text:
Can anyone do something intentionally?
Consider someone is doing something (for instance eating). I can say that he is eating because of hunger, and his hunger is because his body needs energy. So, every action have external causes only.
Can I do something by my own (without external causes)?
I know that I can't do unwholesome things because of anatta. But I can say that I did something because of ignorance, and also that my action has an effect (karma).
This post may not be a question. I'm looking for a way to clear my understanding.
Kind regards.

Hunger seems like something internal to me. How do you define external and internal in this regard? Clarifiying this may be part of the answer to your question.

The very notion of anatta implies there is no intention that originated from an independent standalone self. Dependent origination applies to all mental and physical processes.
You eat because you're hungry, yes.
Could you have decided to practise the teachings of the Dhamma if you have never encountered it? Of course not.
Some people come to the conclusion of moral values or virtue (sila) on their own, without encountering teachings on morality or religion, but this happens on the basis that they don't want to inflict suffering upon others, as they do not want others to inflict suffering upon them.
In this case, just like hunger, suffering inflicted by others become the trigger to come to the basis of morality. Please see this answer.
The mind and body are dependent on each other. The underlying tendencies or obsessions of AN 7.11 arise out of ignorance. Also, in the chain of dependent origination, you see how ignorance eventually gives rise to the birth of individuality and individual existence.
However, does this mean that we have no free will whatsoever?
That's also not true. We do have a choice. We have the choice to act according to virtue (sila) and the Dhamma, to generate good kamma, and also to free ourselves from suffering.
From the Attakari Sutta:

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Every inside has an outside.  Can you truly say that one has hunger because of only things outside without anything on the inside?  Can a rock be hungry?  Can the vacuum of space be hungry?  There must be something on the inside which is part of hunger, or else it is a thing which is experienced by every part of existence equally.
On the other side, can an action occur without an actor?  If not, and you cannot do something, then no action can occur.
Of course, these are not to say that hunger does not exist, nor that one cannot act.  They merely point out that there are fundamental limits of understanding when one starts from the assumption that things are either completely outside or completely inside.
Phrasings like "I am hungry with my body" and "I act with the world around me" may be worth considering.  They have their flaws too, but they are complementary flaws.

Consider someone is doing something (for instance eating). I can say that he is eating because of hunger, and his hunger is because his body needs energy. So, every action have external causes only.
Can I do something by my own (without external causes)?

Of course you can. Otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have taught the Four Right Exertions. Slightly changing the hunger case above a bit, say, one's really hungry, there'd be various different options he can choose to satiate his hunger: violence to rob/kill people to extract money, resorting to stealing, begging for alms, doing some useful work in exchange for food and drink, etc. The fact that 10 different people would resort to 10 different ways to obtain the food they need is proof that the outcome of any action is a combination of both internal and external factors. They don't exist on their own separately and independently.


text:
bKa’gyur , words of the Buddha?
According to accredited scholars like L.Brown, the bka’gyur is a collection of the translation of the pronouncements.
Are the bk’gyur the words of the Buddha transcribed?

Do you mean from the context and perspective of Tibetan Buddhism?

Tibetan Buddhism is Buddhism so yes! All perspective are well accepted if these scriptures are part of the canon.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bka-gyur says,

Bka’-’gyur, (Tibetan: “Translation of the Buddha-Word”), also spelled Bkaḥ-ḥgyur, Kagyur, Kan-gyur, or Kanjur, the collection of Tibetan Buddhist sacred literature representing the “Word of the Buddha”—as distinct from the Bstan-’gyur (“Translation of Teachings”), or collection of commentaries and miscellaneous works. This body of canonical literature contains more than 1,000 works, most of them originally written in Sanskrit and most translated (with great care) after the 8th century. They were gathered together in the 13th century, and the collection has been published in 100 volumes.
The Bka’-’gyur begins with a vinaya (“monastic discipline”) section, the only group of works having much in common with the Pāli literature of southern Buddhism. Then follow a few hundred sūtras, mostly of the various Mahāyāna schools but including a number of Sarvāstivāda (“Doctrine That All Is Real”) works, and several collections of avadānas (legends of “noble deeds”). Finally, there are several hundred Tantras, the special ritual and meditation texts of the Vajrayāna form of Buddhism characteristic of Tibet. These latter are divided into four groups, containing, respectively, worldly rites, religious rites, traditional yogic practices, and the esoteric forms of Tantric yoga.

You asked, "All perspective are well accepted if these scriptures are part of the canon" -- but the answer may depend on which canon (e.g. the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon).
I read a while ago on this site that the question of whether a text is "Buddhavacana" is a subject of debate or argument, disagreement, between schools.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can We give any value to anything in truth?
Isn't everything in this world equal in value? Can we say that the value of a human being is greater than the dust?

Your question reminded me of this Zen koan

Dead Cat Treasure
There once was someone who asked Ch'an master Ts'ao Shan, "What is the most expensive thing in the world?"
"The head of a dead cat," was the answer.
"Why?"
"Because nobody gives it a price."
Commentary: By using the image of a dead can, Ts'ao Shan tried the destor the common virtues of the ordinary mind. On the other hand, [etc.]

That might be memorable or striking -- but I didn't find it easy to understand when I first read it.
There appears to be some explanation of it here (but beware that people say that explaining a koan will spoil its effect on the reader). This explanation seems to criticise the master:

In his book Pointing at the Moon , Alexander Holstein offers an explanation to the  above mentioned answer of Zen master, as being his attempt to teach his disciple to “destroy the common values of ordinary mind”.
As it is evident in this teaching, the answer to “what is valuable?” - was answered here  based on “what is not valuable” in the ordinary view of people. Zen master of this koan does not know how to answer a question on what is valuable in Buddhism, and takes what is regarded as not-valuable (in the mind of common people) as a reference to say something.
Additionally, the master’s aim to “destroy the values of ordinary mind”  - is non-Buddhist in essence. Nichiren teaches, that the ordinary mind of ordinary people (of the Nine Worlds) contains within it the Buddha mind (Buddhahood) as well.

I think that's saying that to ask "What is expensive?" or "What is valuable?" is ordinary and unenlightened thinking -- i.e. what I might think of as, "the wrong question to be asking".

There is incidentally a proverb or idiom in English (not Buddhist), "The best things in life are free."
What Does The Best Things in Life Are Free Mean?

Someone might say, “The best things in life are free” to celebrate something that he enjoys that has no monetary value [...] for example, after spending a day on a hike through nature
Someone can also use this phrase as a warning, [to] indicates that a person is forgetting about the things that truly matter in life.
The phrase the best things in life are free expresses that happiness comes from places other than money and objects.

I think that may normally be non-Buddhist if it involves delighting in and attaching to experiences, but even so.

I'm not sure whether this is inline with Oyamist's answer, but here's another Zen story:

Inch Time Foot Gem
A lord asked Takuan, a Zen Teacher, to suggest how he might pass the time. He felt his days very long attending his office and sitting stiffly to receive the homage of others.
Takuan wrote eight Chinese characters and gave them to the man:
Not twice this day
Inch time foot gem.
This day will not come again.
Each minute is worth a priceless gem.

The suttas tend to talk about what's "praiseworthy" rather than about what's valuable -- virtues like harmlessness, generosity, ethics, good will, discernment, right speech, wisdom.
Perhaps we should also consider as "valuable" that which is "instrumental" -- for example, a hammer is valuable (a useful or essential instrument), when you want to hit a nail.
Similarly the noble eightfold path is valuable; the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha); or see for example AN 11.1.

The first question a native spirit once asked the Buddha:

SN10.12:2.1: “What’s a person’s best wealth?

His answer was:

SN10.12:3.1: “Faith here is a person’s best wealth.

To the second question, the Buddha once compared the chance of the gift of human life to the fate of a turtle in a vast ocean attempting to find and poke its head through a yoke with a hole throw into the ocean:

SN56.47:2.1: “That one-eyed turtle would poke its neck through the hole in that yoke sooner than a fool who has fallen to the underworld would be reborn as a human being, I say.

To the original question about value and truth, the Buddha also told that native spirit:

SN10.12:10.3: See whether anything better is found than truth, self-control, generosity, and patience.”

Human life is a rare gift. Let us use that gift well to end suffering for ourselves and others.

According to the Bhikkhu Patimokkha (quoted below), which are rules for monks, killing a human is grounds for immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order (parajika).
However, deliberately killing an animal is an offense that requires only confession (pacittiya) within the monastic order, usually with the intention not to do it again. It's not as severe as killing a human.

Intentionally bringing about the death of a human being, even if it is
  still a fetus — whether by killing the person, arranging for an
  assassin to kill the person, inciting the person to die, or describing
  the advantages of death — is a pārājika offense. (Pr 3)
Pouring water that one knows to contain living beings — or having it
  poured — on grass or clay is a pācittiya offense. Pouring anything
  that would kill the beings into such water — or having it poured — is
  also a pācittiya offense. (Pc 20)
Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pācittiya
  offense. (Pc 61)
Using water, or getting others to use it, knowing that it contains
  living beings that will die from that use, is a pācittiya offense. (Pc
  62)

According to AN 6.87, there is actually a list of people a person could kill or injure, and such a person will never be able to have the right mental state or moral capacity to learn the Dhamma:

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
  on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
  when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
  arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
  to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
  dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.
"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on
  the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while
  listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has
  not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the
  blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha;
  and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted.

According to MN 86, Angulimala killed many human beings, but he could still change and become an arahant. So, probably, he did not commit the transgressions above (killing father, killing mother, killing arahant, injuring Buddha)
So this shows the value of humans above animals, and the value of the Buddha, the arahant and one's parents above all other humans.
How about a different perspective?
From Iti 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

This shows the value of certain kinds of gifts, sharing, assistance and mass-donations over others.
So, the Buddha certainly gave certain things more value than other things.

I once asked a Tibetan Buddhist nun whether anything mattered. She said "well ultimately no. The question is, does it matter to you?"
Value is a subjective experience, so asking whether something has value is a bit like asking us "what do I want for breakfast?"

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


text:
Evil Buddha, anyone?
If a person practices mindfulness and concentration with great success but doesn't care about Noble Eightfold Path, is there a possibility of creating so to say "Evil (or at least immoral) Buddha"?
Were there any historical examples of such people?

I'm not trying to be rude but what do you think an "evil Buddha" is, or does, or says etc., what are their characteristics? It sounds like "dry water" to me, an oxymoron. -- I don't understand what the question is asking/describing.

There are forms of Buddhism which do not focus on the eightfold path, but other things like six paramitas. Are you talking about the eightfold specifically, or do you just mean the buddhist path in general? Even if you meant the latter, the concept of an evil Buddha makes no sense as all Buddhas are lacking self delusion and are incapable of immorality.

An example could be Buddha's own cousin who was highly accomplished in meditation and the path but had jealousy and ill will left over. He tried to kill the Buddha multiple times.

Even if the history calls a Buddha, evil , there is no self in it ,only ignorance.

Buddha means the person who has already eradicated attachment, aversion and ignorance. Hence there is no evil Buddha's. The Buddhist term for them is the "Mara" the opposite of Buddha.
The people who practice mindfulness and concentration without the backing of Noble Eightfold Path is called "wrong mindfulness" or "Miccha Sati and Miccha Samadhi"

Well, these people can be not religious at all. ;) But I understand your point.

This is highly anecdotal, but... Behring Breivik allegedly had a great interest in mindfulness meditation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation
It is no coincidence that Sila is such a central aspect of buddhism. You can't reach buddhahood without it:

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

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

I am from the Theravada perspective.
There is only one Buddha who opened the path, everyone else is a follower.
Without the 8 fold path, You can go all the way to 4th Jhana and beyond (which is worthless) if you want.
Reaching the 4th you create enormous power and ability to do great things.
In the ancient times there has been many great sages who did amazing good things as well as some has destroyed whole cities with the population with their single thoughts(according to the scriptures).
Yes, they can be Evil.
However, here is the catch, if you are naturally a bad person you can never reach a Jhana. Because the “mechanism” works in the opposite direction.
You need to have a well disciplined and purified inner mind to reach a Jhana.
If you do any evil things after your skills development, it will automatically undo everything what you have achieved. How fast it happens is depending on the level of achievement and severity of the evil deeds.
Almost always, if someone knows the 8 fold path and reaching this Jhanic level, will never miss the chance.
It is like you practice throughout your whole life for Olympic gold medal and you are reaching the finishing line ahead of everyone else. But you turn back a couple of feet before and go shoot your legs.

Just so it's said, the concepts 'good' and 'evil' in the Western world don't translate well to the Buddhist worldview. What Westerners consider 'evil' and 'good' Buddhists see as 'karmic': caught in a pattern that is deleterious (in the first case) or beneficial but un-liberated (in the second). Fully awakened beings are neither good nor evil. Such people are merely free of the compulsions and aversions that would drive them to commit acts others might find problematic.
Remember that the assertion of good or evil is always subjective — people we call 'evil' will almost certainly consider themselves 'good'; the eternal misunderstanding — but being awake means losing the subject that makes such assertions.

'Right mindfulness' ('samma sati') in Buddhism is defined as follows:

‘I will protect myself,’ bhikkhus: thus should the establishments of mindfulness be practised. ‘I will protect others,’ bhikkhus: thus should the establishments of mindfulness be practised. Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, one protects oneself.
SN 47.19

mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure towards the world
MN 10

One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

Just as a citadel has a gatekeeper who is astute, competent, and intelligent, who keeps strangers out and lets known people in, in the same way a noble disciple is mindful. They have utmost mindfulness and alertness, and can remember and recall what was said and done long ago. A noble disciple with mindfulness as their gatekeeper gives up the unskillful and develops the skillful, they give up the blameworthy and develop the blameless, and they keep themselves pure.
AN 7.67

Therefore, in Buddhism, it is impossible to have Right Mindfulness and perform evil actions because the word 'mindfulness' in Buddhism means to remember to not perform evil.


text:
Buddhism and racism
How does the problem of racism relate to Buddha-Dharma? Can Buddhism teach us something about racism? Is there something in the teachings or texts addressing the topic, directly or indirectly?

I have not found suttas talking about ethnicity, but there is a discussion on the caste system (i.e. social class or social stratification), and the capability of every person to fulfill the goals of Buddhism, regardless of their birth (i.e. their background and origin).
This can be extrapolated to include racism, especially the verse:

Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct.
  For any wood can surely generate fire.
  A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
  is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.

From the Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179):

In the same way,
  wherever one is born
  among human beings —
noble warriors, brahmans,
  merchants, workers,
  outcastes, or scavengers —
  if one is tame,
  with good practices,
  righteous,
  consummate in virtue,
  a speaker of truth,
  with conscience at heart,
  one who's abandoned birth & death,
  completed the holy life
  put down the burden,
  done the task
  fermentation-free,
  gone beyond all dhammas,
  through lack of clinging
  unbound:
  offerings to this spotless field
  bear an abundance of fruit.

From the Sundarika Sutta (SN 7.9):

Then Sundarika the brahmin went up to the Buddha, and said to him:
  “Sir, in what caste were you born?”

“Don’t ask about birth, ask about conduct.
    For any wood can surely generate fire.
    A steadfast sage, even though from a low class family,
    is a thoroughbred checked by conscience.

There are bunch of suttas incl. story of war and conflicts between clans, kingdoms...

That is a good answer, also, the r term is very recent, and is sort of specialised usage with several recent nuances of meaning; and through time there have been many conflicts & contexts, cf recent usages of the term for the specific historic venue, so historic references might adjust for specific historic contexts of the specific time & place: eg Romans/Carthaginians, Mongols/Han, Goths/Latins, Egyptians/Assyrians, and the venue(s) from the times of The Buddha

what does it means when he says : " ask about conduct". are we talking about the behavior of the person or the way he was brought up to the world like as a product of fornication, incest, extramarital sex or any kind of misconduct?

@Solstice It refers to the behavior and ethical conduct of the person himself and not about his birth, genealogy or background.

I suppose that American racism was historically based on (expressed as, caused by) slave-ownership, and its justifications for that; while European racism was historically mostly colonisation and empire-building.
And I expect that if a country or society is doing these things for economic or geopolitical reasons, then that contributes to having "racism" as an ideology to justify those actions.
Those practices also contribute to there being an actual evident disparity between ethnicities -- e.g. when slaves are not educated nor allowed to socialise, then they'll tend to be "intellectually inferior" in their personal development -- as well as socially inferior by the standards of the ruling society (the same might also happen if a society doesn't educate, for example, women; and other classes within its own society, though that's beside the point of this question).

I think that Buddhism tends to deprecate the slave trade -- AN 5.177:

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

I'm not sure how effective that is -- prohibiting "business in meat" apparently doesn't make a whole society vegetarian, analogously prohibiting "business in human beings" might not make a whole society non-racist. Still it seems to me that Buddhist ethics (if they had existed in the West) might have sided with the abolitionists -- like, I think that in fact it was members of 'non-conformist' Christian churches who originated abolitionism.
I don't know enough about the social histories of Asian countries to be able to reference actual examples of Buddhism's effects (if any) on slavery. There are forms of slavery which aren't related to race -- e.g. enslaving people captured in a war, enslaving criminals, and enslaving peasants or villeins (all of which I think did happen to some extent in nominally Buddhist countries).

As for colonisation, I think that colonisation as it used to be known depended on killing people -- and wouldn't have been possible if a society had a "first precept" (no killing) which it took seriously.
Again I think the killing itself almost requires racism as a justification, for example, "Yes, "murder is wrong", according to the laws of society and religion -- but those foreigners aren't really people -- they're more like animals!"
I think that excuse is less available to Buddhists -- if only because, unlike other religions, Buddhism discourages the killing of animals as well as of people.
I think I've read enough about colonial war to know that there was a lot of fighting and killing associated with empire-building.
As well as the first precept it might also be worth mentioning the second (against "talking what's not given").

In summary, slavery is often described now as America's original sin. And, in my opinion, if people had been faithful to Buddhist ethics then that might have been avoided.
The above is quite crude -- Buddhism might have a lot of more subtle things to say:

Racism is not being compassionate (e.g. "Putting oneself in the place of another")

Racism is an example of "grasping a sign":

The "sign" (nimitta) is the object's general appearance insofar as this appearance is grasped as the basis for defiled thoughts; the "particulars" (anubyanjana) are its less conspicuous features. If sense control is lacking, the mind roams recklessly over the sense fields. First it grasps the sign, which sets the defilements into motion, then it explores the particulars, which permits them to multiply and thrive.

Racism is an example of a "fixed view" or "attaching to a view" which I think is incompatible with metta, and incompatible with liberation (Khp 9) and peace (Snp 4.9).

Can Buddhism teach us something about racism? Is there something in the teachings or texts addressing the topic, directly or indirectly?

Absolutely, Buddhism gets to the real root cause of racism and how to eliminate it: conceit (which cuts both ways: 1. Pride (ie. believe in the superiority of one's own race to justify/legitimize bad treatment toward other races, ex: the white-supremacists); OR 2. Envy (ie. resentment/anger at the success of other races, ex: the antiSemitists))

Everybody, yet not reached the stream, is in this way, being an ordinary worldling, not free from sakkāyadiṭṭhi, "On group-holding/identification with it view", bond to be a racist. What ever kind of "ism" developes out of this.
One who would, how ever, try to divide people / beings, into classes, would, if having listened to the Buddhas teachings, not take kind of birth or attainments in society, or certain other stands as a meassure but into grade of goodness and Nobility, heading toward which direction. The Buddhas discrimination and seperation of classes in his teachings are at larg three:

Neither Sekha nor Asekha (Neither disciple/in the stream of the Buddha/his Dhamma) = largest part of what identifies with Buddhism.
Sekha (those on the path, Noble Ones)
Asekha (those having reached perfection, Arahats)

In regard of stand in society, he usually divides between householder and those living on alms, and in regard of social stand, the Buddha did not, like many belief, opposed or rejected the casts as certain classification.
And a further clear discrimimation was the ideas, making 2 out of three, those standing outside the Sangha, and those in. Formal also addopted as outwardly, conventional measure. And there is nothing to doubt, that he shared his compassion first to those after his kind (Arahats), but also gave his blood relatives, clan first way, as well as his worldly ancestor's followers of other sects.
So in this regard, what ever stired up in certain relationships, within the world, is never out of discrimination but requires to understand and learn to judge proper "racism" so to do not lose track to ones desired kind and ancestorshipp, which again, chances by reaching the path.
At least, to point on a common misbelieve: not every being has the possibility, not even every human, to reach path or even highest fruit, and one importand condition is kind of birth and in addition, also kind of land or society.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades, maintaining such groups, but for an escape from this bound and family]

If you are a knowledgeable Buddhist, you cannot be a racist.
Because you know that there is a reason behind everything and every individual including their race, color, sex and etc. your past Kamma is the reason to have all that.
According to suttas, if you spend your life being really angry all the time, that will affect to make your skin color to be darker in your next life (no offense here). I don’t know what is the logic behind it. But that is what it says.
By being a racist he or she is sowing the seeds to become the next victim.

well, what i know Buddha is from India and his color skin is dark?

If Answerer could append specific citations could be helpful. Thank you.


text:
Is it true that enlightenment is equivalent with perfect knowledge?
It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have four immeasurables, you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta Aṅgulimāla. The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge, and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out.
The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means.
However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion, and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering.
Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve mindfulness or practice eightfold path).
Is this correct?

Radioactive region?

@ruben2020 radioactive area? Radioactive environment?

In buddhism, Enlightenment is the "direct knowledge" about suffering, the origin, the cessation https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
the four immeasurables  is just how to get to Brahma world, like here https://suttacentral.net/mn99/en/sujato  so it is not Enlightenment. When you claim that the four immeasurables  is Enlightenment you are a hindu and that's totally wrong in buddhism.
So you are mixing hinduism and buddhism. In hinduism the path to nibanna is to generate merits over and over, same thing with the jains. They have to burn up past bad karma and create lots of good karma..
But that's very wrong view.
In buddhism generating merit is useless to get enlightened. Merit gets you a good birth and that's all. In buddhism you need to know about suffering, the origin, the cessation and the path to the cessation of suffering.
So do not confuse the path of merit, the path of Enlightenment and Enlightenment itself.

So what about the idea of helping people easily and effortlessly, without unintentionally making the situation worse? I understand that while having direct knowledge about suffering, its origin and cessation can lead to wisdom (prajnaparamita), it's just an ideal and not really mean you can "mind reading" people

This can be illustrated by the sutta Aṅgulimāla. The Buddha can stop him easily.

If by perfect knowledge, you meant the Iddhis, then while it Can be developed once one's attained enlightenment, but it's not a Necessary condition. For sutta support, see SN 12.70. Also see the discussion about different types of enlightened disciples in AN 4.87

Does wisdom (prajnaparamita) the same with supernormal powers?

No, Perfection of Insight is not the same as supernormal powers, although as mentioned in AN 4.87 above, those "red-lotus" disciples can develop both aspects together.

One of the things that's special about the Budda, specifically, compared with other enlightened people, is that the Buddha is especially good at teaching others -- for example:

How the Buddha is distinguished from other arahants
Now all these epithets are true for the Buddha as well, but the Buddha is not described in this way; for these terms emphasize the attainment of one's own liberation, and the Buddha is extolled, not primarily as the one who has attained his own liberation, but as the one who opens the doors of liberation for others. That is, even in the archaic suttas of the Nikāyas, an "other-regarding" significance is already being subtly ascribed to the Buddha's status that is not ascribed to the arahant.

See also Pratyekabuddha:

According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world") are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach. Paccekabuddhas give moral teachings but do not bring others to enlightenment. They leave no sangha as a legacy to carry on the Dhamma.

I think that all arahants have a certain amount of knowledge or insight -- e.g. about the nature of suffering and the dhamma.
Some people, including the Buddha, and not all of them enlightened, also have "psychic powers" -- the ability to know what other people are thinking, what their mind-state is. The Buddha used this power to help him teach people who were ready, when they were ready.

Ah, so this "psychic power" is more about "recognize who are ready and when they are ready"? Can you have a comment on the relationship between "having insight about the nature of sufferings and dhamma" and "acquiring the skill to handle a tough or tricky task effortlessly"? I guess the former is referred as "wisdom". I'm not sure if attaining wisdom aka enlightenment aka mindfulness can make us have the latter. There are situations that you have to act when both sides are not ready

I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that "mindfulness" is associated with "remembering" -- remembering the dhamma and the proper attitude[s] to have about the world -- and that the opposite of mindfulness is to get caught up in it "heedlessly", isn't that right? One example of the Buddha's "psychic" power is at AN 8.30 -- there are many other examples like that in the suttas.

Yes. Fully enlightened person has the perfect knowledge.
If you explore the reasons behind the knowledge gathering, eventually you will boil them down to a single reason. That is the “self interest”. And then the question comes to who or what is self?
The whole purpose of Buddhism is to discover this “self” or “me”.
Eventually you will discover that the “self” is just a delusion.
Then you will become an enlightened person.


text:
AN 7.64 kodhana (anger), case 3 of 7 unclear what is meant by "profit" or "loss", and how exactly that sabotages what angry person wants
(pali + english, derived from b. Sujato trans.)
http://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-v05/index.html#s64
(b. thanissaro eng. trans)
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_60.html
The passage in question:

“And further, an enemy wishes of an enemy, ‘O, may this person not
  profit!’ Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy’s profits.
  Now, when a person is angry—overcome with anger, oppressed with
  anger—then even when he suffers a loss, he thinks, ‘I’ve gained a
  profit’; and even when he gains a profit, he thinks, ‘I’ve suffered a
  loss.’ When he has grabbed hold of these ideas that work in mutual
  opposition (to the truth), they lead to his long-term suffering &
  loss, all because he is overcome with anger. This is the third thing
  pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy’s aim, that comes to a
  man or woman who is angry.

b.bodhi has:

(3) “Again, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘May he not succeed!’ For
  what reason? An enemy does not delight in the success of an enemy.
  [95] When an angry person is overcome and oppressed by anger, if he
  gets what is harmful, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is beneficial,’
  and if he gets what is beneficial, he thinks: ‘I have gotten what is
  harmful.’ When, overcome by anger, he gets these things that are
  diametrically opposed, they lead to his harm and suffering for a long
  time. This is the third thing gratifying and advantageous to an enemy
  that comes upon an angry man or woman.

In the other 7 cases in the sutta, specifics are given so it's clear what the person who wants the enemy to suffer, how their anger sabotages their desire and tends to get the opposite result. In the case # 3 above however, it's not clear what the Buddha had in mind for specific examples. I can think of some hypothetical situations that would meet that criteria, but they would just be guesses.
Anyone think they know exactly what is meant here?

helpfully referenced question: good

In AN 4.55 for example there is:

When both are faithful and kind,
Ubho saddhā vadaññū ca,
disciplined, living properly,
saññatā dhammajīvino;
then wife and husband
Te honti jānipatayo,
say nice things to each other.
aññamaññaṃ piyaṃvadā.
They get all the things they need,
Atthāsaṃ pacurā honti,
so they live at ease.
phāsukaṃ upajāyati;
Their enemies are downhearted,
Amittā dummanā honti,
when both are equal in ethics.
ubhinnaṃ samasīlinaṃ.
Having practiced the teaching here,
Idha dhammaṃ caritvāna,
both equal in precepts and observances,
samasīlabbatā ubho;
they delight in the heavenly realm,
Nandino devalokasmiṃ,
enjoying all the pleasures they desire.”
modanti kāmakāmino”ti.

The word in AN 7.64 is pacurattho which suttacentral's dictionary says is a compound:

pacura (abundant; various; many) + attha (aim, purpose, goal; advantage, profit, benefit)

The translation as "profit" appears to have come from picking one of the meanings of the latter word.
I too can only guess at specific examples. From AN 4.55 I'd guess it includes all the requisites at least, and what they have to live at ease (phāsuka -- pleasant, convenient.), maybe heavenly pleasures too.

Reading the rest of AN 7.64, I think the whole sutta is a polemic against anger -- not a detailed explanation of how specific types of wealth are gained or lost. Looking through the verse at the end, anger seems to cause the loss of everything -- sleep, wealth, friends, reputation, conscience, life, etc.
So becoming angry may cause a person to lose anything and everything.
And perhaps it's easy to see why such a loss might please an angry person's enemy.
But I'm not sure why it points out that it would please an enemy ("what would please an enemy" doesn't seem to me a usual or recommended view-point of the suttas) -- maybe it's just meant as a synonym of "misfortune".

Curiously, AN 4.55 also mentions whether what the sutta is talking about about will make an enemy happy or unhappy.

As i understand it,
The angry person has ill-will, if ge gets the willed ill he might think "this is great/i am good because i got what i wanted". As it actually is tho, the ill will is to his own detriment, it is actually a loss where he sees victory.
When there is ill-will it is going to do harm to the foolish person who has it. An enemy can not destroy the good qualities of another, therefore the one who has ill-will destroys only his own virtue and destiny.

I think it's not about "getting the willed ill", is it? The willed ill is, "I hope my enemy suffers a loss". But the sutta doesn't say that's what happens, what the sutta does say is that when the angry person himself suffers a profit or loss then he doesn't accurately recognise it as such.

I think what meant is that 'the loss of my enemy is my gain', that's the thinking of an enemy. So when this occurs he is taking a loss thinking it's profit.

"The gain of my enemy is my loss" would be the other end, instead of seeing ground for sympathetic joy one sees a cause for despair.

I get the impression the sutta is talking about two people, i.e. 1) the angry person and 2) their enemy. The enemy presumably (by definition) has ill-will; the angry person suffers losses (because they're crazy with anger, and so they can't tell good from bad, as you wrote), and their enemy is pleased by those losses.

I think it's the angry person who conceives himself and the other as an enemy of his. An Arahant would never think of others as his enemies but it can happen that another could perceive an Arahant to be his enemy, so it's a one way street in that it is the angry person himself who conceives of an enemy where there may be none, one is angry [displeased] by what one considers to be an enemy. I think this whole passage is about the thinking of an angry person and how he is essentially his own enemy doing what an enemy wishes upon an enemy.

Yes something like that was how I first tried to read it too. But look at the first paragraph of Ven, Thanissaro's translation: "An enemy (person #2) wishes that their enemy (#1) should be ugly. Well now, if a person (#1) is angry, then they're ugly. This (i.e. person #1 being ugly, because they're angry) is pleasing to their enemy (i.e. #2)."

Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa evaṃ icchati: ‘aho vatāyaṃ na pacurattho assā’ti. Taṃ kissa hetu? Na, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa pacuratthatāya nandati. Kodhanoyaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo kodhābhibhūto kodhapareto, anatthampi gahetvā ‘attho me gahito’ti maññati, atthampi gahetvā ‘anattho me gahito’ti maññati. Tassime dhammā aññamaññaṃ vipaccanīkā gahitā dīgharattaṃ ahitāya dukkhāya saṃvattanti kodhābhibhūtassa. Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, tatiyo dhammo sapattakanto sapattakaraṇo kodhanaṃ āgacchati itthiṃ vā purisaṃ vā. (3)
İt is about Karma.
Dīgharattaṃ ahitāya dukkhāyā: lasting harm and suffering/ long-term suffering & loss/harm and suffering for a long time (hell realm)
AN6.18:" … This will be for their lasting harm and suffering. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.”
AN6.18: "…hoti dīgharattaṃ ahitāya dukkhāya. Kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjatī”ti.

First, I don't think "anger" is the best translation. In my understanding kudhana/kodhana is more like "grudge-bearing", it's not the emotion of being angry at a particular moment, it's more like an attitude towards another person.
Based on this meaning as well as the clues about "mutual opposition" it seems rather clear that this passage refers to a psychological mechanism when we define our position in relation to a position of other people depending on our attitude to them.
For example, if we see the other person as a role model worthy of emulation, then if they have some notable quality, skill, or possession -- we tend to consider that worthy of having too. And if they don't have a particular item or quality - we rationalize that as due to the item being worthless (otherwise the person we admire would have it).
By the same principle, if we think someone has hurt our ego and we hold a grudge against them, we often like to convince ourselves that their life is a failure. We can't accept the thought that the person we hate can be more successful than we are, and so we invent an evaluative framework according to which whatever that person has, we consider it worthless, and what they don't have but we do - we convince ourselves that it is of a great value.
Once we convince ourselves that the person's qualities and possessions are worthless - we apply that framework to our own lives, and start judging our own qualities and possessions accordingly as a negation of theirs.
So our antipathy leads to denial and denial leads to inversion of values. It is ego's protective mechanism. Of course, it does not lead to the grudge-bearing person's benefit if the person they hate is right, especially if that person is an enlightened buddha - because then in their denial and inversion they will deny the exact qualities that are of the biggest benefit. This is the situation implied in the sutta.
So the moral of the story is that holding a grudge (due to envy, hurt ego etc.) takes away our freedom to choose our position rationally and beneficially - instead our hurt ego often forces us to take an irrational and harmful position, just to differentiate ourselves from the object of our grudge.

(btw the same exact mechanism is behind the first jhana practice. As long as our attention is hooked on the world of human affairs, we will consider ourselves unhappy because we will keep finding things normal people have that we don't. But as soon as we reevaluate things in terms of their usefulness to attaining enlightenment, then suddenly we can start congratulating ourselves on the things that matter to this path - and our desires and griefs in regards to the world are going to fade away by themselves. First, we cultivate revulsion (nibbida, viraga) towards the worldly affairs. Suddenly the magic of self-justification works in the right direction. Once our system of values detaches from the world's then we can practice true Brahmaviharas where our compassion, our sympathetic joy, and our equanimity will come from the Right View - not from the worldly standpoint. This will eventually lead to the stability of mind and the joy of the first jhana.)

Being in hatred, people might like harmful things, such as

harming others,
destroying conditions which they hate, even though those conditions could be generally beneficial,

and so on. Because of hatred (being angry at someone or something), people lose sight of general picture and perceive beneficial as hated, and perceive harmful as desired.
That's why, satisfying their hatred, they might like to harm beings or generally beneficial conditions, though in general it would be harmful for themselves.

“Furthermore, an enemy wishes for an enemy: ‘If only they don’t get all they need!’ Why is that? Because an enemy doesn’t like to have an enemy who gets all they need. When an irritable person, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, gets what they don’t need they think ‘I’ve got what I need!’ When they get what they need they think ‘I’ve got what I don’t need.’ When an angry person gets these things that are the exact opposite of what they need, it’s for their lasting harm and suffering. This is the third thing …”
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa evaṃ icchati: ‘aho vatāyaṃ na pacurattho assā’ti. Taṃ kissa hetu? Na, bhikkhave, sapatto sapattassa pacuratthatāya nandati. Kodhanoyaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo kodhābhibhūto kodhapareto, anatthampi gahetvā ‘attho me gahito’ti maññati, atthampi gahetvā ‘anattho me gahito’ti maññati. Tassime dhammā aññamaññaṃ vipaccanīkā gahitā dīgharattaṃ ahitāya dukkhāya saṃvattanti kodhābhibhūtassa. Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, tatiyo dhammo sapattakanto sapattakaraṇo kodhanaṃ āgacchati itthiṃ vā purisaṃ vā. (3)
AN7.72: ..."that brings him lasting harm and suffering. When his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell."
https://suttacentral.net/an7.72/en/sujato


text:
Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations"?
What I mean by equivalent is in significance and style. Marcus Aurelius was an extremely important man and was forced to deal with specifically difficult problems in life. This adds weight to his words.
Is there any very famous Buddhist diary? One which is mostly just a person talking to themselves about dealing with their own issues, with philosophical (or religious) insight and vigor? (It's important to note that Marcus Aurelius' Meditations cover very intense stoic philosophy. Serious stuff that is often hard to penetrate without understanding stoic logic and concepts.)
So, in short, a diary kept by a monk which covers many important Buddhist concepts.
It must be a diary, as such, things like the Dhammapada aren't what I'm referring to.

It is not a diary, but There are the letters by Nanavira thera, where he tries to understand the dhamma.
https://www.nanavira.org/pre-sotapatti-stp
he is a famous bikkhu who claimed to have reached stream entry, then commited suicide. SO his letters are seprated according to the date of the alledged stream entry.


text:
Understanding non-self, life and rebirth
Blessings to all,
I have had a difficult time trying to understand what it means by "non-self". I am certainly no expert in Buddhism but I was wondering if this life we have is just some subset of this ginormous pool of energy. Let me try to be more clear with an example. Suppose there is a big lake. If I drink a glass of water from this lake, now living inside of me, this water is still water and it would not be wise for anyone to say 'no that water is me'. This water one day leaves the body and goes back to some big pool of water ( which may contain some different type energy/ vibrations by being inside of me) and may enter into an animal/ human someday. So my question again is do I think of this life that I identify myself with is also some common source of energy or element like water? Is this what non-self is? We are all part of one big source of energy? I apologize if this is a bad example but I hope I made myself somewhat clear.
Thanks!

What you have described with your water analogy is Hinduism, and not Buddhism.
Buddhism does not teach that there is no self, or that there is non-self, but rather, that all phenomena is not-self (sabbe dhammā anattā).
A very apt analogy for this can be found in the Vina Sutta:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

The lute (vina) is a stringed musical instrument similar to a cello, that you can play by plucking. From it comes music. The different parts of the lute are like the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness). Music is like the self (which is basically a mental idea). One might think that the music is located somewhere in the lute or pervades the lute.
Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self, is a thought in the mind that arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates.
Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music. The way they work together is dependent origination.
And that is a very nice and simple way to think about not-self (anatta).

Great example! The example gives you cover only the Rupa aggregate. Buddha said we take five aggregate as self. (five clinging-aggregate) If you substitute the word self with the word ignorance it is easy to understand this. Ignorance is the on create rebirth. Even Buddha had the body created by his past ignorance which will end only at Parinibbana. We can't say we do not have a self (ignorance) because we have the self-view. Self-view is ignorance. What Buddha saying is taking dependently originated phenomena as I, me, and myself as ignorance.

This is one of the most difficult concepts if not the most difficult concept to understand.
I am absolutely sure that %99.99 Buddhists don’t understand this.
If you completely toppled the question without any doubt, you will have become Sothapanna ( stream entered).
I will try to explain it.
Basically, we all have a thought that we are eternal beings ( or I am someone /a person / soul) which lies deep within ourselves. This is why we mainly feel “me”,”myself”.
Background info-
As you may already know, according to Buddhism the life keeps rolling from one life to another from that to anther so on. For now you have to assume that this is a fact until you discover it through Jhana.
Your intentions Keep fueling this never ending cycles as long as it takes. You know that the fate or karma/ kamma is created as a results of these intentions. However, intention is not the only ingredient to make this happen. “Thanha” (loosely translated craving / thirst) is plying a major role in making karma.
This kamma is the breeding ground for the life.
Now, Buddha said everything I explained above is happening due to one single reason. That is feeling “me” “Myself” or feeling the “soul”.
He has cracked opened this “soul” thing and found that we all everyone feels the “soul” due to our consciousness (which is made from sensing and recognition)constantly checking and confirming 5 parts of “self”.
As an Analogy , you recognize a car as a “car” by rapidly moving your perception through wheels,body,windscreen,hood and etc. If you look at it independently, there is no car.
Similarly, you feel that there is someone but in fact you are a collection of cells, bones and etc. plus feelings, perceptions concepts and consciousness (sense+recognition).
Basically, in other words there is no difference between a robot and a sentient being. Only difference is how it functions and complexity.
The knowledge to uncover this truth, method and further information is hidden within the Buddhism.
The only way to reach this reality is through Jhana meditation. The 8 fold path describes most required practice methods.
I hope you have some idea about this non-self now.

The self concerns itself with small issues. Suppose the rain does not fall. Suppose that big lake shrinks. Suppose that big lake shrinks to just a cup of water between two thirsty people. At such times we often hear "MINE!"  And in such harsh times, where did that "big lake of non-self" go? Why does "MINE!" keep getting reborn in life after life?
So even with a big lake and no thirsty people, there is still the underlying tendency to identity view, to self:

MN64:3.4: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

It takes great strength and diligent practice to uproot that underlying tendency and realize non-self:

MN64:8.10: Then along comes a strong person, who thinks: ‘By swimming with my arms I’ll safely cross over to the far shore of the Ganges.’ And they are able to do so. In the same way, when the Dhamma is being taught for the cessation of identity view, someone whose mind is eager, confident, settled, and decided should be regarded as being like that strong person.

So although as infants we may not have a view of identity, a view of "mine", the underlying tendency to identify view must be uprooted, cast away, and relinquished.

MN64:3.3: For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

Buddhist monks do not say, "mine." They offer gratitude for what is given. That is non-self.

I apologize if this is a bad example but I hope I made myself somewhat clear.

Interesting analogy but it does raise some valid point. If you look at some simple single-cell organism under the microscope, the material inside its cell wall versus what's outside are pretty similar, which's composed mostly of water. But since that "stuff" is inside the cell wall, we temporarily label the entity as a single-cell organism. Similarly, what seperates the material we consider to be our "self" is only separated from the external material by a thin layer of skin. There's not that much different between what's inside versus outside, the whole body mass is about 80% water, the rest of those seemingly solid stuff, when drilling down to the atomic level, turns out to be mostly empty space! So what distinguishes the difference between "you" and "me" is really and literally barely skin-deep. Hence no basis for any real "self".


text:
"grasping a sign", "fixed view", and suffering
I heard that "grasping a sign" is considered a bad thing in Buddhism. Why is that so and what does that refer to?
We know that "attachment to views" is a bad thing too. Are these related? (signs and views)?
Does Buddhism say anything about broad generalizations vs. careful analysis? Is this topic connected with signs and views, too?
Does all of the above tie to suffering somehow?

I came accross this sutta about Roots of All things...
Very interesting that the enlightened persons dont even grasp to Nirvana and identify as self .
"They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment.
But they shouldn’t identify with extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify regarding extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment......
Because they have completely understood it..."
I understand this sutta as views of nirvana of those who have reached it , is not to grasp the  nirvana itself.
Way above my pay grade where I am still struggling with 5 sense gates pleasure.
But I think this sutta might help.   It is interesting to me that when you reach nirvana,  you let it (nirvana) go too (automatically? )..
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato

thats a good point; also, that Any sort of grasping precludes 'advancement' in that sense etc; ie: grasping is grasping; And when the grasping/ misconception etc 'aren't there', nor the illusions of them: Then maybe some advancement etc; a recent q enquired re ~was having the goal of Nirvana grasping(which it could be), & there was an answer to it, but the answer was apparently deleted so can't provide its link; 'awareness' doesn't require grasping; good answer & important aspect

I heard that "grasping a sign" is considered a bad thing in Buddhism. Why is that so and what does that refer to?
Here are some references to that phrase in answers on this site:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/27050/254

You are talking about the process of grasping a sign(mark) at one of the sense doors, and then automatically interpreting it into an desirable/undesirable object ==> harboring corresponding desire/aversion attitude ==> engaging in purposeful action towards that object ==> feeding craving, confusion, and illusion of self.
When we are able to catch ourselves at the moment when the sign(mark) is interpreted into an object of desire (or aversion), and stop that automatic reaction, we begin to get free from impulsive behavior -- and that eventually leads to freedom from confusion and the illusion of self.
Having learned to catch ourselves at that moment when automatic interpretation of sign happens on one sensory modality (=door), we can then more easily (NOT) do the same on all the other sensory modalities. When developed, this ability leads to what's known as the Diamond Samadhi (vajrasamadhi) - which is a name for when we do not lean (do not grasp) onto any sign.

Nimitta - sutta references

SN 35.120:
Sujato

...And how does someone guard the sense doors?
-- When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
(Idhāvuso, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.)

Bodhi

...And how, friend, does one guard the doors of the sense faculties?
-- Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu does not grasp its signs and features.

DN 10

And what, Ānanda, is this so noble body of doctrine regarding self-concentration (Samādhi) in praise of which the Venerable Gotama was wont to speak; to which he used to incite the folk, in which he established them, and made them firm?’ Restraint of the Sense Faculties
“And how, young Brahman, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense faculties? Herein, young Brahman, having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye.

So I associate it primarily -- exclusively? :-) -- with the practice of "guarding the senses".
And I associate "guarding the senses" with the intention to "stop the wheel of becoming" -- i.e. the 12 nidanas -- i.e. a mechanism to heedfully prevent craving and so on arising/resulting from sense-contact.
We know that "attachment to views" is a bad thing too.
I think I've read that, primarily, in the context of its being a cause for sectarian arguments -- most notably in Ud 6.4 i.e. the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
A related (not identical) problem is also mentioned in the Water-snake sutta (MN 22) too -- that of grasping a view wrongly -- or of taking it too far, of reading too much into it.
Incidentally Ven. Bodhi translates SN 5.10 as "Mara, have you grasped a view?" I think the word "grasped" doesn't exist in the Pali there (I think the literal Pali is closer to something like, "Mara, is this your wrong view?") -- that wrong view being something like "identity view", presumably.
Are these related? (signs and views)?
I was going to say "no" because I think of "signs" as being related to the mechanics of "perception" -- e.g. that first you have some sense-contact with "green" and then you resolve that (by combining that with other signs and contextual clues) as e.g. "grass". So I'd say that "green" is "a sign of grass".
Perhaps there are other signs, more obviously related to "feeling", associated with grass too -- for example being outside in a garden in summer, sunlit but not too hot, etc.
Whereas, I don't know, I thought a view might be something else -- more persistent.
On the other hand, perhaps you're right -- Ud 6.4 ends with ...

Some ascetics and brāhmaṇas, it seems, are attached to these views,
Having grasped ahold of it, they dispute, like people who see only one side.

... i.e. sajjati and ekaṅgadassi.
Incidentally I also read once, from a non-Buddhist source...

If they see
breasts and long hair coming
they call it woman,
if beard and whiskers
they call it man

... and so I think that "breasts and long hair" are signs of a woman and "beard and whiskers" are signs of a man. But I'm pretty sure that Buddhism recommends against grasping -- dwelling on, becoming infatuated with -- signs like that. And that if you are going to "view" a man or a woman there are a lot more important characteristics than only those "signs" (or than only those "first appearances") -- see for example this answer about what one ought to look for in a potential marriage partner.
Relatedly, asubha meditation -- e.g. the monk who perceives or views the person as a bag of bones (not just other perhaps more obvious/outward signs) when he happens to see a woman.
Does Buddhism say anything about broad generalizations vs. careful analysis?
I don't know what is says about them.
I think it includes a lot of broad generalizations, for example IMO the four noble truths, the four dharma seals, and so on, are all broad generalizations.
IMO part of the genius of Buddhism is that they are ...

Broad
True
Useful (or beneficial)

... it's rare to find doctrine which is all of these.
Maybe the Kalama sutta, the Rahula sutta, and so on recommend you do both (so it's not "versus" i.e. one or the other), i.e. know the (broad) dhamma and also carefully analyse the specific/actual experiences, motives, and results.
Is this topic connected with signs and views, too?
I guess so, perhaps -- if you understand Buddhist dhamma to be a "view" then perhaps that (doctrine) becomes part of the nama-rupa, according to which you interpret the signs which arise in your experience.
Does all of the above tie to suffering somehow?
Perhaps it depends who you ask. I think the Buddha might have implied that all his doctrine was on the topic of "suffering and cessation".

"Grasping a sign" is considered ‘bad’ in Buddha Dhamma. Though it is thought that what is mentally grasped passionately can be sustained (niccha sañña), the perception of lasting happiness or bliss (sukha sañña), this conditioned perception inevitably ends in dukkha sañña. One must realize that the perception of a pleasurable feeling is not long lasting because it cannot be sustained according to one’s expectation. This inevitable transformation leads to sadness (dukkha), which is a natural phenomenon. This means that what is perceived as niccha and sukha (pleasurable) essentially gets transformed to a feeling of discontentment or sadness (dukkha) which is a challenging mental state.
This helps one to comprehend that there is no purpose or point in holding on to any grasped mental objects as “I, me, mine or under my control”. Further, one sees that this stance I, me or mine as an illusion. There is nothing that lasts a moment. This conditioned perception of ownership of I, me or mine (atta sañña) as stated above begin to collapse gradually and finally get crushed without leaving any room for re-emergence if the proper practice of Dhamma continued.
Sign / sañña, and views are two different things. WE continue to endure various views (including religious views), and opinions, that have been followed traditionally over several generations based on blind faith and trust. To be free from such erroneous flow of thought over time, a new generation that can freely, independently and accurately appraise causes and effects (hetu-pala), remove incorrect cause, or change the cause must be produced. This is the correct path, based on the practice of pure Buddha Dhamma.
Svakkatö – leads to the removal of samsaric suffering. Here “svakkata” (“sva” for “self” and “akkata” or “akruta” or “akriya” means putting out of action) means getting rid of the concept of a “me” (asmai māna). It is not about whether a “self” exists or not; it is rather to realize that nothing in this world is worth to be considered “mine”.


text:
Does/did Buddhism assert that everything that is/was important to know about the world is/was already known?
Harari (2011) claims:

Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism.
I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

The buddha said that some people found the truth before him, but of coure most people didn't

“In the same way, I had now arrived at the ancient way of the noble
  ones, the ancient path of the noble ones, the ancient way trodden by
  the noble ones, along which passed the noble ones of ancient times,
  and which I should now follow, namely this Noble Eightfold Path: right
  view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  skilful means (effort), right mindfulness, right concentration.

https://suttacentral.net/sa287/en/choong

I would say that Buddhism asserts that everything that is important to know about the world (including the body and the mind), with regards to suffering and freedom from suffering, was already known.
These are known as the three marks of existence (tilakkhaṇa):

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are suffering"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

But outside of the context of suffering and freedom from suffering, Buddhism does not make the claim that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

The above is missing an important context: known by whom? Regarding worldly knowledge, this is what the Buddha said:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. ~~ SN 56.31 ~~

Yes, everything IMPORTANT to know is discovered and realized by Buddha and Arahants.
It is like a skillful engineer or scientist have no secret in any type of machine from past present or future, he/she knows the basics philosophy behind it and how it works.
As an Arahant you know what created everything and you don’t need details of everything to understand it.


text:
Is the Buddha capable of making mistakes?
There is a sutta where the Buddha teaches some disciples about loathsomeness of the body. He then goes on a retreat into the forest. On his return, he finds the disciples have committed suicide as they have grasped the teachings incorrectly. The Buddha than proceeded to teach Anapana Sati as it is much safer. Does this prove that even the Buddha was capable of making mistakes? In hindsight, should he have used the ability of omniscience to anticipate the result of his instructions. Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma.

Hi! Why should we assume that the Buddha was omniscient, in the same sense that Christians use the word to describe one the main features of their Creator God?

@BrianDíazFlores Isn't it because the Buddha can see and foresee the precise working-out of past kamma?

@ChrisW If we accept that, then we should explain why the mass suicide happened and why it wasn't prevented by the Buddha. But putting that aside, remember that not everything is caused by kamma (according to the suttas), so there's a range of phenomena not explanable by knowledge of kamma. The Christian God supposedly knows everything, even what lies beyond kammic relations.

Just to add, the omniscience of the Buddha is slightly different from the Christian God. The Buddha does not know all about the past, future and present simultaneously at all times. However, if he intends to know about (say) the future at point A, 5 minutes ahead, he has immediate access to it. However, he has to intend to see it before hand.

You have misunderstood the sutta SN 54.9.
The Buddha taught the technique of loathsomeness of the body, which is to be used to remove feelings of sexual lust and attachment to the physical form. This technique is useful to be practised by a monk or practitioner who is overwhelmed by sexual lust. However, too much of this practice, especially when it is unnecessary, may lead to depression and suicidal tendencies.
To counteract depression and suicidal tendencies, the Buddha prescribed mindfulness of breathing, which can generate rapture and joy.
So, as you can see, every technique has a different purpose. Any one single technique does not fit everyone at all times. Sometimes, you have to change your technique depending on the circumstances.
For example, a person who is momentarily overcome by one of the five hindrances would have to try some technique to overcome that particular hindrance.
Hence, the Buddha did not make a mistake in this case. He merely prescribed different techniques for different conditions. Please also see this answer.
The Buddha will not make mistakes when it comes to the teachings and practice of Buddhism.
Although the Buddha was known to have some psychic powers, he was not completely omniscient (i.e. knowing all things in the past, present and future), in the way people consider a Supreme God to be. Buddhist enlightenment is about freedom from suffering. It's not about becoming God-like.

I don't disagree with you. I consider Asubha a legitimate practice and agree that one practice does not fit one person at all times. However, in that very Sutta, I didn't find the Buddha warning against overdoing it, and switching to say, Anapanasati or Metta when appropriate before he left for retreat.
I don't see what is the harm in admitting the Buddha made a mistake. A mistake, being by definition an action done without malice, but the consequences turned out to be detrimental and unforeseen.

Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma.

The Commentary seems to say it's due to past kamma. From Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy.'s explanation to the strange case of SN 54.9:

Spk: Why did he speak thus? In the past, it is said, five hundred men earned their living together as hunters. They were reborn in hell, but later, through some good kamma, they took rebirth as human beings and went forth as monks under the Blessed One. However, a portion of their original bad kamma had gained the opportunity to ripen during this fortnight and was due to bring on their deaths both by suicide and homicide. The Blessed One foresaw this and realized he could do nothing about it. Among those monks, some were worldlings, some stream-enterers, some once-returners, some nonreturners, some arahants. The arahants would not take rebirth, the other noble disciples were bound for a happy rebirth, but the worldlings were of uncertain destiny. The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so that they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in heaven. Therefore he spoke on foulness in order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death. Realizing he could not turn back the course of events, he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny took its toll.

Thanks for sharing, Santa. Maybe, to dig further we can find out which commentary were these words written in? How long after the Buddha's death? How can a commentary know about these nitty-gritty details? Was it an attempt to rationalize past events which may seem problematic?

@Luv, the inherent risk with the "dig further" approach is that it tends to be a bottomless diggging with one inquiry to the next ad infinitum, which is that same mistake as warned in SN 36.6 ( https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html ). At our current level of progress, either we'll have to settle with the Comy's explanation OR with some modern monk's analysis that the Buddha's just another common man prone to making mistakes just like us....

....Either way, and we're gonna have to set it aside at some point to get back to the real issue at hand: the existence of Dukkha and what are you gonna do about it!

Sadhu x3. The mind likes to get diverted from the root problem.

@ Luv plz read Padīpopama sutta  (SN 54.8) I think one may find piece of answer in that sutta related to loathsomeness and anapana sati.


text:
What object should one focus on when meditating to reduce anxiousness?
Just the header really! A friend is very self reflective, builds herself up into a tempest thinking about her situation (not terrible, but below where she is comfortable being, I guess).

Just feel the body in general as one breath in and out. Then allow the body to relax. As the body relaxes, so does the cognitive mind.

Saripathana based on breath and walking meditation could be the best.
I am more inclined to practice walking meditation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngEhlYiM--E&t=2s

Agree on breathing.

Try to remove notions of "I", "mine", "myself" and fear/anxiety will have no anchor to latch onto:

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." ~~ Ud 1.10 ~~

Don't you think the teaching for Bahiya is a tad too spiritually advanced for someone dealing with anxiousness?

@KumāraBhikkhu Bhante, I don't think so. Just because someone seemingly affected by some anxiety issue does not mean that his potential for enlightenment is limited. Hey, you never know, his or her latent potential might even be far greater than a seasoned professional monk who can recite most suttas by heart!

There is unrest of mind; frequently giving unwise attention to it — that is the nourishment for the arising of restlessness and remorse that have not yet arisen, and for the increase and strengthening of restlessness and remorse that have already arisen. — SN 46:51

Denourishing of Restlessness and Remorse

There is quietude of mind; frequently giving wise attention to it — that is the denourishing of the arising of restlessness and remorse that have not yet arisen, and of the increase and strengthening of restlessness and remorse that have already arisen. — SN 46:51
"Monks, when the mind is agitated, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.
  "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity [1. passadhi], concentration [2. samadhi], equanimity [3. upekkha]. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm through these factors. [...] As for mindfulness [4. Sati] that is always useful. -Aggi Sutta

Here the meaning of the principles;

Passadhi

Therein what is calmness-awakening-factor? That which of the aggregate of feeling, of the aggregate of perception, of the aggregate of volitional activities, of the aggregate of consciousness is calmness, serenity, being calm, being serene, state of being serene, calmness-awakening-factor. This is called calmness-awakening-factor. (5)For him of raptureful mind the body (of mental aggregates) becomes calm, also consciousness becomes calm. This is called calmness-awakening-factor.

The serenity, the composure which there is on that occasion, the calming, the tranquillizing, the tranquillity of the aggregates

Samadhi

Unshakability by agitation as the meaning of the concentration power

Therein what is samādhi-awakening-factor? That which is stability of consciousness. right samādhi, samādhi-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor. For him of calm body (of mental aggregates) and mental pleasure, consciousness is in samādhi. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor.
The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, imperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration—this is same as composure [collectedness/self-collectedness/onepointedness]

Upekkha

Therein what is equanimity-awakening-factor? That which is equanimity, having equanimity, supreme equanimity, state of balance of consciousness, equanimity-awakening-factor. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor. He, having consciousness in samādhi in the above manner, is well balanced. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor.

The mental [condition] neither pleasant nor unpleasant, which, on that occasion, is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection; the sensation, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful; the feeling, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful—this is the feeling that there then is.

Sati

Unshakability by negligence as the meaning of the mindfulness power

Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? Herein a monk is mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he remembers, remembers constantly, what has long been done and long been said (concerning release). This is called mindfulness-awakening-factor.
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.’
The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is. - vibhanga
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.”

Some notes on these;
When developing the passadhi, mindfulness of the in&out breathing which is then mindfulness of bodily fabrications as in things tied to the body, that is usually the go-to for object of meditation.
When developing the samadhi, it's power is that of unshakability by agitation. Non-distraction is to be known as the meaning of the concentration faculty.
When developing uppekha, i primarily use the theme of four primary elements that are internal or external. I also think that one may use the theme of general unattractiveness which ie is in case of the body generally tied to the graveyard contemplations given in the Satipatthana Sutta but isn't limited to it, if one practices those equanimity or loathing will be established. Id also use 'non-delight in all worlds' and like Vsm suggest general contemplation of dhamma tied to unattractiveness, impermanence, drawbacks and whatever else makes one reject the bait.
The commentary of Vsm lists six things as conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:

Knowledge and pondering of the Dhamma;
Asking questions about the Dhamma;
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

In general i think one should investigate the cause of anxiety to address it most appropriately and if one can't know the cause one probably has to cover all the bases because anxiety manifests due to many things like one's behavior, views, fears, regrets and resolves.
Where no references it's either patisambhidamagga or vibhanga, except that sutta excerpt w beauty queen that is sutta pitaka.

I think it depends on the person's personality. Mindfulness of fear is pretty effective. Just like the Buddha saying to Mara, "I see you, Mara". I recently read an article called Inviting Mara To Tea. It talked about welcoming and thanking Mara. Treating Mara as a messenger to teach you.
In line with that, I think the Brahmavihara should be quite effective. It diverts your mind from your own fear, and redirects it to the welfare of others. It changes your mind from negative to positive.
Metta (loving kindness)
Karuna (compassion)
Mudita (empathic joy for others)
Upekkha (equanimity, even-mindedness to everyone)


text:
What is the correct definition for Mindfulness?
I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness
(sati) using these three analogies from different suttas:

The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [Kimsuka Sutta]

There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you.
And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke.

(May be he is referring to Patoda Sutta. But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.)

There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else.

And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia:

Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment.

(Authour refers it as equanimity)

But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness.
And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve.
If we look at MN 117 :

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

Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

Please also see Difference between sati and sampajanna

I read Dhammadhatu answer. According to his answer, Sati = to remember, Sampajanna = to thoroughly or completely understand something or a situation with right understanding rather than to have mere "bare awareness". I think Sampajanna comes under Right Effort though they need eachother (look MN 177 which I have mentioned). So do you mean mindfulness means 'to remember or keep in mind'?

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

Might be interested in the Theravadin analysis of establishments for mindfulness https://suttacentral.net/vb7/en/anandajoti

Sati

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.’
Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? Herein a monk is mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he remembers, remembers constantly, what has long been done and long been said (concerning release). This is called mindfulness-awakening-factor.
Unshakability by negligence as the meaning of the power [strength] of mindfulness
The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is.

These are theravadin abhidhamma and patisambhidamagga excerpts

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.” https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.020.than.html

Conventionally, we understand that being mindful while driving is prudent and safe. This conventional perspective of mindfulness is effective in that it allows us to approach the suttas and immersion itself:

MN118:24.5: kāye kāyānupassī, bhikkhave, tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhu viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ.
MN118:24.5: at that time they’re meditating by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

As we meditate further, we start noticing subtleties. For example, there is sampajāno and satimā (i.e., "aware and mindful"). The implication is simple. There can be awareness. There can be mindfulness.
Investigating further, looking very closely, we find:

AN4.35:2.5: Satimā kho pana hoti cirakatampi cirabhāsitampi saritā anussaritā
AN4.35:2.5: They are mindful, able to remember and recollect what was said and done long ago.

And from this rare quote, we can understand that mindfulness remembers.
Notably, mindfulness is almost always spoken of in conjunction with awareness. Clearly, one must be mindful AND aware. Total recall without awareness is incomplete.

Samma Sati (right mindfulness) is the practice of Satipathana.

Wikipedia is wrong. We should follow the definitions found in historical Buddhism rather than the definitions of contemporary amoral Americans.
Unless you have decided to practise the "signless meditation", mindfulness does not explicitly mean the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment.
Mindfulness generally requires an act of judgment, per the "gatekeeper" metaphor.
Even if you decide to practise the "signless meditation", mindfulness judges whether or not the mind is signless in order to maintain the mind in signlessless.
In summary, the word "sati" ("mindfulness") means "to remember" or "keep in mind".
To paraphrase Wikipedia, Buddhist mindfulness means: "the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without wrong view, ignorance, craving, attachment & egoism".

There are two questions:

What is the English definition of 'mindfulness'?
or What is the correct definition of  'sati', the pali word often translated as 'mindfulness'?

The English definition of 'mindfulness' has been hijacked.
What was once based on the Buddha's definition of 'sati' (and 'sampajano'), has been hijacked and transformed by two major forces in the modern world.
a) Buddhist teachers, even famous and intelligent ones, perhaps influenced by each other and modern psychotherapy's version of 'mindfulness', generally understand 'mindfulness' as a kind of choiceless  bare awareness. Not properly differentiating between 'sati' and 'sampajano', and not understanding the core suttas, they've ended up with not only a watered down 'sati', but a dangerously wrong interpretation that misses some of the most important aspects of 'sati'.
a) Modern psychotherapy reshapes the watered down Buddhist misinterpretation from (a) into a secular method of meditation for stress relief. Certainly still a very useful tool, hence its popularity, but throws out some of the most important benefits of the real 'sati'.

The correct definition of  'sati', the pali word often translated as 'mindfulness'
can only be determined from a careful comprehensive study of the early suttas.
My detailed analysis can be found here: 8☸ → 7 Sammā Sati
There's a summary of the main points at the end of this post -- sati is "remembering"or "memory".

I am downvoting this answer due to unsubstantiated speculations, and because several of these statements regarding psychotherapy simply aren't true. Mindfulness in psychotherapy is the opposite of being "choiceless". Also, it is very much retaining other "benefits of the real sati", and covers a lot more than "stress relief". Denigrating the purpose of psychotherapy - that is to help people to better health - is uncalled for.

@Erik It seems to be substantiated by Wikipedia -- e.g. Choiceless awareness ("One term that is often used as a near-synonym is mindfulness"), and, Mindfulness ("Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment") -- isn't that so?

@ChrisW I don't think it's fair to shift the onus of proof from the original posters claims onto me. I also don't believe that i am responsible for correcting others misconceptions, but i will react when health professionals honest work and/or goodwill is unjustly put down. Lastly, i am fine with agreeing to disagree regarding these things.

@Erik I didn't read frankk's answer as even 'putting down' medical professionals (it says, "certainly very useful tool"); only as saying that modern definition/practice isn't an accurate guide to, not even the same thing as, the contexts in which the word sati is used in the suttas.

@erik, from a perspective of sati that's part of an integrated solution that aims to complete eradicate suffering and rebirth (in EBT original core teachings), compared to whatever the best version of psychotherapy version of 'mindfulness', is a world of difference. The criticism is not to denigrate psychtherapy but to lament that people who understand 'mindfulness' as psychotherapy's definition miss out on the world transcending implications from the EBT.

"Faith is my seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and plow,
modesty is the pole, mind the strap, mindfulness is my plowshare and
goad. - Snp 1.4


text:
Any manuals on the development of "sympathetic joy" and or "gladness" apart from Visuddhimagga?
As titled. I wonder if there are other methods of development outlined elsewhere?

There're quite a lot of essays on the Brahmavihara written by Vens. Thanissaro, Buddharakkhita, Siriwardhana, Nanamoli, etc. and of course in the Nikaya suttas themselves. See various links here and here