text:
self using intoxicants
i was reading the scripture Uninstructed
Assutavā Sutta  (SN 12:61):

“Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow
disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements,
might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why
is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down
of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent.

“But as for what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness,’ the
uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted
with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain
release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished,
appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
as, ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ Thus the
uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted
with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain
release from it.

this is difficult to apprehend.  i am not capable of willing myself to stop using intoxicants, so how does this dhamma make sense?  i will have to wait until i die to be released?  that's my interpretation...
what exactly grows dispassionate towards the body anyway?
EDIT:  THIS QUESTION MAKES VERY LITTLE SENSE...IT LACKS FOCUS.  IT CREATES CONFUSION WHERE THERE MIGHT BE NONE.  A BETTER APPROACH OR QUESTION WOULD BE 'HOW DOES A SELF-VIEW GENERATE VARIOUS PROBLEMS LIKE ADDICTION; BOTH PRECEDING THE ADDICTION, AND IN THE AFTERMATH?'

When you say, "i am not capable of willing myself to stop..." that's a declaration of intent. Action (karma) will follow. The etymology of the word "addict" is "to declare". It's from Latin, another useful dead language.

That’s not intent...I’m  commenting on my self situation

it is more like “why can’t I stop this?”

If I say, “I will stop this illicit behavior...” that would be a lie

Nobody can save me, not even the supreme Mara

Keep studying, keep learning, be truthful, be observant. It'll happen. Chill.

There are other posts about addiction on this site. And there is a Chat room, if you'd like to chat, personal conversation. But on this page i.e. the main site, try to answer the question that was asked, and be aware of the Help which says when and when not to comment. Comments under a question are normally if the question isn't clear and you want to ask someone to clarify it. If you want to reply it, then try to post an answer to the question asked, instead of only a comment.

If you think your own question lacks focus, why don't you fix it?

Moderators don't usually close a question, we were asked not to -- see Moderation policies for Questions.

i was reading the scripture
This answer mentioned:

I personally use ... Dharmafarer for in-depth analysis

There's an analysis there of many though not all suttas, including SN 12.61.
I'll quote here what it says about the bit you cited in the OP, but it's also worth reading it all -- it's not long, there are footnotes, and I find the careful formatting makes it easier to read, without missing details, but also seeing the structure:

The three graspings
The Assutava Sutta says that the uninstructed worldling may be able to regard the body with disgust
as its change and decay are clearly apparent, but not so in the case of the mind. He clings to the
mind, thinking, “This is mine (etam mama); this I am (eso’ham asmi); this is my self (eso me attā).”
The Saṁyutta Commentary calls them the three graspings (gāha) and explains them in terms of craving,
conceit and views.
The self is held to (ajjhosita) by being swallowed up by craving; it is owned (mamāyita) by being
owned by craving; and it is grasped (parāmaṭṭha) by being grasped through views.
“This is mine” (etam mama) is the grasp of craving (taṇhā,gāha);
“This I am” (eso’ham asmi) is the grasp of conceit (māna,gāha); and
“This is my self” (eso me attā) is the grasp of views (diṭṭhi,gāha).
“The grasp of craving” here includes the 108 thoughts of craving, (etc.)

I don't know how well you know all these terms and their contexts? What the Dhamma says about them?
In summary I think it's related to doctrines about anatta and "identity-view".
this is difficult to apprehend
Is it?
There are nearly two hundred topics tagged anatta on this site, maybe it is hard to pin down, or something.
i am not capable of willing myself to stop using intoxicants, so how does this dhamma make sense?
I'm not sure how that ("I am not capable of willing etc.") relates to the quote -- except that that topic is presumably a preoccupation, like a lens through which you see things. Like when I lost a loved one, that was my immediate experience of dukkha and the lens or context through which I read and applied the dhamma.
Re. the phrase in the title, i.e. "self using intoxicants", I think that the anatta doctrine explains that what a person might consider "self" is in fact a conditioned set of aggregates -- which may arise from conditions/causes/components, and ceases when those cease.
In fact I think the same is true of a habit of using intoxicants -- the habit is conditioned, temporary, and ceases sooner or later (often but not always before the end of someone's life), e.g. in a different environment or when something else changes or arises or ceases.
And I suspect that this kind of habit is related to -- causes and is caused by -- self-views: "I have a habit", "I cannot will", "I like the intoxicant", "I don't like something else", "they can't tell me what to do", and so on.
You (and the sutta) may be right, when you say that it doesn't seem like something "I" can do.
Doing way with "identity view" is, according to Theravada, a significant first step towards enlightenment, not trivial:

A "Stream-enterer" (Sotāpanna) is free from Identity view ...
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I suspect that major addiction may be overcome, not just from some "internal" change like "will power", but when something in the "external" environment changes -- new knowledge or responsibility or incentive, new (and better) friends, losing a former antagonist, changing location so as to make the intoxicant unavailable, maybe something like that.
With respect to ruben2020's answer, which seems to suggest being mindful about the arising, I think another method may be "learning from experience" and "seeing the disadvantage" of an action. For example if the result of an action is feeling that "I am in hell", then isn't that an action to avoid repeating?
It may also be to do with developing "wholesome" or "skillful" desires. You may discover from experience that "using intoxicants" makes it more difficult to do what you want to do -- both, while intoxicated and afterward -- and therefore change your preference, towards avoiding intoxicants.
what exactly grows dispassionate towards the body anyway?
Grammatical English requires a subject for every verb: e.g. there's no such thing as "running" (action) without there being a "runner" (agent).
I think that Buddhism accepts that as a "convention" -- footnote 43 on page 59 of The Debate of
King Milinda
The Debate of
King Milinda:

There are two levels of truth; conventional truth and ultimate truth. In the conventional
sense it would be wrong to say that a person does not exist; but in the ultimate sense it
is right. In reality there is only a continuously changing stream of mind and matter,
which we mistake for a person.

I think I find it more useful to think in terms of "dispassion exists" or "passion is ceasing, the passion that was has ceased" -- instead of as "I (I, I!) am dispassionate". Part of the point of it is to become less ego-centric in view, less conceit, less grasping.
And the very question, "Ah, dispassion ... but who is feeling it, eh?" is an example of manufacturing, reinforcing, creating, perpetuating a self-view where maybe it's not needed nor beneficial.

thanks for your post...my question is not formulated well.  i am not sure what self concept has to do with addiction anyway.  it's just craving, attachment, etc....yes, hell, but no longer effective as an idea.

not learning, just forgetting..:(

i'm still not sure about view(s).  i don't even consider this an addiction, just really bad habit.   self-destructive too.  i don't adhere to self-view, or not-self view...i suppose i view the self as aggregate(s), a combination and flux therein

There's an old joke, "The patient says, 'Doctor, it hurts when I do this.' The doctor says, 'Then don't do that!'" One of the stories about self-view is SN 5.10, "But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then disappears." If you see or remember than "what arises" is only dukkha then maybe it's clearer that what you want is to prevent, let go of, avoid, do without its arising.

Another foundational sutta is AN 11.1 -- a principle is to avoid "remorse" and to avoid repeating actions which experience tells you cause the arising of remorse. Then, whatever else, you can live without remorse.

Working from memory here, but the Buddha says you need to take a step back and do 5 things in order to get control back.

See it's origination
See it's cessation
See the allure
See the drawbacks
Become disenchanted, dispassionate  (the escape)

You don't will letting go, it happens. But then of course you have to do Right Effort after the insight into the process to sustain the new intention... maybe by developing the Five Strengths.
Try this Google search.

but isn't will the same thing as volition?  that's how i understand it...not the best phrasing, but i am not thinking too well these days...even though my behavior is my choice, i always regret in hindsight.  that's why i said, "not capable of willing"

We can't exactly give up breathing, so let's look at that:

SN54.8:1.1: “Mendicants, when immersion due to mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial.

The instruction here is that mindfulness is crucial. And how does mindfulness develop? The Buddha teaches many fine points here. And notably we have:

SN54.8:2.4: They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’

With any intake, there is letting go. And as we observe this cycle, we understand in our bodies what is happening. The urge to breath arises, then passes away into exhalation.

SN54.8:3.3: And my mind was freed from defilements by not grasping.

The "not grasping" is key here. Perhaps being mindful of intoxicants might lead to considering the question, "how much does one really 'need' here?". In other words, be mindful of the grasping and explore the not grasping.
Buddhist monks are celibate and eat once a day. The have taken a hard look at grasping. And they have let go for their own happiness and end of suffering.

No way man I am a sick bastard in hell

Venerable Mahāmoggallāna roasted in hell for a long long time. He didn't turn out so badly after that:

MN50:23.1: I roasted for many years, many centuries, many millennia in that Great Hell.
Take heart! Even he let go of hell.

That's a serious bit of roasting!

Please see this answer about a video by Ven. Yuttadhammo on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to intoxicants addiction as well.
Please watch the video.


text:
Feeling others thoughts
Lately I have been catching others thoughts and feelings as I advance in meditation. Sometimes this affects me and it starts playing out in the middle of my work. Does this happen to others? How are you all handling it?

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_23.html

Related: Intuition in Buddhism

Yes, this is why I can’t live in a place with shared walls like an apartment. Not Buddhist but look for empath protection mediation on YouTube.

I actually had this many moons ago when i started meditation and spiritual seeking. I was young and didn't really know "my" path in life, as too was I very open minded while learning and experimenting with Buddhism and esoteric practices.
The word is called clairsentience. I think it is quite a common thing for people to experience. When you open your mind and heart to the world, others and existence you become more awake and less centre focused, so you generate compassion and empathy and genuinely feel the suffering and plight of you fellow sentient beings, which in turn makes you "feel" their feelings and "see" their thoughts.
I would expect it to pass with more inner strength and skill in meditation.
Try not to hold on and cling to it, they are just minor siddhis from meditation. Just focus on your own practices and don't concern yourself too much with the results as they can become a barrier as you cling on to your new discovered abilities.
Even in the more conventional understanding, as it is essentially extreme empathy. Having too much empathy can turn one into a weak person and having not any or enough can turn one mentally unwell, psychopaths do not have empath for eg.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should we use honorifics when referring to monks?
First of all "Sadhu!" and much reason that reaches to good grow, but as just a meta-topic what's actually the primary base, good to give occassion to raise not only awareness for good grow but also possibility to give proper answers, citing the Venerables here (although, of course, some will use it to increase their demerits as well).
"We" in the question refers to receiver of Dhamma-guṇa (highest goodness), to householder, to people aware of higher and lower, not to speak of those gone for refuge toward the Gems.
Maybe good to add a sub-question: Who is the one who really gains something upwardly when giving proper regard, and who's the one who loses if failing? (e.g. the Kamma of reference)

I feel lay persons should respectfully use appropriate honorifics such as "Venerable" together with the monastic name of the monk or nun, in the spirit of the Buddha's order to the monks in DN 16 and also the Patimokkha rules allowing monks to teach only those who show them respect (Sekhiya 57-72).
Showing respect to the teacher puts the student in the state of mind that is open to learning.

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as
'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus,
Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name,
or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones
as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'
DN 16

When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the listener:

has an umbrella in his/her hand.
has a staff in his/her hand.
has a knife in his/her hand.
has a weapon in his/her hand.
is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
is sitting holding his/her knees.
is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path.

Patimokkha rules - Sekhiya 57-72

Surely there will be always traders or others after gain in this realm, aside of this Dhamma-Vinaya:

Kulasuttaṁ
Families
[002.03] Bhikkhus, families endowed with seven factors are not suitable to be approached, even if already approached it is not suitable to take a seat. What seven?
Does not rise from the seat happily, does not worship happily, does not offer a seat happily, hide their belongings, gives a little when there is a lot, gives a little of exalted things, gives carelessly. Bhikkhus, families endowed with these seven factors are not suitable to be approached, even if already approached it is not suitable to take a seat.
Bhikkhus, families endowed with seven factors are suitable to be approached, if already approached is suitable to take a seat. What seven?
Rises from the seat happily, worships happily, offers a seat happily, does not hide their belongings, gives much when there is a lot, gives some of the exalted things, gives carefully. Bhikkhus, families endowed with these seven factors are suitable to be approached, if already approached it is suitable to take a seat.

And many of those who will nevertheless don't get to mind, even if some leader would start to understand after long time...

Formaly, monks, in Benares, the wife if a certain low class man came to bd pregnant. Then, monks, this low class woman spoke thuse to this low cjlass man: 'Sir, I am pregnant; I want to eat a mango.'
'There are no mangoes, it's not the mango season', he said.
Now at that time the king had a mango tree with a perpetual crop of fruit. Then, monks, that low class man approached that mango tree; having approached, having climed up that mango tree, he renained hidden.
Then, monks, the king together with the brahmin priest, approached that mango tree; having approached, having sat down on a higher seat, he learnt a mantra. Then, monks, it occurred to the low class man:
'How unrighteous is this king, inasmuch as he learns Dhamma, having sat down on a high seat. This Brahmin also is unrightous, inasmuch as he, having sat down a low seat, teaches Dhamma to someone sitting on a higher seat. I too am unrighteous, I who for the sake of a woman (beloved poor), steal the Kings mangoes (Dhamma). But all this is quite gone,' and he fell down just there.

Neither knows the goal,
neither sees dhamma,
Neither he who teaches the Dhamma,
nor he who learns accordind to what is not the rule."
"My food is pure conjey
of rice flavoured with meat,
I do not therefore fare on Dhamma,
dhamma praised by the Noble.
Brahmin, shame on that gain of wealth,
(that) gain of fame;
That conduct (leads to falling away.

It's not so much to be blamed toward the "poor" caught in this realm of profilation then those who corrupted families and destroyed their property for long long time. Yet the fool thinks I have/had the right and continues his way of demerits thinking he's smart and "I can".
So good then, enough of fruitless burdensome and merely improper shares with compassion. Take care to gain the right track, following the wise and virtuous and never the smart, "cool", and unrestrained without shame.
(...and don't forget the goodness of those such a long time tried the best they can effort in this deluded sphere - yet not-knowing is nevertheless the cause of bad effects - and try to "repay" it by searching for better ways. Google will always just serve ones defilement, likewise those not firm in faith.)

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


text:
Questions on Cakkavala in Buddhist Cosmology
I happen to come across the description of Cakkavala as per Buddhist Cosmology from the palikanon website in the link here. After going through the information in that link, I have below questions and thought of posting it here to get an answer from the experts here.

Where is Mount Sineru located, and can we see it with our eyes?
Does a Cakkavala constitute a galaxy or does it imply our observable universe or something else?
Are there finite or infinite number of Cakkavala's?
This link here mentions that the Buddha is only born in this Cakkavala, my question is why not in other Cakkavala's?
Is the physical universe a part of Cakkavala or is it vice versa?

I get that these sort of questions are amongst the imponderables, but curious to know.
Waiting to hear from the experts.

Related topics (possibly duplicate or at least with potentially-relevant answers): How can we correlate Buddhist cosmology with astronomical cosmology? -- and Can you explain the "Maha Meru"?

Explanation for Mount Sineru: While reading this it is understood the name Sineru Mountain is the same Mahameru Mountain.
It cannot see for laymen human being eyes.  But those who attain "Dhyana" can visit and see these places through there supreme wisdom.
Chakkavala is 31 levels under the One Sun and Moon.  Yes According to Lord Buddha there can be infinite Chakkavala.
Chakkavala is part of universe.
One Chakkavala

Understand the Universe:  Explanation for Universe


text:
What is mainly uncovered by Analyzing Causes? Anicca or Dukkha or Anatta?
The Abhidhamma Commentary says:

Anicca-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the Rising and falling."
Dukkha-characteristic is hidden due to "Shifting of the Postures."
Anatta-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the Analysis of Different Elements."

Where does the causality fit in this?
Which characteristic is (mainly) uncovered by the "Contemplation of Dependent-origination?"
Obviously it uncovers all the three in some way. I'm here asking about it's main contribution.

the word 'elements' is so vague....

Insight is uncovered, which has many progressively subtler characteristics, until one reaches that non-emptiness, bearing no characteristics whatsoever.

When anicca is seen so is dukkha and anatta. From SN 22.59

What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

,,,

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

And so on for each of the aggregates.

The suttas with the most references to anicca, dukkha, anatta together are:

AN9.36:0.1: Numbered Discourses 9.36
SN12.66:0.1: Linked Discourses 12.66

AN9.36 teaches us to relinquish the grasping at impermanence:

AN9.36:9.3: So yadeva tattha hoti vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ, te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassati.
AN9.36:9.3: They contemplate the phenomena there—included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.
AN9.36:9.4: So tehi dhammehi cittaṁ paṭivāpeti.
AN9.36:9.4: They turn their mind away from those things,

SN12.66 similarly directs us to self-examination and the realization of the futility of craving.

SN12.66:10.1: Ye ca kho keci, bhikkhave, atītamaddhānaṁ samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā yaṁ loke piyarūpaṁ sātarūpaṁ taṁ aniccato addakkhuṁ dukkhato addakkhuṁ anattato addakkhuṁ rogato addakkhuṁ bhayato addakkhuṁ,
SN12.66:10.1: There were ascetics and brahmins of the past who saw the things that seem nice and pleasant in the world as impermanent, as suffering, as not-self, as diseased, and as dangerous.
SN12.66:10.2: te taṇhaṁ pajahiṁsu.
SN12.66:10.2: They gave up craving.

One might simply understand the main contribution here as the ignorance of the futility of craving. Specifically, note that in both suttas, the instructions are clear and effective, focusing on the way out of the mess rather than how the mess began. In other words, the main contribution is indirectly implied as a habitual clinging to ignorance.

Isn't clinging a symptom of ignorance, in the same way that, when one doesn't pay attention (ignores) the potholes in the road, the journey becomes rather bumpy?

It's a bit more like the monkey who, grabbing a sweet in a pot, can't pull the hand out of the pot.

The dukkha characteristic means it is seen there is no lasting happiness in impermanent things, as explained in SN 22.59. 'Dukkha' here means 'unsatisfactory' rather than 'suffering'. For example, in the meditative attainment of jhana, there is no shifting of postures however dukkha is seen. The suttas say:

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi …pe… paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ
upasampajja viharati.
They contemplate the phenomena there — included in
form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness — as impermanent,
as unsatisfactory, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an
affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.
So yadeva tattha hoti rūpagataṁ vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ
viññāṇagataṁ, te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato
aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassati.
AN
9.36

Causality fits into this because it is only conditioned things (things coming to be, remaining & dissolving due to causes) that are impermanent & unsatisfactory. The suttas say:

“Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All
conditional things are impermanent. A Tathāgata awakens to that and
realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it,
teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and
clarifies it: ‘All conditional things (saṅkhārā) are impermanent.’
“Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All
conditional things are unsatisfactory. A Tathāgata awakens to that and
realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it,
teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and
clarifies it: ‘All conditional things (saṅkhārā) are unsatisfactory.’
“Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All things are
impersonal. A Tathāgata awakens to that and realizes that. Having
awakened to it and realized it, he announces it, teaches it, describes
it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and clarifies it: ‘All
things (dhammā) are not-self.’”
AN
3.136


text:
Is it valid or "correct" for one to be concerned with future rebirths or is this a form of clinging to self
Should a person be concerned or worried where they ("I") will be reborn?
Also in which way would or could a sotappana be concerned with future existence/rebirth, when he would have already been free from the fetter of strong clinging to self, as well as assured liberation.

TL;DR
Rebirth view, for someone who still clings to self view, can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth in Buddhism is not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth.
Long answer
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father,
no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
wrong view.
MN 117

Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.

"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.
MN 117

Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor (Iti 100) who treats the illness which is suffering (dukkha). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.

“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

Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.

"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

How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in MN 38 and SN 22.85.
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.

“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”
MN 38

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
SN 22.85

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
Ud 1.10

Rebirth in Buddhism is not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth.


text:
Are the terms "yoga" and "yogi" used in Buddhism?
Are the terms "yoga" and "yogi" used in Buddhism?
Are they in the Pali Canon? If yes, please quote them.
Are they used in other traditions like Tibetan Buddhism?
If they are used in Buddhism, then what do they mean in Buddhism? Is it different from its use in Hinduism?

In Tibetan Buddhism, yoga and yogi are rather standard terms.
Yoga refers to any focused practice such as e.g. guru-yoga - the practice of venerating one's Buddhist mentor as a means to developing good mind qualities (gratitude, commitment, positive attitude); tummo-yoga - the practice of generating somatic heat energy, devata-yoga - the practice of visualizing a Buddhist deity or visualizing oneself as such a deity to transform one's mindset, kama-yoga - the practice of using sexuality, often with a partner, to overcome neuroses and blockages.
In Mahamudra, The Four Yogas refer to the four core aspects of Mahamudra practice: one-pointedness, simplicity, one-taste, and non-meditation.
In Dzogchen, the term Ati-yoga (lit. "Utmost Yoga") refers to the Dzogchen itself as the 9th and highest category of teachings in the 9-step progression recognized by the Nyingma tradition.
A yogi is a practitioner involved in any of these practices. The term is often used to respectfully refer to someone highly experienced and accomplished in them.

Yes "yoga" is in the Dhammapada for example, verse 282, translated as "meditation".
It's in the PTS dictionary which has extensive references to other places where the word is used in the canon.
There's also a Yoga Sutta: Bondage (AN 4.10) -- the footnote there says,

Yogā (plural). From the verbal root yuj, “to yoke, join, fasten, harness”. Yoga has many meanings, but its plainest senses are: “the act of yoking, joining, attaching, harnessing; a yoke”. The English word “yoke” is cognate with yoga. I have translated it as “bond”, “bondage”, to emphasise the specifically negative connotations of the word in this sutta.

That (bond or fetter) is also a sense in which it's used elsewhere in the Dhammapada: in verse 417.
So, possibly it's contextual -- maybe like the words "view" or "effort", of which there are both "right" and "wrong" varieties (MN 117).
I suppose the word pre-dates Buddhism and had a prior or contemporary meaning, which Buddhism might have sometimes inherited, and sometimes contradicted or redefined.

so the first one seems to support the TB's usage of the term in the sense of "practice" i.e. "Indeed, wisdom is born of practice; without practice wisdom is lost."

https://www.mea.gov.in/search-result.htm?25096 says "The word ‘Yoga’ is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘Yuj’, meaning ‘to join’ or ‘to yoke’ or ‘to unite’ ... the union of individual consciousness with that of the Universal Consciousness, indicating a perfect harmony between the mind and body". Apparently in Pali it's also used in some places to mean "yoke" in the sense of "fetter".

right, that follows from most of the PTS entries. But the Dhammapada verse is clearly not about fetter.

The accompanying story includes, "As instructed by the samanera, Thera Potthila kept his mind firmly fixed on the true nature of the body; he was very ardent and vigilant in his meditation", so I suppose that's the context in which the word "yoked" is used -- and perhaps too the larger context which you mentioned, i.e. meditating, and humbly asking a mentor.

Initial paragraph is kind of copy pasting my reply to the question that got deleted, while I was typing it.
Yoga and yogi/yogini mean different things to different religions.
To hindus yoga is completion and a yogi/yogini is one who has mastered their respective religious arts.
To some Buddhists a yogi is a highly attained master of meditation (jhana) who is not ordained, a lay person.
To other people a yogi is just someone who practices yoga, to others it is a teacher of yoga.
You have to find and elaborate the definitions of the words.
In Tibetan Buddhism a yogi is a high level attainer, someone who has attained high levels of bliss and experience in emptiness. One can be ordained or not, though generally I have seen that only the high level ordained tantric masters are called yogis, normally they are titled rinpoche (teacher) rather than yogi, though they "are" yogis.
Then on the other side you have lay practitioners at varying levels of experience who are called yogis/yoginis.
Like for eg Marpa and Millareppa were called Yogis, neither of them were ordained but both of them are seen as Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.
Also Mahasiddhas like Tilopa and Naropa were called yogis.
In karma kaguya Tibetan Buddhism, which is an oral transmission of tantric practices, which are from the successive lineage from Tilopa,Naropa,Marpa and Milareppa, the practitioners in this sect are generally called Yogis, despite that they are ordained.
So generally the word, yoga and yogi is different from each religion to each sect.
I myself would explain it like this:
Firstly what is generally seen or called as yoga, the flexible posture exercises are only a part of yoga, they are called "yoga asana"
Yoga itself means completion and is a religion in of itself, parts of this is stuff like asana, pranayama (chi gong) and samadhi.
A yogi/yogini is a non ordained high level attainer with a refined mind. So high level of jhana, high experience in samadhi and/or sunyata. Not especially a teacher or a scholar, just someone who has put the "cushion hours" in and has practical experience and skill in the meditations.
One following the yogi path or path of yoga is one who is not looking to become an ordained disciple of the Buddha, or even specifically a Buddhist, just one who is determined to find the answers to lifes riddle within themselves.
So yes Yoga/yogi is used in at least Tibetan Buddhism, Vajrayana but i expect Mahayana as well. There are even Tantric practices called Yoga Tantra.
I have never read anything such as yoga or yogi in the pali cannon. As too are things like chakras, prana or shashamuras, the esoteric body functions not in the pali cannon.
Hindu and vajrayana word for yoga and yogi mean different things, but they do fall under a similar branch of common understanding with yoga meaning completion or path to completion and a yogi as a practitioner or high level attainer of yoga.

It's widely used  term in Pali cannon because it's means "joining the elements together for arising of something" which is used with wholesome, unwholsome, and neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome terms.
Yoga=Yuja root+suffix.
It's difference from the others' teaching because in the Buddhism the Buddha taught Yoga of eight Vijja. Eight Vijja are the set of Supernatural Understanding Abilities leading by the right view of the dependent origination which is about the process of the complicated relations of arising and vanishing smallest elements trillion times per second.
The complete practice of Eight Vijja to enlighten Nibbana is what no one could discover except the Buddha only.
That's why Nibbana is in the Buddhism only.
Let's yoga on Eight Vijja!


text:
Is there a blissful equivalent to dukkha caused by impermanence?
According to Buddhist teachings, we suffer because of the moment to moment impermanence of all experience. As I understand it, this is caused by clinging to experiences we feel positive about. But wouldn't the impermanence of experiences we try to avoid, by the same logic, involve a similar subtle kind of bliss?

Have you read MN 44?

“Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing,
friend Visākha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant
in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in
occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without
knowledge.”

That answers my questions, but I will leave it open for a while for the case that someone wants to add more depth.

"This positive experiences do have a pleasure." The Blessed One has clearly said it.
Then the Blessed One says "If there is no pleasure, the beings will not cling to them."
But then says "Even though they have a little pleasure their drawbacks are comparatively larger."
So the positive experiences are considered Suffering. No need to say about negative experiences.
Refer: Paṭhamanoceassādasutta, Dutiyanoceassādasutta, Nocedaṃsutta, Dutiyaassādasutta,Tatiyaassādasutta etc.


text:
From Kapilavastu to Lumbini, how many minutes or hours to reach the end (Lumbini) in a chariot?
I was wondering how could Mahamaya (The Buddha's mother) travel from Kapilavastu to Lumbini, this quickly. It is no wonder that a pregnant Queen could travel in a chariot this far. If it occured, she would have given birth in the chariot. Interestingly some facts about Lumbini which will make you rethink history.
http://buddhalivedinsrilanka.blogspot.com/2013/04/lumbini-is-astonishing-fraud-begun-in_7.html
So how could she travel this quickly? Maybe Buddha is not an Indian. Also the Lumbini pillar looks fake? Then how does it say she traveled so quickly?

According to this page, Kapilavastu and Lumbini are 16 km apart:

His mother queen Mayadevi, (Mahamaya), gave birth to him while
travelling to her paternal home. Resting in Lumbini gardens, 16 Km
from the Kapilavastu and emerging from a bath with her face to the
east, she leant her right arm on a Sal tree (Shorea robusta), and gave
birth to the future Buddha.

According to this page, a horse carriage at walking speed can go at 2 - 4 mph or 3.2 to 6.4 km/h.

At a trot, a horse-drawn carriage will go around 8-10 MPH. At a walk,
a horse-drawn carriage will go about 2-4 MPH.

So 16km divided by 3.2 - 6.4 km/h is 2.5 to 5 hours. That too at walking speed. At a trot, it can be in an hour.
So why is that unbelievable?
The website you linked seems to propagate an extremist view or conspiracy theory that the Buddha was born in Sri Lanka. Such extremist views are not consistent with mainstream history and archaeology, and is even banned on Suttacentral forums.


text:
Relationship of Planck units and duration of a rebirth in Naraka
My intuition is telling me that since the last level of hell is some kind of a mathematical limit of how stupid a person can get (or how annoying or how evil), there must be a parallel with Planck units, which are the minimum measurable amounts of physical quantities.  (or equivalently, maximum, when considered how many you can fit in something else)  The Planck time, in this context, to be precise.
What is the statistically average duration of a birth in Naraka, the non-stop hell? We could consider that a sort of Planck-lifetime of a being, especially since to the outside observer, a hell lasting billions of years might look much shorter than for the being in hell. Therefore, the Planck-lifetime of a hell being during a single rebirth might actually be comparably short as the physical Planck-time when observed from the outside.

Often a "good answer" is based "Something that happened to you personally" and/or "Something you can back up with a reference" -- https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-subjective/ -- do you think this is that kind of question? "What is the statistically average duration of a birth in Naraka ..."

so it’s not good to ask a question on evolving our understanding of the relationship between physics and the Dhamma? you’re probably right technically, but I feel it’s worth the tradeoff risk. You know it’s not good karma to be 100% stuck to rules.

besides, the duration of a hell rebirth can be answered factually, even if it is not a single scalar value. and the relationship between that and the duration of being in hell can also be computed. so what is the problem?

Suffering and stress.

what is the difference between suffering and stress?

Good question, why not ask it? Personally, I think the answer may be seen in "The Arrow" https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html

As far as I see, ‘suffering’ and ‘stress’ are synonyms.  That sutta talks about how various types of persons react to factors of suffering/stress. In fact, the sutta directly confirms my statement: “/…/ He is joined, I tell you, with suffering & stress.” — suffering and stress are semantically equated — the distinction is laid upon different reactions to s-&-s, not the difference between s-vs-s.

What you perceive to be some idea of life after death, is actually the mind's method of holding itself captive within the world of form. Whether you think it's just for fun or not, the mind uses imaginary ideas about a series of sequential events in order to perpetuate this illusion. In short, freedom is right here, right now. The quagmire is that when you look at just what is, in this moment, there is a haze over the perception which appears to create a blockade. The mind then turns inwards, towards its imaginary world and entertains its various delusions, including that of hell realms.


text:
Buddhist's teaching on grief?
Was there any wisdom, any words of clarity about how to handle grief in the Buddhist scriptures or in a good teacher's interpretation? Is grief a unique mind state? Is it lobha based?

There was, and not asked for the first time. Gone isn't to avoid of what has become. So why again?

Grief Management

AN 5:49 tells of how King Pasenadi happened to be in the Buddha’s presence when one of his courtiers came and whispered into his ear that his favorite queen, Mallikā, had just died. Overcome with shock and sorrow, the king could do nothing but sit there brooding, his shoulders drooping, at a loss for words.

The Buddha’s immediate response was to teach him three things to do to manage his grief. The first was to reflect on the universality of loss. No one anywhere, no matter how powerful, can arrange for what is subject to change not to change, or for what is subject to death not to die. To the extent that there are beings—past, present, and future—change and death happen to all of them. This thought helps take some of the personal sting out of the loss, allowing you to acquiesce to what has happened and not to waste energy in trying to undo what can’t be undone.

The second step the Buddha taught to the king was that as long as he saw that traditional funeral observances performed a useful function in giving skillful expression to his sense of loss and to his appreciation for the person now gone, he should arrange them. The Buddha never advocated that his listeners try to smother their grief with feigned indifference. As long as they felt a need to express their loss, they should try to do it in a skillful and healing way.

Among the observances he mentioned as potentially useful were eulogies, donations, and the recital of wise sayings. These three activities have since formed the core of funeral observances in many Buddhist traditions. If you actually want to help the person who has passed on, you make gifts and do good in other ways. Then you dedicate the merit to your loved one. To heal the wound in your heart, and to encourage goodness in the people still alive, you express your appreciation for your loved one’s goodness. To remind you of the continued value of Dhamma practice, you listen to passages of Dhamma. Weeping and wailing accomplish none of this. They destroy your health, cause distress to those who love you, and please those who hate or despise you.

The Buddha mentioned this last point as motivation for gathering energy for the third step, which is to remind yourself that there are still good things to accomplish in life. For the sake of your true well-being and that of others, once you’ve skillfully expressed your appreciation for your loved one, you need to get back to the good work that the loss has interrupted.

The Buddha gave just an outline explanation of these three steps to Pasenadi, perhaps assuming that the king would know how to fill in the details, especially for steps one and three. But our discussion in Chapters Three and Six should allow us to fill in the details ourselves.

With regard to the first step, reflecting on the universality of loss: In light of the practice of the brahmavihāras, when you think of all the beings everywhere who have suffered loss, the obvious response should be compassion. When you think of how unavoidable and pervasive loss is throughout the cosmos, it helps to broaden your heart and to enlarge your compassion for the suffering of others. At the same time, the act of broadening your perspective on others’ loss and grief helps you gain some distance from your own. You pull out of your grief, not by denying it—for that would be inhumane—but by turning it into a more healing, expansive, and uplifting emotion, one that acknowledges suffering but, instead of being swallowed up by it, allows the mind to grow larger than its sufferings and to manage a more ennobling and nourishing response to them.

From this enlarged perspective, you can gain a broader sense of what needs to be done in the third step of grief management, reflecting on what good work you still have to do in life. In the words of the question that ended the Buddha’s conversation with Pasenadi, you should ask yourself, “What important work am I doing now?” The wise response is not to define “important” in terms of the pressing responsibilities of the daily grind. Instead, you think about what’s important in terms of the future course of your life as a whole."

by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Grief for the Loss of a Loved One"

The Buddha speaks about grief in AN 5:49. This search turned up a few others that also may help shift perspective, and provide a little relief.

Grief vanishes once you see through the eyes of Dhamma. What has a beginning must have an end. So why grief?
Also forms is not me , mine or myself.
Feelings are not me , mine or myself.
Choices , perceptions and consciousness are not me mine or myself. So why grief ?


text:
Clear and white light at death
What does the Tibetan Book of Dead say about the lights, at death?
Is it true, as some people say, to avoid all lights and not walk to them? And that "clear light" means "not a white light"?
Non-Buddhist people too speak about "the white light trap".

In Tibetan Buddhism, "clear light" (Tibetan: འོད་གསལ་, Wylie: 'od gsal, THL: ö-sel; Sanskrit: prabhāsvara) stands for the mind's innate (object-less and subject-less) awareness or luminosity - not the literal light nor the mental experience of seeing a light.
Other lights described in TBoD are various visions, both good and bad, attractive and repulsive, kind and evil, that distract the person's attention away from the clear light and to various rebirths.
In this case "the white light" would be an image of goodness and holiness which drives one to good rebirths but rebirths nevertheless (complete with eventual deaths). That's in contrast with the "clear light" which is not tied to any particular characteristic such as being good or being pure and therefore has no boundary conditions and thus no beginning nor end.


text:
Books for understanding Tibetan Buddhism
I have been practicing Buddhist meditation for a few years, mostly from reading translations of the Buddha's original discourses, as well as some Prajnaparamita sutras from Mahayana Buddhism. I've always been intrigued by Vajrayana, but most of the source texts don't seem to have quality English translations, especially the more esoteric Tantric practices. Are there any good texts that go into detail about the principles and practices of Vajrayana, preferably with translations of source texts?
So far I've read the Robert Thurman book, which was a bit underwhelming in terms of practical value.

Before I type some recommendations, I would make a suggestion.
One of the ways in which Mahayana Buddhism, as presented by Tibetan Buddhism is classified is in 3 parts- suttrayana, vajrayana and tantrayana. The order is important. Think of the former ones as sort of a pre-requisite. Therefore, without knowing sutras well, the philosophising or reasoning of vajrayana would not be effective and without this, the esoteric practices of tantrayana wouldn't be helpful. In fact, they can particularly be harmful.
For translations:
([Original Author], [book title abbreviated], [translator/editor])

Nagarjuna's MMK "Nagarjuna's Middle Way" by Siderits and Katsura.
Vasubandhu's ADK (and the auto-commentary) "The Treasury of Abhidharma" by Gelog Sangpo and Dhammajoti
Dharmakirti's PVT pt2 by Tillemans.
Candrakirti's MMA "The Emptiness of Emptiness"by Geshe Wangchen and Huntington.
Santideva's BCA "The Guide to a Bodhisattva's way of Life" by Stephen Batchelor
Tsong-Khapa's "Ocean of Reasoning" by J.L. Garfield
Tsong-Khapa's "The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment" by The Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee (which comprises of some of the best Buddhist scholars from west)

I would highly recommend reading commentaries of the books also (from correct scholars of course).
Other than original texts translated into English and commentaries, I would also suggest the following list of books:

"The Words of my Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche.
Works of HH Dalai Lama, written with Jeffrey Hopkins; especially "Awakening the Mind, Lightening the Heart"

AND of course, please be very careful about the person from whom you pick up Dhamma/Dharma teachings.


text:
What was the motivation behind Devadattas initial kindness?
It is said that Devadatta, before turning on the Buddha, was a good monk with psychic abilities and grace.
What were the motivations behind his goodness before he turned evil? Was he only being kind to earn a good image, and so later on was feeling unsatisfied and wanted more?

Where does the premise come from, that he was "initially kind" and "good"? In the "Schism" chapter of the Cullavagga, when Sariputta is asked to "give information" about Devadatta -- i.e. to say that he was formerly like so-and-so, and is now like such-and-such, and that his actions should be seen as being the actions of Devadatta and not of the Dhamma -- what Sariputta said about him (in translation) is that he was formerly "glorious and with psychic power".

not an authoritative source but “In his early days, he was a good monk known for his grace and psychic powers. Later he became conceited with worldly gain and fame.” — https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm

The Buddha shares this:

AN4.68:1.2: There the Buddha spoke to the mendicants about Devadatta:
AN4.68:1.3: “Possessions, honor, and popularity came to Devadatta for his own ruin and downfall.

Possessions, honor and popularity are all impermanent and unsatisfactory.
Relishing those would bring suffering.

MN1:171.4: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

Things that are relished tend to grow, and as they grow, so too do their defilements grow. So perhaps we might simply say that Devadatta relished possessions, honor and popularity?

"Possessions, honor and popularity are all impermanent and unsatisfactory.
Relishing those would bring suffering" Such true and powerful words by the Buddha.

Did Devadatta lose his psychic powers after his reputation collapsed? Or at which point did he lose them? When he became sick? Or did he keep them even in hell?

@ErikKaplun please see > AN5.100:2.4: And as that thought arose, Devadatta lost that psychic power.”


text:
verse from MN 44
Background: What I perceived was disenchantment, which seemed to be the cause of duhkha (a psychological pain in this case).
In M 44 Dhammadinnā says:

"Now what, lady, lies on the other side of pleasant feeling?"
"Passion
lies on the other side of pleasant feeling."
"And what lies on the other side of painful feeling?"
"Resistance lies
on the other side of painful feeling."
"What lies on the other side
of neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?"
"Ignorance lies on the other side of neither-pleasant-nor- painful
feeling."  "What lies on the other side of ignorance?"

"Clear knowing lies on the other side of ignorance." "What lies on the
other side of clear knowing?" "Release lies on the other side of clear
knowing." "What lies on the other side of release?" "Unbinding lies on
the other side of release."
"What lies on the other side of
Unbinding?" …

The translation from suttacentral is somewhat different:

“But ma’am, what is the counterpart of pleasant feeling?”
“Painful feeling.”
“What is the counterpart of painful feeling?”
“Pleasant feeling.”
“What is the counterpart of neutral feeling?”
“Ignorance.”
“What is the counterpart of ignorance?”
“Knowledge.”
“What is the counterpart of knowledge?”
“Freedom.”
“What is the counterpart of freedom?”
“Extinguishment.”
“What is the counterpart of extinguishment?”

The same two verses seem to be saying different things.  If I say, 'the counterpart of pain is resistance', that doesn't make good sense.  In fact, the whole translated verse from suttacentral seems strange to my mind; the former being more intuitive, perhaps more correct.  But still, what does resistance mean?  Does it mean aversion?

This is clearly a translation problem. Bad translations are to be avoided. Aversion would certainly be a better translation.

perhaps aversion, but I find resistance to be more intriguing, more mysterious...but even with aversion, the verse doesn't quite make good sense

resistance makes sense as it can be translated to 'the cause of...', then the cause of passion becomes pleasure/pleasant, the cause of aversion is pain, etc...

but then ignorance is the cause of clear-knowing....meh

@HomagetoManjushri Not a translation problem, rather that the two editions of the root text (Pali) are different in those two lines.

Ven. Thanissaro's translation here (quoted below) reads:

"Now what, lady, lies on the other side of pleasant feeling?"
"Passion lies on the other side of pleasant feeling."
"And what lies on the other side of painful feeling?"
"Resistance lies on the other side of painful feeling."

If you read this footnote on Ven. Thanissaro's translation, it says:

This reading follows the Thai edition of the Pali canon. The PTS
edition of the Pali canon gives the first two questions and answers in
this exchange as follows:

"Now what, lady, lies on the other side of pleasant feeling?"
"Painful feeling lies on the other side of pleasant feeling."
"And what lies on the other side of painful feeling?"
"Pleasant feeling lies on the other side of painful feeling."

For some reason, the editors of neither edition seem to have been
aware of the reading in the other edition.

Now, SuttaCentral's translation here (quoted below) by Ven. Sujato:

“But ma’am, what is the counterpart of pleasant feeling?”
“Painful feeling.”
“What is the counterpart of painful feeling?”
“Pleasant feeling.”

So, that solves it. It's because the two Pali source editions are different.
However, I could not find the Pali text associated with Ven. Thanissaro's translation.
I can find something similar here in SN 36.6:

When they’re touched by painful feeling, they resist it. (Ven. Sujato here)
As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is resistant. (Ven. Thanissaro here)
Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours aversion towards it. (Ven. Bodhi here)
When touched by that painful feeling, he is aversive. (Ven. Suddhaso here)
Tassāyeva kho pana dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno paṭighavā hoti.

According to the Concise Pali-English Dictionary by Ven. A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera:

paṭigha: [m.] anger; repulsion; collision.

So, it can be resistance, repulsion, aversion, that one feels towards painful feelings.
Why counterparts or opposites?
From Piya Tan's commentary on MN 44:

2.8 OPPOSITES AND CONTRASTS (PAṬIBHĀGA) [§29]. The
closing question 28-34 deals with paṭibhāga,
that is, the 7 key aspects [§29] and their contrary or
contrasting qualities (except for
the last case, nirvana). The general idea here is to present an
overview of the relativity amongst feelings, knowledge and liberation,
and how this leads to nirvana. If something has an opposite (in real
or existential terms), it means that it is not absolute, and that its
nature or conception is meaningful only because its opposite, or
contrasting it with something else. But whatever can be contrasted in
this way must be relative. For example, ignorance is said to be the
opposite of neutral feeling because the latter is subtle and difficult
to detect. Each time we ignore a neutral feeling, we reinforce our
ignorance of it; we learn nothing of it. The remedy here is to review
― neutral-feeling experiences, especially after a meditation, or after
any significant event in our lives, or as a daily practice, that is,
to reflect on them as being impermanent.
Nirvana is unique. In intellectual or worldly terms,
it may be understood as ― sub specie aeternitatis,
that is, something eternal,
universal, nothing to do with time. By its very nature — as the
unconditioned (asaṅkhata) — it has no opposite or comparison. In a
manner of speaking, the way out of suffering is called ― nirvana,
but this is merely to inspire and move us with the fact and
possibility of the way out of suffering. Since nirvana is
unconditioned, it has neither an opposite nor a complement.

another interesting question would be: why does it talk about the counterparts? ;)

@AndriyVolkov I decided to ask Piya Tan. :-)

Very good, makes this answer more complete.

hmm...i always thought neutral feeling was the absence of feeling, not undetectable feeling

@blue_ego No. Neutral feelings are detectable feelings which are neither pleasant nor painful.  It's different from no feeling. Please see "Neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling vs not feeling".

The method of the counterpart sign is an important meditation technique mentioned quite a few times in the Pali Canon.
The idea is to find the Ultimate by expanding one's focus to include the subjective counterpart (or complement) of any experience X.
For example, in this case, when there's an experience of pleasant feeling "on the objective side" what do we see as we turn our attention to the subjective side - that is, to "the experiencer" of the pleasant feeling? We see passion, it is like "passion is looking at the pleasant feeling".
(Calling it "the experiencer" or "the subject" is not technically correct, because in Buddhist phenomenology there is no experiencer nor observer of experience. Instead, each experience has a so-called counterpart sign - a reference point the experience is defined and evaluated against. But in the immediate experience of an untrained person that counterpart sign disguises itself as the subject, hence the figure of speech I use, "the experiencer", to point out what approximately I am talking about.)
Similarly, if we look at a painful feeling, and then expand our attention to look at its subject, we see resistance or aversion.
Same with an undetermined feeling and ignorance or indifference.
Now, when we further expand our focus to look at the subject ("the experiencer") of that passion, that resistance, that indifference - what do we see? We see the pure awareness aka clear knowing.
Now the trick is to find the complement of pure awareness. Here in this sutta they skip intermediate steps and declare Release to be the subject of Clear Knowing.
In other suttas this is described differently, for example see the progression of arupa jhanas. On this site I tried to explain it a few times, for example here. I suppose what we see in suttas are students' recollections of the various ways the Buddha explained this method to different audiences. As far as I know, the Buddha did not invent the technique from scratch but picked it up from one of his two main teachers.
This technique is also found in Tibetan Buddhism where it is described as recursively looking for the subject that experiences the current experience, then the subject of that attention etc. The same approach is described in great details by a contemporary philosopher and mystic Franklin Merrell-Wolff.
The exact details of this approach escape the verbal description and vary from meditator to meditator. What's important for us is to understand the main principle (expanding to include the subjective counterpart) so we can apply it in our own meditation practice and discover the Ultimate by ourselves.

i like the idea of recursively looking for a subject when dealing with feeling, although perhaps claiming experiencer would lead a novice to see that as self.

Disclaimer: my Pali is not that great, and I rely heavily on dictionaries. A quick scan of that section in Pali from the World Tipitaka in Roman Script indicates that Bhante Sujato's translation is correct for "sukhā vedanā," while "on the other side" is probably more technically correct than "counterpoint." However, Thanissaro Bhikkhu used the Thai edition of the Canon for his translation, as noted here (though he doesn't mention if that's an edition from before or after the Sixth Council).
And to answer the question about "resistance," "aversion" is usually from Pali "dosa;" the word used in this context in the sutta (though not in that passage according to the version I have) is "paṭighānusayo" which is a compound word meaning something like "tendencies of repulsion." "Resistance" seems like a good translation of this, to avoid confusion.
That section from the Pali edition I'm reading:

“Sukhāya panāyye, vedanāya kiṁ paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Sukhāya kho, āvuso visākha, vedanāya dukkhā vedanā > paṭibhāgo”ti.
“Dukkhāya pannāyye, vedanāya kiṁ paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Dukkhāya kho, āvuso visākha, vedanāya sukhā vedanā paṭibhāgo”ti.
“Adukkhamasukhāya panāyye, vedanāya kiṁ > paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Adukkhamasukhāya kho, āvuso visākha, vedanāya avijjā paṭibhāgo”ti.
“Avijjāya panāyye, kiṁ paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Avijjāya kho, āvuso visākha, vijjā paṭibhāgo”ti.
“Vijjāya panāyye, kiṁ paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Vijjāya kho, āvuso visākha, vimutti paṭibhāgo”ti.
“Vimuttiyā panāyye, kiṁ paṭibhāgo”ti?
“Vimuttiyā kho, āvuso visākha, nibbānaṁ paṭibhāgo”ti.

Do you know where to find the That edition online? To see what the Thai edition says in Pali. Or which version do you have, and can you quote those two lines from it?

i like 'resistance' because from it one can infer 'creating barrier'

@ChrisW I added the Pali from the version I'm reading. I'm not sure what edition Thanissaro used so am not able to link it, but there is a full copy of the Thai Tipitaka here which might be the correct version.


text:
Who gives a person wealth?
I know very little about the teachings of Buddhism. So I apologize for the simple questions.
My question is why do some people become rich and others poor?
Who gives a person wealth? Is there an action of the deity in acquiring wealth?

It is Kamma that gives a person wealth. (See Cullakammavibhanga Sutta)

Virture, Sila, right conduct, is the base for wealth, heavens and also liberation. Harm and carelessness, not keeping promises, cheating and inhonest, thievery acting, "i have a right attitude", demanding, claiming, taking not given, that of poorness.
The four outlets of wealth, leading in any way to poorness, are evil friends, use of intoxications, drugs, going after indulging in sexual affairs, gambling. Something right here to change.
Not developed wisdom and concentration as well, lead to lose of even huge gained wealth.
Giving at first place, sacifices fist, such as foremost toward those worthy for gifts, is as well the root of wealth arriving.
All actually visible right here. So why are you still poor,get more and more dependent? Wouldn't it be good to start with giving first, working first, instead of searching around after lasting old merits?
Because of old merits it's possible to gain even huge wealth, but obtained by harm of others, by improper livelihood, one hardly will enjoy it and is also sure to suffer a lot with quick lose again.
What could you gain till today you are not afraid you will lose soon or have already lost.
Poorness of communities, families, is cause by carelessnes, nor repairing broken, not seeking for what got lost, and by putting a not virtuous person as leader.

Buddhism is about learning how to be more skillful in one's own actions (in order to suffer less and be happier), not about benefittting from the actions of others. Although that will tend to happen as an indirect result of practicing the teachings.
In this sutta the Buddha describes some of the results that can be expected from various types and qualities of action. In this section of it he talks about poverty and wealth:

“There is the case where a woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to contemplatives or brahmans. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death he/she reappears in a plane of deprivation… If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is poor wherever reborn. This is the way leading to poverty: not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to contemplatives or brahmans.
“But then there is the case where a woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to contemplatives & brahmans. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination… If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is wealthy wherever reborn. This is the way leading to great wealth: to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to contemplatives & brahmans.

And wealth can be understood in different ways. For instance, an abundance of admirable friends, or good qualities one has developed, or as the Buddha says somewhere, "Contentment is the greatest wealth."

I doubt  the Buddha said that b/c it’s to black&white

And also not everyone has access to those types...but maybe that’s a good idea for a tech startup ;)

How to understand this text?
AN 10.91 Next, a pleasure seeker seeks wealth using illegitimate, coercive means. They make themselves happy and pleased, .....
Why do these people achieve wealth in this life?
Who were they, in a previous life?

Your questions may be based on misunderstandings of the Buddha's teaching on karma. Karma means intention/action. A "previous life" may influence, but it does not condemn: in the same way that a misunderstanding can be corrected and ignored.

DN2 SamannaPhalaSutta

(Recollection of Past Lives) "With his mind thus concentrated, purified,
and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady,
and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to
knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He
recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three
births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred,
one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction,
many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and
expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such
a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience
of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such
a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience
of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home
village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
lives... in their modes and details.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible
here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
>>> (The Passing Away & Re-appearance of Beings) "With his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he
directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and
re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye,
purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and
re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior,
beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body,
speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and
undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the
break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of
deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these
beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind,
who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook
actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the
body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the
heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and
surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing,
and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and
ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just
as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town],
and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people
entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in
the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are
entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting
in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and
re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye,
purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and
re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior,
beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their
kamma...
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible
here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
(The Ending of Mental Fermentations) "With his mind thus concentrated,
purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant,
malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs
and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental
fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is
stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...
These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of
fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the
way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus
knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality,
the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With
release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth
is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing
further for this world.' Just as if there were a pool of water in a
mountain glen — clear, limpid, and unsullied — where a man with good
eyesight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles,
and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting, and it would occur
to him, 'This pool of water is clear, limpid, and unsullied. Here are
these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish
swimming about and resting.' In the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental
fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is
stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...
These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of
fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the
way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus
knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality,
the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With
release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth
is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing
further for this world.'
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible
here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
And as for another visible fruit of the contemplative life, higher and
more sublime than this, there is none."
When this was said, King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One:
"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright
what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one
who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many
lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One
for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the
Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for
refuge, from this day forward, for life.


text:
how do I let go of everything?
Is there  practice that I can do that will help me dissolve my attatchment to the world, my family, my life any hopes and dreams, its all transient and causes massive suffering for me. How can I let go of those who I cant remove who abuse me, those who I love who are leaving me, those things I wanted to create that will never happen? Its just so tiring to hold on to all this pain.

Why not hold on and penetrate the truth behind everything

@blue_ego Telling someone to "hold on" can be misinterpreted. I think your comments are often rhetorical questions, instead it would be better to post an answer if you can. See here and try to avoid answering a question with another question. See also here about "when should I and when shouldn't I comment".

That practice (development) is called the Noble Eight Fold Path. It starts with Right View. To develop Right View you must start to gain knowledge about the Four Noble Truths. It is only by developing Wisdom that you can truly let go.
You came into this world thinking there is pleasure. But that's not the case, is it? So, start there. Here and now with what you have. Understand the suffering nature of this existence - with birth, ageing, sickness and death, whether it is in the human world or in a divine realm - existence is suffering. i.e. if you think if I can exist apart from these problems I face today, that Wrong View is still included in the suffering. Then, find out how did I get into this mess - what is the origin of this suffering. Then find out the cessation of that very same suffering and the path leading to that cessation.
Try this video and do the meditation explained at the end of it. Use the practical examples you face today that will help you really understand the Tathagata Dhamma and find the solution you are looking for.

How can I let go of those who I cant remove who abuse me,
Ouch. This question goes deep. There is much pain here.
Regarding abuse, there is one sutta that stands out. AN6.54 speaks about those who abuse and their impact on the world. If we have to face unremitting abuse, we can perhaps face the pain to understand its source. Understanding its source, we can mitigate its impact, perhaps gentling it somewhat towards harmony.
Here is the story of a monk who abused others:

AN6.54:1.3: There he abused visiting mendicants; he insulted, harmed, attacked, and harassed them.

This is a long sutta, too long to post here. But perhaps this sutta may help you find your own answers on how to deal with those who abuse and cannot be escaped.
And yet, having understood those who abuse, there is still abuse. In this case, perhaps the story of Venerable Puṇṇa may provide some encouragement. Venerable Puṇṇa voluntarily went to a rough place where he was likely to be abused.

SN35.88:5.3: If they abuse and insult you, what will you think of them?”
SN35.88:6.1: “If they abuse and insult me, I will think:
SN35.88:6.2: ‘These people of Sunāparanta are gracious, truly gracious, since they don’t hit me with their fists.’
SN35.88:6.3: That’s what I’ll think, Blessed One.
SN35.88:6.4: That’s what I’ll think, Holy One.”
SN35.88:7.1: “But if they do hit you with their fists, what will you think of them then?”

May you find a sure path to end suffering and may peace and happiness gladden your heart.

All the Dhamma practices are to dissolve our attachment to the world.
The whole Dhamma is considered to have only one taste (rasa) i.e. the taste of Liberation (vimutti-rasa). The sole function of the each and every part of Buddhadhamma (out of 84000 dhamma-khandas) is liberation from suffering.
The path to liberation is mentioned as Noble-eightfold-path (ariya-atthangika-magga) i.e. Virtue-Concentration-Wisdom (sila-samadhi-panna).
We are required to sincerely start practicing the path with dedication.
A good start, I think, is to read the Fist sermon of the Supreme One (Dhammacakka-sutta) and it's explanation Saccavibhanga Sutta along with the Commentary (Atthakata).

Is there practice that I can do that will help me dissolve my attatchment to the world, my family, my life any hopes and dreams, its all transient and causes massive suffering for me.

The only solution is to permanently destroy the defilements (kilesas); more accurately latent-defilements (anusaya-kilesas). latent-defilements can only be destroyed by destroying ignorance (avijja). As long as we have not completely destroyed ignorance, the latent-defilements give rise to defilements again and again in the future.
Ignorance can only be destroyed by realizing the drawbacks of everything in the world without a remainder. The step by step contemplation of the drawbacks is called insight-meditation (Vipassana).
In order to start Vipassana, we are required to have a concentration (Samadhi). In order to start Samadhi, we are required to have virtue (Sila).
The whole process is considered elegantly explained in Visuddhimagga (the-path-of-purification). You'll be amazed if you read it sincerely.

How can I let go of those who I cant remove who abuse me, those who I love who are leaving me, those things I wanted to create that will never happen?

You can read the Dhammapada Piyavagga (the chapter on like/love) to find advices on this regard. Don't forget to read the commentary of it (dhammapadatthakata) for knowing the context of each verse.

Its just so tiring to hold on to all this pain.

While starting the above mentioned gradual path, you can start seeing the drawbacks of sensual world (kama) including wealth, relatives and passions that create the rough part of the suffering.
Reading Mahadukkhakkhanda-sutta and Kama-sutta is, I think, a good option for this.

It's a terrible quagmire, isn't it? How can the fettered become unfettered? The marvellous thing about being fettered is that when one investigates how they are fettered, one only finds the inside of a toilet roll tube. In the traditional literature, (Phena Sutta) the Buddha referred to volitions being like banana tree: hollow and empty, but I used a toilet roll tube, not least because it has some interesting connotations regarding attachment to form being pretty shit, but to understand that, one needs to do some wiping, perhaps making quite a mess along the way. When you get to the end of the toilet roll, you're left with a hollow shell which is synonymous with emptiness.
You might visualise the Enso paint stroke in a similar fashion. It starts out thick, and as the circle is formed, it tapers off into nothing. The circle never actually completes itself: one just disappears.
Although nobody is actually fettered, we have to approach the whole nonsense as if we were, so that, ironically, we can see that we're not.

To be able to let go of what can't be made one's own, isn't under one's control, no refuge, a pain, requires gratitude. If there isn't gratitude for what had been received, given, but instead ideas of rights, claims, there is no such as letting go but just aversion and dislike, based on still wishing to gain control. Goodwill and gratitude allows one to move on for higher, move on toward the unbound, deathless domain, following the Arahats, their path.

The pain you speak of is telling you something is wrong, it is the best teacher you have. You acknowledged that you need to let go of something ie attachment to "The world", so you know basically what needs to be uprooted, so your actually doing awesome so far. Now, how to shake those deep roots out.
If you make a list of the things in your life that are causing pain and then write beside each one what you were expecting from it. Then review them again and ask what is the reality of those expectations. Lets say you have a sick child and your expectation was that they would grow healthy and go on to do things that "normal" people do. Now what is the reality? There is no such promise made, no one gets out of this life alive and everyone you know will pass.  Do this with your list and then remember that everything in the conditioned world will change and that peace of mind can only come from the silent unchanging part of the Universe. Let that be your anchor, your island anytime you feel pain arise. Never give in to masochism, it is a dark path. Recognize when it arises and abandon it completely.

Q: How can I let go of those who I cant remove who abuse me?
you have to forgive them first.  this is according to V. Bhante Vimalaramsi that explains that forgiveness is the path to peace.  He expounds TWIM (tranquil wisdom Insight Meditation).  There is a book called, "GUide to forgiveness meditation"

of course if the situation is unsafe, then I would just leave...

then there is my personal sad favorite:  'i forgive myself for not wanting to understand'

People come to Theravada from places of great suffering. That's what drew me. It works. But it's not about shutting down and suppressing everything. It's about understanding. What is the source of your pain? How should I act differently? Ajahn Nyanamoli understands this. However, he is hardcore. You don't need that level of sense restraint at your point. Try loving-kindness. There are many ways to do loving-kindness. Try a few and see what works best.

You might try looking at: The Failings of the World
— Lokavipatti Sutta  (AN 8:6)
It begins:

“Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
“For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?”

If it's any help, maybe remove not "the thing" but instead the feeling you have about the thing.
I read your saying, "How can I let go of those who [etc.] [and] those things I wanted [etc.]? Its just so tiring to hold on to all this pain."
So perhaps you want to let go of the "pain", and what occasions that pain -- which isn't necessarily "those who" and "those things" -- what occasions the pain how you feel about them, e.g. "I wanted" etc.
And maybe a way to let go of that kind of feeling is to understand that it gives rise to pain etc. -- and so, what you thought was desirable is, considering that it causes pain, not desirable -- and so maybe abandon it instead of 'relishing' it.
I think the above is more-or-less what first the three Noble truths are about.
The other thing is to replace your present motives ("I wanted") with something else -- i.e. generally "ethical" behaviour, also right view, eventually non-remorse (as a result of not doing the wrong thing) and so on.


text:
Focusing on a visual object
I was often discouraged in the past years attempting shamatha meditation, because it seemed fruitless. However, I noticed recently that if I focus on the breath, I have the impression that I am unwavering in my concentration. But, if I use a visual object, as an image of the Buddha, the image tends to constantly shift and alter in my mind's eye.
Could this be a sign that am deluding myself when using the breath as object? Would I be better using a visual object to be sure I am really doing it right?

How do you focus on a visual (imaginary) object? it’s imaginative right? An imaginative object can only last so long...

@blue_ego I think the question is clear, it's asking, "When I focus on the breath I have the impression that my attention doesn't waver. But when I try to use that "unwavering attention" to imagine an image, the image wavers. So, is the impression of "unwavering attention" a delusion? And should I instead focus on a real visual object?"

Rather than getting bogged down in ever-changing perceptions, which can be quite nauseating, for me, this was a matter of keeping things rather simple: knowing when concentration was present, knowing when it wasn't, and knowing its qualities when it was present.
Jumping prematurely to the punchline, as this practice develops, it points the mind away from the disturbances of forms and towards the emptiness, the signless and the aimless which is where knowing, as we conventionally understand knowing, no longer happens. In short, the typical human consciousness stops dead, and yet there's still heat coming from the body, breathing continues, and motion.
Initially, however, one firstly develops a familiarity with the disturbances - sometimes called mindfullness - which can take an entire lifetime for some. This is what you're trying to describe in your question: how to reconcile with the practice of mindfulness. These disturbances are listed in various formats two of them being the 5 hindrances and the 4th and 5th fetters. If you have broken the first three fetters, these disturbances stand out like a sore thumb and are thus much easier to deal with.
To answer your question more directly: the attention is always wavering; it needs a perceptual achor to define itself as 'attention' and since all perceptions are changing, so too the attention changes. As such, the attention has various qualities, textures and scopes.
Just to throw a curve ball: there is a part of your awareness (not your six sense awareness) that doesn't have any perceptual qualities whatsoever. It doesn't move, it doesn't not move. The Buddha described it best as: "one is neither here, there nor in-between the two."

So the issue with samatha meditation is that it is very hard. You either need a excellent teacher or need to be at the first level of Enlightenment.
Do cultivation instead. Bring up wholesome qualities. Loving-kindness, Compassion, Bodhicitta are some examples.

Check out kasina practice.  It's detailed rather thoroughly in the Visuddhimagga - which is available for free online.  The jist of it is that you stare at a colored disk until the image is so familiar and habituated, it's easily cognizable by the inner eye.  If it's not, then you go back to staring.  Ultimately, the kasina becomes a jumping off point for the counterpoint sign and full jhana.  Some people find the fire kasina easiest to practice because staring at, say, a candle produces an actual, perception after image when your eyes are closed.  Rather than have to force an inner visualization, you can simply turn your mind to that inner, after-image.
What I particularly like about these practices is that you are working with the mind as an attention object almost right out of the gate.  They force you to stabilize your mind quiet early.  Breath perception is very effective, but I think people ultimately let their attention go a bit lax and diffuse as the breath is such an expansive object.  There's really no point or place at which it occurs making one-pointedness a little harder to establish.