text:
Dhatu-vibhanga sutta question?
Why consciousness not discussed as internal and external in Dhathu-vibhanga sutta?

"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind.
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

Vinnana (There remains only consciousness...) is treaded here in the consequence of having abounded Rupa. It's not treaded in relation with form here, good householder. It does not start with "And what is ...? It's a "far withdrawn from world" Sutta. A minding-it one.

I have posted this question in Dhamma Wheel as well. https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=37245&start=15

I’m voting to close this question because this question is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations. It should be updated so it will lead to fact-based answers.

If you look at original Pali, what they translated as "consciousness" is actually "vijnana" - (discriminative) experience.
The point of the sutta is, as you meditatively investigate what seems to be your "I", you progressively exclude all physical elements as obviously not "I", until you are left with just experience itself. Then you investigate that experience and realize that it depends on the sensory input, which depends on attention.
When you don't pay attention to any sensory input, experience stops. What's left is called "equanimity" ("upekkha"), characterized as "luminous" or "radiant" ("pabhassara"). See Pabhassara Sutta for the canonical reference to "luminous mind".
Then Buddha explains that although this equanimity can be shaped into any other meditative state, including the formless jhanas, the meditator understands that any such state would be contrived and conditioned and therefore finite and prone to suffering.
This realization leads to letting go of desire to attain any state different from what is presently unfolding. The resulting state is pure suchness providing no basis for suffering to arise. The meditator realizes that this indeed is the culmination of the path, "the knowledge of the ending of suffering".

So, the "experience" is not analyzed as internal and external because we are talking about meditator's own experience as he tries to find who he is by separating from everything that is conditioned and unreliable. Experience (vijnana) itself is conditioned on sensory input and is therefore unreliable, not suitable to be called "I" or to be our basis for eternal happiness. Which leaves us with nothing to rely on, nothing to stand on - and this final realization being the only unshakable truth, acceptance of which gives unconditional freedom from any mismatch of expectations, - is the very Nirvana the Buddha is leading us to.

Consciousness is one of 3 conditions that creates contact. Contact does not condition consciousness; as is written above. Also, the Pali does not use the term “subjective” in relation to consciousness; which, if so, would have certain connotations similar to Hindu nondualism

Hi Andrei. Did you notice that Pukkusati is an Anagami, not an Arahant?

@Dhammadhatu "What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' "

@SarathW yes, because he was stupid enough to ask for ordainment. If he understood the teaching he would have no desire to ordain, he would not think he needs to become a monk.

Andrei.. Your comment appears unrelated to my comment.

@Dhammadhatu you seem to be incapable of following the logic of the passage. Sensory contact is felt as pleasure or pain, which is cognized. Therefore cognition depends on sensory contact.

the pleasure & pain is a mind object. Mind sense organ + mind object + mind consciousness = contact.

There is no "external" consciousness (SN 12.19) in relation to individual experience.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving, this group (kaya; comprised of five
aggregates including consciousness) has thereby originated. So there
is this [internal] group and external mentality-materiality (nama-rupa): thus this dyad. Dependent on
the dyad there is contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted
through which—or through a certain one among them—the fool experiences
happiness and suffering.
SN 12.19

There is consciousness of external objects, such as consciousness of external earth, wind, fire, water & space element and consciousness of external mentality & physicality (nama-rupa; per SN 12.19) but there is no consciousness of external consciousness.
For example, when experiencing foolishness externally, the wise man experiences the foolish mentality of others, externally. But the wise man cannot experience the consciousness of another. For example, the wise man cannot experience what another person is seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. They can only experience the mental feelings & sankharas of another (such as experiencing externally another's confusion, ignorance, happiness, sadness, lust, anger, etc), which is why the suttas refer to external "citta" rather than external "vinnana":

They understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having
comprehended them with their own mind. …
Parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ cetasā ceto paricca pajānāti. Sarāgaṃ vā
cittaṃ ‘sarāgaṃ cittan’ti pajānāti, vītarāgaṃ vā cittaṃ … pe … sadosaṃ
vā cittaṃ … vītadosaṃ vā cittaṃ … samohaṃ vā cittaṃ … vītamohaṃ vā
cittaṃ … saṅkhittaṃ vā cittaṃ … vikkhittaṃ vā cittaṃ … mahaggataṃ vā
cittaṃ … amahaggataṃ vā cittaṃ … sauttaraṃ vā cittaṃ … anuttaraṃ vā
cittaṃ … samāhitaṃ vā cittaṃ … asamāhitaṃ vā cittaṃ … vimuttaṃ vā
cittaṃ … avimuttaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘avimuttaṃ cittan’ti pajānāti.
MN 119

Note: when the suttas refer to "external consciousness", such as in SN 22.59, this external consciousness is only imputed (such as if saying: "my friend had a heart attack and lost consciousness"). It is not something directly experienced.

Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or
present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with
correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
self.’
SN 22.59

Perhaps it's because the first four elements at least, probably the first five, are included in rupa -- but consciousness is separate from rupa.
SN 12.67 says that "consciousness" and "name and form" are like two bundles of reeds leaning on each other (i.e. they are not part of the same bundle).

Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.
In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields.

SN 12.19 refers to external nama-rupa. Consciousness does not necessarily arise due to external nama-rupa, such as in jhana or immaterial sphere, where there is only internal nama-rupa. .

The space property may be either internal or external...
There remains only consciousness: pure & bright...

Possibly because there're 2 ways of classification: space and time. The Rupa-related components(earth, liquid, fire,...) were space-wise, while the Non-Rupa-related components(consciousness, equanimity,...) are time-wise. Notice the Buddha didn't reject the space-classification of consciousness since He did mention internal/external consciousness in other suttas. He just didn't use it here and the phrase "There remains only consciousness" indicates this time-wise classification (ie. there might be other consciousnesses, external, not pure, not bright, etc.. until there remains only the pure&bright consciousness).

The five elements (earth, water, fire, wind and space) are physical. They are described as internal, when they are part of the body, and they are described as external when they are not part of the body.
Consciousness, the sixth element, here, is purely mental. It is of the mind - that's why it's only internal, not external.
Pure and bright definitely refers to this verse: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." (AN 1.49), as Andrei has already mentioned.

The two truths... relative truth and absolute truth.
Look into that for deeper penetration into your subject matter. For example; relative in the moment could say my my isn't the sky a bright blue today? Relating to all of those words? Why yes it is!
Absolute truth no it isn't as there is no sky no blue etc etc.
Relative truth is attachment, grasping.
However both are and are not correct as truth at the exact same time... creating a paradox. Nagarjuna is a good commentator on the two truths.
For the sake of peace one truth is samsara and one truth is nirvana; The yin and yang or inseparable whole impermanent and always in motion as the seventh jhana/consciousness. Cease to grasp and the infinite rounds of birth and death due to the consciousness skandha falls away into nirodha samapadi or the 8th jhana.
That's the very meaning of: "Fall down seven get up eight." as a koan.


text:
Is the Unalome a Buddhist symbol?
Last year I was walking in the "Camino de Santiago", in Spain, where I met a guy who showed me a symbol engraved in the stone of a bridge.
It was a Sun that reflected its rays on the sea. He told me that it was related to Nirvana and the path one has to follow.

When I came back from the journey, I tried looking for this symbol on the internet, but didn't find anything about it. The most similar one I found it has been the Unalome symbol.
But it seems that all its references are linked to the tatoos, and I didn't find any wikipedia page or Buddhist website talking about it.
Back to my question, is the Unalome a Buddhist symbol? Is there a Buddhist symbol similar to the one I have described?

The most common symbol of the Camino de Santiago is a scallop shell -- https://vivecamino.com/en/the-pilgrim-shell-the-origin-of-the-symbol-of-the-camino-de-santiago-no-472/ -- that could look like a sun's rays -- was it that which you saw?

And/or there's a dictionary definition of Unalome here -- https://www.linternaute.fr/dictionnaire/fr/definition/unalome/ -- which doesn't look to me like a sun at all -- it says, "Symbole arcane qui, dans le bouddhisme, représente le chemin qu'il faut parcourir avant d'atteindre l'Eveil. Il se présente comme un trait formant des noeuds puis se prolongeant en ligne. Cela représente la difficulté du début du chemin (les noeuds), puis le fait d'atteindre l'Eveil (ligne droite)." I guess that might be plausible explanation but I don't know whether that's a reliable reference.

Buddhism has no symbols at all. all made ups by followers.

@ChrisW no, it's not the camino de santiago symbol. I tried to sketch what it was here https://www.autodraw.com/share/3HDO2IWUWF48. By the way, I didn't find many sources pointing out that unalome is a Buddhist symbol, neither picture of it, but only inked tatoos.

A wheel with (usually) eight spokes is a Buddhist symbol -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmachakra -- I wonder whether what you saw was a Chi Ro Christogram -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram -- possibly written with a letter "S" underneath it for "Salvator".

Look for the word "urna", not unalome.
The unalome comes from Thai religious and superstitious tattoos. It's a stylized Thai equivalent of the urna (the tuft/curl of hair between the Buddha's eyebrows), and originated in Sak Yant, Thai religious and superstitious tattooing. If you're a Thai Buddhist, then it could have meaning to you. Otherwise, probably not.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is this nibbana or god?
There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Sutta pitaka , khuddaka nikaya , udana 8:3)

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.
I quote from this answer below. Please see that answer for details.

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
  not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
  feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
  conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
  arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
  can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
  it.
Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
  encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
  encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
  But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
  when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.

Does mind even still exist during nibbana ?

@user646989 Mind exists during and after Nibbana, but it is free from defilements. If you read this sutta, it says "Luminous is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." The mind is however completely calm and silenced in higher jhanas. Also, see this answer for examples of thoughts entering the Buddha's mind.

It is similar, Maimonides of the Hebrew faith also ended up saying that God could only be described through negation, and the Hindus say Brahman is 'neti neti' - 'not this, not that'.
However the difference between nibbana and God is that God is Ultimate Reality, which is where the term differes from nibbana.
If God is seen as a '1' to the '0' of our daily experience, then nibbana is the '0' to the '-1' of our daily experience. It is perhaps more melancholy, but it is less contrived, as no 'thing' needs to be pulled out of a hat.

What do you mean by ultimate reality ? The atma in Hinduism is unborn too

Just really the last paragraph. Actually, I would say not '0', but '[ ]' - an empty set for nibbana, if being pedantic. Atman however, is an attempt to build a '1' into things. That thing, existing independent of individual experience. nibbana does not exist, it does not not exist, it is not conditioned, by any thing.

No. God you're talking about is a personification of nature. Also logics or Boolean logic or set theory doesn't have anything to do here. Misleading answer.

God, is not neccesary. Buddha didnt said, it exist, doesnt, both or neighther.
Birth is the origination of dependant phenomenon.
Its like Electric field is always present with magnetic disc around it. Magnetic disc can be called as dependent origination, as it attract the Iron. Iron can be term as 5 khandas and when one attain nibbana, it cease to that magnetic disc. Know for sure, that magnetic disc never ceases, it always accompanied by electric field. Magnetic field can be term as anatta.
You are asking about electric field, the source of life. If you see above statements, then question of electric field is not neccessary.
Real question likes in how to attain cessation!

What's khandas ? Is there any similar concept of khanda in Hindu or Islam ? ,Is the electric field god ?

5 Khanda mean complex of 5 elements with feeling, sensation, perception, counciousness to form being. In hinduism khanda is synonymous with Brahman. Veda stumbled into it as they term it as Supreme one, but an error. Although impermanent, they call it permanent. They cling to it. They not crossed to other shore, but remain tied to this end. Why? They didn't surrendered! To the eightfold path, a pool of coolness and purity. Electric field cannot be call by any name. It's not Worthy. It's not produce will to detachment. It's only called as place of cessation of all sufferings!

what do you think about Islam then ? Your religion is very different from them

I belong to no religion. Nor here any wish to change others. Buddhism is not religion, it's way of pure life lived here and now. There is history religion changes over time from one to another, replacing with one belief to another. I don't have any belief. I don't think only Buddhism teaches the truth, others not.

can you reconcile both Islam and Buddhism ? Do you find similarity between them ?

If you like islam then I will quote the similarity of conduct of a individual, not believer or non-believer in God. It's like this, "If one know the Mighty lord is watching over you, knows what you do, would you kill, steal, utter lie, misbehave, give false witness, talk rude and commit misdeeds? If one knows he is watching, wise man even give his body on this ear for the suffering of others and live a pure life!"  It's not belief matters, but the conduct of individual. It's not question of God, it's question of your deeds! This is reconciliation indeed!

Thanks for your love

There is no god, creator of all. Nibbana is the cessation of the manifested, cessation of perception of the manifested, and cessation of the memory of the manifested. Nothing remains of mind as you know it. Nibbana is unborn. It creates nothing. The question is, how does manifestation come into being?

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


text:
Do you know of ways to financially support the Sangha?
I wonder what people, groups and projects one can support?
Both monastic and lay fields are on topic.

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

The easiest approach would be to find a temple/monastery in the tradition you want to support and go to their website or visit them in real life if possible. Their website often contains details on how to to support them, e.g. via Paypal with a single or monthly donation. Some places also have a "wishlist" with items they need such as toiletpaper, gardening tools, food supplies etc. Other places have projects that they need help with such as a library project or physical buildings that need to be build. Manual labour can be a great way of helping out too.
Many monasteries have a social media page as well, e.g. Facebook where they allow people to make donations.

Its hard to know which monks to support if one can't visit them


text:
Does Vajrayana Buddhism incorporate the use of cannabis?
I'm reading a Wikipedia article on Vajrayana Buddhism and it says: "In Tantric Buddhism, which originated in the Tibeto-Himalayan region, cannabis serves as an important part of a traditional ritual..."
It cites a journal that I don't have access to, so I can't look too much deeper into the source.
What's the historical background of this claim? Are there serious documents or Buddhist texts showing the use of cannabis or other drugs?

Many cults may call themselves "Buddhist" but no genuine school of Buddhism can engage in drug use.

The Dalai Lama said. "These kinds of substances are generally
  considered poison, very bad".
https://www.civilized.life/articles/dalai-lama/

There's a copy of the referenced article here: The Religious and Medicinal
Uses of Cannabis
in China, India and Tibet by MIA TOUW.
The relevant quote from the article (which was copied into Wikipedia) is,

In
  Tantric Buddhism, which flowered in the TibetoHimalayan region, cannabis is an important part of the
  meditative ritual which may or may not include sexual
  intercourse. It is taken to facilitate the meditation and
  heighten awareness of all aspects of the ceremony. The
  large dose, taken orally, is timed so as to ensure
  increasingly heightened awareness from the beginning of
  the ritual onwards, with the greatest "high"-delayed when
  taken orally by about an hour and a half- coinciding with
  the climax of the ceremony (Bharati 1965). Secular use, both medicinal and
  recreational, is equally widespread but, as Sharma (1977b)
  notes, cannabis is taken for granted in the Himalayas and
  therefore is not much discussed.

The "Bharati 1965" reference is

Bharati, A. 1965. The Tantric Tradition. London: Rider & Co.

There's a Wikipedia article about the author of that reference -- Agehananda Bharati.
The book is available for bout $20 from Amazon -- The Tantric Tradition Mass Market Paperback – January 1, 1970

In fact, Vajrayāna Buddhism is well known as an alchemy path(rasayāna). Therefore, various tantric buddhist texts like Ćakrasamvaratantra, Vajramahabhāiravatantra, Mahākālatantra or Tārātantra explain the use of entheogens like Cannabis indica(sana/vijaya) and/or Datura metel(dhattura). Although, all these practices with the 'intoxication of the enemy'(amitra) are particullary transmitted for those that practice the 'inner mantra path'(Guhyamantrayāna), and logically guided by a qualified Guru.


text:
Where is this mountain quote in the Sinhala edition?
I am comparing translations to see how the Sinhala would work, and, granted I am using Google Translate on the Sinhala version, I would at least expect it to be generally somewhat reflective of what is being said. But it doesn't say what I am looking for.
I am looking for this quote here or here:
As a mountain of rock
is unwavering, well-settled,
so a monk whose delusion is ended
doesn't quiver —
just like a mountain.

However what I find in the Sinhala version here or here is this:

"Just as a gal can stand steady, so the brain will not be a sin in the mind."

Or

The stanza is so immovable that it does not become immovable.

I am just picking pieces that appear close in the same area of text. Does one know if these translations in Sinhala are accurate? (And that it's just a major Google translate issue). Does that quote exist somewhere in the Sinhala?
I am trying to make do snippets of translation myself and am looking for a good example of interesting quotes. If one could paste the quote in Sinhala that would be amazing.
Or is this just an example of a translator taking "poetic expression" to the extreme, and they just took a general quote like "යම්සේ ගල්පව්වෙක් අචල වැ මොනොවට පිහිටියේ ද, එසේ ම මහණ තෙම මොහය ක්ෂීණ වීමෙන් පව්වක් මෙන් නො සැලේ.", which Google translates as "Even if a galvanist is immobile, the loss of his brain will not be a sin.", and they just made up a poetic metaphor to translate it into English?

ChrisW is correct. But it's not lust. It's illusion or delusion.

I think that https://suttacentral.net/ud3.4/si/zoysa is the Sinhala version of Ud3.4 on suttacentral.
Google Translate translates the last sentence of that into English as follows ...

නොසෙල් වෙන්නාවූ මනාව පිහිටියාවූ ගල් පර්වතය යම්සේද එසේ මෝහය නැතිකර දැමූ භික්‍ෂුව පර්වතයක් මෙන් කම්පා නොවෙයි.
Like a well-formed rock, the monk who loses his lust does not shake like a rock.

The Pali says,

Yathāpi pabbato selo,
acalo suppatiṭṭhito;
Evaṃ mohakkhayā
bhikkhu,
pabbatova na vedhatī”ti.

... which I think says, "destruction of ignorance" (i.e. Moha) or "delusion" -- not "lust".

I'm Sinhala native from Sri Lanka and this is nearly accurate. Like a well-formed rock, the monk who loses his lust does not shake like a rock. Here mohaya means not lust. It's illusion or delusion.

As a mountain of rock is unwavering, well-settled, so a monk whose
  delusion is ended doesn't quiver — just like a mountain.
ශෛලපර්වතය තෙම යම් සේ අචල ද මොනවට පිහිටියේ වේ ද එපරිද්දෙන් මොහක්ෂය
  හෙතුකොටගෙන පර්වතයක් මෙන් (අචල) වූ මහණ තෙම නො සැලේ.

This is the correct sinhala translation for the quote that you originally mentioned in your question. I picked that from the second link where you found the sinhala version. Unfortunately, google translation not works for both sides. The above sentences also a little bit different when translating, but the meaning is perfectly correct.

Can we remove the stuff in the parentheses? Because they didn't have parentheses back then.

Yes. we can remove the stuff in parentheses. meaning for අචල is  'not moving' or 'steady'. it is a further explanation for behaviour of rock.


text:
Buddha Always focused on voidness?
I remember reading about the characteristics of the or a Buddha, and one of them was “a Buddha is always focused on voidness.” Sadly I did not save the website and don’t remember where this was written. Now to the question. What are the mental characteristics of a Buddha? Can you give me a list? I don’t mean the nine qualities. It is a different list, a less common one. It should include the point I mentioned and be of mahayana origin.

You've asked for a Mahayana text, which may or may not include MN121, in which the Buddha says: 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. https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato

That’s pretty good. Maybe the list was Theravada I don’t really remember. But thanks anyways, this is at least something.

I've elaborated on the MN121 quote. Perhaps that may be useful.

You've asked for a Mahayana text, which may or may not include MN121, in which the Buddha says:

MN121 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.

Although "emptiness" is probably what you meant by "void", it's worth noting that Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) discuss several terms which can get conflated with "void." Let's look at some of these:

AN9.41:11.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space?’
AN9.41:13.2: ‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness?’
SN41.6:3.2: “But sir, how does someone attain the cessation of perception and feeling?”

The above three experiences are differentiated and transitional states leading to the experience and practice described in MN121:

MN121:3.3: ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’

Very nice. I always meditate on emptiness also.


text:
How do I develop a healthier relationship with images?
I doubt that anybody has asked this question before, which is why I thought to write it down. Since I was thirteen-years-old, I have saved a lot of photographs from the internet on the cloud (i.e., like how someone would save 'likes' to their Twitter profile). The reason at the time was that I was trying to find myself as a person. Now, I have spent four years doing this and I know myself better. I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from my life. I downsized my room and finished writing a manuscript that I began four years ago. Now, I have to go through all of my photos and see which ones are important because a few of the photos do help me to better visualise a healthier lifestyle sort of like iconography.
The issue is that, unlike fixing my room or manuscript, I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine. How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on? I am new and I apologise if I have misunderstood anything, but this seems a bit like a desire and I am wondering about the middle way. Please, do not be shy. Any and all answers would be helpful.

Just drop it all and move on. Never hesitate to let go of old stuff that has done its job. Don't be nostalgic, don't regret - that is petty thinking. You had it, you got it, you done it - drop it and walk into your next life.
It may seem like it's important and it was at some point, but you'll make plenty of new and more important stuff as you go forward. It's "you-the-emptiness" is what really matters, "you-the-fresh-look", "you-the-not-knowing". You have basic sanity - which means you don't have to carry anything along. Wherever you go you will create everything anew, from scratch, and meet everything you need to meet, there will be a plenty.
Have no fear. Drop and let go.

I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine.

If by "put in check" you mean controlling your view of yourself in the past, then that may be a form of unwholesome clinging (attavadupadana). From a buddhist perspective this may create suffering based on the false assumptions (vipallasa) of:

the notion that these photos and their representation of the views you wish to sustain are necessary for your wellbeing, and conversely
the notion that getting rid of them would cause you emotional harm.
"These four, O Monks, are distortions of perception, distortions of thought distortions of view...
Sensing no change in the changing,
Sensing pleasure in suffering,
Assuming "self" where there's no self,
Sensing the un-lovely as lovely"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html

How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on?

To put it blunt, the quick and dirty answer is that saving things like photos will not help your spiritual practice at all. As an ideal, all tendencies of upadana should cease as quickly as possible (nekkhamma).
To nuance things a bit, i think it would be more compassionate to acknowledge that upadana (clinging) has a particular emotional meaning and that one is allowed some time to process the renunciation of said clinging. It would be cruel - however effective it may be - to instantly jettison all and every attachment we might have, and i doubt it would be beneficial for one's practice to push forward in such brutal manner. Nevertheless renunciation is the recommended way to establish middle way equanimity (upeksha).

The introspection re the items is good: maybe don't need to do Anything with them; might even be occasionally useful for reference etc. As long as the machine space isn't needed for something else, then seems ok. Actually clinging to whether its ok or isnt might be fettersome. And if they dont matter so much, then they dont matter so much. Leaving them there seems relatively ok. Maybe its a good example of actual nonattachment: isnt necessary to declare an illusion is gone, and that in fact might imply some clinging was still there! In a few dozen centuries they'll probably be gone anyway, and if they aren't gone, finding them might make some archaeologist very happy! And it doesn't as though they're awful or anything. An to an extent, neatness is in the 'mind', and removing things rather than simply disregarding them to some extent might make for more clingyness. So maybe there's no rush to erase them. And maybe look through a couple introductory texts re The Middle Way, & The Four Noble Truths, & The Noble Eightfold Path, as they may tell useful detail re those things! Interesting question.


text:
Did Lord Buddha preach not to believe our own minds?
Has Lord Buddha preached that we shouldn't believe our own minds?
If he did, what is the meaning of that saying?
Update: Are there any meaning other than ignorence, Ilusion ? Like Uncertainty of mind, changing mind ?

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

This is related to mental proliferation or papañca - also called reification or objectification-classification. Also, see this answer and this answer.
From Piya Tan's commentary on MN 18 (the bolded parts answer your question, on why not to trust your mental proliferations as being absolutely true):

3.2.1.1 The Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (M 18) gives us a very helpful
  explanation of the process involving mental proliferation: this is
  given in some detail in §§16+17, the Sutta's key passages. §16
  describes how mental proliferation tenaciously grips us as we
  unconsciously follow its dictates through our sense-experiences.
  Essentially, this domination begins any of our sense-experience: when
  a sense-faculty, and its respective sense-object and consciousness
  (attention) come together, there is contact (phassa), that is, a
  sense-experience. This, in turn, generates feeling (vedanā), how we
  see pleasure in something perceive as being attractive, pain in what
  is repulsive, and boredom in the neutral. This perception (saññā),
  in turn, generates thinking (vitakka), and when we think in this
  way, we mentally proliferate (papañceti). Notice that papañceti is
  a passive verb: we have no control over such an unconscious process. We
  simply explode into countless conceptions (saṅkhā) and perceptions
  (saññā) about the past, the future and the present
  sense-experiences. We run after the past, conjure up the future, and
  misconstrue the present, creating our own world of these misfits of
  thoughts and imaginings. We are being processed by our mental
  proliferation.

And also:

3.2.1.3  Mental proliferation (papañca) works hand in glove with how our sense-experiences, how we sense things. It is rooted in our
  unconscious mind, that is, the latent tendencies, so that we are not
  aware what is going on: we are deprived of our free will (in fact, we
  do not have it yet). The full term for mental proliferation
  (papañca) is papañca, saññā, saṅkhā, which gives us the key
  words for the working of mental proliferation. Saññā, although
  related to the “perception” of the 5 aggregates, here it is very much
  like consciousness (viññāṇa). It works like consciousness, basically
  aware of sense-objects, but it also evaluates and value-add them,
  "recognizing" them from our past experiences. In other words, we only
  allow the familiar into our lives, or perceive all or experiences as
  we desire them, not as they really are Saṅkhā, too, works like our
  consciousness but we are here attending to the perceptions we have
  been accumulating. Its only task is that of projecting notions and
  imaginings: what we desire, what we hate, what we are deluded with,
  what we fear. This is, in fact, how our “creative” minds work,
  measuring ourselves against others, creating problems for us, and
  lurking insidiously behind our thinking, and at the roots of all
  religions, including religious Buddhism. Mental proliferation, then,
  comprises of perceiving (saññā) and notion-forming (saṅkhā) or
  conceiving (maññanā) — is an explosion of mental constructs created
  by the power of the latent tendencies (anusaya) of craving
  (taṇhā), views (diṭṭhi) and conceit (māna).

The list of latent or underlying tendencies are found in AN 7.11 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

“Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven?
  The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt,
  conceit, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the seven
  underlying tendencies.”

The "desire to be reborn" (bhavarāgānusaya) is translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here as "passion for becoming".


text:
What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?
What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?
What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta?
Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta?

“Indeed, Ānanda, you properly heard, learned, attended, and remembered
  that. Now, as before, I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.
Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of
  elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of
  gatherings of men and women. There is only this that is not emptiness,
  namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same
  way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the
  perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the
  perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident,
  settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. They
  understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village
  or the perception of people. There is only this modicum of stress,
  namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’ They
  understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of
  the village. It is empty of the perception of people. There is only
  this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the
  perception of wilderness.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is
  not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
  That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
......
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. So,
  Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the
  pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

The sutta itself explains it very clearly. Meditation on Emptiness (Sunnata-vihara, lit. dwelling in emptiness - importantly not sunnata-samadhi!) is progressive cessation of all imputation. In other words it is abandonment of focusing on signs and translating the signs to their associated meanings. In modern language it can be called cessation of semiosis.
The sutta explains this process step by step. First the meditator abandons ("amanasikara", i.e. stops paying attention) the coarse signs such as anything that's happening around, and focuses on the background aka the counterpart sign (the place they are at). Then they (I'm using the gender-neutral pronoun "they" instead of "he") split this object of focus, again, into foreground (the place) and the background or the counterpart (the empty space itself). Then they focus on this background, and notice, again, its own background or counterpart - this time it's the conscious experience itself acting as the background for the perception of space. They keep repeating this iterative process. Every time they find the counterpart sign and make it the sole object of focus ("ekatta") until they can see its own background or counterpart. The next step is finding the counterpart sign (the background) for the consciousness or awareness. It happens to be the Nothingness. They focus on this new object, trying to find the counterpart of the perception of Nothingness. They find it, the very subtle background against which perceiving Nothing is juxtaposed, called Neither Perception Nor Nonperception. Abandoning even this sign they reach the Emptiness, the Signless Concentration.
This Signless Concentration is not The Liberation, but it is the last step before the Final Realization. The Final Realization is the first hand direct insight into the fact that our entire notion of perfect mindstate, perfect meditation, perfect liberation is just another collection of concepts (signs) evaluated against some counterparts or reference points. Letting go of all reference points is attainment of Nirvana and remainderless cessation of craving and grasping, and therefore complete cessation of suffering.

What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?

The process of gradually flushing-out of various subjects from gross to subtle as detailed in paragraphs 4 - 12 of MN 121

What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta?

Per Ven. Bodhi's note: SunnataVihara, the fruition attainment of voidness/sunnataphala samapatti, fruition attainment of arahantship that is entered by focusing upon the void aspect of Nibbana.

Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta?

Ven. Thanissaro's more straightforward rendering: "attends to the singleness based on the <objects...>", which Ven. Bodhi cited Comy's explanation:

MA: He attends to the perception of forest dependent on the single forest itself, thinking: “This is a forest, this a tree, this a mountain, this a grove.” In the next sentence I read with BBS and SBJ adhimuccati, as against PTS vimuccati.

What is the void/ emptiness aspect of Nibbana? Is it anatta?

as mentioned, not only anatta, but all subjects from gross to subtle as detailed in paragraphs 4 - 12 of MN 121.

In MN121, the word ekatta ("oneness") occurs 21 times. For example:

MN121:4.9: araññasaññaṃ paṭicca ekattan’ti.
MN121:4.9: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’

MN121 teaches the relinquishing of attachment to the "oneness" of all perceptions. It therefore is a powerful eraser for identity view. MN121 is an advanced sutta best practiced after established practice in ethics, immersion and wisdom. In particular, one must understand the prerequisites to practice the later verses effectively. For example, notice the subtle distinction between nothingness and emptiness:

MN121:8.7: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.’

In other words, to practice emptiness requires an understanding of the dimension of nothingness. To practice emptiness requires the realization of the emptiness of identity view.

This is how I practice at home:
- It is empty of people. (I am the only person in the house)
- There are some noises coming from birds, children playing outside the house and cars except for that it is empty of noises.
- There is no TV or radio so it is empty of visual and noise disturbance
- The only disturbance is coming from my internal mental dialogue. (Vitakka and Vicara) but they are wholesome, (first Jhana)
That is all I can go at this moment.
When Vitakka and Vicara stops I will be in second Jhana.
and so on you can go up to the cessation of perception and feeling.
It is a method of moving from gross to subtle experience.
When you emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling you will be an Arahant according to sutta.

Afaik the classical theravada interpretation is that it is a cessation of perception & feeling attainment.

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected."[3]https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html
  Notes to this;
  Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

There is one other interpretation based on Sutta, is as i see it less likely & more of a stretch, based on this;

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
  "The ear is empty...
  "The nose is empty...
  "The tongue is empty...
  "The body is empty...
  "The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html


text:
Why these skandhas?
(Not sure if i should break this down into two questions. Let me know if that's better.)

Is Gautama Buddha the originator of the idea of skandhas?
The suttas provides multiple accounts of the skandhas characteristics, and their foundational role in dukkha (For instance SN 22.86). But does the suttas provide a rationale for the taxonomy into these five particular skandhas? (To clarify, i'm not asking what the skandhas are, or how they function).

In other words: why rupa, vedana, sanna, sankharas and vinnana? Are the reasons detailed in any sutta? Or should this question be deemed acinteyya?

Because those skandhas cover everything which may cause suffering. Yes I think Buddha is the originator of the ideas of skandhas. (there were many Buddhas )

Well some scholars say that the hindus (and jains?) already talked about the various skandhas.
Ex a famous article  "Playing with Fire: The pratītyasamutpāda from the perspective of Vedic thought, by. Joanna Jurewicz. Journal of the Pali Text Society 26 (2000)" https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba71/8e6966ab946ebb5138a06b13ed6762a809fe.pdf
and the famous book Nama-Rupa and Dharma-Rupa: Origins and Aspects of an Ancient Indian Conception https://books.google.com/books?id=w9M-z-JVSa0C
But the Vedists do not understand them. For instance the hindus do not understand that the contact is the condition for the arising of appealing-unappealing like in the dependant origination in the suttanipata https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.11.than.html . In buddhism, it is only through this direct knowledge that disillusion occurs and letting go happens which is full enlightenment https://suttacentral.net/sa60/en/analayo

If there were no gratification in the ear … nose … tongue … body …
  mind, sentient beings wouldn’t love it. But because there is
  gratification in the mind, sentient beings do love it. If the mind had
  no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it. But
  because the mind has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned
  with it. If there were no escape from the mind, sentient beings
  wouldn’t escape from it. But because there is an escape from the mind,
  sentient beings do escape from it.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.17/en/sujato
The skhandas are the way they are because they are ''the all'' and what has to be abondoned as in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html and
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html

I think It's because it is the most appropriate way of classifying everything by grouping of five.
Grouping by a singlefold classification would be "all" as is defined in sabba sutta. It is from that a matter of inference.
In that you infer elements that are not included in the previously inferred one's until it is no longer possible to name an element that isn't included in the five fold classification.
The Sabba Sutta also gives  a twelvefold classification.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Here one can't name an inferrable element #13 that is rightly inferred and isn't included.
It is the same principle but the grouping is by five for khanda.
The 5fold classification is  needed to delineate rupa, arupa and the genesis of those. The five are otherwise rupa & any other of the two because the 4 are conjoined but need delineation to explain genesis and factors of the rupa and the arupa states.


text:
Bhadanta or Thero
Thero, Bhadanta, and Venerable.. are words for addressing the old monks, abbots in pagodas and/or temples. I really do not know how they are ranked in Buddhist Sangha. Which title is the highest... and what else?

Related topic: What is the appropriate use for the term bhante?

From AccessToInsight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms:

samaṇera (samaṇerī):
  Literally, a small samaṇa; a novice monk
  (nun) who observes ten precepts and who is a candidate for admission
  to the order of bhikkhus (bhikkhunīs).
bhikkhu:
  A Buddhist monk; a man who has given up the householder's
  life to live a life of heightened virtue (see sīla) in accordance with
  the Vinaya in general, and the Pātimokkha rules in particular.
thera:
  "Elder." An honorific title automatically conferred upon a
  bhikkhu of at least ten years' standing.
mahāthera:
  "Great elder." An honorific title automatically
  conferred upon a bhikkhu of at least twenty years' standing.

The female equivalents are samaṇerī, bhikkhuni, theri and mahātheri.

"Venerable" is the English-language translation of Bhadanta (or Bhante).
As well as What is the appropriate use for the term bhante? see also Thero:

The word literally means "elder". These terms, appearing at the end of a monastic's given name, are used to distinguish those who have at least 10 years since their upasampada (higher ordination).

See also Ajahn which appears to mean the same thing ("for Buddhist monks who have passed ten vassa") but in Thai language

No, Bhante is elder of Aavuso in Vijaya, but Aacariya is a person who has the quality of Aacariya, numbers of memorizing, understanding, and experience more than 10 years. Thero may not be qualified as Aacariya.  1 younger vassa calls 1 elder vassa "Bhante".  Qualifications https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-to-find-right-dhamma-teacher.html

I think you're saying that -- 1) a younger monk would say "Bhante" to an older monk -- 2) But an older monk would call a younger monk "Avuso" (meaning "friend"), not "Bhante" -- 3)  "Ācariya" (meaning "teacher") depends on whether a monk has memorised and understood etc., not only on seniority -- 4) "Ajahn" is the the Thai word/equivalent for the Pali "Ācariya".

It's also true, isn't it, that "Bhante" is an appropriate way for any layperson to address any monk?

1-4 yes. The last one is yes as well such as in nakulapitasutta https://4sacca.com/?rm.r.14.1...bhante,nakulapit#hl


text:
Is karma of arms giving depends on the reciever?
Consider the following situation
There are two people. One of them is enlightened. Other one is not. If I gave something to them equally without knowing anything about them, Are there any deference on that action?
Until today, I thought it depends only on giver's mind. But recently I heard it depend on the reciever's mind also. Ex: It is greater karma if the arms recieved immediately after end of a samadhi.
If this is true,

Are there any other variables that Karma depend on ? (Other than giver's mind and reciever's mind)
Why did Lord Buddha preach "Karma is the thought" ?

This is not only appiled to arms giving. Ex: Blaming an enlightened one vs non-enlightened one.
Kind regards.

Yes the people involved in the donation matters. The only thing which does not matter for karma is the thing given,  but the receiver may not use the gift if it is useless.
This is because matter, physical objects are meaningless in buddhism. This has far reaching consequences, such as why you cannot get into rigth samadhi by focusing on objects, contrary to what other religious people claim. For instance hindus say that mantras can get them into samadhi but that's not possible, because sounds are meaningless. Same thing with the bath that some people take to wash ''the bad deeds'' they did. Physical objectscannot modify your Concentration and karma, only improving your behavior can work on karma and concentration.
So for giving the usual sutta is this

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned
  five factors and is endowed with five.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html

"And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.
"And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.
"And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.
"Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html


text:
Is this the correct translation and exact meaning of these epic verses in Tripitaka?
There are two sentences found in Tripitaka. Do they mean, "the Divine one come to teach on earth"?
Please forgive me, but it very close to Jesus's savings. As Jesus says, "I'm son of Lord, come for you, through his wish, to guide you to my Father"!
These translations of mine is like this. I am native to language close to pali?

tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathī satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā.
AN 4.160

My translation: The Highly teacher appears on this world, the prefect holy, the one with Mighty Lord, perfect in wisdom and pure conduct,leading men to safe land, the charioteer of men and god to saddhamma from time immemorial, the Buddha, the Lord of cessation!

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā,
  Tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha;
Mahākhandhaka

My translation: The causes which exist for suffering (birth, decay,old age, death,unwanted thing, separation of dear ones), to eliminate it, He have come!

Please forgive me Masters here. But that question haunts me everyday! Also my intention isn't to oppose to Buddhist teachings as I think it's a best religion exist on earth ever! Pardon me!

I think the first quote is taken from sutta AN 4.160 -- do you know where the second quote is from?

Mahakhandaka-Sāriputta-Moggallānapabbajjākathā
41. The Story of the Going-Forth of Sāriputta and Moggallāna

Ven. Sujato translates into English that first sentence, as follows, here:

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sugato? Idha, bhikkhave, tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā. This is a Holy One.
And who is a Holy One? It’s 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. This is a Holy One.

There's no mention of being "mighty" or "lord of cessation" (as in your translation).
The word you translate as "highly teacher" might be tathāgato and the answers to this topic -- Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata? -- might help to answer your question.

Similarly I.B. Horner and Bhikkhu Brahmali translate the second sentence into English as follows, here:

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā,
  Tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha;
Those things which proceed from a cause,
  of these the Truth-finder has told the cause
Tesañca yo nirodho,
  Evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo”ti.
And that which is their stopping—
  the great recluse has such a doctrine.

Again, the word "tathagata" (this time translated as "truth-finder").
Perhaps it isn't that he "came" as in your translation, but that he "said" or "told" (Pali "āha") -- unless your translation was referring to Āgata.
And not that he eliminated suffering (as the Christians might say that Jesus eliminated original sin), but that he explained dependent origination and cessation (the noble truths).

'Bhagava' is term derived from 'Bhagga or भग्ग'. Remember when Buddha says, 'सब्बे ते तासुका भग्गा',-Dhp 153-4. भग्गा means cessation or demolishment. Buddha bhagava is term one who demolished or cease the cause altogether. So, ultimately it mean Lord of cessation. The term nearly coincides like this, 'The one who got ceased and the one who act to cease it, verily one!' It's almost parallel to verse ,Yam kinki samudayadhamma sabbam...(that one which originate, the same one destroys). It's very close to Brahman, who creates and destroys. That's why I have doubt. Hope you don't label me as such.

It's like two side of the same coin. This side is origination and the other one is cessation! Only those who can see it clearly, not with the eyes, but with eyes of wisdom can know it better. Those people are rare indeed!

Apparently there are two words which are both spelled bhagga -- see here -- one means "broken" and is the past participle of bhañj Sanskrit bhagna (presumably a verb meaning "to break") -- and the other is a noun, whose meaning Fortune, luck, welfare, happiness. The word Bhagavant is understood to be derived from the latter -- see e.g. here, "Fortunate One" etc.

Forgive me. I may have stuck to wrong view. I am closing the question here. Thanks for your kind words. May you become happy! Lastly I will quote Buddha here, that we both may agree. "I call him Brahman, who has enchewed all desires, came out clean to farther shore, cut asunder the bond of birth and death, bearing last life, harms not one, knows his previous dwellings, knows the destination of bad and good state, same in pleasure and pain, warded off sin and virtues both, teaches the others, not remain with either with householders or that of ascetics. Yes, I call him Brahman!"

"Divine" has its roots in the gods, the "devas". However, the Buddha declares this about gods:

AN8.29:1.4: Firstly, a Realized One has arisen 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. He teaches the Dhamma leading to peace, extinguishment, awakening, as proclaimed by the Holy One.

Indeed, being reborn as a divine god is not so fortunate:

AN8.29:4.2: But a person has been reborn in one of the long-lived orders of gods. This is the fourth lost opportunity.

Because of this, we must be careful in choosing adjectives used for gods and for the Buddha. A human life is the best opportunity to study the Dhamma fully.

My translation: The Highly teacher appears on this world, the prefect holy, the one with Mighty Lord, perfect in wisdom and pure conduct,leading men to safe land, the charioteer of men and god to saddhamma from time immemorial, the Buddha, the Lord of cessation!

This translation is wrong, which is why you have some misconceptions like,

"the Divine one come to teach on earth"?
"I'm son of Lord, come for you, through his wish, to guide you to my Father"!

Correct idea of this part is,

tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathī satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā.

Humans are suffering, because of birth and only The Lord buddha saw the right path to end of suffering, and with heart-full compassion to others who suffer not only the Humans all beings in worlds, Lord Buddha teaches the way to end of suffering.

तथागत। तथ+आगत (the who come or took birth) and      तथ+ गत    (the one who gone or ceases) verily the one!


text:
Is violence or destruction ever correct?
In the introduction to Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Keys, Philip Kapleau suggests there are times when one can or must rebel.

... In this type
  of creativity ow intuitive wisdom and joy are naturally
  brought into play.
All this does not mean, of course, that attempts at
  bettering working conditions and making work more
  meaningful, such as we are witnessing today as a reaction against robot-like mechanization of the workplace,
  are worthless. But for a worker constantly to resent his
  work or his supeliors, for him to become sloppy and
  slothful in his working habits, for him to become embittered toward life-these attitudes do most harm to
  the worker himself and serve little to change his working conditions. When it's time to work one works, nothing held back; when it's time to make changes one
  makes changes; when it's time to revolt one even revolts. In Zen everything is in the doing, not in the
  contemplating.

He doesn't elaborate. I found the line surprising. But Buddhists fight in Myanmar.
Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?

Apart from the reference to Zen Keys I think this question is a duplicate of several previous questions on this site about violence (which already have answers): https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=violence+is%3Aquestion

The Buddha warned against anger and his warning is quite precise:

SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”
SN1.71:3.1: “When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease. When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.  O deity, anger has a poisoned root and a honey tip.  The noble ones praise its killing,  for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

And even if all those around us may be cruel, the Buddha says quite directly:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Yet even if we did the above and returned justice for injustice, kindness for cruelty, that would be incomplete. It would be incomplete because it would only benefit ourselves.

AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four?
AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others...
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.
AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Here again the Buddha teaches:

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.

From these words we can understand that we might be able to help others rebel against suffering. We can share the Noble Eightfold Path with those who will listen.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.

That might be the ultimate rebellion. The rebellion against suffering.

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a ruler or government to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

From DN 16:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

From DN 26:

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
  and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
  authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
  aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
  country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice
  prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the realm.

Buddhist laypeople are expected to observe the five precepts. However, monks have to follow some 228 rules. It is not appropriate for a monk to condone violence and destruction.

Kapleau was of the the Ch'an/Zen lineage. In Zen (sometimes called the "Sudden Teaching") some schools will sometimes use verbal "violence" to bring the student to insight. In Zen history, it was not uncommon for Zen masters to hit their students to evoke Satori. In some famous Zen stories, the enlightened student sometimes hits back or scolds the master. This is what is meant by rebellion: the student is now on the same foot as the master, and the dynamics of their relation is changed.

+1 "Violent" "destruction" of delusion with the sword of prajna :)

Is it ever necessary to deviate from non violence?

Depends on who you ask. A society would certainly plunge into chaos and anarchy in a hurry if military leaders start acting like monastics while monastics start acting like military leaders. Violence is and will always be a rotten choice, but sometimes, on the mundane level, inaction's proven to be an even worse rotten choice.

It's right there in the quote. When it's time to make changes, one makes changes and even revolts - if making the necessary changes requires it. The bigger question is, how does one know when it's time to make changes? ;)

Given other sentences in the Introduction -- including, "It is out of this respect for the worth of every single object, animate as well as inanimate, that comes the desire to see things used properly, and not to be heedless or wasteful or destructive", and another   about pleading for dialog based on mutual respect -- it doesn't occur to me to read this as a call to violence.
I don't know if you know the traditional story of the Buddha's leaving his father's palace, perhaps that is an example of "revolt" -- that's non-violent.
Or even if you're thinking of geopolitics, there are many modern historical examples of non-violent revolt.
I don't think there's much in the Pali suttas that I'd interpret as a call to violence -- see also other topics on this site about violence.
Zen is perhaps a bit peculiar. I think it was:

In Japan, geographically a long distance from other forms of Buddhism
Strongly influenced by -- as well as being a power within -- the secular state and culture

So for example,

Various samurai clans struggled for power during the Kamakura and Ashikaga shogunates. Zen Buddhism spread among the samurai in the 13th century and helped to shape their standards of conduct, particularly overcoming the fear of death and killing, but among the general populace Pure Land Buddhism was favored.

"Pure Land" incidentally might mean something like (I oversimplify), "It's difficult to practice Buddhism in this world/life, let's hope the next will be better".
As for the samurai and their violence I get the impression, from Zen stories like the following, that non-violence and self-discipline and being unafraid was seen as better or more admirable than violence:

The Gates of Paradise
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.

There are other stories, including at least two about a samurai being non-violently disarmed by masters of the tea ceremony.
In some schools of Buddhism, I'm not sure about Zen, there are ethical rules which are codified as the "precepts", e.g. "the five precepts" -- which include "no killing", "no lying", "no stealing", and so on.
I once read a suggestion -- I think from someone contemporary, possibly even Thich Nhat Hanh but I don't remember -- that if you can't keep all five precepts then it's better to keep four, and if you can't keep four then it's better to at least keep three, and so on.
I guess I imagine a samurai's attitude to violence as being like that -- they might feel that violence is sometimes forced upon them (e.g. by their social duty), even though non-violence is "better".
The Pali suttas analyze some of the mental states which lead to people arguing -- for example, "pride".


text:
The Buddha and the Gods realm
So according to Buddhism , the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence.
What are the references of this  , according to all buddhists canons?

the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence.

Correct, while devas' lifespan is much longer than ours and they enjoy a lot more bliss/pleasure, they too will die eventually:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:
"When a deva is about to pass away from the company of devas, five omens appear: his garlands wither, his clothes get soiled, sweat comes out of his armpits, a dullness descends on his body, he no longer delights in his own deva-seat. The devas, knowing from this that 'This deva-son is about to pass away,' encourage him with three sayings: 'Go from here, honorable sir, to a good destination. Having gone to a good destination, gain the gain that is good to gain. Having gained the gain that is good to gain, become well-established.'" ~~ Iti 76 ~~

Thank You. That is the only reference available?

The fate of the gods does not always end well.

AN1.356-358:1.1: “… the sentient beings who die as gods and are reborn as humans are few,  while those who die as gods and are reborn in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”
AN1.353-355:1.1: “… the sentient beings who die as gods and are reborn as gods are few,  while those who die as gods and are reborn in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”

It might therefore be better as humans to let the gods be as they may and make good use of this very life to practice the Noble Eightfold Path.

Another reference is MN 49 in which the Buddha contradicts a God (named Baka Brahma):

When this was said, I told Baka Brahma, 'How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma!  — in that what is actually inconstant he calls "constant." What is actually impermanent he calls "permanent." What is actually non-eternal he calls "eternal." What is actually partial he calls "total." What is actually subject to falling away he calls "not subject to falling away." Where one takes birth, ages, dies, falls away, and reappears, he says, "For here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear." And there being another, higher escape, he says, "There is no other, higher escape."

Here's one reference in DN 1:

"There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period
  this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting,
  beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.
  There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period,
  there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While
  the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a
  certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time,
  there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.
"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the
  reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here
  after him.'
"Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer
  life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who
  re-arose there after him.
"Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after
  passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come
  to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has
  gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and
  right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration
  that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately
  preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were
  created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the
  Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the
  Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the
  Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable,
  eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like
  eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to
  this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

I am sure I found this in one sutta unless my memory lapses for some reason. The following is the link to the list. You find a reference to some sources.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


text:
Is it wrong livelihood to pick up cherries?
I currently am taking care of an organic garden and minimizing any harm that could befall on any living beings by sustainable techniques, and on the side am helping to pick cherries and yet I have discovered that they use a product (insecticide) to treat the cherries.
Am I somehow earning a wrong livelihood by picking them up ?
Considering the five different types of wrong livelihood
AN 5.177

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in.

May you be blessed.

Picking cherries is not a wrong livelihood as long as you are not the one spraying the pesticides.
Spraying pesticides is a wrong livelihood as it harms others (by doing activities which do not fall under right action to earn a living). Generally, distancing yourself from this activity would be fine as long as you can say free from remorse. If you are not involved in any way and this is out of your control there is nothing to be remorseful about it. If you still feel remorseful maybe it might be wise to find another side job.
Maintaining the organic garden within the law and ethical norms are definitely right livelihood.
The main objective in morality is Buddhism is to develop all other elements in the Noble Eightfold Path. Morality (3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood) helps develop mastery over the mind (6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration) which intern helps wisdom (1. Right view 2. Right resolve). Right livelihood should be practised as a connected whole with other parts of the path so that one is free from remorse which helps develop meditation. If one is not free from remorse one cannot develop mentation and intern insight which is the pinnacle of the path.

(5) Bhikshus, for one with right livelihood, there is the withering away of wrong livelihood; and also
  the withering away of the many evil unwholesome states that arise with wrong view as condition,and the many wholesome states that arise with right livelihood as condition are fulfilled through cultivation.

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta

I also garden as part of my practice. Thank you for addressing this issue.

Thank you for your thorough and very helpful response, it's bringing a lot of clarity for which I'm grateful. May I ask what fulfills these ethical norms concerning the gardening ?

What does not do harm to others or oneself and within the law is ethical.

Perfect, thank you. How about trimming vineyards that are destined to produce wine ? It seems like it would enter the realm of wrong livelihood, wouldn't it ?

If it is destined to produce wine, it would be. If it is just producing grapes not specifically for winemaking but some of the buyers may produce wine at their discretion then it will still be ok.

Thank you once more for your detailed answers. I wished to bounce back on the ethical norms about not harming others as for an organic garden it often implies tilling the land and I use a device that minimizes the disruption of life within the soil but still could potentially harm beings involuntarily in doing so, would that breach ethical norms ?

If it is involuntary then it does not breach ethics. But the main idea behind Buddhist ethics is to prevent karmic repercussions and also as a stepping stone in the path. In Buddhism unlike some contemporary teaching in India is not the be-all and end-all, but merely a stepping stone to the next steps in the path which falls under Samadhi, which again is a stepping stone to Panna which again is a stepping stone to Vimukthi. Hence, if one is disturbed to the extent one cannot successfully meditate develop Samadhi and Panna due to ethical concerns, one should better seek available alternatives.


text:
Skillful assumptions
Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?
Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

There wasn't a time when "everyone" believed the world was flat. It's obvious during a lunar eclipse that the phenomenon is the casting of the earth's shadow on the moon and that the shadow is round.  All (both) the celestial objects that aren't points of light are round. Near a large body of water it can be seen that a vessel heading out to sea seems to disappear from the bottom up and reappear top down.

My previous comment was criticizing an example, not the point the example was trying to make. What I meant to say was that I think there will always be things we don't know or understand.

OP: Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't
  exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

To put your "salvation" or your liberation from suffering into someone else's hands, is unskillful in Buddhism.
To reinforce belief in a self, is unskillful in Buddhism.
To take anything that is impermanent as permanent, is unskillful in Buddhism.
Faith in an eternal permanent Supreme God who is one's personal saviour would include all three unskillful views above, in some way or the other.

OP: Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round
  during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat?
  Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

Whether the Earth is round or flat is not of concern to Buddhism, and can be left to science. In this case, it is skillful to rely on scientific methods.
However, metaphysical investigations that cannot be proven by science is not skillful, as seen in the Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

Is there someone else? Where? Jesus, you assume God would be someone else?

Atheism is described with conflicting ideas in many different ways. However, it is generally pointing towards not believing in gods / God.
Buddhism is full of information about gods. However, it clearly says that there is no creator. That means everything in the universe, including gods are not created by anyone.
Now, we have a question about Buddhism if it is really a “religion” for an atheist.
For me, if you believe in something firmly that means except as an hypothesis, you are not an atheist.
If I say a long story short, Buddhism is indeed a “religion” for the atheists.
Why? Buddha has clearly shown the way to discover the reality of things without any doubts.
That is path to enlightenment through Jana. In the 4th Jhana you will have the opportunity to dive deep in to the reality which is normally hidden from the surface view. In the 4th Jhana, you will Be able to uncover 2 or more special Knowledge/ sense bases which will eventually bring you to that realization.
There are so many distractions, rituals and other ideas surrounding the core knowledge which is hidden from the average follower.
Therefore, clearly an atheist can be a Buddhist however, until that person reach the final goal, he or she should carry some sort of assumptions.

Atheism is not a Noble Truth. Nor is the shape of the Earth.

MN28:2.1: “The footprints of all creatures that walk can fit inside an elephant’s footprint, so an elephant’s
  footprint is said to be the biggest of them all.  In the same way, all skillful qualities can be included in the four noble truths.  What four?  The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

OP: Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

The through one should foster is that all being are subjected to the 3 marks of existence, the law of cause and effect (Hetu-phala vada), Dependent Origination and the 4 Noble Truths which can be considered skilful. If you believe in a God who is almighty and above these then this is unskilful. If how on to this view tightly and develop greed, hatred and delusion, then this is unskilful.

OP: Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't around during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skilful assumption? Why or why not?

This is neither skilful nor unskilful. Skilful actions are those motivated by non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion and unskilful are those motivated by greed, hatred and delusion. Unskilful actions are the Wrong part (wrong view ... wrong concentration) of the Noble 8 Fold Path (4the Noble Truth) and skilful action are the Right part (right view ... right concentration) of the Noble 8 Fold Path. If this view was to be contrary to skilful roots (non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion), 3 marks of existence, the law of cause and effect (Hetu-phala vada), Dependent Origination and the 4 Noble Truths this will be unskilful and if it was in accordance to skilful roots, 3 marks of existence, the law of cause and effect (Hetu-phala vada), Dependent Origination and the 4 Noble Truths it will be skilful. But the idea that the earth is flat does not confirm to wither.
Also see: The Dhamma in Buddhism part 4


text:
Sutta on which Buddha states the gravity of merits
What is the sutta where Buddha says about the order of merits as in for example "Observing the 5 precepts gives more merit than offering alms" and such.

I believe you're looking for Velāma Sutta (AN 9:20). Here's  Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's translation: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_20.html

What is the sutta where Buddha says about the order of merits as in for example "Observing the 5 precepts gives more merit than offering alms" and such.

The category of doing merits by itself doesn't decide the weight of the merit, instead it's the quality/purity/sincerity of one's body/speech/and mind while doing it that'll determine the kammic weight:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three grounds for meritorious activity. Which three? The ground for meritorious activity made of giving, the ground for meritorious activity made of virtue, and the ground for meritorious activity made of development [meditation]. These are the three grounds for meritorious activity." ~~ Iti 60 ~~

You didn't answer the question.

@KumāraBhikkhu Bhante, feel free to participate more and enlighten us lay folks. We lay folks still have day jobs and much lay life responsibilities, which prevent us from dedicating time and resources to Dhamma study and practice, unlike you full-time professional monastics.


text:
How does one decide whether one lives a lay married life or a celibate life?
A bit of background. In my mid-20s, I spent a lot of time (cumulative 1 year) in different monasteries in Thailand, Myanmar and Nepal. I understand experientially the importance of consistent and regular practice. I am now 33, have a decent tech job. I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

Related: Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

If one is married, one can first understand that desire is more often asymmetrical than not. One can also observe resentment arising out of asymmetrical desire.
Asymmetrical desire therefore provides an opportunity to explore the problem posed. For example, suppose that one has desire. Then one can consider whether that desire is asymmetrical or not. And if it is indeed asymmetrical, then we can give it up. Doing this puts one gently on the path to restraint and ultimately celibacy out of consideration for others. It is also serious practice that can gently change a married relationship to one of understanding and consideration absent lust. In other words, rather than fighting the daunting dilemma posed, one addresses it day-by-day within that day's context, moment by moment, breath by breath.

MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

Relinquishing asymmetrical desire for shared sensual pleasure is a small step that can help one start the practice of seclusion from sensual pleasures altogether. Seclusion from sensual pleasures is required to proceed on the Noble Eightfold Path. It is required for immersion, for jhana:

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Interesting. Just to expand, how would you describe Asymmetrical vs Symmetrical desire? Is one unwholesome like sensuality, the other brings balance such as establishing Jhanas?

Thank you. There is a new paragraph with a quote from the same sutta that hopefully may clear up the relevance to Jhana. Householders on the path traditionally declare periods of time during which they adopt the precepts required to deepen their practice.

Firstly, you should avoid having a romanticized view of either the lay married life or the celibate monastic life.
Being a married person, you may find that your spouse, children and in-laws may often not be in line with your wishes and expectations, and may be a source of grief.
If you read the book "The Broken Buddha" by S. Dhammika, you will find that many monastic communities today are not living up to the standards of the Buddha's Sangha, to put it mildly.
Secondly, you can however, try to become an anagārika or novice monk (sāmaṇera) and try out the monastic life for a short time (maybe 1 to 3 months), as a trial, by staying in a monastery under the guidance of a teacher. In the end, you may find that this does not suit you, or the other way round. It's a practical way to guide your decision-making.

I am very conflicted between a lay married life and celibate life of serious practice. Anybody have the same dilemma? How did you solve it?

Ultimately it's a decision that only you can make for only you'd know the priority of Dhamma practice vs. other lay life responsibilities. There's nothing wrong with a married lay life, it's just that it won't provide you the same amount of freedom in terms of of time and space to dedicate to Dhamma practice. Once you've decided to make the big plunge into married life, you'd better be prepared and ready to sacrifice much of your own time dedicating to a whole new set of extra responsibilities: perform duties of love and care to your spouse, parental duty to your kids, various duties not only to your side of the family but also your in-laws' side of the family, various household maintenance chores, etc.

I think at some point one becomes humiliated & ashamed of sexuality to the point where it's no longer an option. Hiriottapa just kicks in due to development, you realize that you don't ever want to feel that shame & regret and are unable & unwilling rationalize it otherwise even if the world thinks it's the norm you see it as sick.

They became lustful, and their bodies burned with fever. Due to this fever they had sex with each other.
Those who saw them having sex pelted them with dirt, ashes, or cow-dung, saying, ‘Get lost, filth! Get lost, filth! How on earth can one being do that to another?’ And even today people in some countries, when a bride is carried off, pelt her with dirt, ashes, or cow-dung. They’re just remembering an ancient traditional saying, but they don’t understand what it means.
What was reckoned as immoral at that time, these days is reckoned as moral. The beings who had sex together weren’t allowed to enter a village or town for one or two months. Ever since they excessively threw themselves into immorality, they started to make buildings to hide their immoral deeds.https://suttacentral.net/dn27/en/sujato#dn27:16.16
Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

Don't remember which text this last one is from but it's vinaya iirc

the Buddha admonishes him thus: “It is better for you to have put your manhood in the mouth of a venomous snake or a pit of burning charcoal than a woman.”

So yea, eventually this all sinks in and what was an option is no longer an option. One at some point has to accept that it's a serious mental disease and then straighten out what is crooked by means of development of wholesome qualities.
In practical terms my advice is to continuously put yourself in situations where you can attain seclusion, even if you fail you make that the general resolve, time and again, having conflicting desires you can support the one and not the other by relentlessly trying to attain pleasure which isn't worldly by making that opening.
When you have won seclusion and a pleasant abiding you protect that and you then won't be tempted by sensuality.

If you are a practicing Buddhist and willing to go all the way, You can reach all Jhanas staying married. Even reach Anagami status being married.
All you need to do is obey 5 precepts, guard your senses, follow a strict schedule and meditate.
In between times it’s up to you.
However, I don’t recommend becoming a monk until you reached a Jhana.
In my opinion being a monk without any serous practice is wast of life.