or the mechanics of the system. Ie a coinflip retains an average 50/50 probability as a principle across the immeasurable distance of various flips.
Therefore a system follows the same principles with infinite variance in the expression. In other words a coinflip is a coinflip no matter how many times a coin is flipped but no flipping of the coin is the same.
One can draw an analogy to language, as one can express the same meaning in an infinite variety of expression.


text:
How can I talk to my mother (who idle-chatters) without getting angry?
Specifically with my mother. I talk with her on the phone and when we have already talked for a while, say half an hour, she keeps talking and bringing new pointless futile topics and expanding on them, which annoys me and sometimes I end up getting angry, and sometimes I manifest that anger getting "cutting" or being a little rude. She can talk for an hour or more until she has something to do. I don't tell her to stop because I'm this way and I expect her to realize we have already talked about the main topics and important stuff and a little bit more but she doesn't and keeps going for what I perceive to be too long.
I always feel really bad afterwards because of my unreasonable anger and irritation and the inability to deal with this, and when I get too rude most of the times I call her again and apologize.
It frustrates me even more because most of the time I'm not really doing anything better than talking with her, but I can't help but get annoyed when she starts to talk for too long about basically nothing, something that we will both probably forget in a short time.
And it's not like we talk once a month, we usually talk multiple times a week. We never talk so much even in person.
I love my mother, she is not perfect, but I really don't want to get angry with her but I can't avoid it sometimes and I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to ask her to not to talk too much to me because I think that would sound like an entitled kid, and if I cut her random talk I would feel like I'm not being patient enough with her, but I end up getting angry doing that.
And now that I think about it I think I have a tendency of getting angry with her like a stupid brat, I'm not sure why.
I would really appreciate any advice on how I can talk to my mother without getting angry?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE.

When we want to deal with someone, we need to first understand that someone. The more information or knowledge we have of that someone, the easier it gets.
Now in the case of your mother, isn't it obvious that she desires to stay on the phone as long as possible with you? She doesn't do the same when you're physically with her, because she's happy enough that you're already there. So what do you think is happening here?
As I see it, she wants you to be present. Talking to you on the phone allows her to feel that you are present. And what does she get with that? No much actually, except for short periods of relief, I guess, from loneliness. And why talk about unnecessary things? Why not? The subject obviously doesn't matter. Even if it's a repetition, whatever comes to her mind is a way to keep you with her, to keep her from feeling lonely.
You, as her child, wish to please her, and so you keep listening. While wanting to be nice, you listen with anger. Even if there's not much of that in the beginning, it builds up in you. And when you can't hold it anymore, you explode.
Frustrating, isn't it?
You might think that by listening quietly she might eventually recognize that you want to end the conversation and that solves your problem. Hasn't work so far, huh?
When we let someone with lots of desire lead a conversation, then it's to be expected that the conversation becomes dominated by desire. Since between you and her, you have a clearer head (i.e. more wisdom), and you want the conversion to be more meaningful, then you are the one who has to take the lead.
Stop trying to be nice, and start being kind instead, and courageous.
Help her. Help yourself. Lead the conversation. Choose the time to call her. Tell her how much time you have with her on the phone. Ask her about her day, her feelings. Don't let her defilements lead. Let your wisdom and love lead. Let her feel your presence, your love for her.
All the best to you.

'anger' is actually an illusion: it doesn't exist. There doesnt seem to be any noncircular definition/ description of it either. So just be glad someone is nice & interested to share their time with you. An empirical example too: Knew a very learned busy kind person who came to an appreciated understanding with their folks that talks re 'important things' would only occur if genuinely very pressing, and then hopefully of under 2to3 minutes duration. That all communications would hopefully be about the weather, birds, shika, squirrels,  lunch, what might be for dinner, songs, water, tree growth, scenic vistas, walking around, etc. That was much more important to them, inane chatter. Priceless. No hustlebustle. Seems like wise decision.
And because of time constraints, maybe simply reduce duration of calls by a few percent. Laugh and share joy & tell them you have to go for then, and thank them for talking with you. Isnt a biggee: straightforward and honest & ok!
Whether what they talk about seems important, apparently its important to them, so: ok! Or adjust the subjects a bit. Discuss the weather and nutrition or something, something upbeat & optimistic. Very good. Uplifting maybe. Have some nice tea while on the phone(just notspilling it into the phone etc)
And if irritation, simply discontinue it. Irritation probably wouldnt adjust anything in a useful direction anyway. And the situation doesnt really sound bratty, & if it really seems like it is, then simply discontinue brattiness. Good. And much less tedious than fretting over it. Much easier too. and sort of like being honest, theres less to keep track of.
And every time is new, every moment can be appreciated. Invest in good happy kindly things rather than self indulgent tedious things, such as that discarded illusion commented on at the outset!
And always try do the best one can: cant do any better than that!


text:
How should one teach the Dhamma to others?
Answering questions here in buddhism.stackexchange.com is often Dhamma teaching, or at least an effort of it. How can that be rightly done?

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

See also Which early canonical references help one find a skillful teacher?

From Udayi Sutta (AN5.159):

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
within the person teaching. Which five?
"[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
step-by-step.'
"[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
of compassion.'
"[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
for the purpose of material reward.'
"[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
without hurting myself or others.'
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
established within the person teaching."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.159.than.html
I want to highlight this sutta to everyone who wants to teach Dhamma/Dharma here or elsewhere.
Some comments:
[1] Aj Thanissaro's "step-by-step" is translate from ānupubbī, meaning "gradually". This means we should not teach what is beyond the ability of the listener. This implies that we should first understand the listener's situation.
[2] I'm not sure why he translates pariyāyadassāvī as "explaining the sequence". Although pariyāya can mean "sequence", translating it this way makes this point a repetition of the first. Pariyāya has a range of meanings, and in this context I think it means "way" or "habit", as in "mental way/habit" (cetopariyāya). Thus, as a whole, pariyāyadassāvī is "(as) one who sees of the (mental) habit". In modern terms, this point means we need to understand human psychology.
[3] This point should be plain enough, but let me point out that "compassion" is not translated from karuṇā but from anuddayata, which I prefer to translate as "kindness".
[4] "For the purpose of material reward" is somewhat loosely translated from āmisantaro but I'm happy enough with it. Although in SE you wouldn't get any physical reward, the reputation points and badges are enough to be considered "material" (as opposed to "spiritual"). Are you greedy for that?
[5] The last point suggest that we should check what we're actually doing as we try to teach. "Hurting" in general means decreasing our good qualities, increasing the defilements, strengthening the ego, thus ultimately increasing suffering. So, in the name of "teaching Dhamma", are we hurting ourselves? Or hurting others? Instead of helping them, are we causing them to be greedier, feel small, or in any other way increase their defilements and suffering?
Please reflect on this.

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

I think most of the people contributing on Buddhism.SE do not qualify to call themselves Dhamma teachers. Their answers also cannot be considered a Dhamma teaching.
The following is a better approximation, from Mahāgosiṅga Sutta (MN 32):

“Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion
about the teaching. They question each other and answer each other’s
questions without faltering, and their discussion on the teaching
flows on. That’s the kind of mendicant who would beautify this park.”

As a side note - a question arose in the comments whether the MN 32 quote should be translated as "about the teaching / Dhamma" (Sujato translation) or "on the higher Dhamma (Abhidhamma)" (Bodhi translation).
The following opinion by Bhikkhu Analayo supports the Sujato translation.
From pages 70 - 71 of the book "The Dawn of Abhidharma" by Bhikkhu Analayo:

In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel the reference to “abhidharma  talk”  or  to  discussing  the “abhidharma”
occurs alongside “Dharma talk” or “teaching the Dharma”. This gives
the impression that the two terms Dharma and abhidharma are here
interchangeable. In the Mahāgosiṅga-sutta,  the  prefix abhi- would
thus  convey the  sense  of “about”  or “concerning” the Dharma. The
passage  would then describe having a talk “about the Dharma” and
discussing “about the Dharma”, abhidharma.49
The notion that the prefix abhi- conveys a sense of superiority appears to reflect a later understanding of the implications of the
term. In line with later understanding, the commentary on the
Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the Atthasālinī, refers to the present passage in
support of the authenticity of the Abhidharma-piṭaka as the Buddha’s
word.50
A discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya describes a group of elder monks seated together “talking abhidharma talk”.51 In this
case the Madhyama-āgama parallel does not employ the term abhidharma
at all, but rather describes that these monks were “wanting to settle
a matter of dispute, namely  to  discuss  what  is  Dharma  and
Vinaya,  what is the  Buddha’s teaching”.52 This case would
be in line with the impression that abhidharma talk can simply stand
for talk about the Dharma.

The same from MLDB: “Here, friend Sariputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talk on the higher Dhamma and they question each other, and each being questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sala-tree Wood.”

Here's an example of why I don't follow Aj Sujato's translation: His "discussion about the teaching" is translated from abhidhammakathaṃ, which is much better translated on found in MLDB: "talk on the higher Dhamma". In this case, do you still think this passage is "a better approximation" of "people contributing on Buddhism.SE"?

@KumāraBhikkhu Bhante, if you see this page, it says: "The literal translation of the term Abhidharma is unclear. Two possibilities are most commonly given: 1. abhi - higher or special + dharma- teaching, philosophy, thus making Abhidharma the higher teachings 2. abhi - about + dharma of the teaching, translating it instead as about the teaching or even meta teaching."

@KumāraBhikkhu Also, please see the talk by Bhikkhu Bodhi in this video. He holds the opinion that the Abhidhamma was not actually taught by the Buddha, but rather it evolved over time, as an analysis about the Dhamma, by the monks.

If abhi means intensification then I wonder if more than "higher" it might mean "condensed" -- i.e. it's only the dhamma, without the narratives of the suttas (that seems to what the PTS dictionary is suggesting) -- or, maybe it's talk "around" or "toward" the dhamma. Apparently the word is hardly used in the suttas, perhaps it was later that it acquired some specific meanings it has now (e.g. to refer to the third category of the Tipitaka).

Ruben, that wisdomlib.org page says it's source is "WikiPedia" but looking into that source, I don't find it there. It has probably been overwritten, and wisdomlib.org is showing an old page. (Anyone can edit a wiki and copy from it.) In any case, if you ask Pali experts (other than Ven Sujato) I doubt you'd find anyone agreeing to "abhi" being translated as "about". You can try a group I'm in: palistudy@yahoogroups.com. You'll find Bhikkhu Bodhi there too.

@ChrisW and Ruben, "Abhidhamma" is now widely used to refer to Abhidhammatthasangaha, written around 11th century by one Anuruddha. Clearly not by the Buddha. It may also refer to the 3rd Pitaka in both Theravada and Mahayana (though the 2 sets of 7 books are completely different). In both cases, the books came about in stages. Other than Puggalapaññatti, which contains suttas from AN, the rest are either commentaries (e.g. Vibhanga) or new 'developments'. You can say they are "about the Dhamma", but that does not mean "abhidhamma" means "about the Dhamma".

For further discussion, please go to https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/110082/discussion-on-answer-by-kumra-bhikkhu-how-should-one-teach-the-dhamma-to-others

@KumāraBhikkhu Bhante, I have updated the answer to support "about the Dhamma", from a book quote by Bhikkhu Analayo.

@ruben2020 I've responded to your addition in the chat room linked above.

Do you think you've answered the question "How should one teach the Dhamma to others?"

@KumāraBhikkhu I've seen someone else previously post something like, "1) According to the suttas (and the vinaya) there are specific ways and preconditions for teaching dhamma; and, 2) What you lay people are doing here, on Stack Exchange, is definitely not it." So I think that ruben2020 might have been addressing that part of the question, in replying that, "We don't imagine we're exactly teaching here, many of us don't imagine we're teachers, it's more like maybe sharing or conversing about".

The question was "Answering questions here in buddhism.stackexchange.com is often Dhamma teaching, or at least an effort of it. How can that be rightly done?" - so my answer is that most people here are not qualified Dhamma teachers, and so we're simply sharing and discussing - and I quoted a precedent from the suttas. How to teach the Dhamma was already adequately covered by  Ven. Kumara's answer citing the Udayi Sutta.

"Sharing or conversing about" is better done in a webforum, like DhammaWheel.com. SE simply isn't designed for free-flow discussion.

Answering questions here in buddhism.stackexchange.com is often Dhamma teaching, or at least an effort of it. How can that be rightly done?

Not necessary. It's Dhamma "teaching" only if one's confident that s/he's gained mastery of the Dhamma both in theory and in practice. Short of any of those factors and it's more like Dhamma "sharing", where one shares suttas/comys. references and any related backup literatures in the hope that they can address the inquiry raised by the OP. And so, by sharing, just providing personal opinion is simply not sufficient. Always follow up with supporting evidence from the suttas/comys/related literatures, etc.

Good kindly question; Sharing The Dharma correctly, appropriately, kindly, compassionately, sincerely, openly, forthrightly, unattachedly, generously, & nicely etc, is 'good'!!!

Sorry I converted this to a comment -- I thought you meant it as a comment ("Good question!") and didn't realise you intended it as an answer. I've now converted it back to answer for you, here.

Your kind & thoughtful comment is much appreciated: was one keystroke from deleting the account. Bless You: the answer preface was intended as a friendly complimentary remark, and the answer intended as attempt to synopsise and clarify & somewhat distill a large amount of material, yet retain the meaning for readers & interested beings, And was intended to be relatively concise, perhaps as thoughtful contrast for readers as to some of the plainer message of The Teachings of The Buddha  OM


text:
What are the Buddhist guidelines for choosing the true Dhamma?
With many traditions and teachers to choose from, how should one go about figuring out what is the true Dhamma?
I prefer answers based on Buddhist scriptute and references to Sutta, ideally to the Buddha himself.
I welcome answers from all traditions just not opinion based.

[tag:reference-request] means you're not asking for opinion or explanation but only asking for references (e.g. to scripture). And I imagine you already know various references in/to the Pali suttas on that topic ... perhaps you'd like to change the question to ask more specifically for Mahayana references?

I want well referenced answers is what is meant. I know a lot but i am apparently not allowed to share. I might not know them all tho, so i would like to improve my knowledge and therefore i am curious about the answers.

Should i remove the tag?

Maybe not -- if you're asking "what is the Buddha's advice" it sounds like you're asking for a quote. The oddest thing about the use of tags is that normally [tag:theravada] means "please no mahayana answers to this question" and vice versa.

And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:
"So be it, Lord."
Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
Footnote: In the earlier edition of this work, mahapadesa was rendered as "great authorities." It is now known that the proper meaning of apadesa is not "authority," but "reference" or "source." Besides, from the passage it is clear that there are only two real "authorities" — the Discourses (Suttas) and the Discipline (Vinaya).

Four Great References (DN 16)

There's a canonical description of the characteristics of the Dhamma:

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
visible here and now, immediate,
inviting to come and see, effective,
to be individually ascertained by the wise.
Dhammānussati

I've seen some people apparently try to use that too to discriminate, using arguments like, "if it isn't sandiṭṭhika then it's not true Dhamma".

I marked this answer due to the last sentence. What is the point of Dhammānussati if it is then ignored.

I try ti report what the text says. At least in theory it's possible to jump to a wrong conclusion when you start to use logic, especially when combined with negatives. For example the text might say, "The Dhamma is effective immediately."  -- then a person might use logic to add, "... therefore what's effective over the long term isn't Dhamma" -- but doing that wouldn't be a safe (justified) way to use logic. So I hesitate to say that or to report it as orthodox. Whether the reader chooses to do that might be "to be individually ascertained by the wise" instead of for me to argue using logic.

With many traditions and teachers to choose from, how should one figure out what is the true Dhamma?

From AN 8.53

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

How do you know that you have arrived at the true Dhamma?
From MN 9:

Ven. Sariputta said, "When a disciple of the noble ones discerns what
is unskillful, discerns the root of what is unskillful, discerns what
is skillful, and discerns the root of what is skillful, it is to that
extent that he is a person of right view, one whose view is made
straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and
who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns nutriment,
the origination of nutriment, the cessation of nutriment, and the way
of practice leading to the cessation of nutriment, then he is a person
of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress, the
origination of stress, the cessation of stress, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of stress, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. (stress =
suffering) ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns aging &
death, the origination of aging & death, the cessation of aging &
death, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of aging &
death, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this
true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns birth, the
origination of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way of practice
leading to the cessation of birth, then he is a person of right
view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns becoming, the
origination of becoming, the cessation of becoming, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of becoming, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns clinging, the
origination of clinging, the cessation of clinging, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of clinging, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns craving, the
origination of craving, the cessation of craving, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of craving, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns feeling, the
origination of feeling, the cessation of feeling, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of feeling, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns contact, the
origination of contact, the cessation of contact, and the way of
practice leading to the cessation of contact, then he is a person of
right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns the six sense
media, the origination of the six sense media, the cessation of the
six sense media, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of
the six sense media, then he is a person of right view... who has
arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns name-&-form,
the origination of name-&-form, the cessation of name-&-form, and the
way of practice leading to the cessation of name-&-form, then he is a
person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns
consciousness, the origination of consciousness, the cessation of
consciousness, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of
consciousness, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at
this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns fabrication,
the origination of fabrication, the cessation of fabrication, and the
way of practice leading to the cessation of fabrication, then he is a
person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance,
the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way
of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance, then he is a person
of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma. ...
"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns (mental)
fermentation, the origination of fermentation, the cessation of
fermentation, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of
fermentation, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at
this true Dhamma. ...

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

So he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, with regard to the ancient hymns of the brahmans — passed down through oral transmission & included in their canon — the brahmans have come to the definite conclusion that "Only this is true; anything else is worthless." What does Master Gotama have to say to this?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html

Below is Venerable Guan Cheng's response below on similar question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Buddhist_Temple
https://youtu.be/LUjqAajuvZk
We have to be careful in choosing the teachers we are listening to. Not all teachers are right in their explanation of Buddhism. The general criteria for judging whether a certain teacher is right or not is using The Four Seals of the Dharmas( 四法印) :
• Impermanence (Skt: Anitya): All phenomena are impermanent 諸行無常
• Non-self: (Skt: Anatman): All existence is devoid of inherent nature 諸法無我
• Suffering (Skt: Dhukkha): The world is imperfect and non-satisfactory. We are constantly experiencing changes, attaching to craving (such as lust and greed), which in turn leads to suffering.  諸漏皆苦
• Nirvana (Skt: Nirvana) A transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire nor delusion of self.  The subject is liberated from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth.  It is the perfect state of bliss, peace and equanimity. 寂靜涅槃.
In other words, if the teacher’s teaching has not departed from the four Dharmas as indicated above, then his teaching should be regarded as within the parameters of Buddhism.
Do not be afraid of listening to more than one teacher, as long as you are careful and maintain some queries (or doubts) in your mind about the authenticity of his teaching.