text:
Buddhas (and Bodhisattva) are real individuals or manifestations?
As early as Mahasamghika schools of Buddhism there was a view that there are countless Buddhas in the ten directions, that all Buddha's have one body (dharmakaya), and that they are just manifestations (nirmanakaya). The last part says how Buddhas, including Gautama, didnt and dont actually ever get hungry, or eat, or got dirty, or defecate, or struggle to achieve enlightenment, or grow old and die, but that all that is for show, a part of teaching people. Are all Buddhas like this, just like some 'holograms' that Dharmakaya projects in various world to teach people? If that is the case, that seems to imply that we cant actually become Buddhas, because the Buddhas are just manifestations. I know the stories in some Sutras about how some humans aeons ago made vows to become a Buddha and now they are a Bodhisattva (such as Avalokitesvara) or a Buddha (such Amitabha), but if that is also all just for show, skillful means to teach people, it seems there are no examples of actual people becoming a Bodhisattva or Buddha..? Whats going on there?

I believe that the concepts of Dharmakaya (eternal truth form) and Nirmanakaya (physical form) originated from the following sutta quote.
The Buddha downplayed the importance of his physical form and advised Ven. Vakkali to focus on the teachings, stating that when one sees the Buddha, one sees the Dharma (teachings), and when one sees the Dharma, one sees the Buddha.
In other words, the Dharma is what the Buddha stands for, and the Dharma is what the Buddha represents. The Dharma (teachings) is his eternal "form".

Vakkali: “For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see
the Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
Buddha: “Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body?  One
who sees the Dhamma (teachings) sees me; one who sees me sees the
Dhamma (teachings). For in seeing the Dhamma (teachings), Vakkali, one
sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma (teachings).
Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87)

I believe that the concept where the Nirmanakayas of all the past Buddhas emanate from one Dharmakaya originates from the following sutta quote.
It simply means that all the past and future Buddhas rediscover, understand and teach the same Dharma (teachings), because it is the natural law.
Hence their physical appearance as teachers, emanate from the Dharma (teachings) as their one eternal "form". In other words, all the Buddhas stand for the same Dharma (teachings) and all the Buddhas represent the same Dharma (teachings).

Past Buddhas,
future Buddhas,
& he who is the Buddha now,
removing the sorrow of many —
all have dwelt,
will dwell, he dwells,
revering the true Dhamma.
This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.
Therefore one who desires his own good,
aspiring for greatness,
should respect the true Dhamma,
recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.
Garava Sutta (SN 6.2)

"Was the Buddha a real individual?" is answered in the Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85). I leave it to you to read it.
And what about the Sambhogakaya (enjoyment/ reward form, or perhaps inspirational form)?
I speculate that it's related to the following quote.
When one recollects the Buddha, who he was, what he achieved, what he contributed and what he stood for, that person becomes inspired and his fears dispelled. So, this inspirational mental image of the Buddha is the Buddha's inspirational "form". He can manifest in this "form" to inspire and dispel fear.

But bhikkhus, I say this: If you have gone to a forest or to the foot
of a tree or to an empty hut, and fear or trepidation or terror should
arise in you, on that occasion you should recollect me thus: ‘The
Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true
knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed
leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the
Enlightened One, the Blessed One.’ For when you recollect me,
bhikkhus, whatever fear or trepidation or terror you may have will be
abandoned.
Dhajagga Sutta (SN 11.3)

Very good quotes from the Pāli Canon. IMO, you should also consider that the version of the Buddha that is marked with 32 mythohistorical "marks of a Great Man" might be the precursor of the saṃbhogakāya. In certain suttas, people cannot identify the Buddha, believing him to look like "an ordinary monk." This is contrasted with passages in which the Buddha appears godly and otherworldly, with the 32 marks. In some passages, people have to use psychic powers in order the perceive the Buddha's marks. The saṃbhogakāya is the body of the Buddha that appears in deep samādhi. Similar no?

Sure, that's a Theravada explanation, I should have maybe explicitly pointed out that I am interested in a Mahayana (or Vajrayana) explanation..

@zelenisok The Pali suttas of Theravada is more-or-less the same as the Mahayana Agamas which is considered part of the first turning of the wheel. So, it's pretty much a part of Mahayana.

Are all Buddhas like this, just like some 'holograms' that Dharmakaya projects in various world to teach people?

Actually, and to be clear, I don't think even the most hardcore Mahayanists would propound such notion. That's why they proposed the Trikaya model (composed of 3 separate bodies), not as a contradiction to the Theravada's notion, but as an extension. Both schools agree on the Nirmanakaya part, the physical body's appearance in the world (ie the historical Gautama Buddha). Then the Mahayanists added 2 more as an extension to that: Dharmakaya, the Dharma-body/utimate-reality/pure-being (which associates with Vairocana), and Sambhogakaya, the Enjoyment/Bliss/Divine-body (which associates with Amitabha).

Would they say that Dharmakara was an actual individual like you and me who then became Amithaba, or was all of that for show, just skillful means that the Dharmakaya did (physically, not as a hologram) in order to teach people? That's my main question.

@zelenisok, I don't think the Dharmakaya is a physical representation because there's already the Nirmanakaya that fulfills that role. So, Dharmakaya provides a more of an abstract representation representing the Buddha's Doctrines and/or His Buddha Nature.

I meant the monk Dharmakara, -ra at the end, not -ya. He is said to have been a monk who make 48 bodhisattva vows and eventually became Amitabha. And my question is was Dharmakara a real person like you and me, or was he was the Nirmanakaya of the Dharmakaya.

@zelenisok, ah ok i see, well, Amitabha Buddha is not a human like you and me because He does not live on earth like Gautama Buddha. Instead, He lives in a non-human realm called the PureLand, so technically speaking, He is not human. And that's why He represents the Sambhogakaya, not Nirmanakaya (which is Gautama Buddha, a human), nor Dharmakaya (a higher abstract representation of the Doctrines and/or Buddha nature)

The trouble with statements about the Mahāsāṃghikas is that they are a very poorly-attested school. We don't have very many Mahāsāṃghika-specific documents at all. Sometimes, doctrines are only substantiated through heresiologists in heresiological texts, meaning that they show up attributed to the Mahāsāṃghikas in sectarian works by other schools. Heresiologists cannot necessarily be trusted to give accurate and fair descriptions and assessments of the doctrines of other schools, particularly ones that they think are "heretical."
The English term "heresiologist" generally refers to Christian writers of the first to fifth century, like Irenaeus for example, who wrote polemical treatises refuting heterodox Christian groups like various kinds of Gnostics and Manichaeans, etc. Perhaps the most famous heresiological text is Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses, or "Against the Heresies." In studying Buddhist history, we find a similar literary genre emerging amongst the schools and sects of early Buddhism. Authors take up the mantle of heresiology in order to lineate and address the differences in these various sects -- both differences of doctrine as well as differences in how they have preserved and transmitted the Buddha's words.
Examples of heresiological texts from which Mahāsāṃghika doctrines are divined are the Samayabhedovyūhacakra of Venerable Vasumitra and the Mahāvibhāṣa of Venerable Katyāyāniputra. Both of these texts seek to lay out the "heresies" of various schools, including the Mahāsāṃghikas, and also to lay out the "correct orthodoxy" of the Sarvāstivādins at variance with the "heresies" of the various schools.
It's easy to see how heresiological texts are not ideal for reconstructing the authentic practices of a religious community (after all, their purpose is to polemicize and criticize), but when they are all one has, one has to make do. The plenteous and well-established Southerly Āndhrakas ("Caitikas"), who were well-established enough to be preserved in the historical memory of the Theravādin communities that transmitted the Kathāvatthu, leave us none of their own manuscripts due to the climate of Southern India and when their sect died out. It's similar to why there are few Sri Lankan manuscripts substantiating the Pāli Canon that are very old: they decompose in the wet tropical climate.
With that in mind, we can turn to three questions raised by the OP in light of both native Mahāsāṃghika sources as well as in light of heresiological texts addressing the Mahāsāṃghikas.

As early as Mahasamghika schools of Buddhism there was a view that there are countless Buddhas in the ten directions,

If you can manage, purchase Les sectes bouddhiques du petit vehicule by André Bareau or view it online. This is a seminal text in Mahāsāṃghika studies. It was translated into English, but I can't remember the name of the translator. In it, you will find a list of Mahāsāṃghikas doctrines taken from the Samayabhedovyūhacakra. They include:

The knowledge of destruction and non-arising continue unceasingly
until final nirvāṇa – Since the 18 elements which make up the Buddhas
are free from impurities, knowledge free from impurities is constantly
present.

The Buddhas abide in all directions – There are Buddhas in all
directions, in all the universes, everywhere.

The Buddhas exists as substance (dravya).

When the Buddhas enter the womb, they do not go through the impure
stages of embryonic development. They enter fully developed and do not
need impure material such as sperm to be born.

In total, there are 51 "heretical" theses attributed to the Mahāsāṃghikas in Ven Vasumitra's Samayabhedovyūhacakra. These are 14-18. As you will see, the bolded section lays out the doctrine of "contemporaneous Buddhas."
This is all fine and dandy, but can we find this actually substantiated in a native Mahāsāṃghika document? Yes, actually. We can find it in the Ekottarāgama and in the Mahāvastu and in the Lokānuvartanasūtra, which is a commentary on the Mahāvastu. These are some of the only Mahāsāṃghika documents that survive, so it's good that they happen to have these attested.
The Japanese scholar Nishio Kyoyu argues that the doctrine of "many Buddhas" present in the Ekottarāgama is distinct from the scriptures of other early Buddhist schools. See p. 99 of The Evolution of the Concept of the Buddha from Early Buddhism to the Formulation of the Trikaya Theory by Guang Xing.
Furthermore, in the preamble to the Mahāvastu, we read:

Homage to the glorious mighty Buddha, and to all Buddhas, past, future and present.

(Mahāvastu opening, translated by Dr. J.J. Jones)
This expression, "Buddhas of the past, future, and present" (Pāli: atītānāgatapaccuppanna) is a very common expression that you can find in EBTs including the Ekottarāgama. There is a passage substantiated between the Pāli scriptures and the Mahāsāṃghika scriptures where the Buddha says "Buddhas of the past, Buddhas of the present, and Buddhas of the future." It is the Gāravasutta of SN 6.2. In the Pāli version, the Buddha just says "Buddhas of the past, Buddha of the present, and Buddhas of the future." The Pāli version has just one Buddha in the present, in-line with Theravādin doctrine.
From the Mahāsāṃghika Mahāvastu as translated by Émile Senart:

ye cābhyatītā saṃbuddhā ye ca buddhā anāgatā | ye caitarahiṃ
saṃbuddhā bahūnāṃ śokanāśakā | dharmaṃ deśenti satvānāṃ buddhānaṃ eṣā
dharmatā ||
The perfect Buddhas that have been, those yet to come, and those that now are, the dispellers of the sorrows of the multitude, all have taught, will teach and do teach dharma to men, for such is the obligation of Buddhas.

This is the Pāli version as translated by Venerable Sujāto:

Ye ca atītā sambuddhā, ye ca buddhā anāgatā; Yo cetarahi sambuddho,
bahūnaṁ sokanāsano. Sabbe saddhammagaruno, vihaṁsu viharanti ca; Tathāpi viharissanti, esā buddhāna dhammatā.
All Buddhas in the past, the Buddhas of the future, and the Buddha at present, destroyer of the sorrows of many, respecting the true teaching
they did live, they do live, and they also will live. This is the nature of the Buddhas.

The Mahāsāṃghika account differs in the pluralization of two words, both relating to the existence of "Buddhas," plural, in the present, as well as having the end of the section differ.

that all Buddha's have one body (dharmakaya), and that they are just manifestations (nirmanakaya)

The Buddhāvataṃsaka states: "the Dharmakāya is one." The Agrajñasūtra states: "The Buddhas of the past, future and present are equal, because the Dharmakāya is one" (T10.592c translated by Guang Xing). These are both Mahāyāna texts however, and while  Mahāsāṃghika was clearly highly influential on the Mahāyāna, we can't utterly conflate the two. From outrightly Mahāsāṃghika documents, we get: "The Buddha can manifest himself in numerous bodies and appear in countless lands, but the body of the Buddha neither increases nor decreases," and "All Buddhas have one body, the
body of the Dharma" (see p. 103 in aforementioned article).

Buddhas, including Gautama, didnt and dont actually ever get hungry, or eat, or got dirty, or defecate, or struggle to achieve enlightenment, or grow old and die, but that all that is for show, a part of teaching people.

I would like to quote at length from the commentary to the Mahāvastu here, as I feel it would be an appropriate way to end this post. Apologies if this is overlong:

Although the Buddha abides in the world but he does not attach to it,
he is a light to the world. All his bodily actions, words of the mouth
and thoughts of the mind are in conformity with the ways of the world.
Thus he cultivated his mind. No one can surpass the teachings of the
Buddhas and no one can achieve the works of the Buddha. It is in
conformity with the ways of the world, but there are none who know.
The Buddha, out of compassion for the people of the ten directions,
illuminates the world by preaching the Dharma in accordance with the
likes of the world.
The Bodhisattva was not born from the sexual union of father and
mother. His body is magically produced, like illusion. He makes a show
of having father and mother. It is in conformity with the ways of the
world that he makes such a show.
The Buddha has an immeasurable light which illuminates the ten
cardinal directions. It is in conformity with the ways of the world
that he makes a show of having a light of seven chi only.
The Buddha has never touched the ground with his feet, but the marks
imprint on the ground. It is in conformity with the ways of the world
that he makes such a show.
Since many thousand myriad kotis of asamkhyeyakalpas ago the Buddha
has accomplished prajnaparamita. It is in conformity with the ways of
the world that he made a show of being a small boy.
The Buddha illuminates men of the ten directions in darkness. It is in
conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of having a
wife and a child.
When the bodhisattva was born and walked on the ground he uttered the
words: “In the whole world no-one surpasses me! I shall deliver men of
the ten directions!” It is in conformity with the ways of the world
that he makes such a show.
Some ask that since the prince sat at the foot of a tree in
Jambudvipa, there had been six years of suffering with endeavour. It
is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of
suffering.
The Buddha sat alone at the foot of the tree when he is about to
attain enlightenment. It is in conformity with the ways of the world
that he emits rays of light to inform Mara of his state.
The Buddha accomplished wisdom which is equal to all Buddhas and there
are none who can surpass it. It is in conformity with the ways of the
world that he makes a show of having obtained Buddhahood and sits in
peaceful seclusion.
The purpose of attaining Buddhahood is to preach the Dharma in order
to save the people of the ten directions out of compassion. But the
Brahma Sahampati pleads the Buddha to deliver the Dharma to people. It
is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.
There is nothing which can either increase or decrease the wisdom of
the Buddha. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he
makes a show of having more or less wisdom.
The Buddha abides in tathata and emptiness so he does not come and
does not go. It is in conformity with the ways of the world to say
that the Buddha appears in the world and enters into parinirvana This
is just a show.
The Buddha abides nowhere just as the empty space that abides nowhere.
It is in conformity with the ways of the world to say that the Buddha
lives. It is only a show.
The Buddha’s feet, like lotus flowers, do not get dirty, but the
Buddha washes his feet. It is in conformity with the ways of the world
that he makes such a show.
The Buddha’s body, like gold, does not get dirty, but the Buddha makes
a show of taking a bath. It is in conformity with the ways of the
world that he makes such a show.
The Buddha’s mouth is fundamentally clean, with a fragrance like that
of kunkuma. Nevertheless the Buddha cleans his mouth with poplar
twigs. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes
such a show.

(from the linked article, translated by Guang Xing)
I've bolded one of the elements in this long litany, namely the part concerning itself with the Buddha's halo/aura. We can use this Mahāsāṃghika doctrinal point to illustrate further similarities between the Mahāsāṃghika "High Buddhology" and later Mahāyāna Buddhology.
Here is a depiction of the Buddha's halo from a piece of traditional Sri Lankan artwork:

We can see the distinct colours, a tradition dating back to the EBTs ("Early Buddhist Texts"). It appears in the Pāli vinaya, in the Atthasālinī (part of the "Great Commentary"/Mahāṭṭhakathā of the Theravādin sect), and in the Sarvāstivādin Saṃyuktāgama (Sūtra No. 197).
In this Mahāsāṃghika commentary above, it is explained as being for the sake of conformity with the world that the Buddha limits the size of his halo of light. Now we come to a much later text Mahāyāna text from the same vein of Buddhist thought that will greatly elaborate on this sort of belief concerning the Buddha's halo that seems to be shared between Mahāyāna and earlier Mahāsāṃghika Buddhism.
From a famous apocryphal commentary to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, namely the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa as translated by Venerable Migme Chodron:

Sūtra: Atha khalu Bhagavān prakṛtiprabhayā trisāhasramahāsāhasraṃ
lokadhātum avabhāsayāmāsa. yāvat pūrvasyāṃ diśi gaṅgānadīvālukopamā
lokadhātavas tayā prabhayā avabhāsitā abhūvan. yāvat daśasu dikṣu
gaṅgānadīvālukopamā lokadhātvas tayā prabhayā avabhāsitā abhūvan. ye
ca sattvas tayā prabhayā spṛṣṭās te sarve niyatā abhūvan anuttarāyāṃ
samyaksaṃbodhau.
Then by means of his usual light (prakṛtiprabhā) the
Bhagavat illumined the trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu; this brilliance
extended to all the universes of the east as numerous as the sands of
the Ganges, and it was the same in the ten directions. All the beings
who were touched by this light were destined to supreme complete
enlightenment.
Śāstra: First the Buddha smiled with his entire body then he emitted
rays from the pores of his skin; why now does he exhibit his usual
light to light up the ten directions?
Some people who have seen the different rays [shooting out from the
body and the pores of the Buddha] believed that this was not the light
of the Buddha. [Now] seeing the great development of the usual light
of the Buddha, they are filled with joy and, recognizing the true
light of the Buddha, they finally reach anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi.
What is the usual light of the Buddha?
It is a light one armspan in width surrounding the body of the Buddha
on all sides; the Bodhisattva possessed it since his birth and it is
one of the thirty-two marks called vyāmaprabhālakṣaṇa.
Why is the usual light of the Buddha one armspan in width and not
larger?
The usual light of the Buddha is immense and lights up the universes
of the ten directions. The miraculous bodily light of the Buddha
Śākyamuni is immense; it is the width of one armspan, a hundred
armspans, a thousand prabhedakoṭi of armspans and fills up the
trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu and the ten directions. However, the
Buddhas’ custom is to manifest in the world of the five corruptions,
where beings are of middling qualities and knowledge, a brilliance of
only one armspan. If he showed a larger brilliance, the people today,
of little merit and weak faculties, would be unable to tolerate the
light. When a person sees a god, his eyes are blinded because the
greater the light, the more the eye contracts. It is to people of keen
faculties and eminent merit that the Buddha shows his immense
brilliance.
Besides, there are people who, seeing the usual light of the Buddha,
rejoice and find salvation.
The king makes a gift of the leftovers from his usual table to his
inferiors, and the latter receive them rejoicing greatly. The Buddha
does the same. Some people feel no joy in seeing the other many lights
of the Buddha but, on contemplating his usual light, they are destined
to anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi.

This later texts goes to lengths to stress its "literalist" reading of the Buddha's halo. For the author of this text, the Buddha's halo is "actual light," i.e. "electromagnetic radiation" to a modern, that could conceivably light a room. In the later text, the light is specifically not a mental light or a mentally-perceived light that is seen in deep meditation. Food for thought.
Tl;dr:
All three doctrines are substantiated both in native Mahāsāṃghika texts and in texts from other sects that talk about the Mahāsāṃghikas. The Mahāsāṃghikas had a pseudo-"docetic" understanding of the physical body of the Buddha. (see docetism for a Christian parallel) While it, the physical body of the Buddha, appeared to the people of the world, it was not truly the Buddha's body and was not truly a physical body. Furthermore, we can see a direct line of contintuity between Mahāsāṃghika and later Mahāyāna thought through a passage about the Buddha's halo.
With that, we come to the second part of the OP:

If that is the case, that seems to imply that we cant actually become
Buddhas, because the Buddhas are just manifestations.

"You" are just a manifestation. What are you a manifestation of? Several Pāli suttas would suggest "clinging" or "suffering" to be the answers.

I know the stories in some Sutras about how some humans aeons ago made vows to
become a Buddha and now they are a Bodhisattva (such as
Avalokitesvara) or a Buddha (such Amitabha), but if that is also all
just for show, skillful means to teach people, it seems there are no
examples of actual people becoming a Bodhisattva or Buddha..? What's going on there?

There is, ultimately speaking, no such thing as "a sentient being." This is the most difficult teaching of the Buddhas. "Actual people" is a delusion. "The person" is a delusion; "the being" is a delusion. As Venerable Śailā once said to Māra:

You say that there are "sentient beings." That is Māra's view. There
are only the empty aggregates assembling. There are no "sentient
beings." It is like when the many materials converge and the world
calls it "a chariot." The many aggregates, via the conditions,
converge. "Sentient being" is a designatory label. That arises,
consequently suffering arises. (That) Abiding, also, is none other
than suffering abiding. Nothing else arose but suffering. Suffering
arose, and suffering itself will cease.

(Saṃyuktāgama Sūtra No. 1202)
"There are only the empty aggregates assembling." In the Mahāyāna, we can speak of the Buddha as with "no aggregates to speak of," or we can speak of the Buddha as with "five pure aggregates." What are the Buddha's Five Pure Aggregates? They are pure śīla (ethics), pure samādhi (meditation), pure prajñā (wisdom), pure vimukti (deliverance/liberation), and pure vimuktijñānadarśana (gnosis and beholding of deliverance/liberation). See section 4 of the Buddhānusmṛti division of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa here.
The Flower Garland speaks of "saving beings with no notion of a being" (救護一切眾生離眾生相) at the heights of Buddhist practice. It's a mystery known only to the Buddhas and the Āryan saints, the Āryabodhisattvas.

That last part about there being no persons is a Theravada teaching (and not even of the whole Theravada, some Theravada traditions such as Thai forest, Dhammakaya and some Burmese traditions disagree with that reduction of individuals to the aggregates) my question was about the Mahayana /Varjayana perspective. A person / mind / root consciousness is posited beyond the five aggregates, we are not illusions. Even in Madhyamaka and Yogacara views we exist (just mentally, not physically). Maybe the solution is an advaita interpretation, like some in Thai forest tradition interpreted citta.

Actually, it's from the Sarvāstivādin Saṃyuktāgama. It's not Theravādin, although the Theravādins do transmit a parallel passage (they attribute the gāthā to a certain "Venerable Vajirā"). The Prajñāpāramitā and Madhyamaka also say the same thing concerning the artifice of "the person" or "the being."

Something else of note is that the Northern parallel specifies "empty aggregates assembling" whereas the Pāli version simply specifies that there is only the heap of saṃskārās. Also, look up Ven Candrakīrti's Madhyamaka commentary, the Madhyamakāvatāra, and see the "sevenfold reasoning of the chariot," wherein Ven Candrakīrti quotes from this āgamasūtra (or quotes the Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra) and explains it at length.


text:
Namarupa as 'mentality & materiality', why or why not?
I see some teachers express 'namarupam' as 'mentality & materiality' and want to hear what you have to say on this matter.

I think we had some answers on this topic. Please use the search.

Related or perhaps duplicate of: How to reconcile Mahayana ideas of "nama-rupa" with the Pali definition?

Id keep this because it is more precise of a question

Also, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31048/comparing-chinese-agama-the-bundles-of-reeds-simile-with-pali-nalakalapiyo-sut

Namarupa is literally translated as name-and-form.
Based on the definition from SN 12.2, name is mind and form is body. Together, name-and-form refers to, what I would call, the mind-body system.

“And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition,
contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and
the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
SN 12.2

Consciousness is the mind-body connection or mind-body interface.

“Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is
the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant
directly knows … an end of suffering in this very life.”
AN 6.61

That's further supported by the following.

“And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of
consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness,
mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
SN 12.2

“The six interior sense fields, reverends, are one end. The six
exterior sense fields are the second end. Consciousness is the middle.
And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant directly knows
… an end of suffering in this very life.”
AN 6.61

Name-and-form (mind-body) has a mutually dependent relationship with the six types of consciousness according to SN 12.67, like two sheaves of reed leaning on each other.
To put it another way, the mind-body system (name-and-form) depends on the mind-body connection (consciousness) and the mind-body connection (consciousness) depends on the mind-body system (name-and-form).

I think materiality-mentality is very wrong.

It's not the literal translation
Nama doesn't include consciousness/intellect/mind per sutta definitions.
How is 'contact' mentality same as attention?
If materiality is one end, mentality the other end and consciousness is in the middle then is consciousness apart from mentality as much as it is apart from materiality?

It's certainly wrong as i see it

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
An example of Papañca?
Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it?

And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.

Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it?

Yes, Papanca and self-identity always go hand in hand. Ven. Thanissaro in his MN 18 translation gave a pretty good elaboration on what Papanca means:

As one writer has noted, the word papañca has had a wide variety of meanings in Indian thought, with only one constant: in Buddhist philosophical discourse it carries negative connotations, usually of falsification and distortion. The word itself is derived from a root that means diffuseness, spreading, proliferating. The Pali Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought: craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow the mind down in its escape from samsara. Because its categories begin with the objectifying thought, "I am the thinker," I have chosen to render the word as "objectification," although some of the following alternatives might be acceptable as well: self-reflexive thinking, reification, proliferation, complication, elaboration, distortion. The word offers some interesting parallels to the postmodern notion of logocentric thinking, but it's important to note that the Buddha's program of deconstructing this process differs sharply from that of postmodern thought. ~~ MN 18 ~~

I answered a very similar question to this a while ago here. That answer quoted a treatise that is very influential in East Asian Buddhism, namely the Madhyamakaśāstra. In the Madhyamakaśāstra, the author, Venerable Vimalākṣa, defines "prapañca" (translated here as "frivolous pondering") in two ways. From the linked post, abridged:

Because [Nirvāṇa] is characterized by quiet tranquility, it cannot be frivolously pondered as a frivolous pondering. Those are of two kinds. First is the argument from emotion, and the second is the argument from opinion. Via the middle, there are none of these two frivolous ponderings. Two frivolous ponderings (being) naught, there is neither agreement with nor dissent from. "Not another" and undifferentiated from itself, it is described as "reality."

I comment in the linked post:

The "argument from emotion" refers to argumentation rooted,
ultimately, in ignorance and suffering, as well as craving and greed.
We want to live forever. An "argument from emotion" to this effect
would be "Isn't it awful to believe that people just die? Surely it's
better (and makes me feel better) if ordinary persons, or maybe just
the Buddhas, were immortal." An "argument from opinion" refers to
personal theories as well as to secondary theses derived from primary
doctrines. An argument of this sort would be "The Buddha must exist
after death, because it is said that he doesn't not exist after
death."

I hope this is useful to you.

Here, and example:

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it?
Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

Or what ever undertaking wishing to nail something down, doing it real (lobha, dosa, moha connected), under ones control.

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


text:
Why do many Buddhists hold on to views?
I am not very experienced with Buddhism, but I do think I have read several suttas teaching that it is not good to hold on to views, and that the Buddha doesn't teach what the universe is like, but rather about the mind. I think this makes sense, since I experience that any clinging, even the mildest one to a view, causes discomfort.
Still, I see so many Buddhists cling on to views like rebirth or karma: Many Buddhists that I know make it an important part of their lives, and I see many analyses about Buddhism describing it as central to the belief. Is this just the natural human desire for certainty putting forward these views, or are there any teachings that actually promote it? If so, what arguments do they use? (I am not precisely asking for the psychological factors behind this clinging, but rather the ground; the teachings, that are behind it)
I am asking for teachings that imply that these views (rebirth, karma etc.) are important and that it therefore is skillful to hold on to these views.

I have edited the question, since it was badly written and included a lot of irrelevant opinions. I hope it will be better received now.

Do you mean to ask something like "is it skillful or wholesome to hold on to or cling to views like rebirth and karma, or is it better to let go of such views?"

@ruben2020 I am asking for teachings that imply that these views are important and that it therefore is skillful to hold on to these views.

FYI on some SE sites you might as well "accept" an answer as soon as one is posted which solves your problem. On other SE sites it can be a good idea to wait a couple of days before "accepting" one, in order to encourage or welcome a variety of other answers too.

Sometimes, views related to karma and rebirth can be used skillfully by someone with self-view.
Please see the two paragraphs below.
The first paragraph states that someone should reflect that he is the owner and heir of his own karma, and would inherit the results of his karma. Reflecting on this will cause him to reduce misconduct.
The second paragraph states that when a noble disciple reflects on the fact that not only him, but all own their karma, are heirs of their karma and would inherit the result of their karma, then reflecting on this will cause him to get on the path to liberation.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

There are two sorts of Right Views - with and without effluents.
The view about a person being the owner and heir of their karma, is such a Right View with effluents, that sides with merit. Another is rebirth.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
MN 117

Thank you. Added "twofold" to examples.

Also added "the owner of" to examples

@OyaMist  Where did you add the examples to?

by "examples" I mean the examples used by Voice.suttacentral.net. We add examples to https://github.com/ebt-site/ebt-data/tree/published/examples
Examples connect suttas mnemonically, allowing us to recall particular suttas with a few key words. This facilitates practice and study.

It is crucial because it is one of the 4 primary fears necessary for proper motivation.

“Mendicants, there are these four fears. What four? The fears of guilt, shame, punishment, and going to a bad place.
And what, mendicants, is the fear of rebirth in a bad place? It’s when someone reflects: ‘Bad conduct of body, speech, or mind has a bad result in the next life. If I were to do such bad things, when my body breaks up, after death, I’d be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’ Being afraid of rebirth in a bad place, they give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of rebirth in a bad place. - AN 4.121

It is most fundamental to how The Buddha trained people;

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.' - Kesi Sutta

Being without this fear is closest to trying to train without fear of shame, guilt or any fear of punishment. What do you think, is it important?
Added;

that the Buddha doesn't teach what the universe is like, but rather about the mind.

These can not be separated because The Buddha clearly taught about the origin on the world as well as mind eg DN27 Genesis.
The whole notion of escaping samsara without rebirth is pointless without rebirth because one can just wait to die as death makes equal.

In the famous Parable of the Raft, the Dharma, as well as that which is not the Dharma, is something that is discarded at the far shore. The Dharma is for crossing, not for clinging. Some, when they hear that the Dharma is for crossing and not for clinging, wish to discard their raft so as to not cling to it. What is your raft? The teachings of the Buddha are your raft. The threefold training is your raft. The eightfold path is your raft.
If we discard the "view" that there is a threefold training, if we discard the training before the crossing, then how will the raftless swimmer cross, rhetorically speaking? The point of the Parable of the Raft is not to swim raftless to the far shore. Swimming raftless, swimming "Dharma-less," swimming "viewless" isn't presented as a possible solution to the problem posed by the parable, namely the problem of a "great expanse of water" that is "dubious & risky" at the near shore (from MN 22 as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro). The raft is needed in the parable because forgoing it is simply not a viable option. Otherwise, IMO the point of the parable becomes obscured.
This addresses the issue of "all views" and whether we need to discard "all views" in order to reach the far shore. The Parable of the Raft, to the extent that it can be construed to refer to dropping "all views," has this happen once the far shore has already been reached.
What about other views?

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

(Mahācattārīsakasutta MN 117 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
What about in the Abyākatasutta, where spiritual progress is associated with "the cessation of views" ("diṭṭhinirodhā")?

Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn’t arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues. The view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t exist after death’: The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern view, doesn’t discern the origination of view, doesn’t discern the cessation of view, doesn’t discern the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view, discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view, discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

(Abyākatasutta AN 7.54 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
This sutta, complete with its section on the "cessation of view," is dealing with particular views ceasing. In particular, it deals with four views that it outlines in the body of the sutta. 1) That ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ 2) that ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ 3) ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after death,’ and 4) ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t exist after death.’ It is due to the cessation of these views that "uncertainty doesn't arise," to use the language from the sutta directly. So we can see that the Abyākatasutta does not actually instruct the followers of the Buddha to abandon all views in toto, including the right ones. This is, however, a common way to read the sutta in my experience even if it is mistaken IMO.

So are you implying that karma and rebirth do not exist or even function but are just tools that the Buddha used to encourage people to seek liberation?

No. I think that karma and rebirth are what the Buddha sought to end. I think that those Buddhists who insist that we must discard all views before engaging in any Buddhist training are putting the cart before the horse.


text:
Why Moggallana suffered from past karma effects, but Angulimala did not?
Aṅgulimāla and Moggallāna both were Arhants. Aṅgulimāla killed 999. Moggallāna killed his parents in a past life. Only Moggallāna had to face karma?
Moggallāna was killed by being cut into pieces, whereas there is no story of much suffering concerning Angulimāla. What is the difference?

Aṅgulimāla and Moggallāna both were Arhants. Aṅgulimāla killed 999. Moggallāna killed his parents in a past life. Only Moggallāna had to face karma?

The act of killing one's own parents was so heinous that it ranks right up there in the same gravity as killing an Arahant and shedding the blood of a Buddha. Refer to the Anantarika-Kamma for further details.

There is some circumstantial evidence that Venerable Aṅgulimāla was deeply hated even after his going-forth into the Dharma.

Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes
and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now
at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the
body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a
potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven.
Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl
broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to
him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that
would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years,
many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

(Aṅgulimālasutta MN 86 as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
Venerable Maudgalyāyana was murdered by brigands. It is possible that the Buddha would look at that event and also say, like he said of the assault on Ven Aṅgulimāla : "The fruit of the kamma that would have burned [Ven Maudgalyāyana] in hell for many thousands of years, he experienced in the here-&-now!" It's possible. It's also speculation.

I have heard different classifications of Karma from my Teachers. One such classification goes like the following:

Garuka Karma - produces results in the current life or the next for sure. If the karma in question is a bad one, there are five immediate effective karma (pancanantariya karma): killing mother, killing father, killing an Arahant, intentional wounding of Buddha and creation of schism among Sangha. Permanent scepticism (Niyata Micchaditthi) is also regarded as a garuka karma.
Asanna Karma - Karma which one does or remembers immediately before the moment of passing away. This kind of karma will play a major part in determining the next birth.
Aachinna Karma - Things we habitually perform and/or recollects; for which, one likes the most.
Katatta Karma - Any karma that cannot be included in the above categories along with the actions which were soon forgotten are placed in this category.

Remember all classifications apply to both good and bad karma (even Ananthariya karma). Above is not the only classification of Karma.
If you look at the classification, by killing the parents Moggallāna thero had committed a Garuka Karma in previous life which falls to the Ananthariya karma category. It is said to be, that there is no escape from an Ananthariya Karma.

There is no difference.
Both of them "had to face karma", just as all of us have to experience the results of past kamma.
Being arahants, however, they only had to experience the results of the kamma they had created up to the point where they attained arahantship.
Nevertheless, just as we're all conditioned differently based on our individual past kamma, they too were conditioned differently — this is where the difference lies.
In Aṅgulimāla's case, having been a murderer, he had to bear with getting things thrown on him during his almsround — it's just that he didn't die from that particular kammic result. But whenever he did die, though, he did "face kamma" (his very last kammic result) just as Moggallāna would have.


text:
How to understand lay equanimity from MN 137?
MN 137 discusses the six sense fields.
How can we understand lay equanimity with respect to the six sense fields?
For sights, lay equanimity arises for an uneducated ordinary layperson but such equanimity does not transcend the sight, and that's why it's called lay equanimity - says the sutta.
What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity?

And in this context what are the six kinds of lay equanimity? When
seeing a sight with the eye, equanimity arises for the uneducated
ordinary person—a foolish ordinary person who has not overcome their
limitations and the results of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks.
Such equanimity does not transcend the sight. That’s why it’s called
lay equanimity. When hearing a sound with the ear … When smelling an
odor with the nose … When tasting a flavor with the tongue … When
feeling a touch with the body … When knowing a thought with the mind,
equanimity arises for the uneducated ordinary person—a foolish
ordinary person who has not overcome their limitations and the results
of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. Such equanimity does not
transcend the thought. That’s why it’s called lay equanimity. These
are the six kinds of lay equanimity.
MN 137

What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity?

The outward appearance of equanimity based on household life vs. based on renunciation would probably look the same: calmness, composure, unswayed, etc.. The inner power that drives such behavior is different. In the lay equanimity, it lacks the contemplative insight, hence the wisdom, into the true nature of conditioned phenomena. And that's why it's still limited and has not transcended the sensory objects that come into range. While the renunciated kind possesses the insight element, hence the wisdom to transcend forms as described in the next paragraph:

“Herein, what are the six kinds of equanimity based on renunciation? When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away, and cessation of forms, one sees as it actually is with proper wisdom that forms both formerly and now are all impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, equanimity arises. Such equanimity as this transcends the form; that is why it is called equanimity based on renunciation.


text:
Why is it called "Nama" as in namarupam?'
Nama, as in namarupa, the designation
of 'feeling, perception, attention, intention & contact', why do they call these 'Nama'?
Some clues or points to keep in mind;

intention (cetana) is kamma

six classes of intention are sankhara

sankhara fabricates the conditioned

contact has 6 sense media as cause

feeling, perception and sankhara are 'aggregates', are conjoined & are conjoined with 'consciousness' aggregate

4 aggregates have objects

3 aggregates always accompany consciousness

consciousness arises as one thing and ceases as another

same consciousness doesn't go from one life to another

consciousness is said to be inbetween two ends, 'form' on one end and 'name' on the other end

both 'the eye' and 'the form visible by the eye' are included under 'form [rupa]'

consciousness meeting rupa is a meeting of the three, is 'contact'

feeling is born of contact

feeling is requisite for craving

everything comes into being through attention

with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be

with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be

from sankhara as a requisite condition comes consciousness

sankhara has ignorance for cause

rupa isn't always generated as in arupajhana, formless perception attainment

What a exellent collection to contemplate togather

Name refers to mind and form refers to body. Together, name-and-form refers to the mind-body system, according to SN 12.2.
The body is called form because it is a form and also because it is the form-sensor.
The mind is called name because it is the name-assigner or namer. It assigns name to the sensed form and then forms intentions on it.
So name(-assigner) and form(-sensor) describe mind and body by their functions.
Of course, this is my deduction and I don't have sutta references to support this.

It's a difficult question that i'll sleep on for a while but i do have some thoughts as well

it seems to me that 'nama' names as consciousness cognizes, it names things therefore it is called 'name'.

If we have 'vinnana' & 'rupa [eg eye & visible form]' on one side and 'nama' on the other side, then we can see that one side does the meeting and the other side names this meeting 'contact', it names 'feeling' born of contact as 'feeling' & etc.

I can see a person's form with the eye, i can hear their voice with the ear, iow i can know a person's form by means of my form.

On the other hand i can only know by 'name' due inference the feelings, contact, perception, intention & attention of another, these things are invisible & untangible to me, like a person's name eg 'Adam' is not tangible like the visible form of the body.
In this sense a person is then merely that which one knows by name and that which one knows otherwise.
As to why those exact terms for 'nama' and why cetana & manasikara instead of sankhara. I think this should be possible to deduct but i haven't gone that deep and it's not essential obviously.

In my opinion, it is called 'nama-rupa' because it was a certain term from the Samaveda (later called the Chandogya Upanishad) the Buddha decided required debunking & redefining.
In the Chandogya Upanishad, there is the great deity that exercises their will/intention to  multiply the three basic deities of earth, fire & water into a multitude of names & forms. The impression is the Buddha took this superstitious notion & used it to describe a certain reality when intention gives attention to the basic three sankharas (in Dependent Origination) and decides to multiply their presence & impact by pursing them via the six sense bases.
The Buddha was not concerned with literal 'name' or 'naming'. The Buddha was concerned with ending craving. Too many Buddhists, such as Katukurunde Nyanananda, engage/d in too much papanca about 'nama-rupa'.

nama = name
nama (following) = mental element which could tend to do it's duty on an object.
nama (is followed by) = nibbana

Could you explain what is meant by 'follow' in this sense

It's tending to the object to do it's duty on an object like a boy follow a butterfly to catch it. But Nibbana is tended by Nama to done Namas' duties on Nibbana-object.
Because Vinnana is Mano, which is like  the leader and the Nama is a follower of that Vinnana, Mano. https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001


text:
What would be some very concise Buddhist teachings and symbols that could be on (future) coinage?
Say some (silver, non-governmental) Buddhist themed coinage wanted to be made, what would be some signs/symbols (other than the Buddha in human(like) form) to include, as well as some concise and fundamental teachings? Links, especially to images, are appreciated. I was thinking: he who sees the Dhamma sees me, he who sees me sees the Dhamma; do good, don't do evil, purify the mind; and the Ashoka pillar edicts. (Also, please modify or correct any of the aforementioned as they are from memory and may be faulty and/or improved upon)

The Dhamma cakka and the foot print of Lord Budhdha was used as a symbol to worship Lord Budhdha before the statues were made.

The Lotus is a popular image -- apparently, according to that Translator's note, with slightly different meanings for different schools.
Another is the Bodhi Tree.
An image of a "finger pointing at the moon" might be concise enough to fit on a coin.
I guess the most concise textual summary is "dukkhanirodha".

The wheel of life Or as already stated the wheel of dharma.

It's a bit long, maybe more suitable for paper money than a coin, but I would go with this section of the gāthā from the Andhasutta.

His wealth is acquired by his own exertion,
with goods righteously gained.
With best intentions he then gives,
this person with an undivided mind.

(Andhasutta AN 3.29 as translated by Venerable Bodhi)

Please see AccessToInsight's Index of Similes. There are plenty to choose  from.
The Dhammachakka or Dharmachakra is the most popular symbol associated with the Buddhism, representing the Noble Eightfold Path.
The island representing refuge in the Dhamma (DN 16) is a good symbol.
The raft (Dhamma) leading to the far shore (Nibbana) is also a good symbol.
There are more like the lotus (untouched by the world), rhinoceros (representing solitude in renunciation), thoroughbred horse (arahant), handful of Simsapa leaves (Dhamma), elephant and the blind men, mountain of solid rock (arahant), swans (arahant), turner or lathe (mindfulness), spoon in soup (foolishness) etc.
The Index of Similes will give you the references.


text:
source of put fence & plant seeds & pull weed simile (for avoid bad & do good & purify the mind)?
I heard the famous Dhammapada's 183: “Not to do any evil, to cultivate good, to purify one’s mind, this is the teaching of the Buddhas.” tractated metaphorically as what one needs to do to have a beautiful garden: it must be protected from bad plants by a fence (not doing bad, precepts, etc), good seeds must be planted (cultivating kindness, generosity etc) and weed must be pulled (purifying the mind through meditation).
Is this a classical simile which can be attributed to a source, or a meme of unknown origin? If it can be attributed, where does it come from?

Cultivate very naturally tends to be associated with the idea of nurturing or gardening. Such associated words - associated through similarity of ideas- have a host of similes, metaphors and analogies associated to them. There is no ONE simile to which it can be directly attributed. In Dhammapada itself, you will find this in more than one places. Buddha has used this available connection in the language of the masses to speak about certain things depending on context.

A side-track but I wondered what Pali word is translated "cultivate".
It's translated as cultivate in this edition whose Preface says that it's edited by a Committee of 11.
Here is Ven. Sujato's translation ("embrace"):

Not to do any evil;
Sabbapāpassa akaraṇaṁ,
to embrace the good;
kusalassa upasampadā;

Here is the dictionary definition:

upasampadā

taking, acquiring; obtaining, taking upon oneself, undertaking DN.ii.49; MN.i.93; AN.iii.65; Dhp.183 (cp. Dhp-a.iii.236) Ne.44 (kusalassa).
(in special sense) taking up the bhikkhuship, higher ordination, admission to the privileges of recognized bhikkhus

So according to that definition it is "taking up, in the way that you 'take up' ordination".
I'm not sure where "embrace" comes from.
The dictionary word says the word is from upa + saṃ + pad -- so I don't see how it came to mean "take" -- from its components I would have guessed it means something like "near/close path" -- which might make more sense in the second sense, i.e. ordination.

There's a different analogy in the suttas, arguably a better one.
It's about the purification of gold with coarse, medium and fine filtering.

“There are these gross impurities in gold: dirty sand, gravel, & grit.
The dirt-washer or his apprentice, having placed [the gold] in a vat,
washes it again & again until he has washed them away.
“When he is rid of them, there remain the moderate impurities in the
gold: coarse sand & fine grit. He washes the gold again & again until
he has washed them away.
“When he is rid of them, there remain the fine impurities in the gold:
fine sand & black dust. The dirt-washer or his apprentice washes the
gold again & again until he has washed them away.
“When he is rid of them, there remains just the gold dust. The
goldsmith or his apprentice, having placed it in a crucible, blows on
it again & again to blow away the dross. The gold, as long as it has
not been blown on again & again to the point where the impurities are
blown away, as long as it is not refined & free from dross, is not
pliant, malleable, or luminous. It is brittle and not ready to be
worked. But there comes a time when the goldsmith or his apprentice
has blown on the gold again & again until the dross is blown away. The
gold, having been blown on again & again to the point where the
impurities are blown away, is then refined, free from dross, pliant,
malleable, & luminous. It is not brittle, and is ready to be worked.
Then whatever sort of ornament he has in mind—whether a belt, an
earring, a necklace, or a gold chain—the gold would serve his purpose.
“In the same way, there are these gross impurities in a monk intent on
heightened mind: misconduct in body, speech, & mind. These the
monk—aware & able by nature—abandons, dispels, wipes out of existence.
When he is rid of them, there remain in him the moderate impurities:
thoughts of sensuality, ill will, & harmfulness. These he abandons,
dispels, wipes out of existence. When he is rid of them there remain
in him the fine impurities: thoughts of his caste, thoughts of his
home district, thoughts related to not wanting to be despised. These
he abandons, dispels, wipes out of existence.
“When he is rid of them, there remain only thoughts of the Dhamma. His
concentration is neither calm nor refined, it has not yet attained
serenity or unity, and is kept in place by the fabrication of forceful
restraint.
AN 3.101

Here is Ven. Sujato's translation:

Not to do any evil;
Sabbapāpassa akaraṇaṁ,
to embrace the good;
kusalassa upasampadā;

The Pali word 'kusala' includes the word 'kusa', which is a type of grass.
Importantly, kusa grass is a type of grass that can cut the hand. The Dhammapada says:

When kusa grass is wrongly grasped
Kuso yathā duggahito,
it only cuts the hand.
hatthamevānukantati;
So too, the ascetic life, when wrongly taken,
Sāmaññaṁ dupparāmaṭṭhaṁ,
drags you to hell.
nirayāyupakaḍḍhati.
Dhp 311

Therefore, contrary to what appears to be Sujato's antithetical translation of "embrace", the relevant Pali word "upasampadā" appears to mean "perfect" or "attain skill" or "handle with skill". It appears to mean to cultivate "the grass" or "the good" so the intention to do good does not lead to one's own harm. Again, the Dhammapada makes this clear, when it says:

Never neglect your own good
Attadatthaṁ paratthena,
for the sake of another, however great. bahunāpi na hāpaye;
Knowing well what’s good for you,
Attadatthamabhiññāya,
be intent upon your true goal.
sadatthapasuto siyā.
Attavagga

Also, SN 12.63 is about how the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as follows:

And how is the nutriment of intellectual intention to be regarded?
Suppose there were a pit of glowing embers, deeper than a man's
height, full of embers that were neither flaming nor smoking, and a
man were to come along — loving life, hating death, loving pleasure,
abhorring pain — and two strong men, having grabbed him by the arms,
were to drag him to the pit of embers. To get far away would be that
man's intention, far away would be his wish, far away would be his
aspiration. Why is that? Because he would realize, 'If I fall into
this pit of glowing embers, I will meet with death from that cause, or
with death-like pain.' In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment
of intellectual intention to be regarded. When the nutriment of
intellectual intention is comprehended, the three forms of craving
[for sensuality, for becoming, and for non-becoming] are comprehended.
When the three forms of craving are comprehended, I tell you, there is
nothing further for a disciple of the noble ones to do.

If we struggle to understand the above & particularly why 'upasampadā" does not mean to 'embrace' [with lust] the grass that, when the ascetic life, when wrongly taken, drags you to hell, Sujato's latest wokevangelical offering to the world of worldlings makes this perfectly clear.

In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must
be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not
something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures
in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental
component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature,
of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal
institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women,
yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women
from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address
this deeply irrational male anxiety.
On the gandhabba and male anxiety

We can also notice how Sujato's worldling wokevangelical offering above arguably contains the wrong view of denying mother & father, per MN 117.
In summary, Dhp 183 suggests to cultivate the grass to ensure one is not cut by the grass.

According to the dictionary the derivation of kusala is uncertain, but I guess kusa (grass) is just a homophone, unrelated.

Being "uncertain" does not make your comment certain. Kusaḷa (कुसळ).—n The beard, awn, or bristles of grains and grasses. v bōca, śira, lāga, aḍaka, mōḍa. Pr. dusaṛyācē ḍōḷyāntalēṃ ku0 (disatēṃ) āpalyā ḍōḷyāntalēṃ musaḷa (disata nāhīṃ). Matt. vii. 3 https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kushala

I think kuśala (happy) and kusaḷa (bristles of grains) are different words though with similar Romanized spelling -- same alphabetic spelling so they're together in the Latin-alphabet dictionary, but they have different accents on the letters so they're pronounced differently.

Maybe it was some kind of pun though in the original.


text:
Can a married man have sex with a prostitute without breaking the third precept?
I tried to find the answer and looked into theses questions on the site
The Third Precept and Prostitution
Buddhist attitude towards prostitution and non-procreative sexual activity
How is sexual misconduct explained in regards to the five precepts?
But I couldn't find the exact answer. So hope this is not a duplicate.
The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

The explanation I have heard regarding the third precept is for men to avoid having sex with certain types (20 types) of women. So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.

And that's the problem isn't it, the problem with seeing prostitutes is that there's no way for you, the client to verify with 100% certainty that the girl he's seeing does not fall into one of those 20 prohibited types! Quite often is the case that the girl is either under-age, or barely met the age requirement, already betrothed, married, or being victim of sex-trafficking industry and had to provide the service against her will, etc. So whenever there's uncertainty, it'd be better to err on the safe side by finding a legit. partner to engage in a legit relationship.

Thank you for the answer. If the prostitutes' background can be verified then it doesn't break the third precept?

@ETHER, well, if the background check has been conducted by some trusted authority beyond any shadow of doubt that she is not part of any of those prohibited types, then technically it won't break the 3rd. However, I'll have to remind you that the spirit of the precepts are there to aspire and elevate one toward more noble evolutions, not something to be looked into for technicality loophole to skirt around. That's kinda defeat the whole purpose..

Thanks Yes, I understand that the desire to have sex blocks the path to nirvana. I'm just figuring out in case if the desire peaks how to at least avoid breaking the precept. But yeah I should be more focused on getting rid of the desire.

Wikipedia's Prostitution in Thailand says,

Buddhism in Thailand is largely of the Theravada school, which is followed by 95 percent of the population. "While Buddhism regards the celibate monastic life as the higher ideal, it also recognizes the importance of marriage as a social institution." Thai Buddhism encourages adherence to the fundamental code of Buddhist ethics for the laity. The Five Precepts contains an admonishment against sexual misconduct, although what constitutes misconduct from the perspective of a particular school of Buddhism varies widely depending on the local culture. In the traditional Pāli Canon, the Sigālovāda Sutta contains a large section which advises men on honoring their wives by remaining faithful.
In the book Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, Kevin Bales argues that in Thai Buddhism, women are viewed as naturally inferior to men, and that Buddha told his disciples that women were "impure, carnal, and corrupting." This is also supported by the belief that women cannot attain enlightenment, although this view is disputed by other Buddhist scriptures such as the Vinaya Pitaka in the Pali Canon.  The current Dalai Lama has asserted that women can attain enlightenment and function as equals to men in spiritual matters, but his branch of Buddhism is not the one practised in Thailand, which has its own particular canon of beliefs. Bales also points to the fact that ten kinds of wives are outlined in the Vinaya, or rules for monks. In the rules, the first three categories are women who can be paid for their services. In present-day Thailand, this is expressed as tolerance of prostitution by married women. Sex with prostitutes is viewed by wives as "empty sex", and thus women may allow their husbands to have meaningless sex with prostitutes rather than find a new spouse.

See also what it says about Social views in its section for "Reasons for prevalence and toleration".
So my understanding is that a married man going to a prostitute doesn't break the third precept. Please explain if this is correct or not.
Apparently you are not the only person to argue that.
It's a doctrine that seems to me to be far from the ideal I read in Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune (AN 4.55) -- or this answer about an ideal partner.
The question may be a false dichotomy -- arguing that if "sexual conduct" isn't with "one of the 20 types of women" then it is "not misconduct" and therefore "correct" -- I am not sure that's reliable advice.
MN 22 for example suggests that advice might be a 'heresy' that's contrary to the Buddha's doctrine. Of course that sutta (as with a lot of Buddhist doctrine) is principally for monks. But maybe the doctrine (the Dhamma in the suttas) is universally true, even if the discipline (the Vinaya) is only undertaken by monks.
But even among lay-people there are "faithful" followers of the Buddha -- your not being a monk allows marriage and so on, I'm not sure it's also meant to encourage seeking sex with prostitutes.

Thank you very much for the answer. I understand that the desire to have sex blocks the path to nirvana.  "I'm not sure it's also meant to encourage seeking sex with prostitutes" means it doesn't break the third precept but better avoid it?

DN 33 Commentary of 10 Akusalakammapathadasaka:
There are 2 kinds of 20 types of women, 8 by birth and 12 by agreement.
Breaking 3rd precept is for every man who having sex with 8 born-to-be-womens.
Breaking 3rd precept is for out-agreement-man who having sex with 12 in-agreement-women.
So, according to the question:

Can a married man have sex with a prostitute without breaking the third precept?

Yes, if his wife agrees with him to have sex with a prostitute.

Thank you for the answer. "if his wife agrees with him" where is this part mentioned in Dhamma?

In a link above. And you can see the translation here.  However, some are mistake, such as the ninth is engaged or married, not pregnant. You can see the 9 to 20 are about agreement.

That explains only the agreement from the sexual right owner of that particular woman. Not the agreement with the wife of the man who is going to have sex with a prositute, right?

The ownership is depending on the law at particular time and place, so in 2rd Parajika the Buddha asked the king for the law before making of 2rd Parajika. In most democracy countries at our time, woman has her ownership in her freedom, so an agreement of her must included as one condition of the judgement because she and her husband are making the agreement of marriage/engagement before having sex with prostitute. Otherwise, the judgement will not compartible with the real ownership at this time.

Let's say yes, but then again that is for the prostitute side, right? She is the one who should other parties ownership, she is the one that would be breaking the third precept?

No, It's male side. He doesn't break 3rd precept because of breaking agreement, he break 3rd precept because of having sex with 20 kinds of woman, which 12 in 20 being in her agreement with other man, actually. Another, breaking agreement could be 2nd, 3rd, 4th precept.

yeah so if the prostitute doesn't belong to that 20 types means it won't break the third precept even the man is married right?

Yes. however, a man break the 4th precept instead because of breaking promise which made with his girlfriend.

Got it thanks. Do you like to edit the answer accordingly?

I re-decide it as 3rd precept because  a monk breaks 1st vinaya-rule because that monk breaks an agreement with Sangha whether everyone's mounth/ass hole/pussy are his  forbidden objects to put his penis in/on/at. The 1st  vinaya-rule is almost similar to the 3rd precept. So, a married man break 3rd precept because he break an agreement with his wife whether  every other's bodies are his  forbidden objects to touch sexually. All others'bodies can included in 12 kinds actually as "saparidanda (the 10th)" because all others'bodies are protected by the nowadays-law from a married man.

While I cannot site chapter and verse of the Suttas, but in my heart, for me the answer to this question is a strong no.  There is no true way to know if any prostitute is having sex under duress.  Also regardless of “allowing”by wives in certain countries the possibility of real harm is there.  STDs, pregnancy, emotional harm to any and all involved.

Can a married man have sex with a prostitute without breaking the third precept?

I think the Third Precept is put in place to avoid that exact situation of infidelity.

Thank you for the answer. Can you please elaborate more?

Take note of what it will do to the man who sees the prostitute (in the order of immediateness):

Financial Loss.
Loss of chances to treat his family right.
Risk of contracting diseases.
Increasing of thanha in the mind.
Risk of becoming a habit. Things we habitually do creates karma that are categorized as Achinna Karma. These are taken from one lifetime to another. So, there is a risk of repeating the same behavior. Achinna karma if remembered on the death bed will become Asanna Karma which in turn result being born in debasing places.
Definite action that will make the samsara longer.

If one can't live according to the five basic guidelines given by Lord Budhdha, can you call him/her a Buddhist?

Thank you for the answer and the points highlighted. "five basic guidelines given by Lord Buddha, can you call him/her a Buddhist?" Does this mean your interpretation is that
a married man having sex with a prostitute breaks the third precept?

The precepts were put in place to create the basic foundation for the layman to make the journey towards Nirvana. These precepts will act as a basic safety net for the disciple so they can move practice higher, much difficult practices. Anything that makes the samsara long will break the objective, hence break the basic precepts.

In the Pali canon, sensual (or sexual) misconduct as one of the five precepts is defined as:

He misconducts himself in sensual pleasures; he has intercourse with
women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father,
brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected
by law, and even with those who are garlanded in token of betrothal.
MN 41

So for lay persons, it is more about adultery, infidelity, and a sensual relationship outside of a committed exclusive relationship (or marriage) with a free consenting adult (of legal age), rather than a specific sexual practice or fetish.
So, what's bad about sexual misconduct? What is the consequence that is to be avoided?

The minimum result it (sexual misconduct) leads to for a human being
is rivalry and enmity.
AN 8.40

And what is the purpose of virtue?

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
AN 11.1

Remorse typically comes from harming others in a way that you would not like to be done to you (Ud 5.1).
So, based on this, I would say using the services of a prostitute, without the consent of one's spouse or long term committed partner, violates this precept, as it may cause animosity with one's spouse and the betrayal of their trust, and result in remorse for the one who sought the services of the prostitutes.
Basically, if you would feel violated when your spouse or long term partner would use the services of a sex worker without your consent, then you should not do the same to your partner.


text:
How does Piti relate to Jhana?
I am able to experience Piti Specifically the "weak rapture" mentioned in this wiki page, that causes me to have full bodily bliss and itself causes piloerection (goose bumps)
I am able to do this at will without sitting in a meditation session, normally only when I am on my own but am able to do it while around others.
There is no object or meditation object I focus on to evoke this feeling, just the presence in my being, no thought, as well as I am able to do this with my eyes open or closed, normally closed.
I am trying to find out how this relates to Jhana and what is its use, this wiki page is vague of course, though I know Piti is also a bojhangha
Meaning a perquisite factor to liberation.

The fourth enlightenment factor is piti, rapture or happiness. This, too, is a mental property (cetasika) and is a quality which suffuses both the body and mind. The man lacking in this quality cannot proceed along the path to enlightenment. There will arise in him a sullen indifference to the dhamma, an aversion to the practice of meditation, and morbid manifestations. It is, therefore, very necessary that a man striving to attain enlightenment and final deliverance from the fetters of samsara, that repeated wandering, should endeavor to cultivate the all-important factor of happiness. No one can bestow on another the gift of happiness; each one has to build it up by effort, reflection, and concentrated activity. As happiness is a thing of the mind it should be sought not in external and material things though they may in a small way be instrumental.

I use Piti for when I feel mentally weak or sorrow from existence. Though I do not really know "what" it is or how I have cultivated this or how I am able to do this.
From some things I have read before it has indicated that it IS a by-product or a part of a jhanic state, which would mean I have (somehow) attained at least the first Jhana but I do not feel this to be correct as I am not really skilled in formal meditation.
Just to add, a few times in my youth when I would retreat into myself in times of great sorrow I was able to experience a feeling like piti that gave bliss but it was in no way as strong as I am able to feel now.
Any opinions or understanding on what this is would be very much appreciated.

You can find some info in the Rapture (piti) section of "The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana:

Rapture (piti)
The third factor present in the first jhana is piti, usually
translated as joy or rapture. In the suttas piti is sometimes said
to arise from another quality called pamojja, translated as joy or
gladness, which springs up with the abandonment of the five
hindrances. When the disciple sees the five hindrances abandoned in
himself "gladness arises within him; thus gladdened, rapture arises in
him; and when he is rapturous his body becomes tranquil" (D.i,73).
Tranquillity in turn leads to happiness, on the basis of which the
mind becomes concentrated. Thus rapture precedes the actual arising of
the first jhana, but persists through the remaining stages up to the
third jhana.
The Vibhanga defines piti as "gladness, joy, joyfulness, mirth,
merriment, exultation, exhilaration, and satisfaction of mind" (Vbh.
257). The commentaries ascribe to it the characteristic of endearing,
the function of refreshing the body and mind or pervading with
rapture, and the manifestation as elation (Vism.143; PP.149). Shwe Zan
Aung explains that "piti abstracted means interest of varying
degrees of intensity, in an object felt as desirable or as calculated
to bring happiness."
When defined in terms of agency, piti is that which creates interest
in the object; when defined in terms of its nature it is the interest
in the object. Because it creates a positive interest in the object,
the jhana factor of rapture is able to counter and suppress the
hindrance of ill will, a state of aversion implying a negative
evaluation of the object.
Rapture is graded into five categories: minor rapture, momentary
rapture, showering rapture, uplifting rapture and pervading rapture.
Minor rapture is generally the first to appear in the progressive
development of meditation; it is capable of causing the hairs of the
body to rise. Momentary rapture, which is like lightning, comes next
but cannot be sustained for long. Showering rapture runs through the
body in waves, producing a thrill but without leaving a lasting
impact. Uplifting rapture, which can cause levitation, is more
sustained but still tends to disturb concentration, The form of
rapture most conductive to the attainment of jhana is all-pervading
rapture, which is said to suffuse the whole body so that it becomes
like a full bladder or like a mountain cavern inundated with a mighty
flood of water. The Visuddhimagga states that what is intended
by the jhana factor of rapture is this all-pervading rapture "which
is the root of absorption and comes by growth into association with
absorption" (Vism.144; PP.151)

Pīti is frequently misunderstood.
(disclosure, my notes, my website)
https://lucid24.org/sted/7sb/4piti/index.html
In short, pīti as a jhāna factor and as one of the 7 awakening factors is the same exact thing. All 7 awakening factors are independent, can be done in any combination in any of the 4 jhānas and in any posture. Whatever physical bliss you experience is not actually pīti itself, but an effect of it.
Pīti, like pamojjaa, is mental. In general, pīti is caused by the mental joy that arises when one is contemplating Dhamma thoughts, most notably the thought, "I can abide in bliss because my conduct is pure, my mind is clean, and I diligently exercise right effort and right mindfulness in purifying my mind at all times."
The physical joy, would fall under sukha, the direct byproduct of passaddhi / pacification awakening factor. That can be directly caused by pīti, or one can directly under the samādhi without vitakka (thinking) by simply relaxing (passaddhi/pacification) the body at any time, any posture.
Detail of passaddhi and getting into first jhāna here: (disclosure, my notes, my site)
https://lucid24.org/sted/7sb/5passaddhi/index.html

Pīti means (mental) satisfied/"released", caused by renouncing-joy (withdraw from the cause of Dukkha, at first from holding on Sense-objects), effecting calm/stillness... with it sukha... by it unification/samadhi/going on/Jhana... seeing as it really works/does, ... disgust... non-desire ... release.
The lokuttara paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent co-arising of the path) is on and on displayed in the various ways and levels of the training, path.
In any case, Saddha/Sila, surrender (seeing the four Noble truth), will act as the basic for all to come a long by it's given cause.
Train Jhana for one not complete the first stage, Sila, doubtlessness, would neither, for the most, be Jhana nor would it lead toward the path. Hearing (reminded on) the Dhamma and proper attention causes right view.
Right effort, even if on the path, turn around the required causes: right view, right intent, right Sila/lifelihood. One Sila is rightly complete, joy (with oneself without faults) may be near to gain, when ever there is an opening.
Factors of awakening are total out of reach for one who has not attained stream.
First steps to gain a little bit of renouncing-joy, teaser if still not good in moral-virtue, is by making gifts, sacrifices toward those worthy for such (people with metta, Sila, Noble Ones). At least absence of stinginess of the five kinds, and absence of ingratitude, are requirements for Jhana and possible paths and fruits.
Very very unlikely that a stingy "modern Buddhist" will ever reach Jhana.


text:
Buddhism Open Activities for all communities
I am not sure this post is appropriate.

Pindacāra, the practice of collecting alms-food, is observed by Theravada Buddhist monks who have gone forth from ‘home-life’ to ‘homelessness’. A Buddhist monk is known in Pāli Language as a ‘bhikkhu’ – meaning ‘one who lives on alms’.
In Buddhist countries such as Thailand and Myanmar, it is a daily ritual for monks to go on Pindacāra, where they walk through a village from one household to another, allowing devotees to make food offerings.
Q) Why it mentions all are welcome except Muslim? I understand some non halal food served in between of the activities. What would be the right wording so it's sound better but deliver the same message?

Bhikku - means Bhawa + Kshaya. Someone who is reducing 'bhawa'. If Bhikku means 'one who lives on alms' that would encompass anyone who lives on alms and most of the homeless community. Your definition is wrong.

@Sampath i did copy paste from here. Perhaps u can report to them. Sadhu. https://www.nalanda.org.my/pindacara-going-on-alms-round/

Your question is valid, and you thought it is related to Buddhism, but actually it's not.
In some Muslim majority countries like Malaysia, it is illegal to proselytize or convert Muslims to other religions, or cause them to apostatize. Due to this, when non-Muslim religious and/or spiritual organizations organize public events, they would add "For non-Muslims only" to their posters, as a formality.
The same applies to businesses selling products and services that are considered to be in conflict with Islam, like casinos, lotteries and yoga lessons.
There is nothing in Buddhism that restricts the lay participation of non-Buddhists in Buddhist events.

I checked with Malaysian Muslim NGO (Non Profit Organization). If event like giving free food can label with "Non Halal Food Provided, For Halal Food Please contact ### for reservation instead of "For non Muslim Only" then get the Muslim NGO join the event too. The Muslim NGO better be a well known one. If anything happen, can look for that Muslim NGO first. It's not been easy in multi-racial country.

@littlestar Really? I found this news article which may be of interest to you.


text:
Is the Buddha advocating delighting in sensuality in SN 42.12?
There are a few questions I have about this Sutta (SN 42.12 Rasiya Sutta) based on the following passages:

They make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for praise.

They don’t make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for criticism.

Is the Buddha advocating delighting in sensuality here? If so is that not in line with the majority of what he teaches?

They enjoy that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks, and understanding the escape. This is the fourth ground for praise. This pleasure seeker may be praised on these four grounds.

How does someone enjoy sensual pleasures and yet be unattached to them?

In this case, the third self-mortifier may be criticized on one ground, and praised on two. What is the one ground for criticism? They mortify and torment themselves. This is the one ground for criticism. What are the two grounds for praise? They achieve a skillful quality. This is the first ground for praise. They realize a superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. This is the second ground for praise. This self-mortifier may be criticized on this one ground, and praised on two.

How does self mortification lead to a superhuman state and if so why is it praiseworthy?

"Making oneself happy and pleased" refers to Emotional Intelligence - maintaining one's mind in a positive state as opposed to cultivating a maimed and wounded condition.
This is the point I did not understand for many years of my Buddhist practice - that cultivating a positive, energized, confident state of mind is a critical piece of the Buddhist puzzle.
This is very different from pursuit of sensory pleasures. When you chase after sensory pleasures - you are either hungry and looking for more, or you are tired and exhausted from overindulging.
In contrast with that, Buddha is talking about being self-sufficient and stable.
In case of the householder that means cultivating a peaceful and harmonious environment (within one's control) and dwelling in that - which by itself is a kind of lay Buddhist practice.
For the ordained, that means being satisfied with the homeless life, and ultimately refers to the practice of the First Jhana and subsequent jhanas all the way to Liberation itself.

Since this sutta is not a short one, it's important to note the context: it basically distinguishes various types of householders along a graded scale of excellence, and the sutta also evaluates different types of ascetics using similar analysis. Ven. Bodhi's note in "Connected Discourses" citing Commentary's explanation:

Spk: The pursuit of sensual happiness is mentioned to show the types who enjoy sensual pleasure (II–III); the pursuit of self-mortification to show the ascetics (IV–V); the middle way to show the three types of wearing away (VI). What is the purpose in showing all this? The Tathagata, who attained perfect enlightenment by abandoning the two extremes and by following the middle way, does not criticize or praise all enjoyers of sensual pleasures or all ascetics. He criticizes those who deserve criticism and praises those who deserve praise.

So, the part where it says: "They make themselves happy and pleased" needs to be kept within the context of the householders's level, where enjoyment of the fruit of their labor thru lawful means and effort is a ground for praise, as opposed to making a living thru cheating or unlawful means would be a ground for criticism.
The part where it says the householder using his wealth without being tied to it indicates s/he's not stingy. Not only s/he appropriately uses their wealth for their own happiness, but also share it and do meritorious deeds that benefit many others too.
Regarding the part on self-mortification, the paragraph pretty much speaks for itself. The Buddha praises the parts where it needs to be praised while criticizes the part where it needs to be criticized.


text:
Vipassana meditation in day to day life
During meditation practice have seen thinking stops ,then for 2 or 3 minutes no thinking. What have experienced?is it the pure mind?

In Vipassana meditation, the primary focus centers on our own body and its various parts to cultivate detachment and alleviate desires related to the self. This meditation encourages a profound exploration, contemplating the impermanent and even repulsive aspects of the body. The objective is to comprehend that there is nothing permanent to cling to, as both our physical form and our soul undergo ceaseless change. This realization highlights the inevitability of change and mortality, applicable to all beings across all worlds. The ultimate goal of Vipassana meditation is to attain a deeper understanding of truth, relinquish attachment, and embark on the path to enlightenment.

No, it is not the pure mind (assuming of course you have a clear idea of what you mean when you use the label 'pure mind' along with the implications). What you experienced is that which you wrote- "...thinking stops, then for 2 or 3 minutes no thinking". In other words, what you have written at the beginning of your question is what you experienced.

Two parts of mind are experienced. One is thinking, other one is pop up without any involvement and very slow  in action. Are they javana citta and bavanga citta respectively?want to know what stage  the meditation  practice is?

@BuddhikaKitsiri- In my understanding, these aren't parts of mind. Rather, a better term would be that the mental states that you observed/experienced, were two different kinds of mental states. CItta is the sanskrit term for 'mind' (not brain, soul, etc.; mind). When it is used as cittas (in english), it refers usually to mental states. The two that you point out, are mental states. The two that you refer- javana' and 'bavanga' are very specific mental states (Buddha identifies 52 mental states which are important for reaching the end of the path; there are infinitely more mental states).

@BuddhikaKitsiri- Firstly, One can, as an example, maintain focus on object of meditation for say 10 minutes, without wavering. But more skilled meditator can do the same for an hour, say. Still more skilled meditator can maintain that attention for 10 hours, say. Yet more skilled and advanced meditators can 'go in' and 'come out' of these meditative states as and how they wish. It is not only having these mental states, or just being aware/mindful of them or maintain attention fir a few minutes. It is also the quality in terms of clarity and duration of those mental states.

@BuddhikaKitsiri- Secondly, and more importantly, the terms you have used are translated and understood slightly differently. Without knowing exactly how you are using them, I cannot be more precise with my own humble response to your query, to the best of my understanding