text:
What is an "enlightening being"?
Thomas Cleary uses the term "enlightening being" extensively in his translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. This term isn't defined in the glossary of that book, or in my copy of The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Is there a canonical definition of "enlightening being"?
Edit: Thanks useful comments by @ChrisW and @KayCee, I see in Appendix 1 "bodhisattva or enlightening being". I'm finding it helpful to read this Appendix before returning to the Introduction.

That's Cleary's translation of "bodhisattva":

Compare that with this translation:

The Four Holy Truths
At that time, Manjushri Bodhisattva Mahasattva told all the Bodhisattvas: “All of you Disciples of the Buddha, in this Saha world, the Holy Truth of Suffering is

That's very clear, thanks. Perhaps it assumes that anyone picking up this text would be able to infer that. I've noticed a few typographical errors in the Introduction, e.g. "death" for "deaf", and "hand" for "land". It's almost as though it was transcribed from a poor audio recording and not proof-read before publication.

If I may give a personal experience as the person who proofread that volume for Shambhala Publications: from over 50 years in book publishing, including management, I can say there is no proofreader who does not miss typos and other errors. It is a question of being unable to maintain consistent mindfulness throughout the whole proofing job, especially with such a lengthy text consisting of almost hypnotically repetitious wording; at times I felt that reading it was putting me into an altered state. I ask forgiveness for any errors I was responsible for. Back when that book was published, type

...typesetting was not done as it is today, from the author's disk, so errors were introduced by the keyboarded. Cleary also proofread his own books. I felt that enlightening being meant a being in the process of getting enlightened, but the meaning is slightly ambiguous. @Paul

@KayCee It is a bit ambiguous, isn't it: I read "enlightening" in that context as intended to mean, "a being who enlightens"! Also the word "Bodhisattva" is more familiar now than a translation into English.

I don't agree bodhisattva is more common now; more books on Buddhism are pub'd now. I believe Cleary deliberately translated certain words to express his understanding, not because he thought bodhisattva was an unfamiliar word. I have never had the impression that a bodhisattva enlightens others in the sense of doing things to enlighten them, the way I imagine a fully enlightened (in Mahayana sense) Buddha does. The bodhisattva aspires to enlightenment in order to lead others to enlightenment, which can be best done as a Buddha.

Sorry for errors, I am not good at writing on my phone.

@KayCee Wow. Thanks for contributing to this. Before asking the question (and based on a talk by Robert Thurman) my guess matched your interpretation. Just to clarify, this wasn't meant as a criticism. It's a beautiful thing. More as a reader response for others who might come to it with the same limited background knowledge as me :-)

A more extensive glossary and/or endnotes covering this sort of thing would be really nice. I vaguely recall that there's a companion book. Maybe that's where these discussions happened?

@KayCee, also thanks for pointing out that I was noticing issues at the typesetting stage rather than proof-reading. Sorry for those poorly chosen words. Anyway, it's my karma, not yours. :) - Metta

Entry into the Realm of Reality:The Text and Entry into the Realm of Reality:The Guide are Cleary's two books on the Gandavyuha, the third volume of his Avatamsaka Sutra. The "Text" is the paperback edition of that third hardcover volume. It is possible the proofreading errors were corrected in the paperback, or at least some of them.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

A Bodhisatta, good householder, is by nature an non-awakened being, is by nature of Bodhisattahood a worldling and by nature not even a Saint (Ariya-puggala). Someone still strong attached to the world, busy with it, still with huge debts.
It's by practicing the Dhamma rightly, cutting away all craving by uprooting Avijja, not-knowing, that there is full awakening: "task is done, no more further for this world".
One of the first stage of Awakening has got a view on what release means.
As for details on the qualities of awakened persons of the 4 kinds, sure the table, generous given by Bhante Nyanadassana, is very usefull to get more into details: Mental Fetters, etc. Abandoned by Each Path-Knowledge
To take a little on a case like in the "Sutra" quoted in another answer. If it is the case that somebody has firm faith into the Sublime Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha (the non-fake-one) and has heared the good (not-corrupted) Dhamma of the Arahats, even if not gained awakening yet, has firm faith in this Dhamma, or investigated if in ways that he approves totally, such a person can not leave this present existance before gaining awakening of the first stage, see it for himself. They are often called "low stream-enter". If one likes to call such a person, let's say a serious "Buddhist", Bodhisatta, in this context such would be valid.
It's not possible that someone, having gained the conditions for awakening, heared the Dhamma and aware of the Gems, and not stupid or grave corrupted, would turn on bond to Samsara, stay a worldling after on. For he is already bond to full Awakening within max. 7 further lifes, 3 paths, 4 fruits.
And what is the good Dhamma of the Arahats, which binds beings toward liberation?
'Just' this The Four Noble Truths (cattari ariya saccani)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, what ever else worldbinding trade, but for escape from this wheel]

Enlighten beings are those who have faith in supreme dhamma, got the sword of knowledge from it, with extreme dispassion, cut asunder the root of evil(birth, maya).
Then cutting the tree of samsara with its root, the sword becomes one with itself. Verily end of pain. This is fading away of arhat with trace(embers)
But there are those who do Tapas like Rishis and Munis disenchanted with even with trace of embers, take a sword of dispassion within and remain in solitude for long time, beg food for only keeping life force, burn away even the trace. They are called supreme enlightened beings. Arhat without a trace.
Here Tapas mean 'to burn' by sword of detachment with inward looking intellect and not as self mortification, as generally understood.

Same quote can be found in Bibles:. And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With that burn down the root of evil.


text:
A question about DN 23 and existence of soul
Here is a part of DN 23:

“Even though Master Kassapa says this, still I think that there’s no afterlife.”
“Can you prove it?”
“I can.”
“How, exactly, chieftain?”
“Suppose they were to arrest a bandit, a criminal and present him to me, saying, ‘Sir, this is a bandit, a criminal. Punish him as you will.’ I say to them, ‘Well then, sirs, place this man in a pot while he’s still alive. Close up the mouth, bind it up with damp leather, and seal it with a thick coat of damp clay. Then lift it up on a stove and light the fire.’ They agree, and do what I ask. When we know that that man has passed away, we lift down the pot and break it open, uncover the mouth, and slowly peek inside, thinking, ‘Hopefully we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping. This is how I prove that there’s no afterlife.”

(Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.)
However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul. He further says in DN 23:

“Well then, chieftain, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. Do you recall ever having a midday nap and seeing delightful parks, woods, meadows, and lotus ponds in a dream?”
“I do, sir.”
“At that time were you guarded by hunchbacks, dwarves, midgets, and younglings?”
“I was.”
“But did they see your soul entering or leaving?”
“No, they did not.”
“So if they couldn’t even see your soul entering or leaving while you were still alive, how could you see the soul of a dead man? By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife, there are beings reborn spontaneously, and there is a fruit or result of good and bad deeds.”

In the above Sutta DN 23, Kassapa proves that there is a soul. Kassapa, who directly got knowledge from Buddha argues there is a soul and that is what travels to the afterlife. But we who have never seen or been taught by Buddha say there is no soul. We are furthermore down in a timeline than Kassapa. Knowledge might have changed and we must have interpreted something very simple in a complicated way. Why do we say there is no soul, while the direct disciple of Buddha says there is in fact a soul that goes to the afterlife. Remember that Kassapa was the third most liked disciple of Buddha after Sariputta and Ananda. I think today we have completely changed our point of view. There is also not any sutta where Buddha says no soul. But he says, this is not-self. The things in the physical world are not-self. Like feeling is not self, perception is not-self and all things that are created in the body are not-self.
What's your point of view on the soul? How can you argue with Kassapa who has seen and learned Suttas direct from Buddha?

You wrote ...

(Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.)
However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul.

... but I don't think so. Instead I think the dialog or argument in the sutta is:

Payasi: there is no afterlife because we don't see a visible soul leaving the body at death
Kassapa: the existence of a visible soul is not necessary for there to be an afterlife (for example when you dream there's no visible soul living the body) -- the non-existence of a visible/separating soul doesn't prove there is no afterlife

That (saying "the existence of a soul isn't necessary, and needn't be assumed") is not the same thing as saying "there is a soul".
The main argument is about "afterlife", it is not about "soul".
Secondly the argument in Pali uses various words like:

āyu
  life; vital power; duration of life, life-time; long life.
jīva

Those words are used in several suttas -- in MN 63 for example, where various questions about the body and soul are declared to by the Buddha to be "not declared":

And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.

Thirdly, even if Buddhist doctrine did say that something like that existed, and if someone translated that statement or that word as "soul", I'd try to doubt whether the word "soul" there has the same kinds of meanings as is taught by other religions

Jiva is soul. During the time of Buddha, both Jainism and Buddhism used such term 'Jiva'. See Here

The word "soul" translated here (DN 23) by Bhikkhu Sujato is "jīva". In the context of this sutta, this word means "life force", and not "self".
The sutta is trying to say that although you cannot see the soul leaving, still there is rebirth. That means that according to Kassapa, there is rebirth without the movement of a life force or soul.
So, it is this very sutta that says there is no soul.
How this may work is explained in Milindapanha 3.5.5. This means that rebirth without transmigration of the soul from one place to another, takes place like a transfer of information.

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn?" "Yes, your majesty, one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn." "How, venerable Nagasena, is it that
  one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
  "Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
  it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
  other lamp?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your
  majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "Give me
  another analogy." "Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy
  learning some verse from a teacher?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Your
  majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?" "Certainly
  not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn."

So, this means that a person who lives then dies, has some information transferred elsewhere that results in the rebirth of the idea of the self.
However, according to MN 38, there is no permanent consciousness that moves throughout one's life and then is reborn after death:

Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: “Come, bhikkhu,
  tell the bhikkhu Sāti, son of a fisherman, in my name that the Teacher
  calls him.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to the
  bhikkhu Sāti and told him: “The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti.”
“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
  paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
  him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
  in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
  this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
  rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

MN 38 continues with a discussion on dependent origination.

Thanks for the part about MN 38.

Please don't cite Nagasena, he is not from EBT. Now regarding MN 38, the 'same consciousness does not run and wander through the round of rebirths.' Here you need to understand rebirth is not reincarnation. Rebirth is 'punnabhava' in another words it also means rebecoming, while reincarnation is 'punarjanma'. So, in this very life when you go from one moment to another moment, your state of mind is not the same. We continuously strive to become a great person, or through our action we become low life person, that is called becoming. And when we go from one phase of life to another, we gain..

..the new state of mind, and that is called re-becoming. So, it is not the same consciousness that goes through from moment to moment. It is dependently arisen on what we ought it to be. It passes through different realms and we consider that it to be the self, which we are not. This is the root teaching of Buddha.

"Soul" for most Westerners is a Christian loaded term, implying that something of the self survives after physical death in immortal (unchangeable) form. Since Buddhism does not subscribe to this perished self being real, by consequence what most people mean by "soul" is also an illusion. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in phenomena. Because there is no unchanging permanent essence, Buddhists sometimes talk about energy being reborn, rather than souls.
The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging soul as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no soul, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.

I am sorry to say this but you have wrong information about 'Anatta'. Anatta simply means 'not-self' and not 'no self or non-self.' There is a whole chapter about self in Dhammapada. Also, It looks like in Pali there is a same word for soul and self. As people interpret Anatta. Therefore, Chapter 12 is about soul as well. Atta Vagga ( Vagga means chapter or part, as in part 1, part 2) , therefore a chapter about Atta or soul or Dhammapada 12. "160- Your own self is your own mainstay, for who else could your mainstay be? With you, yourself well-trained you obtain the mainstay hard to obtain."

Sanskrit अनात्मन् (anātman, “no self/soul”), from an- + atman (“soul/self”). One of the Three characteristics of all phenomena: anicca (“impermanence”), dukkha (“suffering”) and anatta (“non-self”).

You misread Anatta. In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Buddha says -"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, determinations are not-self." According to you it is "feeling is no soul, perception is no soul and determination is no soul." Doesn't sound right. Now 3 marks of existence: 1. All things are impermanent (Anicca) , 2. All things are unsatisfactory (dukkha), and 3. All (physical) things are not-self. (Anatta). According to you All things are no soul which is a misread. Even Kassapa argues there is a soul even if you cannot see. Long has been this wandering.

I literally started by pointing out that the use of the word "soul" is laden with Western preconceptions. The definition I used is agreed upon by most scholars who study Buddhist texts professionally. You are of course free to disagree with it.

Can you please cite me one sutta from Budhha where he himself says, 'there is no soul.' There is a whole chapter called Atta in Dhammapada. Now not through your understanding but through Buddha's own word, please cite me one Sutta where he says 'there is no soul.' Now if Buddha himself has not cited such thing, why are you implying such knowledge through your own understanding, which is absurd. There is a self that can only realize a not-self. Even Kassapa, a direct disciple of Buddha says there is soul. Simply do not attach your soul with a worldly affliction which is not yours. That's it.

Since you ask: In the Alagaddūpama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavāda) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’ ‘Certainly not, Sir.’ ‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.

and continuing: "‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Ātman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” – is it not wholly and completely foolish?"

Source? There is no such saying in Alagaddūpama-sutta (suttacentral) or Alagaddūpama-sutta (accesstoinsight). Please don't advertise fake suttas. There is no such dialogue that you shared. Please cite the authentic source (which does not exist).

I do not appreciate being called dishonest. This sutra does exist Section "Impermanence and Self", verse 25.

However, thank you for the effort. As far as I know, Buddha avoided talking about absolute like there is a self or there is a soul, because he preached the middle path. Not complete Eternal and not complete Annihilation. So, he avoided both views. Something that is to ponder on, and something that is beyond all.

"In the same way, mendicants, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness." ~ MN 22 This is the real meaning of 'All things are not-self.'. Buddha has never talked about 'soul' or 'soul theory' in this sutta.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Inoperative types of mind (kiriya-cittani) that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)
According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi).
What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana?
If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits, then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny? Will that person be born again as a living Arahat? or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition?
Any help to shed light on this is very much appreciated.

Please give the reference and link to Abhidhamma you using here.

Bhikkhu, Bodhi. A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Ācariya Anuruddha. BPS, 2013. Pg. 355.

According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi).

That's incorrect and impossible. 8 Mahakiriya-Citta can not arise with Puthujana, Sotapanna, Sakadāgāmi, and Anāgāmi  person.
All 8 functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas (maha-kiriya) can arise only with Arahanta person.
4  wisdom purity-cittas (vodāna)  can arise only with Sakadāgāmi and Anāgāmi  person.

What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana?

That's impossible.
Vodāna is not functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas (Maha-Kiriya).
Vodāna is  4 Wisdom Sense-Sphere Wholesome (Maha-Kusala).

If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana,

"Lead" in Vodana's condext means arising-citta before Magga-citta.

Image description:
R: bhavaṇgacalana
D: bhavaṇgupaccheda
Ký: manodvārāvajjana
Ẩ: parikamma
Ậ: Upacāra
U: Anuloma
G: Gotrabhū for Puthujana or V: Vodāna for Sakadāgāmī/Anāgāmī.
Ạ: Magga
Ả: Phala
See more: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_4.htm

If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits,

Vodāna generates rebirth kamma-deposits because it is Maha-Kusala. It is not functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas.

then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny?

No where. All of Arahatta's aggregates is vanished by no left craving of senses, being, no being.

Will that person be born again as a living Arahat?

No, all of Arahatta's aggregates is vanished after death, but the other still rebirth after death. And there is no person everywhere from start. There is only craved depending aggregates which wrong view think "this is real controllable person" but actually it is just depending on many origins, no one.

or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition?

There is no Arahatta's aggregates after his death. And there is no Arahatta from start. The achieved aggregates and after that are called Arahatta.
For the description:

PaAuk Tawya Sayadaw Nama Rupa Description

Thank you so much for your assistance to clarify. It helps to clear the doubt.

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


text:
Feedback - Are spaced-repetition cards useful for learning core Dhamma?
I've created an Anki deck (still WIP, link here: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/414202630), drawing on the translations available here in SuttaCentral (with direct links to those pages).  My thinking is that using spaced-repetition might be a helpful way for beginners and intermediate practitioners to grasp the core Dhamma teachings, based on the Early Buddhist texts and extracts (excluding Abhidhamma, later Mahayana teachings, etc., but focusing on the common core across the different traditions.)
Right now, I've just included the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path. This will gradually expand to include the rest of the 37 bodhipakyadhamma.
I've also included the Chinese Agama counterparts (but without English translation, so maybe less helpful unless one is bilingual in both English and Traditional Chinese).
My questions:
 1. Do you think such a tool is helpful in learning and practicing the Dhamma?
 2. Appreciate if you could try out the deck, and provide any feedback for improvement please! :)
With much metta,
PJ

You might add that people need to install Anki software to view the flashcards you created. And in fact I won't or I'll tend not to install software I don't know -- I think it's more secure for me (i.e. less likely to corrupt my PC) if the data (e.g. the cards) is distributed/presented as a web application, which I can view in my web browser without installing new software.

Usually you have only a few words on the side of the answer, like https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/87059434.
Currently you have lots of text as the answer and this is detrimental to reading it quickly and memorizing it. So you have to do like the commentators did with their commentaries and their basic lists like here https://suttacentral.net/patthana1.1/en/agganyani
But contrary to them, you would not imagine the lists, you would just copies the words from the suttas. So it would be :
Front   What is the seventh factor of the Eightfold Path?
Back

Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
...

then a cateogry for the links, like
Links https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/sujato
Then the detailed sentences in pali & english
Details

(Body mindfulness) It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ;

...

Thanks! It's a good point that most Anki cards would have a single answer. And also a good point that categorizing it with "links" and "Details" will aid readability. :)


text:
Was the Abhidhamma taught by the Buddha?
According to the Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha.
From "The Abhidhamma in Practice" by N.K.G. Mendis:

Theravaada tradition holds that the Buddha conceived the Abhidhamma in
  the fourth week after his enlightenment, while still sitting in the
  vicinity of the Bodhi tree. Tradition also has it that he first
  preached the Abhidhamma to the assembly of deities in the Taavatimsa
  heaven; his mother, reborn as a deity, was present in the assembly.
  This can be taken to mean that the Buddha, by intense concentration,
  transcended the earth-bound mentality and rose mentally to the world
  of the deities, a feat made possible by his attainment of higher
  powers (abhiññaa) through utmost perfection in mental concentration.
  Having preached the Abhidhamma to the deities, he returned to earth,
  that is, to normal human consciousness, and preached it to the
  venerable Saariputta, the arahant disciple most advanced in wisdom.

However, in this YouTube video, Ajahn Brahm stated that the Theravada Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha and that the complexity of the Abhidhamma is not needed. He said that the Buddha's original teachings in the Pali suttas is simpler and completely sufficient.
One of the evidences he cited is as follows - only the Suttas (Dhamma) and the Vinaya were recited at the First Buddhist Council and there was no mention of the Abhidhamma.
I quote from Harvey, P (2013), "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, p. 88:

Just after the Buddha’s passing away (c. 404 BCE), a 'communal
  recitation' (council)  of 500 Arahats was held at Rājagaha (Skt
  Rājagraha, Vin.ii.284–7) to agree the contents of the Dhamma and
  Vinaya which the Buddha had left as ‘teacher’ (D.ii.154). Ānanda,  the
  Buddha’s  faithful attendant monk, recited the Suttas, such that each
  begins: ‘Thus have I heard’. The monk Upāli recited the Vinaya.

This wikipedia page on Theravada Abhidhamma states that according to scholars, the Theravada Abhidhamma was probably composed in 3rd century BCE, which is after the Buddha's lifetime. I also call it the Theravada Abhidhamma specifically, because there seems to be another Sarvastivada Abhidharma.
So, my question is: Was the Theravada Abhidhamma really taught by the Buddha? Or is that an exaggeration?

I've never seen a source claiming that abhidamma was taught by Buddha. Where did you read that?

@Erik I have edited the question to add a source for the claim.

Mendis refers to “Theravāda tradition”. His source is the introduction to the Atthasālinī, which was compiled by Buddhaghosa in about 400 AD based on earlier texts that no longer exist.
The Abhidhamma is a framework that consolidates teachings from more than 10,000 Suttas. This framework follows the Theravāda perspective. IMHO, the scholar’s view that the Abhidhamma was developed slightly after the Suttas makes sense.
Though the Abhidhamma may not be the literal word of the Buddha, it is extremely important. The commentaries, which explain the Suttas according to the Theravāda perspective are based on the Abhidhamma.
I once met a monk who had heard that I taught Abhidhamma. The monk said, “I have my own interpretation of the Suttas based on my own experience. It differs from the Abhidhamma and Commentaries.”
I replied, “Venerable Sir, I cannot say whose interpretation is correct. But if I follow your interpretation, then if I have any questions, I have only one source of reference... you. If I follow the traditional Theravāda interpretation, then I can refer to many books and many teachers.”
People who say, “I will only focus on the Suttas and ignore the Abhidhamma and Commentaries” risk misinterpreting the Buddha’s message! Unfortunately, I have seen many examples of this.

By telling the monk, "if I follow your interpretation, then if I have any questions .... many books and many teachers," aren't you already claiming that your interpretation is more valid than his—albeit covertly?

Venerable Kumāra, I was saying that I trusted the interpretation of the elders over this monk's personal interpretation (he had his own definitions for many Pāḷi terms). I was trying to apply the "Great References" (AN 4.180) by saying that one monk's personal opinion is less reliable than the views of the elders who composed the commentaries. Of course, this is not blind faith in the commentaries. If I express an opinion that is my own, I want the person to whom I am speaking to know. I was keen to learn from this monk in areas in which he did not contradict the commentaries.

From this YouTube video entitled "The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi (Class #1, 5 Mar 2018)", Ven. Bodhi, the famous translator and scholar of the Pali Canon, explained the account of modern scholarship, which he accepts to be more accurate, compared to the traditional account:

That is the traditional view, but modern scholarship takes a different
view. And I have to say that I agree with modern scholarship. The
Abhidhamma is a body of teachings which emerged through a gradual
process of evolution. ...
The word "Abhidhamma" appears in the Sutta Pitaka, the collection of
discourses, but we never see in the Sutta Pitaka a statement to the
effect of the Buddha teaching the Abhidhamma to the monks. We never
find anything like that, but rather the word "Abhidhamma" always occurs
in the context of discussions that monks are holding among themselves.
To support this point, I collected a few passages.

First, he quotes 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.
“Idhāvuso sāriputta, dve bhikkhū abhidhammakathaṃ kathenti, te aññamaññaṃ pañhaṃ pucchanti, aññamaññassa pañhaṃ puṭṭhā vissajjenti,
no ca saṃsādenti, dhammī ca nesaṃ kathā pavattinī hoti.

After that, he quotes other suttas, but did not mention the sutta numbers, or perhaps I missed it.
So, according to Ven. Bodhi, the Abhidhamma was taught not by the Buddha but arose out of the discussions and analyses of the monks. He suggested that Ven. Sariputta had a strong contribution towards it i.e. he probably started it, but it evolved over time.
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.

Wondering how the account of the Buddha teaching the Abhidhamma to his mother in a heavenly realm fits into this discussion. If I'm remembering right beings in some of the heavenly realms can typically be of higher cognitive skills thus making comprehension of the Abhidhamma more likely

I think it depends on whether abhidhamma method rightly infers from the sutta method. If it is right then it is the teaching of the Buddha, whether Buddha himself formulated the expression, who did compile it or didn't are trivial questions in comparison.
The abhidhamma method is supposed to be different in expression but retaining the same inferable meaning as the sutta.
One can of course master the sutta method first and compare the two. This is also as i see it the only way to settle this matter of authenticity.
If one can't tell if abhidhamma is fully agreeable/correct, essentially correct, mostly correct, partly correct or entirely worthless then one probably has not mastered the expression & meaning of the sutta sufficiently to make the call. That isn't shameful imo because It is unreasonable to expect that a person should be able 'judge'
from the point of view of meaning & expression all of the dhamma principles lest one is a Buddha. That being said it's  imo reasonable to expect an Ariya to be able to tell if Abhidhamma is essentialy agreeable or not because Sutta say that he/she is able to discern what is rightly spoken (sarakaani sutta).
What i think is quite unforunate is people rejecting the abhidhamma method without being qualified to do so (being unable to prove fault yet making reservations). They force themselved into a position where they oppose the norm of the surviving Vibhajavadin traditions and beyond that have no allies of their own. They are aligned with others who reject Abhidhamma but that may be the extent of their alignment, thus they might find themselves on the outside and alone. In theory this might be totally natural & fine if they had grasped what no1 else could but what are the chances of that happening...
As to the lore of it's origin i don't have anything valuable to say.


text:
What are the relevant vinaya guidelines if a bhikkhu was to find a likely abandoned dwelling?
Suppose a bhikkhu living in the forest was to come across an abandoned shelter not frequented for several years. Dwelling is clearly in decay and not maintained, with spider webs & hornet's nest etc.
Suppose it's natutally assumed to be an illegal structure by law of the land.
Can he make use of the dwelling and appropriate the requisites if those are otherwise allowable, to do with as he sees fit? Can he dismantle the dwelling? How long does it take for requisites to be considered forsaken and fit to make use of in general?
Im looking primarily for relevant guidelines & anecdotes from the vinayas & commentary of early schools, not interested in mahayana/vajrayana answers.

It's not a matter of how long, since you can't know for certain anyway. If you perceive it to be abandon, then you can go ahead and use it as deem fit.

I remember reading a sutta regarding Buddha told Bhikkus to be mindful of King's will (law of the land) ..  this event was from when king Pasenthikosola (if I remember correctly) wished to move planting season in his kingdom (sooner or later, I don't remember), Buddha then instructed Bhikkus to observe rainy retreat accordingly.  This is a quick answer as to monks need to be mindful of the local laws.
Sorry if I can't find a reference at the moment .   Maybe someone remembers it better than I do.


text:
Can someone help me to find suttas on Self compassion
QN: I'm looking for Buddha's teachings on self compassion. (Especially for lay practitioners.)
There are few verses which can be found in Dhammapada:

He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
(Dhp, verse 173)

Angulimala Sutta also represents forgiveness and self compassion if some mistakes has happened due to lack of mindfulness or by ignorance.
I personally think that self compassion is required otherwise we may fall in too much guilt instead of improving ourselves.
And by understanding our own suffering, we can understand the suffering of others and help them better. It will make this world a better place.

Update: At the beginning, I was asking for very specific suttas but I understood that there are less suttas directly connected to Self compassion. (So you can use any sutta which are relevant and makes sense.)
And I think there is a reason for it.
I feel that Buddha wanted to say, develop compassion in all directions (including inward & outward). Because if we develop it only towards self or only others in either case, it will lead to Identification which will stop us from direct knowing and release.
He always mentioned it as whole.
I also found [SN 56.11] very relevant.

"Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth. What two? Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way..."

I hope everyone will participate. And you're free to edit and improve your answer if needed.^^

You've already mentioned the relevance of SN56.11, so we might look at some finer points. For example, here we find a balance for our compassion:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

And you've noted the importance of understanding good/bad deeds, so here is the balance of ethical behavior. Reading this sutta very carefully, we understand that the Buddha has not taught Dhamma for ethical purity alone. There are three practices to end suffering: ethics, wisdom and immersion. In other words, we have to go beyond good deeds.

SN35.74:8.1: “In that case, mendicant, why do you have remorse and regret?”  “Because I understand that the Buddha has not taught the Dhamma merely for the sake of ethical purity.”
“If that is so, what exactly do you understand to be the purpose of teaching the Dhamma?” “I understand that the Buddha has taught the Dhamma for the purpose of the fading away of greed.” “Good, good, mendicant!

Finally, there is a limit to self-involvement. In this sutta, we see that good deeds have good outcomes, but if we limit our good deeds to self-compassion, then even though we may end up in the company of Gods, we have missed the heart of the Buddhas teaching and must go beyond self-compassion. If compassion is limited to self, it is not limitless and the Buddha calls on us to practice limitless love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

DN33:3.1.132: They think: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host!’ They settle on that thought, concentrate on it and develop it. As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their thought leads to rebirth there.

First sutta you have mentioned is good. It will be better if you edit your answer and explain other two suttas in your answer (especially the last sutta, I didn't understand what you want to convey).

Apologies. I tend to the terse. Thank you for taking the time to explain what is not working for you. Hopefully the additional comment will be of assistance. DN33 is the first sutta I studied deeply. It is very very long and very very helpful. There are probably other suttas that may help you as well. I found these.

Thanks for answering.   It is short but very clear. And I understood what you want to point out using DN33.

But don't you think both first and last sutta that you mentioned are making similar sense according to your explanation.

Hmm. Yes. They come at the same point from different directions. I wasn't sure if the distinction matters. It's up to the reader. Just reading the first point, one might wish for everybody to be good and become gods, so the second goes beyond that. The point is that for compassion to be limitless, consideration of a self must disappear, but we have to be careful not to read that as martyrdom and self-mortification

Yes, that's why I mentioned [SN 56.11]. Thanks for explaining.

You may be interested in AN 3.99, which states that by developing yourself in body, virtue and mind, a trifling evil deed that is done, will not bog you down:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e.,
painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
[i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.

From SN 42.8, we get a similar message:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this
doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a
state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal...
All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are
destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A
disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him,
'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take
life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell."
There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a
state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that
view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state
of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be
carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds
this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit
sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of
deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told.
I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.'
He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine,
doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then
as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world,
worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing &
conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of
those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened,
blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of
life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' He criticizes & censures
stealing, and says, 'Abstain from stealing.' He criticizes & censures
indulging in illicit sex, and says, 'Abstain from indulging in illicit
sex.' He criticizes & censures the telling of lies, and says, 'Abstain
from the telling of lies.'
"A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One
in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and
says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have
killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life.
This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This
is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"[He reflects:] 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes &
censures stealing... indulging in illicit sex... the telling of lies,
and says, "Abstain from the telling of lies." There are lies that I
have told, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the telling of lies, and in the future refrains from telling
lies. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed.
This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"Having abandoned the taking of life, he refrains from taking life.
Having abandoned stealing, he refrains from stealing. Having abandoned
illicit sex, he refrains from illicit sex. Having abandoned lies, he
refrains from lies. Having abandoned divisive speech, he refrains from
divisive speech. Having abandoned harsh speech, he refrains from harsh
speech. Having abandoned idle chatter, he refrains from idle chatter.
Having abandoned covetousness, he becomes uncovetous. Having abandoned
ill will & anger, he becomes one with a mind of no ill will. Having
abandoned wrong views, he becomes one who has right views.
"That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of
covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps
pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with
good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through good will is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there.
"That disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid
of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first
direction with an awareness imbued with compassion... appreciation...
equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with equanimity — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there."

I can recall these lines;
Seeing others as yourself; don't wish suffering on anyone.
One protects others by protecting oneself; one protects oneself by protecting others.

I think you are talking about Dhammapada, Yes but I was looking for some suttas.

Dhammapada is included in Suttapitaka afaik

Yes.  I already checked Dhammapada but I was looking for more relevant suttas where Buddha specifically taught self compassion. @ruben2020

This isn't quite what you were asking, but on the subject of "too much guilt instead of improving ourselves", there's SN 42.8 which includes --

Take some teacher who has this doctrine and view: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. They think: ‘My teacher has this doctrine and view: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’ But I’ve killed living creatures … stolen … committed sexual misconduct … or lied. They get the view: ‘I too am going to a place of loss, to hell.’ Unless they give up that speech and thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell.
But consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. In many ways he criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: ‘Stop killing living creatures!’ He criticizes and denounces stealing … sexual misconduct … lying, saying: ‘Stop lying!’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in future they don’t kill living creatures. That’s how to give up this bad deed and get past it.

Some other points:

My first impression of "compassion" is that it's other-directed, directed toward others, and so "self-compassion" is a bit of a contradiction in terms -- for example,

The world suffers. But most men have their eyes and ears closed. They do not see the unbroken stream of tears flowing through life; they do not hear the cry of distress continually pervading the world. Their own little grief or joy bars their sight, deafens their ears. Bound by selfishness, their hearts turn stiff and narrow. Being stiff and narrow, how should they be able to strive for any higher goal, to realize that only release from selfish craving will effect their own freedom from suffering?
It is compassion that removes the heavy bar, opens the door to freedom, makes the narrow heart as wide as the world. Compassion takes away from the heart the inert weight, the paralyzing heaviness; it gives wings to those who cling to the lowlands of self.
Through compassion the fact of suffering remains vividly present to our mind, even at times when we personally are free from it. It gives us the rich experience of suffering, thus strengthening us to meet it prepared, when it does befall us.
Compassion reconciles us to our own destiny by showing us the life of others, often much harder than ours.

Nevertheless the practice of Metta Bhavana -- as derived from the Metta Gatha -- starts with,

May I be free from enmity and danger

... before going on to wish the same for everyone else.
See also No compassion, goodwill for oneself?

Also, while I'm on subject of the "self-or-others", I remember the Dalai Lama saying that he sees himself as being "just like everyone else, no different".

I don't think that that the suttas say much about compassion, specifically -- normally it's mentioned in the context of being one of the four brahmaviharas.
One place it's mentioned is MN 26, as the reason for the Buddha's consenting to teach:

Then, understanding Brahmā’s invitation, I surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha, because of my compassion for sentient beings.

Another is AN 6.13 where it's antithetical to harming:

Take another mendicant who says: ‘I’ve developed the heart’s release by compassion. I’ve cultivated it, made it my vehicle and my basis, kept it up, consolidated it, and properly implemented it. Yet somehow the thought of harming still occupies my mind.’ They should be told, ‘Not so, venerable! … For it is the heart’s release by compassion that is the escape from thoughts of harming.

There are a couple of suttas mentioned as Basic Wisdom:

This is the way leading to discernment: when visiting a brahman or contemplative, to ask: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, when I do it, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, when I do it, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'"
MN 135

Whenever you want to perform a [bodily, verbal, and/or mental] act, you should reflect on it: 'This [...] act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful [...] act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful [...] act with painful consequences, painful results, then any [...] act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful [...] action with happy consequences, happy results, then any [...] act of that sort is fit for you to do.
MN 61

If "wanting to not cause harm" is an essential component of compassion, these suttas seems to support your thesis, i.e. that compassion should be developed "in all directions", "inwards and outwards", towards "self and others".
Incidentally, though this may be too fine a distinction to try and teach someone, I don't think this is the same as saying "self is good" or "self should be cherished" -- it's not speaking in praise of self-view, instead it's speaking against harm and oppression ...

ahita
harm; unkindliness. (adj.) harmful.

vyābādha & byābādha
oppression, injury, harm, hurting; usually in phrase atta˚ & para˚; (disturbing the peace of others of oneself) MN.i.89; SN.iv.339; AN.i.114, AN.i.157, AN.i.216; AN.ii.179-Also at SN.iv.159

... which is true both of "self-harm" and of "others'-harm".

Is Metta Gatha Chanting is original teaching of Buddha? also see Dhp 166 & AN4.95:3.3 (My first impression of "compassion" is that it's other-directed). Thanks for replying  , Keep updating your answer If you found some references which are helpful.

@roheet The Metta Gatha seems to me closer to what's in the Visuddhimagga than what's in the Tripitaka but IMO the suttas are mostly not very detailed (not as detailed as the Visuddhimagga) in their description of forms and methods of meditation -- see Is Chant of Metta from Tipitaka?

And also check references which I have mentioned in my above comment.

@roheet I don't know what to add to those references. The more relevant one (about compassion) might be Dhp 129 which you know already. If you're open to Mahayana doctrine too, the Bodhisattva vow refers to "all beings" which IMO doesn't distinguish between self and others. The Dalai Lama (e.g. here) says than human beings are fundamentally the same. And the Dhamma should be "known by onself".


text:
Is there anything else beyond realization of the five skhandas?
What happens when individuality totally disappears by recognizing the five skhandas as not "me" or "mine"?
Which platform or ground remains after one has fully realized that the five skhandas are impermanent?

I did some editing to your grammar. Please comment in case your original question was changed too much.

I don't understand this question.

MN121 is a wonderful discourse on emptiness. At the end, the five skandhas are gone:

MN121:12.1: They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance.

However, something remains:

MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

In particular, the Buddha instructs Ananda:

MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this instruction is its universal applicability. It is true riding on a crowded train. It is true in deep meditation. Conventionally we ignore the emptiness and grasp at what remains. With practice we see that emptiness is always there. And we are simply aware of what remains, attending without grasping.

That's again the paradox of what remain after  "is" or "isn't". Thats again dilemmas. I feel nobody knows what it is. It's not emptiness, not fullness, not self, not name and form, not 5 subtle elements, not 6 six senses and bases, not volition, not consciousness, not feeling. So, who knows, what it is? Then this theory coincides with Brahman, as they say, it's unknowable. They call it as unattached awareness in its natural state. Is it true or false? Buddha also says, "who is unattached and unbound within is Brahmana!". Please share your views here, Sirs.

I actually recommend against sharing personal views except where they directly illustrate the Dhamma as spoken by the Buddha. To do so runs the risk of falling into the DN1 net of views. It also violates the premise of StackExchange which does not support opinions. Personally, what I have posted is actually exactly what I limit my thinking to in order to avoid the danger of overthinking.

What happens when individuality totally disappears by recognizing the five skhandas as not "me" or "mine"?

While "recognizing" is the important first step, by itself it won't help making individuality (sense of "I", "mine", "myself") totally disappears. So what needs to happen after one recognizes? one need to "live" it thru a gradual cultivation process taught by the Buddha in the Suttas. And how does one know one has lived it? See a related post here

Although the sutta below talks about impermanence, it is the same for not-self too.
When one fully and experientially understands and realizes that the five aggregates are impermanent and not-self, he or she becomes a stream enterer.
So, there are still 3 more stages of enlightenment to go, and 7 more fetters to overcome.
From SN 25.10:

"Monks, form is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant,
changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who
has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people
of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is
incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in
the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of
passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a
stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
headed for self-awakening."

Yes. Nirvana remains. Once nirvana is realised there is no need to feel lust or aversion for anything physical or philosophical...


text:
What's the difference between eating food and adultery?
A question for the initial phase of starting meditation.
To start meditation, it's important to know food first as per satipatthana.
Materialistic food preserves cell-offspring reproduction inside body. In a way food helps in adultery. Whether we eat once a day or many times a day, no difference.
Why to forcibly carry-on adultery within body at cellular level? Why not let the cells die naturally instead of allowing them to produce daughter cells by providing them required things.
For this question, there is another subquery that can be considered, "what is natural?" "Is there anything as natural?" Various precepts might say adultery is natural, attraction of opp. identities(of any material) is natural but buddha gave a proper reason that can break this naturality.
Is this merely a misguided term because natural is what it should be buddha's teachings but this teaching ends whole cycle and hence in the end, ends itself.
Where is natural (infinite process of causes & effects) in here?
So subquery can be ,Why word natural has contradictory meanings as per above 2 paragraphs?
EDIT 1:: Understood subquery part, only 1st remains now.
Impermanence is natural and nature. Natural is not infinite rather it is universally acceptable.

@chrisw : please remove this upvote(if possible). I don't want any up/down of votes without proper reason  for same. In this case, no up is required. ....... Also, i am unable to edit this qiestion, stuck b/w incomplete signup leading to edit in peer-review mode, now that mode is locked even after complete sign-up... seems like bug in system.

I approved your edit. The account does seem to be "registered" properly now, tell me if the problem continues to affect any future posts. I can't edit users' votes.

OP you are slipping by what is known as adultery in the world. Furthemore you are slipping by what is known as cellular division...

I’m voting to close this question because it is nonsense.

@Ruslan :: thanks in helping to remove that pimpled +1. I heard that buddha said once, "this whole world from bottom to top is of 'sexuality' and is controlled by Mara". So, now you might like to revise what buddha was referring to for 'cellular division'. Might be out-of-world but buddha's teachings.

EDIT 2 is  too long for question, that's why writing as a separate note in answer section. Just a note that may be modified later because complete answer is still not clear.

I’m voting to close this question because the OP now also replies to its original nonsense question, adding even more unsubstantiated off-topic stuff.

What's the difference between eating food and adultery?

Big difference. Without food, you'll die and completely miss the rarest chance to cultivate the Path in this human form. You will not die due to not having adultery. And not only that you completely miss the rarest chance to cultivate the Path, you'd completely wreck it. Matter of fact, engaging in adultery and you're already "dead", and will continue to be dead countless times throughout this endless Samsara.

Contradictory! This means that i can have food without adultery. How is that possible if i am helping cells in  adultery to reproduce daughter cells?

Nope, nothing contradictory. The fact that you have to eat but not have to commit adultery speak for itself.

Sorry, i am not satisfied by this answer.

Perhaps you are confusing the word "adultery" with the words "reproduction" and "sex".
When you eat food, you are definitely supplying energy to the body and giving it the necessary ingredients for cells to reproduce.
The cells in your body do not have sex to reproduce. Sex by the way, is not against the five precepts, if practised within the context of a committed exclusive monogamous relationship by lay persons.
Sex however, is not part of the monastic life, although food is. ChrisW's answer addresses this perfectly. Food is needed to sustain the body and you need to  consume food to survive, but sex is not needed for sustenance - hence a monk needs to eat food, but does not require sex.
The subject of food for the sustenance of a person seeking freedom from suffering, is well discussed in SN 12.63 (quoted below):

"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband &
  wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With
  them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager
  provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up &
  depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be
  crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are
  used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet
  to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours,
  dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on
  the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through
  this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would
  kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat &
  jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through
  the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat
  their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son?
  Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks:
  Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for
  putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
"No, lord."
"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through
  that desert?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be
  regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by
  which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this
  world.

"Adultery" and "sex" does not mean the same thing either. Adultery is sex outside of a committed exclusive monogamous relationship, and this violates the precept on sexual (or sensual) misconduct.
What is natural and unnatural? Is food natural? Yes. Is sex natural? Yes.
Then doesn't the Buddha teach what is natural? Actually, the answer is no.
The idea of the self, craving, clinging, sensual pleasures, sexual attraction, passion of becoming, ignorance - all these are natural. But they lead to suffering and perpetuate suffering.
The Buddha realized after enlightenment that it's hard for him to teach people to go against their nature, which is what he said in SN 6.1 (quoted below):

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me."

However, in Iti 109 (quoted below), the Buddha indeed teaches man to swim against his nature to become free from suffering. Renunciation is against the flow i.e. it's not natural to man.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
  lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
  on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
  are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
  further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
  monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
  death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
  second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
  the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
  this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
  stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
  for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress.
  The whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters
  & demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
  renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
  arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
  bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

Sorry, a long list of unsatisfactoriness in your answer. Starting with 1st:: "supplied energy" acts as "semen" for cells... Thanks for putting up your answer but i am unsatisfied with this.

There's Buddhist doctrine on that subject in the Bhikkhuni Sutta (AN 4.159):

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

... and ...

This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.

In other words, food is one of the necessities or requisites of "the holy life" -- and sexual intercourse is not that kind of necessity.
See also the topic Why the Buddha abandoned asceticism which has more on the subject of not-eating.

i am trying to understand how "eventually" occurs
I think the Theravada doctrine is that enlightenment happens in stages -- see Four stages of enlightenment.
So the first stage is to be free of identity view, and to see the dhamma correctly, and so on.
The two stages after that are minimising and (eventually) being free of sensual desire and ill will.
And the last stage etc.
how "feelings destroy"
I'm not sure I understand this question of yours.
I think that the doctrine about "feelings" is summarised in the doctrine of the 12 nidanas, which is that feelings and delighting in feelings leads to craving (for the delightful feeling to continue or to reoccur), etc.
There's also doctrine related to the "three poisons" -- i.e. that pleasant feelings tend towards craving, unpleasant feelings aversion, and neutral feelings ignorance or confusion.
Hence the advice about food: don't abstain from eating in order to create a feeling of hunger, don't over-eat to create a feeling of overeating, just eat enough to remove the feeling of hunger -- the "middle way", neither one extreme nor the other.
if not "i" is there then "why need to support further 'i' by worldly activities & how does this happen"
You might want to read the various topics tagged suicide, I think they say that suicide is not the right way to liberation from egocentricity and self-view.
Read the four noble truths again:

death is painful, birth is painful, etc.
suffering is caused by craving -- which includes the craving for becoming, also the craving for cessation

I think that Buddhist doctrine says that human life is rare and valuable -- a rare opportunity to meet and understand and practice the dhamma, and to thus experience liberation and unbinding -- which is not the same as the wheel of life, the cycle of death and birth.
2nd para & your conclusion:: i nowhere asked for "sexual intercourse"
Well it's the definition of adultery

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse

Perhaps you said "adultery" as a metaphor or something, not meant literally. Even so, if the advice about intercourse isn't relevant to your question, then the advice about food might be.
Also if your thoughts about "the body" (e.g. cellular division) is causing thoughts to tend toward suicide, SN 54.9 might be relevant -- the Buddha set a group of monks to meditate with "foulness of the body" as a meditation subject, after/during which some monks killed themselves ... after which the Buddha taught a different kind of meditation, related to breathing ("anapanasati").
I think that the "meditation on the foulness of the body" type of meditation is recommended only for people who have a trouble with lust, i.e. as an antidote to sexual desire or desire for adultery -- and isn't meant to suggest that suicide is the correct solution.

1st para:: i am trying to understand how "eventually" occurs, how "feelings destroy", if not "i" is there then "why need to support further 'i' by worldly activities & how does this happen". 2nd para & your conclusion:: i nowhere asked for "sexual intercourse". I still remain unsatisfied by your answer too. Thanks for trying.

I edited the answer to try to address some questions implied by your comment.

Thank you very much. I just read your answer. But  i have developed some understanding on my quest for food & it's effects. If possible, you can suggest and cross-question as comment, that will help me in understanding more. So, that note may be modified later.

(Below is just my personal note, not the clear answer).
Shame to blame females where i have billions of children to take care (body cells).
Shame to praise males when i am unable to understand above.
Shame to blame householders when i am a leader and dweller among billions of houses(cells).
Shame to praise meditation practitioners when they are too not free from above.
Shame to praise 1 time eater when crave for food is still there.
Shame to blame many times eater when above ones also crave like this one.
Then what could be right food & how it works..?
When a person dwells into world of continuously birth. & death, a world where that person is leader then before starting to get rid of that world, a knowledge of 'I' has to be obtained.
This 'I' that feels like dwelling and can also say to be troubled by defilements is in nothing more than the "thought process affected by defilements".
So, see these defilements.
Then how will one see these defilements, if 'I' is also defilement..?
Simple, by feeling and realizing defilements as 'I' instead of my(which gives feeling of separate from I). This practice makes one aware to the level of seeing the actual difference between past and present  behaviour and also one might be able to realize that 'Mara' is also this 'I'.
Not only this one rather slowly-slowly this practice would enable one to see "how imagination, images(real or fake) started from self-image and ending to self-image" i.e. how karma(physical and mental) starts from one and returns to one.
If 'I' am mara then how to free..?
No need to do anything else. This special practice "will" start dimnishing defilements and later one can clearly see when past removed defilements return and can also see the images of these defilements as separate from current-self-image.
Not only this, boy can clearly see that girl whom he is wishing to have is self-image in brain.
But how can defilements go so easily, these are from those infinite moments from past...?
Obviously one will be confirmed of 'mara' only when these defilements would keep on arising even when person is 'no longer interested' that's the point of test. Breath shall help, when breath is also of no help then separated image shall help, when it would fail then determination "will" help.
So, after achieving that knowledge, determination is the one that must be strong. There are chances that determination will be shakened then past memory of achieving calmness will help.
What are other effects of food?
Food taken in quantity more than required to work enthusiastic must be abandoned.
Because with more food, more population increases. That includes more energy exchange within one's country(body), the holes(phassa) arise more due to that and hence makes one sensitive to gain and loss.
So, for meditators and busy ones:: quantity must be chosen by them such that they can feel light, stable & balanced during night and morning even without morning poo. Till that state, food quantity to be varied and tested.
Food affects reproduction, population, reason to sensation and back from sensation to re-assembling(satth-aayatana).


text:
So what is left? It is the true realization of Śūnyatā, or Ultimate Truth, a realm in which “reason is used to destroy itself”
The above is a quote from 'Humphreys, Christmas.  Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide'p145.
Is it true that the main aim of Buddhism (Mahayana) is for reason to destroy itself?
That really sound too colorful and worst than nihilism itself

Reason is “killed” in a sense since reason is created and conditioned. When one awakens, one reaches that point of “unborn”, which is the origin of reason within mind. Reason is then no longer necessary and mind conforms to this new state. As long as you hold on to the idea that you are this conditioned mind, you will not awaken to this understanding.

Thank you for your answer. Very intriguing, origin of reason within mind I guess our language itself, which is a subject of mind, will flutter to describe that. Let set aside the identity view, as I'm not claiming to be a mind.  What does it mean the mind conforms to a state without reason? can there be a mind without reason?
Could you pls give some analogy if language can't get there.  If I think of the mirror analogy, it's like a mirror without reflection, but I'm not sure if it is valid to stretch that analogy that far.

That which Buddha called the “deathless” is the origin of mind. The mind is completely shed at paranibbana. Meanwhile, we must use this created and conditioned mind during our unenlightened journey. However, as mentioned, mind does not create itself. We do that in ignorance. It is more complicated, but let’s leave deeper explanation for another time. You could say the mind is the reflection of the deathless, which is true once you awaken. For now, it is the reflection of ignorance. (Ignorance of who/what you are.) Btw, karma always follows from ignorance. The enlightened have no karma.

Reason is automatically created in mind from the unborn. The unenlightened cannot access that which is reflected in mind as reason.

Therefore, reason is used. Don’t take this wrong, reason is a good thing when used rightly. Reason leads to an understanding, although an intellectual one. It is the first step toward right understanding.

Thanks a million.

Now to address your question: when one is awakened, reason is no longer needed because one has access to the unborn and the faculty there, of which, reason is the reflection. So one no longer needs reason but one can certainly use right reason if one wishes.

Good question. That's a rather crude statement, albeit a nice first approximation.
More precisely I would say, the aim is to clearly see the Value, the Limitations, and the Danger of having subjective experience entirely subsumed within a framework made of models and concepts (taken at their face values as being the reality itself, aka "reified"), to see how this mistake is universal, inevitable, and intrinsic part of sentient life, to see the mechanisms behind arising of said conceptually conditioned experience, and finally to master the practical means of manipulating said mechanisms towards liberation from the confines of said framework to the reality of authentic suchness.

Hi Andrei! What do you think about this idea taken from Peirce writings: "But we have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can be more completely false than that we can experience only our own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome of all falsity. Our knowledge of things in themselves is entirely relative, it is true; but all experience and all knowledge is knowledge of that which is, independently of being represented." (CP, 6.95). Is this idea compatible with what you wrote above?

It is not. Our knowledge and experience of any thing, material or immaterial, is mediated by information about the thing we know/experience, it is never direct. The thing itself is never the content of our mind, it is always the thing's representation. It is confusing this representation with reality, and therefore being limited by it, is what we are talking about.

But that's a very limiting quote. What Peirce seems to be saying in the wider passage, is that our (waking) knowledge and experience is always a representation of something beyond mere ideas, that in some sense all of our mind without exception is a partial/distorted reflection of the ontological Truth. And this idea is very compatible with Mahayana's notion of "the unity of two truths".

Thanks for the answer. I'm just starting to study Peirce in deep, so I may be wrong, but I think that Peirce is talking about perceptual judgement, which is not mediated by any other logical inference. Perceptual judgement (the general concepts used to predicate something about an object) seems to be formed directly from perceptions. The question is: why does perception appear with the form it does, and not in any other way? I take 'direct experience' to mean the perception does not arise ONLY because our cultural/experiential background, but because we are in a relation with the thing itself.

I just saw what you wrote in the second response. I agree with you.

The main aim of Buddhism is to understand and be free of suffering.

SN56.11:7.2: ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …

Reason is an aspect of consciousness devoted to inference and applied to resolving choices. Choices informed by ignorance lead to suffering.

SN12.23:6.1: So ignorance is a vital condition for choices. Choices are a vital condition for consciousness.

Reasonable people have noted that ignorance easily leads to the Tragedy of the Commons. Specifically, reason concludes that the myopia of identity view leads to adverse outcome, suffering. Understanding this, it is clearly reasonable to restrain identity view. Indeed, one might wonder, "is identity view itself reasonable?" One might be inclined to explore this reasonable question:

MN26:16.5: This teaching is such that a sensible person can soon realize their own tradition with their own insight and live having achieved it.’

At one point, one might reasonably conclude that identity view is unreasonable:

MN64:6.1: But an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. Their heart is not overcome and mired in identity view, and they truly understand the escape from identity view that has arisen. That identity view, along with any underlying tendency to it, is given up in them.

And in that conclusion, one would have used reason and practice to extinguish the grasping aggregate of consciousness, that perceived and unreasoning urge to consider consciousness as self. One would reasonably conclude that grasping and craving are unreasonable. One would realize that what conventionally passes for "reason" is far too often simply self-justification and rationalization.
So the quote that "reason is used to destroy itself" is a bit of hyperbole with a ring of truth. What is destroyed is not reason itself. What is destroyed is the unreasonable urge to use reason (i.e., inference) in sole service of (it-)self. The assumed axiom of the imperative of identity view fails. It is not reason that is killed. It is the reliance on an improper basis for reason.

"What is destroyed is the unreasonable urge to use reason in sole service of reason". Sorry, but that statement is vague, unless you mean exactly like the original statement, which you call a hyperbole, to kill reason". What does it even mean to limit reason to service it-self which is reason???

Hmm. I tried again. Reason/inference derives truth from axioms. Choosing identity view as an axiom leads to dissonance, to conflict and contradiction, to suffering. Identity view fetters reason. It is the fetter that is killed, not reason.

So 'rationally deciding that identity view is an unhelpful axiom' is I think what you're saying -- and I think that is indeed a lesson one can infer from the suttas. But, may I ask, would you say that's the "true realisation of sunyata", "ultimate truth", and "the main aim of mahayana"?

ChrisW, actually, I think the question can't be answered as stated, because reason is not used in the hearts release through emptiness. If it were, we'd be muddling along in the dimension of infinite consciousness and deluded into thinking that was empty. And THAT is not an argument, that is a statement of faith in experience, a discontent with the insufficiency of reason.

"reason is not used in the hearts release through emptiness" sounds like it's pointing towards an answer to the question as stated. :-)

ChrisW, you are very kind and I agree but my agreement is from the heart, not reason.  And the OP demands...reason. What are we to do?