text:
How does an arahant know that ignorance won't return/re-arise after death?
The earlier aspects that now seem less relevant imo:

---How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death?
  ---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications
  and fabrications are the cause of consciousness.
  ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus
  certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there
  isn't even consciousness?

The aspects below that I currently think are more relevant:
Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies?
How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.
"Logically-speaking" doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience to verify that one isn't deceiving oneself?

How it can be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise or why it won't return/re-arise if there is no consciousness at the time.

“Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.
“What Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which has as its final goal the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion … which has the Deathless as its ground, the Deathless as its destination, the Deathless as its final goal … which slants, slopes, and inclines towards Nibbāna. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
  SN 45.180

So ignorance won’t arise anymore because an arahant has cut off all 10 fetters. Ignorance is one of those fetters. An arahant have direct knowledge of these fetters and he knows their destruction and he also knows if the fetters are abandoned or not.
It seems to me that consciousness is required for knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowledge and thus certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death?
When an arahant dies he is free of the 10 fetters including ignorance and he also know the four noble truths so he will not be reborn. At the moment of his death, there was no ignorance so all things in the dependent origin that comes after ignorance will not arise because ignorance is not present at the moment of death.
Is it through direct knowledge of the entire future that occurs before death?
An arahant usually knows that birth is ended. It is usually mentioned in the suttas.
Is it known through abhijñā i.e "direct knowledge", of the entire future, before the arahant dies?
There was one sutta where a guy asked an arahant if he has psychic powers but the arahant replied no. I can’t find this sutta so can anyone tell me. So the abhijna or the six higher knowledge aren’t required to be an arahant except the last one which is the ending of mental fermentation. An arahant can develop psychic powers after becoming an arahant but they probably don’t have any desire to achieve those powers.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' This, too, is how striving is fruitful, how exertion is fruitful.
  MN 101

So as you can see, an arahant knows that he is released and that there will be no further birth.
Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?
No, only the Buddha was omniscience. An arahant would know that there will be no further birth because
1) The Buddha told them that attaining arahantship will end rebirth
2) When he is released there is the knowledge “release”
3) He knows there is no next life by looking into the future with psychic powers.
I think 1 and 2 are the most possible way to know that he will not be reborn because not all arahants have psychic powers. It’s not even needed to look into the future because arahant knows that there is no further birth.
How does one know that the abhiññā is true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.
If you are literally flying then you would know there you are flying. If you can travel to other realms then you would know it. Omniscience is not required. You don’t need omniscience to know that your memories are real or not. If you try to remember what happened just an hour ago then you know that memory is true. In the same way, when you recollect your past lives you know that it’s true. Abhinna are as real as moving your hands or legs.  So you will know if you have abinna or not.

Maybe the knowledge “release” is similar to omniscience and the three higher knowledge could also be similar to omniscience. Should I answer all your questions in the comments or answer?

We could continue the discussion in chat

Same how do we do that

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death?

MN Atthakathā wrote:

The (mundane) vipassanā-right-view comprehends (all) aggregates of (all mundane) 3 realms by its 3 characteristics,
Vipassanāsammādiṭṭhi tebhūmakasaṅkhāre aniccādivasena parivīmaṃsati,

Realms (bhava) in pāli means birth, being, happening. 3 realms are all birthplaces. "comprehends (all) aggregates of (all mundane) 3 realms" means ceasing all ignorance and craving of birthplaces. No ignorance and craving are no birthplaces. No birthplace is no object. No object is no ignorance and craving, because ignorance and craving arise for ignoring and attaching their object. So, in MN Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

The taṇhā for visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases. The taṇhā for sounds in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases. The taṇhā for odors in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases. The taṇhā for tastes in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases. The taṇhā for bodily phenomena in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases. The taṇhā for dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when abandoned, is abandoned, there when ceasing, it ceases.

Next question:

---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications and fabrications are the cause of consciousness. ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there isn't even consciousness?

The consciousness to know ignorance's cessation is required after enlightened as arahant imidiatelly, so it is not required after dead. Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Bhikkhusutta:

While one is developing these seven factors of enlightenment, one’s mind is liberated from the taint of sensuality, from the taint of existence, from the taint of ignorance. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’ They lead to enlightenment, bhikkhu, therefore they are called factors of enlightenment.”

Next question:

Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies?

It is called paccavekkhaṇañāṇa which appeared in above quoted Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Bhikkhusutta, etc.
Ariya-magga stops avijjā&taṇhā in the future by stopping all present behavior of taṇhā&avijjā in every tense, past&future&present, because taṇhā&avijjā can't arise anymore without the present behavior in every tense. Paccavekkhaṇañāṇa can know the cessation of the future ignorance by checking that present behavior, so bhiññā is not required.
Next question:

How does one know that the abhiññā is true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.

I can know that the sun will rise at the east tomorrow without omniscience, and it is certainly true. So, if I die next minute, that future knowing still certainly true and it will be the future life of my present life. The omniscience and abhiññā are not required, right?
It's similar to the above example, but it is more power, greater.
Next question:

Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?

No, the omniscience is not required. It just makes the knowing clearer and easier to attain.

Can you answer the three questions that the questioner asked?

@TheDBSGuy I edited the answer. However, my english is not that good, so I'm not sure that I have right understood through all questions.

I like this answer

You ask some interesting and reasonable questions.
Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies?
I believe the answer is yes.
How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required.
Omniscience is a difficult idea and there is much debate about what the Buddha's 'omniscience' really means. I would suggest omniscience is not necessary. What would be necessary, as a minimum, is a knowledge of the post-death state.
Doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience?
Logically-speaking omniscience would not be necessary, but it would require knowing more than most people would believe it is possible to know.
So much depends on the meaning of 'omniscience' and only an omniscient person could know.
Not good answers, I know, but I have to speculate. A minimum condition for the knowledge required would be direct knowledge of (bodily) death or 'what it is like' to be dead. Buddhism says this knowledge is available to us but there seems no reason to suppose this would in itself constitute omniscience.
In another discussion Rusi tells that when Sri Ramana Mahaharshi was asked about the pain from his cancer he concedes that there is bodily pain but notes 'I am not the body'. If we know we are not the body then we must know we can do without it.
Feel free to treat all this as idle speculation. It is a little more than this but cannot be called well-informed.

@Angus -Quite so. But we're not talking here about seeing, or any sensory form of information. We're talking about the Holy Grail.

Abhiññā knows Nibbana because abhiññā knows the defilements, including ignorance, no longer arise, in any situation, whatsoever.
The devas (mystics) with psychic powers who can read the mind of others also know the defilements do not arise in the mind of the arahant; even though those deva may not be arahants.

The Arahant

"This monk is called one who has removed the crossbar, has filled the moat, has broken the pillar, has unbolted (his mind); a Noble One
  who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.
"And how, monks, is that monk one who has removed the cross-bar? Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root,
  removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter
  extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus has he removed the
  cross-bar.
"And how, monks, is that monk one who has filled the moat? Herein the monk has abandoned the round of rebirths, leading to renewed
  existence; he has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil
  like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of
  arising again.
"And how has he broken the pillar? He has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree,
  brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.
"And how has he unbolted (his mind)? He has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, removed them from their
  soil like a palmyra tree, brought them to utter extinction, incapable
  of arising again.
"And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of
  self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a
  palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising
  again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put
  down the burden, become unfettered.
"When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of
  Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find on what the
  consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One
  who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say

MN 22

As for "death" ("marana"), this does not happen to Arahants, as written in many suttas. The word "death" ("marana") does not generally refer to the termination of life but refers to the "death" of a "self" or "a being" (which are forms of delusion).

I have sent you a question DD.

DD, interesting that you translated devas as mystics. May I ask how you come to such a conclusion? Everywhere I read a translation it says non-human beings


text:
Buddhism is practiced in many countries by many different peoples. How do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values
Buddhism is practiced in many countries by many different peoples. How do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values, rituals, practices etc? Or, is Buddhism fairly uniform wherever it is practiced?

The transmission of Buddhist teachings to the United States (and the West in general) can be described in three general categories: migration, appropriation, and adoption. The last category is, in my opinion, the most interesting to explore, but for sake of completeness, let's discuss the other two first.
Migration
The most direct and obvious transmission of Buddhism to the US is through the immigration of practitioners from Buddhist majority countries. As these communities grew, they established temples. These temples are largely a direct continuation of whatever tradition the immigrants adhered to. As a result, a wide variety of Buddhist traditions have some representation in the US.
Appropriation
I acknowledge that "appropriation" is a loaded term. I have no intent to demean or antagonize anyone, but I do feel the word adequately describes how some Americans have borrowed specific Buddhist practices while ignoring the rest.
In particular, mindfulness meditation is following a path similar to yoga. When Western psychologists studied meditation extensively, they discovered genuine, tangible, scientifically verifiable benefits for practitioners. Mindfulness meditation is now being promoted and even prescribed as means of improving mental and emotional health, much in the same way that a doctor might recommend yoga as a form of exercise.
The beliefs of such practitioners would be difficult to summarize as there is presumably little that ties them together. It would be like asking about the personal beliefs of weight lifters or tennis players; the only common thread is an appreciation for a shared activity.
Adoption
The third category of American Buddhists are those who've adopted the teachings as a supplement or (more likely) an alternative to predominant Judeo-Christian traditions. Though these individuals are often white and educated liberals, the truly unifying factor is their shared appreciation of what makes Buddhism distinct from other major world religions and a desire for spiritual enrichment. These distinct elements tend to be emphasized in the beliefs and practices of what I refer to as "American Buddhists."
It's worth noting that the communities of American Buddhist practitioners vary considerably. I have personally seen everything ranging from a small group of college kids with little knowledge or connection to the large Sangha to temples with clear, official ties to existing Asian schools. (An example of the later is the Rochester Zen Center in Upstate New York.)
Some of the beliefs and practices that are more unique to American Buddhists include:

Personal Practice: Americans generally adopt Buddhism as a means to personal moral and spiritual growth. Many are isolated or in small communities and have limited knowledge of the varied traditions within Buddhism. As a result, many practitioners are apt to emphasizes practices aimed towards individual growth - particularly those suited for novice, lay practitioners. There is a general belief that the true value of the practice is the tangible effects it has on practitioners.
Secularism: Mainstream religious traditions in the US tend to promote literal interpretations of the bible quite vigorously, even when in direct confrontation of established science. Buddhism is seen as a more "science friendly" religion and thus attracts those who are skeptical of or completely reject the existence of the supernatural. As a result, American Buddhism handles concepts such as reincarnation, karma, and merit as metaphors.
Egalitarian Communities: The ratio of ordained to laity among American Buddhists is significantly skewed towards laity when compared to Asian countries. It's no surprise, then, that communities often rely on lay people to operate. However, this is also in part a reaction to how heavy-handed mainstream religious communities can be with authority. American Buddhists value ordained members for their wisdom, experience, and dedication, but won't necessarily expect them to assume all leadership responsibilities.
Engaged Buddhism: American Buddhists are quite likely to adopt Engaged Buddhism where they are actively involved in charity, politics, and society at large. There are numerous reasons for this. First, anyone who choose to adopt a "foreign" religion are apt to be free thinkers willing to challenge societal norms that they disagree with. Second, Americans generally believe that one's values should be expressed through action; someone who chooses to withdraw from the world is likely to be seen as apathetic, cowardly, or insincere. Third, American Buddhists don't have the advantage of being part of an established majority; they are more likely to find themselves at odds with majority opinion and may feel compelled to act in order to protect and preserve their values. Forth, values such as empathy and compassion are arguably lacking in American culture so there are many instances of personal or institutional greed, intolerance, and apathy to address.

Naturally, these are all generalizations based on personal experience. I am not aware of any research to understand how the beliefs of those who adopted Buddhism compares to those of Asian Buddhists.

For more on this subject, see my answer on Quora to: How is American Buddhism different from the different versions of Buddhism in Asia?

This Wikipedia article -- Buddhism in the United States -- says that Buddhism migrated into America via different people[s] and different schools.
If you look at the World Buddhist Directory for the USA, you'll see that each entry has a "Tradition" listed, e.g.

"Mahayana, Zen/Pureland"
"Theravada, Forest Sangha"
"Mahayana, Zen Buddhist Master Thich Nhat Hahn"
"Vajrayana, Tibetan, Gelugpa"
etc.

So to the extent that there is any difference -- between schools, and/or the various national forms of Buddhism -- so Buddhists within America differ (in their doctrine, practice, and ritual, as you said).

But perhaps see also the topic, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?

There's also something called Secular Buddhism.
I think that some people and/or organisations call themselves "secular" -- which might mean somethng more-or-less as described in that Wikipedia article -- that article says that it is "Part of a series on Western Buddhism", so maybe it is  peculiarly Western.
Not all "Western" Buddhists would be "secular" though -- e.g. there are bhikkhus who were born in the West (I imagine it's they who helped write many of the English-language translations), and so on.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The following answer is of strong examples of how do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values, rituals, practices etc.
Often American Buddhism is Cultural Marxism. American Buddhism is often the hijacking of 'Buddhism' by the political and cultural left, including it early domination by Jewish individuals (also here), Sexual Liberals (such as Noah Levine), Sexual Deviants (such as Chögyam Trungpa), Hippies, Druggies, Feminists & Identitarians. For example, simply browsing the website called 'North American Buddhist Alliance' will show it is largely a left-wing political site engaged in racial & sexual politics (rather than related to Buddhism).
Another phenomena that appears unique to American-Jewish Buddhism is introducing psychotherapy into Buddhist practise; which possibly contributed to mass-market Buddhism, such as McMindfulness. "McMindfulness" (often the suspension of moral judgment) is actually not Buddhist mindfulness (which is the gatekeeper of allowing & prohibiting various thoughts).

Many of the leading Buddhist teachers in America come from Jewish families, including Bernard Glassman, Sharon Salzberg, Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield, Norman Fischer, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Natalie Goldberg, Thubten Chodron (Cherry Greene), Sylvia Boorstein, Alan Ginsberg, and Lama Surya Das (Jeffrey Miller), to name just a few.
The American Jewish Fascination with Buddhism
I feel any comment underscoring the need to keep partisan politics out of Buddhism is "apt". Mostly in the USA/West, we see
  liberal/progressive/activist politics being melded with "Buddhism".
  This has nothing to do with the dhamma. The dhamma is there to
  liberate being from suffering, including the suffering from clinging
  to views and opinions found in politics as a whole. Which yes, is even
  present in whatever your preferred political view is.
If you've been in Buddhist circles in the west for a while, you really shouldn't need examples to see partisan/left wing political
  bias among practitioners. If you don't see it then there probably
  isn't much use me giving you examples because it would be like
  explaining water to a fish.
Dhammacorps

For example, in the 2016 American Presidential election, many prominent American affiliated Buddhists, particularly monks & nuns, conducted political campaigns against Donald Trump merely due to Trump's apparent 'racist', 'aggressive' & 'anti-abortion' comments; even though Trump promised to stop the Obama created wars in the Middle-East (which Trump has partially but not fully done as President). Here, the American Buddhists completely ignored the horrendous war crimes (in Iraq. Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan & elsewhere) of the Obama regime (one hour video) in favour of left-wing abortion feminist racial politics. The fact that the leading Buddhist translator named Bhikkhu Bodhi spoke against Trump because Trump threatened to stop abortion shows how dominated American Buddhism is by the political left-wing (since monks are forbidden from promoting abortion; which is an unforgivable disrobing offense). Bhikkhu Bodhi's comments & criticism of him can be read here, on his own website.

Trump’s presidential campaign challenged each of the ethical ideals I cherish, and if he acts upon his campaign pledges, his policies may
  entail misery for people in the United States and all across the
  world. His campaign repeatedly demeaned people because of their
  ethnicity, religion, and national origins. He threatened to deny women
  their reproductive rights...
Bhikkhu Bodhi - American-Jewish monk

A comment:

Although Bhikkhu Bodhi lost all credibility as a Dhamma teacher for me with his advocacy for a doctrine of Just War, here, though he
  couches it as "defending women's reproductive rights," he's advocating
  for women's right to have an abortion. No matter how much I'd like to
  sugarcoat it, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that once again
  Bhikkhu Bodhi is encouraging people to violate the first precept. I
  take it as further evidence of a fundamental failure by Bhikkhu Bodhi
  to understand the Dhamma at even a basic level despite his deep
  familiarity with the suttas. Shocking, I know. But his statements are
  absolutely irreconcilable with the Dhamma unless you are willing to
  throw out the teachings of all the Ajahns and the Pali Canon itself.
  Myself, the only way to reconcile the irreconcilable is to reluctantly
  admit that despite his admirable efforts in translating the Canon, I
  cannot hold him up as any sort of Dhamma teacher.

At least on the internet, a serious division arose among internet Buddhists as a result of the behaviour of certain American Buddhists during the American Presidential election. In short, they (who publicly campaigned for Obama because he was black and Clinton because she was a woman; completely ignoring their kamma of crimes against humanity) don't represent us or Buddhism.

I don't think discussions about political labels are useful in this topic. But I think its necessary to make clear that labels such as "Cultural Marxism", "Alt-right", "Fascism" and so on, are just strawmen without any substance and created to make caricatures, generalizations and exaggerations which can be easily attacked and ridiculed. Don't be misguided by such terms, because they only serve to prepetuate intolerance and fundamentalism, no different to what other religions make. Have a nice day!

I think I see reality clearly and I only heard about 'Cultural Marxism' recently and think it is an accurate phenomena. If you strictly adhere to Buddhist morals & culture, I think you will have no opposition to the term 'Cultural Marxism', which accurately describes an ideology that has contributed to the political & corporate dismantling of religious social values. For example, the same American & Western Buddhists that generally say Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory will also be those Western Buddhists saying sex outside of marriage is OK in Buddhism & support radical Feminism.

The key word is "generally". You can't assume anything from such ambiguous labels. Someone once said: In a monastery there are 1000 monks; in that monastery there are 1000 religions.

Thanks but personally I became a big fan of the term 'Cultural Marxism' as soon as i learned about it because it accurately explained the evolution of western society as i had experienced it. Keep in mind - possibly unlike you - I suddenly gave up sex-drugs-and-rocknroll 30 years ago, without any influence of religion or Buddhism. I saw for myself - 30 years ago - everything my media culture taught me about sex was wrong & harmful. Then only around 2 years ago, i happened to come across some videos on Cultural Marxism, which were an accurate description of my life cultural history.

The problem with the term "cultural marxism" is that it implies an homogeneity between its so-called authors. Many of the authors associated under that umbrella term disagree on fundamental issues. The right has been using that concept to group every that is opposed to their principles; the same thing with the left when using the term "fascist".

@Brian Díaz Flores Did anyone say that "Cultural Marxists"  of the far left care if the 2 are compatible? The far left embraces insane contradictions. If something doesn't fit, they just move on until they can get something to sound persuasive. It's all about a means to an end not the truth. Yeah, cultural Marxists don't appear to understand Marx or postmodernism but that doesn't stop them. See, your like this word can't go with this word...Yeah, that's the point. Leftists(of today) don't care about consistency except when they go around saying "rest in power"! You don't already know this?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Noble Friendship (Kalyana Mitta) in modern times
Would "noble friendship" in modern times also refer to dhamma teachings via the Internet? Of course being surrounded by wise people is of course preferable, but how is this exactly to be understood?
Regards

I can't reply by email due to using my sister's server in another city. However, to answer here. 1. The practise of non-hatred is not necessarily metta. The Brahma Vihara are more social attitudes than meditation factors. That is why Brahma Vihara is not mentioned in the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Path's 2nd factor only mentions abandoning hatred & cruelty rather than loving & embracing others. 2. Equanimity can be practised by realising there is nothing we can really do to change evil doers. Its just the way it is. Suchness.

Anapanasati depends on the ending of the five hindrances. While viewing the body as mere elements is found in MN 62 as a preliminary practise, MN 62 was primarily about ending Rahula’s self-view. Yes, jumping to the breath is difficult if the five hindrances are still around. Regards

Kalyāṇa is a word translated as "beautiful, charming; auspicious, helpful, morally good", by the way -- not the same word as ariya (which is the word that's usually translated as "noble").
Kalyāṇa is used in lots of other contexts, mostly not to do with "friends" (i.e. where the adjective qualifies a noun other than "friend" or "friendship") -- e.g. in the first search result from that list (AN 10.47), it's an adjective used to describe "good deeds":

What is the cause, sir, what is the reason for doing good deeds, for performing good deeds?”
  “Ko pana, bhante, hetu ko paccayo kalyāṇassa kammassa kiriyāya kalyāṇassa kammassa pavattiyā”ti?

So what does the adjective mean when it's ascribed to, when it describes, friend and friendship? That's explained in three ways:

What are the qualities of a good friend (what do they 'have')?
What is the function of a good friend (what do they 'do' for you)?
What is the effect of a good friend?

Piya Tan wrote a translation of the Upaḍḍha Sutta with some analysis in its introduction.
Several paragraphs of that introduction include the phrase, "According to the Sutta Commentary" (so I think that his introduction is based on or inline with that commentary).

"What they have?" appears to be these qualities:

The accomplishment of faith (saddhā,sampadā),
The accomplishment of moral virtue (sīla,sampadā),
The accomplishment of charity (cāga,sampadā),
The accomplishment of wisdom (paññā,sampadā)

"What they do?" appears to be this (I think it's this bit of Piya Tan's introduction that's most worth quoting, because it's the most definitive):

Spiritual friendship, in other words, is the effecting of the three trainings (ti,sikkhā), that is, in moral
  virtue, mental concentration, and wisdom. On the moral level, the mentor as spiritual friend serves as a
  virtuous exemplar. On the mental level, he is a teacher who gives a meditation subject to the pupil, and
  further inspires and nurtures his meditation and mental cultivation. And on the spiritual level, the mentor motivates his mentee to aspire towards spiritual liberation in this life itself. Spiritual friendship is the mutual
  rejoicing of both the teacher and this pupil in the Dharma as well as in the goals that such a friendship
  entails, namely, awakening.
Spiritual friendship is the whole of the holy life in the
  sense that the “holy life” (brahma,cariya) is basically our training in moral virtue, that is, the taming and
  refining of our bodily actions and our speech, or what we do and how we communicate with others. This
  is the “external” or social aspect of our spiritual training, so called because our moral training, in an important
  way, is how wholesomely we relate with others in keeping with at least the five precepts.
Spiritual friendship as moral training is the basis of our mental training, where our spiritual friend is
  our mentor in mental cultivation. In either case, there is a vital level of instruction from the spiritual friend
  and wholesome communication between mentor and mentee. This instruction is sometimes known as “the
  voice of others” (parato ghosa), that is, the beneficial instructions and inspiration from the spiritual
  friend. The Anguttara Commentary explains parato ghosa in the context of giving rise to right view as
  that of “hearing the true Dharma” (saddhamma,savana) (AA 2:157).
“The voice of another” is one of two ways in which right view arises; the other way is the personal
  effort of wise attention (yoniso manasi,kāra). “Wise attention” here is the mindfulness that is the basis of
  proper mental cultivation leading to mental focus and wisdom. Our wise attention is fortified through
  spiritual friendship by way of an inspiring and experienced guide.
Moral virtue is our wholesome relationship or interbeing with others, which in turn is also the wholesome
  conditions that nurture our mental cultivation and wisdom (the other two trainings). Moral virtue is
  always present in the arhat. When we are still worldlings, moral virtue is a catalyst to our spiritual development,
  and when we become noble disciples, as awakened beings, moral virtue comes naturally to us.
  We are then spiritual friends to those who are less developed than we are. Hence, spiritual friendship is
  the whole of the holy life.

"What's their effect?" is (explained simply as being) your development of the noble eightfold path.

In summary (my own summary):

It's not just "wise" people, it's "good" people.
IDK to what extent you can learn morality via the internet ...
I think that people do correspond with their mentors -- e.g., in pre-internet times, by writing letters.
I think Buddhism is a.kk.a. Dhamma-vinaya ...

Dhamma-vinaya [dhamma-vinaya]: "doctrine (Dhamma) and discipline (Vinaya)." The Buddha's own name for the religion he founded.

... the "vinaya" being a.k.a. the monastic code (rules of conduct etc.). That's what I think of and IMO it's to miss something important (including presence, personal example, discipline) if you take the phrase (kalayanamitta) out of (that) context.

Good effort however I think the 'Good Friend" cannot be separated from the Noble Path, per the sutta.

Are you saying that "What's their effect?" is (explained simply as being) your development of the noble eightfold path was correct but the rest wasn't?

Also "the three trainings" might be a bit of a synonym for, or summary of, the noble path.

Good answer, especially because you distinguished between noble (ariya) and Kalyana (beautiful, charming, auspicious etc.).

Noble Friendship is to be understood as association with those who influence the practise of the Noble Eightfold Path (SN 45.2). Noble friends are those teaching the True Teaching (AN 10.61). For example, those desperately & frantically trying to promote belief in reincarnation, Brahmanistic gods & heavens & other superstitions are not actually noble friends because they are leading away from the perception of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self required for the Noble Path. In the 1st sermon, the Noble Realisation of the Noble Truths leading to Noble Stream-Entry was: "all subject to arising is subject to cessation". It was not "all subject to cessation is subject to re-arising".
MN 117 makes it unambiguously clear there are two sorts of dhamma: (i) defiled self-view dharma, which sides with only morality; and (ii) Noble Dhamma, which is a factor of the Noble Path. SN 45.2 (below) says unambiguously the Noble Friend guides to the Noble Path:

Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
noble eightfold path.
Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

Thanks a bunch DD, regarding daily life, how is situational wisdom best being employed? Suppose I'm eating, driving or talking with a friend; which teachings do you mainly keep in mind? Mindfulness of breathing seems to be a bit inappropriate, isn't it?

I must run now. Will answer later. Regards

So I could imagine whilst driving for example I contemplate the people's khandas or that they are driving is lead by ignorance. Whilst eating, contemplating the elements in it.. etc.

While not an easy practise, yes, the mind can reflect there are no people (puggala) or no beings (satta) or no selves (atta) driving but merely khandhas driving and that the craving for driving is lead by ignorance. Everything in experience can be views as elements.

Not easy in the sense of to intellectually grasp the idea of non-self?

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


text:
The rites of marriage and death are a significant part of most religions
The rites of marriage and death are a significant part of most religions. How does Buddhism celebrate these or any other rites?

I think that managing the body after death -- funeral rites -- might be a lay/cultural concern, rather a Buddhist/spiritual one; e.g. from DN 16:

Then Ven. Anuruddha said to Ven. Ānanda, “Go, friend Ānanda. Entering Kusinārā, announce to the Kusinārā Mallans, ‘The Blessed One, Vāsiṭṭhas, has totally unbound. Now is the time for you to do as you see fit.’”

That's often cremation. I think there are rites but that these vary some from country to country.
See also How long to leave a body undisturbed after death? -- i.e. it may be usual or traditional to leave the body undisturbed for at least long enough for death to become apparent.
There is some custom for before death, for example:

See perhaps the answer to Last thought before death? or to What do you do to prepare for death?

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4 contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to encourage patients facing death.

That may also vary some from one Buddhist tradition to another
See also How to die professionally?

In supramundane Dhamma (Lokuttara Dhamma) marriage (sensual desire) and "rites" are fetters, which stall progress to experience nibbana. Clinging to rites and views is called silabattupadana, which the stream entrant (sotapanna) has shaken off.
Marriage however is endorsed for lay practitioners, given they're at least undertaking the five precepts.
Above said, it is evident that the Buddha rather talked about which qualities husbands and wives should have, and not necessarily how these customs are celebrated.

"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:
  (i) by being courteous to her,
  (ii) by not despising her,
  (iii) by being faithful to her,
  (iv) by handing over authority to her,
  (v) by providing her with adornments.
"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:
  (i) she performs her duties well,
  (ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants
  (iii) she is faithful,
  (iv) she protects what he brings,
  (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

~
Parents, on the other hand, have the duty to arrange a marriage, but this has to be understood in the historical context.

"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:
  (i) they restrain them from evil,
  (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession,
  (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
  (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

~
Concerning death, I believe that most Buddhists choose to be cremated (especially monks).
But there is probably no definite answer, since the are a lot of sectarian Buddhisms out there, which are strongly interwoven with i) current society and its customs; ii) " non-canonical customs & teachings not spoken by the Buddha, which have been inherited since forever, to make Buddhism fit into everything; iii) The Dhamma is only concerned about stress (dukkha) & its cessation:

And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
  "No, lord."
  "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."


text:
Within Theravāda tradition, what are the differences in doctrine and practice between schools and sects around the world?
I'm considering spending some time in the future in retreats to have a taste of what monastic life is like.
It seems that Theravāda is the current tradition most related and compatible to my moral principles and philosophical ideas.
But before spending too money on flight and residence without complete certainty on the differences and traits of schools around the globe, I'd like get enough information.
So, as I've written in the title, what are the main differences between schools, lineages, branches and sects in the Theravāda tradition?
Also, only if possible -and if it's allowed by the forum's rules-, if you were to go forth, what monastery would you choose, and why?
(Just in case, I'm not asking what tradition is better or what is the closest one to the original teachings, because every sect can say that they're the ones).
Thanks for your time!
Have a nice day!

It appears that some teachers and traditions are more focused on samatha and jhana like Pa Auk Sayadaw and Ajahn Brahm.
And then there are other teachers and traditions that are more focused on vipassana like Mahasi Sayadaw, Ledi Sayadaw, Sayagyi U Ba Khin and his student S.N. Goenka, Ajahn Tong Sirimangalo and his student Yuttadhammo.
Samatha is cultivation of concentration and vipassana is cultivation of insight.
Ultimately both are needed.

It is important to know what the original teachings are because one cannot practise aimlessly. As for ordaining, I would choose an Ajahn Chah monastery due to its proven history of providing good training & producing excellent virtuous Western monks (who appear quite free to teach Dhamma as they individually view it).

In the Ajahn Chah monastery there are a lot of people who are believing in literal rebirth. Wasn't Ajahn Chah opposed to rebirth?

Ajahn Chah taught Dependent Origination to monks how Buddhadasa would explain it however occasionally Ajahn Chah is said to have mentioned traditional rebirth to the village lay people. Ajahn Chah's senior disciples connected with his senior disciple Ajahn Sumedho did not teach reincarnation however, yes, as the Ajahn Chah tradition is more exposed to lay people to more the newer monks seem to teach reincarnation. Even Ajahn Amaro surprisingly occasionally mentions it now and even Ajahn Jayasaro. Of course, Ajahn Brahm appeared to break out on his own quite early.

But yes, particularly in the West where there are wealthy Asian supporters, the monks often teach "rebirth" because this is what the lay people want to hear. Ajahn Kalayano seems to teach both versions of Dependent Origination; saying both should not be in conflict.... Recently I heard talks by Ajahn Achalo and it was hard core reincarnation and godly realms and past life kamma.


text:
Finding a dharma teacher
I am examining ways of going further on my dharma road. At this point i am entirely self taught, for better and worse. I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.
Does anyone know if there is someone committed to teaching in west sweden?
Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Thanks for the notice, i'll check out the links.

Erik,
If the are Sanghas (of the Buddha's monks - a mixed or lay community shouldn't be called a "Sangha") or possible one or another monk alone, it's good to visit them, observe them, and to ask them -- if it's the case that you can trace a good amount of independence between the monk[s] and the "students" (e.g. the monks don't live from students, and instead go for alms independently). If such a person is traced, one might ask questions on any matter of doubt, having found trust, to possibly gain right view. If having gained right view after listening the true Dhamma, there is no more much to worry and the path will develop step by step.
If not finding such, take, if given by a Monk personally (!), the Tipitaka. Usual ways, although common, seldom or never bear any fruits, and it's far better to simply avoid the many teachers who teach for a trade (i.e. for reward). Even if they knew what water was, you would only get an empty bottle: to be sure you would have to return to them!
Maybe this is your personal guide heading toward independence: Into the Stream
And for the case that Erik has already found firm faith, it is because of doing it to an end that the Buddha has found this religion, Sangha, open to make use of it and such might then be not so much a matter of "west Sweden".
[Note: This is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks or what ever ordinary gains within the world.]

I've seen other people/answers recommend the World Buddhist Directory.
Though there may be another more Sweden-specific directory, this "World" directory was about as complete as any other local/national directory that I found online in 'my' country.

I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.
You have to first finalise which school you are most comfortable with, whether Theravada (South Asia, mostly Srilanka, Thailand), Vajrayana(Tibetians) or Mahayana(Zen) ( China, Japan ) (West has all).
Also, that ways people on this site will be able to guide you to exact teacher you are looking for.
Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.
Tibetean schools has structured programs something akin to PhD's of university degrees but that will need you to learn Tibetean language.
Theravada offers best structured approach. You can have a look at Ajahn Brahm's monastery in Australia. They might have some program for you. There are some monasteries in Thailand, which offer shorttime-stay-monk-lives and teachings for westerners.
From your question it looks like Zen approach wont suit you. But still, if you are in Sweden you might want to check Plum Village in France.
I dont think there will be a curricullum for lay buddhists that can be offered by a monastery. Very often the monks will give teachings based on 'you'. But for any curriculum you will have to first choose a school. For an acedemic study an e-sangha like this site is best. Take a look at questions on book recommendations on this site.

Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum?

There's Ven. Bodhi's lecture series on the Majjhima Nikaya and the on-going series on the Anguttara Nikaya (livestream every Saturday morning 10AM Eastern US time). More info. is available from the baus.org web site and their youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi

You're welcome, Erik. Question for @ChrisW, recently someone continuously downvote all of my posts for no reason. While I don't really care about the point system, I do care about confronting trolling activity on the forum and suspect someone is actively engaging in sabotaging the forum environment. I'm sure you moderators folks can easily track down the troll and take the proper action. Thanks.


text:
Propelling the continuity of mindfulness
I want to know how to prolong the knowing factor in my life .I face hindrances when thinking about solving a problem for example which is different than contemplating the receptions in mindfulness.How can it remain and become unfabricated.

Your question seems quite vague. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'knowing factor' and 'contemplating the receptions' and also, 'how can it remain and become unfabricated'. I would suggest you restructure the question to include more definitive words so that people can approach a comprehensive answer for you.

Would you be asking how can one develop greater mindfulness?

Keep it all the time without discontinuity.so it becomes a habit.

As meditators, our job is to be aware or knowing as much as we can through out our daily life. And like it or not, we can't live our lives without fabricating. Right now, as you read this, your cognitive mind is fabricating. Otherwise, you can't understand these words.
However, I understand how fabrication can lead to a lot of problems. So what can we do?
Be aware of the fabricating when the mind fabricates. In that way, we're not involved in the fabrication, and so not get lost in it. In that way, we also get to understand fabrication as fabrication, whether a certain fabrication is necessary or not, and how various fabrications work, etc.

Good point ,there are moments where fabrication was recognized but actually fabrication isn't always so obvious, its more like working in the background ,we know it has happened after the moment not in the moment .

@OmarBoshra, indeed. It takes a well-cultivated awareness to be able to watch fabrication. That's why the practice of establishing mindfulness begins with body-mindfulness. The body is much grosser, and thus an easier basis to build awareness. The more well-established the awareness is, the easier to watch quicker and subtler objects such as mental fabrications. It's like when the room is well-lit, it's easy to see the things in it.

Some methods that may work:
Observe its:

Pleasure - What pleasure does it give
Consequence - What is the consequence of it
Resolution - What is the resolution for them

Observe its constituency (sankhatha):

Observe its construction
Observe its change within the environment it exists
Observe its destruction

Observe its relation to five aggregates and your relation to it:

What of it is rupa - am I it, am I made of it, am I within it, am I outside it
What of it is vedana - am I it, am I made of it, am I within it, am I outside it
What of it is sanna - am I it, am I made of it, am I within it, am I outside it
What of it is sankhara - am I it, am I made of it, am I within it, am I outside it
What of it is vinnana - am I it, am I made of it, am I within it, am I outside it

Observe its place in paticca samuppada. Usually it can be observed as upadana or jara / marana...

If you want to win mindfulness & alertness then you should develop that particular development of samadhi;

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.

If you do this you might or might not be rewarded with mindfulness & alertness and or a pleasant abiding, it will depending on how skillful you are in taking note of your mind and adjusting [directing] which will depend on learning.

"Now suppose that there is a wise, experienced, skillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He takes note of his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry or he praises that curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is rewarded with clothing, wages, & gifts. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful cook picks up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result, he is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful monk picks up on the theme of his own mind."

Read chapter 8 of Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. Warning: it is not for the faint of heart. It may give you quite the kick in the pants and provide motivation to develop calm abiding. It also instructs in practicing the “exchanging self with others” meditation.


text:
Is peeking a "blind box" considered as stealing? Or breaking of any precepts?

Blind Box means you don't know which specific design from a series you might be receiving.
The boxes and/or bags are sealed and we don't know which toy is inside them.
It's kinda like buying trading cards, except you don't get pieces of cards, you get a cool toy.
Lots of series even feature rare special designs.

Imagine this scenario, I want a Spiderman toy from a blind box set. There are 3 ways I can do.

Buy a few until I get "Spiderman"
Go ebay or some other website to buy from someone else whom had bought and open those blind boxes. It will cost more. And if "Spiderman" happens to be the "rare special designs", it will probably cost a few times more.
Secretly open those boxes carefully in toy-r-us or some other shop and take a peek. If it's "Spiderman", I'll buy it. Else, I'll repeat step 3 until I find "Spiderman".

My question is whether method 3 is considered as stealing or breaking of any precepts?
Let's make an assumption that peeking the box doesn't spoil the packaging, and therefore other consumers will still want to buy it if they want to.

The answer is that '''I want a Spiderman toy from a blind box set''   is the opposite of  samma sankappa (aspiration towards renunciation and good will) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html so you are not on the path and create karma once you act on this will, (creating karma is always the opposite of the path, even creating good karma), which in your post is speculating about how to get the right box, then later on executing your plan which is peeking, then choosing the box.
The way to respect the precept is not to compare each one of your activities with the precepts and then speculate whether or not your actions comply with them, in order to determine whether or not you are a good person. If you compare your actions with the precepts, it just means you are already on the verge of breaking the precepts.
The precepts are here to be an explicit border for your actions. If you wonder or not your actions break a precepts, like precept of taking what is not given,  then it just means you do not understand samma ditthi nor samma sankappa, which is normal for any puthujjana, especially a puthujjana who does not get the citta into samma samadhi.
THe way to respect the precepts is to first track and judge your thoughts and vedanna+sanna, to judge  whether the thoughts and vedanna are meritorious or not (for most puthujjanas, the vedanas, sannas and thougths experienced are demeritorious), to judge whether they lead to affliction to somebody, and then to strive to execute only good thoughts.
This way, you are guaranteed to never ever break a precept. The next step is to ''incline the citta towards renunciation'' by seeing the danger in lust for sensuality and ill-will https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html. At this point you get samma samadhi and you can make merit (respecting the precept and avoiding bad thoughts is more about avoiding demeritorious actions than generating merit) since well the samma samadhi is the way to get ''desirable contact'', meaning meritorious vedana, sanna and creating good karma.
THis is what the buddha explains here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
Once you want to stop making karma, you really need to destroy the sankharas, so even abiding in the jhanas as a puthujjana is not enough. of course, in theory getting samma smadhi from samma ditthi already does not rely on sankharas, therefore only generates ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.'', from here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html,  but in practice puthujjanas always rely on sankharas, especially at the beginning, because they have to force themsleves  to follow only the good thoughts.
in one sutta, the proper behavior is here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.200.than.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN45_2.html

Mr. "benefit-from 1." would lose, or (that's probably why he made blind boxes, so that one can not look into)?
Mr. "benefit-from 2." would lose too, or?
And Mr. 3? How long would his joy last? Till those "blind boxes" disappear?
Now asite of simply asking one self of what waste of time, life, energy ...

The vendor wants to (i.e. offers to) sell you the possibility of getting spiderman.
But if you peek then what you're taking (in exchange for money) is the certainty of getting spiderman.
The market value for a certainty is higher than the market value for a possibility (as shown by the eBay price).
You're also leaving other boxes (to be sold to other people), which certainly don't contain spiderman.

Hi, am I right to say that, since method 3 cost less than method 1, I'm paying less and thus consider as cheating?

I think the difference in the asking price is indirect evidence that you would be getting more than (i.e. getting something more valuable than) what you would be paying for. I think it's "taking what's not given" (what you're taking is a certainty, what they wanted to offer for the small price was only a small probability); also depriving other customers of their small probability (by leaving behind boxes which now certainly contain nothing).

I think it's like if you look at the other player's cards (which may be considered "cheating"), when you play (and bet on) a card game like poker -- or a lottery, roulette, when a friend makes sure that you know what the winning number is going to be.


text:
What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it nirvana?
What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Why should a person practice Buddhism, what will it provide to him? Various religions have various goals. For example, the ultimate goal in Christianity is everlasting life in Heaven through faith in Jesus Christ, while in Islam the ultimate goal is Jannah (Paradise). In Hinduism the ultimate goal is moksha, which means becoming one with the Brahma after death. But what is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it nirvana? If it's nirvana then it doesn't seem to be a very great goal. The goal to achieve nirvana is basically dying and never coming back, because Buddhism believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering. Hence to put an end to this constant cycle of sorrow and suffering one should try to achieve nirvana. Am I correct??

Note: to answerers. I know the OP mentioned other religions, but please avoid getting sucked into comparison and try to stay on the topic for this site.

I was going to reply but the restriction kills the conversation. .

But what is the ultimate goal of Buddhism?
To begin with maybe it's not entirely about, perhaps even not at all about, an "ultimate goal".

Just as the great ocean, monks, gradually inclines, gradually slopes, gradually slants, certainly does not fall away abruptly, so, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline there is a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual practice, it certainly does not have an abrupt penetration of knowledge. That, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline there is a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual practice, and it certainly does not have an abrupt penetration of knowledge, is the first wonderful and marvellous thing, monks, about this Dhamma and Discipline, which, having seen and considered, the monks delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.
from Ud 5.5

Perhaps it begins with doctrines of morality, harmlessness, kindness, prudence, duty -- for well-earned (albeit perhaps temporary) bliss, for the sake of others ... and an "absence of remorse" (which should result from "skilful virtue", and which doctrinally is one of the first steps towards towards proper joy and so on).
The goal to achieve nirvana is basically dying and never coming back, because Buddhism believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering.
That's kind of debatable, I guess. One venerable, on this site, wrote earlier,

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death

Instead of saying "dying and never coming back", perhaps you might just as well say "living and never going away", eh?
One of the Buddha's titles the Tathagata and I'm not sure whether that means "thus-come" or "thus-gone" (someone said its etymology is ambiguous -- i.e. gata or agata).
And then there's e.g. this story from another Buddhist tradition (i.e. Zen), i.e.

If you think you really come and go, that is your delusion. Let me show you the path on which there is no coming and no going.

the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering
I'm not sure. Some schools teach that "suffering" is impermanent too -- that some "beings" suffer.
See also Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?
one should try to achieve nirvana. Am I correct??
I'm not sure even of that: one "should"? Perhaps one "will"? Or that one "has", even, the Buddha himself for example?
I like the "four noble truths" i.e. which say that perpetually "craving" for what you can't have, craving to keep what you can't keep, etc., is a cause of "suffering" -- and that suffering and craving are both subject to cessation.
Some people don't much like that message though (or the way in which someone might try to explain it), see e.g. How to explain what Buddhism is? -- see also Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?

That's easy, there is a sutta just for you
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html
and the '''noble search'' https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html
the goal is to  ''understand as it actually is.'' which means understanding the origin of dukkha, dukkha itself and the cessation of dukkha http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-001.html
It turns out that understanding as it really is means understanding plenty of things.  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

The ultimate goal in Buddhism is the end of suffering. But why would you want to reach the end of suffering? The reason is to attain the only permanent happiness, which is Nirvana. So, one's mission in life in Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness.
From Dhammapada 203-204:

Hunger is the worst disease, conditioned things the worst suffering. Knowing this as it really is, the wise realize Nibbana, the
  highest bliss.
Health is the most precious gain and contentment the greatest wealth. A trustworthy person is the best kinsman, Nibbana the highest
  bliss.

The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence and over-asceticism are not conducive to the path to the end of suffering. So, he prescribed the middle way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If you follow the middle way, you can have long term, medium term and short term goals of happiness.
The long term goal associated with this is attaining Nirvana (permanent happiness).
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana. You can also get more info on stream entry in this YouTube video talk.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain "materialistic" happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths). At the very minimum, you need to keep the five precepts with heedfulness (appamada). Going a little further, you need to practise more of virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts. Also see this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?"
For those in a hurry to Nirvana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun. Please see this answer for details.

The Buddha's revelation of Nirvana is officially defined as the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion or 'The Deathless'. For simple minded people, the Dhammapada explains 'Nirvana is the highest happiness'. The Buddha's revelation of Nirvana is the 1st systematically explained historical revelation of liberation. The doctrines of liberation of other modern religions logically come from Buddhism. Therefore, it is improper to saying Nirvana doesn't seem to be a great goal. The Buddha taught there can only be one Buddha in a world system. The Buddha is the saviour or light of the whole world. The 'Eternal Life' of Jesus is logically 'The Deathless' taught by the Buddha.

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will
  marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they
  will rest.]"
"If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you,
  'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the
  (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you."
The Gospel of Thomas

I know the OP mentioned other religions, but can we please stay on the topic for this site?


text:
Are there other things like life?
In this text SN 56.46 Andhakara Sutta: Darkness, the Buddha seems to say, in my opinion, that life is much more stressful than black holes.
And I think life is an anomaly in this universe just like black holes, stars, time, quantum entanglement and such.
But are there any other things he has mentioned that are outlandish and we are unable to comprehend by using juxtapositions as always? Or did he just ignore them completely as they were not important?
Sorry if my question is not clear. I always have a hard time interpreting what's in my head to words.

I didn't really understand the question. It seems to be asking "This sutta says that life is more stressful than black holes. I don't understand black holes etc. (astrophysics and quantum mechanics). Are there any other things he mentioned which are as difficult to understand as that?" The only way I could begin to answer this question would be by trying to explain what I think the sutta is talking about (which I would think is most probably not about astrophysics).

@ChrisW I agree with you sir, In many suttas lord Buddha compared ignorance to the darkness and wisdom to the light. In Andhakara sutta, I suppose lord Buddha was preaching about ignorance comparing it to darkness which hides the four noble truth. In the sutta it has mentioned that, "which darkness, lord, is greater & more frightening than that?" Any brahmans or contemplatives who do not know, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress' ... , 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress'

Going off of what Dhammadhatu posted, the word used in the sutta, lokantarika, is not so much "life" but "this world and the other world". So black holes, quantum entanglement, every objectively measurable phenomenon (and many subjective phenomena as well) is included in that.
I'm not sure the term outlandish is appropriate, but I think I understand you to mean examples of metaphors involving vast numbers, powers, amount and the like. There are suttas where the Buddha says that all the salt-water in all the oceans is less than the tears we have cried throughout our wandering in Samsara as a way of illustrating the vast timescales. A similar sutta describes (I think) all the rivers in the world as holding less than the amount of blood spilled from our beheadings. And of course the turtle, living at the bottom of a great ocean, surfacing once a century, and a hoop floating on the top of that ocean being carried about by currents. It was said that the chances of encountering a Buddha and their dhamma was less than the chance of that turtle putting its head through the ring. So we are then fortunate to live in a time where we can hear that dhamma!
As for your last question, there were some questions that the Buddha strictly refused to answer based on their being irrelevant to the task of understanding and eliminating suffering. Those were: is the universe/world system eternal or not? Infinite or not? Does a Buddha exist after death? Not exist? Both? Neither? When asked these, the Buddha refused to answer as they were not relevant. Hope this helps!

Welcome to the site! Great answer. The Sutta you referred to is the Assu Sutta: Tears.

I think you have misunderstood it. It's not saying that life is stressful.
You may think SN 56.46 is talking about suffering or dukkha. Please see this answer for a detailed definition of dukkha.
But it's not talking about suffering. It's talking about ignorance or avijja. Ignorance is about not knowing and not fully understanding the four noble truths, the three marks of existence and dependent origination.
Ignorance or avijja is darker and scarier than the darkest voids and black holes in interstellar space. That's the message.

"lokantarika" (cosmologist), a school of thought, called this at the Buddha's time, is good to understand as Science, Cosmology, Secularism or Materialism nowadays. This might then give light in the darkness related to the arisen question.

I think 'lokantarika' is a Mahayana term meaning something like the void that separates two worlds. I'm certain it doesn't fit into secularism, materialism or science but would fit suitably in Buddhist Cosmology.

Scientifically view of NeuroMax, or? The Buddhas "cosmology" are the 4 Noble Truth, and the leading out of darkness, it. Void, pointless, subject to decay, dark, all other tries. Just if one faces the large Darkness within, one seeks for this escape, good householder. Does he see aging, sickness and death or busy with "soft dark" and how it might work? Lokayatika Sutta

Buddhism is concerned with how our minds are restricted in its views. During this venture, one may find a large darkness within, but it's just a preliminary event; it's the space in-between this and that.

SN 56.46  says:

Mendicants, the boundless desolation of lokantarikā is so utterly dark that even the light of the moon and the sun, so mighty and
  powerful, makes no impression.”
Atthi, bhikkhave, lokantarikā aghā asaṃvutā andhakārā andhakāratimisā, yatthamimesaṃ candimasūriyānaṃ evaṃmahiddhikānaṃ evaṃ
  mahānubhāvānaṃ ābhāya nānubhontī .

Concise Pali English Dictionary
lokantarika adjective situated between the worlds

The Pali suttas have the stock phrase: "This world & the other world". This seems to have different meanings (such as in MN 26, where the other world appears to refer to lower worlds). But, generally, in the Buddha's society, it meant the ordinary human world and the heavenly world of the Brahmins. Thus, in Buddhism, the 'other world' can be 'heaven' or meditation jhanas; where MN 79 refers to the meditation jhanas as "a world of exclusively pleasant feelings" (ekantasukhassa lokassa).
In other words, lokantarikā in SN 56.46 appears to refer to the 'world' between the world of ordinary worldly sensual life and the world of meditation happiness; what Christians mystics called "the dark night of the soul", which is a period of spiritual desolation suffered by a mystic in which all sense of consolation is removed.
For example, when a person suffers from sever psychological depression, the light of the moon and the sun makes no impression. Similarly, as occurred to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, nothing, not even ideas of Jesus or God, could help her in her spiritual desolation.

Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me--The silence and the emptiness is so great--that I look and do not see,--Listen and
  do not hear.
Mother Teresa

In SN 56.46, the term 'lokantarikā' possibly refers to 'spiritual desolution' or what Christian meditators attempting to overcome the five hindrances called 'the dark night of the soul'.
If you have doubts about my answer, similar to a certain monk in DN 11 Kevatta  Sutta, you can ask about the meaning of the term 'lokantarikā' at Sutta Central.

Please stay on the topic for this site and don't venture too far into discussing other religions. Thank you.


text:
What motivates a fully awakened person in a loving relationship?
Loving relationship here is meant specifically as a mutually intimate partnership like husband and wife and boyfriend and girlfriend. There would be the case where one would become fully awake and therefore abandons all teachings but whilst still in a relationship. Would this change the dynamics of that relationship in some major way?
What do the Suttas say about this if anything?

Not sure what you mean by "unfolding", but it's nearly impossible if not impossible that an Arahant has any interest in an intimate partnership. Even a non-returner has no interest because they enjoy the pleasures of Jhana. Also, both have ended sensual desire, so there is i) no interest in a partnership, and ii) one has much higher pleasures than that derived from a partner. Unfolding into Arahant while being in a relationship is very hard, because one must abandon all craving, and if past sankharas are with craving due to being in a relationship, I fail to see the connection to Arahantship.

Val you can write that as an answer

@Val - I don't know how to term it - unfold, fall into, fall out of...

You made two changes: "fully enlightened" instead of "arahant", and "personal-experience" instead of reference-request". Three problems: 1) ask this as a new or follow-on question instead, and leave this one as-is, to avoid "invalidating" the existing answers? 2) not clear what "fully-enlightened" is compared to "arahant" (maybe less exclusive to Theravada and more inclusive of Mahayana); 3) implies/requires that to answer it people be (or have personal experience of being) fully-enlightened - maybe ask "what's an enlightened motive" or "what motive might a relatively enlightened person have".

Thanks Chris. I think I understand that you're asking me to define a group - implicitly. Also, I'm not content with the other suggestion of rephrasing the question as a separate question. I'm not comfortable in doing either or both of these and so in this case I would request that you take the question down to avoid the confusion that you anticipate.

I'll leave it as-is; but people who have already answered might not change their existing answers to reply to the new question -- also IMO the new question is difficult to answer if (as I assume they may be) people are reluctant and/or unable to speak from personal experience of a "fully awakened" person and in a loving relationship at that (I thought that "relatively" might possibly be more answerable from personal experience than "fully", though apparently such comparisons might be seen as conceit by definition).

Remark: This is not (yet?) a full answer, but more an extended comment.
For one impression of how might a loving relation be revered see  "A.IV. 55 Nakulapitá und Nakulamátá" ; although the couple is not called arahants they are mentioned as "top on lay disciples" (see "A I.24")  "The foremost of my laymen ...(...) ... who are intimate is the householder Nakula’s father.”
So there's no right-out disregard of being a loving couple.
Next it might be interesting a story about the (later) arahant (Maha) Kassapa about the problem of being married and having a desire for ascetic life at the same time. Hellmuth Hecker has compiled a story about this which I found some time ago at the access-to-insight site (I think) . Here is a part of that text on the biographic tale about Kassapa:

(...) Like the two chief disciples, Sariputta and Maha Moggallana, Maha
  Kassapa too descended from the brahmin caste, and again like them, he
  was older than the Buddha. He was born in the Magadha country, in the
  village Mahatittha, as the son of the brahmin Kapila and his wife
  Su-manadevi.
(This account of Maha Kassapa's early life is taken from the commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya.)
He was called Pipphali. His father owned sixteen villages over which he ruled like a
  little king, so Pipphali grew up in the midst of wealth and luxury.
  Yet already in his young years there was in him the wish to leave the
  worldly life behind, and hence he did not want to marry. When his
  parents repeatedly urged him to take a wife, he told them that he
  would look after them as long as they live, but that after their
  deaths he wanted to become an ascetic. Yet they insisted again and
  again that he take a wife, so to comfort his mother he finally agreed
  to marry -- on the condition that a girl could be found who conformed
  to his idea of perfection. For that purpose he shaped a golden statue
  of a beautiful woman, had it bedecked with fine garments and
  orna-ments, and showed it to his parents, saying: "If you can find a
  woman like this for me, I shall remain in the home life."
His parents approached eight brahmins, showered them with rich gifts,
  and asked them to take the image with them and travel around in search
  of a human likeness of it. The brahmins thought: "Let us first go to
  the Madda country, which is, as it were, a gold mine of beautiful
  women." There they found at Sagala a girl whose beauty equaled that of
  the image. She was Bhadda Kapilani, a wealthy brahmin's daughter, aged
  sixteen, four years younger than Pipphali Kassapa.
Her parents agreed to the marriage proposal, and the brahmins returned to
  tell of their success.
Yet Bhadda Kapilani also did not wish to marry, as it was her wish,
  too, to live a religious life as a female
  ascetic. Such identity between her aspiration and Pipphali Kassapa's
  may well point to a kammic bond and affinity between them in the past,
  maturing in their present life and leading to a decisive meeting
  between them and a still more decisive separation later on.
When Pipphali heard that what he had thought most unlikely had actually
  occurred, he was -- unhappy and sent the following letter to the girl:
  "Bhadda, please marry someone else of equal status and live a happy
  home life with him. As for myself, I shall become an ascetic. Please
  do not have regrets."
  Bhadda Kapilani, like-minded as she was,
  independently sent him a similar letter.
  But their parents,
  suspecting such an exchange would take place, had both letters
  intercepted on the way and replaced by letters of welcome. So Bhadda
  was taken to Magadha and the young couple were married. However, in
  accordance with their ascetic yearning, both agreed to maintain a life
  of celibacy. To give expression to their resolve, they would lay a
  garland of flowers between them before they went to bed, determined
  not to yield to sensual desire. This young wealthy couple lived thus
  happily and in comfort for many years. As long as Pipphali's parents
  lived, they did not even have to look after the estate's farms. But
  when his parents died, they took charge of the large property.
  (...)

Now,  further after the death of Pipphali's parents, Pipphali and also Baddha took the yellow robe and left home, but walked together. Then this happened:

(...) When walking on, Kassapa went ahead while Bhadda followed behind
  him.    Considering this, Kassapa thought: "Now, this Bhadda Kapilani
  follows    me close behind, and she is a woman of great beauty. Some
  people -    could easily think, 'Though they are ascetics, they still
  cannot live    without each other! It is unseemly what they are
  doing.' If they spoil    their minds by such wrong thoughts or even
  spread false rumors, they    will cause harm to themselves." So he
  thought it better that they    separate. When they reached a
  crossroads Kassapa said: "Bhadda, you    take one of these roads, and
  I shall go the other way." She said: "It    is true, for ascetics a
  woman is an obstacle. People might think and    speak badly about us.
  So please go your own way, and we shall now    part."
  She then
  respectfully circumambulated him thrice, saluted him    at his feet,
  and with folded hands she spoke: "Our close companionship    and
  friendship that had lasted for an unfathomable past comes to    an
  end today. Please take the path to the right and I shall take the
  other road." Thus they parted and went their individual ways, seeking
  the high goal of Arahatship, final deliverance from suffering.
  It is
  said that the earth, shaken by the power of their virtue, quaked and
  trembled.

From: MAHA KASSAPA: FATHER OF THE SANGHA by Hellmuth Hecker
Revised and enlarged translation from the German by Nyanaponika Thera
Translated and adapted from //Wissen und Wandel// XXI, 6 (1975)
Wheel Publication No. 345
Copyright 1987, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society
                      BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
                      KANDY              Sri Lanka

So here we find something like "platonic love" between ascetics but in this instance much deeper, Hecker proposes the expression "karmic bond" for something which we might assume as an exotic example for a very deep arrangement of love over an already long chain of rebirthes...

This is a very interesting answer.

Thank you for the reference to Nakula's father

I think even an anagami would stop being interested in relationships because sensual desire is one of the fetter that is removed at non return. So an anangami and arahant are likely to leave the house and become monks. If the anagami has a wife or a husband before attaining non return then they will probably live as sister or brother and not as husband and wife.

Milindapanha III.19
"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."

So an arahant wouldn’t be able to live as a layman for long. I don’t remember which sutta but in that sutta the Buddha or someone said that arahant can only stay as layman for 7 days or they must enter Parinibanna.
Love is sensual desire and an anagami and arahant would completely be free of sensual desire so they won’t have a reason to stay in a relationship with his or her girlfriend. So love relationship is not possible for anagamis and arahants

Love is sensual desire -- But doesn't Buddhism identify any different kinds of "love"? Including metta ("loving-kindness") for example, or karuna ("compassion")?

Thanks. I'm not sure how this works for Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti both of whom have partners. Maybe they're in the stream still.

Metta is a different kind of love. Most ordinary wordings think that love is good. But it is attachment + sensual desire. Loving kindness is also impermanent. It is mentioned in a few suttas.

I don’t believe any layman who claim to be arahant unless they are planning to ordain asap

You don't really believe that tolle is enlightened, do you? Not to be rude, but who understands his talks? I believe he doesn't understands his talks either

I don’t even know him. Most wordlings think that “enlightenment” is becoming omniscience or something like that but in fact true enlightenment is fading of passion and 10 fetters. I also think that sadhguru only have worlding wisdom.

@Val - I don't know. How would one know? It seems he still has sense desires and that might be telling of a non-attainment.

I assume it would be karuna, compassion.
There's a Zen story, Is that so? -- probably not that "Zen master Hakuin" is counted an arahant, but I guess the motive displayed in that story is compassion.
Anyway I think we're told that the Buddha's own motive, per MN 26:

Then, understanding Brahmā’s invitation, I surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha, because of my compassion for sentient beings.
Atha kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, brahmuno ca ajjhesanaṃ viditvā sattesu ca kāruññataṃ paṭicca buddhacakkhunā lokaṃ volokesiṃ.

The motive presumably or by definition wouldn't be "sensuality", however.
And it's Theravada orthodoxy that any lay arahant must join the Order immediately.
Even if we assume no craving for sensuality, I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually intimate" in the question -- that phrase suggests to me some self-view (e.g. "I love you and you love me") -- perhaps these are part of a "thicket of views", which no longer bind an enlightened being.

Thanks. When you say "it's Theravada orthodoxy" do you mean it is unique to Theravada and thus a view not shared by the wider context of Buddhism?

Theravada Buddhism have the view that an arahant would be completely free of lust, hatred and delusion so they wouldn’t need to stay in their house anymore. I would say that an anagami would become an monk unless he has a mother or father who is old. If he has a mother or father then he might work simple jobs like selling pots. There was an anagami who sold pots. I don’t remember which sutta.

@Suchness I think I know [even] less about the orthodoxy of other schools of Buddhism than I do of Theravada's interpretation of the Pali canon. I suspect/expect there are some differences, but I'm ill-equipped to describe them accurately. Your saying "Arahant" in the question may imply you were asking for a Theravada-like view, perhaps Mahayana have (or some may have, or have had) a different view of what an Arahant is and what Enlightenment is, what the stages of enlightenment are, and so on ...

... I think the "stages of enlightenment" per the Pali suttas are as listed in an overview here and here -- which is why people answer "no sensuality" etc. -- and SFAIK that's not the same as the Mahayana-defined stages. I do think that the Buddha, though, might be considered (or defined as) an Arahant (and perhaps more than just an Arahant), so I think I'm not wrong to quote MN 26 in this answer.

@Chris & TheDBSGuy - I see. With regards to orthodoxy this is probably where I alight and have a rummage around inside using some sort of self-directed intuition. Thanks.

@Suchness We could chat if you wanted to, or ask another question. I guess the Buddha famously left his family (and they joined the Order later). Are there are Stream-winner states, as you mentioned, attainable to lay people -- Arahant might be quite usual. I'm not sure I agree (nor disagree) with all Theravada orthodoxy e.g. from my own experience, this for example and that kind of doctrinal detail. Mahayana also has some "Buddha nature" doctrine which might be relevant to your question but that I'm not well-informed to tell you about.

@Suchness More generally (per Theravada again), karuna (compassion) is one of the four Brahmaviharas, which are said to be the right attitude in (i.e. some solution for) all social situations -- worth investigating all four, probably, e.g. because an excess of one might be balanced by some of another.

@Suchness And/or if you were saying that don't want to ask what's orthodox but only hear from people's own experience, you might have to rephrase the question (because to answer that, someone would have to claim to be an Arahant or to know one). One of the guidelines for answering question on SE is that answers should be "backed up" either with references or from personal experience. Also you explicitly asked for references e.g. with the [tag:reference-request] tag.

@Chris - thanks for the invitation to chat. I read your answer to 'Can The Buddha ever be a women' several days ago which I found fascinating. Yes, references are helpful as general directional pointers but in your own words, they are all [somebody's] interpretations; somebody's views. It seems 80-90% of 'waking-up' comes from personal-direction or at least this is what I'm finding with myself. I will look at changing the question. Thanks.

It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. (AN 9.7)

What about sadness and displeasure regarding external events?

Arahant experiences pleasant and unpleasant sense contacts. Refer to Iti 44: https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland

I'm asking because Maha Boowa cried in one of his talks. I wasn't referring to sense contact. It is obvious that the body cannot circumvent pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

Apologies for the roundabout reference, I am searching for the direct text, but in a talk to Anathapindika, the Buddha is said to have said (this is a reference to a quote): "Anathapindika came a little closer to the supramundane reality, since the Enlightened One explained that the arahants were always well, for they were beyond all possibilities for suffering.", as found in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel334.html .. If anyone has the sutta reference, would be appreciated, thanks in advance!


text:
Does Buddhist scripture mention Zoroastrianism?
Do any of the Buddhist texts mention anything about Zoroastrianism?
Has the Buddha ever met Zoroaster?

Do any of the Buddhist texts mention anything about Zoroastrianism?
At the time of the Buddha the Indian spiritual scenario was under heavy influence of vedic brahminism which was on the west of Buddha's kingdom.
It is highly unlikely that Zoroastrianism which lay further west of Indus valley would cross the valley and influence Buddhist monks to get an honourable mention.
Also, it was only after the invasion of Alexander the Great that Indians came in heavy contact of Persia through the Satarps of Alexander. And his conquest was some 200 years after the Buddha. So it is unlikely that the Buddha himself would have encountered any human from Persia to tell him about Zoroastrianism as He met Jainas and Vedic brahmins.
Buddhist geography in the scriptures does not mention anything in the west not even Egypt.
Has the Buddha ever met Zoroaster?
Zoraster was hundreds or thousands of years prior to Gautama the Buddha so they might not have met in person.
But the Buddha is known to have a council with Gods and He was also possesor of super natural powers. So may be they would have had a chat in some different realms. But that only a Buddha can confirm for you.

There is no known mention of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster in Buddhist texts, as far as I know, but there is a mention of "Gotama" in a Zoroastrian text.
According to a letter published in 1898 (from here), the reference to Gotama in a Zoroastrian text likely refers to the Vedic sage Gautama Maharishi, and not Gautama Buddha.
From the letter:

I am able to discover an important identification of the Avestic
  Gaotema with the Vedic Gotama. In the Rig-veda, Nodhas is Gotama's
  son, who is called Naidhyangho  Gaotemahe in the Avesta. Hence it is
  probable that the controversies  referred to in the Farvardin Yasht
  was carried on by Zoroastrians against the Vedic poet Nodhas, and not
  against Gaotama Buddha.
... The  Avesta  text  runs  thus:— "Through
  their brightness and glory a man is born  who is a chief in assemblies
  and meetings, who listens well to the holy words, who wishes for
  wisdom, and who returns a victor from discussions with Gaotema,  the
  heretic." ...  Now  there  are  two  Gotamas  who  are  principally
  familiar to us in the Vedic and the Buddhistic literature. One is
  Rishi Gotama and the other Gotama Buddha. The latter is very well
  known to us as  the  founder  of  Buddhism. The  former is one of the
  seven rishis or sages mentioned in the Rig-veda.

Zoroaster seems to have lived before the time of the Buddha, far away in Persia, so it is unlikely that they have met each other. There is also no known record of that, as far as I know.
According to this Wikipedia page, there was some persecution against Buddhists in Persia and Afghanistan by the Sassanids after Zoroastrianism became the official religion of Persia in 224 CE. Apart from this, I am not aware of other Buddhist-Zoroastrian encounters.

I have never read Zoroastrianism mentioned in the Pali suttas. Since the Buddha called the lineage of Brahmin teachers a "string of blind men" because of none them had ever seen "God" or "Brahma", obviously he would have held the same view of any superstitious doctrine the believes in a creator god