text:
Is there a difference between Sanskrit during the time of the Buddha vs Sanskrit during the time of Nagarjuna?
I'm trying to understand if Sanksrit during 500 BCE to 1 CE is the same Sanskrit of 1 CE to 500 CE.

Do you have any relevance of this to Buddhism?

Yeah, as I mentioned, Buddha. That's related to Buddhism right?

Buddha did not speak in Sanskrit (see my answer), but Nagarjuna wrote in it, so the question could be relevant... Although truth be told on this site we prefer questions primarily about Buddha's teaching, not just about the language.

I'm not a Sanskrit SME, but here are some basic thoughts:
At Buddha's times the Northwest of the Indian subcontinent was populated mostly by ethnical Aryans (a proto-Iranian tribe of probable southern-Russian descent), and towards the East and the South they were gradually mixing more and more with the local Dravidian people. Consequently the language was closer to Aryan Prakrit in the Northwest and gradually mixed up with local dialects as you move to the East and the South.
The version of that continuum that got to be known as classic Sanskrit was formalized a few centuries after Buddha by a grammarian by the name of Panini.
Panini lived in a region called Gandhara, a place that was a bustling center of education and philosophy from before Buddha's times until after the times of king Ashoka. That's as far North-West in the ancient India as you can go. So the language Panini has standardized was a developed version of Aryan Prakrit.
In the centuries following Panini, this formalized version, now known as Sanskrit, became the gold standard and was used as lingua-franca by most of the educated people in India as far south as Maharashtra. This is more or less the language that Nagarjuna wrote in.
Buddha, on the other hand, lived before all this, in the north-central-to-eastern part of India, so in his region at his time the standard Sanskrit was virtually unknown. The spoken language was a folksy hybrid between the Aryan Prakrit and the local dialects. Today this ancient language is known by linguists as Magadhi, and a very similar language is what we know as Pali, brought to us by the Tipitaka memorizers.
As you can see from this, the comparison is not entirely meaningful. Nagarjuna wrote in a formalized language with strict grammar and rules, while at Buddha's times such language simply did not exist and what existed was a gradient Prakrit stretching from "more Aryan" in the northwest to "more native" in the east and south. The few people who spoke "more Aryan" version of Prakrit at Buddha's times were Brahmins who used it mostly for ceremonial purposes, and people who grew in pure Aryan families in the northwest.

Thanks. Would you say that Sanskrit by the time of Nagarjuna was more developed, academic, perfect to be used for academic discourses, philosophical contemplations, and conveying difficult concepts for centuries to come? Would you say it's the same case as today with, let's say English vs Hungarian or Pashtun? It would probably be best to use English to record information about the blockchain for example. Please share your thoughts.

No I wouldn't say classic Sanskrit was a much better media for philosophical discourses than Magadhi/Pali, as far as I know it wasn't that much more rich in terms of vocabulary or much more expressive in terms of grammar. It was a much more fitting lingua-franca for written polemics at the time, exactly due to it being more logical and formal, therefore easier to learn and share the texts in.

So from linguistics perspective, I cannot use the development of Sanskrit by the time of Nagarjuna as the reason for the development of much of emptiness philosophy, MMK, Prajnaparamita, Mahayana Sutras. Correct? I'm trying to rationalize our belief that the Mahayana thought (which is said to be more profound, a specifical teaching, for a different followers of the Buddha) came much later after the Buddhas parinirvana.

Correct, I don't think it was any significant development of the language that spurred development of the thought, not in that particular case.

I would venture to say it was development of rational thinking and logic in general in all areas of human society during ~500BCE-100CE that influenced both the material civilization and the sciences like philosophies, linguistics, medicine etc. The language in that area happened to be good enough already to support this development. Again, I'm not an expert, these are my own conjectures.

Yes, that's fine. I was dismayed that the language isn't a good enough rationale but you presented me with several other avenues to explore. (rational thinking, logic) Basically, I'm looking for reasons as to why the Mahayana thought seemingly proliferated at a very select period of time. (1-500 CE) And to provide a non-religious interpretation of the Mahayana claim that the texts were hidden in the Naga realm for the right time for it to be disseminated. (I'm a religious practitioner, just to make things clear.)

Alright, if you stay within that context (no Bitcoin stuff etc) then this question may be legit, let me reopen it.

I can try and answer the Mahayana development / Naga realm question if you want to post that as distinct question.

Thanks Andrei. I will do as you suggested. Thanks again.

Most of the info in this answer can be found on Wikipedia.
Gautama Buddha lived around 563 - 483 BCE according to most historians. Nagarjuna lived around 150 - 250 CE.
The separation of Proto-Indo-Iranian to Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Aryan is expected to have taken place around 1800 BCE.
Vedic Sanskrit (also known as Old Indo-Aryan) descended from Proto-Indo-Aryan. The Rig Veda is the oldest known composition in Vedic Sanskrit, and is dated between 1500 - 1000 BCE.
Next, we have the Prakrits, the descendents of Old Indo-Aryan. Prakrits are also known as Middle Indo-Aryan. The Prakrits emerged around 600 BCE. But it might have evolved gradually in the community.
The writings of the Ashokan edicts, the Pali suttas and vinaya, the Gandharan Buddhist texts and the oldest parts of the Jain scriptures, were all composed in early phase Prakrit dialects. The Buddha himself is expected to have spoken some kind of Magadhan Prakrit dialect.
Pali is considered to be a standardized hybrid of various real world early phase Prakrit dialects, that experienced a partial process of Sanskritization. It may not be the exact language that the Buddha spoke, but it is very close.
Apart from Pali, Gandhari, another ancient Buddhist canonical language, is also considered an early phase Prakrit.
Early phase Prakrits descended into middle phase Prakrits (from 200 BCE onwards), which became the ancestor to modern day Sinhala, Marathi, Hindi, Bengali, Bihari etc. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS) and Ardhamagadhi Prakrit (the language of the Jain scriptures) are considered middle phase Prakrits. BHS is something like a mix between Pali and Sanskrit.
Panini, an ancient Indian grammarian and philologist, lived around the same time as the Buddha, and standardized Sanskrit. His work defined Classical Sanskrit. Panini's masterpiece was called Aṣṭādhyāyī, and his work surpassed the work done by ancient Greek and Latin grammarians. Due to this, he is often considered the "father of linguistics". What we call "Sanskrit" today, usually refers to Panini's Classical Sanskrit.
In the time of the Buddha, Vedic Sanskrit was no longer understood by the common people and it was only used for religious and royal ceremonial purposes, in the same way Latin is used by the Roman Catholic Church today. The Buddha therefore forbade his monks from translating the suttas into Sanskrit, and preferred his teachings to be taught in the local dialects (i.e. early phase Prakrit). He wanted his teachings to be understood by the common people.
Much later, due to the emergence of Classical Sanskrit, mostly due to the work of Panini, Classical Sanskrit became the main language of literature and philosophy. At this point, it made sense to make use of Classical Sanskrit to write much newer Buddhist works.
Vedic Sanskrit is analogous to Old Latin. Prakrit is analogous to Vulgar Latin. Classical Sanskrit is analogous to Classical Latin.
Looking at various Buddhist scriptures, we can see that the Pali suttas and vinaya of the Theravada Buddhist school, which descended from the Sthaviravada and Vibhajjavada Buddhist schools, is composed in Pali, an early phase Prakrit.
The Mahayana Agamas, today preserved mainly in Chinese, contains mostly the same contents as the Pali suttas.
The oldest of the Theravadin Pali suttas and the Mahayana Agamas are attributed and dated to the Buddha himself. These are the oldest Buddhist works, originally passed down by oral tradition only, just like the Vedas.
The Gandharan Buddhist texts (184 BCE - 3rd century CE) composed in Gandhari, an early phase Prakrit, is attributed to the Dharmaguptaka Buddhist school, a descendent of Sthaviravada.
Apparently, the Sarvastivada Buddhist school composed its later works in Classical Sanskrit. This school was a "sibling" of Vibhajjavada and a descendent of Sthaviravada.
Early works from the Mahasamghika Buddhist school were composed in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, a middle phase Prakrit.
The earliest writings of the Prajnaparamita sutras of Mahayana Buddhism, namely the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, written around 100 BCE to 50 CE, is probably in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Most Mahayana sutras are written in different registers of Sanskrit. I believe the newer the writing, the closer it got to Classical Sanskrit.
I'm not sure about Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika (MMK), but it was probably written in Classical Sanskrit.
The following diagram (from India in Pixels Facebook page) shows the Indo-Aryan language family tree. "Sanskrit" refers to Classical Sanskrit.

Thanks for this thorough post. I will review as I study this subject further. Thanks again Ruben.


text:
Mahayana revealed from Naga world to 1st century CE+ - Why?
If I take these definitive positions:

Mahayana teachings did originate from the Buddha and were taught to select disciples. (Whether in full or in part) And were then passed on selectively to various followers.

These teachings were, as tradition says, hidden in the Naga lands until the proper time for their dissemination arrived.

These texts/teachings began to appear around 1 BCE to the early part of the common era.

Assuming all these religious accounts did happen as tradition states, is there a secular/academic/historical way of accounting for these events no matter how speculative?
To be more specific, what was so special about the early centuries of the common era (its culture, people, language, geo-political environment) that the Mahayana teachings had to be revealed at this particular point in time?
One of my initial thought was that the Buddha and his followers were living in a time were Prakrit wouldn't be the best language to use to disseminate Mahayana taught. It needed the developed Sanskrit of the early common era and Nagarjuna to reveal these "profound" teachings. But this may not be the case as per my exchange with Andrei.
So I'm in the market for ideas...

Most if not all of the Mahayana doctrines are present in the Pali Canon in their basic form, often as mere ideas implied by brief Buddha's utterings. Since Pali Canon cannot possibly be 100% exhaustive account of everything Buddha taught it is safe to assume there were other teachings or details of teachings not captured by the suttas.
We know for a fact that after Buddha's death there were centuries of speculative analysis and systematization of his teaching. The Samyutta Nikaya was compiled and organized by topic, then the Anguttara Nikaya, then the core concepts in these two were extracted and boiled down to the matrika lists, which were then elaborated upon to create what's known as the Abhidharma.
This happened to be the same historical period when India went from zero literacy to one of the strongest textual traditions in the world, the trade routes between West and East were established and facilitated the exchange of ideas between Greek, Persian, Indian, and Chinese cultures - all great in their own ways, and a big chunk of the Indian territory along the Ganges fell under Greek rule.
This was a period of tremendous development for India in all areas - ancient technology, natural sciences, medicine, mathematics, linguistics, philosophies of all kinds, even traditional Hindu religion developed new theories and teachings.
In addition to that, what at the time of Buddha were temporary camps of otherwise homeless wandering monks, developed into permanent monasteries with dedicated research staff specializing in Buddhist studies.
Imagine this environment spending several centuries reading every sutta thousand times over and analyzing them from all possible angles debating their obvious and hidden meanings. This was the vogue of the times. The best minds of India were drawn to this then highly respectable and intensely satisfying activity.
Naturally, some of the ideas present in suttas in the seed form were stumbled upon by the ancient scholars again and again, in different places at different times. Connecting the dots the later scholars gradually came to a realization there was a definite layer of meanings in the suttas beyond the superficial.
This layer of meanings came to be known under the moniker of prajna-paramita, the transcendental wisdom, or perhaps the transcendence of wisdom. It took northern India about 4-5 hundred years working by trial and error to churn the milk of the suttas into the butter of prajnaparamita, and to recognize that this, indeed and beyond slightest doubt for those who carefully studied the suttas, must be the heart of what Buddha-Dharma was all about.
The Nagas and Dakini realm in Tibetan Buddhism is a well-known and rather opaque metaphor for the abstract realm of latent potentials. In this context it means that the teaching of prajnaparamita was there in the seed form but took time and human assistance to get developed into a detailed doctrine.

That's so beautiful Andrei. You've given much a lot to think about and research further. It must be nice to see your library of books you've read.

Not really but thanks :)

Andrei, I need some links or places, books, articles that I could read more about this period/events. Basically, I am looking for pre-canon period. Do you have some resources on that please?
"Imagine this environment spending several centuries reading every sutta thousand times over and analyzing them from all possible angles debating their obvious and hidden meanings. This was the vogue of the times."

Here, found something online: http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Indian%20Buddhism_Warder_1970-2004.pdf

Oh thank you Andrei.

Please see the article "Buddhism in India before the 13th-Century Invasions" by Dr. Alexander Berzin, and also the book "Sects and Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools" by Bhikkhu Sujato. Also, the book "Buddhist Sects and Sectarianism" by Bibhuti Baruah.
The Mahayana perfection of wisdom (prajnaparamita) sutras did not suddenly appear out of nowhere 400 to 900 years after the Buddha's passing away.
About a century after the Buddha's passing away, presectarian Buddhism split into Mahasanghika and Sthaviravada, and over the next few centuries split further into many more so-called early Buddhist schools. Please see this hypothetical combined list of early Buddhist schools on wikipedia.
Berzin's article above partially traces the origins of some concepts in Mahayana Buddhism to these early Buddhist schools.
It appears that while Theravada Buddhism (c. 240 BCE) originated from Vibhajjavada which originated from Sthaviravada, Mahayana Buddhism derived its concepts from various early Buddhist schools including Sarvastivada, Dharmaguptaka, Lokottaravada, Bahushrutiya, Chaitika and so on.
Interestingly, Sarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka descended from Sthaviravada, while Lokottaravada, Bahushrutiya, Chaitika descended from Mahasanghika. Nevertheless, they all had influence on Mahayana Buddhism. However, the majority of the influence came from Mahasanghika and its descendant schools according to most western academic scholars.
From Berzin's article, you can trace back present day Mahayana concepts to these schools for e.g. the fallibility of arhats and transcendental nature of the Buddha from Mahasanghika, Tibetan mantra-chanting from Dharmaguptaka, the three bodies of the Buddha from Lokottoravada and Bahushrutiya, the Buddha being enlightened and transcendental even before appearing on Earth from Chaitika, and so on.
This post by Javier Fernandez-Viña on SuttaCentral traces the tathagatagarbha (Buddha nature) concept in Mahayana Buddhism to Mahasanghika, and provides the scholarly sources. It refers to the book "Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra" and Alex Wayman's 1978 paper "The Mahāsāṃghika and the Tathāgatagarbha".
Another interesting article is "The Theory of Two Truths in India" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here, we can see that Vasubandhu in 4th century CE who founded the Yogacara school, clearly spent time studying and commenting on the works of the Sarvastivada (237 BCE) and Sautrantika (50 BCE) schools that came many centuries before him.
Bhikkhu Sujato explained in this post on SuttaCentral:

It is true that certain aspects of Mahasanghika ideas were influential
in the much later formation of the Mahayana. But so too, were aspects
of the Sarvastivada, and other schools as well. Mahayana emerged as a
reform or reaction against multiple aspects of the early schools as
they existed around 500 years after the Buddha. It didn’t stem from
any one school. In terms of Mahayana philosophy, the greats such as
Asanga, Vasubandhu, and Nagarjuna are much more closely linked to
Sarvastivada than Mahasanghika.

So the Mahayana prajnaparamita sutras did not suddenly appear from the nagas in the sea. Rather, its concepts evolved gradually from the early sectarian era of Buddhism.

Wow Ruben, thank you. I have a lot of reading to do from your shared resources. Thanks.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Incarnation of Arhat Ji Gong 濟公
Chinese often worship Ji Gong and I personally believe it's a misconception of Buddhism or something need to be revised by Buddhism teaching/new Sutta?
Source of Ji Gong

 He was widely recognised by people as the incarnate of the Taming Dragon >Arhat (Chinese: 降龍羅漢; pinyin: Xiánglóng Luóhàn), one of the Eighteen Arhats.
Xianglong Luohan (Chinese: 降龍羅漢), also known as the Taming Dragon
Arhat, is an arhat and one of the Eighteen Arhats in China.1 His
Sanskrit name is Nantimitolo and origins are said to derive from a
Buddhist monk Mahakasyapa, the leader of the first Buddhism Council Meeting.

As far as I understand, one who enters nibbana would not be incarnated again ?

My curiosity is very high regarding the spiritual world. I just want to ask the Ji Gong during possession some questions. i.e. Question 1# above and some 4 Noble Of Truths doubts. True Arhat should be able to answer right? Is this action appropriate?

Here is the sample of the possession that visitor can ask Arhat a question or attend Buddhism session.

While most schools of Buddhism hold somewhat the same view of what Nirvana is, and that the cycle of rebirth ends upon reaching Nirvana, they vary in their concepts of Arahant. It is often the case in many Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism that an Arahant, although advanced on the path to enlightenment, has yet to reach Nirvana and may reincarnate a few more times before truly achieving their end goal. According to these doctrines, it is not impossible for Ji Gong to be an Arahant incarnate.
Still, the Wikipedia article doesn't say much aside from that he was "widely recognised by people" as a reincarnate. I'd say, this is not a solid ground to claim that he actually is one. As an example, Donald Trump is also widely recognised by people as the second coming of Jesus.

If you're going to ask Ji Gong questions, assuming that the conduit you're seeing is legit, there's no guarantee that you will get answers, much less comprehensible ones. It's possible that

You'll get no answers. Even the Buddha has declined to answer questions before, either because the questions were pointless, or the interlocutor was not thoroughly prepared to receive the answers.
You'll get riddle-like answers as if taken from Zen koans, which would be reasonable since Ji Gong was a Chan Buddhist.
You'll get non-verbal answers, which would be most reasonable since Ji Gong was a really eccentric Chan Buddhist.

Regardless of the answers you may receive, the result will not be sufficient to conclude whether you've met an Arahant or not. Theoretically only the Buddha and some other-worldly beings can do that. If you want to learn more about Buddhism, a qualified teacher should be able to clear your doubts using a suitable method of teaching. Otherwise, you should proceed with caution.

It is often the case in many Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism that an Arahant, although advanced in the path to enlightenment, has yet to reach Nirvana ==》 where is that stated ? @viptrongproz98

2ndly according to the wiki above,  Ji Gong is past life of Mahakasyapa or top 10 followers of Buddha or already reached Nibanna as per Oyamist answer

@littlestar In the Margapudgala-nirdesa (the 6th chapter in La Vallée-Poussin's translation) of the Abhidharmakosa, there are listed 6 types of Arahant from parihāna-dharman (退法阿羅漢) to akopya-dharman (不動阿羅漢). Except for the last one, all the other 5 may fall back to a previous state.

thanks for the clarification. based on the character of Ji Gong and Mahakasyapa has too much difference except both has beard n not too serious about outlook. Mahakasyapa is successor to Buddha and very straight monk. Dont think so he will drink n making a mess at temple then get dispelled.

I mean based on Chan Buddhism. Ji Gong is incarnation  of Mahakasyapa

For question #1, the Buddha addresses the death of arahants:

DN1:3.73.1: The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.
DN1:3.73.2: As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.
DN1:3.73.3: But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

Question #2 is about possession by a spirit. The Buddha discusses possession in at least four suttas. For example we have:

MN49:5.1: Then Māra the Wicked took possession of a member of Brahmā’s retinue and said this to me,
MN49:5.2: ‘Mendicant, mendicant! Don’t attack this one! Don’t attack this one! For this is Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord God, the Maker, the Author, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born.

The Buddha responds to this possession quite firmly:

MN49:6.2: ‘I know you, Wicked One. Do not think,
MN49:6.3: “He does not know me.”
MN49:6.4: You are Māra the Wicked.
MN49:6.5: And Brahmā, Brahmā’s assembly, and Brahmā’s retinue have all fallen into your hands; they’re under your sway.
MN49:6.6: And you think,
MN49:6.7: “Maybe this one, too, has fallen into my hands; maybe he’s under my sway!”
MN49:6.8: But I haven’t fallen into your hands; I’m not under your sway.’

The other three suttas are also about possession by Māra and they also discourage possession. Please be careful--Māra has deceived gods.

I have edited the question for a link for possession so u can get more understanding. Let me know if u have more ques. I tried to digest your answer above, so Arhat can reborn in Samsara yes/no?

"It is often the case in many Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism that an Arahant, although advanced in the path to enlightenment, has yet to reach Nirvana"
where is that stated ?
The only reference to that doctrine that I know of is from the Tibetan canon -- near the beginning of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation it says (I paraphrase), that there are five families:

Disconnected (immodest, no compassion, no thought for others, etc.)
Indefinite (may join one of the next three families, depending/conditioned on whether they make contact)
Hearer (fear samsara, yearn for nirvana, little compassion)
Solitary Realiser (like Hearer but also arrogant, keep their master's identity secret, solitary)
Mahayana

Hearers and Solitary Realisers engage in their respective vehicles and achieve the results of their practices, but this is not the final nirvana

If their states are not the final nirvana, then one might argue that the Buddha should not have taught these
two paths. Is there a reason the Buddha should teach such paths?
Yes. For example, suppose great merchants
from this Jambudvipa are traveling the ocean searching for jewels. After many months at sea, in some
desolate place, they become completely tired and exhausted and think, “There is no way to get the jewels
now”. When they feel discouraged and prepare to turn back, the merchant captain manifests a huge island
through his miracle power and lets all his followers rest there. After a few days, when they are fully rested and
relaxed, the captain says, “We have not achieved our goal. Now we should go farther to get our jewels.”

Eventually they are awoken by the Buddha, cultivate bodhicitta, and

practice the bodhisattva’s path for many limitless kalpas and eventually achieve enlightenment.

It says you can find this doctrine also in the Gone to
Lanka Sutra and in the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra.

These families (who haven't achieved "final nirvana") include Arhats -- towards the end it says,

The supreme worldly experiences—all the perfect powers, clairvoyance and meditative absorption, and so
forth—are achieved through devotion to the Dharmakaya. Obscuration abandonment, clairvoyance, miracle
powers, and so forth—all the qualities of Hearer Arhats—are achieved by slight realization of Dharmakaya.
Obscuration abandonment, meditative absorption, clairvoyance, and so forth—all the qualities of Solitary
Realiser Arhats—are achieved by partial realization of Dharmakaya. Obscuration abandonment, meditative
absorption, clairvoyance, and so forth—all the qualities of bodhisattvas who attained bhumis—are achieved
by greater realization of Dharmakaya.

See also Wikipedia Arhat: In Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The answer to this question may depend on the tradition.
In Theravada, the arhat is completely liberated and will never be reborn. The arhats and Buddhas are not supernaturally reachable after they have completed their Earthly lives. Also, trances and being mediums are considered wrong livelihood for monks.
On the other hand, I believe that in certain (if not most) Mahayana sub-schools, Arhats are not completely done in their path to complete enlightenment, and at some point will resume the journey. As high bhumi Bodhisattvas, they can be reborn, perhaps voluntarily. The same applies to Buddhas.
Also, in Tibetan Buddhism, trances and mediums are not uncommon. Certain oracles and Dharma Protectors can be channelled by mediums. For e.g. in this YouTube video, you can see the Dorje Shugden Oracle doing the Vajra dance, accepting offerings, providing blessings etc. This event was presided over, by the late Tsem Tulku Rinpoche.

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


text:
Is there any consolation to have arrived at the Buddha dharma?
At times when the mind is critical of not having achieved the samsaric goals, is there any consolation to have arrived at the Buddha dharma, especially from a non-Buddhist background?
If so, how will the narrative go? How to find solace in the idea that, 'if not yet nirvana then at least a practicing Buddhist'?

How to find solace in the idea that, 'if not yet nirvana then at least a practicing Buddhist'?
Perhaps the notion that "I am this or that", e.g. "I am a practicing Buddhist", is a faint or transient solace -- or (worse), perhaps it's an example of an "identity view" (or of a "conceit") and thus a source of suffering and confusion.
The Dalai Lama said once that if he saw himself as special -- as "the Dalai Lama" or as "the Nobel Prize Winner" -- then he'd be trapped in that kind of identity view; but instead he sees himself as being "just like everyone else".
Instead I think what's useful or a solace is understanding and perhaps practicing the dhamma -- for example, understanding "suffering, the cause of suffering, and the cessation of suffering" -- or perhaps, acting with "skilful virtue" so as to "experience no remorse", and so on.

Basically, one may start from being a lay follower (upasaka) and then become a faith follower (saddhanusari), and then become a Dhamma follower (dhammanusari). Finally, this will lead to stream entry.
Of course, a lay follower can become a monk or nun too. That may lead beyond stream entry to higher states of enlightenment including arahatship.
The following sutta talks about being a lay follower (upasaka) of Buddhism:

Once the Blessed One was dwelling among the Sakyas in Nigrodha Park at
Kapilavatthu. There, Mahanama the Sakyan approached the Blessed One.
Having approached and paid respect to the Blessed One, he sat aside.
Then, seated aside, Mahanama the Sakyan said thus to the Blessed One:
"Venerable sir, in what way is one a lay follower (upasaka)?"
"Mahanama, inasmuch as one has gone to the Buddha for refuge, has gone
to the Dhamma for refuge, has gone to the Sangha for refuge; in that
way, Mahanama, one is a lay follower."
"Then, venerable sir, in what way is a lay follower virtuous?"
"Mahanama, inasmuch as a lay follower abstains from destroying living
beings; abstains from taking what is not given; abstains from sexual
misconduct; abstains from lying; and abstains from wine, liquor and
intoxicants that are causes for heedlessness; in that way, Mahanama, a
lay follower is virtuous."
"Then, venerable sir, in what way is a lay follower engaged in his own
welfare, but not in others' welfare?"
"Mahanama, inasmuch as a lay follower is possessed of faith himself,
but rouses not others to possess faith; is possessed of virtue
himself, but rouses not others to possess virtue; is possessed of
liberality himself, but rouses not others to possess liberality; is
himself desirous of meeting with monks, but rouses not others to meet
with monks; is himself desirous of hearing the true Dhamma, but rouses
not others to hear the true Dhamma; is himself habitually mindful of
the Dhamma that is heard, but rouses not others to be mindful of the
Dhamma; has himself ascertained the meaning/benefit of the Dhamma that
is heard, but rouses not others to ascertain the meaning/benefit;
having known the meaning/benefit, having known the Dhamma, is himself
committed to the practice according to the Dhamma, but rouses not
others to be committed to the practice according to the Dhamma; in
that way, Mahanama, a lay follower is engaged in his own welfare, but
not in others' welfare."
"Then, venerable sir, in what way is a lay follower engaged in his own
welfare and in others' welfare?"
"Mahanama, inasmuch as a lay follower is possessed of faith himself,
and rouses others to possess faith; is possessed of virtue himself,
and rouses others to possess virtue; is possessed of liberality
himself, and rouses others to possess liberality; is himself desirous
of meeting with monks, and rouses others to meet with monks; is
himself desirous of hearing the true Dhamma, and rouses others to hear
the true Dhamma; is himself habitually mindful of the Dhamma that is
heard, and rouses others to be mindful of the Dhamma; is himself
ascertained of the meaning/benefit of the Dhamma that is heard, and
rouses others to ascertain the meaning/benefit; having known the
meaning/benefit, having known the Dhamma, is himself committed to the
practice according to the Dhamma, and rouses others to be committed to
the practice according to the Dhamma; in that way, Mahanama, a lay
follower is engaged in his own welfare and in others' welfare."
AN 8.25

All the suttas in the Okkanta Samyutta (SN 25) have the latter stock phrase about faith-followers (saddhānusārī) and Dhamma-followers (dhammānusārī) who may eventually reach stream entry.
So a person may not have achieved any of the four stages of enlightenment starting with stream entry, but at the minimum, he can be consoled that he has come to have conviction and belief in the teachings, thus becoming a faith-follower, and this may eventually lead him to stream entry.
Better yet is someone who has discerned the teachings and understood them to a certain extent, to become a Dhamma-follower. This will then lead him eventually to stream entry. Dhamma-follower is the next stage after faith-follower, but still before stream entry.

"Monks, form is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant, changeable,
alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who
has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people
of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is
incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in
the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of
passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a
stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
headed for self-awakening."
SN 25.10


text:
Were/are Zen monastery time schedules liberal with regard to meal and dharma talk timing?
When reading Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo it attracted my attention that one of the fascicle postscripts said "Presented to the assembly at the hour of the Rat (midnight)". Given that this was happening during Dogen's time in the 13th century, this late dharma talk would have necessitated the burning of lamp oil and the whole monastic assembly being awake to hear the dharma being expounded.
I have also heard from other sangha members that some Zen monasteries have a dinner in the early evening (16-17) which would contrast with the Theravada and Tibetan approaches of not having any meals after noon.
Are those aspects of the time schedule considered traditional in Zen monastic life? Is there more material on the subject of the practical everyday aspects of Zen monastic conduct that I could read?
Both Soto and Rinzai historical as well as contemporary accounts welcome.

Zen is definitely its own animal.  Why the practices, monastic laws, daily schedules vary so vastly from even other East Asian instantiations of Buddhism could be a subject of a book of its own.  You could pull another book just out of the differences between Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen.  But to respond to some of your examples...
On the subject of late dharma talks...  My guess is that Master Dogen's dharma talk was given during a sesshin or period of intensive meditation practice.  During these retreats, which consist of about a week of 12+ hour a day sitting, one common practice is the all night vigil/sitting.  Generally what happens is that the abbot will give a dharma talk and retire to bed while the rest of the sangha sits in meditation until they drop off asleep (there's more to this absolutely beautiful practice, but this will do for now).  This happens at the end of the day (around 10:30PM in our sangha, but it just as well could be midnight).  And trust me, no lamp oil was being burned.  (Most Zen monasteries aren't even heated!)  Dharma talks aren't prepared.  They are almost always extemporaneous.  Dogen wouldn't have been reading anything.  That talk would mostly likely have been recorded after the fact.
Regarding the late day meal...  This is what is called "medicine"...which the Buddha said could be taken at any time.  That's probably a bending of the rules.  Ok, that's definitely a bending of the rules.  But keep in mind that Zen monks work.  Most of their sustenance comes from monastery farms.  They also do all the upkeep to their temples, cook, wash the floors, patch roofs, etc.  Generally speaking, they simply require more calories than a mendicant who doesn't do those things.
Don't try to understand Zen in terms of Theravadan Buddhism.  There's a lot that they have in common, but the two traditions are separated by a vast tract of land and at least 1300 years.  There's bound to be irreconcilable differences.

Late night Dhamma talks happened at the time of the Buddha. At night, after giving his own Dhamma talk, the Buddha once asked Ven. Sariputta to give an additional Dhamma talk, which itself was rather long.

DN33:1.4.5: “The night is getting late, Vāseṭṭhas.
DN33:1.4.6: Please go at your convenience.”
DN33:1.4.7: “Yes, sir,” replied the Mallas. They got up from their seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on their right, before leaving.
DN33:1.5.1: Soon after they left, the Buddha looked around the Saṅgha of mendicants, who were so very silent. He addressed Venerable Sāriputta,
DN33:1.5.2: “Sāriputta, the Saṅgha of mendicants is rid of dullness and drowsiness.
DN33:1.5.3: Give them some Dhamma talk as you feel inspired.

Regarding meals, the Buddha said:

AN8.45:7.1: You shouldn’t kill living creatures, or steal,
AN8.45:7.2: or lie, or drink alcohol.
AN8.45:7.3: Be celibate, refraining from sex,
AN8.45:7.4: and don’t eat at night, the wrong time.

As Buddhism passed through China and onward to Japan, it was forced to adapt to existing communities, sometimes by imperial edict. In particular, during the Meiji era, edict #132 allowed monks to be married. As you can see, this single issue alone provides a key point of departure from original teachings of the Buddha.

I would qualify that by saying that not all (or even a notable percentage) of Japanese monks actually got married.  Many remained celibate.  It did create a class of quasi-monastic priests, however, who had families and represented a pretty interesting introduction to the sangha.  That being said, there was also the loosening of restrictions on alcohol which, well, let's just say my roshi loved his sake a bit too much.  ;-)


text:
Unintentional karma and its effect
Does Buddhism believe that karma (action) without intention is forming merit/demerit? Doesn't the term "karma" have merit/demerit built in as an intrinsic quality?

Related: What are the characteristics of karmaless action?

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

Also from Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38) below, we see that intention (cetana) provides a landing point for the continuation of karmic consciousness.

[the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what
one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for
the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a
landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that
consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of
this entire mass of suffering & stress.
Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38)

The story of blind elder monk Cakkhupala from Dhammapada 1 shows the importance of intention. It also shows that unintended action has no consequence.

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
intention of killing and so was quite innocent."
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
Dhammapada 1

Also the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 shows the importance of intention.  It also shows that unintended action has no consequence.

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has
been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he
goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus,
the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
evil."
Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison;
poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for
one who has no evil intention.
Dhammapada 124

So, intention is kamma. You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
But does this mean that intention without acting upon the intention can result in kamma?

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle.
Yodhajiva Sutta

Here, the warrior has the intention. But when he strives and exerts himself based on the intention, then the fruit of the kamma reaches its peak.
Despite this, intentional thoughts are also intentional kamma that can result in suffering.

After doing an intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind
(whose result is) to be felt as pleasure, he feels pleasure; after
doing an intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind (whose
result is) to be felt as pain, he feels pain; after doing an
intentional kamma by way of body, speech and mind
(whose result is) to
be felt as neither-pain-nor-pleasure, he feels
neither-pain-nor-pleasure.
Mahakammavibhanga Sutta

where you state according to the  Mahakammavibhanga Sutta, "After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant...one feels pleasure."   This seems quite vague.  Does it imply that all intention with pleasant outcomes have pleasant outcomes?  This seems wrong in all cases, but has some narrow truth.

where you state according to Bhumija Sutta: how can body in and of itself be intentional?  body is of constituents, no?  are intentions not psychological at their core?

another translation of the same discourse coming from dhammatalks.org states it as such: "Having intentionally done—with body, with speech, or with mind—an action that is to be felt as pain, one experiences pain.  this way of saying seems more general...

@lilredindy I removed Bhumija Sutta to reduce confusion and changed the Mahakammavibhanga Sutta to the Thanissaro translation to be clearer. Basically intentional kamma by way of thoughts, words and physical actions, will produce kammic results. It has to be intentional.

It seems like according to the wiki, Buddhist karma is action driven by intention.
Then the wiki goes on to refer to The Nibbedhika Sutta:

Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

This seems to say intentions are a form of karma, but not that all karmas are intentional.  If intentions are psychological in nature, then it follows that mental activity is a form of karma as well.  To say karma must be intentional may be a misinterpretation.  Perhaps intention is getting at the root cause of karma (action).
Action done without knowing seems to have consequences.  Perhaps in the way of a domino effect.
According to the same source, the term kriya may refer to activity whereas karma may refer to intentional activity.  Thus the etymology - historical usage - of the word may be in question.

Good Lilredindy may have point out a very important convention in regard of actions done by one not freed from cravings and done by one how has gone beyond. For the fist the usual word used is 'kamma', while 'kiriya' is usually used to denote actions without being based on intention which are no more related to Greed, Aversion, Not-knowing.
It's not wrong assumed if saying 'Kamma is(requires) intention', or 'without in-tension there would be no kamma'. Yet, even an Arahat still holds on the Noble-kamma, the actions based on the Noble path, yet without personal consequences anymore.
One still focusing on desired effect might have difficulties to be clear about intent, confusing it with purpose (gain of certain objection).


text:
Kamma vs. kiriya / kriya
What is the difference between the terms kamma and kiriya / kriya?
What is the difference between kiriya and kriya?
Please provide references to kiriya / kriya from the Pali suttas.

KiriyaCitta is KusalaCitta of Arahanta (Arahants' wholesome-mind) because Arahanta can't do any Karma which effecting next life anymore.

Katamañca    puṇṇa   kammaṃ   akaṇhaṃ   asukkaṃ   akaṇhaasukkavipākaṃ    kammakkhayāya     saṃvattati
What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma?

You should read MN Kukkuravatika Sutta, and AN  Kammavagga in detail.
Also Sankhara is depending on Avijja, and  KammaBhava is depending on Tanha, Arahanta has no Tanha, so his new karma has no  next-life-resultant.

Iti kho udayi tanhakkhaya kammakkhayo kammakkhaya dukkhakkhayoti.
And so, Udāyī, when craving ends, deeds end; when deeds end suffering ends.”

According to commentary, Abhidhamma was authored by ven. Sariputta (AggaSavaka), follow to the brief teaching of the Buddha, so it is ven Sariputta's writing style which is proper for the very in detail of Abhidhamma's contents, too deep and too specific for normal word.
Whole Tipitaka come out from 4th Jhana-Mastery's mouth, especially from Arahanta-Jhana-Mastery. Every 4th Jhana-Mastery has photographic memory and super unnatural mind speed.
So, it is normal if the ordinary people can't see the realities arising and vanishing super fast and super small follow Abhidhamma and many Suttas because only very few people can do only  sitting meditation whole days for at least 6 months to 5 years to get 4th Jhana Masery and high level insight meditation.

An extended discussion with Bhante Ariyadhammika, former Bhante Varado and Upasaka Sadhamma on the topic might enlighten till release from doubts, if not just after amassing (of course plenty of references incl. anyway): 'The Kamma of Arahants'!!, good householder. It needs care and much attention to get through the net rightly.

AN 3.137 says without any explicit application to Arahants:

Makkhali, that silly man, has this doctrine and view:
Makkhali, bhikkhave, moghapuriso evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi:
‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’
‘natthi kammaṁ, natthi kiriyaṁ, natthi vīriyan’ti.

The term 'sacchikiriyāya' (from Sk. sākṣāt kṛ; the P. form being *saccha° sākṣāt (साक्षात्).—prep (S) before, in the presence of, evidently to the sight or sense of. 2 ad Manifestly, obviously, evidently) is found in MN 10, as follows and appears synonymous with sacchikaroti; and also appears to have the sense of 'completion/fulfilment':

to realize extinguishment.
nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya
MN 10

Now, there are gentlemen who, relying on the teaching and training
proclaimed by the Realized One, achieve a high distinction such as the
following: they realize the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of
once-return, the fruit of non-return, or the fruit of perfection. And
in addition, there are those who ripen the seeds for rebirth in a
heavenly state. The person who spoke like that makes it difficult for
them. They’re acting unkindly, their heart is full of hostility, and
they have wrong view.
Evaṁvādī so ye te kulaputtā tathāgatappaveditaṁ dhammavinayaṁ āgamma
evarūpaṁ uḷāraṁ visesaṁ adhigacchanti, sotāpattiphalampi
sacchikaronti, sakadāgāmiphalampi sacchikaronti, anāgāmiphalampi
sacchikaronti, arahattampi sacchikaronti, ye cime dibbā gabbhā
paripācenti dibbānaṁ bhavānaṁ abhinibbattiyā, tesaṁ antarāyakaro hoti,
antarāyakaro samāno ahitānukampī hoti, ahitānukampissa sapattakaṁ
cittaṁ paccupaṭṭhitaṁ hoti, sapattake citte paccupaṭṭhite micchādiṭṭhi
hoti.
DN 12

The term 'kālakiriyā' is generally spoken by Noble Ones, such as by the stream-enterer householder Nakula's Mother, in relation to the ending of life or 'completion of time', as follows:

Householder, don’t pass away with concerns.
Mā kho tvaṁ, gahapati, sāpekkho kālamakāsi.
Such concern is suffering,
Dukkhā, gahapati, sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā;
and it’s criticized by the Buddha.
garahitā ca bhagavatā sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā.
AN 6.16

Note: 'kālakiriyā' ('completion of time') is not synonymous with 'marana' ('death') because 'kālakiriyā' happens to Noble Ones; where as 'marana' does not happen to Noble Ones. Those who cannot discern this distinction will never understand the essence of the Buddha Teaching.
Therefore, in conclusion, the impression is 'kamma' means 'action' or 'an action';  where as 'kiriyā' may possibly mean 'completion of an action/performance'.
For example, about the word kamma, the dictionary says it can be used in many ways, such as objective, subjective, active, passive,   etc.

New Concise Pali English Dictionary
kiriya
neuter ~ā, .f

doing; > performance; action, activity; what one does or has done; way of acting

morally significant activity which produces effects

karoti
verb
present 3 singular
does, makes; acts; performs; acts for
the advantage or injury of another; (especially absolutive) puts,
places
Sk. karoti, *qṷer to form, to build


text:
Do all good and/or all pleasant intentions have pleasant outcomes for one/or another?
This was a question here:

Do all good and/or all pleasant intentions have pleasant outcomes for one/or another?

It may be good to investigate in frames of the Buddha-Dhamma.
And could that be always traced by anyone, the line of cause and effect?

I would guess that the thought process of someone asking this question goes along the lines of this:
"I want pleasant/good outcomes for myself. I learnt that intention leads to outcome. Therefore, if I have good intention, I can create good outcomes for myself. However, I sometimes also see that people who pleasant/good intention don't necessarily receive good outcomes. I want to know for sure, that pleasant/good outcomes come from pleasant/good intentions, if not I have wasted all this time & effort cultivating good intention when I can simply get pleasure through other means. So I will ask others."
Some hypothetical questions:
What do you mean by 'one'?
What do you mean by 'other'?
What do you mean by 'good'?
Is 'good' the same as 'pleasant'?
If someone tells you "yes, pleasant & good intentions result in pleasant & good outcomes". How do you know that for sure yourself?

And could that be always traced by anyone, the line of cause and effect?

Allegedly the Buddha could trace the entire chain of cause and effect "as far as ninety one eons" (Majjhima Nikaya)
The rest of us supposedly can't, though some can see more than others. The way you can see more than others is to first cultivate good intention & observe the result through your own experience.

Another process in the asker might be, I believe such-and-such an intention is good and yet it has an unpleasant outcome for myself or.others. Does this speak against my belief that the intention is good?

Good intention (kusala) have always pleasant results for the actor, likewise bad, while it's not sure when and where such seeds arise. Good therfore to know what's good (withdraw from sensuality, not-harming, not-conflicting) and bad (greed, aversion, holding on views).
One's good deeds are also best for others, yet can not avoid there fruits ripe, of course, and so the best intentions are at the noble eightfold path, for an end of kamma.
Doubts may arise when unpleasing experiences follow good deeds, but good to be sure that it's not necessary related until maybe thought bad for good.

The question is full of assumptions, and significant in that the words skill and effort do not appear in it. The Buddha continually stressed the point that skillful intent and effort in action are required to maximize control over results, that is, good Karma is skillful Karma. Courses of Action is an example of this teaching.

No. Chasing pleasant can lead to unpleasant:

AN10.104:1.1: “Mendicants, consider a person who has wrong view, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, immersion, knowledge, and freedom.
AN10.104:1.2: Whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering.
AN10.104:1.3: Why is that?
AN10.104:1.4: Because their view is bad.

Only this works:

AN10.104:3.1: Consider a person who has right view, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, immersion, knowledge, and freedom. Whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is likable, desirable, agreeable, beneficial, and pleasant.
AN10.104:3.2: Why is that?
AN10.104:3.3: Because their view is good.


text:
Online Funeral vs Actual Funeral (Buddhism)
This post is relevant to Buddhist Funeral Process
Can i do it online like playing the recorded video as below with nice TV and nice sound system ?
Funeral Chanting - Theravada Buddhism - Pali - Abhayagiri Monastics (+ chanting text)
Q) Effect would be same? Guess it's much better and safe especially in this Pandemic to avoid crowd and putting the monks into risk?

Funeral rituals do not determine whether a dead person goes to heaven or hell.
Instead, their own karma determines their outcome.
The following sutta (SN 42.6) explains this.

Then Asibandhakaputta the headman went to the Blessed One and on
arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting
there he said to the Blessed One: "The brahmans of the Western lands,
lord — those who carry water pots, wear garlands of water plants,
purify with water, & worship fire — can take [the spirit of] a dead
person, lift it out, instruct it, & send it to heaven. But the Blessed
One, worthy & rightly self-awakened, can arrange it so that all the
world, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good
destination, the heavenly world."
"Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer
as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is
one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one
who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy,
bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd
of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, &
circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,]
'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a
good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that
man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great
crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear
in a good destination, the heavenly world?"
"No, lord."
"Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of
water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would
pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the
heart [saying,] 'Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come
float to the shore, O boulder!' What do you think: would that boulder
— because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great
crowd of people — rise up, come floating up, or come float to the
shore?"
"No, lord."
"So it is with any man who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit
sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle
chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong
views. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating,
would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm
over the heart — [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body,
after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' —
still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in
destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell.
"Now what do you think: There is the case where a man is one who
refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit
sex; he refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh
speech, & from idle chatter; he is not greedy, bears no thoughts of
ill-will, & holds to right view. Then a great crowd of people,
gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with
their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at
the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in destitution, a bad
destination, the lower realms, hell!' What do you think: would that
man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great
crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear
in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell?"
"No, lord."
"Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep
lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments
would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd
of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, &
circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,]
'Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!' What do
you think: would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, &
circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go
down?"
"No, lord."
"So it is with any man who refrains from taking life, from stealing, &
from indulging in illicit sex; refrains from lying, from speaking
divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; is not
greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Even
though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray,
praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart
— [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death,
reappear in a destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell!'
— still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear
in a good destination, the heavenly world."
SN 42.6

so this action via online is better? 1. keep the monks safe, 2. I can look for suitable Buddhism online video that everyone can easily understand so the visitors can benefit also Dharma when is shared ? Normally those Buddhism ritual perform by monk rather difficult to be understand especially free thinker

i can request Monk friend to have online Q&A so more people gain understand about Buddhism. By that, parent doing good deed afterlife ?

@littlestar Yes. Please ask your monks for professional advice.

Thanks. Let's see what Bhante says

The practice of the Noble Path, good householder, leads to the safety from aging, sickness and decay, while running away, hiding doesn't and refuge like into youtube and internet-realms just increases the cemeteries in this world.
As for the duty of giving a proper funeral to one's supporters: the amount of sacrifices would depend at least on ones possibilities. Some organize fests, some see it as an importand occasions to reflect on the Dhamma, some symbolic shave their heads, some remind the goad and go forth.
Looking online into the world, suffering and death, doesn't seems to increase the understanding of the first Noble truth at all in the world, but suggests that one always can switch to a better one and to feel safe behind the screen.


text:
Xin Ling Fa Men 心灵法门 - New "Buddhism"?
I've seen Master Lu live, i noticed this but not all agreed and their services are everywhere in the town
So, i visited few temples and many of their members to understand more about this and the culture.
Some feedbacks as below from the Temple lead and senior members (including high wisdom and high compassion Doctor). They knew exactly what are they doing (can and cannot).

There are many critical illness been cured including Doctor himself

There are too many free thinkers here and difficult to access or understand Buddhism. This concept can be easily accepted and easily spread Buddhism. To get a good and genuine Monastery/Temple in town is really difficult Limited of Buddhism Sharing.

Doc asked me, If you are diagnosed with critical illness then do you still have time to practice Four Noble Truths ?

Q) Can this teaching accepted as something "like" prescribed pain killer/drugs in Medical practices. One must told what Buddhism allowed and disallowed then should practice the right path upon almost recovery? One should not addicted with this prescribed drugs ?

There are a lot of people like this 'Master Lu' in the world, in every faith and religion, with small groups of followers or large. Most are honest, many are indifferent, some are charlatans, a few are deluded, a very few are dangerous... Just on the face of it, it feels as though the Xin Lin Fa Men Institute is importing some of the operating principles of the Christian, faith-healing, revivalist mindset into Buddhism. Personally I find it a bit distasteful, but it isn't something I'd be likely to condemn outright without more information.
However, I will point out that (like most groups of this sort) the teachings of the Xin Lin Fa Men Institute — as far as I can tell from a quick look — leverage excited mental states as a tactic to acquire followers. If we look at what you presented in your question:

The promise to cure illness and disease
The assertion that knowledge should be hidden from people not ready
for it
The 'hurry, hurry' mentality that sick people do not have time to study the Four Noble Truths

We see a group (or a person) who wants people to accept its teachings prima facie, and with a fair degree of desperate obedience. This is antithetical to the typical Buddhist path, which aims at calm, clear, experiential understanding. What Master Lu is offering may in fact be 'new' — I'd have to dig in and see what substance lies behind the smoke — but it is clearly not a new Buddhism. It is something else entirely, and should be evaluated on its own merits.
It's extremely difficult for a novice to distinguish between wisdom and folly. What we must always do in such cases is take our eyes away from the main group and its leader (who will always be energetically and inspirationally driving themselves forward), and look in the wake. Are there people by the wayside of the group who feel cheated, hurt, abused; who are angry or frightened or desperate? Does the group have a trailing of people with the gleam of fanaticism in their eyes, or the dull, moist eyes of unthinking obedience? If we look in the wake, we see the karmic essence of the group. A group that leaves a trail of suffering behind it is not heading anyplace we (as Buddhists) want to go.
I do not wish to be involved with the Xin Lin Fa Men Institute. I credit it (for the moment) as being mostly harmless, but it has nothing useful to teach me. Obviously they will be heartbroken... I will neither recommend nor discourage you from engaging them. But if you engage them, use it as a platform to understand. See the web they weave and the karmic threads they use for bindings. Draw out their essential truth, no matter how many layers of falsehood you must dredge through. See them for what they are (whatever that might be) and that 'seeing' will enlighten you.


text:
Is it true that after nirvana, no new intentions will be formed by the individual?
I don't know if nirvana is a permanent or impermanent state, but is it true that after nirvana, no new intentions will be formed by the individual?  And what is left-over is only a karmic residual of previous living?
from the wiki:

When preliminary nibbana with substrate occurs (that is, nibbana of a living being), constructive consciousness, that is, the house-builder, is completely destroyed and no new formations will be constructed.

In the example from Ud 6.1 below, the Buddha clearly had the intention to go to the Pavala shrine for the day's abiding. So, after complete liberation, it's still possible for the individual to have intention, but without the underlying tendencies (anusaya) from AN 7.11.
That is, from SN 12.38, it says "what one intends AND what one plans AND whatever one has a tendency towards" - so that means underlying tendencies (anusaya) are mandatory for the basis for the maintenance of (clinging) consciousness.
So, the Buddha had intention and planning, but without underlying tendencies. Therefore, his intention and planning was free from greed/ lust/ passion, aversion/ hatred and delusion.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
"Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
day's abiding."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
down on the seat laid out.
Ud 6.1

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has
a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti):
this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness."
“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one
still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the
maintenance of consciousness.
SN 12.38

“Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven?
The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt,
conceit, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the seven
underlying tendencies.”
AN 7.11

yes this seems to be the right way to think about it...and this seems to allude to the fact that one needs to do the work toward the goal, not possible via idealization.

it's actually somewhat difficult to imagine...the idea of karmic imprint becoming residual...of the previous intention, tendency, disposition, only rightness is left...seems unbelievable

There remain just the intentions which are path elements: renouncing (world, sensuality), non-harming, non-conflicting, with no objectivity in the world, base on right view, good householder, and with it, only speech and deeds which are part of the path are done, till rest decays, has been given away.
Those, the Arahat remains at the ten-fold Noble Path with single objectivity toward Nibbana.
Nibbana isn't revokeable, of course.

That is the traditional understanding, yes.
And if you think about it, as everything is equalized in the grand scheme of things - indeed, any motivation by which projects or impulses would be formed must cease without reminder.

Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.

More importantly, as the view of self has been abandoned, how can any individual intention ("i shall do X") be seriously considered anymore?
That's not to say that such one is passive, not at all. It's just that the duality between individual action and automatic reaction has been transcended.

that last statement gives me the idea of one who has disappeared completely....i don't know why that seems to be

you might say that about a drunk as well...transcended action-reaction

Certainly you are free to argue as seems right to you. Sometimes that actually works well and at other times you may keep holding to old misconceptions. In this case, I'm pretty sure you don't accurately understand what I said. The fact that Buddha walks up to Ananda, says "we will go to the city" and then indeed it turns out they go to the city - doesn't mean in Buddha's mind there's an "intention", at least not in the technical sense of the word. There's no actor there to have an intention.

of course he wouldn't say that to me though..."i am not an actor..."

It's okay:) One of us here asks questions and the other answers them. Let's get back to this topic 20 years from now, if we can.


text:
Karma is impression?
I have read in various sources that karma is impression (when we grasp to something, it creates karma/impression), is this true?
So what if, for example, a girl is sitting in a place then then they see someone next to them carrying an expensive bag that she has long wanted. Suddenly, in her mind appear ideas to steal the bag, but then she immediately acknowledge that thought and quickly tries to think of something else (tries to stop the thoughts of stealing).
In that case, does the fleeting thought of stealing counts as bad karma? Will she suffer the bad consequences of that thought, even though she immediately acknowledged it and tried to stop that thought?

Yes. Karma can be made by intentional thought alone without acting on it.

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect. - Nibbedhika Sutta

However, a fleeting thought is not as severe as a sustained thought. And a sustained thought is much less severe than acting on the thought, and striving and exerting oneself in that direction.
Ud 4.4 tells the story of a yakkha who experienced severe consequence only after acting upon his evil intentions. SN 42.3 talks about warriors who strive and exert themselves in battle, with the intention to kill others, experiencing negative consequences.
So, the wholesome and skillful thing to do is to let go of evil thoughts (also words and actions) and also the remorse for it, as soon as possible, as you can see in the Salt Crystal Sutta.

Yes, good householder, touch, impression, is the cause of pleasure and pain, and (re-)acting on it. Touch of what? Not-knowing (as it actually 'is'). Be touched, as it is also the cause of the path of ending Kamma.
('Will she suffer the bad consequences of that thought, even though she immediately acknowledged it and tried to stop that thought?'
Not giving into bad thoughts, ways, is the streams ending, denourishment. Yet not going after can be also decided by wrong views, say simply afraid of getting caught or thinking 'there might be a more worthy thing to steal, still after sense pleasures. So only right view, knowing the Dhamma, actually makes and end, if following it.)


text:
Funeral and Spread of Buddhism - Break the Hell 破地狱
Normally Chinese funeral ritual combined with Taoism and Buddhism and there is something call break the hell ritual. Break the Hell Ritual
I had noticed the ritual Sifu before recited the Original Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra so i did ask him some of the basic like first statement below and he is unable to answer means likely the ritual being non effective so i dont plan to hire any of them and it's very expensive too.
無  上  甚  深  微  妙  法 - The  unexcelled,  most  profound,  and  exquisitely
wondrous Dharma
Q) If a proper ritual being done as per link here, then Dharma is being shared to 10 highly influential people then it multiples to 10k people in a few years time then a hell is possibly being broke theoretically ? I plan to request a monk to have some basic Buddhism sharing as many free thinkers and wrong livelihood/confuse of Buddhists here. But one suffering still applicable afterlife until enough merits accumulated from the funeral itself?
Well, heavy crime punishment cant be avoided I believe. Guess, this would something like a appeal and reduce no of years like in the prisons.
Iti 100-112

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
Dhamma.

Are you looking for the theoretical basis of this ritual or just asking whether the claim about the number of people receiving merit is valid?

the claim about the number of people receiving merit is valid? The Karma and Merits system where source is from the decease

@viptrongproz98 even i  managed to break the hell then it's just prolong the time before actual punishment to one afterlife. If one doesn't change and still continue breaking precepts then even more worse karma. Even to myself. right?

There are practices in other Sinosphere countries performed to ensure those stuck in hell will reach the Pure Land (or other 'good' realms) in their next life via a mechanism of sharing merit. I'm not sure if this ritual has such purpose in mind, so I can't say anything yet.

@viptrongproz98 guess it's possible but need very high ranking and level Monk.. see my sifu willing to help or not.. just feeling me over help my dad :D .. u can continue this on the chat


text:
How do you know if you are competent in your job?
To my understanding, Buddhism teaches humility, humbleness. I am trying to practice this quality. But I have started to feel that no matter what I do, I am not good enough. How do you know whether you are competent in your job or not? Where is the root of this confusion?

Asking your boss? Who else would know whether good in reward of the given sacrifices or not?

Doing a good job starts with proper attention and words of another:

AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.
AN2.126:1.4: These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Doing a good job, we ask questions:

AN3.20:6.2: It’s when from time to time a mendicant goes up to those mendicants who are very learned—knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized the teachings, the monastic law, and the outlines—and asks them questions:

Doing a good job, we work in harmony with others by practicing self-effacement:

MN8:12.1: Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways.
MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
(...omitted for brevity)

Doing a good job continuously requires proper attention:

DN34:1.2.17: What one thing leads to distinction?
DN34:1.2.18: Proper attention.

Doing the best job requires working to the benefit of all. Instead of asking "am I doing a good job?", we might ask "what work can I skillfully do now to benefit all?"

AN4.95:4.2: In the same way, the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Thank you very much for the write up. I really appreciate it

I don't know about Tibetan Buddhism unfortunately.
To me, "Buddhism teaches humility, humbleness" means the following:

Beware (be aware of and avoid) the kind problems and behaviours described here: Wikipedia: Māna

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Apparently this is in the Theravada and Mahayana doctrines.

Conversely "beginner's mind" is seen as a virtue -- Wikipedia: Shoshin in Zen Buddhism

I've considered posting a question on this site to ask about "self-confidence" -- because that seems to me kind of necessary or helpful for working -- but I decided not to:

Theravada talks about "confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha", and maybe that's "verified confidence" -- and perhaps that's enough, and is the right kind of confidence -- and what's called in the West "self"-confidence is not quite right
Theravada has related terms like Wikipedia: Vīrya -- which may be akin to self-confidence and are beneficial but which don't require any unwise reliance on "self"

This answer related to Tantrayāna (Tibetan Buddhism) perhaps suggests:

Something like confidence or self-confidence is indeed beneficial
It's something you can practice

Also as suggested in a comment, "ask your boss" is a partial answer (but not exclusively a Buddhist answer) -- whether you're (seen as) "good at your job" isn't entirely a matter of "self-evaluation" -- and might also be judged (subjectively) by other people who know your work, or judged (more objectively) by various more-or-less imperfect "performance metrics" defined by managers.

You might also set metrics for yourself -- "how well did I accomplish what I tried to do?" -- to the extent that you're a "manager"  of your own behaviour.
A more-explicitly Buddhist metric might be something like, "how much gap is there between what's wanted and what is/was" -- because the size of that gap might be a measure of "craving" and "suffering" and is what you're trying to minimise.
From a more Mahayana perspective a related question might (I'm not sure) be something like, "how skilfully, how effectively, did I behave with other people?"

Hi, Thank you so much for the write up. My question actually is from a student's perspective. A student who has no teacher (self-taught), how will he harvest the virtue of self-confidence. I am struggling to grasp how confidence can be considered a virtue. Could you suggest me any practice?

I agree that's a related question but should have a different answer. May I ask you to post that as a new question? Because its' difficult to answer using comments, and so that others may answer it too.

Hi, I have posted a question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/46147/17846 . I look forward to your response :)

Thanks! My mum is here visiting so I'll try to answer next week.


text:
Xin Ling Fa Men 心灵法门 - Little House
Master Lu ("New" Buddhism) most famous method of healing which is burning little house which i believe forbidden by Buddhism. Little House
There are many psychologies study supporting that burning negative thought can have some form of mental issue healing. I do that sometime but not little house.
Burning Letter and Letting Go
Q) May i know where is the Sutta written that this is forbidden ?
Related post - Xin Lin Fa Men

Learning Buddhism is to Change Destiny

Xin Ling Fa Men Branches

Hmmm... Xin Lin Fa Men is a little known group, and from your recent spate of questions seems problematic. I'm beginning to believe that you are either trying to defame this group or draw attention to it (or both). Is that the case?

@Ted Wrigley yes, i would like to know Master Lu teaching can be used for emergency used as described by Doc.  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/46116/xin-lin-fa-men-%E5%BF%83%E7%81%B5%E6%B3%95%E9%97%A8-new-buddhism

it's not little known group. it has 10 M members around the world - https://xinlingfamen.info/contact/?go=review&hl=id   guess my country has < 1k true Buddhist https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41208/why-there-is-limited-sharing-in-buddhism

@TedWrigley The organisation presence is deemed illegal in mainland China, but it appears they still hold some influence in overseas Chinese communities. I'd say they are moderately well-known.

@viptrongproz98 Master Lu just passed away, do u know what happen? Let's continue on the chat if you want.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@littlestar: My apologies. 10 million followers is indeed significant (though in the modern world by no means large). It must not have made many inroads in my part of the US.

Searching for "burning house", one finds this:

Thag16.1:8.1: Having realized the supreme Dhamma,
Thag16.1:8.2: without needing anything in the whole world,
Thag16.1:8.3: one doesn’t grieve at death;
Thag16.1:8.4: for it’s like escaping from a burning house.

Although interesting as a quote, it may seem far from your question.  However, if one thinks of burning little houses as an "observance", then the Buddha does indeed speak quite clearly about misapprehension of precepts and observances. It is a lower fetter.

MN64:5.10: That misapprehension of precepts and observances is reinforced in them, not eliminated: it is a lower fetter.

Consider a person who shoplifts, which is stealing. If they burn a little house every time they shoplift, is the harm done to the shopkeeper taken away? How could this burning of a little house help? That shoplifter is bound by a lower fetter.
On the other hand, consider a person who grieves for a beloved one, missing a smile or caring glance. If that person burns a little house thinking, "This grief is not mine, I am not this grief, this grief is not my self", it may help.

MN62:8.5: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Taken together, these two examples show us that we need to be careful about becoming attached to the burning of little houses, especially if we think, "the burning of little houses is mine."
Perhaps one might ask if burning the little house is escaping the burning house or clinging to it?

It would be good if little Red abounds the circles of "Show masters", starts to investigate what the Sublime Buddha taught, and possible finds Refuge in the Gems.
While such wouldn't work by aversion, even by burning things, good to inwardly burn away defilements by ways of gratitude as only such would give release toward higher.


text:
Did eating less cause dietary problems for ascetics like Buddha?
I have heard that Buddha was eating similar to one meal a day.  Is this true?  Would this not lead to severe constipation?  Was it common for ascetics to take medicines to help purge the food waste from their bodies?

According to the Theravada Bhikkhu Patimokkha (monk's rules), monks can eat multiple meals between dawn and noon. They may not eat food after noon, even when they are ill.
They can however drink fruit juices for the rest of the day but cannot keep it overnight (if there is risk of fermentation). Whole fruit is considered food, but fruit juices are of a different category.
Tonics (e.g. ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or sugar/ molasses)  and medicines  may be consumed at any time of the day, if they need it.
The Great Standards allow justified adaptation of the minor rules based on local, modern or special situations. For e.g. I speculate that a monk advised by a doctor to eat after noon, due to genuine medical reasons, may be exempted from the above-mentioned rule.
From The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

Food intake is limited to the hours between dawn and noon. The
practice of not eating in the afternoon is a very old tradition
mentioned in the earliest Suttas. It is also included in the Ten
Precepts of the novice ...
'Food' (yaavakaalika) here refers to things like cooked grains;
sweets made from flour, beans, etc.; fish; meat; fresh milk and sour
milk;... fruits, tubers and all 'main course' foods. ...
When these staple foods go beyond their time limit (i.e., after noon)
a bhikkhu will incur an offence if he consumes them. The original
story shows the complications that can arise from leaving the
monastery at the wrong time.
... It is also noteworthy that an ill bhikkhu has no exemption from
this rule so he likewise should not take food in the afternoon.

The above sections have dealt with food (yaavakaalika) but as has
been already mentioned fruit juices are considered under a different
category. ... Although bhikkhus should not eat fruit — which is food —
after midday, they can drink the 'fruit juice' any time throughout the
day. However, they cannot store fruit juice beyond that single day.
This is called yaamakaalika and is a juice-drink made from crushed
fruit, which is then carefully strained of any pulp or particles. (The
Vinayamukha (EV) Commentary suggests that it could not be stored
beyond the next dawn because sugar mixed in with the fruit juice might
lead to slight fermentation.)
When offering fruit juice it is important that it is well strained so
that no pulp or fruit particles remain, for the fruit itself counts as
food and so cannot be consumed in the afternoon.

There is now the category of 'tonic-medicines' (sattaahakaalika).
These can be consumed at any time but cannot be stored longer than
seven days (after they are offered).

Medicines that may be consumed without time limitation are called
yaavajiivika.

Without realizing, I was trying to make a hypothesis that perhap, as rumor has it, Buddha died of cancer, and perhaps it was in part due to the stress on the bowels - irregular or infrequent bowel movements.  I wonder if they were taking purgatives.

@lilredindy The Buddha consumed poisoned food - either pork or a type of mushroom - and that led to his disease. Please see this answer. It was not recorded that he had cancer. Furthermore, it seems that he recovered from food poisoning but still died shortly afterwards.


text:
What are some of the ways to practice confidence/ self-confidence?
In many Buddhist doctrines, confidence or self-confidence is thought as a virtue. I am still struggling to see how it does not contradict with arrogance or pride.
A few expansions are:

"confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha"
"An attitude of gladly engaging in wholesome activities, and it functions to cause one to accomplish wholesome or virtuous actions" - This seems synonymous to confidence.

I would be grateful if anyone could provide other perspective on self-confidence and how it should be viewed in light of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism. And also, what are the practices that one can do to have the virtue?

Confidence is an interesting beast. It took me a while to really see how it works.
Confidence is directly related with the Buddhist notion of "suchness" (and therefore with the so-called Emptiness).
To have confidence you have to accept everything at the most fundamental level, and keep accepting as things evolve. You have to fully accept the so-called external situation, and you have to fully accept yourself. Sounds simple but it's not.
When you accept yourself you commit to doing everything to the best of your ability but you also accept that you can make mistakes. When you accept the situation, and keep accepting it as it changes, you accept the outcome of your actions, whatever it is. You think about it, you do the best you can, you get a result, and you deal with that result. Rinse, repeat.
In other words, when you make a decision - any decision - either a microscopic level one or a grandiose one - you must take full ownership of that decision, you must stand on it with both your feet. Not be like "neither here nor there" "just in case" - no, it must be a fully owned decision. You commit to it, you implement it, and you own whatever comes from it and work with that.
Here's one more detail. To fully accept everything means: if you don't know something - you don't pretend you know it, you don't wish you knew it, and you don't try to hide it to save your ego. You accept that you don't fully know it, and when you talk to others you define the boundaries of what you know and what you don't. Then you work with what you do know, doing your best and accepting results, as described above.
Taken together this means that you stand firmly with both feet on the ground of the truth - the ungeneralizable suchness of things as they are, and you are being authentically and ungeneralizably yourself. Both externally and internally there is no lie or disconnect, there's truth, authenticity, and ungeneralizable suchness. You accept things as they are, you accept yourself, you accept your limits, you do your best and you accept the new situation that emerges without grasping at what it could have been. Whatever happens, you are not afraid - because you are not grasping at imaginary "could"s and "should"s, you work with what "is". You are true and real, every step of the way.
That's the power stance that gives you the real Buddhist confidence.
By now it should be clear that this type of confidence is an exact opposite of arrogance. Arrogance is based on "wearing an armor" - convincing oneself and others that you are perfect, consistent, that you know the only right way etc, defending your image and fighting for more. Buddhist confidence is based on "removing the armor" and being true.

Thank you very much. After thinking about it for a day, it makes sense now. For someone who thinks that he keeps repeating the same "mistakes" again and again, how can he cultivate such confidence?

In my observation, repeating same mistakes is a sign that we are afraid to look some factor in the face, we pretend that a part of the mandala does not exist, and thus instead of addressing it we end up giving in to pressure of circumstances. When we "fully accept" we don't hide our head in the sand, we admit existence of all factors in the mandala. Because we admit them, we include them in our analysis and decision-making, so we don't repeat the same mistake twice. It's all about fear (which is a form of denial) vs. having the courage to accept and admit reality as it is.

Thank you very much for such an elaborate answer. I really appreciate it!

Cool, I'm glad my message was meaningful to you.

Confidence arises naturally when we know we are on the right path. Uncertainty and insecurity arise when we have conflicting desires: when we feel we might do this or do that, and worry that choosing wrong will commit us to misery. But in reality it is the fear of 'choosing wrong' — the implicit competition and comparison between different imagined outcomes — that causes misery. Trust that whatever choice you make will work our well, and step forward. That's confidence.
As Eckhart Tolle once said, if you find yourself in a situation you can either accept it or change it, as you prefer. What you should avoid is frustrated, indecisive stagnation.

Thank you very much!

Maybe good if good householder tries to see the way lesser as 'non-way' that as right way. Nothing wrong with 'right pride' as it is required to overcome pride.
In this way right(ous), really praiseworthy self-confidence is trained to reach a point of liberality where one could access to the Noble Domain.
The foundation for being able to reflect and rejoice on ones moral-virtue is layed out by practicing the precepts without faults. If one would develop self-confidence not based on Noble virtues, one can only gain wrong release.
Same with ones Generosity. How could a stingy person ever develop rightous pride? So something against the strain again.
And qualities, equal those leading to Deva-Existences, something certain empathized by Tibetans: How ever become rightly Deva-like if acting and thinking like a coward?
At least 'If the Sublime Buddha and his good Disciples, had been able to develop the path and gain right release, yet 'just' human effort as I would have, why shouldn't I be able, stay another under the 'loser'', is very required, yet based on right value of Sublime first.
As for "Hot dogs for all" and resting on envy-based ideas (all is/are equal) to reject: Non could help them move, trapped by defilements, not willing to let go.
Good householder already listed the first 6 self-reflections for fist steps toward Noble Ones, Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, Sila, Dana, Deva-qualities, so why resting in doubt?

Thanks a lot...

Perhaps I can elaborate on Samana Johann's answer:

Maybe good if good householder tries to see the way lesser as 'non-way' that as right way. Nothing wrong with 'right pride' as it is required to overcome pride.
In this way right(ous), really praiseworthy self-confidence is trained to reach a point of liberality where one could access to the Noble Domain

I think that's saying that self-confidence and pride are related, and are "right" i.e. necessary and not wrong (and to not misquote him, he's also saying something about "liberality" that I won't try to amplify here).
I want to say that ("self-confidence and pride") is also related to or translated as "conceit", and identify three references:

Wikipedia: Māna which mainly talks about its being a fetter and a cause of inter-personal strife

This answer to a question asking about "conceit" which says:

It's essentially comparing people
A semi-enlightened person should be capable (or is only capable) of "true" conceit i.e. of making accurate comparison

And there's a sutta related to this, AN 4.159, which includes,

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, '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.' 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?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I think the latter might be summarised as, "If they can do it then so can I -- by accurately doing too what they did and do".
In a way that's basic pedagogy: you learn by knowing, copying, studying, following people who already practice successfully. It's conceited to think you can, but maybe a true i.e. an accurate conceit. And the confidence (in the teacher[s] and in what's being aught) might be well-placed, verifiable.

In many Buddhist doctrines, confidence or self-confidence is thought as a virtue. I am still struggling to see how it does not contradict with arrogance or pride.
I think that Buddhism has tried to analyse what's helpful ...

Seven Factors of Awakening
Thirty-seven qualities

... versus what's unhelpful, which is also subdivided ...

Fetters (slightly different lists in different schools)
Hindrances
Poisons

Sometimes it's useful to understand (or to have understood) fine distinctions -- such as What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
Sometimes I think that definition-seeking is a problem of its own -- perhaps what's meant by a finger pointing at the moon.
Anyway that might point to an answer to your question:

It's (bad) arrogance or pride when it has an ill effect, e.g. causing strife, undue problems
It's (useful, virtuous) confidence when it has a good effect, e.g. encouraging good and wise behaviour

Sometimes I find the very concept of right and wrong is stressful and becomes over-thinking. The over-thinking is a source of stress. A major type of over-thinking is associated with identity view!

A thicket of wrong views

At a time like that, remembering the three or four noble truths might be a slightly simpler version of the Buddhist doctrine and an antidote to the stress of right and wrong, black and white, antagonism and contradictions.

Hello Chris, Thank you very much for such an informative answer. I must confess, I am not very educated in Buddhism. I greatly thankful for all the resources you have provided.


text:
Which Animal corresponds to which Buddha?
For example, peacocks are often associated with Amitabha. They were said to be his mounts, and images of Amitabha often feature peacock symbolism.
What about the other Buddhas? Do they each have an associated animal symbol, and what could the animal represent?

In Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism, various animals are associated with different Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

This web page has more information about the sacred animals in Buddhism

also, the Pali suttas refer to Buddha Shakyamuni as a 'Naga' or 'Cobra'.

No, not all Buddhas have an animal associated with them, in any tradition.