text:
What comes first: effort or motivation?
Master Shi Heng Yi referred to Laozi (Chinese Taoist Teacher) as saying that

It's better to remain clam and do nothing while achieving nothing than doing a lot and investing a lot of effort and energy and at the end not achieving anything (https://youtu.be/HN-YejxtWko)

On the other hand, we often hear things like "There are no mistakes or failures, only lessons" i.e. keep trying until you succeed.
These two thoughts sound contradictory to me. Could anyone kindly help me figure out what I am missing here? I am open to all schools of thoughts. Personally, I procrastinate a lot while planning or trying to find motivation. I would really appreciate if someone could also share their personal experience.

In the standard Buddhist model there are "desire" and "aversion". Sometimes there are both desire and aversion at the same time.
For example, desire to get something and aversion to difficulties and effort. When desire is stronger than aversion, motivation wins. When aversion is stronger than desire, procrastination wins.
That monk spoke about motivation and effort to achieve the worldly goals. You may be very motivated by desire, put a lot of effort, and feel like you are achieving something  - but in the end you still die, so what have you achieved and what was the point of all that effort?
Is the goal worthy of the effort, that is the question. The monk says, the worldly goals are not and that's because of impermanence.
Let's be honest with ourselves and stop forcing ourselves towards worldly attainments when deep inside we know they are pretty much useless. Let's find something Timeless, Non-Transient, Not bounded by conditions - now wouldn't that be the lofty goal, truly worthy of our effort?
That's what's known as Nirvana (Nibbana) or Enlightenment (Bodhi) and the Buddhism says it is actually attainable.
Now, when it comes to pursuing a lofty prize like that, I will agree with your second quote. "There are no mistakes or failures, only lessons." Even if it takes you 25 years to figure it out, in the end it's totally worth it, because it solves the fundamental problem at the fundamental level.
Mahayana Buddhism offers altruism and the pursuit of Enlightenment as alternatives to the modern goals of personal wealth, fame, and success. Imagine society that lives according to this paradigm, helping others and seeking Enlightenment.
Maybe that is why you don't feel motivated. Maybe the modern paradigm of success is not engaging enough and the time is coming for that to change.

I know these comments arn't supposed to be used in this way, but moved I was to read: Let's find something Timeless, Non-Transient, Not bounded by conditions - now wouldn't that be the lofty goal, truly worthy of our effort?

Again you saved me and helped me see through my confusion. Thank you!

First, you must have Right View (samma ditthi), so that when you have the effort, it will be the Right Effort and when you have the resolve, it will be the Right Resolve. Without Right View, you will be running for miles in the wrong direction.
This is why Right View is the forerunner of the path.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as
right view. This is one's right view. .....
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN 117

The Buddha taught to strive with heedfulness (appamādena sampādethā”ti), as the pursuit of liberation is an urgent task. The famous last words of the Buddha, before his passing away, were "vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā”ti".

Then the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Come now, monks,
for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on
with heedfulness!” These were the last words of the Realised One.
DN 16

There's Right Effort (samma vayamo):

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk
generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts
his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful
qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire,
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have
arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence,
upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful
qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire,
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, &
culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is
called right effort.
SN 45.8

There's also the part about the right balance between energy (vīriya) and serenity (samatha). Not too much energy in one's effort, otherwise it makes one restless. And also not too little energy in one's effort, otherwise one becomes lazy.

The Buddha said to him, “Soṇa, ... didn’t
this thought come to your mind: ‘I am one of the Buddha’s most
energetic disciples. Yet my mind is not freed from defilements by not
grasping. ...
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think, Soṇa? When you were still a layman, weren’t you a
good player of the arched harp?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too tight, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“When your harp’s strings were tuned too slack, was it resonant and
playable?”
“No, sir.”
“But when your harp’s strings were tuned neither too tight nor too
slack, but fixed at an even tension, was it resonant and playable?”
“Yes, sir.”
“In the same way, Soṇa, when energy is too forceful it leads to
restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa,
you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of
the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.”
“Yes, sir,” Soṇa replied. ...
After some time Soṇa applied himself to energy and serenity, found a
balance of the faculties, and learned the pattern of this situation.
Then Soṇa, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon
realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very
life.
AN 6.55

It's perhaps in this last sutta quote, plus Right View, that you find the balance of your two quotes.

"We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.”

“Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bhāradvāja. If one didn’t make an exertion, one wouldn’t finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.”

“But what quality is most helpful for exertion? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for exertion.” “Contemplating is most helpful for exertion, Bhāradvāja. If one didn’t contemplate, one wouldn’t make an exertion. Because one contemplates, one makes an exertion. Therefore, contemplating is most helpful for exertion.”

“But what quality is most helpful for contemplating? …” “Being willing.… If one weren’t willing, one wouldn’t contemplate.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for being willing? …” “Desire.… If desire didn’t arise, one wouldn’t be willing.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for desire? …” “Coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas.… If one didn’t come to an agreement through pondering dhammas, desire wouldn’t arise.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas? …” “Penetrating the meaning.… If one didn’t penetrate the meaning, one wouldn’t come to an agreement through pondering dhammas.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for penetrating the meaning?.…” “Remembering the Dhamma.… If one didn’t remember the Dhamma, one wouldn’t penetrate the meaning.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for remembering the Dhamma?… ” “Hearing the Dhamma.… If one didn’t hear the Dhamma, one wouldn’t remember the Dhamma.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma? … ” “Lending ear.… If one didn’t lend ear, one wouldn’t hear the Dhamma.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for lending ear? … ” “Growing close.… If one didn’t grow close, one wouldn’t lend ear.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for growing close? … ” “Visiting.… If one didn’t visit, one wouldn’t grow close.…”

“But what quality is most helpful for visiting? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for visiting.” “Conviction is most helpful for visiting, Bhāradvāja. If conviction (in a person) didn’t arise, one wouldn’t visit (that person). Because conviction arises, one visits. Therefore, conviction is most helpful for visiting.”

From: Caṅkī Sutta: With Caṅkī, transl. Thanissaro https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN95.html


text:
Atthakalap and atta vs mind vs Brahma state

What is atthakalap?
So famously known as soul-> atta in Buddha's teachings .. how can one  derive soul from atthakalap?
And what's after liberated state  from atthakalap is achieved?
Is liberated mind impermanent too, if so then how or why not if not?

I was wondering how this atthakalap works.
Thanks to the anger-looking collection of few points in this question, now I can imagine (via analysis) soul and atthakalap, and this is how I understand (or "this knowledge came like this"):
Like the mind is cheated by itself via everything in form of grasping -- from point 5 from above link...

For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.

...and atthakalap is said to have 4 members with 4 properties and all are like beads tied to a "rope in form of mind".
This mind is not the actual rope rather it tries to be the one due to ignorance(here comes the ignorance part where it can be judged clearly) and when mind stops being a rope here, these beads do not break and shatter rather the impermanent beads remain as it is but mind is freed from that. In that way, everything is impermanent... is observed. In that way, mind is liberated and is said to achieve permanence(in terms of non grasping forever, non clinging forever..).

But there is one more concern here, when mind is freed what happens to mind then, after?

What's the way to check mind's impermanence, is it's impermanence a way to express change within itself, if so wt's that change?..
:::::: or is there no such thing as mind, it's just the process within body, process of karma(action) which has started to cease after achieving that state!!

What's the difference b/w that state and Brahma, if any?

(Note:- if reader is not feeling good then kind request to either edit it or break it into multiple sub topics with linked questions, mentioning links in them with seq. Number).

@SUVIMUTTACITTASSA , welcome to express your doctrine knowledge in this. I m just a newbie learner.

You asked another questions about "attha kalap" here -- World of being, inside vs outside. Where do you find that word in the doctrine, in the canon? Is it from the Abhidhamma?

Even the scientists could know  Atthakalap which is called as atom, molecule, mass, Physical stimulus, etc., (even Atthakalap is smaller than that but it's same as "  mole of elements") then why the Buddhist, who claim themselves as the genius one (panna), can not even know  Atthakalap? It's simple.

world of .. is a different query than this one. Attha kalap can be understood from here I heard this word long time back in Vipassana course. This query is more about soul, eternal soul derivation from attha-kalap, is in itself an indirect answer to suvimuttacittassa's query(can be rephrased as, "why mind is used instead of soul, eternal soul in Buddhism?") & has extended questions ahead of them.

Analysis is :- Sages who were able to reach a state to see atthakalap, could do anything and treated their momentary ability to be soul or eternal soul(within 62 different traditions about 2.6k years back).

Neither a challenge nor an invitation to debate. If analysis is wrong from someone else's perception, it should not be a reason to express -1. If answers are not straight forward then only way to find is to do a proper discussion via expression of thoughts and try to derive a common answer together. Anything wrong in this?-> good intent! @ChrisW otherwise, this question can be deleted and forgotten for good

I doubt I will ever understand this question but perhaps someone else will answer it. Maybe @Bonn can addressit, having said in a comment that "it's simple".

@Bonn Is there some relationship between atthakalap and kalapa (atomism)?

I think if you narrowed down your question, it might attract a little more focus. This is very hard to talk about, other than to say that the six-sense experience no longer becomes the central focus. In Therevada, the mind is seen as a sense organ, so even all types of thoughts (the mind's sense objects) no longer play a central role. Although still said to be functioning, the aggregates themselves eventually become indiscernible, and along with them all conceptual ideas of a body.

Such questions are not easy to answer and likely to attract contradictions, unnecessary mocking, pointing fingers over each other etc.
One should go forth, even if slowly. Buddhas's quote, "Come and see".
If it's atthakalap, kalap, mental imagination with limitation of sensation giving mixed interpretation of correct & incorrect result(mixture of various dhyan ayatan leading to sensation of void being ill-recognised as shunya everywhere within and various simultaneous dhamma sensing being ill-recognised(imagined, forcefully integrated with scientific theories etc.) as those of various properties of any point within body.. 8, 4 with 4 or whatever having sensational limits to imagine the spontaneity of whatsoever) or something else.
While going forth, shouldn't waste activities & triggers on disturbing communications. Should Stop torturing self.
Go as if, "you are your own son, father, mother, sibling, friend, enemy, peer, disturber, peace giver".
While going forth, one mustn't let the minor group(defilements) distract self, major group would be guiding.
Should test self, not to tear apart but to keep check on unfathomable constantly increasing viriya.
Better than anyone, one should know who all are waiting for them, have been investing in them, rejoice with their face & smile. So should walk their path accordingly.
Final advice -
Should clear all disturbing communication mediums, shouldn't be stranger to self and must stop being a part of  communities having minored people fighting with each other.

@Max this answer is also fine. I m also not looking for answers from separate chained lineages having integrated science theories as per their own belief system and it has also indicated how those belief systems might have generated and integrated science theories within them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the best way to generate Metta
Buddha said that we should train ourselves in metta in the following way:
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'Our awareness-release through good-will will be cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken. That's how you should train yourselves." -- Satti Sutta
How do monks cultivate metta? Is it by some kind of remembrance, recitation or something else?

There's flexibility. There's no one way that all monks do metta.

Metta can be practiced in formal ways or creatively on the fly.Some suggest a balance between training one's mind and one's Heart (Metta and other Divine Abodes.  (50% mind training/ 50% Heart practice. ...or Metta could be one's main focus/path)
The Four Immeasurables
as a Traditional Tibetan Buddhist Prayer
May all beings have happiness and the cause of happiness.
May they be free of suffering and the cause of suffering.
May they never be separated from the supreme happiness which is without suffering.
May they remain in the unlimited equanimity, free from both attachment to close ones and rejection of others.
Classic 5 layer method:
1 Self,
2 Benefactor, Dearly beloved/friend/close family member,
3 the Neutral person,
4 the difficult person,
5 All beings
Some suggest not going to the next level/person until some feeling of metta is felt.
Using phrases like: May they be well, happy and peaceful are used.  We do this to the best of our ability (thus far).
Metta Sutta from the Sutta Nipata -
Pali Cannon translation/adaptation by Caitríona Reed
If you want to live in truth and integrity, if you hunger for joy and freedom—then live simply. Be impeccable in everything you do—in every word, thought and deed.
Be receptive, gentle, and unassuming.
Avoid irrelevant obligations and extraneous distractions.
Learn to be content with less, modest in what you consume.
Simplify your tastes, tread lightly. Be gracious and appropriate, self-sufficient.
Find ways to create balance in your relationships, especially with those people you love the most.
Respect the needs of others, avoid antagonizing them unnecessarily.

MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY AND PEACEFUL!
MAY THEIR HEARTS BE FULL!
ALL LIVING BEINGS—strong ones and weak, large or small, seen or unseen, those nearby or far away, those already born and those yet to be born, beings you can only imagine, as well as those that are beyond imagination, wherever they are, whatever they are—
MAY THEY ALL . . . . MAY ALL BEINGS BE JOYOUS AND HAPPY!
Let no one deceive another. Let no one despise another.
Let no one out of resentment or anger wish harm to another.
Just as a mother would give her life to protect an only child, so cultivate that same boundless, open heart towards all of life.
Let your thoughts of unconditional love and kindheartedness permeate the cosmos, extending in all directions without obstruction, free from preconceptions or fear.
Whatever you happen to be doing, whether you are; seated, standing, walking, or lying down, so long as you draw breath, find ways to cultivate this quality of loving-kindness, this tender quality of mind, which of all qualities is said to most accurately reflect the truth of who you are.
Let go of any idea that you are separate from the web of living beings. Let your life be informed by the understanding that all things are interconnected. Find ways to relinquish what you have used as substitutes for love, and accept in their place the gift, and infinite pleasure, of boundless love.
Wake up to all that surrounds you!
Wake up to your life and be free!

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


text:
Breaking Habitual Sin Through Understanding of Karma
Even though I am Catholic, I am discovering the Truth of the existence of karma through personal experience in my own spiritual journey.
There is a certain habitual sin that I am struggling with. After reading the Buddha's teaching, he said that when habitual sin repeats, it is because there is a pattern of karma that comes together under very specific logical conditions (conditions that can be numbered 1, 2, 3) to result in you making the choice to sin.
What strategies does the Buddha offer to:

Loosen this bad karma
Discover the logical conditions that cause this sin to repeat
Change the context so that the logical conditions causing this sin no longer arise?

Where did you read this? "he (Buddha) said that when habitual sin repeats, it is because there is a pattern of karma that comes together under very specific logical conditions ... to result in you making the choice to sin."

@ruben2020 It came from this website: https://www.namchak.org/community/blog/karma-in-buddhism/ "First, if all the causes and conditions for something to occur come together and there is nothing opposing its arising, the effect is certain to occur. For example, if a barley seed (the cause) is planted, the conditions of moisture, warmth, sunlight, and nutrients  come together, and opposing conditions such as frozen ground, disease, and being trampled by animals,  don’t oppose it, a barley plant is certain to grow"

Yes, Karma exists for every living being in the 31 Realms. It means results of the actions you've done in your past lives. There are Good Karma and Bad Karma which brings you favourable and unfavourable results in this life + the ones yet to come in the future.
So results coming from your old Karma can make you create new Karma today.
That's why you are in the loop of birth & death.
Sin is a bad action which accumulates Bad Karma which can go live in this life, the next or the one in the far future.
Now how exactly old Karma push you to create new Karma:
→ Let's say someone blame/accuse you for no logical reason. How do you react? If you blame him back with anger, you've created new Karma.
It doesn't matter how much you were right when they blamed you.
It doesn't matter how much you think the situation was unfair to you.
If you get anger, you've created new Karma.
Why did you have to be blamed with no fault:
→ Mostly because of a Bad Karma your past life performed. Situation may look unfair, but if you Zoom Out to see the whole picture, you were blamed for a fair reason: Because you created that result in a past life.
Similarly, habitual sins or bad actions you do all the time even if you're aware that's a bad action can have the same supporting environment from your past Karma.
In Buddhism, you can change the outcome of a Past Karma in a few ways.

Pratikarma — Doing new positive karma negating the outcome of a past karma
Upakrama — Strategically minimize/stop the impact of the outcome

Pratikarma is paying the debt of your past misdeeds and karma through,

Maitree Meditation
Donating food and other things to Buddha Temples & monks
Inspiring others to practice Buddhist way of life
Pin & Kusal Upload
Chanting Buddha Sutra, Pirith and Gatha

Upakrama means wearing Buddha Yantra, using medicine etc.
Pratikarma is the best way to loosen your bad karma as it doesn't just block them, but neutralize them according to the power generated by your Pratikarmas.
What is the logical condition that cause you to sin repeatedly?
→ Not knowing the bitter outcome and the depth your sin or action is going to bring you.
→ Not knowing it is Insatiable. Not according to your wish.
→ Not knowing it is meaningless. If something brings you pain sooner or later, it is meaningless.
When you do something with Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger), Moha (Delusion), you're creating karma. If it's a bad thing you did, then it's a sin. If it's a good thing you did, then it's a good deed.
For example, when you blame someone with anger. You're creating an outcome where you've to get blamed too. But when it comes back to you it won't be just One-time Blame. It'll be trillions of blames for you.
HOW?
→ 1 Thought is made up with a massive amount of Chittakshana. So the return must be that many times.
→ 1 Thought reaches 10,000 Lokha Dhatus containing a massive amount of 31 Realms polluting & corrupting the minds of other beings. So you've done a misdeed to "all the beings in the world". So the return comes back that many times.
When you realize the depth of your sin and the suffering you've to face from your Habitual Sin, you can control yourself not to do it. Depending on the depth of this understanding, you'll be able to fully stop the Habitual Sin.
Once you reach one of the 4 stages of awakening — Sowan, Sakrudagami, Anagami and Arihath — that control will become 2nd nature to you.
I'd say learn more Buddha Dharma, then start meditating with Arya Karmastana. It'll improve your life, but will also let you attain Nibbana one day.
Hope this answers your questions!

What does Theravada Buddhism have to say about self-love?

@Amatsuki What do you mean by self-love? Few examples?

Love that has its final cause back towards itself. Christianity sees it as the root of all evil. "[Love]...is not self-seeking" (1 Cor. 13:5)

I suggest to carefully & thoroughly read MN 61 and MN 19.

Thank you. This will hopefully lead to enlightenment.

habits do repeat. that is the definition of habit. a pattern of doing; a habit(bhava).
sin is silly.  it means bad. it's flavored with societal taboo. an accepted formula for cause-effect. i prefer condition (society) and intuition. why push yourself into a corner? sin is an influx of karma, or asrava. buddhism describes the causes as desire, desire for becoming, and ignorance.
the generally accepted view of karma is action, but according to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, karma is created from being not in a union with the world, i.e., discordant, non-harmonious living. in unity no karma is generated.  so yes, karma is action, but it's more like unskillful action.  unskillful action results in karma.....that's the theory.
but the reality is different.  buddha speaks of the unsatisfactory.  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā.  this means mentality is undesirable. and so, without a me, there can be no karmic buildup. this is nirvana, a jivanmuktha. unfortunately, one has to burn up (experience) all the past karma first, e.g., buddha as an ascetic.

Looks like you're mixing Buddhist, Jain and Hindu teachings in one answer. Having to burn all past karma is Jain and was rejected by the Buddha.

Thank you for your truthful answer!

@ruben2020 yes, u r right.  on a side note, the rumor is that v. maudgalyayana experienced past karma after nirvana.


text:
Where to go after Meditation apps
I’ve gone through quite a few periods of meditation everyday, but usually something happens and I tend to off the rails stop for a long period to bad effects.
I started learning with Headspace and went through all the Pro lessons and now I meditate without a timer or guide.
I’m not really into the religious side of things (sorry if I’m posting in the wrong place.)
I’m wondering if I am missing something that is preventing me from furthering my practice.
I don’t know where to look or ask.
I saw The Mind Illuminated being recommended but then later on being unrecommended due to controversy.
I find it hard to trust anyone that says they are on any particular path these days.

While your question is entirely relevant, I recall going through restless periods where I would jump from one concept to another, from one book to another, and from one teaching to the next. I noticed your tag said meditation hindrances.

Mind Illuminated is an excellent book regardless of what you think of Culadasa and his indiscretions.  Read it.  Practice it.  It will take you very far along the path of samatha or “calm” meditation.  If you’re more interested in insight meditation, sign yourself up for a 10 day vipassana retreat.  They’re offered all over the world and they might even be free.  It’s been ages since I’ve checked.  Lastly, find people to sit with.  This alone will take your practice further than any book or retreat.  It will teach you commitment and accountability for your practice.  This, more than anything, is the hardest thing to develop.

Culadasa doesn't teach Vipassana? How does meditating with people help? Seems like it would be a distraction.

No, he teaches samatha.  Most of his source material is Tibetan with some Visudhimagga and Vimuttimagga thrown in.  It’s really good stuff.  Very well systematized.  I was actually quite impressed with it.  Oh and absolutely.  There are my sits alone and my sits with my zen sangha.  I enjoy sitting alone, but there is nothing like being in a room full of determined people doing exactly what you’re doing.  The energy is palpable.  Causes and conditions, man.  Use them to your advantage when you can!

If you're not into the religious side of things that poses a problem for the quality of your meditative practice. Studying meditation without a visceral understanding of Buddhism, or more specifically Zen Buddhism, is like trying to become a cook by studying allrecipes.com.
You'll get a bunch of vague and incomplete references to different practices, but have no deeper understanding of why you're doing certain things or where the practices came from. You might still derive some small benefit from the meditation you're doing, but you'll be missing the true beauty of Buddhist meditation, which can only come via a thorough understanding of Buddhism.
So after meditation apps I'd recommend putting the work in and studying Zen Buddhism from a variety of sources ~ internet, D.T. Suzuki, Dogen, etc. Until you do you'll only be experiencing the surface level of meditation.

The Dhamma isn't religion, it's reality, moment by moment. Yes, there are wild & redundant teachings in Buddhist scriptures but a good teacher with a good approach will find it useful to pick the diamonds from the BS that we humans are known for. The core teaching of the Buddha that he taught over and over again in many different ways is a very effective way away from suffering for individual & society. You have to use your head and be careful when approaching the Dhamma.
You don't think there is a chance that you may discover more if you transcend your beliefs? I did. I gained confidence in the Dhamma.  I can't understand how a meditator would have aversion to some kind of Dharma approach somewhere just because it appears to be a religion. Religions have shallow ends and deep ends. Have you seen the Abhidhamma? I mean, that alone gave me confidence in the Dhamma when I first started.
My advice to you is to find out how to find a good teacher of meditation and maybe don't worry as  much about the weird things they believe.

Where to go after Meditation apps

You could sign up for an intensive meditation retreat. That will definitely get you going. The Goenka retreat is world wide and well known for its Vipassana meditation practice. I  did it many years ago and it was a great experience. I highly recommend it. Everything is free but consider donating any amount after the retreat so new students can also benefit from it. Here's their website. They are in pretty much all countries.


text:
Identification of Buddhist saints or sages
I have a pair of antique statuettes which were made in Japan. I assume they are Buddhist saints or sages and I am hoping someone can identify who they represent:

Perhaps they are but I'm not sure you can assume it: they remind me of Chinese statuettes I saw that were labelled "Daoist".

Buddhist monks are shaven. Since they have beards maybe they are non-Buddhist.

He's Fuxing, one of the Sanxing. Not Buddhist, he's a deity in Daoism and Chinese folk religion. This particular statuette looks a bit like Shouxing, but Shouxing is depicted as bald with an oversized head; Fuxing is usually depicted carrying a scroll or book.


text:
Does Buddhism claim to be only way to liberation?
I hold the view that Buddhism may not be suitable for all individuals. For instance, a person born with a mental illness who is unable to differentiate right from wrong may struggle to practice Buddhism. Similarly, individuals with disabilities such as tinnitus may find it difficult to meditate.
In my opinion, this presents a limitation of Buddhism compared to other religions, where prayer may be an easier means to gain insight. In one sutta, the Buddha mentions the need to be fortunate to encounter his teachings. Doesn't this exclusivity make Buddhism an exclusive religion for attaining liberation? If the Dharma does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to strive for liberation in every birth, wouldn't it be unrighteous?
I am curious to know whether Buddhism is the sole path to liberation from human suffering. Does this imply that individuals who cannot comprehend sutras or meditate cannot attain liberation?"

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/43900/which-sutta-the-buddha-says-monks-missing-out-on-pleasures-of-lay-life-and-plea/43905#43905 , might be of interest

read Adriy Volkov's answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/48048/odds-of-nirvana

According to the Buddha (in many suttas), Buddhism is the sole path to liberation from suffering.

There can not be Two Truths. It is a universally accepted law. Read the begining part of Visuddhimagga.

It's important to make a distinction between the understanding and the vehicle. Buddhism is clearly going to tell us that the only way to reach liberation is by grasping the nature of dukkha and tanhā: seeing how we create our own idiosyncratic inner world, and how misery arises when that inner world grinds up against reality. Buddhism is also going to tell us that the best vehicle for attaining that understanding is one of the Buddhist paths, but it won't say that in such strident, exclusive tones. In fact, Buddhism has a history of combining with and integrating other religions — Daoism, Shinto, Bonn, even Hinduism, and Christianity, and secularism — to produce 'hybrids'. There's nothing stopping someone in a different faith from gaining the understanding.
From the Buddhist perspective you choose a vehicle that will get you where you're going. Once you get there, you won't have any more use for the vehicle, so you leave it behind for someone else. It's best not to choose a total lemon, of course, but other than that the vehicle's 'brand name' doesn't really matter.

but understanding is part of the vehicle, don't you think so? the 3 trainings include understanding...

@blue_ego. No, I don't think so. Understanding is the destination; that which the vehicles are designed to bring us to. If understanding were part of the vehicle it would be dukkha, impermanent, delusional: just another form of discontentment. But understanding transcends that.

From this perspective, understanding refers to knowledge, but this isn't about attaining knowledgable fragments. Perhaps in a certain region that's agreeable, but later, one can not even discern the sense organs, let alone 'know things'.

@Max: Knowledge and understanding are different things; the former is systematic, the latter organic.

@TedWrigley - if you put that in as part of your answer, I'll up vote it. It's a critical distinction and nicely worded by you.

man u really got me stuck in the word format...cuz the experience of understanding will end in understanding, but there is something else i'm wanting

mine is more lusty

Does Buddhism claim to be only way to liberation?

If you're talking about (permanent) liberation from suffering, i.e. Nibbana, then yes, only the Buddha's teaching can result in complete liberation from suffering.
The Buddha teaches in DN 16 (Mahaparinibbana Sutta) that only teachings containing the Noble Eightfold Path can lead to the Four Stages of Enlightenment. In teachings that don't contain the Noble Eightfold Path, Enlightened beings cannot be found.

"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

In teachings that don't contain the Noble Eightfold Path, Enlightened beings cannot be found - that seems too one-sided and unfriendly. Have you studied other traditions?

If you actually read my answer instead of downvoting it you would see that these are not my words - they are the teaching of the Buddha and it can be found in the DN 16. Tc.

Ah, I see! It only refers to dhamma teachings, and not other traditions.

@Max It refers to the dhamma-vinaya, the name Gautama Buddha gave to his original religion.

Yes, Buddha Dharma is the only way to attain Nirvana. Nirvana means No Raga, No Dwesha, No Moha permanently, thus no rebirth, no life forms ever again. You cannot find the way to attain Nirvana in any of the other religions from the entire universe.
No, this isn't boasting. This isn't overestimating. This isn't coming from over-believing or stuff along that line.
It is the truth. Because Tripitaka Sutra contains that the Lord Buddha himself said that Arya Ashtangika Margaya — Noble Eightfold Path — is the one and only path to attain Nirvana.
Also the Lord Buddha isn't on the level of other Religious Leaders. The person with a goal to become a Samma Sambuddha has to perform various actions not just 1 day, or 2 days, or a month, or a year, but countless lifetimes. That's one of the reasons why Buddha Dharma is the only way to Nirvana.
And you're right. Buddhism is not for everybody. It's for the fortunate few who has the potential to reach Nirvana. Out of that fortunate few, not everybody attains even Sotapanna phase before they again lose that "Potential" for a long time.
BUT, that doesn't mean Buddha Dharma does not apply to everybody. For example, Karma applies for everybody. Everybody chasing the happiness in this world will taste a ton of suffering and Dhukka sooner or later.
The one with the Mental Illness in your example, became like that because he did something wrong in the previous life. He may have lost the potential to attain Nirvana in this life. But if you were to do one of the following, you can initiate the chain of sequences that will bring him a life that will have the potential he lost this time.

If you make them participate in the Donations to Monks, it'll help.
If you chant Pirith with him, it'll help.
If you apply other Buddhist Pratikarma, it'll minimize the impact of his illness or even cure it + help attain Nirvana someday.

Just like that, Mental Ill guy can too get the benefits of Buddha Dharma + attain Nirvana if he can spark it with things like above.
Above things also apply to the person with Tinnitus. Buddhist Partikarma can help him minimize/cure it. Also Meditation is not required unless the person has attained Sotapanna phase. This means Tinnitus person still can become Sotapanna if he listens to the right Dharma Sermons.
"Prayer" in other religions cannot make someone attain Nirvana. Pirith & Gatha Chanting in Buddhism can be loosely compared to Prayer.
Buddha Dharma applies to everybody from Humans to Dogs to Dewa to Brahma to Ghosts. So it's not unrighteous. Those who became unfortunate to not even hear a Buddha Dharma Sermon became like that because of trying to chase that happiness by doing wrong things.
Buddha isn't responsible for that. But Buddha explained why that happened to them. This way YOU can avoid it happening to you next. YOU can avoid it happening to others.
And yes again, Buddhism is the sole path to Nirvana not just to stop human suffering, but suffering you experience as all life forms such as Deva, Brahma, Ghosts, Animals etc.
To attain Sotapanna, you only need to hear the right Dharma Sermons from a monk who's already attained one of the 4 phases — Sotapanna, Sakrudagami, Anagami, Arihath. To attain other phases, you can start meditation to reach 4th Dhyana and then brainstorm various Dharma Facts as Karmastana.
I recommend learning Buddha Dharma deeper, and then you'll realize what I said is true.
Hope this helps!

I hold the view that Buddhism may not be suitable for all individuals.
I think the suttas say that some people are quick to learn and benefit, and others less so.
And that Mahayana doctrine adds, that even for example an animal may benefit from hearing the Dharma, if not in this life then perhaps a next.
In my opinion, this presents a limitation of Buddhism compared to other religions, where prayer may be an easier means to gain insight.
That's not obvious to me, but that would require discussing the nature of prayer in other religions, so not really on-topic.
In one sutta, the Buddha mentions the need to be fortunate to encounter his teachings.
I read a slightly different message in that kind of sutta, i.e. that, "Now that you have been so very fortunate as to encounter Buddhism, do not waste this rare opportunity."
Doesn't this exclusivity make Buddhism an exclusive religion for attaining liberation?
I wouldn't say exclusive -- it begins like this in SN 6.1:

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard...
Having seen this, he answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:
Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
...

"To those with ears" isn't very exclusive -- no more exclusive than Christianity, IMO ("He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" in Matthew 11:15).
And the Dhamma is famously "inviting inspection":

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā: visible here and now, immediate, inviting to come and see, effective, to be individually ascertained by the wise.

And there are many forms of Buddhism, including some with practices which may be similar to what you call "prayer".

There are people that claim things about Buddhism, (claim is used here as a verb) but a Buddha doesn't force teachings upon another.
If you think about the diversity of the pali canon teachings, (I think around 84,000) it's more reasonable to say that Buddhism isn't a particular teaching, or a specific thing that holds a tangible one-sided belief about the human experience, but more a calling to discover what form of inquiry works for you. It has an application for many people from all walks of life, from the homeless wonderers to the rich and powerful, and all the people in-between.
However, the short answer is no, the Buddhist context is not the only way. You can crack this nut using other traditions or methods, secular or non-secular.

The first set of verses below say that there's no noble (ariya) contemplative (i.e. the four types of enlightened persons) outside the Buddha's religion (i.e. dhamma-vinaya).
The second set of verses say that there is no better path than the Noble Eightfold Path, and there's no higher truth than the Four Noble Truths. This is the only path to the purification of insight.
Also, there's no way to end suffering without realizing the Three Marks of Existence.
That said, it's theoretically possible for followers of other religions to attain the complete end of suffering, as long as they realize the Four Noble Truths, Three Marks of Existence and practice the Noble Eightfold Path.

There is no track in the sky, and no recluse outside (the Buddha’s
dispensation). Mankind delights in worldliness, but the Buddhas are
free from worldliness.
There is no track in the sky, and no recluse outside (the Buddha’s
dispensation). There are no conditioned things that are eternal, and
no instability in the Buddhas.
Dhammapada 254-255

Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the
Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is the
best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.
This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of
insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.
Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having
discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.
You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those
meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of
Mara.
“All conditioned things are impermanent”—when one sees this with
wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.
“All conditioned things are unsatisfactory”—when one sees this with
wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.
“All things are not-self”—when one sees this with wisdom, one turns
away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Dhammapada 273-279

yes, It clearly mentioned in suttas!
one may think that it's kind of a overestimating the Buddhism, But in-fact it's an obvious and profound fact!
if one can understand the real Buddhism, he or she really can experience the trueness of the dhamma!
and it's like if one can go to a topmost place in a ground, he can observe the surroundings well and he knows that all other points a situated lower than his standing point. similarly, those who know at least the first glimpse of true dhamma knows as to what exactly the complete freedom is {he sees the way leading to it}


text:
Are hungry ghosts considered "alive" if they are one of the six options of rebirth?
Are hungry ghosts in Buddhism believed to be "alive" or at least "undead" since hungry ghost is one of the options of rebirth?

Yes, you have given the answer.

Hungry ghosts have only a subtle body. Their existence is miserable as they are full of materialistic desires but have no material body to satisfy them.

They're considered (categorized) as "sentient" -- see for example definitions of sentient here:

Does the Pali word "sattā" mean "sentient beings"?
Wikipedia: Sentient beings (Buddhism)
The 5 realms of sentient existence

Bikkhu Bodhi mentions sentience here -- this (i.e. not killing sentient beings) is a context in which the word "sentience" is often used:

(1) Abstaining from the taking of life (panatipata veramani)

Herein someone avoids the taking of life and abstains from it. Without stick or sword, conscientious, full of sympathy, he is desirous of the welfare of all sentient beings.[28]

"Abstaining from taking life" has a wider application than simply refraining from killing other human beings. The precept enjoins abstaining from killing any sentient being. A "sentient being" (pani, satta) is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being.

When he writes "for practical purposes" there I take it to mean, not that hungry ghosts aren't sentient, but that (like gods or hell-beings) they are not the type of being that a human might kill.
Another context in which "sentient" is often used is in the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow:

The Bodhisattva vow is a vow (Sanskrit: praṇidhāna, lit. aspiration or resolution) taken by some Mahāyāna Buddhists to achieve full buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.

yes, they are also a group of sentient beings (born in lower abodes due to bad karma they had been performed

Hungry ghosts are people who are addicts. Iti 93 says:

The fire of lust burns mortals (macce; men)
Infatuated by sensual pleasures;
The fire of hate burns malevolent people Who kill other living beings;
The fire of delusion burns the bewildered, Ignorant of the Noble One’s
Dhamma. Being unaware of these three fires, Mankind (pajā; this generation) delights in
personal existence.
Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, Existence
in the animal realm, Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.

A Buddha will not preach unnecessary things. In Buddhism the Buddha is believed to be Omniscient and whatever he preached is thus so.
Peta (hungry ghosts) is one of the Apaya (hell) out of four Apayas. It is believed that especially who commit greedy deeds (as opposed to deeds like killings) will be born there.
Even in present days some people who are said to be working with spirits (if claims are true), say they see such ghosts especially who have been born there due to grasping their lands, houses and relatives.


text:
the enligtenment interview
i found this from learnreligions.com:

If you wonder if you have become enlightened, it is almost certain you
have not. The only way to test one's insight is to present it to a
dharma teacher. Don't be dismayed if your achievement falls apart
under a teacher's scrutiny. False starts and mistakes are a necessary
part of the path, and if and when you achieve enlightenment, it will
be built on a solid foundation and you will have no mistake about it.

i was reading about LUANGPOR TEEAN.  he is a dead thai monk that was enlightened.   upon his enlightenment he was asked questions like 'how do you know yourself?' , 'is salt salty?', 'among black colors, which is more black?', etc
what is the standard (good) way of interrogating the enlightened?

Learn the characteristics of ariyas from Tipitaka and then test. But the observer must be really a wise person otherwise fails. One sutta says that Sila is to be known by associating and Panna by discussing, but for a long time with care.

There is a direct Sutta on this matter.

please read Majjhima Nikāya 112 Chabbisodhana sutta, that's gives you as to how we should question if one declares the enlightenment.

what i meant is not Buddha and the gang...they are archaic things

ahh then you yourself has to decide.

The suttacentral version https://suttacentral.net/mn112?view=normal

Unless you have a special power/Gnana, you cannot decide if someone is enlightened or not just by looking at how one behave/talk etc.
I don't remember the exact sutras, when a person told the Lord Buddha he give donations only to monks with Sila, Buddha told him it can only be done by him or another Buddha — to determine if a person has Sila or not.
Just like that, you can't define if someone is Sotapanna etc. Because there were Arihat monks who talked to people in rude words due to the habit of talking like that in a previous life, but those words were uttered without Raga, Dwesha, Moha.
If a Arihat can have that kind of language, what kind of stuff a Sotapanna can do. Therefore, it's a good idea not trying to find someone's enlightenment just by talking.
Also even if someone answers all your Dharma questions with 100% accuracy, they may have not understood it, realized it as some people remember Dharma instead of realizing it. So 100% marks can't say if someone is enlightened or not.
If this is about someone preaching Buddha Dharma, you can get an idea if it's the right Dharma to keep listening by checking whether your Raga, Dwesha, Moha became low after listening among other methods.


text:
Is my reason for not gambling justified?
I don't gamble because I worry that I might win. The problem is that by winning I am exhausting my quota of good karma/luck for non-essential material procession (like iphone or money) without which I could still live a respectable life. Is this line of reasoning valid in Buddhism.

In Buddhism, gambling is not welcome. Buddha's teachings emphasize that gambling can lead to corruption and various problems. Gambling is seen as a high-risk activity that can either make someone wealthy or push them into poverty. Therefore, Buddhism advises against gambling to maintain a balanced and virtuous life, avoiding the potential negative consequences it can bring.

https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#11.1

I don't gamble because I worry that I might win.

I don't think gambling is your problem, then. You worry that by having lots of money, you wouldn't be able to control how you spend it. I'm not sure what that has to do with money, but more your relationship to money.
A Buddha say's lots of things about money, even how to enjoy money, to make yourself comfortable. Here are a couple of very wise suttas about money.
To Dighajanu
Debtlessness
One can enjoy sensual pleasures, but not more than is good for you...

These two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone
forth. Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary,
ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is
painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the
Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way, which gives
vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening,
and extinguishment.

With Rāsiya

I'll answer you based on the Dharma Sermons I have heard.
A Buddhist does not avoid something out of worry or fear. Also not perform something out of fear. Fear or Worry falls under Dwesha (Anger) out of the 3 — Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger), Moha (Delusion) — because you're uncomfortable with winning from gambling assuming it'll exhaust your Good Karma. Goal of a Buddhist is to uproot those 3 things from arising in his mind/thoughts.
Therefore, I'd say your reason for not gambling isn't exactly matching with why a Buddhist would avoid gambling.
A Buddhist's goal is to attain Nirvana by uprooting Raga, Dwesha, Moha. So he doesn't focus on doing stuff that doesn't support his goal unless it's required to survive. Here Buddhist means someone already in the Road-to-Sotapanna phase to Arihat phase.
If "Winning" spends out your Good Karma, why do you assume it'll only happen while you're gambling?
Everyday you're alive is a day you won. Karma spent!
Every moment you feel happy, comfortable is a Good Moment you won. Karma spent!
Almost every good thing happening to you arise from Good Karma.
So, it'll get spent even if you try to save it for another day. If it gets spent without you having control over it, why worry about it? I guess now you can stop worrying about winning.
If "Winning" spend out your Good Karma, AND you can create more Good Karma, why do you worry about a depletion?
More Money means more ways you can create Good Karma. Donate money, food, shelter, clothes, or whatever you can think of to generate new Good Karma. Since you're asking this question in a Buddhism forum, why not spend that money to donate the same for Buddhist Monks? This alone will create a huge Good Karma.
I'd say learning more about true Buddhism will give you more reasons why you shouldn't worry about having a lot of money. It'll also help you find the control you're looking for when it comes to spending money. Hope this answer helps you!


text:
What will be Buddha's reaction to the shooter on getting shot an arrow at his heart?
If someone shot an arrow at Buddha's heart, Bhudda will focus on the pain caused by the arrow. What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?
If it was unintentional, forgiving the shooter is understood. But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter? And why?
Forgive the shooter? But why and how?
And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?

It should be not to a Buddha who knows that no one can cut his body.

According to the canon the Buddha himself would be a special case and have miraculous abilities. If you wanted to ask more generally, "What should a Buddhist's reaction be?", that might be a different question.

If someone shot an arrow at Buddha's heart, Bhudda will focus on the pain caused by the arrow.

No. Since a Buddha knows/preached that no one can cut his body, the focus will be on the pain of the shooter's mind, I think.

What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?

The shooter will be an object of the Mahakarunasamaptti ( the attainment of great compassion) immediately, I think.

If it was unintentional, forgiving the shooter is understood. But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter? And why?

Not only forgiving but also trying max to find if there is any chance to rescue him from samsara.
The Buddha has said he tried in this way to rescue Devadatta who tried to kill the Buddha.

Forgive the shooter? But why?

If one did not forgive then he has defilements (kilesas).

and how? And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?

Same behaviour or using other great skills like psychic powers to stop or convert him, I guess.
And according to the Mettanisamsa sutta, no one can cut/wound anyone who is currently in Metta jhana.

Based on Dharma Sermons I heard.
The world has 3 qualities. Anichcha, Dhukka, Anatta.
When you chase your happiness with Raga, and when it doesn't happen your way it causes Dhukka. So the chase is not a worthy action to perform.
When it doesn't happen you way, you're charged with Dwesha and it also causes Dhukka. So the chase isn't worthy.
All Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger) and Moha (Delusion) thoughts create Bad Karma. The intensity of the generated Karma Energy gets bigger respectively. Raga < Dwesha < Moha.
This arrow story is the analogy for the pain, suffering or Dhukka you get trying to chase the happiness. It doesn't matter if the shooter did it intentionally to hurt you  or by a mistake, if you attach with Dwesha (Anger) then you're damaging yourself because of what the Shooter did.
Let's say the Shooter did it with Raga (Lust), then the Karma Energy he generated from that alone is smaller than what you generate with Dwesha (Anger) for yourself.
Let's reverse it and Shooter did it with Dwesha (Anger) and you attached with Raga (Lust). Then the Shooter created a bigger Negative Karma and you did it by a smaller amount.
What if you didn't attach with both of that and thought this pain occurred to me because I created specific reasons for that to happen today. If I attach with Raga, Dwesha, Moha today, I will get the same treatment in the future. So I shouldn't attach with any of that, to save myself from the Pain v3.0 from happening to me in the future.
This type of thinking will not create you Bad Karma for the future cases.

Pain v1.0 = Actual pain came from the arrow wound
Pain v2.0 = What you create by attaching with Dwesha. It expands the Pain v1.0
Pain v3.0 = The Bad Karma you created will return back to you on a future date

That's why it's said to focus on the pain caused by arrow instead of the shooter or creating other versions of the pain. If it's your dying moment, you'd die with less Bad Karma.
And when Bad Karma return back to you, it won't be just 1, 2 or 100,000. It'll be bigger or smaller depending on many factors. There is a story where a woman who killed  a goat by cutting, had to die by the amount of fur/hair that goat had. Karma for killing a monk is not the same as killing a goat. Intensity differs hugely and why would you want something that crazy, that dangerous by thinking angry about the shooter?
Of course, you wouldn't get that 100% right now, but as you progress in your Buddha Dharma journey you'll slowly start to realize that and then explicitly work toward reducing your Raga, Dwesha, Moha.
Note that nobody can harm a Samma Sambuddha, so the arrow won't hurt him even if fired.

What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?
→ A Samma Sambuddha has 0 Raga, Dwesha, Moha. So definitely no anger. Buddha would think how that shooter's delusion got him to fire an arrow today and then pay the price for that for quintillions of years.

But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter?
→ Still no Raga, Dwesha, Moha attachment to that situation. Buddha will think something similar like above.

Forgive the shooter?
→ With no Raga, Dwesha, Moha, Buddha doesn't hold grudges. Buddha's "Karuna" is still the same for the shooter without a slight reduction.

But why and how?
→ Person with a goal to become a Samma Sambuddha has to go through similar situation not just once, twice or 1 million times, but even more than that. There are 9 qualities for Samma Sambuddha, and anger isn't one of them. When you understand the world like a Buddha, when you see the worthlessness of the world and why, when you see how ordinary people work, what drives them, you just can't have angry thoughts about them. When your child do something stupid, you won't kill him instantly. You have a bit of patience, love, "Karuna", but a Samma Sambuddha's "Karuna" has no limits.

You wouldn't understand this WHY and HOW part from this alone. I'd recommend learning true Buddha Dharma deeper and you'll SEE.

And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?
→ Even if the shooter fires the 108th arrow and more, what Buddha think about him will be the same. As for how he'll handle it is I can't think about. Whatever way Buddha decides to handle it, that will still have 0 Raga, Dwesha, Moha. Devadatta is a good example for a repeated shooter who followed Gautama Samma Sambuddha throughout the whole time he performed Paramita to attain Samma Sambuddha to hurt him repeatedly

Hope this answers your question!


text:
Self-designation of buddhism
Since Buddhism is is a western term combining Buddha with  the common "-ism" suffix, I wonder whether there is/are eastern self-designations of Buddhism as a religion. Of course there are self-designations of various schools (Theravāda, Zen, ...), Dhamma/Dharma and Sangha refer to teaching and community, but is there some overarching terminology in asia?

Buddha-dharma (some Asian countries), Buddha-sasana (Theravadan countries), Buddha-agama (some Sri Lankan). Meanings are Natural-laws/fundamentals of the Buddha, Teaching/lineage of the Buddha and Religion/Doctrine of the Buddha, respectively.

Vinaya Pitaka --
The Basket of the Discipline

It helps to keep in mind that the name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was "Dhamma-vinaya" — the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya) — suggesting an integrated body of wisdom and ethical training. The Vinaya is thus an indispensable facet and foundation of all the Buddha's teachings, inseparable from the Dhamma, and worthy of study by all followers — lay and ordained, alike. Lay practitioners will find in the Vinaya Pitaka many valuable lessons concerning human nature, guidance on how to establish and maintain a harmonious community or organization, and many profound teachings of the Dhamma itself. But its greatest value, perhaps, lies in its power to inspire the layperson to consider the extraordinary possibilities presented by a life of true renunciation, a life lived fully in tune with the Dhamma.

Dhamma-Vinaya sounds too generic. For example, the suttas have the phrase: "tathāgatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa: teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One". For example, DN 1 appears to refer to the dhamma-vinaya of other ascetics and brahmins.

A sutta quotes the Buddha as saying, "imasmiṁ dhammavinaye" which I think means, "this Dhamma-Vinaya".

yes, "this", meaning "The Buddha's"

ChrisW's answer is great, but might not be what you're looking for (I understood your question to be about commonplace, modern terminology).
In East Asia, Buddhism is "Buddha's Teaching" or "Teaching of the Buddha" (佛教, 불교, 仏教). In South Asia, generally "Buddha Dharma," meaning basically the same thing. In Southeast Asia, some languages use a term closer to "Buddha Religion," but the meaning is similar.

With all due consideration,
The answer is yes, there is an overarching terminology in Asia for the native designation of Buddhism as a religion. For ease of understanding it would be recommended to narrow down the area only to Southern Asia at first, namely to acknowledge how the question applies to the dialects of the Indian Subcontinent.
In this regard, for Nepali, Gujarati, Marathi and Kannada, the designation is Bauddha Dharma, for Punjabi it is Budha Dharama, while for Hindi Buddh Dharm. So, in Pali, it would be the Buddha Dhamma. While moving along the Asian continent, the form of the words changes, but the meaning of the expression remains basically the same.
Terminologically, defining the notion of Dhamma as a standalone word can mean the nature of things or phenomena with the sense of principle or fundamental truth that explains the essence of things or phenomena. Deontologically, Dhamma can be said to mean righteousness, morality, wholesomeness, truthfulness.
Phraseologically, Buddha Dhamma can be said to mean the philosophy, religion, or doctrine taught by the Buddha, and if an attempt at an English translation from a thoroughly doctrinal point of view is permitted, the core of the terminology would be the truth as it was expounded by the perfectly enlightened one.
Respectfully

the word 'dhamma' means 'support' or 'life support'. it does not really mean philosophy, religion, or doctrine. Wikipedia says: "The word dharma has roots in the Sanskrit dhr-, which means to hold or to support, and is related to Latin firmus (firm, stable). From this, it takes the meaning of "what is established or firm", and hence "law". It is derived from an older Vedic Sanskrit n-stem dharman-, with a literal meaning of "bearer, supporter"

Greetings. The notion of Dhamma was only taken into account phraseologically for the given context, so thank you for pointing out the possible need for a separate definition. It has been added to the answer and for those unfamiliar with Pali, it does offer a more thorough understanding of the terminology indeed. Best regards.

Good question; for which I am unsure of a precise answer. The Pali contains phrases such as:

Tathāgatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa: teaching and discipline proclaimed by the Realized One (Tathāgata/One Thus Gone).

Vadi mahasamano: Doctrine of the Great Recluse.

Buddhadhammā: Teachings of the Buddha

Buddhavacana: Sayings/words of the Buddha

Bhagavatā dhammaṁ: Teaching by the Blessed One

The simplest most self-explanatory self-designation is probably Buddhadhammā however the most common simple self-designation in the scriptures would be Buddhavacana.
For Westerners, my personal view is Buddhadhammā is best because it makes a person question what the term 'Dhamma' means. In other words, when the inappropriate question is often asked: "Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?", the proper answer to this question is: "Buddhism is a dhamma". However, to give this answer, the meaning of the word 'dharma/dhamma' must be understood.


text:
what is the nature of citta? nicca or anicca?
I was thinking about tilakhana and cittanupassana. and this question occuerd to me.
that there is no mention in tipitaka about nicca/anicca nature of citta.
So something is very obvious that I am missing. and hence this question.

Citta is neither nicca nor anicca in the finality of everything. But beforehand, when one thinks they're being a jolly good Buddhist, learning all the terms, flexing their academic prowess, the notion of nicca & anicca define each other for the purpose of insight. Eventually, those insights become nonsense and cancel each other out.

With all due consideration, the right answer, according to the Teaching of the Enlightened One, is twofold:

Firstly, keeping the terms untranslated as they appear in the question, the epilogue for the chapter dealing with Cittanupassana from the (Maha) Satipatthana Sutta states, amongst other things:

"samudayavayadhammanupassi va cittasmim viharati", thus describing the definition of anicca; or, if a translation is permitted, "he understands that the state of mind has the nature of appearing-and-dissapearing", thus describing the definition of impermanence

Secondly, with regard to anicca as one of the three marks of existence, namely "sabbe sankhara anicca", or "all conditioned things are impermanent", anicca is equated to all that is conditioned, including the state of mind, or citta.

What can be said to be Nicca, or permanent, is only The Unconditioned, "Asankhata", which while being manifested by the Enlightened One in a conditioned realm can be acknowledged as a completely liberated state of mind, or "vimuttam cittam".
As an addendum, after the passing away of a completely enlightened being, the "Parinibbana" in the case of the "Buddha", there is only The Unconditioned, so there are no more conditions, there is no more more mind thus no more state of mind.
Respectfully
P.S. The state of mind citta, progressing through the different stages, from a mind affected by lust saragam cittam to the highest stage of a mind that is liberated (from fetters, defilements and suffering) vimuttam cittam does not change the nature of the medium through which either un-attainment or the attainment of perfect freedom is manifested.
Just as when the Enlightened One spoke, he clearly spoke only the perfect truth, which is eternal nicca. It does not mean that the mouth of the Buddha was eternal, but only a means by which perfect truth, though unconditoned, was manifested in a conditioned realm.
Any human can manifest through either the body or the mind, either hindrances or qualities pertaining to enlightenment, which has an eternal and timeless nature. Still, manifesting qualities does not make either the body or the mind eternal or timeless. All it can do is point to and encourage towards attaining the unconditioned.
So in the last words of the truly worthy one, vaya-dhamma sankhara, appamadena sampadetha, evanescence is the nature of created things; earnestly strive for the one true achievement

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. Thank you for writing this excellent answer.

If you say (in abhidhamma style) citta as state of mind. then I wonder what it means by ceto-vimutti. what it means by pabhassaram cittam.  There must be something which is beyond just the state of mind. Isnt it? Or do you means ceto vimutti is freedom from citta?

@enRaiser Regarding pabhassaram cittam, please read "Is luminous mind unconditioned and not impermanent?"

sadhu sadhu sadhu

This answer seems to say vimuttam cittam is permanent yet also says it ends with a Buddha passes away.

@Dhamma  Dhatu , Yes the answer is not complete, he has skipped my attempt to clarify on cettovimutti. And I think no one can answer. that when we say ceto vimutti, what is being freed from what?

@enRaiser, having assumed that the link kindly provided by ruben2020 had clarified the dilemma, it did not appear as necessary to further detail the answer. for now it has been added a post scriptum that should help with auxiliary concepts, bearing in mind that the original answer was written strictly with regard to the original question. in short, citta is anicca for any state of mind. and all-in-all, thank you for the opportunity of approaching the subject. respectfully

vimuttaṁ citta in MN 10 & DN 22 cannot mean liberated from fetters, defilements and suffering; otherwise it would be the last stage of practice.

a liberated state of mind means the consecutive arriving at each of the four stages of a noble person, Ariya Puggala, namely a stream-enterer, a once-returner, a non-returner and an enlightened being. for each of them, the mind is liberated progressively from the 10 fetters, samyojana, grouped in stages as they are discarded. it is said that even for a stream-enterer, the suffering that remains to be eradicated is infinitesimal compared to the one of aimlessly roaming the cycle of rebirth, samsara. so a mind that becomes purified, although in stages, is still said to be liberated

This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to last for a
year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.
Dissatāyaṁ, bhikkhave, cātumahābhūtiko kāyo ekampi vassaṁ tiṭṭhamāno
dvepi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tīṇipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno cattāripi vassāni
tiṭṭhamāno pañcapi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno dasapi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno
vīsatipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tiṁsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno cattārīsampi
vassāni tiṭṭhamāno paññāsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno vassasatampi
tiṭṭhamāno, bhiyyopi tiṭṭhamāno.
But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’ or ‘consciousness’
arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.
Yañca kho etaṁ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṁ itipi, mano itipi,
viññāṇaṁ itipi, taṁ rattiyā ca divasassa ca aññadeva uppajjati aññaṁ
nirujjhati.
SN 12.61

As I see it, the term 'citta' means something like 'attitude' or 'mental posture': the idea that the mind/body organizes itself for specific contexts. If we see someone (say) puff out their chest, raise their fists to fight, or turn and run, these are all physical postures that reflect an internal mental posture. One has adopted a mental posture of pride, of combat, or of flight, and that mental posture organizes the physical posture.
In that sense, citta precedes or is foundational to both self and no-self. It's merely the word for the general idea of having mental postures. It's a bit like the word 'sky', in the sense that 'sky' doesn't tell us whether it's bright or dark, warm or cold, rainy or dry. Sky is just sky, and all these conditions come out of it; citta is just citta, and all our mental conditions are formed in it. Then the question becomes whether our mental postures are organized or disorganized, harmonious or dissonant, attached or released.
If it helps clarify things, think of meditation as a mental posture — a citta — that we adopt to help reorganize and rehabilitate the jumble of discordant cities that our minds are prone to.

Where does nicca and anicca fit in all of that?

@Max: apologies, I thought that was clear. My bad...  Nicca refers to fixed attitudes or mental postures (oddly similar to the Freudian notion of cathexis. A lot of mental activity involves invoking, defending, and switching among these mental postures. Anicca is the state where we loosen these mental postures so that they no longer dominate our minds (they are no longer 'fixed'). It too is a kind of mental posture, but not a fixed one (except in those practitioners who fall into the 'emptiness as form' trap).

Sorry - your reply was too intellectual - but thanks for trying! ;-)

@Max:   No worries.


text:
Which sūtras about cosmology are being referenced?
The wikipedia page for Buddhist Cosmology has a section titled "Origins" in which the following sentence occurs:

No single sūtra sets out the entire structure of the universe, but in several sūtras the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, and other sūtras describe the origin and destruction of the universe.

I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are. Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?

Does anyone know what sūtras the author of the article is referring to?
It's hard to know, isn't it. That article's Talk page begins with two comments:

Citations

I am going to contemplate whether the majority of this article should be comported to an archive as an annexure accessed from this talk page and start afresh with citations. It is unfortunate that those who iterated this article with such care have been so careless in the provision of their sources.
I added citations from Foundations of Buddhism [Gethin 1998] for two claims in the introduction. The text, as written, seems very consistent with that text.

The sentence in the article before the one you quoted is,

The Buddhist cosmology as presented in commentaries and works of Abhidharma in both Theravāda and Mahāyāna traditions, is the end-product of an analysis and reconciliation of cosmological comments found in the Buddhist sūtra and vinaya traditions.

I read that as saying that this is an academic topic i.e. requiring textual research or encyclopaedic knowledge -- which you you might find in a book.
I am interested in reading these sūtras, in which the Buddha describes other worlds and states of being, but I am not sure what they are.
I think Piya Tan is good at publishing encyclopaedic cross-references like this, though only from the Pali suttas -- and not so far as I know, from the "works of Abhidharma" nor from "Mahāyāna traditions".
The Search function on his site can be ... well if I just use Google instead e.g. like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.themindingcentre.org%2Fdharmafarer+cosmology

Then that finds some of his writings e.g. this one to begin with:

Early Buddhist cosmology

It's 60 pages, and probably meticulously referenced. Post again if you'd like help with finding any specific sutta that he references.
This page -- https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/sutta-discovery/sd-50-59 (which I copy here as a screenshot not as clickable hyperlinked text, click on the link to go to the original) -- has tiny summaries that might help you find the kind of "cosmological" topic that's of interest to you, or least let you see some of the topic in the suttas which some people categorise as "cosmological":

When you are taught to write essays in high school, you are taught you must provide references for your assertions made.
The Wikipedia article is largely unreferenced (with only 5 footnotes) therefore gives the impression of lacking in truthful speech, which cannot be Buddhist.
To begin this topic, the Buddhism commentaries refer to various laws of nature, called the Five Niyama. In summary, the five Niyama separate the physical from the mental. Where as the Wikipedia article seems to vaguely assert a causal relationship between the physical (universe) and the mental (kamma), when it convolutedly says: "The entire universe is said to be made up of five basic elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Space. Buddhist cosmology is also intwined with the belief of Karma."
The Wikipedia article seems to venture into unsubstantiated territory when it seems to depart from the notion of personal kamma into the sphere of collective kamma, when it says: "As a result, some ages are filled with prosperity and peace due to common goodness, whereas other eras are filled with suffering, dishonesty and short lifespans."
Obviously, a word from the suttas that is important to the Wikipedia article is the word 'loka'. 'Loka' means 'world' and 'loka' is often described as something arising & ceasing within the mind, such as in the suttas AN 4.45, SN 12.44 & MN 79. Some translators translate 'loka' as 'cosmos', which makes the interpretations even more materialistic & superstitious. Therefore, when suttas use the word 'loka', in relation to 'kamma' & the 'dibbacakkhu' mentioned in the Wikipedia (specifically from sutta MN 4), it is debatable if this 'world/loka' is merely mental or otherwise another place of existence.
For example, there are suttas, such as SN 35.135, which seem to say heaven & hell occur within the mind, in the here & now.
Similarly, a sutta such as SN 56.47, which is a favourite for misinterpretation by materialist eternalists, seems to clearly say the "human state" is a mental state of virtue & wisdom (rather than a biological state of homosapienism & amoral Marxist uniformity).
Again, AN 6.39 is a sutta that equates the realms of godly, human, animal, ghost & hell with mental states.
Iti 93 seems to literally say the realms are comprised of people/men or mortals (macca).
Again, there are suttas such as MN 37 (where Sakka King of the Gods lives in a palace with sexy female nymphs), SN 11.5 (where the benevolent gods & demonic gods are debating how to govern people), AN 3.37 (where the Four Great Kings are concerned with human affairs), AN 4.53 (where a moral husband or wife is called a 'god') & AN 4.190 that says a monk that has attained jhana is a god that give the impression the gods are merely designations for people who have attained a high state of power, meditation or virtue. It is actually difficult to conclude what these various godly realms are referring to in the suttas.
Another important sutta for the eternalist cosmologists is DN 27. The bizzare ideas in DN 27 (about beings are mostly headed for the realm of streaming radiance) are also found in the definition of partial eternalism (a wrong view) in DN1. But, more importantly & unambiguously, DN 27 refers to these already existing "beings" (without any explanation of their origin) that later are subject to sexual lust & craving. However, suttas such as SN 23.2, SN 5.10 and SN 12.2 say "beings" are created by craving; rather than unexplained created beings generate craving, per DN 27.
A great error in the Wikipedia article says: "The vertical cosmology is divided into three realms, or dhātus: the formless realm (Ārūpyadhātu), corresponding to the formless jhanas; the form realm (Rūpadhātu), corresponding to the rūpa jhānas; and the desire realm (Kamadhātu)." The terms here (kamadhātu, rūpadhātu & arūpadhātu) are from MN 115 yet in MN 115 these three dhatu (elements) are merely three from many different other kinds of elements. This idea in the Wikipedia article appears to be a common perversion of the notion of Three Bhava, which is found in SN 12.2 and AN 3.76. "Bhava" in the suttas is a mental state or "asava", as defined in many places, such as MN 9. "Bhava" does not mean a plane of physical existence.
In short, the whole problem of Buddhist Cosmology is it often contradicts the core Supramundane Teachings of the suttas. Therefore, even the most superstitious materialistic establishment conformist translators refer to DN 27 and similar suttas as "mythology", for example, here: The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation.
In summary, when briefly browsing the Wikipedia article, it appears to be a mixture of various ideas & interpretations about suttas, sectarian ideas & commentaries. If Wikipedia was a real encyclopedia, it would require its writers to reference their assertions. But, in reality, Wikipedia appears to be similar to StackExchange, where vested interest bloggers just write their personal opinions.


text:
Is it better to be born with health, wealth, beauty and intelligence or not taking birth in this miserable and temporary world at all?
I have seen so many people till now who are very miserable because they were born ugly, poor, with less intelligence. And this world is cruel to ugly, poor and dumb people and there is no doubt about that, it's a fact. And I'm also one of those people who got treated badly for being ugly and unintelligent. I neither have good looks nor I've intelligence and good memory and because of that I couldn't excel in my academics as our academic success is measured by exams that test our memory. I am disgusted with this miserable life and want to get rid of this misery. There is no hope in present life but I want a good life in my next birth where I'll be blessed with beauty, intellect and good traits and devotion. What should I do in this life to get such good rebirth in my next life? Or it would be better if I didn't have to take birth in this world.

With due apologies, the title might be confusing, since it implies nothing more than desire for pleasure, while the detailed explanation that you offer for backing it up proves a thoughtful and considerate approach to the problem of life, and the last sentence is actually a hint at innate wisdom and consideration. A title that would probably do more justice to your pertinent approach could be one that asks if it is preferable to be born with beauty and intellect or is it better not be be born again at all. (P.S.: discerning one's faults and looking for a solution is a mark of intelligence)

Beauty >> by Metta and Wisdom >> by Asking Dhamma-questions from monks (according to the Suttas)

@DhammaAnatta thanks alot for your suggestion, I've reframed my title and I think now it's good. If you find any mistakes in my question, please correct me. I don't know English much but I am trying to improve it. So if you find any mistake, please let me know and I'll rectify my mistakes.

The Pali suttas say:

The way that leads to being beautiful is not having an angry and irritable character; even when criticised a lot, one is not offended, does not become angry, hostile and resentful, and does not display anger, hate and bitterness. MN 135
The way that leads to wealth is giving food, drink, clothing, carriages, garlands, scents, unguents, beds, dwelling and lamps to recluses or brahmins.MN 135
The way that leads to wisdom is to visit a recluse or a brahmin and ask: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome? What is unwholesome? What is blameable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What kind of action will lead to my harm and suffering for a long time? What kind of action will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ MN 135
The way to prevent weakening of intellect is abstinence from indulging in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness. DN 31

very nice quotation for point no.1

Beauty >> by Metta
Wisdom >> by Asking Dhamma-questions from monks (with the desire to know Dhamma)
Social status >> by Respecting who worthy of respect
Life span >> by Abstaining from Killing
Health >> by Abstaining from Torture
Wealth >> by Generosity
Refer Cullakammavibhanga sutta and the Sutta to Mallika along with Commentaries.

With all due consideration,
Truthfully, you have answered your own question in the most accurate and comprehensive manner: it would be better if I didn't have to take birth in this world.
Firstly, because birth is suffering, or misery as you call it. People that are considered beautiful, looking for appreciation and contentment because of this relative criterion are actually living a life of ignorance. True beauty is only found inwardly, through developing the qualities of enlightenment, or as a famous saying goes "a beautiful life is the one lived with mindfulness and equanimity".
The same with conventional intelligence which is measured in quantitative terms. True intelligence means right understanding, or right view, as it is also called. And using the notion that you chose, true intelligence means to know truthfully what is misery, what is the cause of misery, what is the eradication of misery and what is the path that progresses towards the eradication of misery, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as it is called.
With acquiring such wisdom and with putting it into practice, misery will be gradually abandoned, the wickedness of the world will no longer have any effect and the mind will become increasingly pure until perfect freedom of mind is realized through direct experience. And there is no other richness greater then the knowledge of the truth, and nothing is worth more then a mind free from misery.
By saying I am disgusted with this miserable life and want to get rid of this misery you are actually treading on the right path and yes, there is hope in this very life for the complete abandonment of misery. Do study the Noble Eightfold Path as taught by the Perfectly Enlightened One and do practice it. The results will speak volumes in a way that no external information is able to.
In the words of the truly blessed one: evanescence is the nature of created things, earnestly strive for the one true achievement
Respectfully

The suttas contain two types of dhamma: mundane & supramundane.

There is no mundane Vs supramundane suffering, no mundane Vs supramundane universal cause of suffering, no mundane Vs supramundane extinction of suffering and no mundane Vs supramundane method for the extinction of suffering. All-in-all, there is no mundane Vs supramundane teaching, the Awakened One did not preach relativism. The Buddha Dhamma is one and the same for all.

Hello. MN 117 says there is mundane Vs supramundane, at this link. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html  Your answer to this question is a correct supramundane answer. My answer to this question is a correct mundane answer. Your ideas about what the Awakened One preached has no basis in the scriptures. Also refer to this post from the Theravada Commentaries: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/21972/8157 Again, please do not waste my time arguing with me. The user name is Dhamma Dhatu rather than Avijja Dhatu.

i've recently read around here that this is not a debate forum and we should desist from commenting on each other posts. not sure what to make of it. presumably some people are very attached to some English notions they mixed up together in a pseudo-intellectual relativistic world-view with not even the slightest insight into Pali etymology. thus, in actual opposition to the non-relativistic, objective and impersonal teaching of the Perfectly Awakened One. will not be censoring anyone, just be aware that not all people take comments and arguments lightly around here

We comment on posts when we think it is very necessary. We do not engage in extended debate. Your comments on my posts are unnecessary because my posts have already cited the Scriptures. For example, "sati" does not mean "attention", I already quoted the Scriptures showing this. Therefore the term "parimukha" cannot refer to a physical location because mindfulness can only recollect/remember mental objects.

Thanissaro:  To the fore (parimukhaṁ): An Abhidhamma text, Vibhaṅga 12:1, defines this term as meaning “the tip of the nose or the sign of the mouth.” However, the term appears as part of a stock phrase describing a person engaged in meditation, even for themes that have nothing to do with the body at all, such as sublime-attitude (brahma-vihāra) meditation (AN 3:64). Thus it seems more likely that the term is used in an idiomatic sense, indicating either that mindfulness is placed face-to-face with its object, or that it is made prominent, which is how I have translated it here.

"when we think it is very necessary" is very subjective. and citing the scriptures is something that the Buddha advised against. needless to remind there were no scriptures then, so objective logic and direct experience were the only filters for truthfulness and they are indeed timeless

Its not "subjective". Instead, it is using discernment & judgment. I think it is best to not claim to speak for the Buddha. The Buddha is in the Suttas. To speak for the Buddha is to quote the Suttas. In the Suttas, the Buddha taught mundane & supramundane right view. MN 117. It is pointless to disagree with what is written in the Suttas.

then a highly esteemed and learned one such as your highness should desist from commenting on posts that give no quotations from ancient scriptures, since those insignificant mortals may simply stumble in the attempt of objective reasoning

The phrase: "a highly esteemed and learned one such as your highness " is a wise discerning comment.

Diligence in making all sorts of good merits will bring benefits now and in the future.
This refers to good virtues and charity.

For one who desires a continuous flow of exceptional delights— long
life, beauty, fame and reputation, heaven, and birth in an eminent
family—
the astute praise diligence in making merit. Being diligent, an astute
person secures both benefits:
the benefit in this life, and in lives to come. A wise one,
comprehending the meaning, is called ‘astute’.”
AN 5.43

There's a good guide on making good merit below.

Skillful Bodily Action
"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the
case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains
from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife
laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all
living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains
from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a
thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he
abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved
with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by
bodily action.
Skillful Verbal Action
"And how is one made pure in four ways by verbal action? There is the
case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from
false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group
meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty,
if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know':
If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says,
'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has
seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie
for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any
reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He
speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver
of the world. Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive
speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those
people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does
not tell here to break these people apart from those people there.
Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who
are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord,
speaks things that create concord. Abandoning abusive speech, he
abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the
ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite,
appealing & pleasing to people at large. Abandoning idle chatter, he
abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is
factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the
Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable,
circumscribed, connected with the goal. This is how one is made pure
in four ways by verbal action.
Skillful Mental Action
"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the
case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the
belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would
be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of
his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free
from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves
with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees
things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed.
There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world
& the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously
reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly
& practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having
directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made
pure in three ways by mental action.
AN 10.176

This answer might be clearer or more detailed with an another reference, to what the all sorts of good merits are.

@ChrisW Thank you. Added.

Sir living in this world with craving of any kind is rife with conflicts. Only nibbana is devoid of it. The thing is everything you desire you can't have, for this world is outside your full control. Imagine you were born again with handsome face but in a place where you had no fame whatsoever. You'll get sick and tired of looking at mirror.  What's good a face if there are no people to appreciate it. But maybe you'll try your luck at being famous / impactful. But there's no guarantee. You will also want to be born rich otherwise you'll have to toil hard all your life. Also others may make your life hell because of jealousy. So no guarantee you'll have every perfect conditions in your next life. I have seen plenty good looking people throwing away their lives because beauty is no guarantee for happiness.
It's best to be tired of forms, feelings, perception otherwise life will be a tough ride.
You should enter the road that leads to the unconditioned.