text:
Depopulation of the World - Buddha's Explanation
In The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha,  Sutta 3/56 titled Depopulation (on page 253; internet version here) and note 415 (on page 1645) provides the Buddha's explanation for the Depopulation of the World.
In this explanation reference is made to Yakkhas -- wild demonic spirits, sometimes depicted as  killing human beings....wild, nonhuman -- being released.  Besides the Yakkhas, which are only the physical manifestation,  Buddha explains the Primary Causes for this Depopulation.

"Again , at present people are excited by illicit lust,
  overcome by unrighteous greed, afflicted by wrong Dhamma.
  When this happens, the yakkhas release wild spirits.

At a time when the world is engaged in combatting Yakkhas globally via lockdowns etc., are we falling short in addressing the Causes of this Depopulation as spelt out by the Buddha? If so, what should be our Strategic approach to this problem?

Would you consider recapping Buddhas ideas? It could make your question easier to answer.

The three principle causes as defined by the Buddha are indicated in the attached sutta reference.

AN 3.56: Paloka Suttaɱ

Woodward translation:
The Rich Man
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/03_threes/an03.056.wood.pts.htm
A wealthy brahmin has heard the story told by the ancients of a time when this world was densely populated and villages and towns and cities grew up right next to each other. He asks Gotama why it is that this is no longer the case and is told that it is because at this time the people are obsessed with lusts, depravities and wrong views resulting in a number of calamaties that depopulate the earth.

A tough sutta for modern man to digest for several reasons. Nobody I think will argue that the people today are not as depraved as described, and that that results in wars, but that this depravity affects the weather and crops and causes the unleashing of demonic beings will be harder to see. And then there is the issue of feeding such a dense population ... and this was speaking of a time when the lifespan of man was in the tens of thousands of years.

How can this be seen?

This world is a work of the imagination, individual and collective. The individual has no way to know the nature of 'the real world', what he can know is simply the three experiences through the senses, what he 'sees' and 'hears' and 'tastes' and 'touches' has no more concrete reality to it than a dream, but because man desires to live collectively he agrees to believe the world is of a certain nature, possesses certain properties beyond solidity, liquidity, heat and light, motion, space and consciousness. Thus the apparent world is one which is arrived at by consensus*. That consensus changes over time.

That's how.

Today we have heard that because of wide-spread lockdowns limiting human activity, the surface of the globe has experienced a reduced vibration. The poles of the earth are moving. There is a huge increase in seismic activity in places where there has been none in centuries. There is global warming and the rise in sea-level. Fires rage uncontrolled destroying millions of acres of vegetation. The US has experienced flooding that has seriously compromised food supplies. There is even a plague of locusts! As for demonic beings, put aside pre-conceptions as to how these beings look and you may see them in the actions of human-form monsters. We have school shootings, mass shootings, terrorists, assassans, child-women-human trafficers... the list of monsterous activities by so-called human beings is endless.

*Actually examined closely it will be seen that outside the sangha there are hardly two people in the world that agree with each other about almost anything. What it is is a 'consensis reality' arrived at by the hoodwinking of weak, ignorant majorites by powerful ignorant minorities.

This requires a thorough understanding of what "yakkha" and "amanussa" are, which is difficult to share here.
In the sutta's words, "yakkhā vāḷe amanusse ossajjanti..." which may literally read "yakkhas let out/release cunning/predatory non-humans."
This could mean several things. If interpreted spiritually, it may refer to demons causing a ruckus by taking advantage of human weakness, thus causing mental illness, destructive behavior, etc.
From what I understand, "yakkha" and "amanussa" may also describe human beings with certain non-human qualities. In this case, these qualities would be quite alarming, possibly refering to those most evil among us. Consider how we migh call an evil person a "demon" or "inhuman", a title usually reserved for the most vile of humans, such as those who take great pleasure in causing pain and destruction, cannibals, head hunters, serial rapists, world-dominating mad scientists, etc. These evil yakkhas then would function as the ring leaders of the less self-controlled psychotic amanussa. You see this trope in popular media and story telling everywhere, such as when the bad guys take control of society with an army of baddies.

What school[s] of Buddhism, or text, explains that "yakkha" may also describe human beings?

See the entry from Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names by G P Malalasekera: https://palidictionary.appspot.com/browse/y/yakkha

This properly belongs under your comment above. Or you could ask a separate question and give this answer.

In the early records, yakkha as an appellative is, like nāga, anything but depreciative. Not only is Sakka so called (M. i, 252),
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pali/mn/mn.037.pali.bd.htm#pg252
but the Buddha himself is so referred to, in poetic diction (M. i, 386).
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pali/mn/mn.056.pali.bd.htm#pg386
We have seen Kakudha, son of the gods, so addressed (II, 2, § 8);
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/01_sagv/sn01.02.011-020.rhyc.pts.htm#sn.1.2.18
and in D. ii, 170 (Dialogues, ii, 200),
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/dn/dn.17.rhyt.pts.htm#pg200
the city of the gods, Ālakamandā, is described as 'crowded with Yakkhas' ('gods'). They have a deva's supernormal powers, and are capable of putting very pertinent problems in metaphysic and ethics. But they were decadent divinities, degraded in the later era, when the stories to the Jātaka verses were set down, to the status of red-eyed cannibal ogres. Cf. the older and newer view together in Pss. of the Brethren, p. 245.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/kd/thag/thag.232.rhyc.pts.htm
PED: Name of certain non-human beings, as spirits, ogres, dryads, ghosts, spooks. Their usual epithet and category of being is amanussa, i.e. not a human being (but not a sublime god either); a being half deified and of great power as regards influencing people (partly helping , partly hurting). They range in appearance immediately above the Petas (ghosts) ... They correspond to our "genii" or fairies of the fairy-tales and show all their qualities ... Historically they are remnants of an ancient demonology and of considerable folkloristic interest, and in them old animistic beliefs are incorporated and as they represent creatures of the wilds and forests, some of them based on ethnological features.)
The Arab singular (whence the French "génie"); fem. Jinniyah; the Div and Rakshah of old Guebre-land and the "Rakshasa,' or "Yaksha," of Hinduism. It would be interesting to trace the evident connection, by no means "accidental," of "Jinn" with the "Genius" who came to the Romans through the Asiatic Etruscans, and whose name I cannot derive from "gignomai" or "genitus." He was unknown to the Greeks, who has the Daimon, a family which separated, like the Jinn and the Genius, into two categories, the good (Agatho-dæmons) and the bad (Kako-dæmons). We know nothing concerning the status of the Jinn amongst the pre-Moslemitic or pagan Arabs: the Moslems made him a supernatural anthropoid being, created of subtile fire (Koran, chapts. xv. 27; lv.14), not of earth like man, propagating his kind, ruled by mighty kings, the last being Ján bin Ján, missionarised by Prophets and subject to death and Judgment. From the same root are "Junún" = madness (i.e., possession or obsession by the Jinn) and "Majnún" = madman. According to R. Jeremiah bin Eliazar in Psalm xli. 5, Adam was excommunicated for one hundred and thirty years, during which he begat children in his own image (Gen. v. 3) and these were Mazikeen or Shedeem - Jinns.
— The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, Volume 1, pg 10, translated by Richard F. Burton, Printed by The Burton Club for Private Subscribers only, 1885. Image from same source.
See also SN 1.10.1, n.1


text:
vāyāma vs virya?
I've heard both of these Pali terms translated to the English term "effort".
1: sammā-vāyāma: the 6th item in the 8-fold path.
2: virya: the 2nd of the 5 faculties/powers/Indrias.
If 2 terms are used instead of 1, they probably represent slightly different concepts but the similarity and difference between these 2 is unclear to me.
My best guess from my fuzzy understanding is ...
Gil Fronsdal has identified virya as being a kind of "heroic effort".
It's part of the 5 Indrias and Indra was the god that ruled the other gods so perhaps this refers to an heroic effort to rule over the hindrances?
sammā-vāyāma is associated with the 4 right exertions.
As such it seems to be about moving away from unwholesome states and towards wholesome states.
The 2 terms seem very similar.
The only difference I can detect is that the "heroic" modifier associated with virya suggests a stronger emphasis on courage and/or aggression.
Is this correct?

Sometimes a look at opposite terms can help.
For avāyāmaṃ we have weakly directed effort:

SN11.1:3.3: without working for it or trying hard—

For avīriyā we have apathetic lethargy:

MN60:21.7: All sentient beings, all living creatures, all beings, all souls lack control, power, and energy. Molded by destiny, circumstance, and nature, they experience pleasure and pain in the six classes of rebirth.’

samma padhana (right exertion from 37 bodhi pakkhiya), viriya-indriya, viriya sambojjhanga (of 7 awakening factors), samma vayamo (right effort of noble eightfold path) are equivalent. The slightly different official definition for each term, is meant to highlight a particular aspect of right effort.
You'll notice in the right effort definition (SN 45.8), all of those words are found in the formula (vayamati/vayamo, viriya, padahati/padhana).
Another word that frequently occurs in the suttas, such as in the satipatthana formula, 'ātāpi' (ardency), is a code word that also means the same right effort formula (see AN 4.14 verse at end)
http://lucid24.org/an/an04/an04-0014/index.html

Their contextual use in the suttas is the same, as follows:

And what is right effort? Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāvāyāmo?
It’s when a mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort,
  exerts the mind, and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t
  arise. Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu anuppannānaṃ pāpakānaṃ akusalānaṃ
  dhammānaṃ anuppādāya chandaṃ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṃ ārabhati cittaṃ
  paggaṇhāti padahati,
SN 45.8

And what is the faculty of energy? Katamañca, bhikkhave,
  vīriyindriyaṃ?
It’s when a mendicant lives with energy roused up for giving up
  unskillful qualities and embracing skillful qualities. They’re strong,
  staunchly vigorous, not slacking off when it comes to developing
  skillful qualities. Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako āraddhavīriyo
  viharati akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ pahānāya, kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ
  upasampadāya, thāmavā daḷhaparakkamo anikkhittadhuro kusalesu dhammesu.
They generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and
  strive so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise. So anuppannānaṃ
  pāpakānaṃ akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ anuppādāya chandaṃ janeti vāyamati
  vīriyaṃ ārabhati cittaṃ paggaṇhāti padahati
SN 48.10

The word 'vāyāma' is derived from 'vi + ā + yam' where 'yam' or 'yāma' appears to mean 'restraint', 'don't do', 'reining in' or 'control'. One fluent in Pali will need to explain how 'vi + ā' modify 'yāma'.
The word 'viriya' I guess is derived from 'vīra + ya' and is said to literally mean 'state of a strong man'. 'Vīra' means 'strong', 'brave' or 'heroic' thus 'ya' must mean 'state'.
Therefore, merely guessing, 'viriya' appears to be a 'thing', namely, 'energy'; where as 'vāyāma' appears related to acting or related to a verb, i.e., possibly a 'verbal noun'. In other words, in the Pali above, there is the phrase 'vāyamati vīriyaṃ'. Here, 'vāyamati' (due to ending in 'ati') is a verb; where as 'vīriyaṃ' is a noun. Thus, the phrase 'vāyamati vīriyaṃ' appears to mean: 'to exercise energy' or 'to exert energy'.
In summary, 'vayama' appears related to the action of acting; where as 'viriya' appears related to the quality of acting. This said, I could be wrong, here, because I am merely guessing.

I think of samma-vāyāma (right effort) as following after samma-saṅkappa (right intention or resolve) -- i.e. it's one thing to intend something, another thing to make the corresponding effort.
I think that viriya describes the quality of an effort -- e.g. is it a strong effort, or is it a feeble and ineffective effort?
Wikipedia's Indriya confirms the literal or etymological connection with Indra, but says that in Buddhism it refers to faculties including the six senses. One of the "right efforts" is indriya-samvara i.e. "guarding the sense-doors".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where does the Buddha describe suffering as being like a person who is hit by two arrows?
The attached discourse was delivered a few days back from New York and presents a very comprehensive approach to face the corona pandemic from a spiritual standpoint. The wisdom of the Buddha is quoted at the very beginning and the entire discourse is structured on this quote. It would be appreciated if someone could source the original sutta from which this quotation is made.
Fighting Anxiety and Depression: Four Great Practices

Buddha speaks of the nature of suffering as a person who is hit by an arrow.
  Imagine the pain and the shock of being hit by an arrow.
  And immediately after that, this person, unfortunate person is hit by a second arrow.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html probably this

@116PУC Please post that as an answer instead of as a comment -- https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1589/254

Not enough symbols to be posted as an answer

Probably this: Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow (SN 36.6)

The Blessed One said, "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.
As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession [etc.]

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


text:
Is clinging the reason for losing interest towards certain things?
We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?
Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

Are you asking, "Why am I unable to concentrate on doing something e. g. studying? Is it because my mind get distracted as a result of, being attached to other things?" But you also ask about food and vehicles so I don't understand the question. Why would lack of interest be caused by clinging?

This is something similar to motivation for studying, reason for the losing motivation. I guess , clinging is the reason, because desire decreases and some other desires build up. So, I got a example to describe it . Thanks :) .

We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

No, this is due to the impermanence of things (anicca).

Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

It's the other way around. Interest in working, studying or new year resolutions are different forms of clinging, or grasping for that matter.
To clarify, the point here is not to be indifferent, but rather to foster equanimity.

This is a good question. When we age our interest changes to different things. When we are young we like toy cars and when we are adults we like real cars. When we get old and not able to move we think about the death and the afterlife. Sexual desire diminish and take sports or consume food. Some times we develop aversion instead of clinging.
Practicing Vipassana meditation and practicing Brahma vihara is the way to keep you still interested in working and studying etc.
There is a hierarchy of how interest keeps on changing. Which is called Ten Mara.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=549952&hilit=


text:
Deep emptiness (nothingness) while meditating
When meditating mom claims that she enters in to deep emptiness and she would reside in that emptiness for the whole period. She also says she can’t even feel her breath or her self. She’s bit lost ATM. Any suggestions on this? Any reference preferably in Sinhalese if possible?

Provided that your mom is well and healthy, your description fits with the buddhist perception of emptiness (sunyata). It's not dangerous, and the experiences could be the result of a progressed concentration thanks to meditation.
In short, sunyata can be described as a state during meditation - just like you described it - but it also has connections to a way of perceiving the world, in a general sense.
Below is a link that discusses the phenomenon, as well as referring to relevant suttas:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html
(Perhaps an online translation service can help to display this content in sinhala)
Lastly, an unsolicited advice would be to consult a buddhist monastery, where you might be able to recieve some more substantial guidance from experienced practicioners.

Maybe arupa jhana, a state of formless internal absorbtion based on intellect purified of the five bodily senses, that is if really isn't percepient of bodily sensations, lights & forms, it is a big if tho.
Good for her but should not be negligent of the development of the knowledge faculty.
Should also try delineating factors of that state, lest she is abiding in the highest release there will be a multitude of delineation and i doubt she is abiding in the highest release given that she is perplexed about these things. If it is an arupa jhana then there is no thought but emerging from the state one can think about it.

You can refer to the Sutta mn43, sn36.11, mn26, mn128 and mn59. Just google the reference and look up a sinhala translation

Bahuvedaniya, Ariyapariyesana, Rahogata, Mahavedalla and the Upakilesa Sutta are the titles.

Sounds like mom is falling asleep & taking a break from family duties & burdens.

Lol so true, she doubts that too


text:
How should I offer a compassionate ear to my mother while setting healthy boundaries?
I hope you are all well.
I have been studying Buddhism for a few months and I am very grateful for the teachings. I've visited this website frequently for similar questions and this is the first time I am reaching out to this community.
Since bringing Buddhist practices into my life, my relationships have improved, especially with my mother. However, I am finding it difficult to navigate what would be the most helpful or skilful actions for myself and my mother during the suffering she is experiencing at the moment. A bit of background on my mother: she has narcissistic tendencies and since my childhood, has leaned on my siblings and I for her emotional needs especially in times of suffering.
I am now 20 years old and the relationship we share I feel is much healthier than even a year ago, as I struggled to understand my own suffering and suffering of others before I began studying Buddhism. My mother is in the midst of a break up with her ex-fiancé and I am the only one she has shared this with in our family unit (I live with her and my younger sibling who is 17 years old). While sharing with me her feelings about this and having my shoulder to lean on, she began sharing things she dislikes about my father and his family (ex-fiancé and my father are different people).
I understand the importance of boundaries and I am not sure how to lend a compassionate ear for her during this time while communicating that I cannot be a therapist for her. I recognise that everyone is in care of their own suffering and that it is not your responsibility to alleviate the suffering of someone else, only they can do that.  I would like to share compassion with her in a healthy way for both of us as our past had no boundaries, and I had felt that her emotions were my responsibility.
In other words, I want to do what I can to support her during her suffering in the most healthy and skilful way for both of us. How would one go about this? I appreciate all comments and advice and I'm happy to go into more detail if you would like. Thanks for reading.

Unless you only want answers informed by Buddhism, you might ask this question at Parenting.SE

There is affective empathy - feeling what the another is going through, and cognitive empathy - understanding what another is going through.
The former weighs you down and offers solace but no solutions, the latter is (a sometimes seemingly cold) 'What happened? Where are you now and do you want to be there? How do you move from here (if you want to)'.
If your mother can answer those questions with respect to her problems, herself, then she has everything she needs to, to get out of those problems. (she may want more than that from you, but that is in short, craving, and won't help her towards her goals)
If she doesn't, she needs to find those answers, by herself or with the help of others.
I think the Buddhist way to say it is have compassion - feel for, but not with the other. Offer your notion of solutions, but don't carry her burden.

Thank you for your comment. I found that really helpful.

I cannot be a therapist for her.

Why not? A professional secular therapist is trained to be client-centred. It is mostly about: (i) listening; (ii) acknowledging; (iii) when the time is right, asking the client about how they feel and what might possibly be their reasons for feeling that way; & (iv), when the time is right, asking the client what options or solutions they have considered to resolve their situation.
If fact, my sister just phoned me now about our mother, who we consider also has narcissistic tendencies, thus is very difficult to help. With our mother, she has so much pride, stubbornness & 'saving face'. I was saying how I wish our mother could communicate with me better. To be able to communicate more intimately with our mothers I think is a good thing. (My mother is 82 years old).
But you are 20 years old thus this could be more challenging for you. When I was 20 years old, I personally was 'clueless'. However, I am much older now and I have counselled or carried a few ladies through their dark times. I am confident in doing this because i have some experience.

I recognise that everyone is in care of their own suffering and that you cannot alleviate the suffering of someone else, only they can do that.

The Buddha never taught all individuals will be able to alleviate suffering. Most people rely on the companionship of others. These people, the Buddha called "puthujjana' or 'ordinary people' and 'householders'.

I would like to give compassion to her but I'm not sure how to go about that in a healthy way for both of us as our past had no boundaries, and I had felt that her emotions were my responsibility.

Her emotions are not your responsibility however you can offer to listen to her and to support her. While you are only 20 years old and may feel burdened by such a situation & responsibility, your mother probably sacrificed much for you; thus your time to support her may have come too early for you. But the Buddha taught, as children, we must support our parents, when they are in need, as they supported us, when we were children in need of love & care.

While sharing with me her feelings about this and having my shoulder to lean on, I recognised the suffering she is experiencing is tied with a struggle with her identity and past relationships (my father).

The above is to be expected. When a woman has a husband with whom she has children with, often this family unit is a strong source of identity. Keep in mind, mother carried each child for nine months in her womb & then birthed them. If a mother did not have such identity, she could neglect the welfare of her children/offspring. Thus, in Buddhism, it is right view to understand there exists 'mother & father' for the maintenance of human life. This is why divorce causes confusion & suffering for many.

My mother is in the midst of a break up with her ex-fiancé

As I inferred above, often, it can be difficult for a woman/wife/mother to feel comfortable marrying again. Often, they attempt to marry again due to loneliness & insecurity, which is not really the right reason to get married. Therefore, if your mother feels insecure in her aloneness, knowing you will be there for her to support her can make her feel more comfortable.
As said, we should not really have the expectation she can be like a Buddhist nun and get enlightened. Generally, certain individuals are born with a capacity for self-reliance and it is only these fewer individuals who can walk the Buddha's Path.

I am not sure how to lend a compassionate ear for her during this time

It is difficult & frustrating to listen to people's problems if you don't understand any solutions to such problems. In this situation, the listener can also feel lost & particularly burdened.
The Buddha taught about marriage and the mutual qualities two people should ideally share for a lasting marriage. If your mother feels insecure, desperate or humiliated (lacking in self-image; self-esteem) due to not being married, it can be helpful to understand what the Buddha taught about finding a suitable partner. Having such knowledge can overcome the feeling of being burdened when listening to the suffering & confusion of another. If the listener can remain unconfused, then the listener can also feel unburdened.
Such advice about marriage can be found in the following teachings:

Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune
Paṭhamasaṃvāsa Sutta: Living Together
Sigalovada Sutta: section on husbands & wives
Commentary on 'The Partner'

Understanding/comprehending the above teachings can not only help a person find a suitable compatible marriage partner but can also help a person understand the reasons why their (past) unsuccessful marriage went wrong.

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your perspective.

A little personal background: my mom is Filipino, and my dad is Sinhalese (he professes to be Buddhist but is verbally, physically, and psychologically abusive). My mom is not a Buddhist but her life insights have enriched my Dhamma practice.
I see toxic people as bottles of poison or pesticide: you know they’re harmful if in contact with but you don’t have any hatred or animosity. Because that’s just what they are: bottles of poison, nothing to hate there. You just avoid any contact with it.
Same approach with toxic parents: I don’t interact with them. Occasionally I get angry when I recall dad did but I counter that by:

Calming myself and acknowledging that the thought of hatred arose. I know aversion (dosa/dvesha) has arisen and that I shouldn’t act on it. A mind engulfed in raga, dosa/dvesha, and moha is like a murky glass of water stirred with dust: you can only see the water clearly when the dust has settled.

Acknowledging the thought is impermanent. I don’t reject the thought as it arises because it adds to the stress. I merely observe it BUT don’t act on it. The thought arose, sustains, and will eventually die.

Radiate metta (friendliness, not necessarily compassion) to the person because they:

(a) have unresolved issues and are victims of previous abuse and weren’t aware of that when they did those same things to me;
(b) there is no person as such to ‘hate’ because the so-called person is a constantly-changing entity composed of constantly-changing matter (rupa)  and non-matter (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). There is nothing to like or dislike in something that is constantly changing. The hatred doesn’t go overnight but if you practice, it will erode over time.
So if at first I was hateful of the toxic parent, now I acknowledge they’re toxic but with less aversion. Its not good to harbor thoughts of hatred because they harm you, in the short and long run. I can acknowledge that a person is abusive but at the same time have metta for them because they’re harming themselves. And it also does not mean I have to embrace them again, unless they’ve genuinely changed; and if they haven’t changed, they’ll just hurt/harm you again and you become an enabler for their bad actions. “Loving the tiger from a distance”
Forgiving toxic people does not mean rekindling a relationship with them: it’s about you healing from the past and rewiring how you perceive them and what they did. Knowing they’re toxic doesn’t mean you’re hating them: you’re just acknowledging they’re toxic and that they aren’t helpful to you. Bottles of poison
Dosa/dvesa (aversion) doesn’t go away overnight and takes diligent practice. Its not easy to practice these but its not impossible (if Buddhas and Arahats uprooted their aversion, why not I too). As much as possible, I don’t intellectualize my practice because it hinders the practice. Over time I understand the deeper meanings of some Pali terms because of my practice, so I know I’ll be fine as long as I keep steadfast on this Dhamma path. The point of Dhamma practice is to avoid and uproot raga, dosa/dvesha, moha. The Buddha laid out the path/practice but everyone treads it according to their own capacity.
Hope this helps, fellow wayfarers

Excellent answer. Clear and concise.

Thank you NeuroMax

It's good, good householder to make services, help, support... ones parents, based on deep respect and gratitude a child owes toward them. It's on the other side not good to take on an equal or even higher position in an relation as child as often children take on parents role which is fatal. It's a matter of respect to listen and lend ear, at least outwardly, but your mothers issues with her relations are her, not good householders. Good if one has possibilities to encourage toward increase of virtue, generosity,... wisdom, but in ways of a child and not that of a parent or teacher at the right occasion. In no way it's good to play a role as active mediator between mother and her relations, even in regard of ones father. That's all their business at least, not ones own. One just takes care of fulfilling duties of each personal relation one has. The sets of duties as well as other detail are already linked to the source of goodness in other answers, as far as seen.
Compassion, real one, not desire and attachment by making others ones own, is something that needs to be learned, trained, as well the increase of the understanding that beings are heirs of there own deeds and not under ones control at all.
It's a perfect training btw. to serve one parents in good or perfect way, plenty field for insight an satipatthana after steady impoving Virtue, Generosity, conncentration by straighten ones view to right as well as go for right resolve.
Importand is, as it isn't a duty to help here but goes toward generosity if desiring so, that what ever generosity should never put higher as Virtue and also duties and serving in a relation, assistance, is actually already at the level of virtue.
[Note that this isn't dedicated for stacks, exchange, what ever world-binding trades but for escape from it's bonds]

I want to do what I can to support her during her suffering in the most healthy and skilful way for both of us. How would one go about this?

Obviously there's no quick and easy answer for this. But notice the advice the Buddha gave so that you have a direction toward whatever approach you choose to help with the situation:

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." ~~ AN 2.31 ~~

This is such a difficult situation.  It's good that you know you need boundaries.  It's great to show compassion, but it can be difficult not to let these interactions harm you.  I would recommend practicing some loving-kindness (metta) meditation for your mother, then after you've done that for some time, try talking to her about how YOU feel when listening to her problems.

As you grow gradually, there are many things yet to learn. And inculcate into your practices. There is also the matter of culture to take into considération. It is not easy for a Westerner to understand  advice from an Easterner and vice versa - our ways of life are very different.
Buddhism is a path to discover the self. You can not change others, only yourself.. In discovering your self, you light one more candle in the darkness of the world. In other words, you bring light to the darkness around you.
This involves many things.
First, your mother is who she is, and you cannot change her. A seed grows into a tree, and not the other way around. Your mother is a tree, she can not be un-grown, just because you would want her to change. This means, you will have to accept her. Without hating her or using labels on her. Where there is anger or hatred or judgement of others, or calling others names (like narcissist), Buddhism teaches us to look at the source of that anger - within ourselves.
While you hate (or dislike) someone, you can not love them or have compassion for them, and it will tear you apart to be kind to them.
A buddhist practice to learn then, is how do we deal with our anger? Our hatred? How do we deal with our need to judge others??? How do we let go of our hurt? Do we want to...?
2.) Suffering. Buddha teaches us that to live is to suffer. Life is suffering. In other words, you can not take away anyone's suffering. Not even yours.
But you can help others. Not with pride or hatred or drawing boundaries out of self preservation, but with humility and service.
A good first step is to practice forgiveness. Forgiveness for her, and forgiveness for you. When you achieve this she will not be able to hurt you anymore. In any way. And then the door of compassion and kindness will open...
Another good step is to banish hurtful words from your vocabulary. Like "narcissistic". Thoughts are very powerful things. And our words are a product of our thoughts. Cleaning up our words/language has a profound effect on the inner us...
While you have not forgiven her (or yourself), while you feel she is a narcissist, while you can not yet stoop low in humility (service), letting go of pride and hurt, you can not really alleviate her suffering in any meaningful way.
In setting foot upon the path of Buddhism, one is supposedly setting foot on the path of releasing the vices, and embracing virtues.
Setting boundaries is a quick-fix bandaid.. Yes, the wall will keep unwanted influences out, but it will also keep all the nasty things in, and perhaps push them in deeper into our psyche. Buddhists believe in reincarnation... Why build a wall and build the shit up, life after life...?


text:
Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement?
Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement ?
Do people with better samadhi can think more than the people with less within short amount of time ?

experiment of people with low IQ, and high IQ, put them in the same room, and you give them the same job. Rob a bank. You’ll find out that the low IQ people probably do a much better job of robbing a bank, plotting the bank robbery, than high IQ people, who get all messed up with legal implications and stuff like that. - Michio Kaku

Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

There's a big difference between wisdom and being book-smart. If you have a fish tank full of muddy water, and if you constantly shaking it, will you be able to see through the tank and detect the objects on the other side? How about letting the tank settle on a solid level ground for a while, then see through it? Sila is that solid level ground. Samadhi is the "settling" of the tank, Wisdom (or penetrating insight) is the "seeing through" to the other side.

If you are in the dark with a touch with shaky hands can not focus it in a particular direction, then you cannot make out what lies ahead clearly. Samadhi helps you steady your mind on one object to see it clearly like steadings your hands and focusing your touch on a particular object of interest like a snake on the path.

Wisdom and immersion (i.e., samadhi) are only two of the three practice categories. Let's look at all three.
The three practice categories are wisdom, ethics, and immersion. The Noble Eightfold Path defines the right practice in each of these three categories.
We start first with the practice of right wisdom:

MN44:11.5: Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.”

With that beginning of right wisdom, we can then practice right ethics:

MN44:11.3: Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are included in the category of ethics.

And eventually we are able to practice right immersion:

MN44:11.4: Right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion: these things are included in the category of immersion.

The practice of right immersion yields greater insight which helps wisdom grow. In this way, the three right practices circle around and strengthen each other.
Together, the three right practice categories span the Noble Eightfold Path and give us more light to make our way in a life clouded by the darkness of ignorance.


text:
Dhamma - one law, two paths?
I was having a debate with a follower of another faith, and during it, this quandary came to me:
Did the Buddha describe one law for sentient beings - that is, the law of intentional action? (I understand he taught 'only suffering, and the end of suffering'...)
And can it be said the Buddha described two paths for this law?
There is the path for the layperson, who embraces intentional action (as the teachings on kamma to laypeople within the Pali canon point to), and aims for a perfection of intentional action - suffering, but 'limited'.
And there is the path of the monastic, who aims to abandons intentional action, for nibbana - 'the end of suffering'. But do they not still embrace the law, by only treading on that part of action that is beneficial to them/others, towards their goal, until that can be put aside?
In other words, is the bodhisattva goal rooted in the same principle as the arahant goal?
(perhaps clearer - is the path towards nibbana in any way outside of the described law of intentional action?)

Its two laws with two paths (MN 117). Standard Theravada. Dhammaniyama vs kammaniyama.
Kamma niyama is a general rather than absolute law. Do good, get good. Do bad, get bad. But there can also be do good, get bad and do bad, get good (MN 136).
For example, you are a perfect husband & father but your wife & children die in a car accident, from which you suffer greatly, even become suicidal. Here, you do good but reap bad.
Or you ignorantly perform a bad deed, such as get a girlfriend, without commitment. Eventually, she falls in love with you but you are not interested in getting married and you break her heart. You learn such heedless Cultural Marxist relationships are wrong & Satanic. You give up this Cultural Marxist sexual misconduct, enter the stream and become an Arahant. You do bad but get good.
MN 117 says the general kamma law includes attachment/acquisition (upadhi). In other words, ordinary kamma law is about "I do good, I get good. I do bad, I get bad". Since 'self-view' is always part of ordinary kamma law, suffering will always be inevitable in ordinary kamma law, even when only good is done. Eventually, suffering will come to the most good person who has not realised the Four Noble Truths (SN 56.102).
For example, you spend your whole life believe in good reincarnation or Eternal Life with Jesus for doing good. But when you are actually dying, you start to have doubts these beliefs are true. You die in fear & confusion. Your widow wife stops believing in god and loses her mind. Note: I have witnessed this with the most devout Christian couple I have ever seen, where their son is a mystic.
Dhamma Niyama is the absolute Dhamma Law of Dependent Origination (SN 12.20), as follows:

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles, specific conditionality.
Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.
SN 12.20

Whenever there is attachment & becoming, there will always be suffering.
In addition, the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are also Dhamma Nikaya (AN 3.136).

The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results."

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Laws of nature.

"The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature." If Kammaniyama is subservient to Dhammaniyama, how can they both be called Laws - at the same level?

(although I am happy with your answer, since it points to anicca, dukkha, and anatta as the main law - broader than intentional action for sure, thanks)

Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination are also the Dhamma Nikaya, as said in SN 12.20. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/sujato


text:
How come desire and sati causes sleepness?
I never felt asleep,When I am watching TV.But when I am studying or listening to Dhamma, sometimes I have felt asleep. What may be the cause of this ? But I can say, if I am falling asleep while watching TV,it is because of tiredness.
How can we stop become sleepy by developing Sati? ( I read the advice from Lord Buddha to Arahant Moggollana to overcome sleepiness.But I need to know the cause of sleepiness and how to prevent it before it arises)

Sloth and Topher is the fifth Mara.
It activated when all other previous four maras are inactivated.
For instance, when you watch TV the first mara is in charge.
When you listen to Dhamma if the fourth Mara is not in charge you will go to sleep.
This is a complex case.
The way to avoid this is to practice walking meditation.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=


text:
A person with almost zero sati vs A person with perfect sati
What are the characteristics of a person with zero sati and a person with higher level of sati ?
How does this level of sati affects day to day life ?
What does it really mean to have sati ?

Edited answer to give daily life example

Perhaps you do not have Sati when you sleep, fainted or under anesthetics. In Buddhism practicing Satipathana is the meaning of Sati. Satipathana leads you to Nibbana. There are many benefits here and now by practicing Sati. It helps you to eliminate or suppress sorrow and pain.

Zero sati is a sad situation:

AN8.29:7.1: Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world. And a person is reborn in a central country. But they’re witless, dull, stupid, and unable to distinguish what is well said from what is poorly said. This is the seventh lost opportunity …

Yet there is also wrong mindfulness, attending to the unskillful:

AN10.119:12.1: ‘Wrong mindfulness has a bad result in both this life and the next.’

Right mindfulness is described here:

SN45.8:9.1: And what is right mindfulness?  It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

A simple example of wrong mindfulness is texting while driving. Minding the text is wrong while driving. It kills people.
Another example is alcohol or drugs, which impair the attentiveness that is the foundation of mindfulness:

AN5.174:8.1: Anyone who uses alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates dangers and threats both in the present life and in lives to come, and experiences mental pain and sadness. Anyone who refrains from using alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates no dangers and threats either in the present life or in lives to come, and doesn’t experience mental pain and sadness.

Thank you very much. :)

Do animals have low level of sati than humens ?

Hmm. I notice that my cat mindfully walks a fence that I would fall off. What do you think? Right mindfulness requires attentiveness to the rightly important task at hand.

Is sati  only the reason that Lord Buddha advise us to avoid drugs ?

Good point about drugs. Amended answer with quote. Thank you.

What make humens have more control on desires than animals ? (It's almost impossible to follow precepts for a animals)

Excellent point. Animals cannot be taught the Dhamma directly in their form, so Right View eludes them. However, my cat is more attentive than I am walking the fence.

Zero sati would be insanity: breaking precepts, acting on every urge... A person with zero sati would have less control than that of an animal
An anagami has perfect sati. In fact, an anagami is considered one perfected in consideration. Thus, one with perfect sati would have no desire or aversion: they would be entirely dispassionate.

That is the point that I want to know about. From OyaMist's comment :  my cat mindfully walks a fence that I would fall of but it can't control desires like humens. Could you explain more about it ? Thank you very much for your answer :)

@Dum That is because cats are born with different skills than that of humans. When a cat walks a fence, it is always rife with desire: on the hunt for its next prey. If you pay close attention, even within our own mind, there is always the thought "What's next?"
Anagamis do not have desire for sensual pleasures. They have that restlessness ("What's next?"), but it is directed towards the pleasures of meditation. An anagami is still attached to Buddhism and itss path and practice.

Here from the Sutta

The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!' Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside?"
"No, lord."
"I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. The meaning is this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness immersed in the body. Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it, and undertake it well.' That is how you should train yourselves." - sn22.48

This from abhidhamma

Therein what is faculty of mindfulness? That which is mindfulness, constant mindfulness, recollection, mindfulness, act of remembering, bearing in mind, non-superficiality, non-forgetfulness, mindfulness, faculty of mindfulness, power of mindfulness, right mindfulness. This is called faculty of mindfulness.
Mindful.’ Herein, what is mindfulness? That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness, remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing, mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness, Right Mindfulness: this is called ‘mindfulness.’
With this mindfulness he is endowed, truly endowed, having attained, truly attained, being possessed, truly possessed, furnished (with it). Because of this ‘mindful’ is said. - vibhanga

Every person has Sati. This is called the Sati as a Cetasika.
Mindfulness (sati): this is alertness, which makes us aware of what is happening to us, from moment to moment, through the five physical senses and the mind. Mindfulness is essential to insight meditation, when it must be conjoined with a clear comprehension of the suitability, purpose, and conformity with reality of any action. Then it is called right mindfulness (sammaa sati). Usually the average person acts without any form of mindfulness; his acts are prompted by force of habit. Right mindfulness has two functions: one is to increase the power of recollection and the other is to evaluate what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Right mindfulness is a spiritual faculty that maintains a proper balance of the other faculties — faith, energy, concentration and wisdom.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html
Then there are many levels of Sati as you progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81


text:
Is the Dhamma / morality objective?
Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?
If yes, how?
Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths?
Resources:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

I think the title should be changed to "Is morality objective?" Dhamma refers to the teachings, and not to morality or virtue, unlike how Hinduism uses the term dharma. Or you can ask "Is virtue objective?"

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#dhamma apparently dhamma also refers to natural law in pali, which includes morality through kamma law. No?

This is an interesting question. Is morality objective?
I recently watched a video where Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that he once debated with an atheist. The atheist apparently stated that he did not need God and he is aware by himself that murder, theft and other immoral actions are wrong. To this, the rabbi responded that humans were made in God's image, and that's why he has intrinsic awareness of morality - because God put it in him.
How would Buddhism respond?

OP: Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

Yes, of course.
According to the Kimattha Sutta:

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

You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.
So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.
Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? Now with the pandemic, many governments enforce social distancing rules - should you follow them? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.
But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.

OP: If yes, how?

Where is this source of objective morality?
According to Udana 5.1:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
  occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
  palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
  than yourself?"
"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
  about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

Searching all directions
    with your awareness,
    you find no one dearer
    than yourself.
    In the same way, others
    are thickly dear to themselves.
    So you shouldn't hurt others
    if you love yourself.

Also found in the Dhammapada 10:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.

What does this show?
Morality is objective, not because it has a source like God.
Rather, it's because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.
So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.
How do I know this to be true?
Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.

Isn't it strange for a Buddhist to place the basis of morality in the self? Does this mean that the Realized have no moral sense anymore, having seen and understood the non-self?

I've updated my answer to say that the basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.

The law of kamma-vipaka is objective, in the sense that it is entirely consistent. It is Newton's third law of motion, for intentional action.
As all things are empty from their own frame of reference - not-self, there is no thing made or no thing destroyed through it, just a linear wobble around emptiness for some subjectively delineated self. Good actions get good results, bad actions get bad results linearly, when summed through all time (rebirths (an impermanent object (human) cannot have a permanent property (death)) for that delineated self.
But then the Buddha didn't say 'this=this and that=that' (which are 0 information tautologies anyways), but 'treat this as this, and that as that, not this as that and that as this'. It's not an objective thing earning an objective action, but a subjective thing existing within a linear correlation between action and result of action.
So the law of action is objective, but it only describes how it affects subjective things.
Nibbana however, and the end goal is not objective, not not objective, not both, not neither - it is 'no thing'.

" (an impermanent object (human) cannot have a permanent property (death)) " -> And the awakening? They say that a person is awake, it's a permanent property, right? If you answer me that the awakening is a lack (emptiness) and therefore cannot be a property, death also is the lack of life...

Awakening, as in the experience of nibbana? It is just beyond the limit of language! https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth .. Nibbana is not impermanent, and same for experience of it. It may sound cheeky, but nibbana is beyond concepts, and being not-impermanent and not-permanent allows it to lie in that middle!

Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

I'm not entirely sure what "philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality" means, but short answer is yes.

If yes, how?

Through the idea of dependent origination, which can be likened to a combination of consequentialism and pragmatic ethics.

Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths?

No. Everyone except those fully enlightened suffers from some degree of ignorance (avijja).

Hmm. I wonder whether the last answer is correct. Perhaps it depends on what 'deep within their consciousness' means.

In theory, some people could argue all day instead of agreeing, and at the best of times it might be difficult to explain (and need explaining "step by step", need to be "individually ascertained by the wise" and so on).
MN 26 says,

Having seen this, I answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:
'Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
  Let them show their conviction.
  Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,
  I did not tell people
      the refined,
      sublime Dhamma.'
"Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, 'The Blessed One has given his consent to teach the Dhamma,' bowed down to me and, circling me on the right, disappeared right there.
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.

This answer doesn't seem to answer the question. Or perhaps not clearly.

I'm not sure I understand what the OP means by "objective". Perhaps the answer is that "it" (i.e. "whether a person is able to establish an objective or morality") is subjective or varies from person to person, in that the ability to see/hear depends on whether someone "has ears" and "has little dust in their eyes".

See also Thomas Aquinas -- "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." -- with a difference being that Buddhism can be or has been explained (gradually or step by step).

Lastly, questions like this one are often a false dichotomy, and so not directly answerable to that extent. In that case I like to answer by quoting what the Dhamma actually says.

Buddhism has nothing to do with morality.  It's aim is enlightenment.  Not holiness, great emptiness. Head in the direction of emptiness and you will begin to see past the subjective and the objective.  Without emptiness, there is no right action.
Emptiness, no holiness --
      Empty -- nothing holy:
the questioner's far off.
      The approach is far off.
-- Hongzhi's comment on Case 1 of the Hekiganroku

Hi! Do you have any evidence for this claim? How would you translate the pāli term 'sila'? And what relation do you see between that concept and the idea of morality? Kind regards!

Sure thing!  The suttas are quite clear on that.  In AN 10.1, the Buddha tells Anada that the whole purpose of sila is non-remorse and concentration of mind.  It has nothing to do with affecting "good deeds" in the world or establishing a code of ethics in the Western sense of the word.  The aim of sila is strictly soteriological.  Buddhaghosa further underscores that in Visuddhimagga.  The first several chapters are dedicated to that sentiment.  Bodhidharma (who the above koan refers to) takes this a step further...

I agree on the Dhammic purpose of sila. But how should we understand the 5 precepts? Or how should we interpret the compasive impulse felt by the Buddha to teach the Dhamma to the world? Couldn't that be intepreted as deeds move by a desire to increase wellbeing on others, which in time can be understood as a ethical choice?

Here, he states that holy, ethical deeds (e.g. the kind that Emperor Wu had engaged in) were ultimately worthless and did not lead to enlightenment.  The direct knowledge of emptiness was requisite, not moral behavior or holy acts.  That said, the Zen tradition holds to the Theravadan idea that sila can help prepare the mind for perceiving emptiness.  These action, however, are not ends in and of themselves and lose their teleological basis if they are divorced from the pursuit of liberation.

It's not morality when you feel compelled to do it.  A Buddha acts compassionately like someone reaches for a pillow in the night (to steal a line from Dogen),  It's automatic.  Sila requires effort.  That effort is what is transformative, not the acts themselves.

But, according to the dialogue between Brahma Sahampati and the Buddha, one may interpret that the latter had to apply effort to leave the state of effortless peace reached after attaining Supreme Enlightenment. It doesn't seem automatic to me. The Buddha didn't get any benefit (Dhammic or not) by teaching the Dhamma. Couldn't we see that choice as one being pushed mainly by moral compulsions, i.e., the desire to do good, for the sake of the welfare of others?

I think the Buddha's apprehension against teaching had more to do with the difficulty of the subject matter and not any lack of willingness to share what he had discovered.  But again, he was ultimately moved to teach to create the best possible conditions for awakening which is ultimately the unifying orientation of all Buddhist morality.  Buddhism has nothing to do with spreading or creating goodness.  It exists to create Buddhas.

But that last answer of yours establishes a link between Buddhism and morality (or, at least, some kind of morality, maybe under some special definition of the term, not necessarily one that "utilitaristic" notions). That would contradict your OP, which states that Buddhism has nothing to do with morality, in an absolute manner.

Creating Buddhas is neither good nor bad.  I'm fairly certain plenty of people would argue for either to be true.

@user17190 - you referred to AN 10.1 which I find very intriguing. It would be good if you were to add this to your answer so that it is clearly visible. Do you have any similar sutta references to sila?

@user17190 - why isn't your username clickable?

@NeuroMax The user deleted their account (and username) about a year ago.

@ChrisW - that'll teach me to check the dates next time! ;-)

My teacher through logic established the existence of some elements and classed these as to their pŕoperties.
On account of their properties these were established as more or less pleasant & favorable.
As to their favorability he pointed out the highest favorable.
The highest pleasure became the highest good and therefore a good in a definitive sense, everything else he categorically classed as unwanted/unfavorable/bad/evil in a definitive sense.
Thus he explained good & bad in a definitive sense and he explained good & bad in a qualified sense as this being better than that but falling short of the definitive.
The path to attainment of the highest good serves as the basis for morality.
Seeking pleasure & avoiding pain is the basis of the morality taught by my teacher and it is his definition of pleasure & pain that sets his teaching apart as the teaching leading to the foremost discernable happiness principle.

The sutta SN 55.7 most thoroughly answers this question (similar to Dhp X already posted).


text:
How to stop a war according to Gouthama Buddha?
Are there any scriptures discussing on how to prevent wars?
I mean for example, from the insights of scriptures, if Buddha were alive then how would Buddha have tried to stop World War 2?

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

There has been a debate among monks on the relationship to war that a Buddhist must have.

War and Peace: A Buddhist Perspective
By Bhikkhu Bodhi
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's rebukes of Bhikkhu Bodhi's advocacy for a Buddhist doctrine of Just War

I advise you to read it.
The two monks explicitly discuss what a Buddhist should have done during WWII, and the Buddha's position on the subject.

There's a description of that here: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed?
I think the article is based on the canon, but I've forgotten where in the canon I read of it.
Anyway to quote from the article:

When the Buddha learned about this outbreak of hostility, he came there himself. On seeing this revered and eminent person from their royal clan, the warriors of both sides became deeply embarrassed. All of them laid down their weapons and paid homage to him. This was the traditional way of paying respects to the Buddha in those days.
Whenever King Pasenadi of Kosala went to pay respects to the Buddha, he would leave the royal insignia such as his sword, turban, fan, parasol and sandals outside with his attendant before entering the chamber of the Buddha.
The Buddha took the seat prepared for him on the open ground of the riverbank. The Sakyans and the Koliyans paid homage to the Buddha and sat respectfully on one side before him. The Buddha explained to them that their blood was much more valuable than the river-water. They should not spill blood unnecessarily. Instead, they should find a way to share the water peacefully. The Buddha was a peacemaker filled with compassion. He did not consider it proper that human life should be lost for the sake of trivial material gains.

And it goes on -- you can read the article for more.
The eventual outcome was that the Sakyan clan was massacred.

Actually the source is quoted in the article itself - Sutta Nipāta Aṭṭhakathā 2.362, Sammāparibbājanīyasuttavaṇṇanā. I also saw that here.That seems to be the traditional commentary to Sutta Nipata (presumably for Snp 4.11, Snp 4.12 or Snp 4.13) and not from the canon itself.

War is usually caused by some sort of conflict.
And conflict is caused by taking sides, "us" vs "them".
And taking sides mostly happens due to attachment to some concept or generalization for example:

only this is right, everything else is wrong.
only this is good, everything else is bad.
this is ours, it belongs only to us.
this is how it's always been, it must continue to be this way.

And so on.
So the Buddhist way to prevent war is to explain the dangers of limited thinking and promote the virtue of enlightened mindset that does not take sides based on generalizations.

Sources for the Buddhist way you have mentioned?

Take a look at this web site, which addresses this very subject. (I have no connection with the site or its owners.)
https://www.thoughtco.com/war-and--449732

This doesn't answer the question: what would the Buddha have done to try to stop it?

Being selfless per Buddha's teaching according to Master Junhong LU from Guan Yin Citta he established aiming to help people for free while being awarded with ambassador for world peace can help dissolve the war.
What do people or countries fighting for?  Nothing but Fame, materials or say greedy, hatred, ignorance.  All because there is a "self" not  "others".  In many lifetimes, Buddha had been cultivating giving such as treasures he had, wives, sons, bodies and the countries, so there had no wars and he ended reborn in heavenly realms.


text:
Awakening into meditative state
One night I awoke straight into meditative state(I practice Samatha),it was so odd that really awoke me for real.If I hadn't of been so surprised I might have just gone with it.anyone else ? Other than being slightly surprising it was OK.

If you practice samatha for any length of time, that will happen fairly frequently especially in a retreat situation.  One of the key points of samatha practice, after all, is the dropping off of body and mind.  Sleep does that rather effectively though we are rarely conscious for the event.  If you are suddenly awakened, there is a often a gap before mind and body reassert themselves.  Related to that, what you are experiencing is also the reason why it's better to sit first thing in the morning.  You sort of get to ride that gap a little bit.  The waters of your mind haven't yet been muddied with all the detritus that normally gets kicked up as you go about your day.

thanks.......i kind of suspected that.  ..again, than you.    matthew


text:
Time vs Impermanence
What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "Nibbana is like a timeless space".

A related topic: "Does the Buddha speak of the nature of time, vis-à-vis “past,” “future,” and “present?”"

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ?

The two are very different concepts. Time can be thought of as the conceptualization of experience as a sequence of events. First this happens then this. Past, present, and future. Impermanence is a separate concept describing the fleeting nature of experience. Experiences such as emotion, the senses, material objects, and even life itself can be said to have a beginning and end and are thus, impertinent.

I heard this from philosopher, "Nibbana is like a timeless space".

The speaker is trying to describe their experience of the ultimate nature of reality. They are trying to describe Nibbana, the experience that can only be had by seeing through the illusion of form.
In a very incomplete way, Nibbana can be thought of as the canvas on which all of the universe is painted. Imagine you are holding in your hands a photograph. When you look at the photo, you identify your favorite pocket watch within the image. In reality, there is no watch in your hands. You simply have a mental model of what a pocket watch is, and the paper and ink on the page has created the illusion that you are observing a pocket watch you have seen before. For the sake of explanation, one could say “the pocket watch arises out of the photograph”. Without the photograph, you would be unable to observe the watch.
Nibbana and time have the same correlation. Nibbana is like the photograph, and time is like the watch. In our experience, we believe we observe the past, present, and future. We see patterns that we identify as something real, creating a conceptual model that, when it becomes useful in predicting experience, we believe to fundamentally be a part of reality. In reality though, there is only Nibbana. For the sake of explanation, one could say “Time arises out of Nibbana”. Because of this, Nibbana can be described as “timeless”. When observing Nibbana, you do not observe time. For when you observe Nibbana, you are observing the universe before arising/creation occurs. All things that arise from Nibbana are impertinent, including time.
I hope my answer was helpful to you! I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime. =]

Maybe, you can understand impermanence as an insight into time being a perceptual construct fashioned by the filter of identity/ignorance.


text:
Is there a universal definition of a crime?
.. I am starting to read Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, which is of course, not the law of Dhamma, but a common law from one island in Europe. This is the title of the first chapter, but it makes me think. I am interested whether there is a parallel within Buddhist law.. at the very least, given that legal systems should be comparable, I think the question is worth asking! :)
So, what delineates a crime within Dhamma/Buddhism?

Better to invest one's blessed and hard gained good existance to read and investigate the Dhamma instead of stuff which really never worked really even for a while, good householder.

tort /tɔːt/ Learn to pronounce nounLAW
a wrongful act or an
  infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to legal
  liability.
"public nuisance is a crime as well as a tort"

What is negligence?
Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing
  injury or loss to another person. There are four steps in proving
  negligence. The plaintiff must prove:

that there is a duty in the circumstances to take care duty of care
that the behaviour or inaction of the defendant in the circumstances did not meet the standard of care which a reasonable
  person would meet in the circumstances (breach of duty)
that the plaintiff has suffered injury or loss which a reasonable person in the circumstances could have been expected to foresee
  (damage)
that the damage was caused by the breach of duty (causation).

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do
MN 61

The kings are informed of someone’s bad deed: ‘While under the
  influence of alcoholic drinks that cause negligence, this person
  murdered a woman or a man. Or they stole something from a village or
  wilderness. Or they had sexual relations with women or maidens under
  someone else’s protection. Or they ruined a householder or
  householder’s child by lying.’ Then the kings have them arrested for
  being under the influence of alcoholic drinks that cause negligence,
  and execute, imprison, or banish them, or do what the case requires.
  Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?
Sir, we have seen it and heard of it, and we will hear of it again.
AN 5.178

So, what delineates a crime within Dhamma/Buddhism?

There's the concept of wholesome/unwholesome kamma (volitional-action), which could be a super-set to the crime concept in common law. For example, if one has the intent to kill, steal, rape, lie, or indulge in intoxicant, but has NOT physically carried them out, s/he has not committed a crime per the common law; but s/he already has committed an unwholesome mental kamma per the Buddhist teaching. Similarly, if one verbally utters words with anger like: "I'm gonna kill you" without actually killing, it's not a crime per the common law, but it'd be an unwholesome verbal kamma according to the Dhamma.

Just to possible correct a crime, if wishing: as speech is already something traceable for others, in terms of convention possible to judge, "death treat" is actually in countries with serious law systems a crime and can lead to punishments under this system, goid householder. It may also possible help to removes a pit-fall of wrong speech so that a possible full ofens is avoided.

simply intentional act of doing,maintain,perform or support unwhosme or social norm called bad act which is directly motivated by desire (thanha). In buddhism it explained(of course this is universal) as : "chethanahan bikkawe kamman wadami" mean "intention is action(KARMA)". in modern day whole legal system is centered on this statement. ex. doctor and murderer doing same action with knife but work on two different intentions. the ultimate purpose of any legal investigation or proceeding focus on clarify and isolate exact intention(chethana) behind the act. if you need more explanation please don not hesitate to question on this.

Good householder, interested,
As co-existence will always cause hurt of others, laws and means of punishment, or try to compensate refraction, are always just confentions and it would be impossible to define acts in ways which could discriminate without failures, not even theoretical since it's firt all a dual matter and second, the root of all actions is intention, hard to trace even for the actor. Less laws therefore give much value on intention to judge, yet hurt could be caused by other then the subjected actor and with no intent of the actor at all.
Nevertheless the "universal law of kamma and vipaka", cause and effect, does it's cause but is not sufficent enough for satisfaction of a sociaty since it is often perceived as un-just and does not primarly serve a particuar sociaty.
The only "law" and resolve-system that the Buddha gave was the Vinaya for his founded sociaty of monks, the Sangha.
Of what is a "crime" within other sociaty he put much effort into explain the Silas, the 4 basic precepts (taking existance, taking others, abuse, not speaking truth) and causing heedlesness for it. Yet the "judge", cause and effect, acts alone and no other punishment, compensation system could work instead.
Of what is wrong, an universal crime,and what is right, the Buddha gave the 10 wholesome and 10 unwholesome actions, ku-sala (ku = bad, sala= cutting away, bad-cutting off) and a-ku-sala (not cutting bad off).
In regard of duties, there are also set out formulations for his monks but in regard of his lay followers in this Buddha-parisa, there is nearly no compensation tool defined, if violating, since the lay people still have certain others peoples laws to follow and this would cause sociaties conflict. A set of duties for lay people in particular relations is found in the Sigalasutta in a "if then" manner, a law to maintain a relation well.
Right view is the base to understand the universal law.
It's very simple, Dhamma, the universal law, good actions bring good results, bad, bad and to overcome all crimes, one needs to abound touch, the cause of good and bad, touch of avijja, not knowing.
A good read to understand better is Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness.

Phenomena are   preceded by the heart,
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
  If you speak or act
  with a corrupted heart,
  then suffering follows you —
  as the wheel of the cart,
      the track of the ox
      that pulls it.
Phenomena are  preceded by the heart,
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
  If you speak or act
  with a calm, bright heart,
  then happiness follows you,
  like a shadow
      that never leaves.
dhp

Possible more on it, updated and corrected answer, as well as given proper space to further ask or discuss, here: Q&A Is there a universal definition of a crime?.
(Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade, commercial purpose, but to escape this wheel)


text:
Minimum common grounds for all sotapanna and all arahant
I'd like to know what will all sotapanna have in common with each other. And the same for arahants (both for separate, please, not comparing a sotapanna with an arahant).
What are the common grounds in terms of what has been uprooted? What do they share in terms of understanding, ideas and views (independently if they are not attached to those views)?
I ask this, because I've noticed that there are lots of differences between all the ideas about what should a sotapanna/arahant know, be, feel and think, for example. And, according to the level of confidence/attachment/understanding of those asked about what a sotapanna is, they will be more on the defensive, disparaging any other idea conflicting with theirs, stating that a sotapanna/arahant is only what they think it is, with more or less grounding on suttas.
For an outsider, it may almost seem like a discussion based on "No true scotsman" fallacies.
EDIT: Thanks for the answer given so far! I wanted to add another point.
Now that OyaMist has written about interpretations on those common grounds, I realize that that might be exactly the main source of problems. Since we're using texts written in a language not used as vernicular in current societies; since most concepts can be interpreted in multiple ways; and since there are a lot of discussion (with more or less logical arguments or irrefutable evidence) about the "authenticy" of some texts or discourses, most conclusions seem to fall into what feels the most coherent to the particular follower, or into what seems to produce the best results.
For example, some say one cannot reach stream-entry without attaining 1st jhana. But I think this criterion becomes problematic, to say the least, when the problem of interpretation and definition occurs in the exact same way when talking about what jhana is or is not.
If that's the case, how to differenciate between the most relevant/fundamental and secundary/optional interpretation for those common grounds?
EDIT 2: Just for the sake of context, and to give some (possibly) hints to a potential answer, maybe we can rephrase the question about the minimum common grounds for all sotapanna as: What is the minimum knowledge that Right View HAS to contain in order to really be Right View?
I'd appreciate any help on this issue. Thanks in advance!
Kind regards!

I've added a clarification corresponding to your EDIT. Basically, teachers and students may have different faculties. As the best teacher, the Buddha had all faculties. But for the rest of us, disputes can arise out of confusion between those on the path who don't have similar faculties.

Question 2 is already asked here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/38573/what-is-the-common-understanding-of-all-enlightened-people

For stream-enterer we have:

AN6.34:4.4: But those who have experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and have the ethics loved by the noble ones, do know that they are stream-enterers.”

For arahant we have release from ten fetters:

AN10.13:1.1: “Mendicants, there are ten fetters. What ten? The five lower fetters and the five higher fetters.
AN10.13:1.4: What are the five lower fetters? Identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. These are the five lower fetters.
AN10.13:2.1: What are the five higher fetters? Desire for rebirth in the realm of luminous form, desire for rebirth in the formless realm, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance.

The interpretation may differ, but the above definitions are common ground.
A key point of potential dispute is the validation of "experiential confidence." Historical, this was even an issue in the Buddha's time:

AN3.21:2.3: The personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one freed by faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of these three people, who do you believe to be the finest?”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via first jhana, they would be a personal witness.

AN3.21:5.7: Because this person’s faculty of immersion is outstanding.”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via deep study of the Dhamma, they would be attained to view.

AN3.21:7.7: Because this person’s faculty of wisdom is outstanding.”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via faith, they would be attained by faith.

AN3.21:3.7: Because this person’s faculty of faith is outstanding.”

Yet the Buddha answered quite simply and inclusively:

AN3.21:12.1: In this matter, it’s not easy to definitively declare that one of these three people is finest.”

Thank you so much for that addendum! It is quite enlightening! Kind regards, dear OyaMist.

There is the idea of the ten fetters (samyojana), and how each of the four stages towards enlightenment is a progressive liberation from these fetters (or uprooting as you put it). They provide a framework of how we can label the stages of progress:

"Bhikkhus, there are these ten fetters. What ten? The five lower
  fetters and the five higher fetters. And what are the five lower
  fetters? Personal-existence view, doubt, wrong grasp of behavior and
  observances, sensual desire, and ill will. These are the five lower
  fetters. And what are the five higher fetters? Lust for form, lust for
  the formless, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance. These are the five
  higher fetters. These, bhikkhus, are the ten fetters".

https://suttacentral.net/an10.13/en/bodhi
Nanamoli, B. & Bodhi, B. (1995) gives a detailed description of each of these stages and how they relate to the abandoning of the ten fetters (It's a bit heavy to recap several pages of text on a Q&A site, but here's the source):
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha A New Translation  of the Majjhima    Nikaya. Buddhist Publication Society, 41-43. Retrieved from http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/The_Middle_Length_Discourses(Majjhima_Nikaya),Nanamoli,Bodhi,1995.pdf
I write "theory" and "label", since an individuals path and practice may not necessarily correspond identically to dhamma, and the latter should not be used as a procrustean bed. Buddha used a raft simile for making this point:

"This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and
  making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the
  far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it
  adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it
  is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with
  that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft,
  being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of
  grasping.
Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should
  abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to the
  teachings".

https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi

Minimum common grounds for all sotapanna and all arahant.

The "minimum common grounds" both literally and symbolically is the fulfillment of virtues:

“These nine persons, Sāriputta, passing away with a residue remaining, are freed from hell, the animal realm, and the sphere of afflicted spirits; freed from the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower world. What nine?
(1) “Here, Sāriputta, some person fulfills virtuous behavior but cultivates concentration and wisdom only to a moderate extent..1857 With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.
(2) "Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior...
(3) "Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior...
(4) "Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior...
...
(9) "Again, some person fulfills virtuous behavior... ~~ AN 9.12 ~~

All of them have heard Dhamma taught by Buddha.


text:
Sudden enlightenment & knowledge of the Abhidhamma
In the Mahayana tradition, there is the notion of sudden enlightenment. I am not asking whether sudden enlightenment is possible or not. I would like to know if Mahayanists see acquisition of knowledge of the abhidhamma as part of or as a side effect of sudden enlightenment, or if sudden enlightenment is considered a lighter version of fully fledged englightenment?

Can I answer this question by Theravada tradition?

@Bonn yes, definitely!

I already asked the permission from the question starter to answer this question.
According to reciting study system (Mukkhapātha), there is no actual sudden enlightenment in Theravada tradition.
The sudden enlightenment without practice is almost impossible in reciting study system. If enlightenment is easy like that, people must can enlighten without the Buddha. Actually, although the outsider Jhāna master before Buddha time can't enlighten by themselves. The outsider Jhāna mastes meditate more than 12 hours per day not a year but entire their life like Ārālatāpaso, etc.
But why there are many sudden enlightenment in Tipitaka and Commentary?
No, there aren't in reciting study system. Actually they were study and practice very hard before, but the stories were cut into other suttas or commentary to avoid of reciting too much long or to fit the Sutta for the target listener (who will enlighten at that moment).
Sutta was separated into many tiny sutta in Buddha's time because of human's memorizing ability. However, every Ariya try to append Sutta more and more through the time. Every Arahanta in KN. Thera-therī-gāthā attained 6 Abhiññā. Even Kassapa, Ānanda, or Moggallāna still go to study Sutta from Sārīpalutta in MN. MahāgosingasālaSutta.
So when people nowadays read  Tipitaka, they don't know how to connect (Sandhi;Anusandhi;PubbāparaSandhi) the various tiny Sutta and commentary together. Then these weird thinking are going inside you such as "we should cut Abhidhamma off", "we can enlighten immediately without practice", etc. These all sound weird because it's not compatible with Karma when people did uncountable times Karmas before, then all is purged in a moment without any practice. It's impossible.
Sariputta was a priest before meeting Assaji and enlighten. Aññākondañña practice with Siddhartha many years before enlighten in DhammajakkappavattanaSutta.
This is why there are many story Canons in KN and Commentaries. We tried to avoid suddenly enlightenment without practice.
If you recite Abhidhamma commentary, you'll see that they mentioned 24 Buddha in the past to show how hard  it was when Bodhisatta practice to enlighten by himself. The hardest part is about the reasons, relation, of everything. If Bodhisatta can't understand the reason of everything  as it is, truth. He will couldn't enlighten by himself, too.
It must happen to every practitioner as well (however there are various styles depending on each one's abilities, skill experiences, past attention, etc.) If the practitioner doesn't understand the relation of elements as it is, truth, he can't enlighten because 3 characteristics appearing when seeing the truth, right relations of 5 aggregate elements.

what do you think "sudden enlightenment" is?

It is when all practices, 8 fold path, are achieving perfection together in one same moment, MaggaSamangī.  It is not just understand because when the practitioners enlightened Nibbāna, they can't do 8 wrong practices anymore. So, if one just understand some, not achieving perfection together all 8 practices, he is going to do wrong practices again definitely.

sorry, i don't understand.

I am not a native English speaker. So if you don't understand, you can ask me as much as you want.

ok cool. are you just saying that there's no sudden enlightenment haha

I'm saying there are no enlightenment without hard work on all 8 practices. After all 8 practices are skillful, the practitioner can enlighten at any moment.

I believe the abhidharma is just a systematization of the sutras. Subtism has different flavours, but I believe in Tientai your knowledge is consistent with the sutras before one hits the mark with meditation.
In the meditation schools? I'm sure there's plenty of masters who haven't got a clue about the finer ins and outs of Buddhist philosophy. If you think that makes them false, then look into Korean Son Buddhism; there seems -- to my eye anyway -- to be more of a scholastic dialogue there.


text:
Doesn't mahāyāna have a classification for jhānas?
Is it me or is it incredibly difficult to find resources on the 4 (or 8, with the arupas) jhānas and how to reach them in the mahāyāna/vajrayāna literature? Apart from vague references to samādhi in general, I can't find anything.
Edit: In addition to the suttas, theravādins also have commentaries and books on jhānas, for example the one by Ajahn Brahm... I was looking for a mahāyāna equivalent, too bad :(
Edit 2: I've found my happiness: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1559393254
Thanks y'all!

Check out part 2 of this book, it goes over exactly what you are looking for:  https://www.amazon.com/Meditative-States-Tibetan-Buddhism-Rinpoche/dp/086171119X
Also, this one, although this may be too difficult: https://www.amazon.com/Mahamudra-Moonlight-Quintessence-Mind-Meditation/dp/0861712994
This one I did not read, but it is written by the most respected lineage holder: https://www.amazon.com/Practice-Tranquillity-Insight-Buddhist-Meditation/dp/1559391065
Also, this: https://www.amazon.com/Calm-Abiding-Special-Insight-Transformation/dp/1559391103

That's exactly what I was looking for, thank you very much! It reassures me to see that the first book talks about the 8 absorptions. It's less accessible than Ajahn Brahm on the other hand haha, I can't imagine the one you say is difficult!

I also found this btw https://www.amazon.com/Study-Practice-Meditation-Interpretations-Concentrations/dp/1559393254 I'm reading it and it's more accessible

You're right - jhanas are deemphasized (and for good reason as far as I'm concerned), but don't forget that most Mahayana schools use the Chinese Agamas as a part of their canonical literature.  The Agamas do contain, more or less, the original Sutta-pitaka along with the vinaya, abhidhamma, etc.  You're not finding anything in the newer Mahayana literature because the Mahayanists are just using a Chinese translation of the same texts a Theravadan might refer to.

Yes, but theravādins also have commentaries and books on jhānas, for example the one by Ajahn Brahm... I was looking for a mahāyāna equivalent, too bad :(

Are you looking for a guide to jhana practice specifically from a Mahayana perspective? If so, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Even the books Andrei mentioned don't follow the same paradigm as you'd find in the Theravadan tradition. I personally find the Theravadan approach to be a bit too mechanical and the language overly specific and technical. What you find in Vajrayana and Zen just feels more natural to me; but different strokes for different folks. If you are just looking for a guide to meditation, however, there are plenty.  My personal favorite is Zen Training by Sekida.