text:
What is the general view towards Triratna Buddhism from other schools?
I've been attending a Triratna Buddhist centre for half a year now, and have learned a lot about Buddhist teachings from there. I'm curious, however, about how Triratna is seen from other schools such as Mahayana and Theravada, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism etc.
In particular:

Is there any strong disagreement from other schools about the particulars of Sangharakshita's teachings? Or are they quite compatible?
Do other schools tend to regard Triratna as a serious tradition, or is the "Westernisation" of Triratna's teachings seen as a detriment?
Is the view of Triratna from other schools generally positive, neutral or negative?

The only reference I can find to Triratna as a sect or sangha is here, but this seems to be a relatively recent thing — young even in comparison to some of the other 'modernist' movements in Buddhism — so it seems unlikely that millennia-old traditions like Zen or Theravada would have taken much notice of it. Interesting perspective, from the little I read on the page, but I can't speak to the soundness of its worldview.

@Max - I'm not sure where you get that from, but let me know and I can edit the question accordingly. My interest is in the differences between Triratna's interpretation of Buddhism and other schools', and whether Triratna is regarded seriously as a school of Buddhism by other schools.

It looks like I might have misread your question then. My apologies. Triratna draws upon a number of different traditions, Zen, Theravada, Tibetan, Mahayana and perhaps a few others. From my brief experience with them, their system seems geared towards the recognition of the individual and their path, rather than dispensing a one-size-fits-all method, which makes sense as a movement situated within society. I never paid attention to Sanghrakshita's teachings. It was the various Buddhist schools of thought that intrigued me most.

With regard to your questions: most Buddhists schools from time to time will jeer and poke each other for whatever reason. So I guess if you search, you will find.

I've been part of the Triratna Community for maybe 15 years. I do know that people can find it controversial but that's more from a secular perspective - some ethical stuff that was going on early on in the movement wasn't great.
Regarding how other schools regard it - I would point you to this book
The thought of Sangharakshita. A critical evaluation
There's a lot in this but the basic theme is that Sangharakshita (founder of Triratna) is revered within the movement and basically unknown outside of it. The author says there should be a middle way with this and a he deserves to be more widely know. He has ideas that the author feels have wider merit. Conversely people within the movement could do with a more critical analysis of his work. It also really digs into his ethical lapses if that's of interest.

Hmm... Sounds a bit like what happened with the Shambhala Buddhism organization.

The Guardian Article mentions a problematic past early in the Triratna movement.
That story will be read by other Buddhists who also understand that:

SN42.8:9.1: ‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces sexual misconduct …

The Triratna history may cause some concern among other Buddhists. But those other Buddhists will also reflect on their own past mistakes. For example:

SN42.8:10.3: That’s not right, it’s not good, and I feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’
SN42.8:10.4: Reflecting like this, they give up lying, and in future they refrain from lying.
SN42.8:10.5: That’s how to give up this bad deed and get past it.

Personally, I would have no issue at all with going to a Triratna center and practicing there as long as that center did indeed take refuge in the Buddha, the Teachings and the Sangha, since those are, after all, the Triratna

Allegations of ethical misconduct by members of the monastic order, may be proven or unproven.
In any case, orthodox Buddhists, on hearing such allegations, would be reminded of the Buddha's warning on the five future dangers.

Monks, these five future dangers, unarisen at present, will arise in
the future. Be alert to them and, being alert, work to get rid of
them. Which five?
“There will be, in the course of the future, monks desirous of fine
robes. They, desirous of fine robes, will neglect the practice of
wearing cast-off cloth; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness
dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal capitals, taking up
residence there. For the sake of a robe they will do many kinds of
unseemly, inappropriate things.
“This, monks, is the first future danger, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
rid of it.
“Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks desirous
of fine food. They, desirous of fine food, will neglect the practice
of going for alms; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness
dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal capitals, taking up
residence there and searching out the tip-top tastes with the tip of
the tongue. For the sake of food they will do many kinds of unseemly,
inappropriate things.
“This, monks, is the second future danger, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
rid of it.
“Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks desirous
of fine lodgings. They, desirous of fine lodgings, will neglect the
practice of living in the wilds; will neglect isolated forest and
wilderness dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal capitals,
taking up residence there. For the sake of lodgings they will do many
kinds of unseemly, inappropriate things.
“This, monks, is the third future danger, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
rid of it.
“Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks who will
live in close association with nuns, female probationers, and female
novices. As they interact with nuns, female probationers, and female
novices, they can be expected either to lead the holy life
dissatisfied or to fall into one of the grosser offenses, leaving the
training, returning to a lower way of life.
“This, monks, is the fourth future danger, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
rid of it.
“Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks who will
live in close association with monastery attendants and novices. As
they interact with monastery attendants and novices, they can be
expected to live intent on storing up all kinds of possessions and to
stake out crops and fields.
“This, monks, is the fifth future danger, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get
rid of it.
“These, monks, are the five future dangers, unarisen at present, that
will arise in the future. Be alert to them and, being alert, work to
get rid of them.”
AN 5.80


text:
Does accusation helps a person change his values or a better ways is to tell a story with moral?
I have a friend say Dev. He always involves himself in flattery of rich people knowingly or unknowingly. Its clearly visible that he shows off in front of rich people or try to gain their friendship in comparison to normal people or people of his status (in terms of wealth).
So suppose I directly accuse him by saying that you are a flatterer etc (a person who flatters others because they are rich). This may hurt his feelings. It may possibly hurt feelings of her family as well as my family and may destroy relationships. What are the chances that he is going to accept this as a positive thing and try to bring about a change in him?
Another way to tell him is by telling him a story about some rich person who have many flatterers and making fun of those flatterers. In this way I am not directly accusing him and the other person will not get hurt and try to convey a message as well. What are the changes of this kind of conversation impacting him to bring about a positive change in him?

I think it's healthy to care about our fellow humans, but there comes a point where that caring takes on similar qualities found in your friend. Wanting someone to change becomes a projection of your own ego mind, just like your friend wants to project his status into the world. Same energy, same result: suffering. Experience teaches this best.

I think this question would also be on-topic at [interpersonal.se], if you're also open to non-Buddhist answers to this question.

I don't think there's a "one fits all" answer to this. That's why in Buddhism the teacher can avail him/herself of many different upaya. A teaching method that will fit one student doesn't necessarily fit the other. If that was the case, everyone would gain instant attainment after hearing an enlightenment story like a Zen Kōan.
This is why the personal relation between teacher and student is so important. It is likely also part of why there are so many different branches of Buddhism.

Yes, the person and the situation call forth dynamic responses, and quite often one can encounter the same event with a different person but both responses may contradict each other. This is because of some interesting factors that are too lengthy to include in this comment. Good answer +1.

The Buddha indicates that it is inappropriate to talk in certain ways to certain people in certain conditions:

AN5.157:1.1: “Mendicants, it is inappropriate to speak to five kinds of person by comparing that person with someone else.
AN5.157:1.3: It’s inappropriate to talk to an unfaithful person about faith.
AN5.157:1.4: It’s inappropriate to talk to an unethical person about ethics.
AN5.157:1.5: It’s inappropriate to talk to an unlearned person about learning.
AN5.157:1.6: It’s inappropriate to talk to a stingy person about generosity.
AN5.157:1.7: It’s inappropriate to talk to a witless person about wisdom.

If your friend gets upset, then your intervention would be inappropriate. For example:

AN5.157:6.1: And why is it inappropriate to talk to a witless person about wisdom?
AN5.157:6.2: When a witless person is spoken to about wisdom they lose their temper, becoming annoyed, hostile, and hard-hearted, and displaying annoyance, hate, and bitterness.

So be careful to talk with the right person at the right time about the right things.

Underrated advise. Follow it or be assasinated.

As already told by householder 'letsbuddhism' there are three ways of teaching: telling benefits, telling drawbacks, and a combination. If either wouldn't help, possible no way that taking on.
As for the quote from SuttaCentral of AN 5.157 in another answer: first, the translation that talking is "inappropriate" is better translated as "burdensome" or "troublesome"; second, someone who is unrelated has no duty to teach, someone who is a relative does have.
This is told although knowing that the 'Robin Hoods' lack of wisdom and take it as food for their anger, yet there is still a small opening, that one could pay right attention.
Sure, if in dependency one, if not able to let go, should take care not to lose it, even if well meant.
So all three kinds of teaching should be traceable here as an account, yet just for wise and those in relation toward the Gems, or after it.

Truly, the an5.157 word translated by Sujato as inappropriate is dukkathā.

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
AN 4.111

I've heard that if you have something to run from and something to run towards, then you will run faster having both kind of motivations compared to either avoidance or reward promted running.
What you want to avoid is your words being perceived as a punishment of what you think is bad behavior.
You really want to avoid this because you will most certainly be met with retaliation and it won't work properly. At best you may have enough leverage to force restraint but this is compulsion based training and isn't proper.
As Oya Mist touched upon, you should be extremely careful when dealing with people. That especially if you are trying to do good things, really... bad people will straight kill you... no really, they will and i think most people don't realize how easy it is to trigger people to want your life.

First, I beware of "A or B?" questions -- because that could be a 'false dichotomy', and a better answer might be "both", or "neither", or "something else entirely" -- or perhaps the question is unanswerable in its present form e.g. without more information.
Second, I don't see how "telling a story with a moral" is supposed to work: because either they don't recognise their own behaviour in the story (in which case it's ineffective and a waste of time); or they do recognise that the story is intended as a critique of their own behaviour, in which case how is it any different from an "accusation"?
Third, when we read the suttas we are reading stories about other people. But the dialogs in the suttas tend to be people talking to each other, they're not telling stories or talking about other people. I'm saying that "telling stories and talking about other people" doesn't seem to be the way that people talked to each other in the suttas.
Some of the teaching in the suttas takes the form of asking questions.
Perhaps "asking questions" might be one of the ways to appear less offensive -- instead of imposing your view on someone (e.g. "You are flattering this person"), you are asking for their view, like asking their advice ("Are you flattering this person?"). So perhaps a line of questioning like, "Are you flattering this person? Is that a good idea? Are you worried that might have such-and-such disadvantage?" is a way to have a conversation with the person about your concerns, while being less of an accusation, and more respectful in that it's asking them to share their view instead of imposing your own view.
And if they do answer, maybe avoid using their answer as an excuse to argue with them!
Another way to try to avoid offence is to use "I messages" i.e. talk about "I" -- for example not, "You're wrong to flatter people" (which is a "you" message), not even "Flattery is wrong" (which is still an accusation), but "I am afraid that flattery has such-and-such disadvantage" (which is an "I" message).
And if you're going to tell a story with a moral, then a story based on your own personal experience might be seen as friendlier (and perhaps more truthful) -- "sharing your own experience", for your welfare and for theirs, instead of "moralizing".
See also What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?
on the subject of "asking questions" (and of "teaching by asking questions").
According to AN 4.42 there are a variety of ways to answer questions, and I expect it's done more or less skilfully. Note also AN 5.159 which says teaching should be with the thought of speaking "without exalting oneself or putting other people down", and isn't easy.
The whole topic might be linked to "conceit" -- see Māna (Wikipedia)" and How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- and difficult to perform well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I am trying to find the correlation between theravada jhana, rupa/arupa and the 9 levels of calm abiding in tibetan buddhism
Title really.
I am reading the tibetan lamrim version of the 9 mental abiding and trying to correlate it to the theravada 8 jhanas, I can't seem to find which jhana/abiding is which in regards to the other tradition.
The practice for both is still samatha.
If anyone has an informed opinion or understanding of the practices I could really do with some help understanding how the 2 different explanations coincide.

In the Gelugpa's Lamrim tradition for sure, and I suspect in most other Lamrim traditions as well, the four rupa jhanas and the subsequent arupa jhanas are practiced after the 9 abidings, once the calm abiding has been achieved.
Please refer to Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism, page 85.

I was actually reading that book as well as other books to find the answer and eventually got to the understanding that the 9 calm abiding are what as knows as access concentration, a prerequisite to jhana meditations.

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


text:
How to overcome fear of annihilation in meditation and why is it not included in list of hindrances to meditation?
Over a period of last few years I have almost completely eradicated the 'five hindrances' to meditation. However, sometimes when I am in deep meditation, I feel an intense fear of 'getting annihilated' and then my mind immediately becomes restless and meditation is broken. As the mind knows that total emptiness will be the end of 'mind' or 'ego' I think the fear springs from that idea.
How can I overcome this fear when the meditation is going on? and also, I wonder why 'fear' is not listed as one of the five hindrances to meditation?

Please see the answers here about fear: How can I accept losing control of my mind and will

In a way, fear of annihilation is part of the five hindrances, for example:

attachment to/desire for the continuation of sensory perception (i.e. to the physical body)
resentment/bitterness toward mortality
doubt in the concept of Anattā

Since individualism is a central tenet of Western civilization, it can be especially hard to anticipate 2 annihilations: the inevitable death of the body and the annihilation of self (the latter in Zen is called "the Great Death") as a necessary step in attainment.
In addition, in Western culture we tend to "hide" death as much as possible, compared to Asian cultures. For example, there is a long tradition of monks meditating around a deceased person in Asia - not to mention the tradition of Tibetan sky burials. You might say we "push death away" much more in Western culture.
As a consequence, we perhaps tend to "push Anattā away" in the same way we avoid being confronted with physical death (consciously or culturally). I struggled with this my "self", until my teacher urged me to really mentally dive into what really discomforted me regarding this idea - and that's all it turned out to be in my case: the imaginings of what the actual event of self-annihilation would be like. Like what most people fear about physical death is not death itself, but the way it will come, I had formed the most terrifying scenarios in my head what this "dying process of the self" would be like. I would almost call it "spiritual hypochondria" in my case.
Needless to say, all these imagined scenarios were completely absent from the initial glimpse of the actual experience (in my case through Kōan practice). But I did need that initial push from my teacher to dive into my extreme discomfort of the idea to get there.
Hope this helps.

Top grade answer. Wonderful.

An excellent answer.

The Visuddhimagga or the Path of Purification by Ven. Buddhaghosa is useful for this purpose. Please see "Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga)", translated from Pali by Ven. Ñāṇamoli. It's a classic manual of Buddhist doctrine and meditation written in approximately the 5th century CE, and is considered the most important Theravada text outside the Pali Canon and its traditional commentaries.
It talks about the eight knowledges of insight:

Now,  insight  reaches  its  culmination  with  the  eight
knowledges,  and knowledge in conformity with truth is ninth; these
are what is called purification by  knowledge  and  vision  of  the
way.The  eight  should  be  understood  as  follows:  (1)  knowledge
of  contemplation of rise and fall, which is insight free from
imperfections and steady on its course,(2) knowledge of contemplation
of dissolution, (3) knowledge of appearance as terror, (4) knowledge
of contemplation of danger, (5) knowledge of contemplation of
dispassion,  (6)  knowledge  of  desire  for  deliverance,  (7)
knowledge  of contemplation of reflection, and (8) knowledge of
equanimity about formations.
“Knowledge  in  conformity  with  truth
as  ninth”  is  a  term  for  conformity.So one who wants to perfect
this should make these kinds of knowledge his task, starting with
knowledge of rise and fall free from imperfections.

The description of (3) knowledge of appearance as terror:

As  he  repeats,  develops  and  cultivates  in  this  way  the
contemplation  of dissolution,  the  object  of  which  is  cessation
consisting  in  the  destruction,  fall and breakup of all formations,
then formations classed according to all kinds of becoming,
generation, destiny, station, or abode of beings, appear to him in the
form of a great terror, as lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas,
spirits, ogres, fierce bulls,  savage  dogs,  rut-maddened  wild
elephants,  hideous  venomous  serpents,thunderbolts,  charnel
grounds,  battlefields,  flaming  coal  pits,  etc.,  appear  to  a
timid man who wants to live in peace. When he sees how past formations
have ceased,  present  ones  are  ceasing,  and  those  to  be
generated  in  the  future  will cease  in  just  the  same  way,
then  what  is  called  knowledge  of  appearance  as terror  arises
in  him  at  that  stage. ...
But  does  the  knowledge  of  appearance  as  terror  [itself]  fear
or  does  it  not fear? It does not fear. For it is simply the mere
judgment that past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing,
and future ones will cease. Just as a man with eyes  looking  at
three  charcoal  pits  at  a  city  gate  is  not  himself  afraid,
since  he only  forms  the  mere  judgment  that  all  who  fall  into
them  will  suffer  no  little pain;—or  just  as  when  a  man  with
eyes  looks  at  three  spikes  set  in  a  row,  an acacia  spike,
an  iron  spike,  and  a  gold  spike,  he  is  not  himself  afraid,
since  he only  forms  the  mere  judgment  that  all  who  fall  on
these  spikes  will  suffer  no little pain;—so too the knowledge of
appearance as terror does not itself fear; it only forms the mere
judgment that in the three kinds of becoming, which resemble the three
charcoal pits and the three spikes, past formations have ceased,
present ones  are  ceasing,  and  future  ones  will  cease.

The description of (4) knowledge of contemplation of danger:

As  he  repeats,  develops  and  cultivates  the  knowledge  of
appearance  as terror he finds no asylum, no shelter, no place to go
to, no refuge in any kind of becoming,  generation,  destiny,
station,  or  abode.  In  all  the  kinds  of  becoming,generation,
destiny, station, and abode there is not a single formation that he
can place his hopes in or hold on to. The three kinds of becoming
appear like charcoal pits  full  of  glowing  coals,  the  four
primary  elements  like  hideous  venomous snakes (S IV 174), the five
aggregates like murderers with raised weapons (S IV174),  the  six
internal  bases  like  an  empty  village,  the  six  external  bases
like village-raiding  robbers  (S  IV  174–75),  the  seven  stations
of  consciousness  and the  nine  abodes  of  beings  as  though
burning,  blazing  and  glowing  with  the eleven  fires  (see  S  IV
19),  and  all  formations  appear  as  a  huge  mass  of  dangers
destitute of satisfaction or substance, like a tumour, a disease, a
dart, a calamity,an affliction (see M I 436). How?
They  appear  as  a  forest  thicket  of  seemingly  pleasant  aspect
but  infested with wild beasts, a cave full of tigers, water haunted
by monsters and ogres, an enemy  with  raised  sword,  poisoned  food,
a  road  beset  by  robbers,  a  burning coal, a battlefield between
contending armies appear to a timid man who wants to  live  in  peace.
And  just  as  that  man  is  frightened  and  horrified  and  his
hair stands  up  when  he  comes  upon  a  thicket  infested  by  wild
beasts,  etc.,  and  he sees  it  as  nothing  but  danger,  so  too
when  all  formations  have  appeared  as  a terror by contemplation
of dissolution, this meditator sees them as utterly destitute of  any
core  or  any  satisfaction  and  as  nothing  but  danger.

Apparently, this will transition into a knowledge of peace:

“He  contemplates as suffering
Arising, occurrence, and the sign,
Accumulation, rebirth-linking —
And this his knowledge is of danger.
“He contemplates as bliss no arising,
And no occurrence, and no sign,
No accumulation, no rebirth-linking —
And this his knowledge is of peace.
“This knowledge about danger has
Five sources for its origin;
Knowledge of peace has also five —
Ten knowledges he understands.

Knowledge of the state of peace is this: “Non-arising is safety,”
etc.: this, however, should  be understood as said for the purpose of
showing the opposite kind of knowledge to knowledge of danger. Or when
it is stated in this way, that there is safety without terror and
free from danger, it is for the purpose of comforting those  who are
upset in their hearts by seeing danger through appearance as terror.
Or  else,  when  arising,  etc., have clearly appeared to a man as
terror, his mind  inclines towards their opposites, and  so this is
said  for the purpose of showing  the advantages in the knowledge of
danger established by the appearance as terror.

So, the mind first sees the terror of the inevitability of the cessation of phenomena, and then experiences danger when it realizes that there is no place to cling to for safety from the inevitability of the cessation of phenomena. Finally, it accepts this situation, and sees non-arising etc. as safety.
Is fear not one of the five hindrances?
Well, if the terror of the inevitability of the cessation of phenomena, or the danger of no place to cling to for safety from cessation, hinders one from progress due to fear, then this falls under the hindrance of doubt or uncertainty (vicikicchā), in my opinion, because the mind is doubtful and lacks conviction and trust, on whether it is the right way forward.
The same text states:

It is without wish to cure (vigatá cikicchá), thus it is uncertainty
(vicikicchá). It  has  the  characteristic  of  doubt.  Its
function  is  to  waver.  It  is  manifested as indecisiveness, or it
is manifested as taking various sides. Its proximate cause is unwise
attention. It should be regarded as obstructive of theory (see
XVII.52).

thank you for the answer. It is very comprehensive and helpful, but what are you actually suggesting as a practice? Do I meditate over the given situations, or do I remember them next time the fear comes? How will the sudden grip of fear be dealt with?

@The White Cloud - It is dealt with by going through the experience and coming to know in this way: does the knowledge of appearance as terror [itself] fear or does it not fear? It does not fear. For it is simply the mere judgment that past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease.

@TheWhiteCloud Please see if this answer helps you.

"As the mind knows that total emptiness will be the end of 'mind' or 'ego' I think the fear springs from that idea."
Then simply let go of such ideas and ways of thinking about being or not-being (as both is wrong thinging). Just 'this isn't real, lasting, worthy to hold on it, make it mine.' The hindrance is simply doubt, and possible caused by neither listen to the good teaching or with wrong attention (e.g. lack of good association). What should be feared to get lost if of no worth and the Buddha didn't thought of others to just get lost. Does this arising thought, idea last? Real? Then, go on for heartwood beyond it, just knowing 'oh, this thought'.


text:
How to escape Karma fight
I think the co-worker fighting is normal here:
(YouTube) Horrifying office fight (Leaked video).
It happened to me as well quite a few times with different bosses. How to handle in this scenario in Buddhism?
It's related to this previous post:
Dealing with Anger and Criticism.
But that does not directly answer my question. Some solutions may take a 500 lives to practice too such as master in patience as story of Buddha himself so minimum is 500 lives. The situation may could lead to continuous karma such as injury, unhappiness in the company or even death in some cases. We just have few seconds of thoughts in this event of karma.
Any other quick guide? I tried these quite useful. Assume the "boss" is aggressive and unreasonable type

Personal message or personal discussion with the boss before the karma happens. i.e. if u start to scream like the other day, then how to manage ya. I can't talk properly when being screamed.

Can we talk about this in an hour time later ? Or just walk out of the place by saying "I need some fresh air". This tip eventually given from #1 above.

Another solution provided in minute 2:03 of (YouTube) 4 Types of Workplace Bullies, for #1 screamer:
she said can we have discussion in a respectful way. What if the boss said "No! get the F out of here?" and continue screaming?

I think the co-worker fighting is normal here
I don't think it's normal. Only once in my 40-year career (working in offices) have I heard someone raise their voice in anger.
Slapping somebody is unthinkable, I imagine someone would be fired, criminally charged, or sued.
Any other quick guide?
Two come to mind.

When I was a teenager, a young Quaker (i.e. a pacifist) said to me, "I'll discuss anything with anyone! But as soon as it turns into an argument I walk away."

There are a few people (army recruits?)  whose job it is to be shouted at -- which reminds me of SN 35.88

"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
"But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."
"But if they hit you with a clod...?"
(etc.)

if u start to scream like the other day, then how to manage ya
I don't know why people shout, it's possibly to establish dominance or social hierarchy -- i.e. they are trying to manage you, and don't want to be told that you see the situation as being your managing them.
That's the message I read from the body language of the first few seconds of the first video you posted, i.e. "I can hit you (because I'm superior) and you're not allowed to hit me."
I can't talk properly when being screamed.
Yes it's difficult, and I'm not sure the person can listen properly when screaming.
My personal experience of being shouted at is that it eventually begins to affect my emotional state too, for example beginning to trigger a primitive "fight or flight" reflex -- and like getting drunk, that's a situation I prefer to avoid. To recover from that altered state, I like (as you mentioned) "some fresh air" i.e. to go for a walk -- or a nap (some sleep).
It is a stressful experience though, so might result in "post traumatic stress"  to some degree.
It's also an experience you might get better at with experience.
My final bit of advice is this: there are good ways to react, and bad ways. If you try all the good reactions you can think of and they don't seem to work, do not try the bad ways! It may be tempting ("If A doesn't work then try B"), but try not to get led into bad behaviour.
I think it's possible, even, that the person shouting is (consciously or otherwise) trying to make you behave badly. "I think they're insubordinate and hard to manage. I shout at them ... and look, they shout back, which proves they have an insubordinate attitude, proves they're in the wrong (and I'm right)!"
And that reminds me of SN 7.2 -- don't partake of the anger, don't participate.

the boss i mentioned confirmed with mental illness but director also same i guess so keep them working there. in my city, we have 39% people diagnosed with mental illness in 2016. not sure about now cause i can't find the national health care report since ever. probably government scares to post it

Most mental health symptoms have traditionally been divided into ‘neurotic’ or ‘psychotic’ symptoms. ‘Neurotic’ covers those symptoms which can be regarded as severe forms of ‘normal’ emotional experiences such as depression, anxiety or panic. Conditions formerly referred to as ‘neuroses’ are now more frequently called ‘common mental health problems.’
Less common are ‘psychotic’ symptoms, which interfere with a person’s perception of reality, and may include hallucinations such as seeing, hearing, smelling or feeling things that no one else can.

if u go HK for a visit. u can see every one out of 3 streets that u walk can see people quarrel. typical reason for those people are free thinker, overly chase for wealth. well, for my case, is political unstable, higher crime case and economy downturn making really worse.  the video with a man slapping a woman, is from Singapore. that is common :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsYRQkmVifg  --> this is another from HK at public area. to handle this is simple, just say sorry boss and let him win, then enjoy a fresh lemon ice then karma ends. but, if he is my boss then i can't do same thing every time.

this is more like a city problem. Glad to hear that your city not impacted yet. This is Skid Row in USA near Hollywood. 5:30 got explain why this happen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTJWdtX90C0

The immediate concern with an angry person is that they might hurt you, physically or otherwise undermine your well-being.
The situation might provoke you to let anger loose which is the nut worst outcome and it would be better if they killed you. This is because your wrongly directed mind will hurt you much more than an enemy can ever do.

One should not strike a brahman,
nor should the brahman let loose with his anger.
Shame on a brahman's abuser. More shame on the brahman whose anger's let loose. (Dhp 389, loose translation)

Whatever an enemy may do to an enemy,
Or haters, one to another,
Far worse is the harm
From one’s own wrongly directed mind.
Niether mother nor father,
Nor any other relative can do
One as much good
As one’s own well-directed mind. (Dhammapada v 42-43, translated by Gil Fronsdal)

In general we should think about everybody as being like ourselves and that we would be acting in the exact same manner given the same amount of delusion & due conditioning.
If we think about it, we might realize that we should want our enemies to come to their senses and become Arahants. That would be great for everyone involved and many would profit from their victory.
In the meanwhile we should sympatize & be compassionate to all beings unconditionally because we are just like them and we want to sympatize & be compassionate towards ourselves unconditionally.
We shouldn't punish anybody because we will inevitably get into the habit of punishing and that will also turn against ourselves as we thus cultivate cruelty. We punish ourselves by punishing others.
We shouldn't seek revenge because that will make us go out of our way on the path of vengence and with that we aren't training and aren't letting others train, indeed we get disturbed by disturbing others.
We should learn to protect ourselves from unruly people and we should learn to protect others from our ugly qualities.
Therefore

Do not consider the faults of others
Or what they have or haven’t done.
Consider rather What you yourself have or haven’t done. (Dhp, flowers)

“He abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!”
For those carrying on like this,
Hatred does not end.
“She abused me, attacked me,
Defeated me, robbed me!”
For those not carrying on like this,
Hatred ends.
Hatred never ends through hatred.
By non-hate alone does it end.
This is an ancient truth. (Dhp dichotomies)

Our own behavior needs to be restrained as we should take care not to trigger others if it isn't beneficial and appropriate.
This question has good answers on how to guide others without force
Does accusation helps a person change his values or a better ways is to tell a story with moral?

well, this ques more like to handle the person in anger that almost turning to a real fight. may be no time to read sutta or meditate during that few seconds moment. Sometime keep quite or avoid this person not working. Sometime even worse or they become more angry by telling the person u are reading sutta cause different from their written truth or religion.

Eh.. you have to do preventive conditioning and a lot of it. There are no techniques to stop you in the moment, your reactions depend on your judgement of the situation and the power to exert impulse control in order to stay rational. It takes a while to develop rationality, interpersonal skills, learning to talk appropriately and dealing with unruly people.

Well,  if count to 10 consider or talk a deep breath a technique ? Its needs practice. Now smart watch also can read whether u are angry or not. Is a technique too right ?

Some people are angry but they dont aware they are angry

If you have enough restraint to walk away & calm yourself down by breathing exercises then of course do that but it's not easy to do if you have anger management issues. I will maybe add to the answer but i hestitate because you don't seem to be interested in doing preventive work & destroying the root of anger and as such your question doesn't seem to be about the uprooting, an altogether destruction of anger but rather anger management by secular means which isn't a particularly Buddhist issue.

Also as to the 500 lives thing... "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, ....
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return (removed anger completely)

Feel free to provide any answer and discuss. It's way of practice

@little star - unfortunately this isn't a website that promotes discussion. Users post a question and select what they might deem to be the right answer. They may or may not use the voting system when choosing a correct answer. This comment section is generally for clearing up any discrepancies with an answer.

In Buddhism, We follow Maitri Bavhana (Meditation). This is the best place to start. Regardess the religion we can do this. There is a variation which my uncle recommended me to try out and as per my personal experience. It works out great.
In Maitri Bavhana we

Feel metta for yourself
Feel metta for your parents, teachers, animals, friends around you

In this variation, as per your highlighted environment (Office environment) You could try this excercise for 21 days continuously. I am trying to translate my best from my native language Sinhalese to english.

Choose a comfortable place where you are not disturbed by other factors
Close your eyes and keep your hands together in the Meditation method
Think about your happiest place or about a calm environment (A forest maybe), hear the birds chirping
Say these mentally, repeatedly in a slow phase

If your boss is really angry at you always, say

"May [Boss's name] be happy and peaceful
Be healthy and strong
Be comfortable and convienient"

If it is a trouble/problem, replace te [Boss's name] with [Your problem]

First day do it for 1 minute or two, day-by-day increase the duration of your exercise. Do this continuously for 21 days. The max duration can be set to 1 hour.
If you feel that you are getting on your nerves, it is the time to mentally repeat this exercise with replacing yourself to [Boss's name].
We do not need 500 lives to master patience as Lord Buddha himself has taught how to master patience during this lifespan

Found this answer from Doc Conte. A psychologist that handling angry prisoners for more than 20 years

People yelling and screaming because they're expressing their "pain"
Don't "just" stop people from angry or feed into their anger
Find a "safe space" to discuss their anger. i.e. the tip/guide given from question above.

Key is how to find and practice the "safe space".
2ndly, Doc mentioned people scream because they're in great "pain" too perhaps from some other reasons, understand that will swift feeling from anger to compassion to understanding to problem solving.
This guy appear to be a Buddhist too. Try to spot from the picture.

Doctor Conte - How to talk to angry people

He's a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.

When you posted a bounty message it was to ask for "a canonical" answer" -- on this site that would usually mean an answer that's based on the Buddhist canon.

FWIW it's true he appears to be a student of Zen -- this book description says, "Distilled from many years of study Zen Buddhism, Zen Parent, Zen Child is a book that brings the reflections of a 2,600 year old philosophy to present day parenting."

@ChrisW modified. 2ndly, "a canonical" answer" --> sorry i did miss that. will take note of that

I think he's implying the root cause is "pain"; my impression was that it's an attempt at coercion (a kind of threat or violence) and of domination. I wonder if we're both right; or whether there's a difference in context, e.g. as a psychologist he's seeing patients (in pain and) being treated by him, whereas the context described in the OP seemed to bullying in the workplace. So maybe there's some selection bias.

This answer is not completely off-topic, but is mostly not related to Buddhism.


text:
What is obsessive defilement?
During practice of meditation experience there are thoughts that can't be noticed. But they stop on their own and later they appear to show up less and less. The thoughts were less wondering with the practice.
Is this due to obsessive defilment become less?
In what stage this is experienced?

I have tried to make your question clearer so as to draw in more attention. If my edit has drifted away from your meaning, please revert back. It looks like you're asking for a Theravada perspective. If so then perhaps add the 'Theravada' tag.

This is exactly a common behaviour during practice. There are certain ways you could identify this

These thoughts originated from a deep level of yours (chilhood/dark)
Your defilment has become less during that day/week/time (If you didn't do unique or something memorable on that day as Vinyana hasn't stored much)
Your defilement had actually become less (But it should stay blank when you are practicing )

The best practice is obsessive defilment (Always!). You can try watching television and practice the meditation and check those thoughts appear as before. If it does, you must continue to make the defilment less.
If you are following Four Satipattana, and if you tend to see less thoughts; you are in the 3rd level arūpajhāna and trying to settle in the arūpajhāna. It is best if you could get Kamatahan (advices) from a teacher/someone superior to you. This helps you to clarify your level and the path to your ultimate goal.
Edit

If you add something in there about sankharas being the scheme of the unconscious mind which influence unwholesome thoughts, and clear-up the contention with arupajhana,

When following Four Sattipattana while meditating, in simple terms:

Kāyānupassanā : Focussing on the body and its' actions
Vedānupassanā : Focussing on the contemplation on feelings occuring by the Kāyānupassanā
Chiththānupassanā : Focussing on mind and thoughts
Dhammānupassanā : Focuss on Dhamma/teachings

You are no longer talking (Vachi Sankhara), your eyes are not open, you are not focussing on other conversations happening, You are in one place and in the meditation position (kāya,saṅkhāra), You are not thinking of anything else rather than the meditation practice(citta saṅkhāra).
No saṅkhāra is happening when you are meditating as all the doors are closed and the subconscious mind is unable to save photocopies what's happening around you (cannot see, hear, feel). The subsconscious mind (or the wizard) is the photocopier of your mind. Therefore the subconcious mind can only distract you from your memories, hallucinations, illusions.
When someone is following the Four satipattana,

You are following to clear the Khlesaa or Defilment
You are aware of the subconcious thoughts flowing to your as you are not doing any sankhara
You are not attached when practicing (Kayanupassana), and you are looking at Rupa Kalāpa (Grouping of Matter) unattached which you are in 1st dhyana

Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, he enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (M.i,1818; Vbh.245)

When you practice the four satipattana, feelings, pains occur for your past khlesa(Mental Impurities)/akusal(unwholesome deeds). Eg:  You will feel pinching, tearing you apart, burning and many more according to your Karma. You tend to focus on Grouping of Matter and Maitri the groupings which is Vedānupassanā

Since you are not attached, and the mind is not attached to Kaya(body), you are overviewing the Grouping of matter unattached. Therefore you are in the second Dhyana by Sukha

Since you are not attached to the Kaya, you are feeling the emptiness (But not always with the Vedānupassanā).

Until you clear the defilments with Maitri Grouping of matter, you will not be in the 4th Dhyana

When you are not attached you are feeling consciousness, a sensation (1 of the Chiththakshana -Mental factors[1/27]) which is the 1st level of arupa dhyana but you are experiencing the 3rd level of arupdhyana ("The Base of No-thingness") when your defilment is getting almost cleared. But it doesn't settle there unless you are sotapanna.

This is very hard to explain when translating to english. You could experience it to yourself by you will need to read abhidhamma pitaka and apply those into your exercise with the help of a Kamatahan(Advicing) Teacher.

Satipatthana + less thoughts = 3rd arupajhana? Hmmm... seems overly adventurous. If you add something in there about sankharas being the scheme of the unconscious mind which influence unwholesome thoughts, and clear-up the contention with arupajhana, I might be inclined to upvote.

@Max , It is very lengthy when defining all the sankharas how it breakdown. It is very hard for me to translate my native words to english and make it meaningful. I will add a reference where you could see the breakdown in Four Satipattana and how it affects the arupadhyana. It is there as a printed version and it has referenced the Abidhamma pitaka in the explanations.


text:
Are there differences in the way Buddhism and Theism treats scripture?
Historically, Buddha rejected the validity of the Vedas, I suspect there might be some differences in the way scripture is treated in Buddhism and other religions, especially Theistic ones.
For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality?
Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture?
Can scripture be argued with? Is it, in some sense, eternal?

Related: How sacrosanct is the “source material” of Buddhism?

The Buddha advocates active investigation and practice (vs. blind faith):

MN80:16.5: Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach and instruct them.
MN80:16.6: Practicing as instructed they will soon know and see for themselves,

The Buddha focuses on the Four Noble Truths regarding suffering (v.s. the nature of reality).

MN141:8.3: What four?
MN141:9.1: The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

The Buddha advocates intelligent and informed discussion (v.s. just considering it true):

AN2.47:2.4: And when they’ve learned those teachings they question and examine each other, saying:
AN2.47:2.5: ‘Why does it say this? What does that mean?’
AN2.47:2.6: So they clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt regarding the many doubtful matters.
AN2.47:2.7: This is called an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk.

In theistic religions, scriptures are either a form of primary revelation - an incorruptible verbatim record of the words of god(s) conveyed by prophets, or a form of secondary revelation - a divinely revealed vision seen by prophetic seers that is conveyed in their own words.
In Buddhism, the scripture mainly contains the discourses and teachings of the Buddha and his chief disciples, as recorded and passed down orally through the monastic order. The teachings of the Buddha are called the Dhamma. It is what he has left behind for his followers to guide them.
The Buddha is seen as the fully enlightened teacher, with an extraordinary ability to teach. He is not viewed as a god or an incarnation of a god. After his passing away, he is not reachable through prayers.

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
to the teachings that the Tathagata (Buddha) holds to the last with
the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. ...
"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
DN 16

In Buddhism, the meaning is more important than the phrasing. In fact, to aid memorization of the Pali suttas, similar phrases or verses conveying the same meaning have been altered to become exactly the same, as explained in this answer.

Now, you might think, ‘These two venerables agree on the meaning but
disagree on the phrasing.’ So you should approach whichever mendicant
you think is most amenable and say to them: ‘The venerables agree on
the meaning but disagree on the phrasing. But the venerables should
know that this is how such agreement on the meaning and disagreement
on the phrasing comes to be. But the phrasing is a minor matter.
Please don’t get into a fight about something so minor.’
MN 103

In theistic religions, one is generally expected to have faith and unquestioningly accept the words of god(s) to be true.
In Buddhism, it's ok to question the scriptures.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
& carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
& remain in them.
Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65)

In Buddhism, the Buddha simply rediscovered the wisdom that was known to previously enlightened ones before him, but have since been forgotten.

Those who were Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened Ones in the past —
they, too, dwelled in dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring
and respecting it. Those who will be Arahants, Rightly Self-awakened
Ones in the future — they, too, will dwell in dependence on the very
Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it. And let the Blessed One,
who is at present the Arahant, the Rightly Self-awakened One, dwell in
dependence on the very Dhamma itself, honoring and respecting it."
SN 6.2

In theistic religions, it's usually not acceptable to consider other religions to be equally true, even if they teach the exact same thing. This is because the identity of the god(s) is more important than the teachings.
In Buddhism, other religions are acceptable to be true if they teach the exact same thing as Buddhism. This is because the teachings are more important than the identity of the teacher.

And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and
Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path,
neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or
fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline
there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic
of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Now in
this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold
Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first,
second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true
ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the
bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.
DN 16

With regards to the universal truth of the laws of nature, we find the following statement about the three marks of existence.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

"In theistic religions, it's considered sacrilegious to say that the scripture is not original, that it was copied from elsewhere." Not really. It's widely acknowledged that some of the Gospels copy from each other, and parts of the book of Proverbs probably include pre-existing texts. The book of Ezra includes several letters from the Persian kings.

@curiousdannii I was thinking along the lines of saying that the five books of the Torah or the Quran as being not original and copied from elsewhere. Same applies to the Rig Veda or Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism.

Even then lots of Christians (and probably some Jews) think that the books of the Torah are edited together from earlier texts.

"In theistic religions, it's considered sacrilegious to alter the verbatim words of god(s)." -- That may be less true in Christianity, look how many versions (translations) of the Bible there are! And yes there are "Biblical fundamentalists" but I think some churches are more nuanced than that. But I don't disagree with what you said about Buddhism.

@ChrisW I will delete the controversial parts.

Just to be thorough and clear, every faith has mystical sects, liturgical sects, and most gradations between. Mystical sects tend to treat scripture as a blueprint for spiritual attainment; liturgical sects tend to treat scripture as rock-solid revelation. Buddhism is no different. If we go to southeast Asia (or even certain communities in the US or Europe) we can find groups that take buddhist scripture as an object of reverence rather than an object of study and understanding; who light incense and ring bells and chant the names of Buddha to seek his blessing or intercession.
In the West we mainly see more mystical, philosophical forms of Buddhism. Buddhism is new to the West — it only started making inroads in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — so it hasn't had enough time for the kind of acculturation that's essential for forming liturgical communities. Western Buddhists are mainly drawn from people dissatisfied with Christian liturgical traditions; people who are interested in a deeper, more philosophical, more mystical approaches to faith, yet shy away from Christian mysticism (gnosticism, transcendentalism, Quakerism...). That should resolve itself in time.

Buddha's message is difficult to understand and most people need training for understanding to mature.
Even at the time of the Buddha we read about monks who held wrong views.
Eventually the monastic community split into many pieces on account of the interpretative differences and schools produced commentary & some even a new sets of discourses attributed to the Buddha.
On the surface the difference between schools are primarily as to which texts are considered canonical & true and the interpretations of said texts are a matter of commentary on which there can be disagreement.
The scrpture is the final authority and there is a general agreement on what texts are certainly true but there are always people who will have their views contradicted by certain texts and will try to discredit those texts as somehow corrupted in order to dismiss those.

I think that "buddhavacana" are revered, and studied, maybe in the same kind of way as "Theistic" texts.
For for example does Buddhism treat its scripture as the final Authority on the nature of reality?
Yes and no (maybe "no" to the extent that scripture is just words, and words are empty!).
I think this is a good summary of the Buddhist attitude to doctrine:

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

Is something considered true just for the reason that it is said in Scripture?
Well I consider it "true" when it accurately describes my experience.
Can scripture be argued with?
Well "argument" might be disparaged as counter-productive -- see for example the parable of the Blind men and the elephant in Udana 6.4 -- and I think that suttas warn that arguments are based on conceit.
Not that arguments don't happen, perhaps it's because they may happen a lot that we're warned against.
But I think, hope, that scripture can be discussed.
Is it, in some sense, eternal?
In some sense, yes. One interpretation is that the Buddha "rediscovered" the dhamma -- that's it's an ancient law (of nature), discovered by a Buddha, practiced, gradually forgotten, eventually rediscovered by the next Buddha, and so on.

Possibly one difference from "Theistic" scripture is I think that theistic religions are dogmatic and require their "believers" to believe a lot of dogma. In catholicism for example there's a Credo and so far as I know if I denied any of this I might be a heretic.
In contrast, this statement from Wikipedia:

Followers in Vietnam practice differing traditions without any problem or sense of contradiction.[34] Few Vietnamese Buddhists would identify themselves as a particular kind of Buddhism, as a Christian might identify themself by a denomination, for example.

See also these three comments from users of this site, talking about different perspectives or "schools" of Buddhism.
Personally I find there are elements of Buddhist scrpture that I wouldn't want to discard or deny -- because they seem true and useful, self-evident, beneficial, and a "refuge".
There are other elements of scripture which I may understand less well. My attitude such as it is towards those elements might be to "neither believe nor disbelieve".


text:
After right concentration, how does right view change?
After right concentration, how does right view change?
Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)?
I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

Right view is a precursor to any attainment based on right views.
In example if a person held the view that sensuality is a worthwhile pursuit then he wouldn't be able to still the perception of sensuality. He would be training thus 'this should be, this should be for me and it is proper'.
Therefore you can't have right concentration without the corresponding right views. In order for path to be born one develops right views and eventually when there is an opening one attains the 8-fold path as a meditative attainment stilling the conditioned on account of dispassion, mind leaps to the Deathless element for release & a destruction of taints.

yeah well I knew all that, and you didn't answer the question. no harm in it, however

My point was that nothing changes as to one's views, one simply has an experience of entering into & emerging from cessation of perception & feeling. Having emerged from the attainment one's taints are more or less removed and one then has a memory of the sorrowless state, rather than a mere  conceptual understanding of the possibility of such a reality and mind is then inclined to it.

yeah that works for me: non-conceptual knowing or knowledge. thanks!

Another thing changing is that one gains verified confidence and no longer takes it on faith that the training culminates in the Deathless, one no longer proclaims it based on faith or conviction. Technically it's not something one believes beyond the point of realizing that truth with one's body.

sure. it depends on how you spin 'faith' see e.g. Korean buddhism. and I disagree that after right concentration you have no beliefs (even-though I like the idea of the omniscience of nothing at all). but I see were you're coming from

There is a sutta where The Buddha asks Sariputta whether he believes or takes it on faith that the development of faculties culminates in the Deathless and Sariputta says that he doesn't. The present monks were rattled by this and couldn't understand why Sariputta doesn't take it on faith.

It's not that you no longer have beliefs, it's about the beliefs associated with that particular development & the goal. In regards to the vision & knowledge of release one goes beyond faith.

sounds like a point for debate, is all I meant: not entirely clear perhaps?

Sāriputta, do you have faith that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in the deathless?”
“Sir, in this case I don’t rely on faith in the Buddha’s claim that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in the deathless. There are those who have not known or seen or understood or realized or experienced this with wisdom.

They may rely on faith in this matter. But there are those who have known, seen, understood, realized, and experienced this with wisdom. They have no doubts or uncertainties in this matter. https://suttacentral.net/sn48.44/en/sujato

yeah! that doesn't contradict what I've said, I think?

I can't follow your thinking entirely because i don't know what is Korean Buddhism and when you say 'omniscience of nothing at all', i also get lost a bit because i didn't intend to communicate anything close to that expression. Therefore i think it's best to leave this as is and i don't think it's appropriate to discuss terminology much in the comments.

ok. maybe we should delete all the comments. perhaps edit in some of your comments?

I'm just going to answer from my own limited and potentially fictional etc. experience. Your views do not change, but - in the Mahayana at least - you have "no view" (as Nagarjuna famously espoused).
So, less dogmatic, more capable of revision, and yet never revised.

Typically one leaves wrong view, then enters right view with taints or effluents, then on to generating the noble path, then to the noble right view and then to the rest of the noble eightfold path. Please the MN 117 below.
Another good sutta which shows the transition from right view with taints or effluents, to the generation of the noble path is AN 5.57.

“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view
come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as
right view: this is one’s right view.
“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing
offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad
actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no
beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct
knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong
view.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold:
there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit,
ripening in the acquisitions; and there is right view that is noble,
taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints,
partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is
given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and
result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other
world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn
spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and
declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected
by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless,
supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom,
the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor,
the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind
is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble
path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a
factor of the path.
“One makes an effort to abandon wrong view and to enter upon right
view: this is one’s right effort. Mindfully one abandons wrong view,
mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one’s
right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right
view, that is, right view, right effort, and right mindfulness.
MN 117

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

There's a snowball effect, exponential growth, like compound interest. The eightfold noble path is a causal sequence, and #8 (right samadhi) loops back to #1 (right view). So when your samadhi improves in quality, immediately you're right view is going to see a little more clearly, and increase the potential to understand a little more deeply. So every moment, it's a snowball getting bigger and stronger. It's an ongoing process, improving or declining depending on your focus, there's no set formula for when a deep insight is going to kick in.


text:
Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are?
Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are?
So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side, or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self?
I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the same thing here?
I'm interested in anyone having said "no".

There is no agreement as to what are Dharmas and a conventional 'self', if it is conventional & normal then what is the mystery. We have also had plenty of questions dealing with the words 'self' & 'emptiness', you should search for those because i doubt anybody will bother repeating the answers. It's very unclear what it is you are asking because you are mixing various methods of expression, eg notion of a 'conventional self' is entirely foreign to pali litterature.

likewise the notion of dhammas arising & ceasing every moment, this is also foreign to sutta and is actually reprimandable because it is said that what is called mind, consciousness or intellect arises as one thing & ceases as another.

"notion of a 'conventional self' is entirely foreign to pali litterature" @Letsbuddhism I agree I don't understand this question, but I think that "conventional" self is for example in the dialog of King Milinda -- where "conventional" is translated here as "the designation in common use".

I misunderstood what you meant by "dharmas" in the first paragraph -- I thought you meant "doctrines" but I guess you meant "things".

I think you're glossing "self" to mean "ultimate / substantial / unchanging / etc. self", etc.. it'a pretty standard, but has been pretty conclusively - I think - established as a mistake @Letsbuddhism

If you agree, maybe it would draw more attention by using the terms avijja and vijja instead of conventional self and dharmas, that's if I understand your meaning of dharmas. In Theravada, Avijja has a similar meaning to conventional self, and Vijja has a similar meaning to dharmas. Avijja - without the risk of sounding derogatory - is a kind of stupidity or living life with a closed mind. Vijja is the opposite: it's a desire to see the larger frame of reference where situational wisdom arises.

Does this answer your question? Does Theravada posit the selflessness of phenomena?

I think this question is possibly a duplicate of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/does-theravada-posit-the-selflessness-of-phenomena and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28709/if-theravada-doesnt-posit-the-selflessness-of-phenomena-then-how-to-interpret

@ChrisW as to conventional, i'll give you that but it's a stretch to say that The Buddha taught about the doctrine of self in this way. As to OP You will be surprised as to the amount of delusion in buddhist circles. Don't want to get into details much but afaik the word moment occurs like 1 time in the tipitaka and that in a book of abhidhamma. The conditioned is said to change as it persists and consciousness arising as one thing & ceasing as another. I only post this to show how difficult it is to interpret your question, i neither agree nor disagree with your assertions.

Afaik It is mostly after 11th century that the doctrine of things arising & ceasing very fast became a popular expression in Theravada due to the comy which is Abhidhammattha-sangaha.

I said there is a lot of delusion in Buddhist circles in regards to this "no it is not entirely foreign to the pali sutras, not unless lots of monks have been entirely misunderstanding the sutras". I was just using your proposition of monks having a lot misunderstanding [delusion] if that expression is indeed foreign to Sutta and it obviously isn't in the canonical texts, i already explained the origin. I think that you will be surprised to learn how much disagreement there is among monks and commentators if you study more.

OP: "Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas
are?"

In extent Mahayana traditions the selflessness of phenomena and the selflessness of persons is of the same nature and both are posited. They differ only in the object of focus. Further, it is considered critical to understand the selflessness of phenomena in order to achieve the soteriological ends of the Buddha.
In the Theravada, the selflessness of phenomena is not posited and it is treated by some as not germane to the soteriological ends of the Buddha while others insist that positing the selflessness of phenomena is actually a hindrance in that it denies the reality of the objectively existing world. However, it should be noted that some Theravada practitioners here on the site seem to have more or less the same understanding of the two selves as Mahayana.

OP: "So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and
disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side,
or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have
parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self?"

In Mahayana: yes. In Theravada: see above.

OP: "I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the
same thing here?"

Again see above.
Also, these questions and answers might be helpful.

can you please provide a reference for your first paragraph, ideally a very catholic one

You can find a reference to a Geshe Lharampa stating essentially the same thing in the first link I posted in the answer above. Cheers.

ok well I was primary interested in more sinitic forms of buddhism cheers

Yeah, that's hard to give a reference for. I think most of the sinitic traditions would agree, but it will be hard to find a detailed description written in an academic fashion. The Tibetan traditions are the most academic in this sense.

dwai, I will ask a Tendai monk or scholar. your answer was helpful, thanks

Regarding self as a convention:
If you sit down, you have a lap. When you stand up, where is the lap? Where has it gone to?
What a "lap" is, is just a convention, just a like a "fist".
Similarly, a being (satta), a person (puggala), a chariot (ratha) are all conventions. See SN 5.10.
The self (atta) can be seen in two forms.
In the first case, when am unenlightened person clings to it, it's simply a mental idea (Snp 4.14) in the mind that one clings to.
In the second case, when an enlightened one says "me", "I", "we", "our", "mine", he is just using conventions (SN 1.25).
Even in the first case, it's just a convention too. Why? What you call "self" is somehow pegged to some other concept like your body or your mind or your personality.
So, imagine if you go to the beach and spend a lot of time and effort to build a sand castle. Then someone comes and smashes it. You feel angry and say "why did you smash my sand castle?" "You", "my" and "sand castle" are all conventions. The anger appeared because of clinging.

Regarding emptiness:
The concept of "substance" (svabhava) comes in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Mahayana. Madhyamaka states that everything is empty of substance, which means it is empty of the meaning that is given to it by the mind. It's not what you think it is.
Anatta is the notion that everything is not self. The body, the mind, the five aggregates, mental ideas etc. are all not self.
Anatta is a specialized form of emptiness (i.e. everything is empty of a self - SN 35.85), while the Madhyamaka emptiness is a more generalized form (i.e. everything is empty of the meaning given to it by the mind). Both types of emptiness are covered in MN 1. So, Theravada has both too, in fact.
The Madhyamaka emptiness is explained by the Pali term papanca. If papanca is the process of baking, then svabhava is the cake. Please see this answer.
In his commentary to Snp 4.14, Ven. Thanissaro explained that the objectification and classification (papanca) of the mental idea of the self vs. non-self objects, lead to craving, clinging and suffering. He also explained papanca in his commentary to MN 18.
A detailed explanation can be found in this answer.

yes, similarly. I made that point in the question, and asked if they are in the same way empty. are they?

@unknown_buddhist The concept of "substance" (svabhava) comes in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Mahayana. Madhyamaka states that everything is empty of substance, which means it is empty of the meaning that is given to it by the mind. It's not what you think it is.

oh, I have definitely heard that anatta means the self lacks a "substance". certainly, anatta has been glossed before as "emptiness of self", just as sunyata has as "lack of self existence"

Anatta is the notion that everything is not self. Your body, your mind, the five aggregates, mental ideas etc. are all not self.

so you seem to think "no" they are just similar, not the same, emptiness. that's cool... I'm out of questions now anyway!

@unknown_buddhist Anatta is a specialized form of emptiness (i.e. everything is empty of a self), while the Madhyamaka emptiness is a more generalized form (i.e. everything is empty of the meaning given to it by the mind). Both types of emptiness are covered in MN 1. So, Theravada has both too, in fact.

they mean different things (in Mahayana and Theravada) I believe, but ymmv - legitimately I mean ha!

@ruben2020 this answer says that Theravada also has selflessness of phenomena according to MN 1... does that mean you've changed your mind? Do you now regard the selflessness of phenomena as important to the goals of liberation?

@YesheTenley What you call "selflessness of phenomena" is called papanca (reification or conceptualization or objectification-classification) in Theravada. The mental idea of the self is a type of papanca and non-self objects are also papanca. Craving is also habit of papanca. Snp 4.14 is very clear that to end suffering, we must end papanca by putting an end to the root of papanca, which is the thought "I am the thinker" (i.e. the self). Ven. Thanissaro explains this in his footnote.

see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45625/what-is-the-difference-between-theravada-papanca-with-regard-to-objects-and-ma


text:
Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?
Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?
I don't actually know enough about the history of Buddhism to answer that question!

OP: Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts
of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?

Definitely no.
Listen to the story of Sunita the Outcaste below, who came from a very poor and socially disadvantaged background, but was accepted by the Buddha into the monastic order. In ancient India, the outcaste or untouchable was of the lowest caste, while the brahmin (the priestly class) was the highest caste.
Ven. Sunita followed the teachings of the Buddha and became an Arahant (a fully enlightened one). The Buddha said that he became a true brahmin.
This means that the ones who are fervently seeking enlightenment and the ones who have attained enlightenment are worth more to the Buddha than anyone else.

In a lowly family I was born,
poor, with next to no food.
My work was degrading:
I gathered the spoiled,
the withered flowers from shrines
and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
despised me, disparaged me.
Lowering my heart,
I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
arrayed with a squadron of monks,
the Great Hero, entering the city,
supreme, of the Magadhans.
Throwing down my carrying pole,
I approached him to do reverence.
He — the supreme man — stood still
out of sympathy
just for me.
After paying homage
to the feet of the teacher,
I stood to one side
& requested the Going Forth from him,
supreme among all living beings.
The compassionate Teacher,
sympathetic to all the world, said:
"Come, monk."
That was my formal Acceptance.
Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
untiring,
I followed the Teacher's words,
just as he, the Conqueror, had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
I recollected previous lives;
in the middle watch,
purified the divine eye;
in the last,
burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
& the sun returning,
Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
"Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
Homage to you, O man supreme,
whose fermentations are ended.
You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
the Teacher smiled & said:
"Through austerity, celibacy,
restraint, & self-control:
That's how one is a brahman.
He is a brahman supreme."
Thag 12.2

Which is more likely: a poor man who has no attachments to his poverty or a rich man who has no attachments to his riches?
Worthiness is an evaluation; an evaluation is a comparison; a comparison demands the existence of a reified self. Someone who has awakened sees the falseness of the reified self, thus makes no comparisons, thus makes no evaluations, thus is unconcerned with worthiness.
Rich people have more free time to sit around contemplating and practicing than poor people. Rich people also have a greater burden of ego-identification: each thing they own, each mark of status and privilege, each step up the social ladder is another fetter binding them to a fabricated self. Most likely they need more time to contemplate and practice to make the same progress as the poor. It all comes out in the wash, as they say...

As I understand, the Buddha's teachings seemed to favour those who had gone forth from the lay life into the homeless life, regardless of what background they came from. There's a simile about this regarding a farmer's fields where the crops are growing in one field but not another, and that one should attend to the already growing crops first. I guess his disciples were the already growing crops, and everyone else were barely growing if I understand it correctly. However, the Buddha travelled and encountered a wide variety of people from all walks of life, including rich and poor, and gave teachings suitable to their understanding.
EDIT: I wasn't able to locate the simile I mentioned. I tried searching the index of similes at access to insight, but it yielded nothing. I know it's there somewhere. In any case, I think ruben2020 is most accurate in answering your question.

Four things are helpful.

DN34:1.5.2: What four things are helpful?
DN34:1.5.3: Four situations:
DN34:1.5.4: living in a suitable region, relying on good people, being rightly resolved in oneself, and past merit.

Therefore, if one lives in a bad neighborhood, is surrounded by bad friends, is uncertain, or has a bad reputation, then one should take action to live in a safer neighborhood with trustworthy friends acting decisively for the benefit of one and all.
The Buddha himself talks about wealth in terms of qualities as opposed to money.

DN34:1.8.3: Seven kinds of wealth of noble ones:
DN34:1.8.4: the wealth of faith, ethical conduct, conscience, prudence, learning, generosity, and wisdom.

Lastly, one understands that character matters, not conventional wealth, caste or titles:

AN2.9:1.1: “These two bright things, mendicants, protect the world.
AN2.9:1.2: What two?
AN2.9:1.3: Conscience and prudence.
AN2.9:1.4: If these two bright things did not protect the world, there would be no recognition of the status of mother, aunts, or wives and partners of teachers and respected people.
AN2.9:1.5: The world would become promiscuous, like goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, and dogs and jackals.
AN2.9:1.6: But because the two bright things protect the world, there is recognition of the status of mother, aunts, and wives and partners of teachers and respected people.”

Good householder,
Naturally the Sublime Buddha more often taught the rich, and more seldom the poor. Don't forget that poverty is often mainly caused by a significant tendency of being incapable of overcoming the hindrances.
Yet, of course it's possible for a person to change his or her current social state, even toward the Dhamma. There is no need to get rich first, but use effort for the smarter track.

Buddha most often taught monks who don't use money

I think the answer implies that Buddha taught mostly the most capable,  those who are rich in ability to overcome hindrances. Took me a while to process

@Letsbuddhism Yes, it's incredibly insightful that very often, lay people who are stuck in hardcore poverty are assailed by the five hindrances more than the middle and upper class, hence they are also not seeking Nirvana. They can neither improve their social status, nor become enlightened, due to a lack of capability. Also, if you are always hungry, you will not have the motivation to think about dependent origination and so on.

It would be helpful to provide some sort of reference for this. There are many who are not poor or not rich, but comfortable.

Maybe 5-10%, good householder, if even,talks are given to low social status, poor, good householder. There are traded lists and stats around, but really not worthwhile to put time and effort into it. May one just observe ones neighborhood, if not reading some Suttas and look toward status and capability to listen to higher.

All other things being equal then the rich person is the foremost.
Otherwise are qualities like beauty, power & influence, wisdom or health better than wealth? Is spiritual & intellectual wealth more worth than material?
I think The Buddha would approve of the saying 'pretty is as pretty does' and that it is likewise with wealth 'the rich is as the rich does'.

Health is the foremost gain.
Contentment is the foremost wealth.
Trust the foremost kinship.
Extinguishment - the foremost happiness. - Dhp 204