text:
Boundaries and Buddhism
Further to this question Do Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself? Or is the creation of boundaries an obstacle to enlightenment because of its avoidance of future suffering? Are we called to give of ourselves without bounds, even to those without gratitude for our service? How does this apply to emotional, financial, and service to others with our time?

There have been several short answers, here's a longer one.
Do Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself?
Buddhists might have a non-Western concept of "oneself".
For example I think it's seen as perpetuating suffering to hold onto grudges ...

He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

More generally, it's taught that concepts of "me" and "my" (presumably including "my feelings" but also "my rights" and "my self-image") aren't always satisfactory and you might do better without. And it identifies a source of dissatisfaction, i.e. wanting ("craving for") things to be other than they are -- to have an idealised image of how things should be, and disliking them for not being like that (i.e. the reality not matching the ideal).
"Self-image" is a bit tricky -- for example pride (or conceit) is imperfect, but is said to be sometimes useful on the path (e.g. "if I practice like he does, then I too can attain etc.") -- and other mental factors (which may sometimes seem related), like "confidence", are good.
I think there are boundaries in a conventional/social sense. For example one of the five precepts is "no stealing" (or perhaps more formally, "no taking what's not given"), which is a kind of inter-personal boundary. There's also a concept of "Right Speech" -- which could include avoiding "harsh" speech -- that too may help inter-personal relationships.
Buddhism seems quite presciptive about emotional attitudes -- so "ill-will" for example is a hindrance -- or there are several mental factors which are listed as unwholesome, conversely several which are wholesome or associated with a skilful mind. I think that helps to define internal boundaries (intra-, not inter-personal)-- e.g. if I begin to feel angry I take that as a warning that I may cross, or have already crossed, a "boundary".
Buddhism seems keen on ethical behaviour -- behaving ethically, doing the right thing. I suppose that may be in common with other religions, but perhaps unlike some "Western" secular concepts. There are some secular attitudes like, "if it's legal it's alright", or even, "if I can get away with it then it's alright", or, "I have a perfect right to get angry with you and to speak harshly if I feel like it", which maybe aren't very moral. Whereas Buddhist ethics might be motivated by e.g. "harmlessness" and "compassion".
Buddhism teaches "dependent arising" which I take as applying to inter-personal communication too -- e.g. content and direction of our conversation doesn't depend only on "me", or only on "you", but on both, and also on circumstances -- and circumstances may be transient, so the type of conversation you can have with a person isn't entirely a characteristic of the other person, but depends on the circumstance they are in and also on how skilfully you converse.
Generosity (giving) is another virtue. You're not necessarily expected to give more than you can afford, mind you. Even keeping savings for the future -- for taxes, as an insurance against theft, to reinvest in a business -- is prudent behaviour for a "house-holder" ... but, conversely, giving nothing maybe isn't right.
More topics related to giving:

It's good for the giver
The "highest gift" is the gift of Dhamma
When relating with monks, at least, for example, it's hoped that you'll give them the "requisites" -- principally e.g. food daily and occasionally robes or medicine -- conversely monks have I think a duty to be "easy to support" e.g. not too choosy about what food they accept

The "merit" associated with giving is perhaps not associated with how grateful the recipient is. Instead the merit depends on how "worthy" the recipient is. If you give food to a monk on their alms round, for example, I think you can't expect them to look you in the eye and smile and nod and say "thank you" -- which may look a little unusual when you first see it though Western eyes, but there it is.
There's actually a Zen story, which may (or may not) be related to that -- The Giver Should Be Thankful.
Actually, many of the famous "Zen stories" may be related to the topic of "giving" in some way, for example these, which I'll list here without further comment:

Publishing the Sutras
The Thief Who Became a Disciple
The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
Is That So

Back to the subject of ethics, I think it's ideal to do things -- not things which are necessarily pleasant or easy -- but things from doing which you experience a "lack of remorse". I think that means, in Western terms, having no "guilty conscience", not regretting the effort. Also if you try to do something that's (morally) good, then it's good if you succeed -- but even if the outcome isn't what you might have hoped, perhaps the effort or "intention" counts for a lot.
This answer is a bit one-sided though, perhaps it isn't written from the perspective of "ending kamma".
Also I mentioned The Insult (SN 7.2) in an earlier post. The Western concept of boundaries might be tit for tat, i.e. if someone transgresses the normal boundaries then we will too in return -- e.g. if you get angry then I'll get angry with you, and so on. Whereas an ideal might be to be less conditionally (more unconditionally) well-behaved -- perhaps like an ideal or well-disciplined parent, where even if a child misbehaves then the parent's behaviour remains appropriate -- including e.g. harmless, compassionate, etc.

Careful and compassionate answer, Nyom Chris, with much sacrifices of time and effort. Sadhu. Not to much into detail, just one thing "When relating with monks, at least, for example, it's hoped that you'll give them the "requisites"", it's neither hoped by good monks, nor obligation, but just a possibility to make even great merits. Of course, if monks are not supplied with such, they would "die" away, at least from ones sphere, inwardly and outwardly.

The Pali Canon position (e.g. Sedaka Sutta) is that :

[Correctly] Looking after oneself, one [implicitly] looks after others.
  [Correctly] Looking after others, one [implicitly] looks after oneself.

The Mahayana position is unquestionably that of service without boundaries.
That said, both the Buddha of Pali Canon and the contemporary Mahayana teachers insist that taking care of oneself is a prerequisite to being able to take care of others. To use a modern analogy, first put the oxygen mask on oneself, and then help the children.

In Buddhism, no action is to be performed that harms oneself. Refer to MN 61:
The Dhammapada says:

Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be
  intent upon the good.

Householder Sarah, interested,

Do Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself?"

No, not a little do faithful followers adhere to modern and western concepts of protection. The only but firm uphold boarder and protection is Sila and what ever can be given in this frame, would be given. Meaning not harming others with ones gift and not harming oneself by violating the precepts. That's the border, the protection of the wise to be open to let go and give without limits.
Sarah's first question met the parami (Perfection: qualities that lead to awakening) metta & kanti, this here is about the pāramī generosity, which comes after reaching integrity and before, as an outward practice, the path.
The path of the Noble Ones is gone to get out of all boundaries and the more one is able to give and share, abounds all kinds of maccharia, the more one would be able to gain access, path and fruits. For one incapable to let go of stinginess not even Jhana can be accepted.
To avoid disadvantages, like no proper use of ones gifts, the wise encourage to give in the five proper seasons, leaded by virtuous people who stick to precepts (good Brahmans, monks, the Sangha). Giving to ordinary people, for the most, is a matter of duty and gratitude (Sila) in ones relation that one wishes to maintain.
When it is said "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.", it puts exactly there, since there is no benefit and good for oneself aside doing merits, letting go. Generosity is ones help, Sila the boundary that protects one for harm oneself.
When a house is on fire
the vessel salvaged
is the one that will be of use,
    not the one left there to burn.

So when the world is on fire
with aging and death,
one should salvage [one's wealth] by giving:
    what's given is well salvaged.

What's given bears fruit as pleasure.
What isn't given does not:
    thieves take it away, or kings;
    it gets burnt by fire or lost.

Then in the end
one leaves the body
together with one's possessions.
Knowing this, the intelligent man
enjoys possessions & gives.

Having enjoyed & given
in line with his means,
    uncensured he goes
    to the heavenly state.

(The House) On Fire
When ever thought appear "oh, when I give this, that could be for my disadvantage", then act against the defilement, when ever possible.
Stingy people are really poor people, sitting and rowf, rowf!
Here are Suttas on Generosity and western and modern people, although they call them Buddhist, yet not even able to practice Dana, are stingy and without basic faith, so association with those can be of lot harm. When their sometimes talk fine, then it's just talk, never having practiced.
A real Buddhist, one who has reached stream, is free of maccharia.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones lives at home with an awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms.

SN 55.32
It's up to oneself whether using the Tripple Gems to feed on them or to give into it by letting go, up to oneself making oneself a stingy misser, or a mighty Deva or Beyound.
Your choices are yours, merits and those which are demerits. No one can force you either to wise actions nor to foolish. But it's good to associate with generous and virtuous one, as one learns fast in this way, is not guided upwardly.
Less are those working, acting for their welfare and stick to merits, so be quick or you have lost another time, losing what you hold on later on anyway, left with stinginess alone gaining a poor an misery existence, one after another. Wise are headed upwardly here and now and later on.
May all spend a blessed and meritfull Fullmoon-Uposatha tomorrow and a devoged fwthrsday today.
A nice story at least, but not last: Your Temple, your palace and your borders
An maybe expended answer and space for discussion can be found here: [Q&A] Boundaries (of giving) and Buddhism
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but as a means toward escape from this wheel here)

Sadhu for edits, Nyom @Memor-X

In the essay "Metta Means Goodwill", Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote, that while we should have loving kindness and compassion, it is important that beings are able to look after themselves, and that is in their best interest too.

The first set of phrases comes in a passage where the Buddha
  recommends thoughts to counter ill will. These phrases are chanted
  daily in Theravada communities the world over:

May these beings — free from animosity, free from oppression, and free
    from trouble — look after themselves with ease.
— AN 10.176

Notice that last statement: "May they look after themselves with
  ease." You're not saying that you're going to be there for all beings
  all the time. And most beings would be happier knowing that they could
  depend on themselves rather than having to depend on you. I once heard
  a Dharma teacher say that he wouldn't want to live in a world where
  there was no suffering because then he wouldn't be able to express his
  compassion — which when you think about it, is an extremely selfish
  wish. He needs other people to suffer so he can feel good about
  expressing his compassion? A better attitude would be, "May all beings
  be happy. May they be able to look after themselves with ease." That
  way they can have the happiness of independence and self-reliance.

This seems like a very tricky and important question, and superficially, Buddhism and Western psychology are at odds here. As a therapist, I desire to help people as much as possible but some people, such as those with borderline personalities, have loose boundaries. They will take all they can get, endlessly, and it reminds me of the question of "when to help hungry people by giving them fish versus when to teach them to fish." Sometimes the answer is clear; in an airplane, you must give yourself oxygen before helping others.
Buddhism meanwhile says that the bodhisattva is one who voluntarily renounce
s the right to enter nirvana until suffering is alleviated for "the last blade of grass." So there is a selflessness, which points towards no boundaries and infinite generosity.But we're talking about a terrain of paradox: the most generous thing at times for some folks might be for us to say "no." It's situation specific it seems to me. If you come up with anything enlightening about this, please let me know: charleshorowitzphd@yahoo.com


text:
How to identify Pada Parama Persons?
As preached by Buddha there are four types of people in the world, they are ugghaṭitaññū, vipañcitaññū, neyya and padaparama. The last person is definition is here. Can anyone please guide me how how to identified the pada-parama type people.
Update
Based on the comments, I was looking for the definitions of above four types of people and finally found that in Sutta Pitaka -> Kuddaka Nikaya -> Nettiprakaranaya -> Desanāhāravibhaṅga. And the english translation is not yet done, but you can find the pali here.
I've highlighted the important words in below quoted section from above sutta.

Tattha bhagavā ugghaṭitaññussa puggalassa nissaraṇaṃ desayati,
  vipañcitaññussa puggalassa ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca desayati,
  neyyassa puggalassa assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca
  desayati.

nissaraṇaṃ = deliverance
ādīnavañca = danger
assādañca = attractiveness
puggalassa = person
desayati = lecturing / teaching

So here are three main things in Buddhism which are assādañca, ādīnavañca and nissaraṇañca. And the details of how it relates to the path can be found in [Sotapanna Sutta][3] as below.

And when, monks, the Ariyan disciple understands as they really are
  the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger,
  and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, he is called an
  Ariyan disciple who is a Stream-winner, not liable to states of
  woe,1 assured of final enlightenment.

So in summary, out of the the four persons three has defined the based on what to be taught.

ugghaṭitaññussa -> Teaching deliverance is sufficient.
vipañcitaññussa -> Teaching danger and deliverance is sufficient.
neyyassa -> Has to teach all three which are attractiveness danger and deliverance.
Pada parama ->  Can not attain Nivana as he is the one for whom the words are the utmost attainment'.;Whoever, though having learned much, speaking much, knowing many things by heart, and discoursing much, has not penetrated the truth. (this is extracted from here)

I don't want to complain, but another user complained privately that they couldn't find the words you're referring to. Where do they come from? Can you use standard spelling for them? I guess you're writing something as you hear it pronounced, or perhaps Sinhala instead of copying Romanised Pali spelling that the English-speaking users of this site are used to? I think that the words you used correspond to Ugghaṭitaññū, vipañcitaññū, neyyo, padaparamo in AN 4.133 but I had to guess the standard spelling a bit to find it and not everyone will.

Updated the definition of each person after searching for few days.

Hello, @follower. Please note that this is a Q&A site. Not a forum, not a blog, not a wiki. It's a Q&A site. Which means, it's not intended for sharing (pushing) what you want, but only what someone else wants. Someone else asks a question when they need something, then you provide service to them, by giving the answer. Please refrain from using this site as a forum or blog.

I don’t share anything, my question is still there, if you read it carefully. I just add some definition as everyone wants to know what those before answering (this is based on comments). Please read before type

You know, arguing with police officers and moderators tends to get situation worse? ;)

@AndreiVolkov, I know, That's why I tried to explain, I'm saying I'm not arguing here, and just tried to explain what I did, that's all (Please know that, English is not my mother tongue). Anyway, If you want me to remove the updated section, I'll remove that. With Metta!

No, it's okay, you can keep it. Just be sure to stay within strictly Q&A format in the future, please.

The Buddha has 10 special powers out of which one is:

The Tathagatha Buddha has realized in the exact way how a person’s abilities develop, how they deteriorate, and accordingly their potential to realize the Dhamma. This is His Sixth power.

Source: The Supreme Buddha with His Ten Powers
Only a fully enlightened Buddha has the above power.
Therefore, there is nobody, other than a future fully enlightened Buddha who can say which category you fall into.
Having said that you can practice the Dhamma and figure out if you fall into the 1st 3. Figuring you if you are in the 3rd or 4th will be tricky because you will not know what about of effort you have to put into the 3rd category and if you have not realised whether you are in the 3rd or 4th.

I wish i knew more about what sutras say about this. Also, some things on the top of my head:

You observe whether a persons teachings are congruent with how that person acts.
By direct experience. You try out the teachings for yourself to find out whether they work for you or not.
By asking for clarifications to see if initial claims can be substantiated further. (A wise person once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

Are you sure that there's a sutta which contains these?

@follower https://suttacentral.net/an4.133/en/sujato

@follower As far as i understand puggalapannati 184-5 deals with these things

I found the relevant suttas on this.

As said in MN 22 (Alagaddupama Sutta):

Here, bhikshus, some misguided people learn the Dharma — the discourses, the stanzas, the expositions, the verses, the inspired utterances, the sayings, the birth stories, the marvels and the answers to questions — but having learnt the Dharma, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. Without examining the purpose of those teachings with wisdom, they fail to see its wisdom.
Instead, they learn the Dharma only for the benefit of finding faults with others and for defending themselves in a debate, and they do not enjoy the good for the sake of which one learns the Dharma. Those teachings, wrongly grasped by them, bring them harm and suffering for a long time to come.

Piya Tan comments:

Gombrich, in his interestingly exploratory How Buddhism Began (1996), has done a useful critical study of the two famous parables of the Alagaddûpama Sutta. He begins by pointing out the problem of “scholastic literalism” (his expression):

Texts have been interpreted with too much attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker’s intention, the spirit of the text. In particular I see in some doctrinal developments what I call scholastic literalism, which is a tendency to take the words and phrases of earlier texts (maybe the Buddha’s own words) in such a way as to read in distinctions which it was never intended to make.

Gombrich goes on to say that the Buddha is himself aware of the dangers (or disadvantages) of “putting words first” (pada,parama), that is, the last of the four types of unawakened learners. From the Ugghaṭitaññu Sutta, we know that “the word learner” is one, who THOUGH HE HEARS MUCH, RECITES MUCH, REMEMBERS MUCH AND SPEAKS MUCH, is still unable to see the nature of true reality.

From the above we can establish a nice rule of thumb for a practitioner to reflect upon him-or-herself and recognize whether he or she is a pada-rama:
If I know much Dharma but use it mostly as tool for finding the faults with others, instead of implementing its purpose -- the pure mind of Bodhi -- in my every action, every word, and every thought - then I am a pada-parama.

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

I could find the definitions and updated the question with them.

Upasaka, interested,
My person thinks that modern, western ways are generally a good way to identify Pada-parama. And it's hard to trace any community online being not actually a meeting of merely Pada-paramas. Althought people have amassed so much knowledge people in traditional countries never had, they are not capable to practice anything, since knowledge is not wisdom. Whether another is wise requires to be wise and attentive at first place, and not biased:

"It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning." (Ud 6.2)

Further a fool gets angry if it is about wisdom, even he knows much:

"Bhikkhus, a stupid one hearing a talk on wisdom becomes ill tempered, angry, retorts angrily and shows aversion. What is the reason? He does not see the attainment of wisdom in him and does not experience joy and delight on account of wisdom. Therefore to a stupid a talk on wisdom is unpleasant. (AN 5.157)

And only one who knows his own mind would be able to knows that of others and his state:

"Good, monks. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.'
"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"No, lord."
"Good, monks. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.'"... (Association with People of Integrity)

Nothworthy: while a wise person could possible lack in knowledge, a fool, how much ever knowledge he gains, would never be wise and make use of it for his own and other long term happiness.
One recognices a community if Pada-parama by:

no Venerations by word and deed toward the Tipple Gems, elders, Brahmans and monks
no joy even on talks on Dana, generosity, not to speak about deeds.
no sharing of merits, no rejoicing with gains of others, no wish to talk on such
no joy in speaking about Sila, metta in action.
no joy in praising father and mother, teacher, and merely disregard them.
using commercial sold out Dhamma, or improper gained, seldom ever have received Dhamma
are not at all related to the Dhamma
do not praise renouncing and going forth, althought they would not have hindances, stay in their homes, defend home-stand as a bette one.
their teachers are householders, scholars or those who renounced the training, having gone back tu householder life, or householder-monk.
when they give into something then outside the Sangha.
they don't respect the traditional culture and origin countries costoms.
they are greedy, stingy and hateful, censure, are not welcoming, delete, have no Silas in all regards.
they defend rights and are quick in claims, hold wrong views.
althought not even basic trainings, they love topics of sunnata, not-self... yet are firm faithless householder at the same time.
they would not even invite monks and Brahmans, not even speaking of sacrifices to gain their assistants.
At large ingratitude foremost toward parents, teacher and the Tripple Gems. Denying that they have benefit form others yet assuming that having reached Paths and Fruits.
incapable to understand the meaning and essence and usually having problems when different words are used dune to strong preoccupation and lack of the ability of de-perception.
Endless busy and involved in definition debates which are not conductive for release but seek after reality in perceptions.

It's not so that it should be understood that someone talking less or much, praises less or much, blames less or much, might be a criteria, not at all, since there are four kinds of people found in this world, like clouds:
Valahaka Sutta: Thunderheads
For the community of monks and devoted fellows, they are recogniced as outcastes, not even recognize their state and reiceive and are been given for the most cases like faithful people make sacrifices toward Petas, their poor ancestors, but seldom, having never done merits, they are capable to receive.
As the Buddha told, one should not associate with equal or low if after fast grow, and when giving into the group of sick people, not easy to help, such should be done out of pure compassion only. It because those able to get healthy that those incaplable also receive Dhamma.
It should be easy, even for those not sure, to recognize this sort of people fast, simply look of what they actually sacrifices and whether their own or proper gained and their aspirations, whether household or going forth, and on what they praise and blame.
More on how to recognize people of integrity and there qualities here.
A joyful in merits and possible meeting the Sangha full-moon-Uposatha with much lasting gains everyone.

Addition: another kind (the kind that Nyom Andrei thought to trace, which was actually not talked about in the OP), although fund under the Pada-parama are those who actually have not abound their heritage of other sects. Holding on wrong views they try to interpret things into the Dhamma which aren't its purpose, revile deliberately the teachings. Often will one recognize people of sects like Mahayana or even Christians or the many kinds of materialists (cosmologists), secular people, learning the texts of the Elders without having even taken refuge to the Gems, simply to desturct and oppose them and gain the credits. They pull away the Dhamma from the traditional countries and put them into their museums, found "Sangha" without even monks, honor scholars and put the Dhamma on central places where it can be used even to sell. The first kind, those who are simply not smart enough are nourished by the "Robin hoods", whether in Robes or lay people, who make a livelihood out of sharing the Dhamma.
The usually google all they cite, although never having learned Pali, not used to Asian language, they reinterpret as householders or householder-monks the teachings of the elders, they categorical reject the commentaries of the Arahants and Elders and even Suttas if they think that they do not fit in their ideas. Reject often rebirth, fruits of kamma, benefits in merits... lead and hold strong wrong view and are to be seen as the gatherings around Devadatta, seeking after honor and gain. Just look around as they are easy to trace.
They might do many favors but as soon as they have gained some power, they would take all back or call for repayment. They give 'free' like people share software 'free' for later grater gain and are only after win and gain, tolerate what ever violation of basics, stealing, killing deleting, as long as it serves their low aims. They would even not say "You act again the Dhamma and Vinaya", but "You act against me, my teachings", which explains a lot already and since they would not find Dhamma that it defends their views, if no simply try to delete, censure of banner good and right teachings, they start to say "I know" and put themselves above the Juwels and 2600 years heritage of goodness while enjoying pleasures and live householder lives.

"I appear to be a ugghaṭitaññū person. Therefore, those people that oppose me, i.e., who act as enemies towards me, are probably padaparamo people."

or

"My father was an Orthodox Christian and I am an Orthodox Buddhist. My posts on Buddhism Stack Exchange are Orthodox Buddhism. Please study them well."

might be samples of what they say, not teaching the Dhamma of the Buddha but their own, after honor and gain, deceitful and calculating they give, doing favors and eat together with those in power, giving them some share and as soon as they find ways, like politic ans, they will try to take over the heritages, eat also those they had given to them.
One here has to be aware that one dwells here in the middle of such people far outside the Dhamma-Vinaya and if not just for doing support out of pure compassion, it is much better to seek out for communities where opposing the elders, ascetics and Brahmans are strict taboos, where sharing of merits, Dana and Devotional deeds are practiced.
See also:

[Q&A] What's the effect of association with outcasts?
[Q&A] The Bane of Social Media & Giving up bad friends
Elements of wrong views common to Secular Buddhism
How to address wrong view (preliminary)

and the many down-voted, deleted or censured questions and answers praising and discussing the basics found here.
May all this help for deep and hard improvement because the bad kamma accumulated here by many is no light and will fall back to them, whether they understand or not. Place yourself under the Gems is ones refuge, ones protections and follow the ways of the elders, even if hard to do as long as not firm in faith. May all by their good actions gain heavens, paths, fruits and beyond, finding right choices with ease or simply follow the wise and their Dhamma. May their faults do not hit them hard by seeing them and change their ways: Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta: The Shorter Analysis of Action
And: Why does it yappen that those incapable to get healed get Dhamma? Because of the other kind of sick people.
Metta and mudita
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

I could find the definitions of each person. Have a look in the updated question.

Sadhu for effort and care, Upasaka @follower. May Upasaka not hesitate to give an "own" answer if seeing clear.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Goal of liberation in yoga/meditation - Isn't it Boring?
I see that the goal of yoga/meditation is liberation from the karma and from the birth/death cycle. People say that it is the ultimate happiness forever. But wouldn't that be boring and monotonous if there is happiness forever?

You're assuming 'forever' is a long time. For a truly happy person it is just the 'Perennial Now' or 'Divine Instant'. Also, imagine losing all your fear of death and dissolution - wouldn't this make you more happy than bored?   .

In Buddhism, Nibbana refers to liberation from suffering (dukkha). It is also referred to as the highest bliss (nibbanam paramam sukham) in Dhp 204. The word sukha is translated in this context as bliss, but in other contexts, also as happiness.
Boredom is a type of suffering. An enlightened person is free from this type of suffering too.
We have 3 types of feelings - pleasant feelings (usually associated with sensual enjoyment), painful feelings (usually associated with aversion) and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings (usually associated with boredom and confusion). Feelings here include forms with eyes, sound with ears, odor with nose, taste with tongue, touch with body and ideas with mind.
When an unenlightened person experiences neither-pleasant-nor-painful (or neutral) feelings, he may experience boredom. But when an enlightened person experiences neutral feelings, he experiences bliss.
So, is unending happiness or bliss a source of boredom? Not for the enlightened one.
What causes boredom?
The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings (tanha) would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction. No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction.
The first noble truth states that there is suffering.
The second noble truth states that the cause of suffering is craving. This includes the suffering of boredom too.
The third noble truth states that with the cessation of craving, comes the cessation of suffering. This includes the cessation of boredom too.
The fourth noble truth shows the path to end suffering, which is the noble eightfold path.
This answer may also be helpful.

Householder sundar, interested,
this question is a very advanced one and the seek after lastig satisfying happiness, if not informed, binds so hard to suffering, but if seen the escape and the posibility trough human effort, turns one to refined, longer lasting and release, where such as boredom can not reach.
The carpenter Pañcakanga once asked the Buddha about the kinds of feelings who left him open a choice of the many kinds.

Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'”

It is right if one says, that happiness gained by Yoga (meaning "taking on the whole yoke", work) meditation alone could not be lasting satisfying, is no refuge, never under ones controll, nor really real, since it is always conditioned and conditioned phenomenas are actually not lasting. What ever happiness to gain requires work, sacrifices, pain, even when attained, to maintain it further. Yet ordinary pleasure, based on the five senses requires a lot of pain for very short pleasure, needed even as livelihood, thought on raw food, to be able to walk on and do not break apart. This raw food of sensuality does not only require on sacrifices but harm other and is mostly not voluntary given and so leads to more conflicts.
Contentment with low kind of happiness is much more subject to boredom in shorter and more harmful ways for oneself and others, so seek after refined is needed, and contentment here it enemy to find better or even release, lasting satisfation.
If one is in a palace, enjoys what ever senspleasure is avaliable, proper similies are needed so that one could find needed faith:

“...Even so but to a still greater degree, Aggivessana, is Prince Jayasena hemmed in, blocked, obstructed, enveloped by this mass of ignorance. Indeed, that Prince Jayasena, living as he does in the midst of sense-pleasures, enjoying sense-pleasures, being consumed by thoughts of sense-pleasures, eager in the search for sense-pleasures, should know or see or attain or realize that which can be known… seen… attained… realized by renunciation — such a situation does not exist. Had these two similes occurred to you, Aggivessana, for Prince Jayasena, Prince Jayasena naturally would have acted in the manner of one having trust in you.” The Discourse on the 'Tamed Stage'

If one maintains ones needed joy by meditation, it would not harm anybody, neither oneself (think on all the side-effects of sensepleasures on health and freedom lose by addictions), nor others (think that all sensepleasure harms endless beings and lives till foods for senses can be consumed). Jet of cource, since thist and greed after pleasure is not stilled, even if no more after raw sense pleasures, even when thinking on highest sensual pleasures, one gets bored with it, has no controll of it and the maintaining becomes burdensome and doubt, whether there is a better arises again: this very craving. Gaining every day ones beloved food, one gets sick of it, since the mind, not knowing release, searches always for more and anew. The refined food gained by the work in yoga-meditation, how ever, not only that it is always different and much more refined, has a lot of levels of fineness, satisfies more lasting, not only because it does not harm others and would thereby fast taken away and fought by others again.
Yet nevertheless this satifaction would break apart, so those work, yoga, has to be understood in two ways, one as a good livelihood, to gain a pleasent dwelling, one to investigate all kinds of pleasures and the need for gain, that all those states are not lasting, subject of aging, sickness and death.
Once somebody sees and understands that what ever state and retined happiness, existing, would nevertheless of no lastig satisfacion, seeing the disadvantages even in heavenly states of high conncentration, this is the point where the Buddha and Arahats would teach the Sublime Dhamma of the Noble Ones, the Four Noble Truth. to those tending to renouncing the meaningless seek after real happiness in the worlds.

"Bhikkhus, it is through not realizing, through not penetrating the Four Noble Truths that this long course of birth and death has been passed through and undergone by me as well as by you. What are these four? They are the noble truth of dukkha; the noble truth of the origin of dukkha; the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha; and the noble truth of the way to the cessation of dukkha. But now, bhikkhus, that these have been realized and penetrated, cut off is the craving for existence, destroyed is that which leads to renewed becoming, and there is no fresh becoming."

Having listened with proper attention, attantion of what gives birth within, once this is penetrated, the cause clear seen, and by the right approach it's cause, not understanding, by seeing by one self, uprooted, one breaks into the deathless sphere, the unconditioned, having done the work, and at this point, no more work is needed, all done and lasting satisfaction attained. No more birth, aging, sickness and death, noting further for this world and by breaking up of the body, with death, finaly Nibbana has been gained.
Till then, after attaining the deathless, here and now, while still alive, one would spend much time in this Jhanas, states of concentration, as pleasant livelihood, next to live from alms to maintain body and give others a possibility for great merits.
That is why the follower of the Buddha chant daily: "N'atthi santi param sukham" 'No peace is higher as the heal of Beyond/Nibbana'
The Yoke of the Eightfold paths mastering is not taken on for further wandering on, but by seeing that what ever conditioned states can not be lasting satisfied, are pointless.
Yoga Sutta: Yokes
Joined with the yoke of sensuality
    & the yoke of becoming,
joined with the yoke of views,
    surrounded by ignorance,
beings go to the wandering-on,
    heading to birth
        & death.
But those who comprehend sensuality
    & the yoke of becoming — entirely —
who have thrown off the yoke of views
    and are dispassionate
    toward ignorance,
disjoined from all yokes:
they — their yokes overcome —
        are sages
        indeed.
Right labor makes free!
Possible good to remark, that the path is not gained by concentration, but 'simply' by hearing the good Dhamma and proper attention, as for right concentration, fruit and release, the aim, once right view is gained, virtue purified, there is no more need of will required, and will be effected by the previous given causes:

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises in a person free from remorse... ...rapturous... ...serene in body... ...experiencing pleasure... ...whose mind is concentrated... ...who knows & sees things as they actually are... ...who feels disenchantment... ...
..."For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.
"In this way, dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.... ...Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.
"In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore."

Mudita & Anumodana
Possible extended answer and given space for discussion or what ever inspired, can be found here: [Q&A] Goal of liberation in yoga/meditation - Isn't it Boring?
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

Dependent in the experience of boredom are feelings of disinterest and distance.  We are not part of our experience because our feelings of bored dissatisfaction keep us at one remove.  The enlightened mind is, by definition, always engaged.  Mindfulness, energy, joy, concentration, and the other seven factors of enlightenment are all present and expressed.  Each one of these factors is compelling, captivating, and fully intimate with the world.  How could a mind so engaged possibly have room for boredom?

I will give you a metaphor, for some wise people here can grasp the meaning conveyed by means of a metaphor.
A couple of days ago during my morning commute I saw a guy... Judging by the fat joint sticking out his lips, he was smoking marijuana... as he jumped off the back of the slowing down truck to grab the next portion of trash cans and empty them in, then jump back on the truck as it was already starting to move. From his all-teeth smile it looked like his morning was going well: he was high on weed, enjoying the movement and the rhythm, loud R&B music playing in his over-the-ear headphones.
In contrast to the trash guy's, my morning was rather "boring" and "monotonous": I had my usual milk-over-oatmeal breakfast out on my lake-facing deck and was driving my old Toyota Camry to a parking garage next to the company's office. My car's stereo played quiet piano of Ludovico Einaudi's "Seven Days Walking" series. For a moment I felt like I almost envied what seemed to be his youth and his "freedom". Two seconds later the illusion has passed.
It was clear that the guy's subjective world was a kind of good-morning-in-hell, with loud noises and stinking smells covered up by the marijuana-induced excitement of jumping up and down the garbage truck in rhythm with the music. My quiet morning was less exciting, true - but I knew I did not want to trade places with the garbage guy.
The mind of Samsara is like the experience of that garbage truck guy. Even though it has a lot of excitement, there's no way the mind of Enlightenment would want to trade places with it.

ohh... I understand, Andrei thinks Camry driver, going to work, listening to that music... is metaphor for the yogi on the way to Liberation...

"The mind of Samsara is like the experience of that garbage truck guy." - but the Camry-driver is not a valid metaphor for Nibbana... As a good monk I will not troll in the comments but will edit my answer to explain why ;)

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


text:
Justifiable violence in Buddhism?
Does Buddhism preach absolute non-violence? Or is there any instance where Buddha had thought that violence can become a necessity under certain situations?

See also Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically

No, householder Somanna, the Buddha and all wise approve that one thing should be killed, and only that:
Having killed what
    do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
    do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
    does Gotama approve?
[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
    you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
    you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
    — with its honeyed crest
    & poison root —
for having killed it
    you do not grieve.
Ghatva Sutta
Without need to have any doubt, if hearing or seeing that someone approves harming, encourages to such by signs and words or even performing such, that such person is not even near related to the Buddha, wise and their following, but harmful thieves in this world.
Those who have doubts, regard them as not having found refuge in the tripple Gems jet, how much ever they use the Gems, even tell that they are Buddhist, knowing, and follower.
May one be careful and blessed to never assosiate with fools and bad friend.
As already quoted, not all are capable in getting the message.
The Simile of the Saw, is possible the most famous collection on it.
Not for any purpose:

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father...for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, ...There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body,..., does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."...

Harmlessness is one of the three factors of right effort,following right view.
What ever might appear as harmfull, like rebuking fools, there by the words, right speech,  of compassion ends what ever conductive support can be given for one who acts (by thought, words and speech) for his longtime disadvantage.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but only as means to escape this binding wheel)

The Buddha generally taught the Buddhist Path rather than a formula for all of society. For example, in many of his teachings, he said those who break the law get executed by the King. The Buddha never taught the King was wrong for executing criminals. For example:

‘This person has murdered a man or a woman.’ Then the kings have them
arrested for killing, and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do
what the case requires.
AN 5.178

While it is unlikely the Buddha actually taught DN 26, DN 26 says:

But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority— provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds.

Buddhism generally makes a distinction between itself & the rest of society. Buddhists should do their very best to refrain from violence.

It's hard to "prove a negative" e.g. to prove that someone never said something (e.g. that violence is necessary).
One way to try to do that is to quote an expert on the subject.
In Getting the Message, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,

When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.

The next sentence of that quote is,

If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

I think that latter means "if trapped, to strike a blow, desiring freedom".
So I guess that's a limited, perhaps a harmless, violence.

The way I understand what Buddha taught was a set of natural law, not a man-made law. (except for Vinaya perhaps)
What Buddha taught was Kamma and Vipaka.
Angulimala killed many people but still became an Arahant.


text:
What is the difference between approaching the idea 'no-self' and the act to 'depersonalize'?
In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder.
In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment.
These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different.
Question:

Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives?
As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?

Depersonalisation as a psychiatric disorder is something traumatic.
Depersonalisation as enlightenment is calming, blissful & liberating; based in the wisdom of seeing the stress & abandoning of attachment & aversion.
It follows the depersonalised enlightened person can act, behave or interact harmoniously in the world.
The depersonalisation of the enlightened person can be a “secret” only know to them. An external person may never ever suspect or know the enlightened person is depersonalised; let alone enlightened.

So you "can act harmoniously" and "depersonalisation is a secret". Is it true, are you sure, that the "world" (i.e. other people) will view them as acting harmoniously? I ask because I thought that the world might expect them to (continue to) do a bunch of things, to have a bunch of things, to fulfil social roles and obligations -- the rat-race -- which they may be no longer be inclined to pursue?

So the Buddha did not act harmoniously, ye of little faith?

Since you ask, I suppose his parents and wife were distressed at the time. I guess I'm asking because I have some slight experience with a "psychiatric disorder" type of depersonalisation, and I guess I wasn't sure that the other type can be distinguished by its being harmonious and secret -- would "secret" mean "not even evident"? I might think of other ways to try to distinguish a psychiatric disorder from enlightenment. And perhaps I agree with you, e.g. I've thought that "enlightenment" is all very well but maybe shouldn't to be a "disability" -- I wondered if you could clarify that a bit.

Householder Krizalid, interested
In this case, under moder "Buddhists" it has the same dis-understanding and of course leads also to disorder which can be broadly observed. A good approach and explaining of generouse and wise patient can be found in Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta, by Bhante Thanissaro and is a very practical approach for everyone toward path striving.
It's a set of talks on a retreat and maybe even good to "swallow" it similar in steps.
In short: where one usually thinks "I, mine" use "not..." and there where one thinks usually "not me, mine" use "I, mine" to get through beloved and aversion and loosen greed as well rejecting of results from akusala deeds, usually approached as not-mine.
Self is one of the governing principles and proper "pride" is required to come and go through the path. Once one could abound all cravings on the senses, having entered path, one can go on in intensiver and mental use of the tool. One not having left house, clings to the senses, as told: disorder & good chance to end up as asannasatta (unaware-being) for long long time, if not headed straight to hellish existances by developed view and conducts on them.
So always first things first, the home tasks!
While the Uposata, cleaning technic, of the cow-browsers still has a chance toward path, the Jains Uposatha has no, and the best is of course that of the Ariya.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining but to use for merits, as merits, toward liberation from this wheel)


text:
The relation between Dhamma and reality itself
What is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors?
In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives.
Does this apply to Dhamma as well?
Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation.
Let me ask this with an example:
We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts?
Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it.
EDIT: a few more details...
Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them?
Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth?
Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works?
After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete.
Thanks for your time and patience!
Kind regards!

This question is way too complex to be summarized in one written answer; there are too many nuances. And even knowing that, you took the challenge, and gave wonderful answers. I'm so grateful! If I could pick more than one, I'd do it. I didn't choose the "truest" one, but the one that resonated the most to me, in my current limited knowledge. Anyway, all of these made me think and notice a lot of things, so I believe the purpose is fulfilled. Kind regards, and may all of you have wonderful lives!

Enlightenment can be compared to knowing the mathematical limit of a function. You don't have to literally know all values to understand that a function approaches zero at infinity. Something like this.
"Knowing the limit" has practical implications to how you deal with the specifics of what you encounter day to day.
When you see the principle, you see what's possible, what's impossible, and what matters - in broad terms.
All this pertains to one aspect: the workings of mind, which determine the character of experience, which determines ethics (what to do, what not to do).
Once you understand the workings of mind, you understand what actions lead to what results, at large. You understand the value, or the currency the mind deals in, and the limit of the value. Understanding the limit of the value, you are off the hook for chasing after the value, hence personal liberation.
We don't care about other aspects of reality that much,  those are domains of other sciences. We care about what matters to sentient beings: what's good, what's bad, what to do, what not to do, and why.
Dharma is Ethics, but it is Ethics grounded in the objective physics of mind (semiotics?). In every individual case we learn the ethics and the physics of mind by working with our own life and mind, on personal practice.
In Buddhism we don't normally build hypotheses, because the theory (Dharma) already exists for us. Our job is to study our observable personal reality, paying attention to Ethics and Mind, and see the real life examples of principles that Dharma talks about, then realize practical implications of these principles.

Buddha's Dhamma and the Reality is one thing. Why we are facing problems in this world? And why we are running after different things?
It is because we haven't understood the reality of the world.
Different people run after different things (Youngers -> Money, Politicians -> Power, Who-does't-have-water-to-drink -> Water, Mother -> Children, Students -> Knowledge, etc...) They all has one thing in their mind, that is they will get satisfied after they achieved their goal. If you ask from an old person has he/she achieved their goals, they will replying saying Yes, But then if you ask them whether they are Satisfied. They will think twice to answer. Because What they really ran after was, Satisfaction, or Ultimate Satisfaction But they couldn't find the ultimate satisfaction on any of their goals.
(Note: If you are ultimately satisfied of something you don't want to do it any more and you should have the happiness in your mind about it. Isn't it?)
Why? Why they couldn't get satisfied? Because They don't know where they should look for ultimate satisfaction which gives them the ultimate happiness. Then where's that place which will make someone happy forever. Which will make someone stress-free, suffer-free.
Buddha's teaching is to teach us where that ultimate satisfaction / happiness is. If you understand the problem of the world, which I mentioned above, according to the science you will identify there's a problem. And If you follow the path of Buddha you will see that how it can be solved. Basically when you are following the path you will see why we are not satisfied with this world and what's the reason for that. And how the ultimate happiness feels like.
If I answer to the example you gave;

We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply
  that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion
  without any doubts?

You can't reach there because that's not the correct Dhamma. In Canon, Cūḷavedalla Sutta Sakkaya is defined as below. (Please replace the word identity with Sakkaya and read the below) And you will understand that Sakkaya has nothing to do with Self or Identity. These translations doesn't give the exact meaning of Buddha's teaching.

“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called identity. What is this
  identity that the Buddha spoke of?”
“Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
  identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
  identity.”

So instead of trying to conclude with there is not self at all Find Buddha's meaning of Sakkaya Ditti. Because that's the entrance to Buddha's Dhamma.
Update - 1
Based on the comment below part is added. It's hard to say Yes, No as Buddhism is towards the Nivana = Englightment.

Epistemology (Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.) : Yes, Buddhism concerned about this. Because We don't understand the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief that's why we are in suffering. The Buddha studied this and understand the nature of how we think towards above factors, and that made him realized the root cause for this Sansara journey.
Ontology (Ontology is the philosophical study of being) : Buddhism explains the existence of the world, the reality of the world, and how beings are related. The main thing Buddhism focus is the reality of the world. While getting there how things are related to each other and how/why that exist are also get explained.
Pragmatism (An approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application) : In the path to Nivana he / she can evaluate which makes him/her success. Because how Buddha has advised is it's up to us to follow the path getting advises from the teacher which is Dhamma not a person.

Hi! Thanks for your answer. My question was a philosophical one, rather than practical. I wanted to know whether buddhism is concerned with epistemology, ontology, pragmatism, all of them, some of them, or none of them. Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores Updated the answer.

Pragmatism, Upasaka.

In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification.

This understanding you have highlights the difference between the pursuit of knowledge vs enlightenment. A hypothesis is a belief. Even when it is tested and vetted, it still can not be said to be truth because the foundation on which science is built relies on what we call in Buddhism, the illusion.

Does this apply to Dhamma as well?

In short, no. Dhamma is a list of instructions and teachings that assist you in seeing through the illusion. It can almost be seen as the opposite of science. In science, we start with a belief in illusion, and then accumulate more and more beliefs based on a detailed analysis done. When pursuing enlightenment, we hold each belief we accumulate, and we ask "Does this hold up to logic? What are the holes in my understanding?". Pursuing enlightenment is a process of breaking down beliefs you hold, and stripping away those that do not accurately reflect our experience.

Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation.

Gathering evidence is not how you become enlightened. Hopefully this does not deter you from perusing it, but let me explain myself fully.
The mind of the illusory self has a habit of finding problems, and wishing to solve them in some way. Solving problems is one way the illusory self perpetuates its own existence. If something is being done or solved, there must be a doer of these actions.
If there is still a solution to be solved, the illusory self still persists in some way. After becoming enlightened, the habit of looking for solutions and solving problems drops away naturally.

Let me ask this with an example:
We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts?

Enlightenment does not come after a conclusion. Enlightenment comes when the illusion is seen not as a multitude of objects and concepts, but as Nirvana, the One, the simultaneous creator and created.
It is important to remember that when enlightenment occurs, there is only Nirvana. It is not you who becomes enlightened, for who you believe yourself to be is simply a concept. It is more accurate to say that when enlightenment occurs, it is Nirvana that experiences Nirvana.

Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it.

It is 100% accurate to say that you can not know. The "you" you are referring to is the illusory self. The illusory self is a non-existent. A non-existent is incapable of knowledge. Someone who does not exist, can not know anything. This is why enlightened beings in the past have said "All I know, is that I know nothing." Knowledge is simply a label we give the experience of a thought arising, and having it correlate with some other aspect of experience. In reality, there is only Nirvana. Nothing can be known. Not because there is no Truth, but because there is no one there to hold the knowledge.
Again, if you are seeking freedom, gaining knowledge should not be your goal. You should simply be comparing your experience to your beliefs. The more beliefs you are able to verify as invalid, the easier it will become to see through the illusion.

Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them?

In my explanations here, it is important to remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. Although what I say below may seem contradictory to those with a limited frame of reference, when you see through the illusion yourself, you will see how all my explanations tie together. My explanations are coming from a place of pure, non-conceptualized experience, so trying to conceptualize will naturally cause paradoxes to arise. Try not to get hung up on the contradictory nature, and just know that they all have a basis in the same foundational experiences.
Ontology does not apply to Buddhism for there is no concept of humans. The concept of being a human that is perceiving something is part of the illusion you are trying to break free from. Nirvana is seeing the "observed" perspective and the "true" perspective are one and the same.
Epistemology somewhat applies. Like I said before, there is no knowledge, so you can drop that on the floor right away. That being said though, there is an objective way of observing experience that will undoubtedly bring about the changes that occur after enlightenment. End of suffering, End of self, End of mind, etc.
Pragmatism does not apply, for when enlightenment occurs, it is seen clearly that there is no "doer of actions". The concepts of "actions" or "cause and effect" do not apply to experience.

Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth?

All three of these conceptual frameworks were created in an attempt to prop up the belief that knowledge exists. If one definition does not suit you, you can move on to the next and say "Oh yea, that makes sense. This is how knowledge really works." In reality though, there is no one there. There is no one to know anything. There is nothing to be known. If you continue down this path of attempting to gather knowledge, you will never escape. There is no limit to what you can "know". Not because there is infinite knowledge to gain, but because knowledge is imagined, and you can imagine an infinite number of things.
There is only one thing that exists. Only one thing to experience. That one thing is not knowledge, therefore, there is no knowledge.

Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works?

Enlightenment is the end of searching for an answer. It is the end of restlessness. It is peace.
I hope you are well and I hope this information has been helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

As you said, one of the questions which science asks is, "Is this a useful model?"
There's a topic on his site, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
I think it implies that "There is a self" and "There isn't a self" are both problematic models -- for example:

If there is a self then what/where is it, is it constant, is it controllable, is it even really yours?
Or if there isn't a self then "where did this anger come from"?

But there are two quotes from the suttas that I find definitive on the subject, one is from MN 22:

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

Another is from MN 2 (see "A Thicket of Views" on this page).

A thicket of wrong views
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, 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. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."

And perhaps "I exist" and "I don't exist" are both examples of "a self-view".
Anyway, perhaps later Buddhists became metaphysical and asked whether things "really" exist.
But I think that the early suttas emphasise that perception is phenomenal e.g. by contact with sense-organs and sense-consciousness, and that how we react to (or how we feel about) those perceptions matters.
There's a "name-and-form" category among the earlier of 12 nidanas but I don't think that's analysed in detail. I find it curious that "name" is included with "form" -- perhaps that implies that it too is mind-made.
I think that Buddhism talks more about what's socially appropriate and/or liberating.
I think the Parable of Arrow implies some impatience with metaphysical questions.
Even modern medicine, though it's also interested in why or how a medicine works, is especially interested in whether it works -- to that extent, science isn't only an "explanation".

Householder Brian Díaz Flores, interested,
pragmatical but not for entertaining sake, so maybe again not of desires to construct and grasp:

In Simple Terms:
"...The Dhamma is just like this, talking in similes, because the Dhamma doesn't have anything. It isn't round, doesn't have any corners. There's no way to get acquainted with it except through comparisons like this. If you understand this, you understand the Dhamma.
"Don't think that the Dhamma lies far away from you. It lies right with you; it's about you. Take a look. One minute happy, the next minute sad, satisfied, then angry at this person, hating that person: It's all Dhamma..."

...your reality, a unsatisfied one.
As for your real home:

Your external home (senses and there objects) isn't your real home.
It's your supposed home, your home in the world.
As for your real home, that's peace.
The Buddha has us build our own home
by letting go till we reach peace, (reality).

Now are you willing to let go to see and know the different? You aren't, and so stay insatifacted, grasping this, losing that.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining with perception but to use for merits, as merits, toward liberation from this wheel: reality)

The OP asks in a comment - Is Buddhism concerned with epistemology, ontology, pragmatism, all of them, some of them, or none of them?
Buddhism is concerned with Reality, Truth and Knowledge. It is not concerned with speculations and hypotheses. It's concern with theories is didactic, not exploratory. That is, a theory such as the theory of emptiness is formulated as an explanation, not as a speculative theory to be judged by its usefulness, plausibility, explanatory power and so on. It is simply a way of explaining the facts.
These facts cannot be established by logic or sensory empiricism. They can only be know directly and its every man for himself (or woman, or LGBT variation). The ending of ignorance requires the transcendence of subjective factors of which you speak.
It's really quite annoying that the truths one learns cannot be shown to anyone else. One can report then or present them within a theory, but nobody else can be sure you're not simply speculating.
Epistemology and ontology are both thoroughly dealt with by Buddhist teachings. In the final analysis they are the same thing, and if you look around you'll find many sages proposing that 'knowing' is fundamental. If we treat this as a speculative idea then we can test it in logic and it passes the tests. Meanwhile Russell's tradition expresses utter bewilderment at the question of how we know anything and what anything actually is.
Pragmatism is a tricky one. The teachings tell us that the genuine nature of Reality cannot be conceptualised or described in words so perhaps Buddhism is Pragmatism par excellence. But the Pragmatists usually claim that this means no certain knowledge of Reality is possible, while Buddhism claims that it is possible to know that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. Thus, as with so many 'isms', Buddhism is like Pragmatism in certain respects but is really very different.

"Buddha-dhamma is like Pragmatism in certain respects but is really very different.", in regard of what? The aim? And that the pragmatism is laid out firm for it's aim? Upasaka Peter?

@SamanaJohann - I think I explain this above. Pragmatism denies the possibility of expressing truth in language and uses practical usefulness as a measure of truth. Buddhism agrees that language and concepts are not enough to capture or describe truth, but unlike Pragmatism does not deny truth or the possibility of knowledge. So they share some superficial features but are very different. Or so it seems to me. .

Hi Peter! Thanks for this wonderful answer! As far as I know, pragmatism (at least according to Peirce) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth behind a thing?

After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete. Kind regards, and thanks again!

@BrianDíazFlores - Thanks. When I say 'denies the possibility of knowledge' I mean certain knowledge,of truth, thus the Aristotelian meaning of 'certain knowledge', not relative or scientific knowledge. So both your comment and mine can be correct. Technological and scientific knowledge is clearly possible, but this is not what Pragmatism denies. This is indicated by your question 'How could we know?'. The 'truth behind a thing' can be known and discovering it is what Buddhist practice is all about. It requires different methods, allowing us to attain 'knowledge by identity'. ..  .

If we assume knowledge is always sensory, relative and inferential then Buddhist knowledge claims become implausible. The teachings are grounded in certain 'metaphysical'  knowledge that is not subject to revision or change and is known to be the case. Not necessarily by me, but by those who travel beyond the mundane world. Perhaps a clue is Al Halaj's famous claim 'I am Truth', which makes no claim to relative knowledge and which avoids the duality of the tentative claim 'I know truth'. True knowledge would be the breakdown of the 'knower-known' distinction.

Pragmatism is the most important thing in Buddhism, as seen in the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow and the Parable of the Simsapa Leaves. Buddhism uses whatever means to end suffering.
In SN 22.93, the Buddha says that the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) are impermanent or inconstant and also stressful or suffering, and thus exhorts us to see it as not our's:

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
  internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
  near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right
  discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
  what I am.'

Here, clinging to the five aggregates causes suffering, so the Buddha teaches us to see clearly that 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
On the other hand, in AN 5.57, the Buddha taught:

“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.’

While considering the body as NOT my body will eliminate suffering, here the Buddha uses the opposite method in a skillful way. Here, he says we should see ourselves as owning karma and as heir of our karma, in order to instill virtue.
So, this shows how important pragmatism is to Buddhism. "This is NOT MY body" would result in removing clinging to the impermanent thing that is the body. But, "this is MY karma" would result in good conduct. Also see this question.
What about ontology and epistemology?
Same thing. Ontology and epistemology is only important in Buddhism, when pragmatism is applied to it.
For e.g. there is an ontological description of what is feeling and how many types of feelings are there, and what is craving and how many types of cravings are there, and how many types of clinging, and how many types of latent tendencies etc. This is because it is useful towards the ending of suffering.
You can read some ontological description of craving on this page.
On the other hand the Buddha is not concerned with the ontology of things that are not related to the ending of suffering, for e.g. in Acintita Sutta:

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

The same goes to epistemology.
According to the Sabba Sutta, it's only possible to know things that can be experienced through the six senses:

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

Nirvana and the ending of suffering is therefore also knowable and can be experienced. It's possible to gain the wisdom to end suffering.

The Dhamma has nothing to with science indeed. The dhamma is more about the usual ''seeing vedana, sanna, vinnana, rupa, sankharas, phassa and so on as they really are'' more than truth, but it is not really incorrect to say that this is the truth.
Science has nothing to do with truth, not really even about knowledge, at best only about statistics about a population. People who know nothing about science, yet claim to have ''scientific minds'' love to fantasize some knowledge or truth from those stats but stats are just stats.
The stuff about evidence or proof is the usual failed moronic trick invented by rationalists to build a way to share knowledge. The best they invented is maths and even in maths there is plenty of lack of consensus.
rationalists prefer to cling to their ideas of truth as something going beyond opinions, but all they have is really lots of diverse options so as a last resort, they try to salvage their endeavor as ''truth will be a consensus of opinions of humans being experts in field'' (this stuff about experts is really invented by the secular humanists, which they use in their ''court of law'', who love to think that non experts cannot possibly make sense about a topic they have not studied)
Scientists are rationalist who try to pass as empiricists, with their oxymoron of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment''. They try to pass their speculations as ''what really happens'' but like you said they revise their claims pretty much decades after decades and they admit they they have no idea how to reach claim which will ''not change''. Even worse, they say that they do not care about a  claim which do not change and that finding  such a claim is useless in their daily life (puthujjanas are obsessed with uselessness, especially the humanists rationalists).
The major problem of the rationalists (secular or not) is that they fail to see that their ideas, or their explanations or ''useful ideas'' like you say, is that ideas are subject to vedanna and what they call explanation is nothing but ''ideas that I like'', but those people do not say ''ideas that  I like'' but ''ideas which make sense''. For those people ''making sense''  means ''pleasing'' like in the 5 usual senses, and they have to remove the ''I'' of ''I like'' because they see explanations as supposed to be universal and communicable and ''''objective'' (which is a meaningless word they invented meaning ''non-subjective'', ie ''not subject to personal biases like emotions'' rationalists hate emotions and cling to their fantasy of a puthujjana having knowledge separate from vedana). but due to the infatuations of the rationalists with ideas, they seeideas are special and so they do not see that ideas are just like ''objects'' of the other senses.
for this part ''How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts?'' well that is easy, when papanca is not here, all those meaningless questions about ''is there a self outside the aggregates'' and ''what is there beyond the aggregates'',, or more generally, about creator, creation, genesis, generating something will disappear precisely because nothing will be generated or created, not even the fantasy of creation, and it is only by papanca that people build the fantasy of a creator.
This topic of knowledge not tied to vedana or sanna is really a difficulty for the rationalists, even for the people who claim to care about the dhamma.


text:
what is this state i am undergoing?
I have been practicing meditation now for more than a year. I found that in recent months I go to a state where I am not bored, not happy, not dull, not tired but it is some state I find myself keeping it to myself. Really I couldn’t explain it fully. Did anyone go to a state like this ? Any explanation ?

Which meditation you are doing?

I just sit and watch my thoughts come and go. 15-20 minutes a day.

"some state I find myself keeping it to myself", not sure what householder likes to say here.

It sounds like "equanimity", which is a normal result of meditation.

That's perfectly common.  You might even call that "phase one" of meditation, the place where you begin to disengage from the outside world and your own internal monologue.  Here, you are just getting a taste of what the mind is like as it moves toward emptiness and concentration.  You'll most likely stay at this point unless you push yourself a bit.  Try adding another 20 minutes and ensure that you are doing this everyday.
If you persist, don't get discouraged.  There's a long dark period between what you've arrived at and the first stirrings of absorption.  Getting there takes time, effort, and quite a bit of dedication.  It's made doubly difficult because for a very long time, it's going to feel like nothing is happening.  Just keep watching your breath.  Don't try to make anything happen.  Eventually something will arise all of it's own.

There is a Sutta formula to make an assessment of yourself. I use this often to understand my mental state. You find this formula in many suttas. However one should be cautious to not to miss read or miss interpreted the individual attainment.
For instance, a Sotapanna does not break the five precepts. But not every person observe five precepts a Sotapanna.
"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html

As to such "states", householder SGN might investigate for himself, especially whether his meditations are for the purpose in the world, or proper based, as a means to escape from the dangers lasting, since dwelling and developing householder equanimity is neither of great fruits nor very secure, leads possible to long bad states.

"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results of action (2) & who is blind to danger (3) — sees a form with the eye. Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"'The thirty-six states to which beings are attached should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

Path and right view as first factor of the path are not gained by meditation, but by listening the good Dhamma and proper attention! To reach a state of access, its very required to stick with merits and to access borderlands.
(Note that this Dhamma gift is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainments to bind or conduct demerits with it, but for release from this wheel)


text:
can I become a monk with schizophrenia?
can I become a monk if i have schizophrenia?
I have to take a shot every two weeks and I do hear voices every once in a while

Householder Goudakid, interested,
whether a Bhikkhu gives one ordination as Samanera (Novice monk) or the Community of a particular Sangha of Bhikkhus also higher ordination is aside of some limitations the Buddha gave, total up the Bhikkhu(s), an act of compassion and not something anybody whould ever have a right to. Thats importand. And the Sangha should be never seen as common social institution for a living.
Whether one goes for and gets ordained, even at good or bad communities is, how ever a matter of Upanissaya (strong conditions = dependent on strong paccaya, kamma, of past and present).
There would be limitations for higher ordinations in regard of grave illness since hard for the community to look after sick and not pleasing for supporters. But even if the case that one gets ordained, such would be not invalid, yet a wrong doing for the one who gives ordination.
As for novice, there are less formal questions which would limit aside of the always invalid criterias.
My person could not even generally say that hearing voices might be an illness at all categorical.
As long as not real "stupid" or holding grave wrong views, there is less limitation and the best way to get ones own possibility and the possibility of the Bhikkus known is simply to start (if allowed) to live with them and serve at monasteries, taking min eigth precepts.
Usually good monks would not close any possibility and seek for the best way for one, yet are limited in suggesting and it requires all that one would ask for what ever one desires. So own initative is needed and wrong shame (to do good things) may be strong hindrance, since nobody would invite you to make good choices and ask for accessing good areas and giving.
The more honest one approaches and speaks, the more wise people have possibilities to help and such is needed for the grow into the holly life.
Illness, if even a "real" one, are not for sure and nothing heals more than precepts and the holly life and my person would nothing but encourage to such, even if "only just" in white and serving the Tripple Gems. Don't householder wast long time and struggle around with doubts and go after a blessed good mindstate and seek for it, since good mindstates are seldom and not lasting.
Much success and if having further questions he may also feel welcome here, where are also not so public areas.
There are some related answers als well:

[Q&A] Meditation for Psychosis - Can Dhamma help for mental problems
When is the best time for ordination?

Now. Don't waste time. Also good Intentions are not for sure.

Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms

(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment but as means for kusala deeds out of this wheel)