text:
Was Buddha/did Buddha teach Vegetarianism?
On the matter of Vegetarianism
I am aware the Theravada canon states that Buddha allowed monks to consume meat on the basis that they did not see, hear, know or suspect have been slaughtered for them.
However Mahayana Sutras state that the Buddha forbade eating meat for example in the lankavatara and Surangama sutras.
Which position would be more authentic, and how do we know whether the Buddha taught Vegetarianism or not?

Oh no, not stepping on ants, flies, frogs...things that are alive.

Maybe "Purification is not reached by food" helps in addition to given good answer by householder Ruben, good householder, but by ways of how one gains it and uses it, observing precepts of right resolve. And there is nothing wrong to chose (if still chosing) non-meat if it does not require harm by yourself, order others to harm, or approve harming for desired.

This question is frequently asked, and the range of answers is always wide. It really comes down to a question of context. Do you really want to follow the Buddha’s heartfelt intent, or cling to an exception he granted to monks who begged for their food thousands of years ago, rather than buying it in a modern supermarket as is done today. Here are some relevant quotes so that you can decide what compassion means:

The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to
escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from
suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you
can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness
and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the
bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally,
no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to
how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly
annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will
ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts
dwell. You of this great assembly ought to appreciate that those human
beings who might become enlightened and attain Samadhi, because of
eating meat, can only hope to attain the rank of a great Raksha and
until the end of their enjoyment of it, must sink into the never
ceasing round of deaths and rebirths. (Surangama Sutra: Importance of
Keeping the Precepts)

The Buddha said, “Son of my lineage, my teaching is not like that of
the naked ascetics. I, the Tathagata, established rules of discipline
in relation to specific individuals. Consequently, with a certain
purpose in mind, I did give permission to eat meat regarded as
suitable for consumption after it has been subjected to threefold
examination. In other contexts, I have proscribed ten kinds of meat.
And yet again, with someone else in mind, I have declared that it is
improper to consume meat of any kind, even of animals that have died
of natural causes. But I have affirmed, O Kashyapa, that henceforth,
all those who are close to me should abstain from meat.
(Mahaparinirvana Sutra: Abstaining From Eating Meat and Fish, Even
Died by Natural Causes)

Unfortunately, there are many who will try to persuade you to think that eating meat is ok, as long as you don’t kill the sentient being yourself. The Buddha foresaw this:

After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts
will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that
they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any
faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the
flesh? (Surangama Sutra, Ibid)

The root tantra of Kalachakra says: Wicked people, hard to train, kill
harmless beasts as sacrifice to gods and for their ancestors, to gain
protection, profit, and fulfil their aims. To buy the meat, to wish to
eat it, is indeed an evil act.

The Buddha was quite clear that he taught compassion, not evasion of responsibility:

For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is
compassion, is not to eat any animal flesh. I will explain the
reasons: Mahamati, in the long course of transmigration, all sentient
beings have been our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and
daughters, and we have felt many different kinds and degrees of
kinship with each and every one of them. These sentient beings have
been beasts, domestic animals, birds, and humans in different
lifetimes and have often been related to us in some way. This being
the case, how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to respect
all sentient beings as he or she would respect himself or herself and
who is committed to devotedly practising the Dharma eat the flesh of
any sentient being whose nature is the same as himself or herself?
Even, Mahamati, the Rakashasa, when they listened to a discourse on
the highest essence of the Dharma by the Tathagata, were inspired to
protect Buddhism. Through this they had awakened to the feeling of
compassion, became sensitive to the sorrows of sentient beings, and
therefore chose to refrain from eating animal flesh. How much more
should human beings who love the Dharma do the same! Thus, Mahamati,
whenever and wherever there is evolution among sentient beings, let
people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and holding the
thorough intention of treating them as if they were our only child,
and therefore refrain from eating their flesh. So much more should
Bodhisattvas, who are committed to being compassionate towards all
sentient beings, and whose inner nature is compassion itself, choose
to refrain from eating animal flesh. For a Bodhisattva to keep good
integrity with the Dharma, he or she should not make any exceptions to
the eating of animal flesh. He or she is not to eat the flesh of dogs,
donkeys, buffaloes, horses, bulls, humans, or any other sentient being
whether or not such flesh in generally eaten by some humans in some
culture or society. Nor should a Bodhisattva eat flesh sold by others
for monetary profit.” (A Re-translation of the Eighth Chapter of the
Lankavatara Sutra and Commentary, By William Bagley, 2006)

Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never
wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it
involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk
or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that
which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere
bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who
will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander
to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for
self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes
others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that
lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be
very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the
appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted
bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and
especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no
teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness
is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. (Surangama Sutra, Ibid)

Whoever, having laid aside violence in respect of all beings, moving
or still, does not kill or cause to kill, him I call a brahman.
(Sutta-Nipata III.9:629)

These are just a representative example of quotes. There are many more. There are also reinterpretations of the Buddha’s teachings that stray from his heartfelt-intent. In those cases, ask yourself if he meant selective compassion, or compassion for all sentient beings. And follow your heart—don’t listen to others.

Was Buddha/did Buddha teach Vegetarianism?

The Buddha never taught vegetarianism. There's not any unwholesome Kamma involved in the eating of meat. Eating meat is just a biological/sensory process of chewing, swallowing, tasting, smelling and thinking (e.g. if one likes the flavour).
The Buddha taught that monks may not eat meat that has been killed/is suspected of having been killed only to serve the monk.

It is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely killing karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals. This was also Tissa's attack on Buddha Kassapa, a brahmin by birth.
However, from Buddha Kassapa's quote below, we see that eating meat by itself is not killing karma.

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Snp 2.2

(and more similar statements in the whole text of the same sutta)
The reason for this, is that karma is intention in Buddhism.
A person who kills an animal or instructs another (like a butcher or hunter or chef) to kill an animal, clearly has the intention to cause the death of that animal. That's the karma of killing imbued with aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha).
However, a person who eats a meat dish (made from an animal that was long dead) only has the intention to eat meat and taste meat. So, that's the karma of eating and tasting meat imbued with greed (lobha). This is not the karma of killing.
Eating any food that was grown in farms or wearing cotton clothes harvested from cotton farms, are also fraught with the indirect killing caused by tillage, use of pesticides etc. Surely one eating rice or bread doesn't have the intention to kill animals either, by doing so.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.
AN 6.63

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of
the ox that draws the cart.
Dhp 1

Do you see a difference between ordering a Christmas turkey from the local butcher, and buying one off the shelf at a supermarket?

@StopVladTheInvader Yes. There's a difference in intention, when you select a specific animal and order the butcher to slaughter it, compared to buying off-the-shelf frozen meat. Buying off-the-shelf frozen meat and buying off-the-shelf non-organic vegetables is the same - the buyer had no intention to kill, but indirect killing of animals was involved. When you buy non-organic vegetables, usually pesticides were used to kill small animals.

@ruben2020 if one smokes, drinks, use drugs with good intention of feeling high (greed) or passing away bad life  . Does intention literally matter in this case too?

@Hope The intention of feeling high or escaping worldly life is not a good intention at all. A good intention is free from passion/ greed, aversion/ hatred and delusion.

[OP:] However Mahayana Sutras state that the Buddha forbade eating meat for example in the lankavatara and Surangama sutras.

Then the burdens fall on whoever making the claim to provide the exact sutras' references to counter what was instructed in MN 55:

"In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten.

In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten." ~~ MN 55 ~~

The 3-fold rule has already been mentioned, and it's intention appears to have been to minimise the slaughter of animals for food. In a modern context, eating meat seems ethically neutral, though buying meat might be questionable, particularly in the context of developing Right Intention and harmlessness.


text:
Starting buddhism in the Theravada tradition
I am not entirely new to Buddhism, but I am new to it from a perspective of an academic path. I have an academic background in another field (Ph.d level) and where I live there is zero buddhists within a 100 miles of the theravada tradition which interest me both. I have begun a practice in insight and concentration meditation, but my skill is relatively weak. While I am building up my practice I wish to study the theoretical background of the Theravada system. I have access to many of the major treatises of the Pali canon, but since none of this is organized in a linear fashion it is quite a complicated matter to dig into these texts. Where should one begin, so far I pick up a book on the Noble eightfold path by Bikkhu Bodi, and its great but I am finding myself stopping frequently to look up many of the topics there in this little text alone. Is there anything straight forward, linear that deals with the theoretical topics for a beginner who wishes to expand into a higher level understanding?
Thank You,
jwe

For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Ven. Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of suttas at the back of the book.
The ebook "Without and Within" by Ven. Ajahn Jayasaro, available in PDF and epub formats, is 127-pages long and is meant to be a collection of questions and answers on Buddhism for beginners.
Both of these authors are monks in the Theravada tradition.

Other topics (with answers) on this site:

Introductory books to Buddhism
Chronological or other sequence for beginners
What are the Core Teachings of Buddhism?
Looking for a book that covers the biography of the Buddha's life
Recommendation - Book for beginner
Getting Started
Starting Buddhism
Recommendation for Suttas
Can anyone give me a suggestion of a good monk to learn Buddhism?
Introductory/Beginner books on Buddhism, but for children

where I live there is zero buddhists within a 100 miles of the theravada tradition which interest me both

Well, the pandemic changes everything. Even folks within close physical distance of any community no longer interact physically, but already switched to virtual interactions. The upside is everyone, even one living Antarctica could pick any Buddhist lineage of his interest and start practicing with good support from virtual Sanghas and various resources.

I have access to many of the major treatises of the Pali canon, but since none of this is organized in a linear fashion it is quite a complicated matter to dig into these texts.

Ven. Bodhi wrote his book "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" to address many common issues, including the systematic suttas orginization issue mentioned above. Definitely recommend this book if you haven't owned one. Also take advantage of the many high quality Dhamma web sites out there, like accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm, etc..

The is no health way to learn the walk without a teacher (who walk, walked), good householder. And it's because people are different in their Kamma, thinking. A book can not point out good householders defilments, so a worldling could not as well. Good to seek refuge at first place. No refuge in the Gems, no relation, no success, like most googlers.

'Theravada' is not necessarily the Buddha's Teaching. For example, the Buddha never used the term 'Theravada'. 'Theravada' is the 'Doctrine of the (self-proclaimed) Elders' rather than the Doctrine of the Buddha. I suppose 'Theravada', a doctrine created by later-day high priests, could be compared to 'Catholicism'.
One can make Theravada very complicated because Theravada is very complicated, namely:

the Suttas (purported words of the Buddha) contain two types of Dhamma (mundane & supramundane);

inserted at a later time into the Suttas is a dodgy commentary called The Patisambhidamagga

the later-day Abhidhamma, particularly in its Sacca Vibhanga and Paṭiccasamuppāda Vibhaṅga, including with reference to The Patisambhidamagga, at times crucially revised/changes the meaning of certain Sutta teachings;

these Abhidhamma changes, including novel terminology created in The Patisambhidamagga (such as 'patisandhi-vinnana', 'kamma-bhava' and 'upapatti-bhava'), find their way into Theravada Commentaries, including the famed Visuddhimagga, which the major translators, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, follow.

In short, Theravada is largely a doctrine of the Abhidhamma and Commentaries rather than implicitly the doctrine of the Buddha.

For example, the Suttas (DN 1; Iti 149; etc) define the word 'annihilationism' to mean 'the view a self or real being dies at death'. Yet the Theravdada Commentaries say 'annihilationism' is the view there is no 'rebirth' or 'reincarnation' after death.
For example, the Suttas say the arising of suffering is when craving leads to new becoming. But the Sacca Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma says craving alone is the arising of suffering.
In short, one can simply read in the Paṭiccasamuppāda Vibhaṅga how the Abhidhamma itself lists the definitions of terms found in the Suttas then, later, brazenly & shamelessly gives its own meaning to the very same terms, calling this 'The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching'.
If you wish to study convoluted Theravada, simply study Theravada gurus, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How should a bodhisattva respond to evil?
Not saying I have bodhicitta, one assumes I would know the answer if I did, but we can all emulate enlightening beings.
What is the best way to respond to an nominally (nothing like that is innate) evil person doing evil (whatever you think amounts to that enough to at know not only that they should be stopped but that a lot hinges on it for other people) to get what they want?
We vow to save all sentient beings: can we postpone it for some? Do we say "a Buddha would help you in your next life, but I cannot"?
I suppose the answer is just to offer help to others first: after-all, we are all said to have undergone countless, trillions by trillions of lives, so no one life can be blamed for how it has suffered. But what if the evil doer turns to you for a better rebirth, after or even before their evil actions?

enlightenment is not on a first come first served basis...

I just had a mental image of Clint Eastwood (as Dirty Harry) pointing his 45 magnum revolver down at some bad guy and saying: "Do you feel enlightened, punk?" Weird experience...

weird comment @TedWrigley :D thanks made me chuckle

I think you are under a misapprehension about bodhicitta, as something you can either have or not have. It wells up in all beings, because it is a deep part of the nature of minds to recognise other minds, and as we wish for our own wellbeing, to wish for their wellbeing. It is an intrinsic and spontaneous quality, which only layers of bad experiences or being misled can cause us to ignore. Bodhicitta can be cultivated, practiced, by contemplating this wish for the benefit of all beings, and prioritising it as a motivation for action in life. To put it at the centre of our causes for action, is to walk the bodhisattva path.
The Buddhas teaching is very demanding:

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with
a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at
heart would not be upholding my Teaching" -Kakacupama Sutta

First of all, note this is about ill-will, not action and reaction, but how the bandits actions affect your mind. Forgiveness, doesn't mean no consequences. You don't have to help push the saw, you have to attend to your mind, and use it for the benefit of all beings.
Bear in mind also, this is directed at full-time spiritual practicioners, placing attaining awakening above all other priorities. Householders, lay-Buddhists, have other duties and priorities which the teachings are clear they should not shirk - consider how a farmer doing pest-control helps provide grain for monks to eat (but a skillful farmer needs less pest-control).
There is also the Buddhist idea of a 'wheel-turning monarch' or ruler or emperor: someone worldly who must manage an army and deliver justice, but does so in a way that creates opportunities for many more to become awakened. See for example the Cakkavatti sutta. Emperor Ashoka is surely such a one, the first ruler to unify India, although he was said to have given up war & converted to Buddhism after the particularly bloody and brutal military campaign involved. He did bot then abolish that military though, but sought to make violence less likely.
The Angulimalia Sutta concerns the conversion and awakening of a bandit that wore a necklace of human fingers and had murdered likely at least 200 people personally as a religious task (see the 'thuggee cult' for Indian cultural background on how this much earlier practice might have worked). Shown the true nature of things, Angulimalia ceased to cause suffering, and he was protected from families of his victims by the sangha, although he would still have to face the karma his actions had generated.
The koan of Nansen kills the cat generates a lot of controversy, which I think that linked commentary does a good job of picking through. An insightful point I've heard about the cat, is that they are very murderous of mice - yet humans very much need to not allow mice populations to grow unchecked (eg, mouse plagues, where mice also suffer). So a monk asks, should we keep a murdering cat? Nansen acts like the cat: You don't want this pest-cat? There, done. Happy? Having a cat is a choice like this, it's not a perfect choice, but we make a choice. The cat is not a monk. But like a farmer, like a monarch, it can be skillful.
In life we face dilemmas, we must decide who to help and who not. But don't make this a practice of just making endless agonising lists for and against why - that won't 'save the cat'. Put bodhicitta at your centre, know the taste of liberation, and the answer will come, while it can still make a difference, from paying attention to the qualities of this very moment. Make your mind into a diamond sword of wisdom, and you will know whether to kill or save the cat, for the benefit of all beings.
People don't set out to be evil. That word has special baggage because of it's importance in Christian theology, so it's worth thinking about how to interpret it, discussed here: The dark side of philosophy?. There is a saying "We are punished by our sins, not for our sins", that can help us understand evil-doers harm themselves, harm their own minds, and fundamental cure is in showing them the true nature of things, not telling them what to feel (though constraining their capacity to harm is likely a priority). That is recognising their Buddha nature, their intrinsic capacity to awaken to things as they are.

The Bodhisatta usually renounced in cases he could not help harmless. As for general on this topic, may good householder investigate: Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness. As for householder, being oneself strongly corrup, still attached to sense-pleasure, as the Buddha told, one not free from sensual craving is actually incapable to help anybody. This wisdom even the worldling, the Bodhisatta, already had and therefore went for the place where help needs to start: leaving corruption by oneself.
May person doubts that good householder would really sacrifices any of sensuality himself to help himself and others, right? Help the rat or the snake? Just momentary preferences... They are all just around to help theirs...

A Bodhisattva only has one tool he brings to the table: an awareness of the true nature of the world. On occasion that's enough. People who commit 'bad' acts do so from within a thoroughly encompassing web of illusion in which the act appears necessary, or justified, or righteous, and in which the self is reified and magnified. Merely being exposed to the presence of someone who is aware of the illusory nature of that worldview is sometimes enough to gravitate a change; it's like adding ballast to a ship tossed in a storm.
What we do isn't half as important as bringing that open understanding into whatever we do. We don't want to add to the situation; we want to subtract from it.
Bodhisattvas don't save anyone. Bodhisattvas show people that they can save themselves. A lighthouse cannot keep a ship from wrecking itself on the rocks; all it can do is let it be known that no ship has to wreck itself on the rocks. Anything else it might do cannot interfere with that one purpose.

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


text:
Why is continuity like "the light of a lamp"?

Because the continuity of the aggregates is similar to the light of a lamp, therefore the very existence  or non-existence of an end is
unreasonable.

https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/verses-from-the-center
Is it because the action of the lamp is contained in light, so we cannot conceive of its end, and its end neither exists nor doesn't (same as a four sided triangle: it's a nonsense phrase).

Before his dedication (30), Nagarjuna concludes

And because all things are empty, about what and in whom do views such as that of permanence spring forth?

Does that mean enlightenment is not a view, but the impossibility of a view about an end: rejecting the idea that things either end or do not.
If an end is inconceivable then so is 'permanence', so the opposite of an end is not "permanence" but buddha-nature.

I am baffled because it seems what I've been saying all along may well be on point to everything the Karika says

That's some intellectual babble. Reality is not a linear progression. Just practice meditation and you will see.

No. The light of a lamp is a well-known Buddhist metaphor for continuity of information-causation (what Nagarjuna refers to as "the divine"), since at least The Questions of King Milinda:

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

and

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

I've heard of that before. do you mean that the teaching of continuity being like a lamp has no end. that's a novel but bad reading imho

In chapter 27 Nagarjuna muses about extreme  views, such as a person existing - or not existing - after death. Please reread the chapter until you understand it.

I think I understand it already! can you clarify what you mean, other than "you're wrong" please?

"Because the continuity of the aggregates is similar to the light of a lamp, therefore the very existence or non-existence of an end [of an "entity" such as "a person"] is unreasonable."

yeah I quoted that too! I read it to mean that its end was inconceivable. what do you think it means?

What we call "entity" is a process of continuous non-discrete causal development, non-separate with the rest of the world. Therefore, the notion of "end" has no ontological referent.

ok that makes sense. I am not separate from the tips of my fingers, but both of us have an end. do you mean that it is not separate from the whole. but then "27. How can one part of that-which-is-clung-to perish while one part does not perish?  Likewise, that is unreasonable"

Nagarjuna talks about temporal termination, not spatial boundaries. When your body dies, it becomes food for worms, nutrition for grass and trees etc. Preservation of energy if you wish.

And many of your thoughts become the thoughts of your children, students, and/or of the readers of your books etc. The non-profits you started still operate after your death. The social movement you launched keeps helping people. Likewise, the river you polluted keeps killing everyone. Continuity of information and causation.

all true, but I feel you didn't convince me of your implied claim. that's fine tho!

I think I answered the question in the title and explained what Nagarjuna meant. Feel free to ask another question if you have more.

what do you mean by "you're wrong"? I don't know if you mean that ends don't exist with svabhava, but do nevertheless exist. if so, what is your argument for it from the Karika?

My "No." in the beginning of my answer referred to your "Is it because the action of the lamp is contained in light, so we cannot conceive of its end" - because that's not what Nagarjuna meant, and I showed what he did.

nowhere does he mention lighting another lamp. in what way does the end of the light not exist? I really don't think Nagarjuna is denying anyone is reborn. is that what you think he means?

He uses a well-known, standard, metaphor that is virtually always used when discussing reincarnation or personhood in Buddhism.

this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. in what way does the end of the light not exist?

The end of light in an infinite series of lamps, lit from one another? Because that's what he refers to (without spelling it out, because that was common knowledge to all Buddhists he was writing it for)

so we are reborn an infinite number of times? is that what you mean? when he says continuity is like light I took him to be making a claim about continuity, not light

I'm saying, rebirth is a crude metaphor for the endless continuity of information-causation.

so he compares it to "light" because light is crude?

No, he compares it to light of a lamp, lit from another lamp, and so on, because it's an image of "passing on" of information/causation.

ok I get it! he compares it to light because it can be passed on to another lamp. I'm not sure why you think that doesn't contain my interpretation tho. that's what confused me, you leading with "no"

The conclusion you reach in your answer is correct, but the way you arrive there from the karika is wrong, this is why as any teacher I cannot give you a passing grade.

well you're not my teacher, we're equals on-line at least, so I'm free to disagree with your claim that anyone can "arrive there... wrong".

That's fine. At least we attained some semblance of understanding for once.

hahah true. so does the abhidharma say that light itself (leave lamps alone for a moment) has no end?

It's not the same light nor is it different. It doesn't have end nor is it endless.

I was just referring to something I half remember reading in Va. adbhidhrama about the nature of light compared to sound or taste. maybe I'll find some notes. thanks

To add to Andrei's answer, I quote this passage written by Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Zen master who recently passed away:

This body of mine will disintegrate, but my actions will continue me…
If you think I am only this body, then you have not truly seen me.
When you look at my friends, you see my continuation. When you see
someone walking with mindfulness and compassion, you know he is my
continuation. I don’t see why we have to say “I will die,” because I
can already see myself in you, in other people, and in future
generations.
Even when the cloud is not there, it continues as snow or rain. It is
impossible for the cloud to die. It can become rain or ice, but it
cannot become nothing. The cloud does not need to have a soul in order
to continue. There’s no beginning and no end. I will never die. There
will be a dissolution of this body, but that does not mean my death.
I will continue, always.

I think any disagreement centres on how it's not clear what the relation of the conventional self to the world is. no-one thinks the world itself ends when we die except solipsists.


text:
Tathagata vs disciple: taking the Buddha as Father, Dhamma as Mother
Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother.
When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother?
Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother?
Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

Where did you find the statement that the Buddha is the father and the Dhamma is the mother of the disciples?

this is a metaphorical question?

I’ve found it on many occasions and this is also how I’ve lived intuitively since childhood (not knowing the Pāli terms though). For example “The Buddha is like our father, while the Dhamma is like our mother /.../“ from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/visakha.html. or here https://buddhistteachings.org/the-dhamma-is-our-true-mother-–%C2%A0part-3/, and also in other places. It also coincides with God-the-mother/son and God-the-father from the Gospel (when Trinity is taken to be analogous to the Triple Gem, and God is viewed not as a creator but a quality of mind)

The sutta in this answer might be relevant, to the question about the Buddha's own relationship with the Dhamma.

In the Pali suttas, the words 'mother & father' are used in different ways, such as in terms of biological and social parents (for example, in Iti 105), or in terms of what the Commentaries said were references to craving and conceit:

Having slain mother (craving), father (self-conceit), two warrior-kings (eternalism and nihilism), and destroyed a country (sense organs and sense objects) together with its treasurer (attachment and lust), ungrieving goes the holy man.
Dhammapada 294

SN 6.2 is about a Buddha's reverence towards the Dhamma. SN 6.2 does not use the terms 'mother' or 'father'.

Yes, as found in iti.100. Yet good not to forget the children, as they carry the heritage: the Community of Monks, good householder (especially the Ariya Sangha).
The current Bodhisatta actually isn't a relative, but a future father.

We respect and recollect our father and mother. And in that sense, the Buddha asks us to recollect the Teacher:

AN3.70:6.2: It’s when a noble disciple recollects the Realized One:
AN3.70:6.3: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’
AN3.70:6.4: As they recollect the Realized One, their mind becomes clear, joy arises, and mental corruptions are given up.

And the Buddha also asks us to recollect the Dhamma:

AN3.70:7.3: It’s when a noble disciple recollects the teaching:
AN3.70:7.4: ‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’
AN3.70:7.5: As they recollect the teaching, their mind becomes clear, joy arises, and mental corruptions are given up. It’s just like cleaning a dirty body by applying effort.

And beyond those two, the Buddha also instructs us to recall the Saṅgha, ethical conduct, and so on.
Regarding mother and father, the Buddha instructs that those who go forth first ask permission:

MN82:6.8: “Raṭṭhapāla, Buddhas don’t give the going forth to the child of parents who haven’t given their permission.”

That permission is important because those who go forth relinquish family ties. So although we respect the Buddha and the Dhamma as we should a mother and a father, we also have to be careful to pay proper attention to what the Buddha and Dhamma actually teach us.
For example, we might go to a mother or father asking for a sweet or a toy. We do not go to the Buddha and the Dhamma for sweets or toys. We go to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha for help in ending suffering. Sweets and toys do not end suffering.


text:
What is the best thing in life, according to the Buddha, excluding nirvana?
What is the best thing in life, according to a Buddha, excluding nirvana?
I have no idea. As a goal, things to fill your life with. And why?

@User23491. I really like your answer. Very good.

Apart from Nirvana, Dhp 178 tells us that stream entry is an achievement superior to anything else in the world or the heavens.

Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going
to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the
entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.
Dhp 178

But I guess in this question, you're looking for other more worldly things.
There are many blessings in life indeed, according to the Mangala Sutta.
The Mangala Sutta:

"Many deities and men longing for happiness have pondered on (the question of) blessings. Pray tell me what the highest blessings are.

"Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise, and to honor those worthy of honor — this is the highest blessing.

"To reside in a suitable locality, to have performed meritorious actions in the past, and to set oneself in the right direction — this
is the highest blessing.

"Vast learning, skill in handicrafts, well grounded in discipline, and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.

"To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
highest blessing.

"Liberality, righteous conduct, rendering assistance to relatives, and performance of blameless deeds — this is the highest blessing.

"To cease and abstain from evil, to abstain from intoxicating drinks, and diligent in performing righteous acts — this is the
highest blessing.

"Reverence, humility, contentment, gratitude, and the timely hearing of the Dhamma, the teaching of the Buddha — this is the
highest blessing.

"Patience, obedience, meeting the Samanas (holy men), and timely discussions on the Dhamma — this is the highest blessing.

"Self-control, chastity, comprehension of the Noble Truths, and the realization of Nibbana — this is the highest blessing.

"The mind that is not touched by the vicissitudes of life, the mind that is free from sorrow, stainless, and secure — this is the
highest blessing.

"Those who have fulfilled the conditions (for such blessings) are victorious everywhere, and attain happiness everywhere — To them these
are the highest blessings.

nice list, thanks

Conventionally speaking, the samādhis of the Āryas are "not suffering." I would like to cite a few texts here, one of them is a Pāli sutta, another is a commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā, and the last is an ancient Dhyānasūtra of unknown sectarian affliation.
That being said, all these citations being present, these (referring to the samādhis of the Āryas) are only "not suffering" conventionally speaking. All of the concentrations of the Āryas, unless they have Nirvāṇa, are "suffering" ultimately. It is only "compared to the saṃsāra of the worldling" that they are "not suffering." Evidence of this comes from the Buddha himself in the EBTs and beyond, then he recounts that he mastered such-and-such dhyāna or such-and-such formless samāpatti and found it to be still impermanent, still impure, still suffering. That is why he did not achieve Bodhi under the tutelage of his foremost gurus, Rudrakarāmaputra and Āḷārakālāma. He found their samādhis to come short of what he was looking for. Because of his profound faculties, he was not led astray by the sweetness of the samādhis, and he did not take subsequent rebirth via the fruits of said samādhis (i.e. "as a formless deva" or "as a deva with form").
From the Santatarasutta at Iti 73 as translated by John D. Ireland:

“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realm, and
cessation is more peaceful than the formless.”

This refers to 1) the peacefulness of existences in the heavens of form, 2) the peacefulness of existences in the heavens that are formless, and 3) the peacefulness of the cessation of existence ("bhavanirodha"). Furthermore, it also refers to 1) the peacefulness of the yogic equipoise of the dhyānas, 2) the peacefulness of the yogic equipoise of the samāpattis, and 3) the peacefulness of the yogic equipoise of Nirvāṇa. Whether we take it to refer to one of these three or both of these three, the general principle holds. The formless samāpatti is more peaceful than the rūpadhyāna, and Nirvāṇa is more peaceful than either.
From the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa as translated by Venerable Migme Chödrön (she translates "samādhis" as "concentrations"):

[...] the yogin pursues his reflections and asks himself why beings
are attached to this body. It is because of pleasant feeling. How?
From the meeting between the six internal organs and the six outer
objects the six kinds of consciousnesses arise. From these six
consciousnesses arise the three kinds of feelings, unpleasant feeling,
pleasant feeling, neither unpleasant nor pleasant feeling. Pleasant
feelings are loved by all beings; unpleasant feelings are hated by all
beings; as for the neither unpleasant nor pleasant feelings, people
neither reject them nor cling to them. Thus it is said: Evil-doers and
monks, Gods, humans and small worms: Amongst these beings divided
among the five destinies in the ten directions, There is not one that
does not love happiness and hate suffering. Out of error, mistake and
ignorance, They do not know nirvāṇa, the abode of eternal bliss.
Considering pleasant feeling, the yogin truly knows that it contains
no happiness but only suffering. Why? Happiness, i.e., ‘true
happiness’ is free of errors. And yet all the pleasant feelings of the
world come from mistakes and contain no reality. Furthermore, while
greedily seeking the happiness of pleasant feeling, one will encounter
great suffering. Thus it is said:
Those who go to sea encounter heavy winds. The waves rise up as high as the Kālaparvata. Those who go into the army to fight across very dangerous paths and perilous gorges. These many great sufferings all come from attachment to happiness and to cupidity."
This is why we
know that pleasant feeling can give rise to all sorts of suffering.
Furthermore, although the Buddha spoke of the three kinds of
suffering, one of them, that of pleasant feeling, merits the name of
suffering because in it happiness is rare. It is like a bushel of
honey which, when thrown into a big river, loses its smell and its
taste.
Question. – Happiness such as it is conceived in the world, having error as cause and condition, is suffering. But the concentrations practiced by the saints give rise to a pure happiness which itself is real happiness. Why? Because this happiness is not derived from delusion or mistake. How then could it be suffering?
Answer. – It is not suffering. [...]

The bolded section identifies the relevant point. The preceding material establishes how, according to the treatise, even "happiness" is suffering.
From a Dhyānasūtra quoted in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa:

Avoiding desires and bad dharmas, a person enters into the first dhyāna furnished with examination and judgment, coming from detachment, which is joy and happiness. Avoiding the flames of lust, he is endowed with clear cool absorption. Happy like a person who, tormented by the heat, enters into a cold pool. As in the case of the poor man who has found a treasure, vitarka of a great joyfulness moves his mind. He analyzes it: this is vicāra. This is how he enters the first dhyāna. He knows that vitarka and vicāra disturb his mind. Although good, he
must separate himself from them, for it is only on a calm sea that the movement of the waves is not seen. When a very weary man lies down to sleep in peace, any call to him strongly disturbs his mind. In the same way, for the absorbed man in dhyāna, vitarka and vicāra are a torment. That is why, avoiding vitarka and vicāra, he succeeds in entering the sphere of unified consciousness. As a result of his inner purity, he finds joy and happiness in absorption. Penetrating into the second dhyāna, his joy is lively and his mind is very happy. An absorption where concentration is very strong is calm and free of smṛti. Annoyed by prīti, the ascetic wants to get rid of it in the same way that he has already eliminated vitarka and vicāra. It is because of feeling that there is joy. If joy is lost, sadness is experienced. Renouncing pleasant bodily feeling, The ascetic abandons memory and methods. The saint is able to reach this renunciation; for other people, this renunciation is difficult. When one knows the torments of happiness, one sees the grand immobile peace. When daurmanasya and prīti are eliminated, duḥkha and sukha still remain to be cut. Purified by equanimity and reflection, the mind penetrates into the fourth dhyāna. The sukha present in the third dhyāna, transitory and changing, is suffering. In kāmadhātu, the ascetic has cut the daurmanasya; in the second dhyāna he has eliminated the prīti. This is why the Buddha Bhagavat said, in the fourth dhyāna, having cut the daurmanasya and the prīti, it is necessary now to cut duḥkha and sukha.

(Dhyānasūtra T216 as translated by Venerable Migme Chödrön)
The samādhis of the Āryas are happiness, but they are not Nirvāṇa.
It would only be appropriate to conclude with the gāthā that was omitted in the initial quoting of the Santatarasutta in this post:

Those beings who reach the form realm and those established in the formless, if they do not know cessation, come back to renewal of being. Those who fully understand forms without getting stuck in the formless are released into cessation and leave death far behind them. Having touched with his own person the deathless element free from clinging, having realized the relinquishment of clinging, his taints all gone, the Fully-Enlightened One proclaims the sorrowless state that is void of stain.

(same as first quotation, translation from John D. Ireland)

thanks for the answer. sorry for the question maybe, but are these hedonisms?

Are you asking if the samādhis of the Āryas are "hedonisms?"

Yeah, a sort of moral hedonism.

Well, strict adherence to the precepts are a prerequisite for any of the samādhis of the Āryans, be it the dhyānas or samāpattis. So they cannot be "moral hedonism." I associate "hedonism" with worldly pleasures, like food, sex, drugs, etc., not with the concentrations of the Āryas.

adherence to the precepts is arguably necessary for moral enjoyment of sex. I definitely don't mean the "supramundane" path of enlightenment and bodhicitta.

From a Dhyānasūtra quoted in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa , that passage you quote is the actual sutta passage, or the sutta passage along with commentary from Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa ?

It's a gāthā quoted in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Venerable Migme Chödrön's footnotes identify it as being from T216 (大魚事經). How she arrives at this conclusion, I do not know, because the extant version of 大魚事經 passed down in the libraries that inform the Taishō Tripiṭaka doesn't have this gāthā. AFAIK, it's an untraced gāthā of unknown textual origin. Ven Migme Chödrön thinks that the text is citing T216 precisely. She passed away in 2016, so all we have is this attribution in the footnote to go by.

A final clarification of the above: even in her own footnote, she admits that the gāthā is absent from T216. I don't know what the grounds for the attribution are precisely.

Not to associate with fools, maintaining relation with the wise, sacrificing toward what's worthy to sacrifices, is the root of all best things, the foundation of a blessed life here, the next, and bliss beyond, good householder. Feel blessed?

at times, thanks!

Everyone has great suggestions, so far.  I'd like to present a wholesome alternative, found in the Upaḍḍha Sutta  (SN 45:2).

...Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

The whole text can be found here, as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.


text:
Does the relinquishing of views prohibit belief in the permanence of buddha nature?
Does the relinquishing of views prohibit belief in the permanence of buddha nature?

I prostrate to Gautama, who, out of loving compassion, taught the
excellent Dharma in order to relinquish all views.

The dedication to Nagarjuna'a MMK

In the opening of the Buddha nature book of Sbobogenzo, Dogen quotes
the following passage from the Nirvana Sutra: — H > Qnai no sbujo wa
kotogotoku bussbdoyusu; Nyorai v>ajdjuniibite benyaku arukoto natbi),
“All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature:
Tatbdgata (Buddha) is permanent with no change at all.”8 This well
expresses the fundamental standpoint of Mahayana Buddhism. In the
passage two important themes are emphasized: “All sentient beings have
the Buddha nature,” and “Tathagata abides forever without change.”
These two themes are inseparable from one another. Against this
traditional reading, Dogen dares to read as follows...

Masao Abe, Dogen on Buddha Nature.

Seems like a pretty bad question. Why don't you elaborate on it? You even answer it yourself.

no i didn't. what? @DivineSwordIrelia i just explained why i was asking.

You answer the question yourself: "I think perhaps not."

i was trying to explain my bemusement, not answer my question @DivineSwordIrelia i'll add some quotes at a later time

Looks better now, thank you for the edit, +1.

In the famous parable of the raft, the Buddha says that his Dharma is, ultimately, to be abandoned.

"You, myriad monks, should know that my expounding of the Dharma is like in the parable of the raft. Even the Dharma will be abandoned. How much more so that which is not the Dharma?"

(Diamond Sūtra T235.749b7)
There is another time when the Buddha describes a teaching that is to be abandoned, namely when he outlines "right view with effluents" as opposed to "right view that is noble" and contrasts these both with "wrong view." From the Pāli suttas:

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
"One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering
into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort,
& right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

(Mahācattārīsakasutta MN 117 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
So we have established that what is not the Dharma is to be abandoned, just as wrong views are abandoned for right views in the Mahācattārīsakasutta. But what does it mean now for "the Dharma" to be abandoned (including, presumably, the teachings on "buddha-nature" alluded to by the OP)?
Does this mean we have to abandon all right views?
My answer to this is a cautious "No" that I hope I can satisfactorily contextualize.
In the parable of the raft, the raft of the Dharma is abandoned at the far shore. It is not abandoned amidst the sea, leaving the seafarer to die swimming in the treacherous waters of saṃsāra. If we are to abandon "right view" at all, be that right view toward the aggregates, toward the dharmas, or toward the Buddha's nature, it is not "amidst the sea," so to speak. By the time that it comes for "us" to abandon even the Dharma, there is no more "us" to abandon it. "We're" at that far shore, with no "we" present.

“Then, when he had got across and had arrived at the far shore, he
might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since
supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got
safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my head
or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.’ Now,
bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man be doing what
should be done with that raft?”
“No, venerable sir.”

(Alagaddūpamasutta MN 22 translated by Venerable Bodhi)
So why, when we know that the Dharma is for crossing and not for grasping, might some people be moved to say things to effect of "The sea cannot be crossed while grasping a raft?" Why do some reduce the Dharma to "a collection of views?"
IMO, one of the sources of this misunderstanding is a misreading of the Abyākatasutta at AN 7.54. There, we read:

“Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn’t arise in
an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues.
The view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ the
view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ the
view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after
death,’ the view-standpoint, ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t
exist after death’: The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t
discern view, doesn’t discern the origination of view, doesn’t discern
the cessation of view, doesn’t discern the path of practice leading to
the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed
from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering
& stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view,
discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view,
discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so
for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from
sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I
tell you, from suffering & stress.

(Abyākatasutta AN 7.54 translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
I think that among some people who are more familiar with the suttas than the Dhamma, there is a tendency to just read the first sentence of the Buddha's response and ignore the vital context of the sutta.
For instance, when we read a Pāli sutta, we have the opening question of the sutta (generally posed by someone other than the Buddha) and the opening elaboration by the Buddha. After these two, the rest of the sutta will necessarily follow this exposition. Not only suttas, but sūtras also do this. Sūtras like the Flower Garland, the Lotus, and Prajñāpāramitā open with a question that the entire sūtra wishes to answer -- and these are compendious Mahayana vaipulyas, not short EBT suttas. If the vaipulya in question does not begin with such a question, the question that it does begin with will be treated as if it contains within it the seed for all of the material presented in the sūtra.
What is our "central question" that informs the exegesis of AN 7.54? It is

“Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why uncertainty doesn’t arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues?”

This sutta, complete with its section on the cessation of view, etc., is dealing with particular views. In particular, it deals with four views that it outlines in the body of the sutta. 1) That ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ 2) that ‘The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death,’ 3) ‘The Tathagata both does and doesn’t exist after death,’ and 4) ‘The Tathagata neither does nor doesn’t exist after death.’ It is due to the cessation of these views that "uncertainty doesn't arise," to use the language from the sutta directly. So we can see that the Abyākatasutta does not actually instruct the followers of the Buddha to abandon all views in toto, including the right ones. This is, however, a common way to read the sutta. It is, IMO, misconceived in how it is presented when it is presented like that.
This still doesn't address the issue of the eventual abandonment of right view, "buddha-nature" potentially along with it, once we are at the far shore. To address this, there is a quotation from Grandmaster Zhìzhě that has always been close to my heart. This is from his magnum opus, Mahāśamathavipaśyanā, and to this day it greatly informs the meditative curriculum of seminarians of the Japanese Tendai priesthood (as well as being a greatly influential meditation treatise in China, Korea, Vietnam, etc., among monastics and laity alike):

In order to enter into emptiness, you must contemplate conventional
existence; emptiness is realized through this encounter. This
realization is as when the clouds are scattered and vanquished, and
above is made manifest and below is clear [...] The conventional is
that which is to be destroyed; the real is that which is used to
destroy [...] If you enter emptiness, you realize that emptiness
itself has no being, and re-enter the conventional with that insight,
knowing that this contemplation is done for the sake of saving
sentient beings, and knowing that the real is not reality but a
utility that appears conventionally. Therefore we say "entering from
emptiness" [從空入], and one who attains this contemplation
differentiates the proper medicine according to the disease without
mistaken discriminations.

(Mahāśamathavipaśyanā T1911.23c12, translated by Paul Swanson and published as "Clear Serenity, Quiet Insight," p. 452)
What the worldling knows as "reality" is in fact delusion. "Reality," to the Buddhas, is a utility, a utility used for the saving of sentient beings. To save sentient beings, sometimes they say "the Buddha's nature" or sometimes they say "no nature." Sometimes they say, "All beings have the buddhadhātu," and sometimes they say, "The buddhadhātu is limited to a gotra of certain persons." In the Mahāyāna, the ekayāna teachings are like the Buddhas who teach of the universal buddhadhātu. The pañcagotra teachings are like the Buddhas who say that "Buddhahood" is a specific gotra.
In crossing over to the far shore, in becoming a Buddha, in order to say "no nature" when the utility is required, you must be able to abandon "the Buddha's nature." This is easy because, after all, the Buddha's nature is "no nature."

The many Buddhas have immeasurable implementations of appropriate
methodologies, and the many phenomena have no fixed natures. To
liberate beings, they say "All is real," or they say "All is unreal,"
or they say "All is real and unreal," or they say "All is neither real
nor unreal." "All is real," because, inquiring into the true aspect of
all phenomena, each and every enters into the highest truth of
equality and oneness of characteristic, which is to say with no
characteristic. It is like the many rivers of different colours and
different tastes entering into the great ocean of the same colour and
the same taste.

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1654)
At the end of the day, "the Buddha's nature," just like the notion of and appearance of "the Buddha," is a pointer signifying the Dharma and is not the Dharma itself. Were it the Dharma itself, you could enlighten someone simply by saying "You have the Buddha's nature." Certainly, for some people, they might have such an extraordinary experience. The pointer was good for them. But most people will just say, "That's awfully nice, but what does it mean for me to have the Buddha's nature?" "Buddha-nature" signifies something external to what it is as "a word" or "a name," and that signified thing is arrived at outside of the paths of body, speech, and mind. As such, it is not discarded like a view, nor is it adopted like a view. IMO.

you don't mention permanence anywhere in this answer!

I don't think that specific word needs to be said to answer the question. That being said, you don't have to like the answer I gave.

true. thanks for the asnwer

The idea of 'permanence' is future-bound. Permanence carries the  thought: "That which now is will be so at every point in the future, without exception." That is an illusion: an act of imagining the world as we would like it to be, ignoring that the world will inevitably disappoint us. It generates dukkha.
Buddha nature is not time-bound. It only exists in the present, can only be experienced in the present, and only understands past and future as aspects of the present. People often mistakenly call it 'eternal' or 'permanent', but what they mean to imply is that it is timeless.
When we relinquish all views we give up the worry that it might be better to be somewhere else or somewhen else. It might be, but we are here and now (in Buddha nature) and all movement starts from there.

thank you for your contribution. it wasn't especially helpful, because i didn't mention the future tense, only 'permanence', and if you want to answer the question as you did, i would suggest showing how 'buddha nature is permanent' means 'buddha nature exists in the future'

@again_insane_buddhist: What makes you think Buddha-nature exists in the future? Does the present exist in the future? I think you've misread what I wrote.

i don't think i did, and i didn't mention the future tense. you seemed to be refuting the belief that buddha nature is in the future if it is permanent. that's what i meant in my comment

@again_insane_buddhist: I think you did misread my answer, particularly the first couple of lines, but that's not a big deal. The point is that we cannot talk about 'permanence' without talking about the future. If you consider a moment you'll see the truth in that.


text:
How was my performance in the Fifth precept
I just started Buddhism, and I made a mistake. I forgot about my Buddha statue I just got, and I ate a 2 marijuana brownies in front of the statue. How bad is that? I’m going to not take any more marijuana until the same day I disrespected the Buddha. Am I a bad person for that mistake?

I guess there are two possible answers to this question. 1. you took an intoxicant so broke the precept. 2. the precepts are flexible guides for action and depend on your interpretation of what they mean. either way, i have no idea what is standard practice for lay people (I assume you're not a monk) who break them. the answer to that would help me decide if I think you've behaviour is irredeemable.

Thank you, and I’m sorry for my disrespect. That I mistakenly showed.

I don't know what disrespect is, sorry.

What do you mean by "I’m going to not take any more marijuana until the same day I disrespected the Buddha"? Perhaps you want to correct this if it is a mistake.

I stopped taking marijuana until the 21st of march, to show that I’m sorry for showing the disrespect.

Buddhism doesn't really have a concept of 'bad person' because the aim in buddhism is to release both identity associations and the egoic mind that clings to them. The problem here is that you did something you had decided you weren't going to do. It was a lapse, not an act of disrespect; have compassion for yourself and for the tangle you've snared yourself in. Then just be aware:

Be aware of what you did
Be aware of what you might do
Be aware of what you're doing

That's the middle path.

Thank you!!!!!!

Such a great answer!

How bad is that?
I think the full text of the "fifth precept" is translated more-or-less like this:

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

It's also translated as negligence or heedlessness -- see Pamāda:

negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness

So I think what you said is an example: i.e. "I forgot (about my Buddha statue)" seems like an example of the "carelessness" or "heedlessness" which the precept warns against.
And that's a condition for "unskillful behaviour".
And that in turn is a condition for "remorse".
Am I a bad person for that mistake?
Yes and no, in my opinion.
I learned a little of the training given to pre-school teachers -- and part of that is that you do not say to children, "You're a bad person" -- instead you'd say, "That's bad behaviour", and model (i.e. provide examples of) better behaviour.
So I'd say that it's "unskillful behaviour", and hope that you learn to avoid it, and realise the benefits of avoiding it -- find that you're happier when you don't do things you regret -- even lasting happiness:

So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing, not having been constructed (sankharaed)-- it was the result of not-doing, is not itself subject to ending and is a small taste of Nibbana. Remorse being relative to its cause and the cause being removed the remorse is removed forever. Remorse may return but it will be based on another ill-conceived act.

I’m going to not take any more marijuana until ...
My "refraining" seems to be permanent. I rarely have the opportunity to take it, I don't meet with people like that -- and when I do have the opportunity I don't take it, because I fear that I'd regret it after I have done it. I know that there are short-term disadvantages (e.g. "disability" as well as "pleasure"), and long-term also (mainly attaching to the habit and feeding the craving, but also spending time and money and health and maybe developing unhealthy social relationships, instead of whatever else you might be doing or not doing).
It's just easier not to start, never to start.
Once you've trained yourself to have the habit, it's also possible to untrain yourself, to learn how to stop and why.

Thank you I just enjoy the feeling I get of calmness, and happiness. It helps me, I’m a young man not even thirty years old yet and I’m in a wheelchair with no legs.

You are very bad before you started Buddhism because you never feel sorry for taking marijuana and never try to stop.

You have forgotten Buddha statue for entire life and through many lives before until now you are trying to remember your Buddha statue.

You before now or now who you being are worse?
Practices are very long for uncountable lives because it is very hard  beyond expectation of the ordinary.
So, what you can do now is reciting percepts again and again until you getting Attained-Jhana which is better than marijuana uncountable time.
We feel happy to understand the cons of taking marijuana, but we are not stress, worry, and sad of what we did because no one can retake anything in the past. Reciting precepts again and again with happiness is what we can do now actually. Move on! You have tried and trying, this is the best we can do now "remaking the resolution again and again".

Thank you!!!!!!!


text:
I have a question about meditation
My brain is constantly raising, I’m always thinking about new stuff. Does that affect my meditation?

I asked a zen teacher about the crappy songs that get stuck in my head. they said not to worry about it. since then, I've calmed down a bit. hth

Yes, it is.
But it is normal for the ordinary layman, so do whatever you can do. Don't pretend to be what you can't do. Just try to practice, not force to practice. When you force to practice, you will be stressful which means you are not feeling happy to practice. But you can try the meditation for entire life, if you just try to do the meditation  again and again with happiness. So, the happiness is the chance for the meditation to be developed.
We were so messy before we met the Buddha. Now we are lesser messy, so if it still left, don't let it ruins our happiness in meditation. That's the way meditation keep going on.

Thank you! Bonn!

My brain is constantly raising, I’m always thinking about new stuff. Does that affect my meditation?

Nothing wrong with having an active mind. Just be mindful of the distraction, stress or the feeling of being overwhelmed. You could do samatha meditation to calm down if that's your goal. Just be aware that's only a temporary solution.
Better yet is to just be mindful of these states and see them for what they are - phenomena that has arisen due to causes and conditions. Eventually they will loose their momentum and pass away. If you feed the loop however it will continue.

Ven. Sariputta discusses knowledge of right immersion:

DN34:1.6.69: Right immersion with five knowledges.
DN34:1.6.70: The following knowledges arise for you personally: ‘This immersion is blissful now, and results in bliss in the future.’
DN34:1.6.71: ‘This immersion is noble and spiritual.’
DN34:1.6.72: ‘This immersion is not cultivated by sinners.’
> DN34:1.6.73: ‘This immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.’
DN34:1.6.74: ‘I mindfully enter into and emerge from this immersion.’

Notice that forceful suppression of distracting thoughts is clearly wrong. Yet distracting thoughts will arise. So what should we do?
In MN10, the Buddha teaches mindfulness meditation. And the very first step in mindfulness meditation is to attend to what is present. The body is present, so we need to start with that reality:

MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

How should we attend to the body?

MN10:4.1: And how does a mendicant meditate observing an aspect of the body?
MN10:4.2: It’s when a mendicant—gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut—sits down cross-legged, with their body straight, and focuses their mindfulness right there.
> MN10:4.3: Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.

Mindfulness of breathing sounds simple and trivial. But it is not. As a test, we can count our breaths. If the count is lost, start over. It is very difficult to count breaths when thoughts distract. And that is why counting breaths is effective at letting go of distracting thoughts.
A second way to deal with distracting thoughts is to consider another teaching of the Buddha. Here, the Buddha teaches us to acknowledge the distracting thoughts of any form and let them go:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, 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.’”

Sometimes a distracting thought is important. In that case we can deal with it immediately (e.g., "the house is on fire") or later (e.g., "I forgot to pay the rent"). If we forgot to pay our rent and remembered that as we sit, we can simply say to ourselves, "Now is the time to meditate. After meditation I will pay the rent."
And then we can meditate.

this is a good answer. I actually don't know if no thinking is necessary for jhana (I'm pretty sure it's not). however, you need to not suppress or fight your thoughts, I know that

No, that is the meditation.  Before you sat down, did you notice the racing thoughts?  We you aware that your mind was a torrent of activity?  You might have thought that you were calm, collected, and in a state of peace and that somehow the simply act of sitting threw you into seething turmoil.
When we first sit down on the cushion, straighten our backs, and watch our breath, the first obvious and most evident lesson is that our minds are feral animals.  They are untamed and given to all sorts of wildness.  But it's not until we sit on the cushion that this becomes clear and not until then was this even much of a problem.  A wild dog enjoys his wildness.  It's his natural state.  Tie him and see how he strains the leash.  Only a tame dog walks besides his master with his held high.
That you're noticing means that you are doing something right.  If you sat in perfect peace from the beginning you'd be either practicing in error or brain dead.  These thoughts will dissipate the longer you keep at this.  The simple act of sitting is the first step in putting them to rest.  Simply sit on the cushion.  Do it daily and do it for at least an hour.  Do not try to stop your thoughts.  You needn't even watch your breath, not a first.  Just let everything settle like leaves falling upon the ground.  Let this be your practice for now.

Thank you, but is it important to straighten your back? I’m sitting in a wheelchair, and my legs are taken away at the knees. So positioning is a little difficult. And I’m sitting in a wheelchair so my back is already straight.

So don't think of that as some kind of magical posture.  Buddhism (for the most part) isn't like yoga or tantra where the arrangement of the body has some mystical significance.  When you straighten your back, you enact a couple of physiological changes and these are what you really should be focused on.  First, an upright posture makes for an upright mind.  It is erect, buoyant, and not given to slackness.  When we slump, our attention and alertness also slumps.  This isn't conducive to concentration.  Second, by maintaining an upright posture, we open our chest and diaphragm.

You really want to ensure that your breath isn't obstructed.  This may not seem like an issue now, but as your concentration develops and rapture (especially) begins to establish itself, any breathing restrictions are nothing short of torturous.  Any restrictions will be like boulders in a river and will restrict the energy that starts to course through your body.  In most cases, this will be so overwhelming that you may have to break your concentration entirely.  Lastly, when we maintain an upright posture, we can sit longer.

After about an hour of sitting, slumping parts of our body begin to become tired and tense.  Sitting upright, loose, and relaxed - like clothes hanging off a hanger - is actually the most durable sitting posture.  It will allow you to sit for hours in relative comfort.  The take away is to just do what you can.  Try to put the points above into practice.  Don't worry about perfection in your sitting.  In fact, I'd argue that the habit of meditation and the difficulties you overcome are more important than the depth of your concentration.

It is, but not all is lost!
There are a handful of meditation techniques, with and without thinking. Try to focus on a topic while meditating, for example, compassion (towards yourself, others, animals, etc). That is actually reflection, and very needed to advance your studies. Baby steps still carry you forward, I hope the best for you!


text:
Happiness and Karma
I suddenly thought of a question...
If one often feels unhappy, stress, uncontented, negativity, does it mean this person has bad karma?
Is there a way to improve the situation so that the person can be calmer, and happy?
TIA!

yes. but no. all experiences are a construct of karma. but not just from this life: you have zillions of previous personalities to blame

also, the karma necessary to be born as a human, let alone a human with access to the dharma, is very good indeed. the idea of blaming yourself for bad karma is just meant to help you practice!

The word "kamma" means "intentional action".
If one often feels unhappy, stress, uncontented, negativity, this does mean this person has unskillful ('bad') karma.
In summary, the unskillful karma is not practicing the Buddhist path.
To improve the situation, i.e., to do good karma, one can practice the Buddhist path, which on the most basic level means:

To avoid killing, stealing, lying, drugs, alcohol, gambling, borrowing money for transient things.
To avoid unskilful careless non-committed sexual activity that leads to unhappiness.
To practice generosity, unselfishness, kindness & non-harming towards others.
To avoid bad dangerous friends and associate with good safe friends.
To develop being inspired by the virtues of the Buddha & Good Monks, Nuns & Buddhists.
Train the mind to abandon anger and cruelty.

These are just feelings and metal states. They come and go. They belong to noone. Just be mindful of them until they pass away.
You can follow the Noble Eightfold Path, meditate and do good deeds.


text:
Mereology: does being inside something mean it is inside?

When we speak of an individual having a property we nominalize the
predicate expressing the property we take to be constitutive and
ascribe the instantiating properties to the individual thus created.
There is, however, no deep ontological reason why we could not change
our view of what the constitutive and what the instantiating
properties are, and thereby describe the very same situation in terms
of different individuals and properties. But if we accept this picture
of ontology it is evident that we are not obliged to infer the
existence of a substratum or underlying individual from the existence
of a quality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
I take this to mean that the subject and predicate are reversible. So a round apple is both an apple that is round, and a round shape that is an apple. Does it mean then the relation of being "in" another thing is also symmetrical? If a patch of red is in my visual field, then my visual field is inside that red.

Surely an effect is in the action of a cause: then the action of a cause is in its effect. This sounds like 'no causation', and how I read Nagarjuna.
Whatever is essentially in the world can only end if the world does, because the world is also essentially in it. This seems to me to be the meaning of 'rebirth'.

I think it's a mereological question, about parts and wholes: whether or not everything is - in reality - a part of everything else.

Concerning the antisymmetry postulate (18) [Two distinct things cannot be part of each other], the picture is even more complex. For one thing, some authors maintain that the relationship between an object and the stuff it is made of provides a perfectly ordinary counterexample of the antisymmetry of parthood... Sanford (1993: 222) refers to Borges's Aleph as a case in point: “I
saw the earth in the Aleph and in the earth the Aleph once more and
the earth in the Aleph …”. In this case, a plausible reply is simply
that fiction delivers no guidance to conceptual investigations:
conceivability may well be a guide to possibility, but literary
fantasy is by itself no evidence of conceivability (van Inwagen 1993:
229). Perhaps the same could be said of Fazang's Jeweled Net of Indra,
in which each jewel has every other jewel as part (Jones 2012).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

thanks for any helpful answers!

But if we accept this picture of ontology it is evident that we are
not obliged to infer the existence of a substratum or underlying
individual from the existence of a quality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
I take this to mean that the subject and predicate are reversible.

I believe you are reading the quoted conclusion wrong. Not inferring an individual, which means a subject, from the existence of a quality, doesn’t mean the subject and quality are reversible, it means that there doesn’t have to be a  subject. Or more precisely, it means that the quality’s existence isn’t necessarily proof that there is a subject entity that has that quality.  This logic is based upon a change from the extant paradigmatic understanding of reality as a material dualism to something different:

There is, however, no deep ontological reason why we could not change
our view of what the constitutive and what the instantiating
properties are…

Here it is being explained that a logical analysis is ultimately framed by our paradigm, and paradigms can be switched.

But if we accept this picture of ontology it is evident that we are
not obliged to infer the existence of a substratum or underlying
individual from the existence of a quality.

The quote above is saying that there is no ontological reason why we can’t have a paradigmatic understanding in which there are no entities — subjects —  though there are qualities that can be experienced.
Saying that because I see the color red, there is an entity that is ‘redness’ works in one paradigm, but there is this other paradigm that Nagarjuna was alluding to (Emptiness) in which redness is not an entity, and the appearance of red does not require, nor is proof of, an entity that is red.
I hope this helps.

I was only 60% sure they meant what I said, but your answer didn't change my mind at all. thanks for replying tho

generally speaking, a thing "instantiates" all the properties it has, but only some properties are "constitutive" of an individual. having read the paragraph yet again, I am not pretty sure it means what I said. thanks for helping me rethink

Sounds like some useless, intellectual gymnastics - just apply mindfulness to the thinking process or the doubt that arises instead of getting caught up in concepts.


text:
Sanskrit versus Pali and Nagarjuna
I have recently been learning Pali, and have heard that Sanskrit is somewhat similar. With a decent knowledge of Pali, is it possible to read Nagarjuna, for instance, perhaps with just some of the basics of Sanskrit? Or would it be more or less unintelligible?

good question for stack exchange, or should be. +1

There is a Wikipedia article that might offer some contextualization. It is on so-called "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit" (BHS). From the article:

In many places where BHS differs from Sanskrit it is closer to, or
identical with, Pāli. Most extant BHS works were originally written in
BHS, rather than being reworkings or translations of already existing
works in Pāli or other languages. However, earlier works, mostly from
the Mahāsāṃghika school, use a form of "mixed Sanskrit" in which the
original Prakrit has been incompletely Sanskritised, with the phonetic
forms being changed to the Sanskrit versions, but the grammar of
Prakrit being retained. For instance, Prakrit bhikkhussa, the
possessive singular of bhikkhu (monk, cognate with
Sanskrit bhikṣu) is converted not to bhikṣoḥ as in Sanskrit but
mechanically changed to bhikṣusya.

In the paragraph immediately following this one, the article speaks of a Yale professor named Franklin Edgerton. If you follow the cited links on that Wikipedia entry, you'll see a great deal of them citing his groundbreaking paper The Prakrit Underlying Buddhistic Hybrid Sanskrit. Luckily for us, this paper is available for-free online to anyone with a Google account. The paper is here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/608058
You can use your Google account to view the article for free and skip the Wikipedia summation of it. Basically, the gist is that the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras and several pre-Mahāyāna texts (such as the Mahāvastu associated with the Mahāsāṃghikas) were originally preserved in an unknown "Pāli-like" Prākrit and then were later "Sanskritized" and then were later eventually translated into a standardized "classical" Sanskrit. Of course, not all extant Mahāyāna sūtras are in a pure classical Sanskrit. The Lotus Sūtra for instance is in classical Sanskrit for the prose sections and in BHS for the verse sections.
With regards to reading Venerable Nāgārjuna, I've never heard of the text of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) described as particularly Prākritic. AFAIK, its present-day redaction is in a classical Sanskrit. As such, you can read it as Sanskrit, but you'd have to be ready for two things:

difficulties related to the verse, and
Buddhism-specific terminology that ultimately has its root in the unknown Prākrit underlying Buddhist Sanskrit.

Take for instance the two terms "saṃvṛti" and "lokavyavahāra."
"Saṃvṛti" comes from a root meaning "to conceal." It is used in Buddhist Sanskrit to refer to a "convention." Its direct cognate is the Pāli "sammuti." You can see it used in Pāli in the Vajirāsutta. The Buddhist Sanskrit analyses the Prākrit term thus:
sammuti --> saṃvṛti
Why?
nibbuti --> nirvṛti
They understood the vowel as a phonological change derived ultimately from "vṛti." The Prākrit tradition (namely "Pāli" here) understands "sammuti" as a form of "sammati," meaning "consensus, agreement."
Why is this relevant? When Venerable Nāgārjuna discusses "saṃvṛti" or "the conventional," he is not referring to "saṃvṛti" in the traditional Sanskrit sense. He is using a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit sense, where "saṃvṛti" is understood to mean "lokavyavahāra" or "the speech of the world."
Lokavyavahāra is another example. In normal Sanskrit, this would refer to the daily life, perhaps even the daily processes, of the people in the world. In Buddhist Sanskrit, this has the specific sense of "the speech of the people of the world," which is once again closer to Pāli (Pāli: "lokavohāra") than Vedic or Classical Sanskrit.
As a final note of evidence, just look at how Buddhists use the terms "dharma" and "saṃskāra" compared to non-Buddhist Sanskrit usage. The difference is striking. Only Buddhists use "dharma" in such a way, which reflects the usages of the term from the original Prākrits that the buddhavacana was first preserved in.
PS:
I just remembered this article hosted for free by the University of Toronto:
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68342/1/Levman_Bryan_G_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf
It is Dr. Bryan Levman's thesis entitled Linguistic Ambiguities, the Transmissional Process, and the Earliest Recoverable Language of Buddhism. It discusses many of these linguistic ambiguities and anomalies, namely when one linguistic tradition of Buddhism (Pāli) reads words in such-a-such a way with such-and-such a meaning and another (substantiated in Sanskrit or Chinese) preserves them differently. To the best of my knowledge, this paper particularly does not deal with the ambiguities that the Chinese texts pose, but Chinese texts (which often come from Gāndhārī) have many of these same incongruities. Even things like the proper reading of "pratyekabuddha" was not homogonous in early Buddhism, also appearing in forms like "緣覺" (*pratyayabuddha lit. "caused-buddha").


text:
Making a true promise "on the dharma"
Is making a true promise, on the dharma, good karma?
Not asking about the precepts per se, but it was about precept centred behaviour (a lack of infidelity etc. from me): and now I feel blissed out, independent of how it was perceived etc.. Just curious.

Oh yeah? So, you made a comitment in your mind and then you got all blessed out?

Very good, very good, when in accordance with the Dhamma, and even liberating if kept, good householder. It's like it act-ually works, this way of guided self-blessing and honesty toward one self. And it's not at all bad kamma to break low and harmful earlier promises, for going in contract with more sublime. Such asn for today on, I will abstain from any taking of life, and give up all previous promises requiring such... taking what isn't given... fleshly misconduct... wrong speech... taking intoxicants causing shamelessness...and give up all previous promises requiring such.
mudita
more on it: Is changing your mind same as lying? Breaking promises

haha. it was a promise about the past, not the future!

The is no promise not related to the past, good householder. Every promise happened only in the past. "Will promise..." is also already a past one.


text:
What texts in Buddhism should be read for understanding/ controlling these emotions?
I am a 25 years student who has hard time struggling with emotions of anger and revenge.
I am taking therapy but I also have decided to become a Buddhist as it is a rational religion.
I just wanted to ask what books in Buddhist philosophy will you suggest for understanding and coping emotions of anger and revenge?
Thanks!

if you're talking about potentially taking out revenge fantasies on others, I would suggest trying metta. if you're talking about feeling sullen when someone irrationally abuses you, then try meditation. these tings are a continuum. hth

I am going through a really tough period and that's why I am unable to check all answers and accept one. As soon as I feel better and have time, I will do it. Please bear with me.

ok sorry to hear that! try not to worry

In Buddhism, Stressful-Person is  struggling with emotions of anger and revenge.
The origin of stress is overthinking of 5 string, color sound smell taste and body-feeling, including overthinking of living-being, so the loving kindness concentration meditation (metta) is the right answer.
However, the concentration meditation bases on virtue (Sila), so check your virtue fist of all, according to KaraniyaMettaSutta...

What should be done by one skillful in good
So as to gain the State of Peace is this:
Let him be able, and upright and straight,
Easy to speak to, gentle, and not proud,
Contented too, supported easily,
With few tasks, and living very lightly;
His faculties serene, prudent, and modest,
Unswayed by the emotions of the clans;
And let him never do the slightest thing
That other wise men might hold blamable.

After above skill is better, then the practitioner is ready for the next lesson..

(And let him think:) "In safety and in bliss
May creatures all be of a blissful heart.
Whatever breathing beings there may be.
No matter whether they are frail or firm,
With none excepted, be they long or big
Or middle-sized, or be they short or small
Or thick, as well as those seen or unseen,
Or whether they are dwelling far or near,
Existing or yet seeking to exist.
May creatures all be of a blissful heart.
Let no one work another one's undoing
Or even slight him at all anywhere:
And never let them wish each other ill
Through provocation or resentful thought."
And just as might a mother with her life
Protect the son that was her only child,
So let him then for every living thing
Maintain unbounded consciousness in being;
And let him too with love for all the world
Maintain unbounded consciousness in being
Above, below, and all round in between,
Untroubled, with no enemy or foe.
And while he stands or walks or while he sits
Or while he lies down, free from drowsiness,
Let him resolve upon this mindfulness:
This is Divine Abiding here, they say.

The result of the loving-kindness meditation is...

But when he has no trafficking with views,
Is virtuous, and has perfected seeing,
And purges greed for sensual desires,
He surely comes no more to any womb.

You could read the Satipatthana Sutta and also consider doing a meditation course with a teacher. He or she will be able to guide you well.

I found Shantideva's Bodhisattvacharyavatara "Guide to the Boddhisattva's Way of Life" to be very helpful for all of the negative emotions and their antidotes. I went to weekly teachings on it by Gelek Rimpoche for several years. You could check out Rimpoche's commentary on the  patience chapter  first, because that paramita is the antidote to anger and hatred. Shambhala has the Wallace translation, but Gelek Rimpoche taught from the Batchelor translation.

Let me give you a mental exercise which will help you cope with anger and emotional rush. This is a common exercise among lay Buddhists as well as practicing Buddhists alike.
Preparation:
If you have a trusted friend or partner ask him/her to remind you that you are in anger, the next time you are visibly angry. This preparation step is not going to work if you are bottling up your emotions and hiding away the fact you are revengeful or angry. If that is the case you can skip this preparation step.
When you are aware that you are angry, take note how you react. You could either cool down, or remain angry, or feel ashamed (as it used to happen to me). Monitor this emotion.
Exercise:

If you continue to be angry even after realizing you are angry: then take a deep breath, count to 5 or 10 (whichever number comfortable for you) and exhale. In the end, tell your self, 'I am better than this emotion. I am bigger than this emotion. I am in control of this emotion and I will not let this emotion control me.' Continue the breathing exercise, until you are ready to look into and reflect upon your own thought process.
If the anger goes away or turn into a different emotion: then start looking at your own thoughts. This may feel strange at first, but with practice it will come to you naturally. Reflect upon your current mental state. Then try to remember the previous thought/emotion to this, and the one previous to that... and so on, until you come to the beginning of your thought process. Reflecting upon this, would reveal what triggered that emotion. Then ask yourself, why did the stimuli result with such an emotion? reflect upon it, take note of it. Reflect upon it, evaluate it with the intention to finding out why were you angry. Why were you revengeful?

With practice, you will be able to look into your own thought process and find out the actual reason as to why did the external stimuli, resulted in such emotion. That understanding will help you deal with the emotion.
Here's what I do with my finding of the reason for my emotion:
I have heard this beautiful quote by Native Americans:
Question: "In every man's mind there exists two wolves. One is Good. The other is Bad. They are in constant fight. Which one would win?"
Answer: "The one you feed the most"
I remind myself of this quote and decide that I will not feed the angry/revengeful wolf.

In addition it will be beneficial to you if you can read and understand the meaning (post your questions here in StackExchange) of following:

Meththanisansa Sutta
Karaniya Mettha Sutta
Dhammapada

The Buddhist scriptures generally say to reflect upon (think about) the harm & dangers of anger & other unwholesome emotions. For example:

An angry person is ugly & sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it
into a loss, having done damage with word & deed. A person overwhelmed
with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he destroys his
status. Relatives, friends, & colleagues avoid him. Anger brings loss.
Anger inflames the mind. He doesn’t realize that his danger is born
from within. An angry person doesn’t know his own benefit. An angry
person doesn’t see the Dhamma. A man conquered by anger is in a mass
of darkness. He takes pleasure in bad deeds as if they were good, but
later, when his anger is gone, he suffers as if burned with fire. He
is spoiled, blotted out, like fire enveloped in smoke.
When anger spreads, when a man becomes angry, he has no shame, no fear
of evil, is not respectful in speech. For a person overcome with
anger, nothing gives light.
I’ll list the deeds that bring remorse, that are far from the
teachings. Listen! An angry person kills his father, kills his mother,
kills Brahmans & people run-of-the-mill. It’s because of a mother’s
devotion that one sees the world, yet an angry run-of-the-mill person
can kill this giver of life. Like oneself, all beings hold themselves
most dear, yet an angry person, deranged, can kill himself in many
ways: with a sword, taking poison, hanging himself by a rope in a
mountain glen.
Doing these deeds that kill beings and do violence to himself, the
angry person doesn’t realize that he’s ruined.
This snare of Mara, in the form of anger, dwelling in the cave of the
heart: cut it out with self-control, discernment, persistence, right
view. The wise man would cut out each & every form of unskillfulness.
Train yourselves: ‘May we not be blotted out.’
Free from anger & untroubled, free from greed, without longing, tamed,
your anger abandoned, free from fermentation, you will be unbound.
Kodhana Sutta