text:
How do Buddhists who believe in a non momentary conventional self during life account for karma without enlightenment?
How do Buddhists who believe in a non momentary conventional self during life account for karma without enlightenment? Specifically, what happens to "my" karma when I die, if I am not enlightened and my karma has not been exhausted?
I'm not asking how to think of cause and result if the lack of self identity extends from moment to moment in this life, because then "my" karma would face a similar obstacle in this life (there being no personal identity from moment to moment means it cannot be "my" karma at all).
Clearly most historical Buddhists believed that karma did not just exist in the suffering I cause others, but that what comes around goes around. So if my life does not, automatically without enlightenment, generate a new one, why doesn't "my" death cut off that cycle?

Buddhism is not a belief system. I never believed in a single thing that was said or written, and thank goodness I didn't! Thank goodness I came to know for myself! :-)

presumably you had to believe in some thing you were taught, unless you are what they call a "solitary buddha" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddhay%C4%81na which could make sense but anyway, it's useful to work out what to believe from others, also, even if that amounts to nothing more than stuff about who if anyone is misusing language @Max

Specifically, what happens to "my" karma when I die, if I am not enlightened and my karma has not been exhausted?

If one is not enlightened when death occurs, rebirth will take place. That process cannot be stopped as long as there exists greed, hatred and delusion in the mind.

So if my life does not, automatically without enlightenment, generate a new one, why doesn't "my" death cut off that cycle?

Merely dying is not enough to cut off the defilements that cause beings to be reborn. It takes hard work, effort, right view and persistence in training of the Noble Eightfold Path. As long as there exists defilements (greed, hatred and delusion) in the mind death and rebirth will continue to happen. That's a process have been going on for countless of aeons - even the Buddha said that he couldn't see a discernable beginning of the wandering in Samsara.
This process of death and rebirth can only be stopped when a being becomes enlightened. Why is that? Because enlightenment is what destroys and cuts off the root defilements that bind us to Samsara.

How do Buddhists who believe in a non momentary conventional self

I doubt many Buddhists would believe in a "non momentary" conventional self. I imagine most studied Buddhists would believe there can be a "momentary" conventional self.

during life account for karma without enlightenment?

Karma depends on the delusion of self. There cannot be ordinary (black &/or white) karma without self-belief.

Specifically, what happens to "my" karma when I die, if I am not enlightened and my karma has not been exhausted?

Karma will continue to reap results when the view of "I", "my" & "self" continue to exist. In the Buddha's teaching, only the false view of "I" dies. For example, MN 140 says "death" ("marana") does not occur when "I" is not conceived.

I'm not asking how to think of cause and result if the lack of self
identity extends from moment to moment in this life, because then "my"
karma would face a similar obstacle in this life (there being no
personal identity from moment to moment means it cannot be "my" karma
at all).

Sorry but the above sounds merely intellectual. If strong vexatious thoughts of "I" & "mine" continue to arise, these are personal identity.

Clearly most historical Buddhists

Buddhism became extinct in India and nearly twice became extinct in Sri Lanka. Clearly most historical Buddhists had terrible understanding of Buddhism.

believed that karma did not just exist in the suffering I cause
others, but that what comes around goes around. So if my life does
not, automatically without enlightenment, generate a new one, why
doesn't "my" death cut off that cycle?

Sorry but SN 12.2 defines "death" as the death of "a being" ("satta"). SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define a "satta" ("being") as merely "strong attachment", "a view", "a convention". Many many suttas say the Arahants do not "die" ("marana"). That is why a synonyn for Nibbana is The Deathless. Buddhists who believe in "rebirth" merely spin around & around in speculative views & questioning forever.

this is a good answer, thank you. i only disagree with the tenor that disbelief is rebirth is beneficial. and you didn't answer my question directly enough to accept the answer


text:
Can reincarnation be proved with using a mixture of logic, science, and philosophical belief?
Let's go through the logic first. The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Matter is made up of atoms.
I am made up of atoms.
I am matter.
Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed.

Now here's the philosophical (or perhaps, ideological) part:
With respect to statements 3-5 above, what defines "I"?
Am (or Is) "I" the atoms that compose my form or am (or is) "I" the identity that I have created for myself?
If "I" am my atoms, then when "I" die, I will continue to exist because my atoms will, albeit in a different form - a different incarnation hence, reincarnation.
If "I" am my identity, then when "I" die, I will cease to exist.
I think the former highlights a type of belief common in eastern philosophy (we are the universe) whereas the latter is common is western philosophy (We live in the universe, or we observe the universe).
Perhaps one's identity is linked with their atomic structure (i.e., the chemical processes of the brain)?
Do you think my reasoning is sound?
Edit: to make it clear, I am supporting the idea that if one believes that "I" is based on the existence of atoms, then reincarnation is in fact real.

You could use the same reasoning about a soap-bubble, to argue that, "... therefore a soap-bubble cannot be created nor destroyed".
Is that a sensible argument? Does that prediction match experimental observation?
The only way the argument makes sense is if you use it as a special definition of "I", i.e. if you define "I" by saying it's identical to atoms, and that that's independent of how those atoms are arranged.
That isn't how people normally identify each other -- most people probably think there's an important difference between whether a body is alive or burned.
It also isn't what Buddhist doctrine recommends -- I think it recommends that we shouldn't "identify" with form.

Can you please change my name to: Order of The Lotus Irelia? I can't change my name until 30 days from now.

The thing with logical or philosophical arguments for reincarnation is that they either cannot be proven empirically or rely too much on semantics. The minimalist reincarnation hypothesis is, AFAIK, the only falsifiable reincarnation hypothesis.

There is something essential to some human personalities, however we
ultimately characterize it, which we cannot plausibly construe solely
in terms of either brain states, or properties of brain states, or
biological properties caused by the brain and, further, after
biological death this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists
for some time, in some way, in some place, and for some reason or
other, existing independently of the person's former brain and body.
Moreover, after some time, some of these irreducible essential traits
of human personality, for some reason or other, and by some mechanism
or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some time during
the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth.

Though vague-souding, it doesn't commit the common errors of other hypotheses, i.e. it focuses explicitly on humans, it doesn't assert that all humans reincarnate and it cares not how they would reincarnate.
Ian Stevenson (and to some extent, his protégé Jim B. Tucker) was the most prolific researcher who collected data for this hypothesis. The man had sound methodology and had been to all continents of the world for more than four decades to investigate claims of reincarnation. He has a lot of critics, unsurprisingly for a researcher of the 'paranormal'. However, it's hard to dismiss many of his collected cases as purely fraudulent or confirmation bias. To summarise, the common features of his cases are a combination of:

Violent injuries or cause of death in the purported previous life.
Statements pertaining to events in the previous life.
Physical anomalies and extreme phobias in the current life corresponding to the cause of death.
Physical or behavioural resemblance between the previous and current life.

There are many great threads on BSE discussing the doctrine of reincarnation or rebirth in Buddhism, to which I have little to add. I just want to say that beliefs in reincarnation or the paranormal in general are acquired experientially. From the perspectives of many natural sciences, they are inherently unreliable and most likely unprovable. Much to my dismay, I believe it's futile to try to prove the existence of reincarnation.
Currently I'm trying to distance myself from BSE. I may or may not response to your comments.

Thank you for the info. I will look into everything. I am so curious about these things.

i don't think we need to rely on paranormal investigations to believe in rebirth, same as you don't need to believe in the paranormal to be a deist.

@again_insane_buddhist Some people come to believe in rebirth through personal experience or faith. Paranormal investigations may resonate to a different kind of people (assuming that they are done properly). I'm not familiar with Deism, but I think belief in God and belief in rebirth are not comparable since the claims that can be made based on either belief pertain to different aspects of life.

almost anything can be compared to anything else. apples and oranges are both round fruits with a different colour, though it may be difficult to decide which we prefer

Let's go through the logic first.

The Kalama Sutta says to not rely on logic.

The following statements are suppositions that must be chronologically accepted.

Its is unlikely superstition must be acccepted.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Matter is made up of atoms. I
am made up of atoms. I am matter. Therefore, I cannot be created nor
destroyed.

No. In Buddhism, the "I" is a mere impermanent illusory mental formation or thought (SN 22.81). In Buddhism, the Enlightened One's have ended "I-making" and "my-making" (SN 21.2; AN 6.104; etc). Buddhism says in many places the "I" has been permanently destroyed.

And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer
subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.
MN 22

As for the basic physical elements or atoms (dhatu), DN 11 says it cannot be said they can cease without remainder, as follows:

Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four
great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire
property, and the wind property — cease without remainder?

In summary, the Buddha teaching is as follows:

Matter is neither known to be created nor destroyed.
Matter is made up of atoms (elements/dhatu).
The 'I' is not made up of physical atoms.
The 'I' thought is immaterial & not matter.
Therefore, the "I" can be both created & destroyed.

That edit really clarified things. Very interesting.

Your assumptions are a bit wild. For starters, most people think energy is neither cerated nor destroyed, not "matter". And your analysis of parts and wholes also needs elaborating (ham is tasty, a ham sandwich is made with ham, but I don't think ham sandwiches are tasty).
A better, if I may, presentation would be

I am just matter (I don't think the abhidharma agrees)
Matter is just atoms (I believe this is usually taken as a fact, though I forget whether things reduce to atoms in the abhidharma)
Atoms are just energy (atoms are usually thought of not just energy, but also things that have energy - nuclei etc. - which themselves are composed of smaller particles that are energy.... so yes, even-though energy is not just atoms, as there can be energy in empty space)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
I cannot be created or destroyed (when e.g. I am born or die)

Is it a convincing argument? It follows that nothing mental or physical can be created or destroyed. If the conservation of energy meant nothing at all could be created or destroyed, this would be a surprise, and would fly in the face of our everyday beliefs about everything from suns and blackholes to, as you point out, individual lives. This is far from an assumption shared in by physicists etc..

In reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is
considered part of a series of assumptions in classical mechanics. The
law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics
and special relativity under the principle of mass-energy equivalence,
which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity. For
very energetic systems the conservation of mass-only is shown not to
hold, as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle
annihilation in particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
It's a nice mental image, but, as anyone who has had a lego chariot before knows, you can rearrange the parts of something to make something which is not conventionally designated in the same way (oh, a boat!).

You can show that reincarnation is the reasonable assumption but it's not a given that people will accept it.
It is also not something you need to prove because it is the reasonable assumption and arguing against it is the extraordinary claim. This is shown by this base line of reasoning;
'Before i was born there was no percepience of the world for me and after i die there will be no percepience of the world for me, the before & the after are the same and no further difference can be delineated.
Therefore given that percepience arose for me not having been before, it is thus reasonable to assert that this will repeat itself after death.
One can't really argue about this without appeal to assertions about the world and nature of percepience in particular.
This is where you go about cutting off wrong assertions on their part. Like this;

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

There are many ways of going about further cutting off wrong assertions and one can use physics, neuroscience and philosophy to keep disproving wrong ideas but you can not prove logic with logic and if a person doesn't accept the reasonable assumption argument to begin with then he is being unreasonable in misplacing the burden of proof.

i see what you mean, but your answer lacks subtlety imho. most analytic philosophers do believe that a dead person is different to one that hasn't been born. arguments for reincarnation do exist in that tradition, but are overwhelmingly less important than arguments for god (for obvious reasons). see e.g. mctaggert on time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._E._McTaggart#:~:text=McTaggart%20believed%20each%20of%20the,existence%20of%20time%2C%20matter%20etc.

It's anticlimatic but it's true. A person can argue that reality is but a persistent dream wherein one conceives of a world perceived through this or that body and it's conception persists while it changes day by day or life after life.

Afterall the world you see if the only world you will ever know and it's entirety is conceived & perceived by your intellect or nervous system

So one would say "yes you die, but that merely in world you imagined and it didn't stop the process of conception & perception of the world because having ceased here it arose there, as a here & now for you."

definitely more difficult to claim without atman, i agree with that!

Yes, all this is how a child could think, simple logic and it's very close to truth if one can get rid of self view.

As to physics it is particularly useful to show the link between matter & energy and of matter to information, show that these are not independent properties. This pulls a person's mentality under laws of conservation and has very useful implications.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

In Theravada Buddhism, even the particle or smaller were imagined from elements, realities. The elements are arising and vanishing  more than trillion times per second because of their many various origins.

Matter is made up of atoms.

In Theravada Buddhism, the atom is an imagination which imagined from the arising and vanishing elements more than trillion times per second. The elements could be formed by Karma, Mind, Temperature, or  Nutrient.

I am made up of atoms.
I am matter.
Therefore, I cannot be created nor destroyed.

Yes, it is imagination based on imagination.

Can reincarnation be proved with using a mixture of logic, science, and philosophical belief?

I don't think so, but I know more than one successful people, some graduated from MIT and worked at US FED, who have hard practiced on Jhana, recalling-reincarnation skill and Abhidhamma follow to Pa-Auk Tawya.
They never get back to talk about science anymore.
So, I guess I should practice follow them to get their chosen  knowledge (better than?) science like they did.

Can you further explain "atoms are imagination" ?

@ProfessorFinesse. Atoms is just a concept. An atom doesn't really exist. It's a word, a concept, invented by humans. The same goes for a self. It doesn't exist and cannot be found anywhere.

@DivineSwordIrelia The concept of an atom might have been invented but it was invented to explain an aspect of observable reality. We can actually see and interact with these things which we happen to call atoms. Those things which we call atoms are very real.

@ProfessorFinesse. An atom is a concept, imagination. What it refers to is a physical phenomenon yes but it's nothing more than the visual sense working when seeing an atom. When thinking about it its just a thinking process. There exists only experiences.

@DivineSwordIrelia So do you think that you can just imagine that atoms don't exist and they'll cease to do so?

@ProfessorFinesse. That's why I can't discuss with you. You're foundation is wrong which makes it impossible. Go practice meditation. That's the only way you can understand what you're asking about. Goodbye.

@ProfessorFinesse. Btw what you're mind is doing right now is called Papañca in Pali and means "Mental Proliferation". Might be a good idea to read about it.

@DivineSwordIrelia Thanks for the info. I will definitely look into it!

Welcome and sorry for cutting you off but the discussion will only lead to further confusion and destabilizing of the mind.

@DivineSwordIrelia No problem. Just means there is more to learn. Thanks again for your time.

@ProfessorFinesse in the middle of the clip https://youtu.be/_9zkn1zMHvM

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is Buddhism structured (in Japan)?
How is Buddhism structured? All I really know if you have lay people, priests, monks, and in some places masters or grand masters (I don't know if these are the same), and there are various different variants of the religion, each with their own clergy etc..
So, by analogy, Britain has the arch bishop of Canterbury, and he's the principle "head of the Church" of England. What equivalent formal positions exist in Japanese Buddhism?
Google wasn't much help! All I found out was that e.g. Soto zen has two principle temples, Eihei-ji and Sōji-ji. Do they have heads? Soto's - democratic - head is the "Shūmusōchō"; where can I read about this position?
Are the other subsets of Buddhism structured similarly?

The word 'Buddhism' encompasses an extremely wide and varied set of disciplines. As such, their structures also differ - some not even having a structure, like in some Zen traditions. I wonder if your question is too broad?

yeah i was wondering that, but perhaps not @Max

It is broad, but could be answered shallowly (i.e. without much detail), or in part.

i narrowed focus down to one nation @ChrisW

Good question +1.

My Zen teacher was Tanouye Rotaishi of Chozen-ji. In Japanese Buddhism, lineage is paramount. Tanouye Rotaishi's lineage teacher was Omori Sogen Rotaishi. That lineage continues back to China and ultimately via Ananda to the Buddha. Wikipedia explains the lineage principles of Dharma transmission that guide Japanese Buddhism. As you can see, lineage defines formal relationships.  Major lineages of Zen include Soto and Rinzai.  Informally, as a Rinzai Zen student, I would feel welcome and comfortable in any Zen lineage center. Formally, one relies on the guidance of one's own lineage teacher.
The formal system of lineages is common to Japanese Buddhism as explained in Wikipedia: Buddhism in Japan. Over years the traditions of each lineage have evolved in different ways. The differences are simply accepted and respected as they are: they are independent and different formal ways to teach Buddhism. The  hierarchy of the Church of England is quite different.

how does this relate to temples, the laity, ordination, etc,? i didn't bring up catholicism haha

People often mistake High Church Anglicanism for Catholicism. It's often even called "Anglo-Catholicism." Because you said "Archbishop," OyaMist assumed you meant Catholic. That word is much more common in Catholicism than Protestantism. All in all, other than that tiny inconsequential mistake, it's a good response.

Maybe you don't know that "ji" means "temple" in Japanese. The answer mentioned a temple, and it also mentioned lineage trees, something that was very important in establishing legitimacy in Medieval Japan.

Apologies. I had forgotten that the Church of England is not Catholic (and I went to British schools). Updated answer.

@Caoimhghin it's fine. i tend to not understand it when people answer with stuff i already know, that's all.

By qualification
Discriminator, Supernatural Knoledge Attainer, General Noble One, whole Tipitaka Memorizer, Whole Sutta Memorizer, Nikaya Memorizer, Sutta Memorizer, Vinaya Memorizer
See VN Commentary https://5000y.men/?rm.r.63.55
and Path of Purification https://5000y.men/?rm.r.150.94.visuddhimagga
By ordaining
Later ordained monk must prostrate oneself to the earlier ordained monk if the earlier monk is good in virtue, even the later monk has higher qualification.
See VN https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd16/en/horner-brahmali?reference=none&highlight=false#Kd.16.6

i am interested not in historical answers  but in the contemporary / modern world, so stuff like "the archbishop of canterbury". i imagine the info exists in e.g. japanese language wikipedia

not asking about spiritual attainments, but formal positions. you seem to have listed obscure spiritual possessions we can label ourselves as enjoying. that's not really what i had in mind

It's depending on each country. However, we still use same as what I answered above  in  strictly theravada nowaday.

ok well i kinda believe you, so i apologise for the hasty vote if necessary

@Bonn. I think your answer is great so I upvoted it +1.

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


text:
Is it necessary to be Buddhist to reach enlightenment?
Is it plausible or possible in Buddhist thought for a being to experience nirvana, enlightenment, without adhering to Buddhist thoughts or viewpoints? It it possible for people to receive true dharma from a not-Buddhist framework?
From my standpoint, there are many people in the world from various traditions who practice deep meditation and live virtuous lives. It seems reasonable to me that in their practices they, too, come into the presence of the deepest grounds of being, and achieve profound realizations and transformations. Yet, if they are not Buddhist, they may not report back things like emptiness of self and all phenomenon, or reincarnation. They might instead discuss the soul, the self, God, for example. Hence my questions.
In some Mahamudra texts, I have read things like “one must recognize the emptiness of the mind” in order to get to the most advanced levels. Is that really so? What happens if we get to the deepest levels in meditation, and we decide that there is not emptiness of the mind?
I would imagine the answers are different for different schools of Buddhism. I am interested in specific schools’ thoughts, and general Buddhist perspective as a whole.

can you be a buddhist without knowing you are?

i believe the answer is meant to be "yes" at least if there is no buddha in the world.

As stated clearly in Dhammapada 254 - 255, noble (ariya) contemplatives cannot be found outside what was taught by the Buddhas. In other words, you can only find noble contemplatives where there are the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the three marks of existence and dependent origination. Only these lead to the permanent end of suffering.

In the sky there is no track; outside the Buddha's Teaching
there is no ariya bhikkhu (samana). All beings take delight in fetters
(i.e., craving, pride and wrong view) that prolong samsara; all the
Buddhas are free from these fetters.
In the sky there is no track; outside the Buddha's Teaching
there is no ariya bhikkhu (samana). There is no conditioned thing that
is permanent; all the Buddhas are unperturbed (by craving, pride and
wrong view).
Dhammapada 254 - 255

Also the following sutta says that the Noble Eightfold Path is mandatory for liberation.

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

In fact, the specific person of Gautama Buddha is not more important than his teachings, which was discovered and rediscovered again by multiple Buddhas (SN 6.2) in history, as a natural law.

Past Buddhas,
future Buddhas,
& he who is the Buddha now,
removing the sorrow of many —
all have dwelt,
will dwell, he dwells,
revering the true Dhamma.
This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.
Therefore one who desires his own good,
aspiring for greatness,
should respect the true Dhamma,
recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.
SN 6.2

Even if Buddhas never arose, the three marks of existence is in any case a natural law independent of the person discovering and teaching it (AN 3.136).

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

The question arises whether people outside Buddhism follow the Noble Eightfold Path. I would say, perhaps except for Right View, they do. What is Right View then?
In addition, it may be so that there is no samana outside the Buddha’s teaching. Then one could ask whether groups/ individuals normally characterized as “outside the Budddha’s teaching,” actually, on further inspection are inside his teachings.
I am worried we are too hung up on doctrine in the form of labels and words and requirements. Did not the Buddha also say that his teachings were but a finger pointing to the moon?

What happens if we get to the deepest levels in meditation, and we
decide that there is not emptiness of the mind?

Then, by definition, you have not arrived at the the deepest levels of meditation.  But we are running into an obstacle here...one that I don't think you're fully aware of.  Buddhist liberation has nothing to do with meditation or meditative states.  Buddhist liberation is a product of insight gleaned by leveraging those states.  What we encounter on the cushion isn't of very much importance.  Plenty of yogis have had deep meditative experiences.  The Buddha's own teachers had even reached rarified states that are only available to very few and very advanced practitioners under a very specific sets of circumstances.  But their encounters ended with the experience itself.  They did not apply their purified minds back to the world of form.  The Buddha's great discovery was how to generate liberating insight from the interplay between form and emptiness.  Only when we are removed from form following deep meditation can we see form for its limitations, obstacles, and pathologies.
You don't necessarily have to be a Buddhist to use this methodology, but I'd argue that if you do, you are almost a Buddhist by definition.  If you continue to follow this line of inquiry, you will invariably arrive at the same insights the Buddha had - ultimately becoming a Buddha yourself.

Is it necessary to be Buddhist to reach enlightenment?

"Buddhism" and "Buddhist" are just words and not really much else. They could be called anything for that matter.
What's important is that a teaching must have The Noble Eightfold Path in it (DN 16). If it has that then Enlightenment is possible. If not, then it's not possible.
It's not really about deciding whether there's emptiness or anything else for that matter. Enlightenment is not something you do - it's something that happens as a result of correct and persistent practice.

Wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is found, there a second true ascetic is found, there a third true ascetic is found, there a fourth true ascetic is found. (DN 16

We welcome everyone to meditate the meditation at any level they satisfy/comfort to keep doing.
However, if you understand  how big scope the enlightenment focusing on, you will understand that the Buddhism is completely different from any other knowledge even science or philosophy. And that's how the completely perfect enlightenment are only happens in the perfect people.
How is the scope big?
Every suffering, even sad or happiness, even past or now or future, even entire life or many other lives or a moment of trillion moments per second.
Everything is the scope to meditate, that's really hard to manage.
However, it is the most invaluable, so try it at any level you can do, at least you have try.

Can you be fully enlightened without encountering the - Buddhist - path? No, I don't think so. Even sudden enlightenment has gradations to it.
Furthermore, "right view" also has gradations. The right view of a neophyte has subtle differences to that of a saint. Dunno how to conceptualise it, but belief in Buddhism is not the same thing as realising its truth, even if all that means is a shift in belief.

What did you mean by "sudden enlightenment has gradations"?

that's potentially a very long answer, but "it depends" @Sampath

Is it plausible or possible in Buddhist thought for a being to
experience nirvana, enlightenment, without adhering to Buddhist
thoughts or viewpoints? It it possible for people to receive true
dharma from a not-Buddhist framework?

Buddhism is the only doctrine with the total eradiction or refutation of 'self-view'. Enlightenment & nirvana cannot be reached without the complete destruction of every type of internal, external, cosmic or theistic 'self-view'.

What happens if we get to the deepest
levels in meditation, and we decide that there is not emptiness of the
mind?

The above is delusion or impurity of insight.


text:
How does annihilationism posit a self?

According to the Brahmajala Sutta, Ajita propounded Ucchedavada (the
Doctrine of Annihilation after death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada
(the doctrine of identity of the soul and body), which denied the
separate existence of an eternal soul.

Annihilationism is usually thought of as one extreme, which assumes an atman. But if atman is permanent, I don't easily see the error here.

Why is it a self view?
Can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman?
If not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching, and is it still Ucchedavada?

I don't understand the last sentence. I guess that if "atman" means "self" then "positing an atman" means "positing a self", whether that atman is assumed to be permanent ("eternalist") or finite ("annihilationist").

NOTE: "atman" is not used in the DN, MN, KN, SN, AN Pali Nikayas. Atman is a Hindu term.

that's interesting thanks. do you understand the question @OyaMist

Yes. Ruben2020's answer makes total sense to me. DN1 is the reference to study. DN1 explores all the variations of your question and explains the issues thoroughly.

it may "make sense" but it doesn't answer the question very well (as i tried to explain in my comments to it) @OyaMist oh forget it

specifically: why is it a self view? can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman? if not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching? is it still Ucchedavada? @OyaMist

Annihilationism is like saying Santa Claus exists now but would cease to exist later. Anatta is like saying there's really no Santa Claus, although it may appear at times to exist, albeit falsely. Eternalism and annihilationism are two variant views that are like asserting the truth of Santa Claus, while anatta denies it.

There's a very detailed description in DN 1.
Eternalism is the view that the self, atta or atman, is different from the body, and is eternal. When the body is destroyed, the self moves on to another body. But the self is never destroyed, is permanent and eternal.
Annihilation is the view where the self is identical with the body, and so it exists while the body exists and it is destroyed when the body is destroyed.
Or if someone holds the view that the self is a subtler body that exists when the physical body exists and will be destroyed with the destruction of the physical body, then that's also annihilationism.
Partial-eternalism is the view that either some beings are eternal (like God) while others are not, or some beings are eternal but could lose their immortality by corruption, or that consciousness or mind is eternal while body is not.
The above are all variants of self-view.
The Buddha taught that the self is a dependently originated emergent phenomena, a mental idea, that changes from time to time, depending on conditions. It's neither permanent nor standalone. Other things like body, mind, consciousness are all dependently originated conditioned phenomena.

yes but why does Ajita posit an atman? i'm not saying he doesn't. i'm confused why he is meant to

@again_insane_buddhist atman here just means "self". The self can be imposed on anything. For e.g. if I hit you, you may say "why do you hit me?" instead of "why do you hit my body?" You could make body identical with self. When body is destroyed, self is destroyed. A person could think that he will cease to exist when he dies. The Buddha did not want to confuse Vacchagotta in SN 44.10: "And if I  were to answer that there is no self, (he) would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

so annihiltionism etc. need not posit a self?

@again_insane_buddhist Annihilationism posits a self that exists now and will cease to exist in the future.

what is it about the annihilationist belief which must posit the self?

@again_insane_buddhist Annihilationist view is just one of the variants of self-view.

why is it a self view? can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman? if not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching? is it still Ucchedavada?

all you've really said is "annihilationism posits a self because it posits it self" and then added some basic context.

@again_insane_buddhist Saying eternalism and annihilationism are two variants of self view, is just like saying a pigeon and a penguin are two types of birds. You cannot ask, "if I remove bird, is penguin still a penguin?"

no that's not the case it's a poor analogy. any belief can be altered, including views about a self. think about it. what is buddhism without anatman makes sense, though it may be difficult to swallow. beliefs, living beliefs etc., don't follow the logic of biological phylums

Can you please change my username to "Order of the Lotus Irelia"? I can't change it for 30 days. Thank you.

In the context of Buddhist teachings, however, what matters is not the
permanence or impermanence of the object of self-identification but
the very fact of self-identification. Thus Buddhists view both
sassatavada and ucchedavada as two varieties of atmavada... due to craving for non-being (vibhava-tanha), the desire to be completely annihilated at death. From the Buddhist point of view the reasoning for this may be conjectured as follows: because ucchedavada rejects survival, it tends to encourage man to lead a life without being burdened by a sense of moral responsibility or tormented by moral inhibitions. Therefore it abhors any prospect of after-death existence, as it implies the possibility of moral retribution

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm
Seems fair. I don't become nothing when I die, because I cannot identify it as "my" death.
Whether we can conventionally believe in self annihilation is not clear to me.

This is a better answer

I should just google these things. This source adds that annihilationists believe in a self now, and the eternalists one in the future.

nb i have not read this book, and it may go on at some length about the difference with madhyamaka etc.

It's because they hold that something existed for some time, 'a person'. The body is not the same now as what the body was when one was an infant but they say it's the same 'person'.
They posit an annihilation of the existent self only, the body they say will break up, heat will dissipate and consciousness is but a conditional property of matter which begins when person begins and ends when person ends.
They use the idea of self or 'person' to tie mind & body together in a messed up way where they treat mentality as if it is like smoke produced of rubbing two sticks but they don't conserve this property in any way unlike conservation of other material properties such as heat, mass, motion & etc and it apparently is made out of nothing and becomes nothing.
Of course it's philosophically impossible to somehow conserve or transform what only you could observe to something measurable by another person when you no longer exist...
Therefore they are called 'annihilationists, those who posit annihilation of an existent being', they make body & mind personable but won't be able to pin down the being as a truth & reality.
Without the idea of self they will have to admit that body & mind change as they persist and that cessation of mind is not evident and that it ought to be assumed to change as it persists even through the breakup of the body.


text:
Acts of evil by "aryans": how can you explain them?
It is well known that there are periodic crises in Buddhism, usually - it seems - involving sexual misconduct.
I also know that e.g. Vasubandhu claimed that aryans - even if they could still have sexual desire - were incapable of sexual misconduct.
Does that mean that everyone involved in these crises are complete fakes or have retrogressed? Quite famously, an important Tibetan llama was even convicted of child rape: can anyone defend the claim any a "tulku" of this sort is a Buddha behind bars?

Related: How would one recognise if a Buddhist group is a cult?

Ariyans cannot perform acts of evil. That is why they are called 'Ariyans'. The suttas say:

"And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
endowed?
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
beings, awakened, blessed.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
themselves.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
individuals — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'
"He is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones:
untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the
wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.
"These are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is endowed.
AN 10.92

Yes, it does mean that everyone involved in these crises are complete fakes or have retrogressed.

I was under the assumption, or at least from what i have read that the qualities of a sotapanna, specifically the quality of never falling to lower rebirth is only because of the cessation of the first of the 3 fetters and the inability to perform the 5 heinous actions that would cause such lower rebirth. I have never read anywhere that a sotapanna automatically has pure stainless sila. Meaning a sotapanna may still be able to lie or commit adultery or even kill, just that they would not be controlled by kleshas to do such actions and especially not the 5 heinous actions.

sorry your ideas are unsubstantiated despite being very common among intellectual buddhists

When the Buddha talks about an arhat (or aryan in the Tibetan), he is referring to an inner state: an attitude that someone naturally develops as they walk further and further down the path.
When lay people talk about an arhat (or aryan) they usually mean it in terms of an outer status: a label acquired by someone due to long practice and broad respect in the community. The label becomes a sigil or a fetish; it is ascribed to someone without foundation in the person's actual (inner) attainment.
Most people rise to the ascription, because even if they haven't yet attained realization, that is their earnest desire. They take care in their use of the label. Some people lose their way under the ascription, becoming attached to their own importance and the rewards they feel they should receive for the status.
The Tibetan tradition has been particularly vulnerable to the latter problem because the Tibetan religious culture has been so thoroughly uprooted from its ancestral home. The combination of disrupted lineages and broad sympathy and support from Western lay communities created a fertile ground for egoism and misappropriation. That will settle itself out over time, I imagine...

Arya means noble person, one of the stages of  progress to liberation. Sotapanna onward to arhant.

@Remyla: Ah, thanks. Not a word I've seen before (in this context) and the web seemed to imply equivalence. I"ll have to think about whether that affects my answer.

One of the downfalls of labelling so-called spiritual attainments - like aryan - is that it seems to define a particular set of parameters regarding human behaviour or that certain behaviours are lost or given-up in some way. This is where orthodoxy should get real with itself. It is true that certain behaviours can fall away, but such is the complexity of the human mind that those behaviours don't's always disappear in-line with a set of religious ideas or models; karmic formations can be very complex.
The simplest explanation for evil behaviour is always the best: we consider ourselves to be made-up of the body. Having given ourselves to that consideration, we feel separated from everything and everybody else. In this state of separation, we feel vulnerable and afraid. It is this insecurity that gives rise to all sorts of unwholesome behaviours in the world, regardless of whether you claim to be an aryan or not.
Therefore, the stream-entrant - while a moderately significant understanding - has only realized very little.


text:
What is meant by 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito'?
In SN68 Pihitasutta;

Kenassu pihito loko,
kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhito;
Kenassu uḍḍito loko,
kenassu parivāritoti.
Maccunā pihito loko,
dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito;
Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko,
jarāya parivāritoti.

Translation:

By what is the world shut in?
On what is the world established?
By what is the world ensnared?
By what is it enveloped?”
“The world is shut in by death;
The world is established on suffering;
The world is ensnared by craving;
It is enveloped by old age.

What is meant by 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito'? why is it said that "The world is established on suffering?"
EDIT:
The same is repeated in, SN67 Uḍḍitasutta which may be much clearer.

Kenassu uḍḍito loko,
kenassu parivārito;
Kenassu pihito loko,
kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhitoti.
Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko,
jarāya parivārito;
Maccunā pihito loko,
dukkhe loko patiṭṭhitoti.

Translation

By what is the world ensnared?
By what is it enveloped?
By what is the world shut in?
On what is the world established?”
The world is ensnared by craving;
It is enveloped by old age;
The world is shut in by death;
The world is established on suffering.

Related: What is world (loka) in SN 12.44? Why is it called "world"?

To understand what this means, we must first understand what "world" means in context.
"World" in this context, refers to the world of mental formations.
Please read "What is world (loka) in SN 12.44? Why is it called "world"?" for more info.
Also, please see below.
In Piya Tan's commentary on SN 12.44, he drew a connection from the arising of feeling to the arising of mental proliferation (papanca).

And what, bhikshus, is the arising of the world10?
Bhikshus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition,
there is feeling.12
10 On the 3 types of “world,” see Rohitassa
S
12 From hereon, Madhu,pindika
S (M 18.16) continues: “What one feels, one perceives. What one
perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one mentally
proliferates. What a person mentally proliferates is the source
through which perceptions and notions due to mental proliferation
impacts one regarding past, future and present forms cognizable
through the eye.”

In Piya Tan's commentary on the Rohitassa Sutta (SN 2.26), he explains the three types of worlds:

In the Rohitassa Sutta, the word “world” (loka) is used in two
senses: in the sense of the physical world and the world of
formations. Rohitassa asks the Buddha a question on the physical world
(cakka-vāla loka, “universe world”), but the Buddha answers him
referring to the world of formations. Through-out the Buddhist texts,
the word “world” has three senses:

Sankhāra loka - the world of formations,
Satta loka - the world of beings,
Okāsa loka - the world of space (ie the space-time reality).
(Vism 7.37/204 f; DA 1:173; MA 1:397, 2:200)

The world of formations is defined in the Patisambhidā,magga thus:
“One world: all beings are sustained by food.” (Pm 1:122).

So, the "world" of SN 12.44 corresponds to the world of mental formations (sankhara loka) arising from mental proliferations (papanca), that is derived from the feelings (vedana) coming from the contact of consciousness with the six sense media and their sense objects (The All).

Agree on this description of World in this context. At any given point the world is private to the perceiver. We never see the other's world. But why is it established on dukkha? What is this dukkha that our world is based on?

SN 12.44 says the world arises from craving. For example, when the world ends, sense contact & feeling remain. "The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation... of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.”

i scored this answer down because i discern no evidence the "World" in this context refers to the world of mental formations.

the following is nuts: "The world of formations is defined in the Patisambhidā,magga thus: “One world: all beings are sustained by food.” (Pm 1:122)."

Can you please change my username to "Order of the Lotus Irelia"? I can't change it for 30 days. Thank you.

I must revise this answer for 'the world' with a pertinent quote from SN 12.10, namely:

‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies,
passes away and follows on as before'.
‘kicchaṁ vatāyaṁ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca
upapajjati ca.

The word 'jāyati' (verbal form of 'jati') above does not mean physical birth. For example, AN 4.200 & Dhp 212 say:

Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, pemāni jāyanti. Katamāni cattāri? Pemā pemaṃ
jāyati, pemā doso jāyati, dosā pemaṃ jāyati, dosā doso jāyati.
Monks, these four things are born. Which four? Affection is born of
affection. Aversion is born of affection. Affection is born of
aversion. Aversion is born of aversion.

Piyato jāyatī soko, piyato jāyatī bhayaṃ
From affection is grief born, from affection is fear born.

SN 12.2 defines "jati" as the birth of a "category of beings" ("satta nikaye"). SN 23.2 defines "a being" ("satta") as "strong attachment". SN 5.10 defines "a being" ("satta") as "a view"; "a convention"; "a word".
Therefore, when SN 12.10 says "the world is born", this means "the world is born from self-views". In other words, it is from self-views that grief & fear are born. Thus "the world" is that has the nature of grief, fear & sorrow. Thus AN 8.6 says:

Bhikkhus, these eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and
the world revolves around these eight worldly conditions. What eight?
Gain and loss, disrepute and fame, blame and praise, and pleasure and
pain. These eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and the
world revolves around these eight worldly conditions.

In SN 2.26, SN 12.44 & SN 12.15, it appears the term "world" is a synonym for "suffering" ("dukkha"). SN 12.15, in particular, says:

For one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom.... for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom... This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement,
clinging and adherence. But this one with right view does not become
engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental
standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand
about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is
only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing.

The word 'patiṭṭhito' is found in suttas such as AN 3.76 & SN 22.53. Here, 'patiṭṭhito' is about when craving causes consciousness to be "established" or "fixated" in a sense object. In AN 3.76, it appears 'patiṭṭhito' explains or defines what 'bhava' ('becoming') is.
While am no Pali expert & while the following distinction is not important, the term "dukkhe" appears to be of locative case. Thus, I would translate the phrase: "the world is established in suffering" rather than "the world is established on suffering".
Therefore, per SN 12.15, it appears the phrase 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito' means 'the world is established in the self-views that are suffering'.
To reiterate from SN 12.15:

For one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom.... this world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement,
clinging and adherence... a stand
about ‘my self’... what arises is
only suffering arising...

Similarly, SN 5.10, which is about the worldly wrong view & convention of "a being" ("satta"), says:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Nothing but suffering comes to
be.

Therefore, again, it appears the world is established in the self-views of "beings" that are suffering.
Again, to note, SN 23.2 defines "a being" ("satta") as "strong attachment" ("visatta").

Agree on the definition of  'patiṭṭhito'. However I can't agree with the statement: "world" is a synonym for "suffering" ("dukkha"). The two words are not used interchangeably. "the world is established on suffering" denotes that one is dependent on the other; but one is not the other. You deduce that: 'the world is established in the self-views that are suffering'. - what exactly is the suffering of self views?

sorry but u appear to know nothing essential about Buddhism. This is why your posts about the 1st noble truth are wrong, as i previously compassionately advised you. The 1st noble truth is about suffering. It summarizes all suffering as attachment. Attachment is self views. If you are in doubt, MN 140 says: "Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace."

also, similar to Sati in MN 38 and Ariṭṭha in MN 22, this comment will have consequences for you.

Can you elaborate what you meant by "all suffering as attachment"? I was under the impression that attachment as a cause for suffering. Then again that suffering and dukkha mentioned here seems to be different. The 1st Nobel Truth is taught as something that needs to be conceived through wisdom (pariññeyyaṁ), but not the senses SN56.29. It means that dukkha mentioned here is not the suffering we feel in the body or mind. Hence, my interest in the original question.

Agree, that my knowledge in Buddhism is very limited, and its the reason why I'm here asking questions. If my questions are stupid and naive please bare with me. If the consequences you mention include improving my knowledge, correcting my mistakes and getting a deeper and broader understanding of Dhamma, that is the goal, I welcome it. I thank you for spending your time on helping me.


text:
What exactly is the suffering of self views?
I read the following in the worldly internet:

What exactly is the suffering of self views?

What exactly is the suffering of self views?

Having a view of a self — an identity, a sense of 'me' or 'mine', a mental object that is a locus of self-reference — brings suffering. We attach desires and aversions to it, asserting that this self-referential object should obtain blessings, possess things, and feel pleasure and joy, should last forever. It should not experience pain or loss; should not be inconvenienced or put upon; should not become ill, disfigured, or disabled; should not end or die.  Yet the world does not conform to these desires and aversions.
By releasing the self-object — living directly, not indirectly through self-reference — all this suffering goes away.

Apologies, but how does self views suffer? in what way? Does the view itself suffer? or is it the attachments that suffer? Why is it called 'suffering of self views' (plural)? If the answer is too long for a comment, please add an edit. Thanks for sharing your understanding and spending your time for me.

@Sampath: I think this is a semantics or translation issue. The 'suffering of self views' should be read as the 'suffering due to self views'. one source of suffering is the creation of a 'self' object which is held as separate from the reality of existence. For instance, we can hold a self-referential view like "I am the smartest, most attractive, most powerful person." That can create dukkha if something in the world challenges that view, and tanhā if we become determined to make reality conform to that self-view.

Thank you. Now it's clear.

The suffering of self-views is:

SN24.96:1.3: ‘The self is neither happy nor suffering, and is well after death’?”

The end of suffering of self-views is:

SN24.96:4.1: “So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
...

sorry but this is not an answer.

BTW, thank you for this question. Because of it we have added "the self is" as a search example. Both SN24.96 and DN1 show up.

Is it really hurts/suffering if what we normally thought "it's truth that we are controllable" is really no way to be controllable like a paralysis for entire lives?
Is it really hurts/suffering if what we normally prepare/or never prepare for the thought "it's truth that we are controllable" is really no way to be controllable like a paralysis for entire lives?
For examples, you prepare/control for only this life but the truth is it still has a chance of next lives. you prepare/control for next life but the truth is what you have prepare are never good enough for entire  next lives.
How do you feel if the truth is all possibilities of real happiness, which we all are doing for, must be end with suffering/vanishing/uncontrollable?
In Theravada Buddhism, clinging self-view means addiction of impossible imagination about self. Self is only an impossible imagination about the aggregates' relativity, which all are suffering.
It's really hurts, right?
What is impossible imagination?
The ordinary normally addict to think about 5 aggregates as no origins or impossible origins or mistake origins. All of those are impossible imagination.

No any arising and vanishing is permanent, ordinary normally think I am permanent/have been permanent/will be permanent.
No any arising and vanishing is beauty, ordinary normally think I am beauty/have been beauty/will be beauty.
No any arising and vanishing is comfort, ordinary normally think I am comfort/have been comfort/will be comfort.
All is uncontrollable, ordinary normally think I am controllable/have been controllable/will be controllable.

Why the arising and vanishing aggregates in dependent origination (sufering) are truth, not immposible imagination?
An aggregate must be arising by various origins then immediately vanishing follow origins'vanishing. The arising and vanishing aggregates are smallest and fastest, so the ordinary never completely perfect understand of them before the Buddha teaching happens into the world.

Everyone is imagined from smallest particles not even atom (samuha-ghana), but the ordinary normally think I am a big man, I am a white man, I am a beautiful man, etc., which are imagination, so they never see  any smallest arising and vanishing aggregates, which are the truth.

Everyone is imagined from time-period of co-working smallest particles' various moments (santatighana), but the ordinary normally think I have long life, I have short life, I have many lives, etc., which are imagination, so they never see  any fastest arising and vanishing aggregates, which are the truth.

Everyone is imagined from co-working-duties of smallest particles' various duties (kicca-ghana), but the ordinary normally think I am doing a job at a time, etc., which are imagination, so they never see  any other arising and vanishing aggregates doing their duties, which are the truth.

Everyone is imagined fromsame time being-knew-objects of smallest particles' various being knew in same time (arammana-ghana), but the ordinary normally think I am seeing a mole me in a mole mirror, etc., which are imagination, so they never see  any fastest and smallest arising and vanishing aggregates, which are the truth.

See DN1 DN2 DN10 DN15 DN22 MN KayagatasatiSutta for the way to practice.

In brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering. SN 56.11

And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of
clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging
to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called
clinging. SN 12.2

When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not
agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. MN 37; MN 140; SN 12.51; SN
22.53

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I
shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving
is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By
overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. MN
140


text:
Why and how is Theravada and Mahayana Abhidha(r)(m)ma different?
I know this could potentially be a huge question: if abhidhamma/abhidharma differs in Theravada and Mahayana, how does is it differ and why?

There have been over 18 different schools within Buddhism, differentiating on the philosophical issues. Of those 18 schools, only two survive till the present day. The two are known as Mahayana and Theravada. Each of them have more sub-schools within them.
Abhidhamma [pali] or Abhidharma [sanskrit] is the name of one of the baskets (pitaka[sanskrit]) of the tri-pitaka- three baskets of teachings. As such, it accounts for the theorization and philosophical discussions of Buddha's teachings. Both Theravada and Mahayana rely on, take teachings of and consider abhidhamma as very important.
The differences occur not on the abhidhamma text itself but it's philosophical import- both hermeneutically and consequentially. As one very broad and simplified example, both schools  whose source of philosophical discussion is abhidharma, take the concept of sunyata or emptiness. While Theravada focuses particularly on the emptiness of self and take that as one of the core principles, Mahayana instead focuses on emptiness of phenomenon wherein it then focuses on emptiness of self.
There are quite a reasons for the differences to occur. I will mention one. Theravada developed in Sri Lanka as the monks went there and while Mahayana developed in India it went via Tibet to east asia. As such, the sort of debates or discussion the monks had to engage in were culturally different and the responses were shaped accordingly. In that sense, Mahayana came after Theravada as a Buddhist response to the Non-Buddhist philosophical positions while Theravada didnt feel the need to respond this way because there was no philosophical challenges posed. Hence, both schools gradually shaped their understanding of the same teachings of Abhidharma.
Hope you find this of use to think more on the differences.

Thanks, yes, very useful. Wondering now about the source of each, and the written source of each, as written sources are what scholars and most folks can attest to, practice, investigate, study, research, etc

@vimutti The Theravada takes buddha's direct words in the suttas as the core of teachings whereas Mayahana takes this {Tibetan. Kangyur} and also teachings by some very advanced teachers/meditators/bodhisattvas/arihants {Tibetan- Tengyur}. Thus, in this amnner of putting it, Theravada relies on suttas whereas Mahayana relies on that (Kangyur) and also other treatises (Tengyur).

Main difference is the Theravada Abhidhamma rejects the "Self" in
whatsoever form.
The "emptiness" advocated in the two doctrines are different in
meaning.
According to Theravada There are only 5 masses(/12faculties/18
elements) in this whole world.
Theravada says that there is no any "Permanent entity" or
"Comfortable entity" or "Doer entity" in this world.
They analyze all the world in to elements and at the end no
"person/doer" can be found.
This is the main difference between Theravada and "not only Mahayana but also all the other non-theravada doctrines".
The "emptiness" mentioned in Theravada is "emptiness of a self
entity". Mahayana emptiness is very different from this.

This is misinformed. Mahayana also rejects self in whatsoever form. That is the emptiness of self.

This is a good presentation of Theravada, but shows a lack of understanding of Mahayana. The Theravada emptiness is supposed to be a subset of Madhyamika emptiness.


text:
Looking for sutta about purification of fish, turtles, etc
Is there are sutta in which the Buddha says if bathing in Ganges River could purify beings; then the fish, turtles, crocodiles, etc, would be purified?

It's in Therigatha:

[The Brahman:]
Punnika, surely you know.
You're asking one doing skillful kamma
& warding off evil.
Whoever, young or old, does evil kamma
is, through water ablution,
from evil kamma set free.
[Punnika:]
Who taught you this
— the ignorant to the ignorant —
'One, through water ablution,
is from evil kamma set free?'
In that case, they'd all go to heaven:
all the frogs, turtles,
serpents, crocodiles,
& anything else that lives in the water.
Sheep-butchers, pork-butchers,
fishermen, trappers,
thieves, executioners,
& any other evil doers,
would, through water ablution,
be from evil kamma set free.
Therigatha 12.1

Another related sutta:

The Buddha said to Sangarava:
“Is it really true, brahmin, that you practice purification by water,
believing in purification by water; that you live committed to the
practice of immersing yourself in water at dawn and dusk?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“But brahmin, for what reason do you practice purification by water?”
“It’s because, Master Gotama, whatever bad deeds I’ve done during the
day I wash off by bathing at dusk; and whatever bad deeds I’ve done
during the night, I wash off by bathing at dawn. That’s the reason why
I practice purification by water.”

“The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, brahmin,
unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledge-masters go to bathe,
and cross to the far shore without getting wet.”

When he had spoken, Saṅgārava said to the Buddha:
“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may
Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge
for life.”
SN 7.21

thank you sir..

Can you please change my username to "Order of the Lotus Irelia"? I can't change it for 30 days.


text:
Mercy killing (not assisted suicide) and the ramifications of the karmic action
Of course one of the 4 imponderables is the results of karma.
I am just asking if there is any sutta explanation on the effect of killing with malice compared to mercy killing?
Difference between mercy killing and assisted suicide:
Assisted suicide is what it is, killing someone after they ask you to assist their suicide. Mercy killing is killing others out of mercy. For eg if you see an animal in extreme pain who is dying of whatever illness or blood loss, they cannot actually ask you to kill them for themselves so one is killing the other person out of mercy to alleviate their suffering. Or if you were on a battlefield and an enemies legs and limbs are blown to pieces so they cannot harm you any more and are no longer a threat but are in vast amount of suffering and pain so you kill them out of mercy.

Those suggestions were not the same question. I was talking about mercy killing not euthanasia or assisted suicide.

What's the difference between mercy killing and euthanasia/ assisted suicide? If you have any webpage which explains that, that would be helpful too. Thanks.

Well for eg, assisted suicide is what it is, killing someone after they ask you to assist their suicide.  Mercy killing is killing others out of mercy. For eg if you see an animal in extreme pain who is dying of whatever illness or blood loss, they cannot actually ask you to kill them for themselves so one is killing the other person out of mercy to alleviate their suffering. Or if you were on a battlefield and an enemies legs and limbs are blown to pieces so they cannot harm you any more and are no longer a threat but are in vast amount of suffering and pain so you kill them out of mercy.

According to the definitions on this page, your definition of mercy killing is called involuntary active euthanasia.

Question reopened as it is very specific and not the same as previous questions.

A parable I heard recently (somewhere on this site, perhaps..?):

Two monks walking in the woods ran across a deer lying on the ground,
pierced by an arrow. They stood there, listening to the labored
breathing of the animal, debating whether the cycle of reincarnation
would begin at the beast's last breath, when the last light of life
left its eye, or at some other significant point. But just then the
Buddha walked past, pulled the arrow from the deer's side, and continued
on his way.

Now in the parable the deer survives and goes back to life in the forest. But would the parable have a different moral sense if the deer had died instead? The Buddha didn't pull out the arrow to save the deer's life or to kill the deer; the Buddha pulled out the arrow to ease the beast's suffering. Or perhaps (if we want to take the parable a step deeper), the Buddha pulled out the arrow to ease the monks' suffering.
It's worth remembering that 'suffering' is not the same as physical pain. Suffering is a mental phenomenon: a tension between the way the world is and the way the world should be that causes distress. The arrow did not cause the deer suffering. The arrow caused the deer pain, and the deer suffered to the extent that it expected a world without such pain. The arrow did not cause the monks any pain at all, but nonetheless they suffered, caught in the trap of intellect as they tried to work out the deeper meanings of the moment. Only the Buddha was free from suffering: he saw, he responded, he let go.
The difficulty with the idea of mercy killing is that it is too easily tangled in intellect and ego. It smacks of rationalization, of the egoic thought: "I have the power to end this person's suffering by my own conscious act, and thus prove what a good and wise being I am." It's a metaphysically dangerous path to tread. But inaction is also metaphysically dangerous, leading one to the cold, callous view that the suffering of others is a mere intellectual curiosity. It's difficult...
A buddha would do what needs to be done in any given situation, but a buddha wouldn't try to know what to do in every situation. The idea that there is one ironclad moral rule that covers all cases is a Tolkien-esque fantasy/illusion.

apart from the seemingly unnecessarily exaltation of an imaginary 'Buddha', a very good answer. thank you

Killing is no way to alleviate a being's suffering.
It's like investing in a degenerate gambler's schemes out of mercy, it ruins both.
Being's suffering is intended and is brought about by bad behavior due to ignorance. Killing is such bad behavior and the being you kill can not escape his bad kamma.
If you do this kind of killing then you are fit to be some torturer in hell, someone who kills beings who appear in hell as to liberate them from living there.

You have a very black and white view on what is "good and bad" or "right or wrong" You should look at the above quote from AN 6.63. Just to point out to you from a basic POV, there are countless living beings in your body, when you eat or breathe you kill countless living beings when you walk you walk over and kill countless living beings, when you drive your car you kill countless living beings.... Did you intend to kill any of them when you did these actions?

Bacteria will die even if i breath and if i kill myself i will be reborn and kill bacteria anyway. yes bacteria have to die if anybody is to end rebirth and on this account you can say 'killing ends by killing' but here you make killing something inevitable and something one does merely by being alive.

So i can give you that there is that inevitable killing but you will have to give that this killing is then good or justified killing because it leads to nibbana for one following the path. In as far as one doesn't follow the path one is blameworthy in one's killing of bacteria and you will have to agree that killing mother is worse than killing bacteria and hence that there are levels to harm in killing.

You have to see that it's stupid to say that an Arahant kills living beings because Arahant breathes. Killing generally does not denote what you are trying to make it denote. In the buddhist texts killing is something specific and not to be done, intentional taking of life is that, suicide is also prohibited no matter how much a learner suffers.

Isn't it logical to you that if mercy killing is ever allowed then one should be allowed to kill oneself for same reason?  So with your logic we should just be killing ourselves & eachother as soon as possible when we think it's not worth living. Who is going to decide how much suffering warrants killing someone? It's quite insane but when you talk about bacteria in these terms i can see how you get confused.

The Pali suttas say killing without mercy is hellish, as follows:

Bhikkhus, possessing.... qualities, one is deposited in hell as if
brought there. What...?
Here, someone destroys life; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
AN 10.211

The same sutta says having mercy leads to laying down weapons, as follows:

Someone with... qualities is raised up to heaven. What...? It’s when a
certain person gives up killing living creatures. They renounce the
rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of
compassion for all living beings

The Pali suttas also say what is unwholesome is rooted in greed, hate & delusion, as follows:

And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
MN 9

AN 6.63 says kamma is intention, as follows:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech and intellect.
And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.
AN 6.63

There two or three suttas, such as MN 144, where a monk in the Buddha's time ends their own life using a knife due to unbearable totally incapacitating pain from some terminal illness. In these suttas, other monks do not help them end their life. This said, monks are totally forbidden by Vinaya from helping or encouraging another person end their life. A monk that even encourages another human being to end their life is immediately defeated and is no longer a monk.
Therefore, the kamma of mercy killing, that is, ending the life of a creature that will inevitably & imminently pass away is obviously not as unwholesome as killing due with violence due to hate or greed. However, the question must be asked whose pain is being alleviated? Is it the pain of the injured/dying or the pain of oneself? Also, the question must be asked: "Is there aversion within myself to to dying creature?"
Veterinarians often put down animals. Possibly you can research and read about their experiences, such as here.
Ultimately, Buddhism explains in its 1st Noble Truth suffering is attachment  to the five aggregates (rather than physical pain). Unless we have some special psychic power, we cannot know if & how much attachment occurs in the mind of various animals.
For example, on one occasion, I came across a wallaby (small kangaroo) with back legs broken and disabled, recently struck by a motor vehicle. The wallaby did not appear to have much or any attachment. The wallaby appeared to not be asking anything from me. I phoned the local nature-care rescuers but, by the time they arrived, I observed the wallaby's lifeforce end. It was sad but I spent my time letting go of any of my own attachment and reflecting on Dhamma.

What I am taking from the MN 144 sutta is that ultimately actions themself are not inherently good or bad, like the action of (mercy) killing itself does not lead one to states of woe, it is the intention behind such actions that lead to such states. The monk was not clinging to this/his life or the next but was just trying to alleviate incurable illness, I assume an illness that he could not overcome and progress towards liberation with.

yes, in MN 144, the monk had no desire for another type of life. His intent was only to end his current life because he was totally incapacitated and became a burden to the others who offered to help him. His life was basically over.

the monk was obviously already liberated. In Buddhism, non-clinging is liberation.

And the Buddha himself stating he was blameless is meaning that he created no negativity because his actions were not born of the 3 poisons?  It does really raise a more poignant point that if one is "awake" to a certain degree, sees the fruitlessness of chasing sensory pleasure and is only focused on liberation as a goal, but is unable to attain such a state in this life because of whatever reason, say illness, what would be the point of living at all anyway. Other than "wasting" or "creating" karma in a life not worth living.

If the monk was liberated it is a moot point in this discussion as one cannot then become "unliberated" back in samsaric cycle by the negative results of suicide/killing out of mercy. I have once heard that essentially after one becomes an arhant life itself is just a situation waiting to die. Everything is complete, there is nothing to do or any desires. If one cannot create negative actions to bring oneself into a state samsaric existence again it seems suicide is a viable option. Though that itself would be a desire so I doubt one would have the inclination.


text:
Is identifying with the good always a problem?
When a person or a group of people identify themselves with "the good" (in opposition to "not so good" or even "the evil" of others), quite often this can lead to "the good" getting overly aggressive in its pursuit of the goodness and de-facto turning into evil.
Is this an inevitable problem arising due to identification/reification or is there a way to keep it under control and identify with the good without becoming the evil? If so, how can that be achieved?
What guidelines do various Buddhist schools offer on this topic, if any?
P.S. by "to identify with" I mean "to consider themselves to be affiliated with, or to be representative of, the true something (in this case the good)"

It might be situation-dependant. Personally, if I ever felt like my presence in a situation was unhelpful to myself or the situation, I removed myself, but I might endure some discomfort in the process. Being around people, I still find I have to try and interpret situations in a world where most people have their own conflicting interpretations. It is very challenging for me to share the values of humanity, and it is in that challenge where I've learned some surprising things. I will try to give an answer soon.

The sutta quote below is a good guide.
If what one does, although perceived to be good by popular opinion, but in fact increases one's unskillful mental qualities and decreases one's skillful mental qualities, then it is not good.
And so on.

"When — by following a life of precept & practice (sīlabbata)
, a life, a holy life
that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental
qualities increase while one's skillful mental qualities decline: that
sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of
essential worth is fruitless. But when — by following a life of
precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of
essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities decline while
one's skillful mental qualities increase: that sort of precept &
practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is
fruitful."
AN 3.78

If we can agree that "bright" and "good" can be treated as similar, then the Buddha teaches four things about deeds and results. The first three teachings can be used to examine the outcomes of identification with good (i.e., bright deeds).

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results;
AN4.233:1.4: bright deeds with bright results;
AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and
...

However, the Buddha points to a different path as the fourth teaching:

AN4.233:1.6: neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

The fourth teaching leads to the ending of deeds bright/good as well as dark/bad:

AN4.233:5.1: And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?
AN4.233:5.2: It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.
AN4.233:5.3: These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

If we can agree that suffering is the problem mentioned in the question, then perhaps we should indeed examine our deepest assumptions that might lead to identification with and chasing of bright deeds.

MN14:17.8: With nothing to come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.”

It's kind of like a poor person becoming spoiled by lots of money and starts looking down on poor people thinking 'having money is good i am good because i have money and the have-nots are bad'.
It's because perception of identification, perception of permancence (in general & in regards to status in particular) and perception of pleasantness in regards to dukkha (perversion of view in regards to gain) are well established in him.
Reflecting on impermanence, not-self & dukkha will prevent this. Wealth and gain don't corrupt those who seek the beyond.
One can appreciate one's good fortune without it being unwholesome if one looks at it objectively & uses appropriately.

Well you know I think that canonically "conceit" is associated with disputes.
"The Good" was a subject of Plato's. When I was a teenager I found it unsatisfying as "logic" because I think he doesn't really define "good" -- or uses a circular definition -- but says that he and who he's talking with kind of know it for ourselves or recognise it when we meet it.
Also "the" good -- as a noun not just an adjective -- is obviously reified. And it's a dichotomy ("good or evil", "with us or against us"), and I beware of dichotomies.
Now I think that Buddhism does define "good" -- the precepts and the perfections.
But personally I think it cleverly substitutes "skilful" for "good", asking not only whether an action is good but whether it's skilful (or combining them as "skilful virtue"). To me the word "skilful" implies context, forces you to ask what's the goal -- like, "skill at what: making pottery? -- and there is a specific "goal" implied in the suttas.
Remembering the "goal" described in the suttas might be one way to "keep it under control" -- to avoid excess? Getting carried away?
γνῶθι σεαυτόν, "know thyself", as well as μηδὲν ἄγαν. Because of some past experiences, I don't especially trust myself: I've experienced being emoted by, exulting in, caught up in, carried along by, like fascist ritual -- exulting in the feeling of belonging to a power, a chanting crowd -- even a tight rugby scrum! -- which I'm  in and which is greater than me, which amplifies what I'm doing. Since then, I'm wary now if I feel that effect.
I think the suttas say -- and experiences says -- that we're not supposed to identify. There are good and un-good (skilful and unskilful) thoughts and actions, they come and go, the doctrine says to recognise them and to foster or dismiss them as appropriate. Knowing that I'm theoretically susceptible to fascist propaganda doesn't make me good or evil, it makes me watchful.
The other thing is that the Buddhist precepts (perhaps the Vinaya, for monks) provide something a "bright line" for judging actions. I was trained to handle firearms for example and taught a lot of history including military, but now I avoid any invitation to touch a firearm, even for target-practice -- it's not that I don't know how to, it's just I don't foresee any particular good (only a waste of time) and I feel that my never having a weapon at hand is a fail-safe and a good reminder even in case of temporary madness (though I'm happy to forgive the Dalai Lama's carrying one as a disguise for his escape).
Self-image does come into this too. My wife declined weapons practice in Tai Chi, saying she found it un-lady-like (perhaps an example for me); and told me she was glad when I became too old to be conscripted; and she asked me to remain vegetarian. I think these are conceits -- not worth identifying with, and impossible to keep in mind continuously -- but also harmless and so not worth getting rid of.
Which leads to another Buddhist doctrine, "harmlessness" (ahimsa). I think that Buddhism is less "extreme" that Jainism in its doctrine of ahimsa, a middle way -- which doesn't mean "harmless but occasionally being violent", it means "avoid being violently harmless".
Lastly I don't know what to say about the poor soldiers caught up in this war. I don't entirely respect what the suttas say about wheel-turning monarchs and defence of the realm: I suspect that was "retconned" for Ashoka. Instead I'm reminded of the very little I know of samurai, from wholly unreliable sources e.g. manga (and the occasional Zen story) -- I used to wonder how they could be Buddhist and deadly -- something to do with accepting going to hell perhaps (as if that's the worst that could happen).

identify
establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is.
Dictionary

In Buddhism, to identify a "who" or collective "who" is always a problem. For example, the renowned Australian sutta translator named Bhikkhu Sujato translated:

These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’,
‘I will not be’, ‘I will have form’, ‘I will be formless’, ‘I will be
percipient’, ‘I will be non-percipient’, ‘I will be neither percipient
nor non-percipient.’
‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhu, maññitametaṁ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti maññitametaṁ,
‘bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ, ‘na bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ, ‘rūpī
bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ, ‘arūpī bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ, ‘saññī
bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ, ‘asaññī bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ,
‘nevasaññīnāsaññī bhavissan’ti maññitametaṁ.
Identification is a disease, a boil, a dart.
Maññitaṁ, bhikkhu, rogo maññitaṁ gaṇḍo maññitaṁ sallaṁ.
Having gone beyond all identification, one is called a sage at peace.
Sabbamaññitānaṁ tveva, bhikkhu, samatikkamā muni santoti vuccati.
The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn.
MN 140

But, in Buddhism, to identify "what is what" is not a problem. For example, the renowned Thai Buddhist philosopher named Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said Buddhism is about "knowing what is what", as follows:

"Buddhism" means "the Teaching of the Enlightened One." A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things, one who knows just what is what, and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things. Buddhism is a religion based on intelligence, science and knowledge, whose purpose is the destruction of suffering and the source of suffering. All paying of homage to sacred objects by means of performing rites and rituals, making offerings or praying is not Buddhism. The Buddha rejected all this as foolish, ridiculous and unsound.
Handbook For Mankind

Therefore, a problem in the context of the question appears to be both identifying with "who" and not identifying accurately or precisely "what is what"; as follows from the Dhammapada:

Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.

Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.

Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.

Dhammapada

For example, yesterday the ear listened to the sound of this video about the systematic
slaughter & capture of an army of a certain fattened-by-false-friends-for-slaughter nation and this video about the systematic propaganda about a certain  fattened-by-false-friends-for-slaughter nation. The identification that occur here was good slaughtering evil and evil engaged in the same old 24 years of Neo-Con PNAC propaganda. No discernable suffering occurred because it was merely good dhatu/khandha (elements/aggregates) vs bad dhatu/khandha (elements/aggregates).
The Buddha never taught to abandon the perception of 'good' vs 'evil'. The Buddha only taught to be dispassionate towards these perceptions as follows:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: “Monks, the Tathagata—worthy & rightly self-awakened—has two
Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two? ‘See evil as evil.’
This is the first Dhamma discourse. ‘Having seen evil as evil, become
disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.’ This is the second
Dhamma discourse. These are the two Dhamma discourses that the
Tathagata—worthy & rightly self-awakened—has given in sequence.”
See the two statements, declared in sequence, by the Tathagata,
awakened, sympathetic to all beings. The first: see evil. Be
dispassionate there toward evil. Then, with a mind dispassionate, you
will make an end of suffering & stress.
Pali Suttas

The Buddha never wanted so-called followers to be identified as "The Biggest Loser".


text:
If I'm reborn as a Deva, how long will my lifespan be?
If I am reborn as a Deva, how long would my lifespan be before I'm forced back into Samsara? Factors?

If by any chance you think that living long is a blessing, imagine losing a limb at the age of 10 when your lifespan is an eon. Samsara is not a place for loitering be it in any form.

@Sampath Being reborn as a Deva is seen as a punishment?

Even if you are born as a Deva, you still are feeling the feelings like anger, sadness, jealousy, etc.  Being re-born altogether is not viewed as a blessing in Buddhism. Because you have little or no control over where you are born. AFAIK its not referred as a punishment either, but its not a thing that is desired. Main goal of a Buddhist is to break the Death-Rebirth cycle -> Nirvana.

A translation of AN 4.123 says:

The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades.
The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades.
The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades.
The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades.
But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.