text:
Is it possible to eliminate all attachments?
Attachment is clearly something that we have all experienced, from a baby who is attached to their mom to an adult who is attached to their family. It is clear that attachment leads to suffering, so becoming non-attached helps alleviate suffering, but should all attachment be removed(one is bound to their physical body as long as they are living). Is it even possible, doesn't just one become attached to non-attachment? So, perhaps one has to attain a "middle way" - recognizing attachment and not resisting it, but also not letting it control us. I am curious what Buddhist texts say about this.

A similar question has been asked before here, but I am looking for answers from different sources.

According to Buddhism, attachment(Upadana) is caused by Tanha(craving) and according to the Second Noble Truth, craving is the cause of all suffering. According to the Third Noble Truth there is a cessation of all suffering. According to the Fourth Noble Truth, there is a way to achieve the aforementioned cessation of suffering.
Hence it is one of the core claims of Buddhism that all attachments can be eliminated. There is no Buddhism without this claim.

Are you sure it says "all" suffering? What about attachment to non-attachment? Does that mean Buddhism doesn't exist?

What about attachment to the dharma as well?

If there is any such thing as "attachment to non-attachment" or attachment to Dhamma, it ends when one attains enlightenment. It's like if someone has a desire to visit the temple of the sacred Tooth relic in Kandy, it end when he reaches there.

But enlightenment has no end or beginning, and is not a destination, surely. I think attachment to Dhamma exists, I mean the fact that you say that Buddhism doesn't exist without this claim suggests that it is attached to that claim.

It's an analogy. Not a simile.  Enlightenment is permanent. So the person who attains it never loses it. Hence there is no reason to desire for a state you are always in.

At that point, doesn't one also transcend the Dharma and all views?  Is that what you mean? Then there isn't much reason to live - one is ready to "die."

At that point one knows the enlightenment to be real. Hence you don't need to have an attachment to a belief that it's real.

Also, with regards to the Dhamma it's faith that you have when you haven't seen it first hand. Faith is not attachment. It's the confidence that it is true. To give an analogy, if you know a reputed doctor who has helped you recover from many sickness in the past, you have confidence in his instructions when he prescribes you medicine, even though you may not have the knowledge of the doctor. So you follow his instructions in good faith. As you take the medicine, you start to realize that it does work as advertised.

It is actually interesting because faith in other religions is related to attachment, for example lover and Beloved in Sufism. But, then again I understand what you mean, but it really depends on the frame of reference you are looking at.

Buddhism is not like other religions. Faith does not require attachment.

Attachment to the teachings is a terrible affliction. One becomes lost as one has formed erroneous views about the teachings. Those views become part of their personality. They've created a whole conceptual mind-world to fall into. Sometimes it can show itself as egoic spiritualism. It's a common pitfall for many. Reading and knowing the diamond sutta regularly is helpful in this area.

@Suchness Yes, I see that, "egoic spiritualism", far too often, especially when people judge others "levels of consciousness" as lower or think of "spiritual progress" as though it's something that one can measure.

I would not recommend the diamond sutra as the Theravada tradition does not accept this to be the word of the Buddha with good reason.

If the legend is true  that the Buddha attained highest happiness, and if it is true that contemporary practitioners realised nibbana, then empirically speaking, we can assertively answer with 'yes', although, personally, I haven't met an enlightened person (be it astream winner or any of the other four stages).
Generally, people do not talk about whether they experienced any liberation whatsoever, which makes it hard to prove it empirically.
This being said, if it is possible to rid oneself off of some attachments, then logically I would conclude that it should be possible to eliminate all greed, hatred & ignorance, albeit with good friendship, a lot of practise, determination, motivation & time.
Regards

Yes the middle way is the path.Buddhism is about eliminating suffering
not attachment because as you said there are stuff we are bound to be attached to as long as we are in this body and in this life.
The Buddha lived in luxury and in asceticism in both he had a hard time dealing with suffering.Why make life hard on yourself by dealing with the suffering of losing something that caused you great pleasure or the suffering of not having basic human needs.
So suffering is the core problem You just make life easier for yourself by taking the right decisions that minimize the suffering.They are not only mental or spiritual decisions they are live hood decisions as well.

I just added an answer to the previous question you mentioned. Basically, "Attachment is a mental process... Non-attachment is when that mental process does not develop."
So when there is non-attachment, there is no attachment to non-attachment. Just the processes of attachment stopped to develop.
To understand that, it's useful to analyze the mechanism of attachment. In case of a baby, he has needs - to be fed and so on. He acts on the basis of such needs. It is regulated by sensations.
Correct?
Then naturally some things get associated with those feelings. The person who feeds you gets associated with feelings of satiation, and so on.
In our mind, that person is perceived as an object we get attached to.
Later, if we practise Dharma, we can realize that in terms of experiential reality (phenomena, dharmas) there is no such object, and never been. It's just a mental concatenation of momentary experiences.
Then we can abstract THIS moment experience from dependencies on the past and the future, those imaginary things.
Thus mental processes of attachment wither away. But the ability to live naturally does not cease. We eat when hungry and sleep when tired, and answer those who need help.


text:
increased body temperature during meditation
Is it common during samatha for the body temperature to rise enough to cause  some isolated forms of sweating? Specifically around the head, like where a hat would set and sometimes across the upper chest and shoulders?
It doesn't happen every time but at least several times a week. The room temperature is well regulated and in no way warm. I also noticed that there may be a correlation to some insomnia on the same nights that the sweating occurs during the meditation.

A few checkpoints during the meditation session: do you force your breathing, or you breathe naturally? Do you keep your back straight but your shoulders, arms and legs are relaxed? Do you fix your attention to a single point, like the nostril tip or the abdomen, and not let the mind wandering elsewhere?

Occasionally I find myself somewhat controlling my breath. Primarily when I revert to counting to regain focus. I fix my attention at the base of the nostrils where the philtrum and nose sort of meet and where I can feel the breath. For the most part my back is straight with arms, legs, shoulders and hands relaxed...though at times I have to consciously relax them as I will feel myself become a little ridged because I tend to slouch a bit.

Try to breathe naturally all the time. Keep the body straight but relaxed all the time. Also pay attention to wandering thoughts. Normally once one's gotten "into the zone", meaning one's reached that deep absorption state where one's able to single-mindedly focus on that single meditation object without distractions, most of the problems naturally go away. So don't worry too much, keep practicing diligently. Once you're in "the zone", the problem will be gone by itself.

There's all kinds of wackiness that can occur during meditation.  Some of it is mental, some of it is somatic, and still other phenomenon are a blend of the two.  None of these things are any reason for concern and it's best not to pay them much mind.  Some of these experiences will come and go while others are will appear quite regularly almost becoming like your own personal brand of meditation.  To be honest, elevated body temperature is actually pretty tame compared some of the other stuff that can happen.  Just wait until your skull twists into a spiral, your hands inflate to the size of beach balls, and you suddenly find yourself sitting at the lunch table on the 117 day of fifth grade!

If you have worked with some activity before the meditation, such as walking outdoor, doing home, your sweat have to come out your body when you start to sit in meditation, to cool down your body.
Every body movement is making  activation energy. All activation energy give the temperature. Human body must be 37 degree Celsius to woking fine, so the body try to cool itself down when it's no activity such as sitting meditation.
I recommend to slow down and cool down your body before meditation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Tibetan Buddhism:Recieving inititation in India/Tibet
I recently read an introductory book on Tibetan Buddhism and intrigued by Tantra & Kalachakra practice. I have been practicing meditation for the last 2-3 years but not under the guidance of a guru. After struggling for 2-3 years I have finally realized the need of a guru so that I can start practicing seriously. Next year, I have 3-month vacation and I'm thinking about going to a monastery in India/Tibet (I live in India) where I can be initiated into tantric practice.
Which are some of the places in India and Tibet where Tantra/Kalachakra initiation is possible ?

I think you should search for vajrayana buddhist temple

Vajrayana Buddhism is one of the most important and most followed Buddhist tradition in the present states of Buddhism in the whole world. Also known as the Tantric Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism is also represented as the Diamond Way or Thunderbolt Way and Indestructible Way. source

Not sure about India but I think in Nepal you would find a master of Vajrayana. Maybe you can start by taking up a course in Kopan Monastery in Kathmandu. They are not vajrayana of course, they are Gelug branch of Mahayana but when you go there and meet the Monks you  can ask about what you want and they'll guide you.

Going to such a place is good. Until you go you can practice it at your home also. If you can analyze your mind in every moment you are living. And be in consciousness always. And see desires coming to your mind, and destroy the value of it from your mind. Try it. May triple gems bless you.

A book by Anagarika Lama Govinda titled 'The Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' (pdf) may be useful to build up your knowledge on Tibetan Vajrayana. Lama Govinda, was of German origin and spent many years in Tibet. He was initially in Sri Lanka aligned to the Theravada tradition and subsequently developed an interest in Tibetan Vajrayana. He wrote many books on his spiritual experiences in Tibet. He was a lecturer at the University of Shantiniketan and a world renowned scholar. He had the rare ability to unknot profound spiritual questions and explain them in lucid terms. Many yogis who were interested in the Tibetan tradition were inspired by him. He died in California several decades ago. His writings may inspire you too.

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


text:
The Cula-suññata Sutta - Pali Canon and emptiness
I've closed the question. No need to answer
It's a sore and sensitive subject, emptiness.
The Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.
What else is there in the Pali canon that has a direct mentioning of these types of emptiness?
My teacher had mentioned that Mahayana goes into emptiness with quite some depth. (There's something really wrong with that sentence!)
Can you provide any Mahayana teachings that can help me unpack the types of emptiness mentioned in the Cula-suññata?

I've realised that I'm trying to bite a tomato seed with this one. I'll just try to figure this out for myself such has been the process thus far.

If you really want to experience what the Mahayana school teaches about emptiness, just sit down on the cushion and see for yourself.  It's much easier than chasing footnotes!

@ 000 - I had figured that this would be so. How can one put this into a concept which is roughly what I was seeking. I would only fall back into mental abstractions. I'll have to figure this out for myself. ;-)

A nice summary of Pali Canon's view on emptiness can be found in a book "The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature" available on Samana Johan's community site.

@ Andrei - it's an interesting read. ;-)

Further to 000's comment I'd suggest starting with Nagarjuna.


text:
Is the abhidhammic view on mind an externalist or internalist one?
I'd like to try and categorize the abhidhammic view into either as an internalist or externalist or know if it's possible at all, knowing how the historical Buddha himself even refused to either ultimately deny or agree with the usual problem that would easily decide this issue.
As far as I understand my main problem is that cetasikas seem to imply an externalist view (citta comes into contact with something, they also rise and disappear with citta together) because according to externalism, for a mind content to arise, it is necessary to be related to the environment in the right way.
Citta itself seems to be an intrinsic property though, as far as every agent is capable of knowing something. This strongly implies an internalist viewpoint (there are intrinsic and unique properties of agents that mental contents supervene upon), as our contents are individuated by the properties of our bodies.

Have you considered that both internal and external may apply or neither?

Kind of, that's why I asked if you think it being possible at all to categorize the historical view under these pretty modern terms (compared to Buddhist standards).

What Abhidhamma books have you read?

Abhidhamma studies by Nyanaponika Thera, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and various excerpts from Abhidhamma Vibhanga (II.) and Abhidhamma Yamaka (VI.)

It seems you have read a lot but I can't understand your question completely. Have you read Abhidhamma in practice?http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf

Categorising may not be helpful, unless you're coming from a strictly academic perspective. I hope you find autonomy and experience in SarathW's link. Practice throws open a whole new perspective and often segmentation of things falls apart at the dawning of insight.

I believe the comment by @Suchness answers the question. You would have to go beyond the idea of 'inside' and outside'. This is explained and proved by Nagarjuna. All conceptual distinctions would have to go for a fundamental analysis.

"Things are objects because there is a subject or mind;
and the mind is a subject because there are objects." - from the Hsin Hsin Ming...So both and neither.

Nyanaponika Thera states at one point in the book mentioned that the grounding term for the Abhidhamma analysis of phenomena (Nibbana) is unique in that it is given no positive definition, It cannot be said to be imply an internalist or externalist perspective but is, rather, the abandonment of the idea of 'inside' and 'outside' which have only a relative.meaning and are thus reducible,

Could you explain, or link to a definition of, what you mean by "internalist or externalist"?

The question may be answered directly. Whenever you come across two theories that are contradictory but complementary such as internalism and externalism Buddhism denies the truth of both. This is a general rule and may be safely applied in all circumstances. This is why the phrase 'Middle Way' is said to have infinite applications.
It is an avoidance of all positive theories in favour of a neutral one. Hence the Buddha's insistence that we avoid all extreme views.
To explain or understand a neutral position is a major challenge but just knowing what Buddhism says about these things is not difficult. Wherever there are two extreme views both are rejected. This is necessary for a doctrine of Unity since all distinctions and divisions must be reduced.
Internalism and externalism are partial or selective theories and as Kant and Nagarjuna note all such theories are undecidable since neither extreme answer can withstand analysis.

The way I understand, the Abhidhammic view on mind is no different to the Sutta view on mind.


text:
What is wrong speech according to Buddhism?
Is something a lie if I don’t have bad or evil intentions but what I said turns out to be false? I’m trying to protect my five precepts but sometimes when I say something it turns out to be false but I just said what I know at that time. I wasn’t trying to deceive or tell lies. I just said what I know but I found out later that I was wrong. So is that a lie? I didn’t have any bad intentions. I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false.

That isn't a lie. To lie you have to have the intent of deception. Therefore, it isn't lying and it isn't wrong speech. However, that doesn't mean the remaining content of what you said is right speech.

Check this link out for more information on right speech.

@user29568 Please post that as an answer, not as a comment.

I don't think the fourth precept is defined in detailed in suttas. Actually I don't think any of the precepts are defined in detail -- perhaps they are in a commentary.
Something like that precept, though, is defined in the vinaya (for monks) -- see Chapter 8, page 298, of The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, which includes:

Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

But I don't understand your question saying, "I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false" -- because, how could you "know" something that's false?
I think (I hope) I'd tend to phrase that as, "I think that so-and-so", or "Someone once told me so-and-so", or "I guess that so-and-so", or "Such-and-such a reference says so-and-so" -- not, "I know that so-and-so is true" when I'm not sure.
If I'm not sure about something, then conveying more certainty than I have (e.g. by saying, "X is definitely true") is in my opinion misrepresenting the truth about how good my knowledge is, how much certainty I have, how trust-worthy it is.
Anyway you should probably read that chapter of the vinaya, it includes various details which I won't quote here.
The vinaya says it's wrong to break a promise, too. In my opinion (though, I'd guess, not according to Buddhist scripture) that means you should avoid kind of implying (perhaps an implied promise) that something is true when it isn't -- so for example if you're not certain then don't imply you're certain.
Since you mentioned "wrong speech" you might also want to read about "right speech" more generally, i.e. one of the factors of the noble eightfold path (I don't know whether that's exactly the same as the fourth precept):

Right Speech (quotes from Suttas)
Right Speech (a little essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

+1. Great point about 'knowing'. We should try to speak with rigour. Not an easy thing to do. I read one piece of advice which states that we should never say anything that is falsifiable. Good advice for all philosophers, albeit there will be exceptions for every rule. .

The advice to the young Rahula (for example) about not lying seemed to me, on the outside, about being trustworthy and retrained by a sense of shame (e.g. "don't do anything you wouldn't want to admit to" isn't effective if you're willing to lie about what you've done) -- but on the inside it's about knowing reality, not lying to yourself about what's what.

On a separate topic, about philosophy not Buddhism, I've heard "falsifiable" used only in a different sense -- e.g. a statement like "God exists" or "there is a teapot floating in the asteroid belt" are an example of an "unfalsifiable" claim ... perhaps I'd call them "untestable". I think people regard those claims as "unscientific", perhaps "unprovable". So "falsifiable" (meaning "we can test to see whether it's false") is kind of good, although "false" is bad; I think that means that useful/practical claims are falsifiable but true.

Quite right, falsifiability is a topic in itself. Here it just refers to what you say in your answer. If we make a statement about which we are unsure then it may be falsified but if we preface it with 'I believe' or 'It seems to me' then it becomes unfalsifiable,. When we state something as a fact we should know it is one. Likewise we are advised not to make claims about experience that go beyond our experience. All claims should be testable (and tested) but not necessarily empirically. Common sense really.

In addition to the answers provided, to be safe, if you were unsure of something you have to indicate that you were unsure of it. Same for if you don't know, say you don't know. If it is not something you personally verified, make sure you indicate that as well.
Especially if the topic in question was dire or can have a big impact to others based on your answers, I would advise you be very careful of giving the right answers because not only it would bring impact to others, but also risky in committing false speech.

In the broader context of ignoble speech, we have DN33:

Four ignoble expressions:
  speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical.

Notice that lying is included in the first of these. Lying is intentional. One states what is false. You had no intention of lying but your speech was false. And you felt doubt and perhaps remorse later.
To blurt out something baldly and assertively is dangerous as you've found yourself later that the statement was false. Rather than hinder yourself with remorse (part of the five hindrances), simply be mindful that as the name and forms we use in speech come into being, they also must mutate and cease. Perhaps the simplest mindful thing to do is prefix statements (especially any "obvious truths") with "it is said", "i have heard", or other qualifying phrases. The effort of doing so will gradually pay off and help mindfulness grow.
And from DN33 as well:

refraining from speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical

Which also means that saying nothing at all is also fine.

If you say for example, "from what I know:...", or, "I have heard that:...", then there would be no lie (at worst it's useless chatter). If you say it as f you really know for example, "it is...", "he has...", "that is wrong...", with definite speech -- and if happens that your assumptions turn out to be wrong, you understood wrong -- then you did not really know, and that it was simply a lie.
If you speak in ways of truthfulness, it's not possible to lie.
Think on that, if saying, "tomorrow I will do this and that...", or in ways of, "I am...", and of how many lies are around on places like this?
One who says "i know" but does not; "I see" but does not; "I have heard" but hasn't; is called a liar by those who are serious.
And one should not forget that, to gain liberation, it requires to abandon all kinds of stealing the truth; and untruthfulness starts with stopping "speaking of what is not true."
For the most speech is to defend one's world, identification and it would require freedom from stinginess (e.g. Noble person) to have not simply just this intention, however excused or hidden.
One may think on Rahula's first lesson he got. There is no way in Dhamma for one who does not start right here; and even the Bodhisatta, although still (before enlightenment) breaking this or that precept, never failed in sacca, truthfulness. Truthfulness as well as the Buddha-Dhamma is not for everyone, not to speak about careless.
Yet think then on the even more fine matter of changing ones mind, and it's impact.
Much liberating gain in going truthfully into this matter, rather to seek approve under equal and lower with the defiled "I had the intention" excuse (yet not even recognize the drive).
[Text is not placed for trade or to be used for any wordily exchange]

Changing answers and especially meaning and dedications, deleting content and censore, is as wrong speech, stealing the truth. Shamefully and of no use to share anything with people not dear of even deliberated lies and common stealing... much karuna if caught in such a sociaty and in association with balas. Their teacher a deliberated thief... how could his disciples be different...

I'll undo that edit. It is unconventional on this site to add that kind of text (i.e. to end the answer with a 'dedication' such as "Text is not placed for trade or to be used for any wordily exchange") -- but as long as the text is short and not hostile, and important to you, I think it's harmless.


text:
Should you practices the noble eightfold path all at once or master is separately?
I read in a book while I'm studying the path, that you should practice the path all at once. It can't be separate. That seem to me like a very large task. Is this true.

According to Thich Nhat Hanh, each path leads to the other. You can try practicing it separately but you'll soon see that you can't but practice it all at once.

Which book are you referencing? Could you quote the bit, the sentence or paragraph, that says it needs to be practised all at once?

This question might be already answered -- see Sequence in the noble eightfold path

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.
Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.
Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).
As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.
As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.
So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.
Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.

I see your point clearly thank you friend

Ruben has given a good answer.
Only thing I can add is it is gradual training.
For instance, when you start observing five precepts or even a one precepts you have started the journey. In a broader analysis observing five precepts is following the basic Noble Eightfold Path.


text:
Offering water to a buddha statue?
Does offering water to a Buddha statue increase merits? Can I get more merits from offering food or drinks to a buddha statue than from giving money to beggars?

It's important to notice the purpose of practicing Dana, or the virtue of charity. It is to let go of stinginess, of clinging, and of attachment. So while it's true that there're wholesome resultant merits, as long as one keeps in mind the true purpose of the practice, one won't fall into that common mistake of treating Dana as a transaction which leads to differentiating/calculating who/where/when to donate to maximize the "returns". With the right intent, whether offering water to Buddha statue or donating to the poor or helping the sick, or whatever, every single act adds up and help one to be able to let go (as opposed to pick up more) all clinging and attachments.

Offering food to animals and other puthujjanas who do not exercise sense restrain is already ''not of great fruits'' like the buddha phrase it (because the recipient precisely will delight and crave more delight which leads to more afflictions and suffering, whereas the human who at least train to see the danger of the 5 aggregates and of lust for them will train to not delight in the food), so offering food to a rock is going only to waste food. Keep food for people and animals, instead of rocks.
The puthujjanas who give and pray to rocks are turning some activities into rituals and cling to them  while claiming they are good people for creating those rituals. THose puthujjanas completely fail to understand karma.
As you know, there are sankharas and karmas and there are puthujjanas who claim that:

only actions [thoughts, talks, movements of the body] matters to be a good human, intentions do not matter.
Those puthujjanas love to turn their activities into rituals. For instance, if their ritual is to put a fork on the left of a plate,  they claim that they can think of, let's say, the favorite singer and songs while they put the fork on the left of the plate and they claim since the forkis at the proper place, the ritual is complete and they have generated ''merit'' (even thought they thought of something else than putting the fork on the left of the plate) or a good action and therefore they are good people.
only intentions matter. A human can do any action, as long as the human has right intentions behind those actions, this human is a good person.
Those puthujjanas love to claim that caring about the outcome of an action is useless or even detrimental to the fruit of the action.
Those puthujjanas claim that as long as they have a good intention, like compassion, while they do an action, no matter what this action is , since they feel sad and delude themselves that they are compassionate and detached from the outcome of the action, they are good people.
Those puthujjanas  are the most dangerous since they can do horrible actions like euthanizing animals or humans and they delude themselves into being righteous.
They are so messed up in their heads that they believe that as long as they feel sad and act only to alleviate the suffering of people by killing them, they do right actions.
SOme of those puthujjanas claim that they are good people, because they feel detached from the outcome of their actions: you can do whatever you want as long as you are detached from the outcome.

Now the claim of the buddha is precisely that you cannot separate the intention from the karma of an action.
The buddha claimed famously that

'"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect."'' "Intention, I tell you, is kamma.
  Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

some puthujjanas like the ones who claim that ''only intentions matter, any actions are permitted as long as the right intentions are behind the actions'' love to cut the quote at "Intention, I tell you, is kamma.'' to justify their horrible ways and their horrible doctrine which never stops the suffering.
Karma is a stuff that is done and the source of that karma is the ''intending'' according to the buddha.
There are sankharas, which are typically called intentions today, and the output of the sankharas are actions which are tainted by karmas, which means that they are colored by karma.
There are 3 color of karmas which are useless to stop the suffering of puthujjanas:

"And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case
  where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication,
  fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious
  mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication,
  having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated
  an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On
  rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious
  contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that
  are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is
  called kamma that is dark with dark result.
"And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the
  case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily
  fabrication... a non-injurious verbal fabrication... a non-injurious
  mental fabrication... He rearises in a non-injurious world... There he
  is touched by non-injurious contacts... He experiences feelings that
  are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Ever-radiant Devas. This
  is called kamma that is bright with bright result.
"And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result?
  There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily
  fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a verbal fabrication
  that is injurious & non-injurious... a mental fabrication that is
  injurious & non-injurious... He rearises in an injurious &
  non-injurious world... There he is touched by injurious &
  non-injurious contacts... He experiences injurious & non-injurious
  feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some
  devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that
  is dark & bright with dark & bright result.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Now the claim of the buddha is that karma and sankharas are a bad thing, since they are conditioned. And whatever is conditioned leads to suffering sooner or later. So as long as you perform actions which are  of those 3 karmic colors, you will suffer and the people who crave delights that you try to help by karmic deeds will suffer too.
Fortunately, the buddha claims he found the way to stop this horrible karma and sankharas and he claims that There is only one color of actions which leads to the cessation of suffering:

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark
  nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is
  neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading
  to the ending of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is
  the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the
  cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of
  kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of
  kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the
  cessation of kamma.

Now giving some stuff to a human is an action, sometimes it is a karmic action which will therefore lead to suffering for somebody, but a few times the human who gives stuff to another human will color this action by the right karma, the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result'' and that stuff leads to less suffering.
now ''human gives stuff to another human'' is an action that involves two human and the the fruit of the action involves the two humans.
First the human who gives must have the right citta and mano during the offering. It is not easy for a puthujjana to use rightfully the citta and mano during the offering, because puthujjanas have created so many mistakenviews tied to giving.
As usual with the phutjjanas their views stems from their idiotic dichotomies, the most famous one being the egotistical-selfless dichotomy. Some puthujjanas claim that being egotistical is good and selfless is bad, some puthujjanas claim the opposite. But both managed to tie their mistaken view of egotism and selflessness to giving.
THe buddha listed a few of their mistaken ways here https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/thanissaro
THe giving of great fruit is always the giving that leads to the cessation of suffering for the human who gives. It turns out that this giving is not even about the view that giving is right because it calms the citta, but because ''it is an ornament of the citta'' which just means that giving to people who have sense restrain is the right thing to do.
But the fruit also depends on the human who receives the offering:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html

THe human who receives the offering matters a lot. When you give to puthujjanas who crave to delight in sensuality, you may only make things worse for them, even though you may improve your own situation. but when you give to any human who strives for ''sense restrain'', you can go blindly and not even care about what this human will do with your offering, precisely because this human will not delight in your offering and will not generate more craving and more afflictions. The times where you can stop caring about the outcome of your offering are the times when give stuff to THe humans who do not delight in sensuality.
The buddha rephrased all that here:

"And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.
"And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.
"And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.
"Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html
On the contrary, when you give stuff to puthujjanas who do not strive to avoid delight in sensuality, you must be super careful about what you do and say, because you can make things worse for them very easily by making delight and making them crave more.
So when you give to humans who crave delights, you always must use your mano and citta like this:

‘Does this act with the body that I am doing lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both?
  https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato

It is hard for a puthujjana to help other puthujjanas, because in the dhamma, helping others is about calming the citta, the mano and the kaya, the opposite of making other puthujjanas  excited, so the puthujjana who wants ''helping others'' like they say, who struggles a lot with that already, will not have much actions left besides giving stuff to humans who are good at senses restrain.


text:
Dukkha Nana - deep knowledge of our own suffering
In which school of Buddism is dukkha nana a recognised term?
Where is dukkha nana discussed in the Pali canon?
The nearest I can find to dukkha nana is klesha-mara which maybe related in some way.
Speaking specifically of dukkha nana that has arisen as a result of practice, what is your experiential interpretation of dukkha nana?

I think ñāṇa is the Pali word for "insight" or "knowledge" (jñāna in Sanskrit), used in a phrase like "vipassanā-ñāṇa".

So, simply, dukkha nana is just insight into suffering. There's a guy called Daniel Ingram who uses this term to describe a significant and often very difficult phase in the practice. I was curious as to whether it was mentioned in the Pali canon. https://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+The+Progress+of+Insight

"ñāṇa" is the Pali word for "insight" or "knowledge" (jñāna in Sanskrit), used in a phrase like "vipassanā-ñāṇa".
It appears in the Pali canon, for example in SN 45.8 in the definition of Right View:

“And what is the noble eightfold path?
  “Katamo ca, bhikkhave, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo?
It is right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
  Seyyathidaṃ—sammādiṭṭhi … pe … sammāsamādhi.
And what is right view?
  Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi?
Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.
  Yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhasamudaye ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya ñāṇaṃ—

I see from Google that some (contemporary) people use "dukkha nana" in the context of "dark night", however:

I don't remember much from "dark night" topics on this site, though there have been some
I don't know how to relate the "dark night" phrase to what I read in the suttas

Instead of "dark night" (e.g. as described in this answer), the message I get from the suttas is that:

Dukkha is discovered in 'real life' (as it were), and not during or as a result of practice -- e.g. the story of Gotami
"Knowledge of dukkha" is right view, it's insight into the cause of dukkha, its origin and cessation (e.g. the four noble truths) -- which might be from meditation but in the suttas I think it's usually (at least initially) as a result of hearing the dhamma explained (perhaps that explanation is then confirmed in meditation)

I don't quite trust the English-language "ego"-related words -- "ego" is Latin and/or Freudian originally, isn't it? Likewise I guess that the phrase "dark night" comes from the Christian tradition, I haven't tried to learn how that's related to Buddhism -- I'm pretty sure that Buddhist doctrine teaches, or at least that the Pali suttas teach, that there isn't a soul and that any and all self-views are associated with suffering.
In any case accepting the anatta view does not seem to me to be associated with suffering (not a "dark night", a "death of ego") -- instead I remember it as being always more like more like this:

her madness left her and her right mind was established

and:

And the master then uttered this verse:

A person with a mind that clings,
    Deranged, to sons or possessions,
    Is swept away by death that comes
     — Like mighty flood to sleeping town.

At the conclusion of this verse, confirmed in the fruit of stream-entry,
  she asked the master [for permission] to go forth [into the homeless life].

But who am I to tell you, you know, what other people experience?
Still I do remember reading people saying, on this site, or saying that their teachers said, that you should beware of people telling you that there are various specific stages of insight or meditation to go through, specific experiences.

I think the same or similar is in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

‘This is the noble truth of suffering.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.
  ‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

And the next two lines:

This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññeyyan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe … pe … udapādi.
‘This noble truth of suffering has been completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññātan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

The participle there is Pariññāta, from the verb Parijānāti, a variant of the verb Jānāti.
I think that jānāti is the same root as ñāṇa, i.e. jānāti is the verb "to know" and ñāṇa is the noun "knowledge".
The sutta might contradict what I said above about "specific stages" e.g. because perhaps it lists some:

Dukkha "should be completely understood" ... "has been completely understood"
The origin of suffering "should be given up" ... "has been given up"
The cessation of suffering "should be realized" ... "has been realized"
The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering "should be developed" ... "has been developed".

"you should beware of people telling you that there are various specific stages of insight or meditation to go through, specific experiences." - Yes, mapping should be used very cautiously. Awakening seems to be a very innate and individual happening.


text:
Losing enlightenment
I would like to ask if someone has known an enlightened being who lost it.
Is there any Buddhist texts about this?
I believe it can happen with some brain problem maybe.

There're 4 "grades" of enlightenment (Stream-entry, Once-return, Non-return, and Arahantship). By the time one's reached the 1st stage, one's guaranteed non-retrogression and will only have at most 7 more rebirths. (ref: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html )

Householder Seckin, those interested,
Actually many, most, believing that they have found awakening, but actually didn't, of what ever stage, sooner or later will lose that, often very painful and sometimes having cut themselves off from any attaining. This being the reason, the Buddha did not tell much on the matter that once having reached the stream (first stage of awakening) one is no more able to fall, right away destinated for full awakening, althought it could require another hardships within further 7 existences. So it's most empathized to focus on gaining right view, as the entrance and stick firm, till the "End" with the safe Bet, even there are many out there suggesting different, and stay not by first things first.
A possible more extended answer, as well as given space for discussion on go deeper, can be given found here: [Q&A] Losing enlightenment (possible?)
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining binding to world, but as exit for higher and beyond)

Actually householder @seckin did, by having an account here, and others could use also for commercial and not good purposes. So maybe think again where things are secure given. It's not my persons website, but that of the Sangha.

Suffering has a cause householder @seckin , and this and path really out needs to be seen, done. Maybe this gives rise, since related and hard to find alone, real release. Vi-bhava at least, is not enought, leads to new becoming as well. Body might be left behind, kamma follows anyway.

I don't know if this is something that is possible. Steve Taylor has done a 10 year study of enlightened (I use that word extremely liberally in the case of his study) individuals in which he documents some cases where people have lost the state in his book The Leap - The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening. However, in my opinion his 10 year study only really scratches the very surface. I say this because there are many who are fooled into thinking that they are enlightened when in fact they probably entered a jhanic state for sometime then lost it. This is the tomfoolery of awakening. Jhanic experiences can be drastically life changing and one can attach that change to a conclusion concerning their spiritual discovery only to become disappointed by the certainty of impermanence.
Additionally, from the Buddhist perspective, enlightenment occurs at Sotapanna stage when one enters the stream but one is still subjected to conditioned states in the stream. Apparently, there is a place where conditioning no longer has any influence, termed nibbana or enlightenment. Im not sure how one could fall back from the stream having realised knowledge of the four noble truths and suffering.

One can be very convincing when insight occurs through jhana. Sometimes jhana is intoxicating with a self constructed wiseness that is unshakable and through mere speech one can subdue the speech and thoughts of others. Perhaps the one big twist in all of this is a definition of enlightenment I heard from Adyashanti: enlightenment is to realise that there is nothing to realise; everything just is.

I can't answer because I have no personal experience of being in nibbana.

Yes, it must because of that, jhanic state. Interesting.

"This is the tomfoolery of awakening." - Great phrase. .

According to Buddhist teaching becoming Sotapanna is the only way to assure Nibbana.
"The laywoman Sujata, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Of course this can happen. It's not because you experience enlightenment that you won't get hungry, or angry, or {your favorite condition goes here} after that. It also doesn't mean you can't experience it again an hour later. Life does not end at satori. In some traditions, it is even considered counterproductive to dwell on/in the experience. A good book on this is "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry" by Jack Kornfield.


text:
How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana?
How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana? (In future lives)

It seems to me the teachings say we are all destined to attain or realise Nibbana. It's just that some are in more of a hurry than others.

Do you or someone else know of a sutta reference that substantiates the claim that we are all destined to attain Nibbana?

I've come across this claim many times but off-hand cannot think of an example. If we all have Buddha-nature then it seems to follow.

What does "Destiny" mean in Buddhist context?

Traditionally, one hears it from one's teacher (Buddhist mentor). For example, my Zen master once said, pointing at me, "One day this guy will get everything. He will be Bill Gates". This is known as "the prediction".
Even without that, the teachings say, if you are committed to figure it out, however slowly, you will get there sooner or later.
This abstract idea that Nibbana is actually within reach gets concrete and personal only at pretty advanced stages. Basically, once you clearly see the mechanism of conflict/suffering and how it all works, and not just see but get some grasp of mastering unconditional "rightness", that's when you know you will get there with time.

How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana?

There's a type of higher knowledge called "Reviewing Knowledge"/PaccavekkhanaNana, which is developed by one who has destroyed all defilements thru the cultivation of Sila/Samadhi/Panna (virtue/meditation/wisdom):

"As the trainee trains along the straight path, the knowledge of destruction arises first, immediately followed by final knowledge. Thereafter, when the fetters of existence are destroyed, for one liberated by final knowledge, the knowledge arises: “My liberation is unshakable.” ~~ AN 3.85 ~~

Okay so is it possible to describe final knowledge or how one knows that one has final knowledge? (It must be different to simply being confidently delusional). It also seems it would require omniscience.

Doesn't have to be omniscience. Omniscience means one knows everything. In this case, one would know enough about their future course.

How would you know that there isn't something that can change your future course that you aren't aware of then if there isn't omniscience?

Again, you have to clearly distinguish omniscience versus reviewing knowledge. Unlike omniscience, Reviewing knowledge won't tell you exactly how every single future event will unfold. It won't tell you that in January 1st, 2100, you will get a cold with runny nose. It simply tells you that the way to final liberation has been guaranteed and that there's no chance for retrogression back toward states of woes.

My thinking is that omniscience is required to know that one's reviewing knowledge is indeed reviewing knowledge.
For instance if I am in a room and there are a lot of balls but I am only collecting basketballs and basketballs represent reviewing knowledge I still need the knowledge that my knowledge of basketballs is the complete and accurate knowledge of basketballs and not an incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of basketballs. This seems to require omniscience.
Maybe I'm wrong?

@Angus - I was almost thrown into a zen koan mindset reading your basketball comment. There are knowings that do not seem to occur from the conventional methods of our cognitive interpretation. The conventional knowings arise through the interfacing of our six senses with what seems to be out there whereas, the other purer knowings seem to have complete autonomy from the influence of what is generally done or believed. One does not need to know everything for the latter to arise.

It seems to me that omniscience would be required but I don't know if it is.

When you become a Sotapanna it assures enlightenment within seven lives.
"The laywoman Sujata, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

How does one know if one is a Sotapanna? How does one know being a Sotapanna assures enlightenment within seven lives?

Technically by eliminating the first three fetters, you become a Sotapanna. Once you become a Sotapanna you see the Nibbana and it is nor far away.

Does one see that one is assured Nibbana within 7 lives? How does one know if that is true or not?

Sutta says the minimum of seven lives. Could be this life itself. Any case is a very short period of time in relation to Samsara

How does a Sotapanna know they are destined for Nibbana within 7 lives?

Obviously 7 lives is a misinterpretation. It is about the remaining seven fetters which are clearly observable, whereas 7 lifes are not observable. Rebirth is not a  central teaching in Buddhism, nor is kamma. Instead, it's a teaching for lay-people. If a person is consummate in sila, his mind will be natural calmer. Then, with bhavana added it is easy to calm (samatha) the mind. As a result, the person experiences non-self & impermanence of the 5 aggregates, and what then is what is explained in anapanasati sutta in the 'Dhamma Section'. Dispassion happens since clinging is futile.

You couldn't know prior to the unfolding of right view with regards to seeing through the illusion of self (sotapanna) and even then there's no certainty in this life. Perhaps right effort will see to that.
How do you know if you're sotapanna? Have a read of Dhamma and Discipline of the Buddha’s
Own Words to proclaim Stream Entering
by oneself.

That seems like another interesting question for submission to the community. You need not have faith, just an ability to practice.


text:
How different is "joy of ownership" in the Dīgha,jānu Sutta from clinging onto one's wealth?
In the Dīgha,jānu Sutta, accomplishment of diligence leads to the joy of ownership. Isn't "joy of ownership" just clinging onto one's wealth? What do other Buddhist schools say about this?
A possible equivalent to this in Kabbalah is Bread of Shame, defined as not earning what we receive, or in other terms, receiving without giving. Yehuda Berg states, "As the ancient kabbalists teach us, it is part of human nature and the nature of this world that no matter how much is given to us, as long as we are the ones who are receiving and not the ones who are giving, we will always feel  Bread of Shame. We will always be the vessel and not the Creator. We will always feel powerless. We will always find someone to blame for our unhappiness." It is said to be the cause of all darkness in the world. Another Stack Exchange user, Ian Taylor, states that it "refers to the fact that unearned attainments are not rewarding the same way that things you work hard for are. Part of noble eightfold path is exerting effort to attaining enlightenment— i.e. YOU must work for it."
While the purpose of both teachings is a bit different, I think the Kabbalastic notion of "bread of shame" wants to make people less selfish by attributing the feeling of shame when just taking for the self alone whereas the Buddhist Sutta reveals how to find joy in one's wealth--both of which stress the importance of effort. But, isn't being stuck in the concept of receiving and giving just another way of saying "I" and "them" - a dualistic notion that shames others or yourself. Also, "working hard for something" is a concept: one can just claim to have worked hard for it, but in reality earning something is a reflection of cultural standard. Someone can work hard but not earn what they deem to be the equivalent of their work. Is that feeling wrong, or should one accept the "joy of ownership"? The concept of earning is only rewarding insofar as it feeds our pride vis-a-vis the notion of achievement, the idea that "I" earned it-- a form of spiritual egoism when enlightenment is "attained."

Perhaps there are not many people on this site who can answer a question about the Kabbalah. So you might like to reword this question (especially the title) to ask more specifically about what's said in the Dīgha,jānu Sutta -- unless the comparison is the only bit that interests you -- but the questions in the text (e.g. about "joy of ownership") seem to me to be stand-alone questions (that might be answered by someone who doesn't know the Kabbalah).

@ChrisW Done, I kept the remaining parts about Kabbalah, just in case someone is familiar with both teachings.

Your basic premise is correct, that giving/receiving, achieving/earning/attaining and any joy that comes from these, are concepts based in duality. In Buddhism, these concepts belong to what's known as "the relative truth". And you are correct that from "the absolute truth"s perspective, these things are empty and contrived.
However, you should understand, that ultimately, the Enlightenment of the Buddha is awakening to One Reality of which the Relative and the Absolute truths are the two aspects. This awakening involves appreciation of both truths and understanding of how the two are connected as two ends of the same stick. So while in the absolute sense the notions of "attainment", "one who has attained", and "the others" are utterly false, these kinds of ideas are the necessary links connecting the absolute with the various subjective realms of the living beings.
As for the earned attainment vs. something that is given for free, the tradition is firm on this. Without earned attainment it is very hard to stay strong and emotionally stable, since one like that does not have an anchor of earned pride to hold on to when the world starts laying its trips of failure and guilt on you. It's very easy to get depressed when all you have is Emptiness and nothing to hold on to. The Buddha himself and countless teachers kept saying that earned attainment and earned pride is a phase one should master before letting it all go and proceeding on to the full groundlessness. Especially if one remains in close contact with society post-awakening, having a safety net of the earned pride to fall back to when things get rough is not a bad idea.
Of course, at some point one is supposed to get strong enough that such tricks should not be needed, but not until one can actually handle it without getting oneself and others in trouble on the relative level. Until then, Buddhism teachings creatively employ countless tricks that  exploit this same basic principle of finding or creating (valid) reasons to congratulate oneself and to feel good in general.
If you think about the big picture, Buddhism defines Hell as a state of "everything is wrong", Samsara is a superset of worlds where things are wrong to various degrees, Heaven is a place where things are conditionally right (limited by time and scope), and Nirvana is a place where "everything is always just right". The goal of the game is to get from left to right. As you move your chip across the board, you learn to stop generating causes of "the wrong" and are trying to figure out a way for things to be right. It turns out that at the very end of the game, the only way to achieve victory is to let go of the notions of "right" and "wrong" and transcend the game altogether - but in order to get there and stabilize, you have to fix the coarser problems first, and that requires a sense of direction.

Insightful as always, it is interesting how your answers feel more like a reminder than a ground-breaking truth. I was wondering if you can link me to any writings on "earned pride," if you have any.

How different is “joy of ownership” in the Dīgha,jānu Sutta from clinging onto one's wealth?

Actually the answer's already provided in the sutta itself. If one clings to one's wealth, s/he won't be able to have a balanced living, the necessary component to the joy of ownership:

"And what is balanced living? Here, a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures rather than the reverse.’ Just as an appraiser or his apprentice, holding up a scale, knows: ‘By so much it has dipped down, by so much it has gone up,’ so a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures [283] rather than the reverse.’
“If this clansman has a small income but lives luxuriously, others would say of him: ‘This clansman eats his wealth just like an eater of figs.’1751 But if he has a large income but lives sparingly, others would say of him: ‘This clansman may even starve himself.’1752 But it is called balanced living when a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures rather than the reverse. ~~ AN 8.54 ~~

The sutta you chose is quite specific:

We are lay people enjoying sensuality; living crowded with spouses & children; using Kasi fabrics & sandalwood; wearing garlands, scents, & creams; handling gold & silver. May the Blessed One teach the Dhamma for those like us, for our happiness & well-being in this life, for our happiness & well-being in lives to come.

The Buddha gave advice applicable to (suitable for, helpful for) lay people, as well as (different) advice for monks.
You might like to read Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople? -- or a book like this one.
Even so, note that the Buddha's advice ...

Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one’s livelihood in tune

... does not include, "clinging onto one's wealth" -- although, another sutta suggests being prudent with it:

By dividing wealth into four parts,
  True friendships are bound;
  One part should be enjoyed;
  Two parts invested in business;
  And the fourth set aside
  Against future misfortunes.

Also other suttas (e.g. the Bhikkhuni Sutta, the Brahmana Sutta) suggests there are factors or motives (e.g. "conceit", and "desire") which may be helpful or even necessary on the way, although ultimately abandoned -- so, yes, it might look like a contradiction, but I don't think it's meant to be.

It is actually because of your link to the book that I posted this question, I looked into the first chapter online, but I wasn't able to find an ebook version of it. While it might not meant to be a contradiction, I just see how people can be lost in the idea and justify the status quo as acceptable just to attain "happiness."

Yes it's a remarkable book. It is based on suttas but gives quite a different picture than you'd get from reading e.g. these suttas. You're right, I don't think it's an ebook. I don't have it: a neighbour lent me their copy. The "happiness" you mention may be "sukha" (see also other suttas mentioned in that Wikipedia article). Perhaps we're warned that it's impermanent even so? Something that is an aspect of Buddhism is "remembering virtue", finding ...

... satisfaction in remembering the good you've done. And I think that the actions and mental states associated earning and spending wealth might count among "the good you've done" -- you're doing it to benefit other people, for example -- only you shoudn't imagine that wealth-related activities are the only form of goodness.

Have you read the Tao Te Ching?  There is just a way of existence described there that is so natural. Somehow a book that was written centuries ago still applies today. Taoism is different from Buddhism, but there are parallels when looking at Zen Buddhism.

Was it "virtue" that reminded you of that? Or dogs barking in the next village? :-) I had a Taoist Tai Chi teacher. Perhaps my favourite translation or version of it was Leguin's.

I have to check that translation out. And yes, "virtue" and the idea of good. Chapter 38: "High Te? No Te!; that's what Te is." Another way of saying that is a truly good man does not "try" to be good; he just is. So many people try to be good these days because they are promised things, specifically spiritual things and you can sense it when all they want is the "end". That chapter is one of my favorites. It has a sense of humor that other texts don't, I really enjoyed it.


text:
"Tibetisches Totenbuch"? "Tibetanisches Totenbuch" - different books?
I'm not firm in tibetan buddhism, but my old daddy had wanted to make a spiritual gift to me 12 years ago- I'd put it into the bookshelf after I'd read a handful of pages, and was a bit puzzled why this might have such a big reminescence as I've heard somewhere (and expected because of having got it by my father as a special birthday present).
Recently I was beginning a small research, especially about Padmasambhava, and there it occured to me that he was said to be the autor/to have been the spiritual background of the "tibetisches Totenbuch" (german name). I was surprised and saw now, that the book of my father was "tibetanisches Totenbuch" - which is a suspicious change - at least suitable for better business. On amazon I've found both titles and that of mine was looking color- and playful and that what I don't own looked  more serious.

Q: Are the books at least related? Is the "tibetanisches Totenbuch" something like "tibetisches Totenbuch for dummies" or is it a complete different work (possibly just profiting from the extreme similarity of the titles - but what do I know...)?

Addendum: in the book they say: subtitle "...or The after-death-experiences on the Bardo-stage" and then "... after the english edition of Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup, published by Evans-Wentz, (...) newly edited commented and introduced by Lama Anagarika Govinda" On the next page they write: "the title of the original edition was "the tibetan book of the dead".
But I do not find yet any reference to Padmasambhava (may be deeply in the book itself?) which was irritating me.
Addendum 2 Ah, now I find something which looks relevant. The first 150 pages are simply introductions (which made me silly when I read into it and tried to make any sense of what was said), on pg 148 Padmasambhava is first time mentioned and then on pg 159 it seems that the traditional text does really start.
So I think this answers my (stupid?) question ...

It looks like Tibetisches Totenbuch is a German name for what's popularly known as "The Tibetan Book of the Dead".
In that case, (quotes from Wikipedia)

According to Tibetan tradition, the "Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State" was composed in the 8th century by Padmasambhava, written down by his primary student, Yeshe Tsogyal, buried in the Gampo hills in central Tibet and subsequently discovered by a Tibetan terton, Karma Lingpa, in the 14th century.
It is part of a larger terma cycle, Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation through the Intention of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, (zab-chos zhi khro dgongs pa rang grol, also known as kar-gling zhi-khro, popularly known as "Karma Lingpa's Peaceful and Wrathful Ones."
The Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation is known in several versions, containing varying numbers of sections and subsections, and arranged in different orders, ranging from around ten to thirty-eight titles. The individual texts cover a wide range of subjects, including meditation instructions, visualizations of deities, liturgies and prayers, lists of mantras, descriptions of the signs of death, indications of future rebirth, and texts such as the bar do thos grol that are concerned with the bardo-state.

From what I can see on the Internet, it looks like  Tibetisches and  Tibet-an-isches are used interchangeably and both simply mean "Tibetan". If this is correct, then they most likely refer to different versions or different translations of the same basic text.

Hello Andrej - thanks for your answer, this is interesting. To give more substance to my question I did a small bibliographic addendum, if you mind, please look at this.

Just "accepted" to close-the-case. Thanks for your impulse!


text:
Where is this budha from and would love to know any history of maker?

Any information I would be grateful for. I have no idea be am very curious about this any a few other items I purchased recently.

At first I thought this could be Jigme Lingpa, who's is often depicted with this typical shape of eyebrows and this style of facial hair. But on a second look, I'm pretty sure this is obviously Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism himself, thanks to the unmistakable hat, the dress with epaulets, as well as the ritual objects he holds.
According to a traditional iconographic description,

...he is white in colour with a reddish hue, one face adorned with a moustache and goatee, the right hand holds to the heart an upright gold vajra. The left hand placed in the lap holds a white skullcup filled with nectar, jewels and a long-life vase. The ornate katvanga staff of a Vajrayana mendicant decorated with streamers rests against the left shoulder. Adorned with gold earrings and necklaces, the head is covered with a lotus hat, a gift of the King of Zahor, of silk brocade topped with a half-vajra and a single vulture feather. Attired in various robes of different colours reflecting the disciplines of the Vinaya, Bodhisattva and Mantra Vehicles, he sits atop a sun and moon disc above a lotus blossom rising from the blue waters of Dhanakosha lake.

You can see the ring for the staff on your copy, while the staff itself seems to have been lost.

Here, Padmasambhava can be seen in his most well known representation. His eyes are open in a piercing gaze; his face is wrathful and smiling, blazing magnificently with mysterious power. He cradles a khatvanga in his left arm, representing his consort Mandarava, who arouses realization of emptiness. His khatvanga is crowned with three severed heads and a trident, symbolizing Padmasambhava's liberation from the three kayas of desire, form and formlessness.
He wears a lotus hat ornamented with a sun and moon, representing skillful means and wisdom. His hat also has a vajra top, symbolizing his unshakable samadhi, and is crowned with a vulture feather, representing his realization of the highest view. In his right hand he holds a vajra, an implement used in Tantric ritual to symbolize the union of conventional and ultimate truth. His left hand rests in his lap in the gesture of meditation (Dhyana Mudra) and holds a skull cup containing the vase of immortality. The vase is filled with the nectar of deathless wisdom and is adorned with leaves of a sacred flowering tree.

Thank you so much for all this information. I am very grateful for your wisdom on this subject.


text:
Invalid logic pertaining to karma in sutta AN 5.129?
WARNING: I don't hold the views put forward in Section B (by "the views put forward in Section B" I mean everything in Section B besides the sutta itself.) of this question anymore and I think that the views should not be held by anyone because of them being dangerous. It's dangerous to believe there are no bad consequences for one for doing some intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. It's much safer to believe there are severely bad consequences for one for doing any intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. I now believe that every intentional bad(e.g violent) action that one does does have bad consequences for one.
Section B:
This has been perturbing me for a while.
--I have noticed what looks like invalid logic in this sutta  https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.129.than.html
(
note 1: this is the conclusion I come to if I look at kamma and the the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) logically, if it isn't true then it seems kamma and the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) operates illogically or "randomly" or in an unknown way???
note 2: The paragraph below also only seems applicable if the event is onesided i.e an "innocent victim" is involved
)
Seemingly the aggressors are supposedly in hell for their actions but weren't their actions (the aggressors) only because of their victims kamma from past lives (now their current fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) and therefore the aggressors actions (the victims fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) were seemingly unavoidable, so why would the aggressors be in hell?

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

What ever of the 83 and more revisions... the question will not become real, authentic, a refuge to take on and to trust.  No way to be ever satisfied, ever the own.

As long as one takes the senses and their object as real, one conducts fast wrong and suffers from it, harms and takes what is not given, hold by someone else as real.

Welcome back. I hope there's some way for you to stop editing your posts, some way for a version to be "final" and age off the site's "Active" page -- see this Meta-topic for some explanation, or if you'd like to discuss it there.

It was just a question: "Although they are in hell, was the violent action due to the victim's karma?" I don't read that as recommending violence, it's just a question about how karma works. It's was worthwhile question too -- and the answers -- because there may be a different (non-Buddhist) doctrine of karma elsewhere e.g. in the Gita.

I have been feeling ill.

Whould it be possible to lock the questions of Nyom Angus from being editable, Nyom @ChrisW ? Maybe a way to seek for leaving the hell and walk on. If not, also no problem and good training for others to bear unpleasing things wishing but can not be changed.

The aggressors are supposedly in hell for their actions but weren't their actions (the aggressors) only because of their victims karma from past lives and therefore the aggressors actions were unavoidable, so why would the aggressors be in hell?

There's a problem with the above logic. And the wrong word is "unavoidable". Mr A killed Mr B in a previous life. In this life, Mr B has the option to kill A in return. But that is simply an option, not an "unavoidable" action. If B chooses to spare A's life, that doesn't necessary mean A is off the hook. Due to the killing kamma, A's life will be cut short in some other ways, not by people's hand, but by a stray bullet, a fatal car accident, a terrible incurable disease, etc. Bottomline is that there's nothing in the suttas that say that B would have no choice but to kill A in return.

No, I simply point out to you that one is in control of one's own action and can't get away with killing by simply blaming kamma regardless if the killing is to settle the debt with some people in some previous lives. Killing begets killing ad infinitum. Very simple. By the way, nowhere in the suttas where it said that the resulting kamma would be 100% exact matching the original. Please see the Lonaphala Sutta.

There doesn't seem to be invalid logic in sutta AN 5.129 in terms of kamma and it's fruit if it works in the way that you seem to be describing  @santa100  i.e
an intention + action = an appropriate yet possibly superficially different consequence

I now believe that every intentional bad-action (e.g. assault) that one does does have bad consequences for one.

The way my first teacher explained karma, it works like a matching machine, it just puts the "victim" in the situation when the odds of encountering a certain kind of people are increased. It's like, the victim's bad karma makes them more vulnerable to corresponding problems.
But the actions of the "aggressor" are their own choice plus their own past karma. They are not caused by the "victim's" karma.
It's just like opening the windows in the night can make you a victim of mosquitoes. It's not that your act of opening the windows literally makes mosquitoes come and bite you. It just makes it possible for them to find you, but their actions are their own - they act driven by their hunger, survival instinct and so on.
Just so you understand, because it's easy to get this wrong. Karma is not some magical force unknown to science, it's just a hidden (latent) effect of the previous actions. It seems magical because its complexity (the number of connections in the spanning graphs of effects) exceeds our capacity. But if you look at any specific example, it will always have very objective, very rational forces at play.

I like this because it says no one eles' bad actions are responsible for you doing something bad.

@Angus I think Andrei's definition of karma is beyond good and evil and that is why it seems like chaos.

I think that the Buddhist understanding of karma isn't quite the same as the one you explained in this comment.
To start, the phrase that 'people are heir to (inherit from) their own karma or their own actions' appears frequently in the suttas; for example:

Taking responsibility for one's actions
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

So far as I know, this doctrine has two consequences:

It encourages (or justifies, gives reasons for) "right effort" -- e.g. 'I should make an effort because I will inherit the result'
It permits or helps to maintain "equanimity" (which is one of the brahmaviharas)

Secondly, karma is not the only reason why things happen.

Thirdly I think that your karma affects how you react to things -- for details see the video described in this answer -- for example:

When you meet someone, if you are heir to good karma (e.g. because you have trained yourself to be kind) then you will, you can, you are able to choose to, act with kindness towards them, with compassion, with equanimity -- and I think this kind of behaviour is described as godly or enlightened.
Conversely if you are heir to bad karma, then perhaps you have, and you don't control, you can't control, your 'evil' impulses, and so you end up killing them (and then blaming them) -- and I think this is the kind of reason for which you'd be described as being reborn as an animal, or in hell.

You were saying that if you meet someone with bad karma then killing them is unavoidable -- but if a person with bad karma meets the Buddha, for example, I don't see it as possible that the Buddha would be unable to avoid killing them.

Fourthly there's quite a famous exposition of karma e.g. in the Bhagavad Gita. It's been a long time since I read it (and in translation), please forgive me if I misinterpret it -- I might have a very naive or superficial view of it -- but I remember it as being something like (my paraphrase):

A warrior before a battle sees his kin on the other side, and talks to God. God (i.e. Krishna) replies that:

It's his karmic duty to be a warrior (e.g. because he was born into the warrior caste)
Killing people is therefore his duty to God -- "selfless service", says Wikipedia
The people he kills, being mortal, are obviously going to die one way or another anyway
Fullfiling your duty to God is good karma, not bad karma

Perhaps your view of karma ("killing is unavoidable" and "it's the karma of the victims") has been informed by this kind of doctrine.
I personally see this as quite antithetical to Buddhism, i.e. a way in which the "Buddhist" and the "Hindu" doctrines on karma are quite different, contradictory. I think the Buddhist view is that:

There's no God (more particularly, perhaps there are Gods but there's no "duty to God" and no "God's laws"); but there is good and evil; and killing people is evil
Being born into a particular social caste is not a good reason to kill, either

Fifthly, the precise working of karma are complicated -- so complicated that the Buddha's being able to see/understand it as a supernatural power of his -- but I'm not sure it's useful to ask, "for what karmic reason did such-and-such happen?"
I only find a very very simple version of karma to be useful as a theory, e.g. "what you train for, what you practice, you become" and "actions have consequences".
That may be the opposite of the message you were suggesting, e.g. "my actions don't (or shouldn't) matter", "my reaction (e.g. to kill someone I meet) is unavoidable", and "everything is predetermined (by past karma)".

if it isn't true then it seems karma is illogical or there is an element of randomness i.e good karma isn't reliable
Yes there's a limit to how much good karma you accrue. For example with a lot of good karma you may be reborn in heaven, but even then your stay in heaven is temporary (you're reborn when the fruit of good karma is exhausted).
So good karma isn't going to stop you from dying and so on.
I do think that good karma (or a lack of bad karma) might be enough to keep you from killing, though.
I think the "randomness" you mention is a description of the (complicated) circumstances which surround us. The Buddhist definition of karma is that it's "intentional action" -- our actions and reactions -- and that might be less random: a "good" person might for example successfully train themselves to avoid (to refrain from) ever murdering someone, no matter who they meet.

I think that "consequences" is what's called "fruit of karma" rather than karma itself.

@ChrisW You are correct. Kamma is cetana (intention) and vipaka is the result.

@Angus The edit makes no difference to how I answer. Also perhaps there's a limit to how much you should try to edit an question after people answer -- i.e. if you decide you want to ask a different question perhaps post that as a new/follow-up question.

Even though it is that person's karma to be killed or what ever, you don't need to be the one commiting that action. It's your thoughts making you do it. So that will build a karma for you.
Let others karma be served witout involving you. Hope this makes you feel the karma approach logical.

The previous answers seem to assume that the person killed is suffering the results of karma in the sense that their death is caused by their previous actions. I believe this is not the correct view.
If a realised person is killed then their past karma will ensure they do not suffer. It will not ensure that they won't be killed. Was Jesus murdered because of his previous actions? Did Al-Hallaj suffer when he was gruesomely murdered? He told one his followers off for even being upset about it.
I'm not able to speak with authority on this, regrettably, but I don't think there is any logical difficulty with the operation of karmic laws. And then, there is also serendipity, aka 'Sod's Law'.
If someone kills us and we suffer this may be the result of a previous action, but it may also be the result of a previous inaction, viz. not learning how to avoid suffering.


text:
About the Buddha Preaching that we Humans are Aliens
What I have heard is, the Buddha has preached that we Humans are the Evolution of Alien life which had arrived on earth many years before
Could this be correct and did he preach so and in which SUTRA is it recorded ?
Thank you

The Sutta you are looking for is Agganna sutta.
In the second part of the Sutta, the Buddha tells the story of how human beings came to dwell on Earth.

The Buddha said that sooner or later, after a very long time, there
  would come a time when the world(universe) shrinks. At a time of contraction,
  beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they
  dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through
  the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But
  sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand
  again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma
  world, having died from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long
  time...

That Sutta is so intriguing. :-)


text:
Avataṃsaka Sutra in Sanskrit
I've recently begun reading up on the Avataṃsaka Sutra and was curious if anyone here is aware of any available Sanskrit text. Thank you.

I think it is only complete in Chinese & Tibetan, the Chinese being much longer than the Tibetan. Sanskritic manuscripts are too fragmentary to form a full Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra.
This is a particular section of the Buddhāvataṃsaka that we happen to still have legible manuscripts for: http://www.dsbcproject.org/canon-text/book/40. It is called the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra, you can read the Chinese correspondence at T279.319a6 in the Taishō Canon 入法界品 Dharmadhātupraveśanaparivartaḥ Ch 39 in Thomas Cleary's English translation "Flower Ornament Scripture" it is called the "Entry into the Realm of Reality" chapter, at page 1135: https://archive.org/stream/TheFlowerOrnamentScriptureATranslationOfTheAvatamsakaSutraByThomasClearypdfdtyxxytd/The%20Flower%20Ornament%20Scripture%20A%20Translation%20of%20the%20Avatamsaka%20Sutra%20by%20Thomas%20Cleary%20%5Bpdf%5D%20%7Bdtyxxytd%7D#page/n5/mode/2up.

Is Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra a part of the sutra? I thought it was a later addition...

It is indeed widely-believed to be a later addition to the sūtra, but constitutes the "final chapter" of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra in its present-day redaction. It is similar to how the Tathāgatāyuṣpramāṇaparivarta (Ch 15 of the Sanskrit Lotus Sūtra, Ch 16 of the Chinese) is believed to have circulated once as a separate text. The Gaṇḍavyūha's original title was something like "Dharmadhātupraveśana," or "The Entrance into the Dharmadhātu." You can read more on its history on the "Introduction" section of the 84,000 Reading Room translation: https://read.84000.co/translation/toh44-45.html

You should be able to find it in the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon. Unfortunately I don't have a Sanskrit IME to give you the direct link to the text, but doing a search should bring it up.


text:
Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to somewhat different future physical consequences (the physical aspect of the kamma-vipaka)
I.e
Mr A and Mr B are virtually identical (only their names, positions in space etc. are different).
Mr A intends (x) and does x
Mr A receives y
Mr B intends (x) and does x
Mr B receives z
(I imagine that y and z are similar.)

Yes (the results can be different), e.g. because Mr. A and Mr. B are different in other ways.

Lonaphala Sutta
Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience it the same way.’ This being so, the spiritual life could not be lived, and there’d be no chance of making a complete end of suffering. Suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience the result as it should be experienced.’ This being so, the spiritual life can be lived, and there is a chance of making a complete end of suffering. Take the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. While another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot.
What kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell? A person who hasn’t developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, or wisdom. They’re small-minded and mean-spirited, living in suffering. That kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell.
What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted, living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot.
Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into a small bowl of water. What do you think, mendicants? Would that small bowl of water become salty and undrinkable?” “Yes, sir. Why is that? Because there is only a little water in the bowl.” “Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into the Ganges river. What do you think, mendicants? Would the Ganges river become salty and undrinkable?” “No, sir. Why is that? Because the Ganges river is a vast mass of water.
etc. (another example)

I think that the first paragraph is saying that if every trivial deed would land everyone or anyone in hell then it wouldn't be possible for a holy life to result in enlightenment, liberation.
You might want to say this doesn't the answer the question, which asks about when "Mr A and Mr B are virtually identical". I'm not sure that question is answered in the suttas, though. I think that ("in the real world") people tend not to be  "identical", that whatever "x" is isn't their only intentional action, and that Buddhism is meant to be practical (a doctrine of liberation) not theoretical (hypothetical or oversimplified doctrine of karma) -- and that an important, practical part of the doctrine is that the state of a person's mind, and how they live, makes a lot of difference.

I think so: i.e. the effect (result) of x will vary from person to person, because people are different, react differently. I don't know a good example -- maybe a non-canonical example is this, a monk reborn as a naga after breaking a blade of grass (or more specifically his own reaction to that afterwards). The breaking was accidental, though. Still it's an example of a small misdeed becoming over-important.

I'm not sure you have to "verify every sutta", or do you? I say that because the people in the suttas who became Sotapannas, at the end of a sutta, hadn't heard every sutta.

❓Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to different fruit-of-kamma (kamma vipaka)?
❎ No, a specific cause has it's effect. But one may experiance it different and it's nearly impossible to act, in dependance in- and outwardly, in similar circumstances.

Cetana A has quality X followed by effect y
Cetana B has quality X followed by effect y

A x X = y - B x X = y => A=B
[Note: this gift of Dhamma has not be thought, is not dedicated, for any trade or wordily exchange or stacks]

So is the effect the same but how one experiences it might be different and outward circumstances might be different?

Otherwise the Buddhas teachings would be a teaching of fortuitousness. But the other extrem should be avoided as well -> straight linearity, determinism, as well as thinking to much on kamma vipaka, wishing to find out in detail: so simly: good deeds bring good results, bad caused/cause bad experiances for practical and liberating ways, Nyom @Angus .

Karma Q &A is at large a good help by Bhante Thanissaro, Nyom @Angus .