text:
How can one function in society (as a householder) without actively arousing (possibly strong) desire, or aversion
If we have no desire or aversion, how can we get up and clean our home, our body, eat more than is needed, or go to work?
If one has indifference towards experiences and/or is equanimous to experiences it would make no difference if ones home or body was dirty. If we were in poverty, or if we had any more food than the immediate needed to subside the pangs of hunger.
It seems to me that these unwholesome mind states are actually needed to function as a person in society (a householder) just to do the above things that one generally needs to do to maintain themselves and a householders life.
Like one needs to have aversion and be disgusted at ones own filth to clean ones home/body or needs to have desire to be clean and to be seen as clean by others (vanity or desire for reputation).
Same with finances, one needs to have desire for material possessions or hopes/desires for a "better" future to actively go out and do more work to earn more wealth than what is actually immediately needed.
Kind of feels like functioning in society itself is the maras trap.
Realistically all one really needs to do to function as a human is ones daily ablutions, have shelter from the elements and enough food to stop the suffering of hunger, which is pretty much what an ordained person does.
Water is needed too of course but except in dire places in the world water is abundant everywhere.

Understanding desire (tanha) and relinquishing it is a central tenet in the teachings. It is complex and difficult to penetrate even anagamis still have subtle desires. It looks bad but like peeling an onion, remove one layer, it seems to have its uses (as you mentioned). But then peel again, you get another insight and so on. We should not stop investigating too early and proclaim that we have understood the true nature of desire (and aversion). This would be a disservice to ourselves. If tanha is all good, we (likewise the world) should be at peace now. So, there must be something else.

Buddhism refers to two types of desire:

Ignorance desire called 'tanha' ('craving').
Wise desire called 'Right Intention'.

In Buddhism, we perform our necessary duties guided by wise intention.

Absolutely agreed that desires and aversions are needed for survival in the world. Although indifference and equanimity are different things but we need to differentiate between not having enough to eat and not hungering for a feast.
However, all these desires/aversions/unwholesome states do have their issues. Suppose one day, our neighbour come along and show us the new Lamborghini SUV that they just bought and we go, “Hmmm…”. Then a friend of ours invited us to their house-warming at their big house in an uptown area and we go, “Hmmm…”. Or we go, “What!” when the government announced that they are going to impose or increase the consumption tax next year.
But all these are minor stuff compared to the big ones. Suppose one day, we saw lovey-dovey messages on our partner’s mobile and it’s not from us. Or the boss just called us into his office to hand over a retrenchment letter. Or the doctor informed us on the follow-up that the throat pain we've been suffering for weeks originated from a malignant cancer somewhere else.
Prince Siddhartha was brought up learning the skills to govern a country. One of the things he probably learned is you need to take care of the biggest and most important issues first then the rest will be easy. And the biggest issue he realized is that of old age, illness and death. If he could solve this problem then he would have all the time in the world to indulge in almost all of his desires.
If we can solve this same problem and we don’t have money for a new car or a bigger house, we have now to eternity to earn all the money we want. If we can’t find the love of our life, we have all the time to switch partners till we hit the right one. If we don’t like the government of the day, we have all the time to influence and change their policies. But do we?
Our life is like a candle, it burns away until it eventually extinguishes. As a result, we struggle to prioritize the most important things and resources in our limited life. What are our most important goals? How much time should we spend to accumulate the resources to fulfil those goals? And all the while as we are busy working to complete these goals, the clock goes “tick tock, tick tock” and the candle burns lower.


text:
Narcissism insights in Buddhism
I've been recently observing that I am surrounded by a lot of narcissistic people which include all kinds of relationships friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Having been surrounded by these people I believe I have developed a relatively weak ego/low self-esteem over time -which of course translates to suffering. I also have been doing some meditation related work which has made me stronger/confident and also I believe it is the reason I've been recently having clashes/fights with these kind of people.
Thus I wanted to understand narcissism from a deeper perspective of Dhamma. Modern psychology has it already in the dark triad personality traits, namely, narcissism, machiavellism and psychopathy. I watched and analyzed some videos from Jordan Peterson and some others; but I am shocked to find such a surprising lack of material and insights about this phenomenon from any good spiritual gurus, and even here on forums like stack-exchange, reddit etc. Thus I am making this post!
So I would like to plead here - kindly contribute any deep/thorough analysis of this trait both from classical sutras perspective and from your own understanding: giving arguments/analogies/reasonings for any assertions. Possibly include the following topics - deconstructing what narcissism actually is, what kind of mental states and defilements are involved, how to overcome those as a person who has narcissism and how to minimize the bad karma recieved while dealing with such people.
It may be a little bit of effort to write up properly, but I believe you sharing such valuable insights will be very helpful - for both people like me who have to deal with narcissistic people and also for others who want to fix their own narcissism and corresponding defilements. If anyone does contribute here, your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated, Thank you!

The self is a tricky concepts in Buddhism. All of us have to deal with it, many are unable to separate from it (to a greater or lesser extent), and some are so absorbed in it that they hardly realize that any selves exist independent of their own self. That last is what we call narcissism.
That being said, the self is a relational concept: the self is a public persona that we present to society, so that others know how we relate to them and how they relate to us. Even though narcissism is a closed persona — all relationships are viewed through the lens of the narcissist's self, and other selves are only acknowledged to the extent that they offer utility/inconvenience or pleasure/displeasure to the narcissist — it's still relational in the sense that narcissists expects everyone to relate to the narcissist in the ways the narcissist dictates. And when you say you have developed 'weak ego' or 'low self-esteem' that two is a relational persona: you have absorbed into a self that gives in the dictates of others.
But it's just a persona. I don't mean to make it sound simplistic — because it isn't — but with practice you'll come to realize that your self is just a public persona that helps you relate to others, and that you ultimately decide how you will relate to others, and thus what that persona looks like. Ultimately, narcissists have a compulsion to be perceived in a particular (self-validating) way, and it's their weakness that they must constantly struggle to force others to validate them in that way. They don't realize they can get that same validation merely by releasing the concept of self — by being authentic — and so they are compelled to find ways to control others. When you can see that (without self-judgement) you can't help but have compassion for it, and when you find that compassion for their struggles they will no longer have the power to dictate their relationship with you. That's when you can start to help them.

Great answer! Do you think narcissists have problems with excessive hate? The ones I have met are quick to abuse things/situations/people. Also, this is established in modern psychology that narcissists have lack of empathy/compassion.

@Kobamschitzo: I think such people have a difficult time coping whenever another person fails to conform to their expectations. They need the people around them to reflect their internal beliefs about themselves, and when that doesn't happen it can produce a range of intense emotions. It's all reactivity, so I don't want to say it's going to be this emotion to that one (or even that it will be consistent from moment to moment), but hatred-like symptoms are surely in the mix.

In Traits, AN 4.192, a personal identity (i.e. our self-image) is a result of living in a society. And the consequence is that we are swept away by gain and loss, fame and disgrace, praise and blame, pleasure and pain.
Once, we have an identity view, we will want to do whatever necessary to defend and build on it. Anything that threatens our identity/image/esteem is clear and present danger. Anything that can assuage and boost our self-identity is dear and precious. That’s why we surround ourselves with things/activities/people that result in gain, fame, praise and pleasure. Similarly, we avoid and resist things/activities/people that cause loss, disgrace, blame and pain.
To me, therefore, being narcissistic, self-centered and egoistic is a desire arising from having an identity view taken to extremities. It is still about defending and building on our self-esteem, image...our very existence. One way to see this clearly is to look at the opposite, people with extremely low self-esteem i.e. inferiority complex. In such situations, we essentially hate ourselves. We will attack (instead of defending) and tear down (instead of building) this disappointing self. It’s really a malfunctioning situation that I hope no one ever needs to go through. Although I believe at some point in our lives, we go through some episodes when we despise who we are.
But why do some people ended up being narcissistic, self-centered and egoistic while others suffered from chronic feelings of inadequacy, insecurity and inferiority? I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist so the following is based on my observations. I believe it’s partly karma because past karma pre-disposed us towards certain ways of thinking, speaking and behaviour. It’s also partly our choices because of our preferences for certain ways of thinking, speaking and acting which in turn generate new karmic seeds that affects us in the future.
Personally, I learned to just move away from narcissistic, selfish and egoistic people. They have their habits (or preferences) and if they are not willing to change themselves then no external forces can do so for them. One curious thing I observed is that such people seldom admit what is their true desires. I strongly suspect that they may even not be conscious of their true intentions having habitually hidden them so deep within themselves. But desires (and intentions), whether hidden or not, guide our actions in certain directions in order to achieve certain results. Consequently, when such people are questioned on their actions, they are forced to engineer some storylines in order to justify their actions to others. And this really opened up cans of worms.
If we are truthful about our intentions and goals, our innate intelligence can evaluate if certain actions generate certain results that meet our intended goals. If we are not getting the desired results, we can then objectively determine whether there’s something wrong with our actions or goals. Now, imagine these people with their desires/intentions so well hidden from everyone including themselves that this process can no longer happen. I have observed how such people have acted time and again, in ways that is not giving them or others any benefits (but only pain) yet they persist in their harmful behaviour. One example of this behaviour can be seen when Mara tried to disguise its intentions to the Buddha. Such beings, whether humans or not, have lost this innate ability to self-correct which is so sad.
These, I think, are pitfalls with identity view. Feelings of superiority or inferiority, to the point of harming ourselves and others, can happen to anyone at anytime in their lives. Freedom from these dangers can only happen at the state of Arahantship as Venerable Sariputta alluded when he says he do not despise himself. Similarly, Ajahn Chah when questioned on being afraid of very diligent disciples, said, “If we think others are worse or better or the same as us, we go off the curve. If we discriminate, we will only suffer.”
I don’t 100% grok Ajahn Chah’s words but I suspect it is a bit like concentrating in a tennis game. Rather than judging yourself, your opponent and others, you are just with the racket and ball. Giving your all and enjoying the moment, playing for each point regardless of how well or bad you played. In the case of Arhants, they don't need to concentrate on not discriminating themselves or others, it's just effortless.

Thank you , with regards to the quote  in your answer: “ In such situations, we essentially hate ourselves. We will attack (instead of defending) and tear down (instead of building) this disappointing self. It’s really a malfunctioning situation that I hope no one ever needs to go through. Although I believe at some point in our lives, we go through some episodes when we despise who we are.”.How would you suggest to  get  free from it?

Perhaps, 3 points. Firstly, always remember that disappointment or pride in ourselves all arise from a core desire for happiness in ourselves. We created an ideal self that we believe will lead to our happiness. When we achieve the standards of this ideal, we are proud. When we failed, we are disappointed. This oscillation between pride and disappointment (and their extreme form of narcissism and depresssion) is hard to avoid as we create all kinds of identities in our long journey through samsara. We must see this clearly and bear with equanimity.

Secondly, we should try our best to make our experience in this endless samsara as pleasant as possible by being skilful. Jump at every opportunity to do good deeds to ourselves and others that leads to long lasting happiness and well-being e.g. exercise regularly and give good, sincere advise to help. Avoid doing harmful deeds to ourselves and others that cause long lasting harm e.g. eating junk food and being cruel to animals.

Lastly, as long as we are in samsara, the dangers that come with identity view can and will come despite our best efforts. If we are tired of constantly guarding against these dangers, we should strive for the safe shores of Nibbana and proclaim as the Buddha did, “O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again.”, Dhp 154.

About the life of a monk, the suttas say:

'My behavior should be different [from that of householders]; a person gone forth should often reflect on this.
AN 10.48

While we ourselves are not monks & nuns, the same principles applies to Buddhist practitioners, in relation to a world that has grown immeasurably in recent decades in terms of narcissism, due to greed, materialism, sensuality & political correctness (i.e. unreflective sheepish conformity to corporate/media expectations). It is wise we perceive our own life to be different to the average non-Buddhist or non-religious layperson. This means we learn to live our own life, according to our own principles, and not get caught up in any unwholesome ways of the ordinary world.
In Buddhism, we try to determine where we live, where we work & who we associate with to make these things more suitable for the pratice of Dhamma and to avoid social conflict. Refer to Snp 2.4 & DN 31. In short, Dhammapada 302 says: "Suffering comes from association with unequals".
About narcissism, specifically, one sutta says:

Who has not tamed all vain conceits,
Who lacks in wisdom, uncontrolled,
Heedless, in the woods may dwell alone,
Yet will not escape the realm of Death.
SN 1.9

The realm of Death is the realm of heedlessness & suffering. The word 'Death' here does not mean 'physical death' but means 'internal despair'.

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.

Realizing that this body is like froth, penetrating its mirage-like nature, and plucking out Mara's flower-tipped arrows of sensuality, go beyond sight of the King of Death!

As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village, so death carries away the person of distracted mind who only plucks the flowers (of sensual pleasure).

The Destroyer brings under his sway the person of distracted mind who, insatiate in sense desires, only plucks the flowers (of sensual pleasure).

Dhammapada

The Buddha said to us:

This I say to you: Good luck to all assembled here! Dig up the root of craving, like one in search of the fragrant root of the birana grass. Let not Mara crush you again and again, as a flood crushes a reed.

Dhammapada

We should do our best to understand & practice Dhamma; and not get too involved or caught up in the world around us that is growing more day by day in unwholesomeness, insanity & conflict.

I agree with the first paragraph that we should mind your own business is not get caught up in the samsara. The remaining part of the answer, however, seems off-topic to me in relation to the question that was asked. Thanks anyways.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to deal with nagging people?
So have few family members, including my mom, who are base in general and particularly nagging. For example my mom (she's uneducated) keeps nagging me on not eating out that I may get sick when she clearly doesn't understand, or at best misunderstands, health and nutrition. Or for example, when I am driving she will nag me on not taking this turn because the car will travel 100 feet more and this will burn more fuel. This is when my family is not at all poor : in fact we are rich from my country's standards. This kind of nagging happens repeatedly even after I explain the correct things, and she does this for almost everything to the point that my dad get super mad at her. I think her mind might be too base to understand simple things. Most of the time I say OK and ignore her, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed.
So I was wondering today what would Buddha do with such people ? Would he simply ignore or would you try to teach them? Any advice on such people from the Suttas or personal experience?
Thank you.

Sometimes, we forget our parents won't be with us forever. It's not that I missed my late mom's nagging. But I sure wish we can have more time to chit-chat about anything under the sun.

@DesmonicaSin yes I see it like that also sometimes. But most of the time, even though my parents are alive, they almost never talk heart to heart. My mom will be preoccupied with useless stuff like 'oh if we do this thing this way, it will be 50 cents cheaper'. I would like to talk about anything other than that too, often I just agree and hope she gets quiet soon or changes topics.

@DesmonicaSin yes I see it like that also sometimes. But most of the time, even though my parents are alive, they almost never talk heart to heart. My mom will be preoccupied with useless stuff like 'oh if we do this thing this way, it will be 50 cents cheaper'. I would like to talk about anything other than that too, often I just agree and hope she gets quiet soon or changes topics.

It’s tough as they have been worn down by life’s harsh demands. For them to still see and believe in the vast possibilities and potential in them and in their lives at this late stage and to take actions to fulfil their potential is something that they may have forgotten or given up. Perhaps, you can ask her what was her aspirations as a youth, would she like to give those dreams a go? Perhaps, you might want to awaken the bodhisattva’s spirit in yourself or practise the paramitas by accompanying her on this journey. Either way, it’s a chance to chit-chat on a new topic.

To me it doesn't sound polite or kind to "deal with" family like you "deal with" a nuisance or a chore.
Your description of the problem sounds "conceited" as described here and here.
So I was wondering today what would Buddha do with such people?
I think he left home.
So far as I know the Buddha used to talk with people, or not talk -- and perhaps not "do" very much?
He did give advice to laypeople, there is this whole book which someone lent me once ...

The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World
(by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula)

... which might help, it's all advice to laypeople (a lot of the Buddha's advice was for monks). It includes advice about family relationships, I think it's an accurate summary of suttas sorted by subject. I read it (a few years ago) and found it good. I don't have a copy so I can't quote it but I think you can buy it easily.
Any advice on such people from the Suttas or personal experience?
Personally if ever I feel a moment of annoyance, especially with family, I view that a (temporary, unpleasant) mistake on my part -- unskillful, rude (or childish, immature), hopefully quite rare, and a symptom of heedlessness.
More specifically, if ever I am driving I believe it's of utmost importance that I control myself and the car. I won't drive when intoxicated -- including "intoxicated by anger".
The Dhammapada says ...

He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.

... but I don't entirely trust myself to "check" my anger after I am "feeling" angry. If the sequence is:

Irritation
Rising anger
Anger "checked"

... the I may want some "alone" time or low stress (a walk, a nap, some work, or simply change the subject of conversation) to let the anger (physiological/chemical/hormonal reaction aka "poison") subside.
If I'm trapped in a room with someone who's upset, i.e. angry and loud, experience tells me that can be contagious after a while, i.e. begin to upset me too. Very occasionally in my life I have stopped the car (where it's safe to do so) because my passenger was having a tantrum.
This might have happened more often in my life if I had been driving children! I'm pretty sure my parents sometimes threatened to stop the car, when my brother and I were very young; maybe all parents do.
But driving with adults, my family's convention has been that it's the driver's job to mind the road and avoid accidents -- when I'm driving I sometimes ask for talk to stop when I need all my attention (like when merging onto a highway). A passenger then is free to tell a story if they want to -- or to navigate, read the map, and tell me which turn to take (in advance i.e. with plenty of time to do that safely, not at the last second).
I think that's fair.
My mum was a pre-school teacher so she's very experienced at dealing with small children, like nearly 40 years experience with more than 20 children a year. One bit of advice is to offer a child a choice of alternatives which you find acceptable. For example you don't ask "Do you want to go to school today?" because "No" is not an acceptable answer. But you might ask, "Which shirt do you want to wear to school today, this one, or this one?"
Similarly if someone is going to be a passenger it might be good to offer them some choice, some "agency", some deference (by letting them navigate if they want to,

You need to grow up and realize what you have in your life. A lot of people in the world never had a mother or a father. A lot of people didn’t grow up with a lot of money or choices.  You sound like a spoiled little brat to be honest. This is your mother. Treat her with the utmost and highest respect, love and care in the world.
She won’t be here forever. She might not be here tomorrow, next week or next year. Actually anyone of us can die at any moment. Try to remember that next time you’re with her.
Lastly, remember to be mindful when being with her. Cherish her and buy her a meaningful gift and tell her how much she means to you. Do that as often as you can. She deserves to hear that.

If it's true that "my dad get super mad at her" it might be easy for a child to follow that example.

I actually do that - I get gifts every single time I go home. I do keep in mind her age etc and I actually try to point out to her some of her harmful habits and the way out of them. She has been to two viapssacna courses coz I have been motivating her for the past few years. Despite all this, it is really hard to not get annoyed by constant nagging and unconscious hurtful behaviour. Eg I tell her to not touch things in my room coz she doesn't know what is what and she messes things up which causes me problems later. Despite saying this multiple times she sometimes does it - then I have probs

@zantamaduno. Thanks for the info. It is very good and wholesome that you’ve motivated her towards the Dhamma. Very good. Sorry if I were too hard on you my friend❤ Just do the best you can and be happy about it. Have you thought of moving out into your own place?

@ChrisW. Yes that’s true Chris:/

My mother loves when I buy her gifts. This keeps her in a good mood.
While you are obviously not your mother's husband, the Buddha said in DN 31 a husband should regularly buy their wife a gift (because this keeps their wife feeling loved & appreciated).
The principle applies to sons. When sons give their mothers gifts, the mother feels loved & appreciated.

This has been flagged twice as "not an answer", but I think it is an answer -- partly because although this is unreferenced I think there's a sutta which mentions that "giving gifts" is part of proper behaviour (I think the sutta is about gift-giving from a husband to a wife, but I suppose it's also appropriate from an adult son).

Well, you can always watch her behaviour (including nagging and other annoyances) as your stored karma. Then to be free from it, as with all kind of karma that I can think of, one must observe it "sharply" (mindfully) along with any secondary phenomena/feelings that arise. Thus watching "sharply", or being mindful, one will not attach self to it, and consequently, remain equanimous in the midst of that nagging. I believe this could have been advised in the suttas at many places, however, I do not have any exact references as of now. Good luck!

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


text:
What are the limits of Buddhist compassion?
Compassion seems to be a central insight in Buddhist thought. When someone truly grasps Buddhist ideas they find themselves de-emphasizing their own ego, and understanding that they're interconnected with the world and everything in it.
I've lived this way for a long time and have become very effective at helping others, serving others, cultivating meaning in the lives of others. However, lately I'm realizing that this compassion is often not reciprocated, and at worst is taken advantage of as others know they can count on me to help them.
So I'm wondering if Buddhist thought has ever touched on this issue? How do we reconcile striving for unconditional compassion toward others, when many of those around us are happy to cheat, steal, and take from us?

Compassion is an essential quality in Mahayana because it replaces a self-centered mind with a spacious mind without bounds.
Without compassion, you measure everything you encounter relatively to your values, your benefits, your understanding.
With compassion, your mind is open to all other views and perspectives, your awareness at any given moment includes a variety of points of view.
This serves three benefits personally to you:

In terms of your karma, you do not carelessly hurt other people, either objectively or emotionally, because you are aware of how things look from their side. This keeps you protected from the negative consequences of people getting hurt by your actions, such as, for example, holding a grudge or revenge.
Not being self-obsessed makes you proportionally free from judgement and immune to offencive actions by other people. Indeed, the self-centric attitude puts us in opposition to others, whom we see as our adversaries. As Buddhist teachers say, ego is like a giant open wound, extremely sensitive to even a slightest poke. Since our sense of self is a mirror reflection of our attitude to the world, compassion liberates us from feeling hurt when our ego is threatened.
The spacious mind without boundaries that comes from compassion is a baby version of Bodhicitta, the mind of Buddha. By cultivating this mind we cultivate the Enlightenment.

Now, to come to the big picture. Imagine a group of people attending a lecture of Zen Buddhist master. Zen Masters are known for showing the teaching experientially instead of relying on intellectual explanations. The teacher starts his lecture on compassion like so:

I would like every one of you to do what I will say, immediately and without discussions. This will teach you a lesson about compassion. Turn to your neighbor and slap him or her on the face.

Everyone does that and now the room is full of hurt people rubbing their noses.

Now turn to the other side and hug your neighbor, showing your love and compassion.

Suddenly everyone in the room finds him or herself consoled by a stranger.
I hope you understand.
Now, to come to your immediate question. How to remain compassionate in the harsh worlds of samsara. This is when you need to understand that compassion does not equal giving yourself away for others to take advantage of towards their selfish goals.
Buddhist compassion is never stupid and helpless, it is compassion of the strong. Just like a school teacher has compassion for the ignorant students, while still setting the boundaries and even showing them wrath as necessary for their development.

If I set myself to fire, surely that is the limit of compassion. Deleting Information in the matrix

This is a great answer, thank you.

From my own experience, originating from Mahayana understanding, I have come to a conclusion that cultivating compassion itself is kind of a folly. A waste of time.
I am not saying compassion is a mistake, but especially from Mahayana PoV where compassion is seen as a "virtuous mind state" that IS the way to liberation and point of existence (leading to bodhicitta) it seems illogical.
The Buddha explained that compassion is an antidote to ill will, nothing more. He did not explain that compassion is a step towards liberation, he actually states that it leads to a more fortunate rebirth but not specifically to liberation, hence why it is not a part of the eightfold path. Wiki page here of the 4 immeasurables.
This is not to say that compassion is an unwholesome mindstate, it is not a klesha in the conventional terms, a defilement the ruins stillness and peace of mind. If anything compassion bring pleasure and joy to the person experiencing it.
Still my experience with compassion, as well as the logic of anatta has led me to believe it is a waste of time to put effort into cultivating, unless of course you are a hateful person, or have hate for a specific person, again it can be used as an antidote to ill will.
In fact compassion arises naturally anyway while leading a virtuous life.
One only needs to think of another or our own suffering in the past to experience the mindstate naturally.
As for a more conventional look at compassion, in society I have experienced that compassion is often seen as a weakness. This will depend on each of our own personal social circumstances but for my own PoV being a man and living in a lower class life in a western society, compassion is not often seen as a virtue to others. This will obviously differ depending on other circumstances. Say a female in a nursing profession having compassion for a patient will be seen as virtuous, as an example.
Lastly you can keep in mind that you can have compassion for others but actually not show others that you have compassion for them. Compassion is an inner mental factor, it is not an external action, or word. There is often no need to show others compassion and in some cases showing compassion can harm others as they feel you pity them. It is actually a difficult mindstate to express emotionally or even with words.
Ultimately you can perfect compassion and have what is known as universal (great) compassion by the mahayana yet nobody other than you will ever know, as there is no way to show this "attainment" to others.

From the Theravada perspective, four brahmaviharas (sublime states or sublime abodes) are virtuous mental states or virtuous mental attitudes that are cultivated, to counter negative mind states.

Compassion is used to counter contempt. This is how you deal with the suffering of people worse off than you.
Empathetic joy is used to counter envy and jealousy. This is how you deal with others being better off than you.
Loving kindness is used to counter ill will. This is how you prepare your mind to treat others.
Equanimity is used to counter aversion and passion towards blame and
praise, ill will and kindness. This is how you deal with how others treat you.

They are used to brighten and uplift the mind, as well as guide the way we relate to people and society around us.
If your grandmother who has senile dementia lashes out at you in anger or doesn't behave like normal people do, would you be judgemental or contemptuous against her? No. You would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she has senile dementia.
Similarly, you can generate compassion by trying to understand that other people are suffering and there may be genuine underlying reasons for their suffering and condition. It could be their life situation (e.g. poverty or undergoing divorce) or even mental states (e.g. ignorance, or clouded by anger or other negative emotions).
When it comes to compassion, the Buddha taught to show it also to those who are not virtuous:

“And what kind of person, bhikkhus, is not to be associated with,
followed, and served? Here, some person is inferior to oneself in
virtuous behavior, concentration, and wisdom. Such a person is not to
be associated with, followed, and served except out of sympathy and
compassion.
AN 3.26

I think 'compassion' is a word over used in Western Buddhism.
My impression of compassion is it is the intention/wish to end suffering.
Therefore, more often in everyday life, our helping of others with a generosity of spirit comes under the sphere of 'generosity' rather than 'compassion'.
With 'generosity', it is generally something more sparing & selective.
Where as 'compassion' is something more urgent & necessary.
If we are not compassionate, this means we are cruel.
But if we decide to not exercise our generosity, this is not so blameworthy.

This is true. Even more troublesome from my perspective is that in western society we often conflate compassion with empathy when they are very different things and one can often impede the other.

My personal experience is that I have a 'deep awareness of the suffering of others and the wish to relieve it', most of the time. IMO, after a deep understanding of Buddhism this mindset can become a common, everyday thing. But the quandary is that others don't share this experience.
At some point we hit on the problem that, while we want to relieve others suffering, others typically don't care about our suffering.

True central insight into Buddhist thought are the three marks of existence, namely: all conditioned things are ever-changing/transitory (anicca), all conditioned things produce suffering/dissatisfaction (dukkha) and all things have an impersonal nature (anatta).
So firstly, when someone truly grasps Buddhist ideas, they understand that suffering (dukkha) is the same for everyone, hence the term com-passion, or pain is common. Even more so, that all pain has a common origin (dukkha samudaya), which is craving. So the limit would be the complete annihilation of suffering (dukkha nirodha).
Secondly, the concept of an ego is to be seen as an illusory convention in order to escape it, so there are no interconnected entities, but only transient phenomena. Abandoning the cravings of one's so called ego in order to fulfill the cravings of another ego is deceitful compassion. That effort would be praise worthy only if while striving inwardly, one also encourages others outwardly too to progress on the path that methodically leads to the complete annihilation of suffering (dukkha nirodha gamini patipada).
Without the desire for reciprocity, that is the only true help that a person can give another.


text:
How was it possible for some people to refute the Buddha face to face?
Bearing in mind that ignorance is in opposition to knowledge and the starting point for all the suffering, it seems still unbelievable that there were people contemporary to the Buddha that contradicted and refused his teaching. Considering that he was the culmination of human intellect and the embodiment of pure knowledge, how is it possible to be in such stubborn opposition with the truth?

Basically, because of the ten fetters (samyojana) that bind one to the cycle of neverending becoming (Samsara). And since ignorant people defend and strengthen those fetters instead of weakening and breaking them.
1. sakkāya-diṭṭhi - individualistic or subjective views
2. vicikicchā - skeptical doubt
3. sīlabbata-parāmāsa - valuing false systems of morality
4. kāmacchando - desire for sense pleasures
5. byāpādo - malevolence
6. rūparāgo - craving for matter or form
7. arūparāgo - craving for something immaterial or formless
8. māna - pride or conceit
9. uddhacca - restlessness
10. avijjā - ignorance
The breaking of the first 3 fetters equates to a stream-enterer (Sotāpanna). By weakening the 4th and the 5th one is a once-returner (Sakadāgāmin) after which by breaking them one is a non-returner (Anāgāmi). And after discarding the next 5 fetters one becomes a fully enlightened being (Arahant).

thank you for the answer and the thorough explanation. it all makes sense now. the saying comes to mind: "you can not liberate those who falsely believe they are free"

It could have happened because those people did not believe that enlightenment is possible or because they had a false impression about what is meant by enlightenment. In both of these cases, they would have considered the teaching of the Buddha yet another set of opinions, unaware of what true knowledge really is.

There's also this: Gautama said there is this thing called complete enlightenment and once you attain it, you're all good.  However to attain it you have to apply rigorous skillful means that are best applied under the tutelage of a master.  Said master will probably require you to work, earn money for your upkeep, etc.  In short, it's not too much different from certain modern-day preachers who might set up camps where people are made to study a holy book or two all day and work and give ALL they earn to the "community", collected by the preacher.  See the issue?  The world it seems has always had people in it who claim to have THE WAY and if you follow them and/or their delegates, you will gain some kind of reward that is very hard to attain and it also pretty hard to demonstrate as actually existing.  Point to "enlightenment".  Point to "nirvana".  See what I mean?  So that there were skeptics back in the day of the Tathāgata should come as no surprise, just as there are plenty of skeptics today who challenge preachers who claim to have THE solution to all Man's problems, for a price of course.
Now I know there's no record of Buddha saying for a price, he'll teach you how to meditate and become enlightened, if you work hard enough.  But there are records indeed of members of his following, especially post-his-demise, suggesting that for a price AND the right effort, nirvana awaits.  Even if Buddha were utterly pure of heart and intention in his teachings, these other types of people living in that age perhaps preaching something different, though preaching nonetheless, could have sullied the waters and made fertile ground for skeptics to be skeptical.
A few bad apples ruin the barrel.

thank you for the answer, matt. although it deviates from the question at hand, it does make a valid point about being cautious when it comes to presumably enlightened masters. that would be an interesting topic to discuss separately. although a skeptic is also understood as someone who denies the possibility of knowledge. what i originally regarded as questionable was why would someone neglect the teachings of a truly enlightened person that would have none of the reproachable characteristics that you described.


text:
If hypothetically we lived in a time when a Buddha were to arise, how could we acknowledge him as being perfectly enlightened?
Assuming that in a hypothetical multitude of so-called "enlightened masters", a future Buddha would actually arise and we were alive at that time, how would we be able to recognize him? The question could also be valid for acknowledging an Arahant or any enlightened person not necessarily a Samma Sambuddha, but would be much more interesting to answer it in the context of just before a new Sangha is formed, assuming a person declared that the Dhamma has been discovered again.

the teaching of a perfectly enlightened being would be always in line with the three marks of existence, the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. in other words, an arahant or a buddha would be completely and permanently objective and selfless and with no other interest than what is conducive to suffering (dukkha), what is the common cause of all suffering (dukkha samudaya), what is the absence of suffering (dukkha nirodha) and what is the method for attaining the absence of suffering (dukkha nirodha gamini patipada).

thank you for the comment, it makes sense to use the essence of the Dhamma as a filter, since it is timeless. and especially when compared to other teachings where personal and relative views are encouraged, while the correct doctrine should be completely objective and absolutely selfless in both its expression and its pursuit, agreed.

the word 'ehipassiko' does not mean 'timeless'. in respect to time, the word means 'without delay' or 'immediately effective'.

no one seems to have mentioned it, but since you bring it up, actually, ehipassiko means "come and see", from the verb passati. it is the quality of Buddha Dhamma that invites to scrutiny, investigation and direct experience.

The Dhamma cannot be discovered by a new Buddha again while the Pali Suttas remain existing in the world & known to humanity. The Suttas (MN 115) say there can only be one Buddha in a world system. A new Buddha can only arise when the Dhamma has been undiscovered or has been lost. The Suttas say:

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles... A Realized One understands this and comprehends
it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies,
analyzes and reveals it...
AN 3.136 & SN 12.20

Since most Buddhists, let alone most people, have not understood the Pali Suttas over the last 2,600 years; it is unlikely if a future Buddha were to arise, most people would acknowledge him as perfectly enlightened. Instead, most Buddhists & most people would regard fakes as perfectly enlightened. This appears why most Buddhist take refuge in all of the myriad gurus, commentators & scholars.

thank you for the attempt at answering, but it is contradictory and imprecise. firstly, can the Dhamma be lost or does it persist? your statement is contradicted by your quote. secondly, the last Buddha rejected the scriptures of his time, so their existence is not relevant. and lastly, the Pali Canon is believed to have been compiled some 500 years after the passing away of Buddha. the purpose of the question was to provide an explanation for how could an enlightened being be identified as such, even an Arahant if not a Buddha.

Of course the Dhamma can be unknown or lost to humanity, which is why the quote says
a Realized One reveals it...

the title has been modified for more precision with regard to the purpose of the question

it is still unclear why one would mention the existence of scriptures as an argument in this regard. didn't the Buddha reject the Vedas? and in this regard, was he not seen as an outlaw by the scholars of the time ?

the Vedas are not the Pali Suttas. Your comments here appear to support my answer, that now, today, there are people who cannot identify what Buddhism really is; therefore they won't know a Buddha when a Buddha arises.

Your comments here appear to support my answer, that now, today, there are people who cannot identify what Buddhism really is; therefore they won't know a Buddha when a Buddha arises. Thankfully we have Classical Theravada to remind us that Buddhism is (by definition) the Pali canon—because that is the way the people who wrote the Pali canon defined Buddhism.


text:
What is it that pass from this life to the next?
A friend wanted to know the Buddhist position on rebirth/reincarnation since we don’t believe in a permanent soul. Specifically, what is it that pass from this life to the next? “Karma” was my reply then. There was a look of disappointment; the answer was obviously unsatisfying.
I have seen this question asked in this forum in some form or another; here (1), here (2), here (3), here (4), here (5), here (6) and there (7).
Looking at the number of times this topic appears, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Instead, how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul). Note that the target audience do not have a deep understanding in Buddhist concepts e.g. the 5 clinging aggregates. Hopefully, the next time another non-Buddhist friend ask a similar question, I won't turn them off but to entice them to investigate further.
(Interestingly, looking at the tag info on rebirth in this forum, it says: “The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream”, I wonder who wrote this.)

I think the issue about this question is as you are stating in OP. If the target audience has no actual understanding of the Buddhas teaching, the real answer (karma) will elude them. So for convenient conventional sense you can simply say "you will be reincarnated" but of course as a different person.
This is not too hard for others to accept when you give them basic information, like explaining that they do not remember being born, yet were born, which gives credence to not remembering past lives, and this life being a future life relative to the past. You would be better to flash it up for them in explanation, not basic as I am writing, as I am writing for people who already know the actual answer.
Remember there is no harm in just helping people basically, letting them know death is not the end, or that they will go to heaven if they do good and avoid harm. Even if they have no actual interest in Buddhism or Buddhas teaching, giving them solace and peace is still helpful to them.
The real answer though, well to actually understand it, one needs to know many other things and concepts from Buddhas teachings. The entire path and Buddhas teachings is like an intellectual jigsaw puzzle encompassing many concepts that when thoroughly understood, allows us to actually mentally comprehend how existence functions.
So the actual real answer is that we will not actually be reincarnated at all, when death takes us we will cease to function as all dependently related phenomena is impermanent and subject to consistent change and decay. As well as there was never a person there to begin with, but just an ignorant delusion that comprises many factors, like thoughts, memories, desires and amalgamates these things into a conclusion that there is a thing, an I, a ME that is "here". What will continue to function is a proclivity to cling to a sense of self, and because of this proclivity of clinging to a sense of self, that will arise again, the other proclivities a persons character has been used to, in turn will also arise again.
This simple paragraph I think basically encompasses anatta, dependant origination, karma, sila, impermanence, the root delusion, clinging (two of the three poisons) the aggregates, sunyata. Which are all fundamental basics of the Buddhist understanding of how existence functions.

Information in the matrix?

Cause and effects. Karma.

Yes, I was unrealistic. Thanks, I will mark this as the answer.

Seems to me that is simply coming from your own mind. The simple fact is anatta, one of the three marks of existence, non self is the "true" reality of how things function. Ignorance (of thinking and clinging to there being a self) is why we are bound into the cycle of samsara, with karma of this ignorance being what keeps the thread of continuity from life to life. This simply IS the fundamental understanding of the Buddhas teachings of the subject of reincarnation.

I would answer that it is the exact same thing - no more, no less - that passes from moment to moment in this very life and let them ponder what that is or is not. This would lead to further questions and ideas about what it is that passes from moment to moment. It isn’t a soul, but it is not nothing at all either. The same is true for what passes from life to life.
This answer will probably be disappointing for some and seen as evasive by others, but it gets at a deep and important point. What’s more, it turns the questioner to pondering anatta in this very life and what it means.
This answer does not give an affirmative to what it is that passes, but it rejects the two extremes and encourages the questioner to find the middle way.
PS: To illustrate the two extremes: supposing that there is something substantial and inherent that passes from moment in this very life is eternalism. Supposing that same substantial thing then disintegrates at the moment of death is nihilism. Supposing that there is nothing whatsoever that passes from moment to moment in this very life is nihilism and it contradicts conventional existence. Supposing that there is nothing whatsoever that passes from life to life is also nihilism and betrays that you believe that what passes from moment to moment in this very life is substantial that is then annihilated at death. The truth is found in the middle, but it is very hard to see.

Yes, I agree this would work but the pre-requisite is that the listener has a level of sensitivity and awareness that I suspect non-Buddhists usually don’t possess. But I am up-voting this answer. It would be good if you can elaborate on what exactly is being observed or attended to that passes from moment to moment. And how can they see anicca and anatta in the process? I know you already stated it is hard to see but this will be for the benefits of all. Thank you, with Metta.

It is simply the mere person that passes from moment to moment and from life to life. What is satisfying about this answer is that it does not disagree with conventional existence. What some will find dissatisfying is exactly the point of Buddhism: our preconceived notions of what the person is and is not, is wrong. We have this very powerful habit of injecting the two extremes into our assumptions of what the person is. We need to break this habit by examining what we think the person is and how the person exists. Using moment-to-moment == life-to-life can be a guide.

I really like this answer, very skillful way to reframe the conversation from myth to the science of dharma. However as before, I'm not a fan of the "conventional person" narrative YT added in the comment above.

@AndriyVolkov in the hopes I can learn something, can you say how you find the “conventional person” narrative unskillful? Should I ask this as a question?

IMO, to say the conventional person passes from life to life has the same problem as with the notion of soul, 1) for someone accepting it literally it encourages reification, 2) for someone stuck in the primitive scientific materialism, it welcomes quick and mindless dismissal.

I can see that with the audiences you are describing how it would indeed be unskillful. For others, like the crowds convened when the Buddha employed this narrative, it would be skillful. Alas, on the open internet I can only guess the statistical median of the likely minds to read it and hope for  best and try and check my own motivation. Care should be taken though and thanks for the aside to  remind me.

how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition

I would say, it is information that is reborn, and the "medium" that carries the information after the break-up of the body is the world itself. The imprints of previous existences are implicitly "stored" or "encoded" in the matrix of people, things, and activities. So there's some not-insignificant blending of information going on, as well as loss, so it's not like the same person reincarnates as-is - and yet there's enough continuity that eg Russians remain Russians and Indians remain Indians generation after generation, carrying their good and bad karma along.
As per the Questions of King Milinda:

--“Can there be any rebirth where there is no transmigration?”
--“Yes there can, just as a man can light one oil-lamp
from another but nothing moves from one lamp to the
other; or as a pupil can learn a verse by heart from a teacher
but the verse does not transmigrate from teacher to pupil.”

...

The king said: ‘He who is born, Nāgasena, does he remain the same or become another?’
[Nagasena:] ‘Neither the same nor another.’
[King:] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you who are now grown up?’
[K] ‘No. That child was one, I am another.’
[N] ‘If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth ? Is the mother of the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands or feet cut off ?’
[K] ‘Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ’
The Elder replied: ‘Neither I am what is now the grown up, nor was I what was the tender tiny baby, flat on its back. But all these are tied in one by means of this body.’
[K] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp, would it burn the night through?’
[K] ‘Yes, it might do so.’
[N] ‘Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night, and in the second?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Or the same that burns in the second watch and in the third?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Then is there one lamp in the first watch, and another in the second, and another in the third?’
[K] ‘No Sir. But thanks to that lamp the light shined all the night through.’
[Nagasena:] ‘Just so, O king, does the continuity of dharmas connect. One emerges, another dissolves, connecting as it were without [a clear boundary between] the previous and the next, thus the former-consciousness and the next-consciousness cannot be categorized as either the same nor as different.’

...

What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
“Namarupa.”
“Is it this very namarupa that is reborn?”
“No, it is not, but by this namarupa deeds are
done and because of those deeds another namarupa
is reborn; but that namarupa is not thereby released
from the results of its previous deeds.

Perhaps, I will try this information explanation if nothing else work but I really hesitate to introduce new concepts when I am already struggling to explain the existing ones to non-believers in an amicable and easy to understand approach.

The simile of a candle (lamp in this case) is often used in Buddhist traditions to simply explain the concept of what carries over from one live to the next. The flame obviously being the representation of karma. I have seen this simile multiple times in different traditions teachings, all in different wording.

This is a great answer. Note: the answer to King Milinda shows equating moment-to-moment with life-to-life. Just so.

There is a two-fold answer to what is it that reincarnates. It is a two-fold answer because the answer is given via two-truths theory. Conventional truth and ultimate truth. (Here we are given that this is about Buddhism.)
Conventionally speaking, Buddhism does not accept soul as a thing which exists. But it accepts the psychological self. It is this person that practices dharma and achieves enlightenment. It also accepts that there are mental moments, and therefore a mental stream. It is this mental stream which arises in different bodies, depending on its karma. Cittamatra school labelled this as alaya-vijnana. It has often been translated as store-house consciousness (but please be cautious about the translation).
From the stand point of ultimate analysis, there is no self, there is no dhamma, there is no Buddha, there is no alaya-vijnana, there is no this, there is no that......therefore there is no thing to be reincarnated. In fact, from the standpoint of ultimate analysis, there is no reincarnation.
What your friend asked, and a lot of people ask, is (amongst other things) a confusion. There are things which exist conventionally like table, chairs,laptop, laws of nature, beings. And then there are things which do not exist even conventionally like unicorns, horned-rabbits, souls, etc. Reincanation process, which is taken to be valid conventionally, is explainable by things that are also held to be existing conventionally. It does not require a fictional thing like a soul.

I have some experience with this conventional and ultimate truth but I really would want to avoid this approach with a non-Buddhist. I think it may confuses them more.

@DesmonicaSin Two-truths is the teaching of the Buddha. It doesnt confuse, it makes things clearer. Thats why Buddha taught Two-truths. But I empathize with your pedagogic comment.

I will upvote this answer as I did for @Yeshe Tenley answer for consistency. I still think it's tough to use this approach with non-Buddhists because you need to introduce additional concepts. I apologize for saying this, thus far write-ups on this approach are really not very easy to digest.

how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul).

If you develop samādhi (undistractible lucidity perfected with meditative training) to a high level, you can witness for yourself what happens to a soul at the moment of physical death.
If you don't (develop samādhi), then all you have is just hearsay, beliefs, and views.
Yogis with developed samādhi from all religions, Hinduism, Taoism, Essenes, christian mystics, etc., all witness rebirth of the "soul" as a real observable phenomena.
The difference with the Buddha, was he found that the "soul" is conditioned, impermanent.
With the proper understandig and training, one can bring an end to the infinite cycles of rebirth and understand what a "soul" really is.
Answers to comments:
@Desmonica Sin, see anatta lakhana sutta for example. The 'atta' (self), or mama (mine making) are two of the terms the Buddha uses to describe the process of identifying with our mind/body complex, and that's the intersection of where other religions refer to 'soul' lucid24.org/sn/sn22/sn22-v01/index.html#s59

This answer sounds like Hinduism. – Dhamma Dhatu

@ Dhamma Dhatu - See the OP - they asked how would you answer someone from another religion, not what technical Buddhist terms you would use that they wouldn't understand anyway.

As I am not familiar with other religions, I will just focus on your last paragraph. Do you have any references on the Buddha discovering the “soul” and finding it to be conditioned and impermanent?

This answer sounds like Hinduism.

@Desmonica Sin, see anatta lakhana sutta for example.  The 'atta' (self), or mama (mine making) are two the terms the Buddha uses to describe the process of identifying with our mind/body complex, and that's the intersection of where other religions refer to 'soul' https://lucid24.org/sn/sn22/sn22-v01/index.html#s59

I see, the soul equals the self or atta, thanks.

Edited the answer to remove some inflammatory language.

How would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition

Notions of 'rebirth' are not considered related to enlightenment in the older scriptures. Also notions of 'rebirth' cannot lead to peace (pacification). The scriptures say notions similar to 'rebirth' have effluents (ignorant mental states), result in attachment/acquisition however can have the benefit of promoting merit/morality.

And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
MN 117

The scriptures clearly unambiguously say it is the same person, the same man or woman or the same being that is 'reborn' according to their kamma.

Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
MN 135

The famous Jataka Tales/Past Life Stories of the Buddha refer to the same person & people being reincarnated from life to life.
Suttas such as AN 3.15 report the Buddha saying about his past lives:

Now, monks, the thought may occur to you that the chariot maker on
that occasion was someone else, but it shouldn't be seen in that way.
I myself was the chariot maker on that occasion. I was skilled in
dealing with the crookedness, the faults, the flaws of wood. Now I am
a worthy one, rightly self-awakened, skilled in dealing with the
crookedness, faults, & flaws of bodily action; skilled in dealing with
the crookedness, faults, & flaws of verbal action; skilled in dealing
with the crookedness, faults & flaws of mental action.

Suttas such as MN 143 refer to the same (former householder earthling) person returning to earth from heaven as a god/angel to talk to the Buddha & The Venerable Sariputta.

"That is what the deva's son said. And [thinking], 'The Teacher has
approved of me,' he bowed down to me, circled me three times, and then
disappeared right there."
When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that
must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the
householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."
"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced
what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the
deva's son, and no one else."

The doctrine of 'anatta' ('not-self') is not related to the doctrine of 'kamma'. When the Buddha taught the doctrine of good & bad kamma to unenlightened people the Buddha never mentioned anatta (not-self).
In summary, the Buddha always taught "a being" or "person" is "reborn" (example SN 42.3). If oneself was not assumed to be "reborn", an individual would have no incentive to do good & make merit.
In conclusion, we should not consider Buddhism to be special or always enlightened and different to the other superstitious religions. Buddhism is saturated with superstition. Therefore, when we try to convince rational people of the superstitions we believe in, we should consider it "suchness" they are disappointed, unsatisfied, incredulous & even fall on the floor rolling in laughter. We should have equanimity rather than have the craving expecting we can convince others.

Thanks, on reflecting I agree with you that there is a desire to convince my friend. Not because of a superiority complex but because this soul and the associated belief that it comes from a divine source created so much problems. However, I don’t agree that Buddhism is superstitious, it can be verified through personal experience.

It is kind of foolish to try and save another person when you yourself are drowning (in the ocean of samsara) does not mean you cannot help others, but if they have not the inclination to inquire their own lot in life, and attempt to escape, there is very little you can do about it. Trying to convince them of the way rebirth and karma functions is quite superficial if they do not inquire themselves. Now of course if they specifically ask you to explain, then that is what you should do in the best of your ability, but also direct them to inquire the Buddhas teaching themselves.

@Dhamma the same person as in "I am the owner of my karma, the heir to my karma", that is clear. I guess I was more concerned that my friend would assume that there is a sameness somewhere or some things or qualities will never changed as guaranteed by the concept of an eternal soul....there isn't.

@Remyla If you are swimming towards the shore, it doesn't hurt to point out where there is safety to those who are still bewildered and drifting in the sea of samsara. Of course, there is only so much we can do, the rest is up to them. But never underestimate others, some of them maybe better swimmers than us. Once, they know where the shore is, they may reach it earlier than us even though they started from behind.


text:
Balancing, renewing or gaining Faith
So I was reading about jhana and nimitta in a book by Pa-Auk tawya sayadaw here page 41 if anyone wants to read. Where I come across this:

To balance faith with wisdom, and concentration with effort, is
praised by the wise. If, for instance, faith is strong and wisdom is
weak, a person will develop faith in, and respect for objects without
use and essence. For instance, he will develop faith in, and reverence
for objects revered and respected by religions outside orthodox
Buddhism, such as guardian spir- its or protective deities. If, on the
other hand, wisdom is strong and faith is weak, a person can become
quite crafty. Without meditating, he will spend his time simply
passing judgements. This is as difficult to cure as to cure a diseas
caused by an overdose of medicine. If faith and wisdom are balanced,
however, a person will have faith in objects he should have faith in:
the Triple Gem, kamma, and its effects. He will believe that if he
meditates in accordance with The Buddha's in- structions, he will be
able to attain the pañibhàga-nimitta, and jhàna

Now I do experience with the latter, too much wisdom, not enough faith.
I did and must have had some faith at the beginning of my study into Buddhism, though at that time I still had faith (believed) in god (creation/christian god) but now I "know" things that I no longer have faith in, because I know and understand them I have conformation rather than faith. Even kind of complicated concepts like "faith in" karma, I no longer have faith in because I understand and can see first hand karma manifest through cause and effect.
Even the Buddhas enlightenment I have "seen" so to speak as I have seen the fruits of the path so my faith in these things have waned or dissipated.
There has not been any sort of scepticism about the actual Buddhas teachings for a long time, I at least intellectually understand even the most complex concepts.
I remember hearing a sutta about Buddha asking a student if they have faith in the Buddha and the student replied "no I do no longer have faith in the Buddha", to which the other members of the sangha were shocked, but the meaning of the sutta was that this person had gone beyond faith and understood the dhamma so no longer had any faith in what the Buddha taught, as he had seen himself. I cannot remember if this is a mahayana or theravada sutta, and I think the student was an arhant, meaning after arthantship one no longer has faith. Still the question is before arthantship, as I myself am not an arthant.
So the questions are: how do we then gain or renew faith in order to balance wisdom? Is there a point where faith is no longer able to manifest in ones mind before arhantship so there is no way to balance wisdom with faith? and if so, how would we [then] actually be able to balance wisdom without faith?

You have confidence in God now?

Not at all, I now know it lacks an inherent existence, even from a more basic non Buddhist philosophical PoV, God would not exist [to me] if I ceased to exist which means god is dependant upon my perception to exist. Using me as a microcosm of us all, the logic still keeps. It is a mental concept that is dependently related upon our perception for it to exist and function. No different from the pantheonic deities in some Buddhist traditions, they are mental fabrications. Though when I first started seeking answers to the important questions I originated in an innate belief in a creation God.

Originated as in came from a religious perspective and understanding that was based upon the Christian God, ethics, morality etc.

So the questions are, how do we then gain or renew faith in order to balance wisdom? ....and if so, how would we actually balance wisdom without faith?

Re-gaining faith in the noble eightfold path, I think, is a good balance against wisdom. It is the belief or faith that there is still much work to be done on the practice in the noble eightfold path, balanced with existing wisdom and knowledge.
I suspect one danger of wisdom or knowledge is that we become complacent and don’t want to push ourselves harder. The faith that there is more which the Buddha taught (of the noble eightfold path), that we have yet accomplished or completed, will then push us more diligently in the practice. As we practise more, new penetrative insights (wisdom) that weren't there before suddenly appears. This results in more wisdom with its accompanying peace albeit transient. And the entire process continues till the moment of full liberation with its lasting peace.

Is there a point where faith is no longer able to manifest in ones mind before arhantship so there is no way as to balance wisdom with faith?

No, both faith and wisdom are needed till final liberation. Wisdom to discern what is still lacking. Faith that it can be overcome just as the Buddha had taught and the noble ones had achieved. As mentioned in Anguttara Nikaya (Tika-Nipata No. 128) below.

"Well, Anuruddha, as to your statement about seeing the thousandfold world-system, that is just your conceit. As to your statement about being strenuous and unshaken and so forth, that is just arrogance. As to your statement about your heart not being released from the āsavas, that is just worrying. It would indeed be well for the venerable Anuruddha if he were to abandon these three conditions, if he were not to think about them, but were to focus his mind on the deathless element."

Lastly, from what I understand, this balancing of wisdom and faith will be relinquished upon full liberation.

Don't read that word as faith.  Read is as trust.  I think that will ultimately prove more helpful in your practice.  For Westerners, the word "faith" is loaded with Judeo-Christian connotations.  We have "faith" in Jesus, dying and rising again.  We have "faith" that the universe is ruled by a benevolent, personal God.  We profess our faith.  We are saved by faith.  And so on and so forth.
In the religious Buddhism, you can certainly have the same sort of faith.  Many people do.  Some are even liberated by it to a degree.  Practically speaking, however, this sort of faith will only get you so far.  After all, no deva or Bodhisattva can ultimately save you.  You have to do that for yourself.  Instead of having faith, have trust.  Trust that the dharma leads to liberation.  Trust that you are practicing meditation properly.  Trust that when challenges arise, you can meet them.  Trust - like falling into a trust fall - that the sangha and all the Bodhisattvas will support you on your way.
Trust means pushing on along the road when you don't know where it will ultimately lead.  It requires a suspension of judgement both about the path and the person walking it.  It takes an act of ultimate trust to keep moving forward no matter what happens.  Like a man in a tree, holding onto a branch with his teeth, trust is speaking a true word knowing that doing so means falling to your death.  Speak anyway and see what happens.  I hope all this is making sense.

To live in this faith is the road to nonduality,  because the nondual
is one with the trusting mind.

From "Verses on the Faith Mind"

I always saw the translation of faith in Buddhism as "conviction" as in we are convicted that the Buddha was an enlightened being and nibbana is possible but you have not seen it for ourselves. Still after seeing the goal, faith in that regard has gone. Initially I was instructed to guide faith with equal amounts of doubt as like the OP passage, too much faith in what others say without sceptical doubt will lead us to believe anything another said without enquiring ourselves, which in turn can lead people to believe in nonsense like protector deities. This is essentially what Buddha........

Instructed himself with the kalama sutta. For us to actually inquire and see for ourselves.

I think a better approach to faith is understanding it like a diver who leaps into dark water not knowing how deep it is.  Or committing to a relationship in spite of your doubts.

That is faith in the conventional term, hope, belief etc. In Buddhism, the translation of faith is not correct because the definition of the English word faith is different to the mind state of what this phenomena means. In a similar vain dukkha is translated as suffering, but the word suffering alone does not adequately translate what the work dukha means, as there is no word in the English language for dukkha. So a more fitting English word would be conviction.

The Meaning of the mind state "faith", it is a positive, hopeful and encouraging mind state, which if one has conviction in a concept, where once you have it it encourages you to go forward in the path. The English word faith is more that it is a wishing mindstate, a form of ignorance that makes you believe in something, say Jesus was an incarnation of god for example, and with that faith you will be ignorant to knowledge that counteracts your beliefs. Faith can be broken though. Conviction cannot, because it is experiential wisdom.

Conviction seems to imply that you have no doubt.  Doubt, moreso than even trust, is far more important.  If you aren’t totally lost, you aren’t really practicing.  Trust is the embracing and navigation of that doubt.  The less certain you are, the better your practice will be.

I think it is not wisdom, but rather knowledge that is to be balanced with faith.

“Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma—discourses,
stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories,
marvels, and answers to questions—but having learned the Dhamma, they
do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not
examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain
a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma only
for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and
they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the
Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to
their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the
wrong grasp of those teachings.
“Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search
of a snake, saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tail. It
would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his
limbs, and because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering.
Why is that? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. So too, here
some misguided men learn the Dhamma…Why is that? Because of the wrong
grasp of those teachings.
“Here, bhikkhus, some clansmen learn the Dhamma—discourses…answers to
questions—and having learned the Dhamma, they examine the meaning of
those teachings with wisdom. Examining the meaning of those teachings
with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them. They do not
learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticising others and for winning in
debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they
learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being rightly grasped by them,
conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that?
Because of the right grasp of those teachings.
“Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search
of a snake, saw a large snake and caught it rightly with a cleft
stick, and having done so, grasped it rightly by the neck. Then
although the snake might wrap its coils round his hand or his arm or
his limbs, still he would not come to death or deadly suffering
because of that. Why is that? Because of his right grasp of the snake.
So too, here some clansmen learn the Dhamma… Why is that? Because of
the right grasp of those teachings.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, when you understand the meaning of my
statements, remember it accordingly; and when you do not understand
the meaning of my statements, then ask either me about it or those
bhikkhus who are wise.
MN 22

Thinking how to "gain or renew faith" makes it hard to let go of stuff. It makes it hard to let go when we want more of something. We can't drown our suffering by heaping on more faith and wisdom.
But we can let go of suffering. And in letting go of suffering, faith brightens on its own.

MN68:5.5: Rather, didn’t you go forth thinking: ‘I’m swamped by rebirth, old age, and death; by sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. I’m swamped by suffering, mired in suffering.
MN68:5.6: Hopefully I can find an end to this entire mass of suffering’?”

What will happen to your wisdom and faith when you die? Will it be reborn looking for more?

MN68:7.8: ‘The Realized One has given up the defilements that are corrupting, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death.

The spiritual life is not a solitary pursuit of gaining faith and wisdom. Instead, the spiritual life relies on our connection with others.

SN45.3:2.2: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Good friends, companions and associates show us how to open our heart. They teach us how to release our heat without limit. Instead of worrying gaining faith and wisdom, ask about the openness of your heart.

SN46.54:11.2: ‘But reverends, how is the heart’s release by love developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and culmination?

This entire post was on a complete tangent and did not even take the OP question in mind and provide an answer.

"I’m swamped by rebirth" sounds like a mistranslation. "future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth" sounds like another mistranslation


text:
Are there any differences between living in a meditation centre vs a monastery?
With all due appreciation for all positive interventions and with apologies for a seemingly dilettantish question, does anyone have any insight on the differences as well as on the commonalities of living long-term inside a meditation center compared to a monastery?

"Traditionally they didn’t have such things as meditation retreats. You went to monasteries. And in monasteries, there was time to meditate, but there were also other duties in the course of the day. There was work to be done. You had to interact with the other people in the monastery to at least some extent. And in the course of that work and those interactions, you learned a lot about the Dhamma: the Dhamma of generosity, the Dhamma of virtue, the Dhamma of patience, equanimity, goodwill—all these other virtues that are an essential part of training the mind.

The idea of creating meditation retreats came basically in the late 19th or early 20th century, the same time when the assembly line was invented, breaking jobs down into little tiny parts that you do repetitively. This approach to physical work was efficient and effective, so it became the model for a lot of meditation retreats and for the methods taught on those retreats. You take one method and you just apply it again and again and again. But a lot gets left out in that approach. It’s like exercising only one muscle in your body, so that the muscle gets strengthened all out of proportion to the rest of your body. And that can’t be healthy.

It’s better to think of meditation as a training for the whole mind, as exercise for the whole mind. You have to train the whole mind in all the virtues of maturity and heedfulness. In other words, you need to develop the ability to anticipate dangers, particularly dangers in your own behavior, and to figure out what you can do to prevent them."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Working at Home" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Meditations5/Section0017.html

This question is very general because there is obviously no uniform characteristics of a meditation centre. My general impression is:

Living in a meditation centre would generally involve living with uptight overly serious laypeople and having to rigidly conform with the meditation schedule. The place would probably be pedantic about what foods to eat & possibly have communist fantasies. If you have work duties, you probably have to deal with meditation newbies having nervous breakdowns & other forms of worldly neurosis. If you want to avoid work duties & just meditate, a meditation centre is good for intensive meditation however it will generally cost you money.

Living in a monastery means you join in activities with the monks and experience the interactions between monks & laypeople, including offerings of food & ceremonies. One will come to understand Buddhist culture better. While having to join in work, chanting & ceremonial routines, you will probably have more free time for personal activities & meditation. Living in a monastery will generally not cost you money. In a monastery, there are no arguments and no social management crisis responsibilities for the layperson.

My experience with the first point is near spot on, except maybe the communist fantasies.

Simple answer is that a monastery is a centre for people who have gone forth into a mendicant life of homelessness, who then live in a community of like minded people (ordained sangha) For what I would assume is communal benefit.
A meditation centre is essentially the same, but either is including, specifically only, or also revolves around laity.
Personally I have lived in a meditation centre in a specific tradition as a lay person, where the day to day life and communal living was focused upon Buddhist ideals, rather than the normal idle society ideals.


text:
What is the Tibetan prayer recited by the Dali Lama at the beginning of his 1989 Nobel Prize acceptance speech?
At 2:48 in this video of the acceptance speech, a Tibetan prayer is recited. What is its translation into English?
I think it's something like "Gautama, the true Buddha... free from all precept". I once saw a translation in a YouTube comment but have lost it.

I think the prayer translates in English as follows:

“I bow to him, Gautama, who, by means of compassion, taught the true
dharma for the purpose of abandoning all views” (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
27.30).


text:
Converting knowledge into wisdom
This question arises from a recent post. There is a related question on the difference between knowledge and wisdom but this is more on how wisdom (insights) can arise from knowledge.
The definition of wisdom is given as an ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight. Therefore, learning and gaining knowledge of the Dharma without insights would not constitute wisdom by this definition. How do you gain insights so that knowledge of the Dharma becomes wisdom? What are the signs of wisdom? Sharing from the sutras or personal experience/insights are welcome.

For a definition of knowledge, please take a look at this post, it is defined as "Knowledge is conceptual, it is information, opinions and views read from books or spoken by others".

There's a quote by Michelangelo that applies here: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." The sculptor needs skills — techniques of tool-use, an understanding of the stone, and how it might flake or crack — but the sculptor also needs to see the sculpture as it is emerging from the stone. The first is akin to knowledge, the second to wisdom.
The dharma is a set of lessons, tools, and practices that help you to understand — to know — the conditions you're working within. But the dharma is phrased as negational (which often leads people to accuse it of being nihilistic): the dharma lays out the conditions so that we can reach for the cessation of those conditions. In this sense it's like sculpting ourselves. We chip away at what the dharma tells us doesn't belong — the illusions and cravings and discontentments and such — to see what emerges. Seeing that entails insight and wisdom.
A lot of practitioners seem to get caught up in the dharma, focusing on the words and practices to the exclusion of everything else. That becomes an empty struggle, like a stone-worker trying to force a stone into a standardized shape, or merely chipping away at the block until nothing is left at all. The key is to reach for what will be left when the carving is done.

This is a unique insight, thanks. Meaning as long as the conditions exist e.g. dukkha exists, then there's work to be done.... chipping away greed, hatred and delusion.

Given the importance of spiritual friends...

SN3.18:4.3: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

...one might well infer that wisdom grows from knowledge as we apply that knowledge in the context of our spiritual friendships, learning as we go.
Furthermore, upon experiencing that very growth of wisdom, one might then also come to understand the wisdom contained in the all-inclusive phrase, "...the "whole of the spiritual life".

But how does one recognize good friends, associates and companions?

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_3.html

@blue_ego thanks.


text:
what is memesis from a buddhist perspective?
What is the Buddhist view regarding mimesis?  Mimesis is imitation of nature. How might a Buddhist explain it?

At first glance, mimesis seems to be a stylizing of reality in which
the ordinary features of our world are brought into focus by a certain
exaggeration, the relationship of the imitation to the object it
imitates being something like the relationship of dancing to walking.
Imitation always involves selecting something from the continuum of
experience, thus giving boundaries to what really has no beginning or
end.

The wiki page also says "presentation of the self", so maybe it refers to formality in public.  Perhaps it has many meanings.  The feeling of catharsis comes about as a result.  This seems more like fiction (drama), although the philosopher is quoted "drama is imitation of action". Regardless, I am primarily trying to understand the role of mimesis in regular life. Is it just faking and self-deception?

Combined with the second question (i.e. that "we have nothing to imitate"), the first question (i.e. the theory that "we are performing mimesis") sounds to me like "not even wrong". It seems to be assuming that "mimesis" is a correct description of something and then wondering what it's a correct description of. That's on-topic when it's asking about Buddhist vocabulary (e.g. "assuming that dukkha exists, then what is it a description of?") but I'm not sure this question is answerable.

I'm not sure I understand the question but an answer might be Kalyāṇa-mittatā -- I think the doctrine says it's good or necessary to have an admirable friend, and my guess is that's partly or perhaps largely "as a role model" or "someone to imitate" or to learn from.
See also the paragraph about "conceit" in the Bhikkhuni Sutta (AN 4.159):

The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?'

I suppose that's considered "conceit" because it's a form of comparison ("if he can attain such by doing that, then so can I by learning that practice too").
Like if you wanted to learn mathematics, don't just study the subject (mathematics): study the teachers (mathematicians).

This notion of mimesis, or imitation, raises interesting questions. In Buddhism, we speak of the concept of anatman - the lack of inherent existence of a separate self. All things arise due to causes and conditions, with no independent essence. From this view, what is there to imitate?
Yet we act as though there are enduring entities engaging in imitation and presentation of self. These acts could be seen as a form of grasping, of ego-clinging. We try to construct a solid identity through imitation or contrast with others. But this sense of self is a mirage, merely a coming together of components.
In drama, we may feel catharsis when connecting to the emotions portrayed. But connection does not require imitation or false presentation. With meditation, we observe the workings of our mind and see the emptiness underlying all.
As for regular life, skillful means may require some level of etiquette and formality to function in society harmoniously. But mindfully conforming to customs need not equate to falsehood. We act with compassion, without clinging to self-importance.
So in short, from a Buddhist view, mimesis points to the empty, interdependent nature of self. Some imitation serves a purpose, but we must see through the illusion of a permanent, independent self engaging in imitation. There is no true division between imitator and reality imitated. All is a play of causes and conditions

During one meditation session I experienced the cessation of Duḥkha (stress).  I was very stressed out, and was lucky enough to find the mat.  Becoming somewhat secluded from the external world, I was better able to collect my thoughts.  On comparison, I perceived the cessation of stress.  It was a strong feeling and I took solace. But the feeling was waning and I wanted more.  I tried to delineate the cause, and recreate, unsuccessfully,  the scenario  that brought about the experience.  Then I was very sad and got off the mat.  To me, this is an example of mimesis - imitation of nature.
“The fact that feeling is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: That is the drawback of feeling."


text:
What terms are equivalent to 'meaning' in Sanskrit, or Buddhist thought?
What terms are equivalent to 'meaning' in Sanskrit, or Buddhist thought more generally?
Especially in terms of, how to live a meaningful life, and what is considered meaningful in Buddhist philosophy.
Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artha

A Pali word translated as "meaningful" is "sāttha" (sa + attha), which also literally means 'with/having purpose', 'with/having benefit', 'with/having advantage', 'with/having profit'.
This/these words can be found in many suttas, such as below:

And so, mendicants, this spiritual life is not lived for the sake of
possessions, honor, and popularity, or for accomplishment in ethics,
or for accomplishment in immersion, or for knowledge and vision.
Rather, the goal [purpose] (etadatthamidaṁ), heartwood, and final end of the
spiritual life is the unshakable freedom of heart.
MN 29

Furthermore, a mendicant is very learned, remembering and keeping what they’ve learned. These teachings are good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end, meaningful (sātthaṁ) and well-phrased, describing a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. They are very learned in such teachings, remembering them, reinforcing them by recitation, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically. This too is a quality that serves as protector.
AN 10.17

This venerable brings up a deep and meaningful saying (atthapadaṁ) that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
AN 4.192

Therefore, when we read the Teachings above, what is meaningful is:

ethics, concentration (immersion) & wisdom (knowledge & vision) leading to freedom of mind
qualities that serve as a protector
that which is peaceful & leads to peacefulness


text:
Buddhajayanti sinhala tripitaka for kindle
Is there buddhajayanti sinhala translation of tipitaka for Kindle device? Pdf format is not good with kindle. Is there any other format of buddhajayanti sinhala tipitaka for kindle. Please let me know..

This is not really the place to ask for a language translation of books (tipitika) Best to use other sources.

https://libgen.unblockit.rsvp/

@Remyla one of my first questions here asked about English translations.

https://tipitaka.org/sinh/

Unfortunately, I am not aware of a Sinhala translation of the Tripitaka that is available in a Kindle-friendly format. The Buddha Jayanti Tripitaka Series is a landmark translation of the Pali Tipitaka into Sinhala, but it was published in print format only as far as I know.
Some options you could consider:

Convert the PDF files to Kindle format using an online conversion tool or Calibre. The formatting may not be perfect, but it should be readable.

See if any individual suttas or books from the Buddha Jayanti series are available in Kindle format. Some may have been converted already.

Consider an English translation like the Pali Text Society editions. These are available legally for purchase in Kindle format. An English translation may be preferable for study purposes anyway.

Access the Buddha Jayanti books on a tablet or large smartphone. The PDFs should display well on those devices even if not optimized for Kindle.

I know the Buddha Jayanti books hold a special place for Sinhala Buddhists. Hopefully they will become more accessible digitally in the future to reach new generations of readers. But for now Kindle support seems limited unfortunately.

https://tipitaka.org/sinh/