text:
Days related to Buddhism
Growing up in a conservative family, I saw my community elders choose a good day for events or celebrations.
Including, a good day to travel, a good day to start a business, a good day for haircut and much more.
Do they adopt animism?
Or is it related to Buddhism?

From your description, it sounds more related to Geomancy "Feng shui" than to Buddhism.

According to DN 2, calculating auspicious dates is considered an "animal art" and wrong livelihood. It is prohibited for monks:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans ... — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

There are plenty more such "animal arts" in the sutta, including astrology, geomancy, palmistry, omen reading, dream interpretation, magic etc.:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.

Growing up in a conservative family, I saw my community elders choose a good day for events or celebrations.

That's a good habit and a son would have actually the duty to uphold the families traditions if not harmful ones. Also the Buddha and his faithful disciples practice such and Dates play an important rule. Even such as cutting hairs, travel and times for undertakings... are touched and defined for monks. Many things in this regard had been adopted by laypeople voluntary.
The Buddha focused on the so called Upoastha-days as "the only important" community days all 14 days, allowed (urged) his monks to learn the calculation and many rules are in regard of those days. He also allowed to gather and to teach the Dhamma to the lay-people, after the request of a King who feared that other sects, who hold assemblies for lay people might gain to much popularity while the Buddhas union might lose. Since the day of cleansing is a good and helpful way also for lay people, it's usual to keep the Sila-days as well, all moon-quarters and some practice the "ascetic" days even on more days: pakati-uposatha, pati-jagara-uposatha, pati-harika-pakkha-uposatha.
Pujas (occasions of scarifies) are celebrated on special full-moon days.
In lands with much Dhamma influence new-moon is generally thought as a day before birth i.e. to start something new. Other special days of certain scarifies are found often related to occasions in the past around the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.
The have been Arahats at the time of the Buddha who thought "Whether I keep the Uposatha or not, I am clean anyway" and the Buddha encouraged "Who, if not you, would venerate and uphold the Uposatha-day".
Generally, every day is worthy to uphold the Uposatha and it should not be wrong taken, be ill-gotten.
If serious more interested, having the needed freedom, one should not hesitate to use possible more proper, and therefore given environment.
(note: it's not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments binding to world and it's ways, but as a tiny door to escape)

The things (Sankatha) you see are all products of either collective thoughts or the thoughts of an individual.

At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all
  was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no
  constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not
  distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no
  male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or
  later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself
  over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin
  that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with
  colour, smell and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and
  it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
  http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2001/edit/docs/aggannasutta.pdf

The above is how the Sakwala (the solar system) we belong came into being. The planets, the moon and the sun are all products of living beings. The collective thoughts of all living beings shape the universe.
All beings emit an aura. The pure white is produced by those who do not have Raga, Dosa or Moha. The ones who have emit an aura in a colour spectrum.
The difference in energy is that makes things spin. Everything, the world, the planets and even molecules spin and rotate. This is why things deteriorate.
Over time people become decadent and excessive with money and no sense of responsibility. This increase the spin and bring an end of Kalpa or a complete overhaul of the planet.
There is an element of truth in things like horoscopes. The vibes you emit get stored in the planets and reflects back on you magnified many times over. This is why people have good and bad times.
What the Buddha said was do not worry about planets or the effects but worry about taking away the causes. The causes are Raga, Dosa and Moha.


text:
Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?
I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy.
The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again
That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth.
So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

We don't usually compare Buddhism with other non-Buddhist teachings here, both because few of our users seem to know other teachings deeply enough to give them justice, but also because we prefer to stay away from qualitative judgements and arguments, so you're unlikely to get many in-depth answers on this. I can make a few general comments though:
A.G. seems to be mostly in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This is not surprising, considering that Advaita Vedanta is thought (by Buddhists) to be a derivation and adaptation of Mahayana Buddhism for Brahmin audience.
Unlike A.G., in Buddhism we do not identify ourselves with the mind / the witness / pure consciousness etc. We say that the mind is just an emergent property of nature, whereas "I" is only a concept. Nor do we identify with the All. So the many statements in A.G. of the kind "I am pure consciousness; I am in everything and everything in me" etc. - would sound odd to a Buddhist who would find it misleading.
Then, A.G. seems to describe the target state in considerable detail, but hardly if at all explains the practical path from a typical Samsaric condition to the freedom of realization. In contrast to that, Buddhism declares, and spends a great deal of effort expounding the practical implementation of a gradual step-by-step method for reaching that state, which can be followed by someone starting from complete scratch, all the way to Liberation.
Finally, A.G. does not seem to concern itself with the social morals, while Buddhism defines a comprehensive set of guidelines for regular society which is in complete sync with the Buddhist path and vice versa.
Still, from a quick read of A.G. it seems like it comes from tradition that could be completely at home within the higher yanas of Tibetan Buddhism, especially what's known as Dzogchen. It almost reads like a Dzogchen Tantra and I suspect back when religious traditions were more pliable than they are today, there was likely some cross-pollination between the two.
This similarity is seen in many cases on the Dzogchen side as well, with texts talking about rigpa (ground awareness), making proclamations like "I am the eternal Buddha" and so on. And certainly the spirit of "nothing requires fixing" that A.G. is permeated with, plays the key role in Dzogchen as well.
Since you appreciate A.G. as the higher teaching, I suppose you may enjoy reading about Dzogchen, for example as presented by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu whom I found clear and to the point.

Thanks for your response and for pointing similarity with the Dzogchen Tantra. I agree there is some similarity, but reading some of the Tantra one can only say that they are thick with analogies which at a time seems to miss the mark and again to align back.. back and forth until you wonder why it's written in such a way unless it's to keep it like a secret, which is not unusual in these traditions.   It may also be the translators, but it is so confusing to read let alone to drag someone out of thick ignorance.

Some of the ancient tantras, yes - but I'm talking about "pith instructions" not root texts, which are available as part of the oral tradition, published as lecture-transcripts these days.

I don't know of such a study.

I looked at Wikipedia to learn the first thing about that Gita:

Ashtavakra Gita is a dialogue between Ashtavakra and Janaka on the nature of soul, reality and bondage.[9] It offers a radical version of non-dualistic philosophy. The Gita insists on the complete unreality of external world and absolute oneness of existence. It does not mention any morality or duties, and therefore is seen by commentators as 'godless'. It also dismisses names and forms as unreal and a sign of ignorance.[10]
In a conversation between Janaka and Ashtavakra, pertaining to the deformity of his crooked body, Ashtavakra explains that the size of a Temple is not affected by how it is shaped, and the shape of his own body does not affect himself (or Atman). The ignorant man's vision is shrouded by names and forms, but a wise man sees only himself:[11][12]

You are really unbound and action-less, self-illuminating and spotless already. The cause of your bondage is that you are still resorting to stilling the mind. (I.15)
You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable, unfathomable awareness, imperturbable- such consciousness is un-clinging. (I.17)
You are not bound by anything. What does a pure person like you need to renounce? Putting the complex organism to rest, you can go to your rest. (V.1) [13]

The Pali suttas avoid saying "you are" and "I am" and so on -- the Buddhist doctrine is called "Anatta" or "Anatman", contrasted with the Vedic doctrine of "Atman".

I did a quick Google search and the first thing I found was ...
Ashtavakra Gita. One of the great spiritual texts of ancient India. Liberation is the priority…
... which is a little blog entry, not a study. The author doesn't say much (it's short) except recommends reading the Gita. The one thing he does say -- referring to "the language of ‘I’ and ‘Self’" that's used in the Gita -- is ...

Yes, the words in places are certainly different from the Buddha-Dharma. That is hair-splitting, a formation of an unnecessary duality.

... so I guess maybe he recognises that it sounds a bit heretical or counterfactual to an orthodox early-Buddhist view.
One time that author (i.e. Christopher Titmuss) was quoted previously on this site was actually on a similar topic -- Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha? -- i.e. where someone questioned something he had written about Anatta, and questioned whether that matches an orthodox Buddhist view or doctrine.
If you're interested you might also see this topic -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- which focuses on the sutta which was alluded to in the previous topic above.

If you like the format of the Gita (i.e. question-and-answer) then you might possibly like The Questions of King Milinda e.g. summarised here. They include a famous "simile of a chariot", which explains that there isn't really a "self" in the same way that there isn't really a "chariot". I found that explanation a bit abstract (i.e. just words) and I prefer the doctrine in MN 22, which also has some famous similes, but especially the explanation of views-of-self which includes the following as a reason for not having a doctrine-of-self,

Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession.
It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such doctrine of self?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.

... but maybe it's necessary that there are several explanations (about self and selfishness and so on).

Two more things I'd like to mention.
One is that the bits of the Gita which Wikipedia quotes, above, remind of Huineng's poem -- contrast the Gita's saying,

You are really unbound and action-less, self-illuminating and spotless already

... with Huineng's saying, I think, effectively,

There is no "you".

The other thing is that items listed in Christopher Titmuss' blog, e.g. ...

Can the water in the wave be separate from the Ocean?
Can the cloud be separated from the Sky?
Can a human being exist separate from the environment?
Is there the capacity to embrace separation and non-separation?

... seem to me to be, as Andrei's answer said, "in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism" -- i.e. they're examples of a doctrine of "emptiness" (sunyata), more than of "non-self" (anatta).

Perhaps it would be interesting to compare it in detail with Buddhist doctrine, but like I said I don't know of such. There probably are similarities and differences, and I guess it's up to you to decide whether. like Christopher Titmuss, you consider such differences to be "hair-splitting".
If I read it one of the first things I read is ...

Liberation is to know yourself
  as Awareness alone

I think that "awareness" there might mean what Buddhism calls consciousness rather than mindfulness; but to me that (i.e. "know yourself as Awareness") sounds contrary to elementary Buddhist doctrine: which says that consciousness is impermanent and dependently originated (e.g. it varies depending on "contact"), and that therefore you shouldn't identify with it and so on.
I don't want to disparage it, so I don't want to go on pointing out disparities.
Maybe the doctrine-of-self is important though: according to the Buddhism of the Pali suttas abandoning the "self-view" (or "self-doctrine" or "identity-view") is a milestone, the first stage of enlightenment.
Anyway I think that comparative-religion topics on this site are meant to be introductions to Buddhism, maybe this answer does that. I don't know though, what do you already know about Buddhism, you didn't mention that in the question.
A quick scan suggests that some of its themes are like the Buddhism of the Pali suttas -- e.g. that desire is tedious, that attachment has been going on since forever and that it's time to stop, that ignorance is a problem. It also has some themes that may be reminiscent of later versions of Buddhism , e.g. ...

Right and wrong, pleasure and pain,
  exist in mind only.
  They are not your concern.

... which might sound a bit scandalous to someone who's used to early Buddhism's including/emphasising ethics in its doctrine (you might see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana for more on that topic).

Thank You, Chris. I agree with you that the non-self teaching of Buddism may not be apparent in the AG, but it's clear that whatever is being called as "self" is not the ego...  the section on liberation reads... When there is no “I”
there is only liberation.
When “I” appears
bondage appears with it.
Knowing this,
it is effortless to refrain
from accepting and rejecting.

This is a book from 1939, which I have not read but includes some analysis of Buddhism and other doctrines, including some Hindu doctrines: The Buddha's Doctrine Of Anatta by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

As long as you keep searching (have the desire to search). You will find something. Once you have found it what then? Everything is written is just a finger pointing to the moon. As long as you keep searching you will find other fingers. The next one may be softer, shinier or stronger than the first. The finger is rooted in desire whereas the moon, the truth is beyond it. Only awareness or experience of "higher truths" so you say, set any progress in the search. Else caught up in the cobweb of the "desire" for the search of truth, one is enslaved by the very same desire.
Hope this was helpful.

Hello Amit, I think the problem with your answer is that it is not an answer to the OP’s question, “are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhism?” Instead, you are responding to the OP’s search for answers, a much more general, and off-topic, subject. Stack Exchange is focused on finding the best answers to people’s questions.

Very true! If only the question was posted I would have not replied. The justification/explanation given to support the question to me suggests a very different purpose for the inquiry by the questioner. I believe just blank answering the question is moot if we dont see the subjective side where the question is arising. I wanted to give a solution to his quandary and not an answer. As you say it would be worthless and off topic if he does not see worth in the answer..

The heritage of the Buddha, and it's actually not so that the Buddha and his disciples do not compare, but very precisely, has a lot of comparison, and the most comprehensive collection is found as starter of the sutta collection: DN 1: Brahmajāla Sutta.
Would not make much sense to ask others then the Buddha or his Sangha of right following monks in regard of comparisons.
(Note that this has been not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to keep one entertained and bound, but as a tiny way out of the cyrcle)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
Is it the ignorance or the craving?
So, what should we focus on, in order to attain Nibbana?
Is it uprooting the craving or uprooting the ignorance?
Because of what reason the uprooting of craving happen?
and
Because of what reason the uprooting of ignorance happen?

They're part of the Three Poisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons) that need to be uprooted in order to attain Nibbana. They're not mutually exclusive and hence mutually reinforce each other to grow and spread. The Noble Eightfold Path is the condition for uprooting the Three Poisons.

HH the Dalai Lama states (from memory) 'The path is easy for those with no preferences'. So perhaps preferences are the obstacle, thus desire, craving etc., which in turn are an outcome of ignorance.

It's a "false dichotomy" to ask, "Is it this or that?" -- because it's both: they're related.
Given the "three poisons" (ignorance, desire, and aversion) I think that ignorance is described as the "root" of the other two -- it's because of ignorance that there's desire.
The word "ignorance" has a range of meanings: What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)?
I think that the four noble truths talk about the cessation of craving; and that the doctrine of the twelve nidanas say that craving is conditioned by sensation -- that it's caused or fuelled by e.g. "delighting" in pleasant sensations, aversion to unpleasant sensations, ignorance during neutral sensations.
So instead there should be "just seeing" and so on.
Another (more complicated) answer is that it's caused by habits or habitual tendencies, different kinds of desires and ignorance and wrong views: see for example What is effluent?
--
A more literal answer, I read that the 12 nidanas can be divided into groups:

Causal process of previous life:

Ignorance
Sankharas

Process of effect in the present life:

Consciousness
Name-and-form
Six sense-bases
Contact
Feeling/sensation

Causal process in the present life

Greed
Appropriation
Becoming

Process of effect of future life:

Birth
Death

According to that model it's the link between 7 and 8 which you can affect, i.e. that where it's possible to "stop the wheel" -- because that's the part of it which happens in the present.

Thanks for asking but I don't think so; but you could post in the chat room if you'd like to discuss or just advertise that project.

Ignorance is the root which conditions the mind, distorting our perception, thoughts and views.
We ignore the emptiness of the khandhas, and assign a permanent, fixed self to "our" actions, thoughts and words. The ignorant mind creates the idea of a doer, a perceiver, a knower, which is independent and in control of the khandhas. We see the world as something which can be controlled and possessed by that self.
We ignore the impermanence of conditioned phenomena, and we cling to things, feelings and events, wrongly assuming that they will last forever.
We ignore that happiness and suffering do not come from outside, but it is the mind which creates the internal conditions for those states, according to its past habits and tendencies, and to its past kamma. We ignore the fact that all conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory at last, and that, because of their impermanence, the satisfaction they bring will eventually come to an end.
We ignore that there is a escape to suffering, and a alternative a unstable, conditioned happiness. We ignore the possibility of Nibbana.
We ignore, in sum, our ignorance, which perpetuates the wandering through life.
The mind does not know these things, and as a result, it grasps the world from a illusory perspective, not seeing things as they are.
Ignorance (not merely intellectual, but also experiential, internalized) is the spark which ignites the flame of craving and aversion.
Understanding the roots and causes of suffering, you eradicate both, the seeds of ignorance and craving.
Kind regards!

yea, ignorance.

First of all, "what prevents us" is not understanding what the Nirvana actually is, in real life. Specifically, not understanding that Nirvana is tathata, not knowing what tathata is, not knowing how tathata is violated, and therefore not understanding how tathata can be restored -- and so completely not understanding the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path.
When none of this is understood, it can't be practiced.
Second problem, is endless procrastination, or "feeding on wrong food types". Because we're used to getting our entertainment, our information, our distraction from depression, and our mental energy, from all kinds of dirty worldly sources - like social networks,  TV series, or even talking about "dharma" (repeating the concepts without actually understanding the underlying meaning) - we habitually keep going to these sources moment after moment, instead of stopping to see reality. We keep feeding, and this keeps the cycle spinning, it creates inertia that pushes us forward.
The only way to achieve any change is to

Stop repeating the concepts and try to understand the deeper meaning
Understand tathata
Actually understand Four Noble Truths
Stop procrastinating and feeding on wrong food types
Stop breaking tathata and start changing our life to move towards tathata

Upasaka Damith,
What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
Is it the ignorance or the craving?
Not knowing is the cause of craving, craving effects improper attention, cause not knowing to 'resist'... or as other already mentioned, it's a matter of "co-arising".
So, what should we focus on, in order to attain Nibbana?
To put it in other words: "What's the right effort?"
To uphold right view, doing merits (10 kinds of them) and try to keep proper attention alive.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117

Once right view is firm, the maintaining of proper attention (attention of what gives birth of phenomenas) is most importand to carry on.
Is it uprooting the craving or uprooting the ignorance?
When not-knowing is totally uprooted, craving has no more cause.
Because of what reason the uprooting of craving happen?
and
Because of what reason the uprooting of ignorance happen?
By the forth Noble truth, putting this very Noble Eightfold path into practice, follow it, not-knowing and craving finds it's end.
(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment but to leave the bonds to this world)

There are many factors that prevents people from attaining Nibbana. But the biggest factor is unwholesomeness. Because unwholesome actions makes people stucked in their forms, it prevents people to meditate correctly and it makes people's minds more dense. Harming others or other beings in real life (or in this technology age it can be in internet too- we see the internet trolls whose life purpose is only harming others LOL) leads people to become narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathic and sadistic beings that makes them almost impossible to attain Nibbana.
If the person is able to guard the mind from unwholesemness, then it is possible for him/her to meditate correctly and eventually realize Nibbana that would uproot the craving and ignorance(but let's don't forget that stream-entry is the transition stage and it has imperfections and only Arahants are completely free from the defilements)
Until a meditator attains Nibbana, the craving and ignorance continues so it is better to not try to get rid of them. Only after the attainment of Nibbana everything totally changes for a person. After the attainment of Nibbana the person is orbiting the right planet. Before that, the person is all over the map. That's why guarding the mind with help of mindfulness is necessary.
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/232/700

The meditator undertakes the practice of morality, specifically guarding the mind from unwholesomeness (sīlavisuddhi)

Also practising mindfulness all day long with effort is the gateway to liberation. Practising mindfulness all day long with effort naturally leads a person to guard the mind from unwholesomeness and makes it so much easier for a person to gain insight and purify the mind. In general, there is the view for the meditators that attaining stream-entry cannot be possible before 20 years, 30 years or maybe in one life time. Well, If the person is capable of practising mindfulness all day long with effort s/he can realize Nibbana in a very short period of time.(Few years or even in a shorter period of time).
There is this wrong perception of doing formal meditation for few minutes or even hours a day-and then returning to ordinary life and then totally losing the mindfulness and engage in unwholesome activies- can somewhow change a person, make him/her grow spiritually or can lead the person to enlightenment. It is not possible to have positive results in spirituality If a person is clinging to such wrong ideas.

The most accurate answer is that that which keeps us from attaining Nibbana is that which keeps us from attaining Nibbana. Having had direct experience with failing to attain Nibbana the general causal model appears as something like this to me;
ignorance leads to making bad decisions, one who is ignorant can not make good decisions.
expecting one thing the ignorant acts but his expectations are unrealistic, he is delusional.
Delusional expectations vs Reality, reality always wins and the unmet expectations cause discontentment and disorient the subject.
Discontentment leads to pursuit of what is perceived as agreeable to one's best ability.
Eventually a subject can go completely "psychotic/neurotic" if he finds himself completely unable to interact with environment in a way that produces predictable outcomes agreeable to the subject.
There are causes and conditions for the decisions being made and it is a trial and error process, ultimately we don't really make mistakes because there is no opening to act outside of the behavioral conditioning nor can a maker of decisions be pinned as a truth or reality.
How this relates to the question is that it is not in vain that one is restrained by the monastic discipline and is ought to see the danger even in minor transgressions. It takes constant vigilance to hold the reins of mind as to direct the directable towards the destruction of delusion.
It is easy to fall off and one is essentially losing battles of which one is not aware because of the compromised understanding. External conditions such as a coaches and teachings are blessings, guides and advisers that can restrain one from making bad moves.
It is up to us to keep making effort and learning by trial and error.

saṃyutta nikāya 1
connected discourses with devatas

Drowsiness and Lethargy “Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching, Discontent, torpor after meals: Because of this, here among beings,
  The noble path does not appear.”

“Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching, Discontent, torpor after
  meals: When one dispels this with energy, The noble path is cleared.”

Ignorance leads to craving along with all the other stages of dependent origination which describe existence. Craving is the special link in the chain that, when diminished, can lead to a disruption of the whole process thereby freeing one from the suffering that is dependent on birth and death.
I assume you mean "cessation" when you write "uprooting." And so, the complete cessation of both craving and ignorance is a result of direct insight into the truth nature of things; ie, the truth of suffering, its origination, its cessation and the way leading to its cessation... the truth of the taints, what they're made of, that we can be free of them and the way to remain free of them.
In order to obtain Nirvana one should focus on the cessation of craving as a means of implementing the whole entire Noble Eightfold Path. Weakening craving allows for the possibility of enacting Right Action with Right effort, living Right livelihood, seeing with Right view, holding Right intention, keeping Right speech, Right mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

(use a whole blank/white/empty line to separate text into paragraphs)

Nirvana is already here. It's always here. We don't experience because we are caught up in the turbulence of a worldly existence. We cannot attain what we already have. But we are prevented from experiencing it. The most direct path is to STOP. When we stop indulging the world, we become unattached to it. Then the mind and heart can settle down. It's in a quiet, secluded, calm frame of mind that we can shed our ego, and can clearly see, that only in this moment is clarity possible. The future and the past aren't a part of this. In some cases we need to simplify our lives. For this we have the precepts as guides.

Hi Eric! What is, in your opinion, the practical difference between Nibbana not being in the present, and Nibbana not being experienced in the present? Aren't both saying that extinguishment has not being acomplished yet? Kind regards!

What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
Is it the ignorance or the craving?

Both.
So, what should we focus on, in order to attain Nibbana?
Is it uprooting the craving or uprooting the ignorance?

Both. But when you are uprooting cravings ignorance also get uprooted.
Because of what reason the uprooting of craving happen?
and
Because of what reason the uprooting of ignorance happen?

According to Buddha, what we should follow is The Noble Eightfold Path and when we follow that, as a result craving and ignorance get uprooted as well. All these things are combined, all towards one goal, which is The Nirvana.
In this path first thing you should understand is, what's the problem of this world. What's the cause for all Dukka. When you understand that, you will automatically start following the path. That's where the meditation will help you to get going through eightfold path.

Craving cannot be “uprooted” without uprooting ignorance. The question is not a “false dichotomy”. To reach Nibbana it is ignorance that must be uprooted.

What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
The other way of asking this is, what is the cause of suffering?
The answer is craving. From the arising of craving, comes the arising of suffering. That's the second noble truth.
What about ignorance?
We have craving because we have ignorance. In order to end craving, we must end ignorance.
The noble eightfold path focuses on uprooting ignorance. When ignorance is removed, craving will cease.
Uprooting of craving happens because of the uprooting of ignorance.
Uprooting of ignorance happens when one gains insight and wisdom into the nature of reality. Ignorance is completely uprooted when one uproots the ten fetters through wisdom and enlightenment. With that, craving will cease, and then suffering will cease.

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


text:
Is divination for fun acceptable?
I recently read an answer on here referencing a sutra that states "animal arts" such as performing any form of divination constitutes wrong livelihood which should be abstained from. What I'm wondering is which of these possible interpretations is most correct:

Only monks need to abstain from engaging in these activities, and laypeople can do as they will.
Laypeople should also abstain from engaging in these activities to make money, but using them for fun / as a pastime is fine.
Everyone should abstain from these activities, regardless of any other factors.

Or is there another interpretation altogether?

I can't really speak about the dogamatic reasons for not, but if you are seeking to become enlightened, I suggest you abstain from activities like that until after you awaken. This is simply because the activity of doing so is both enticing, and reinforces beliefs that need to be seen clearly and "undone".
Doing such things brings a belief in power and control. It is very easy to become attached to these things. Those attachments will keep you coming back for more.
Coming back for more will reinforce beliefs that "you" are "doing" something and gaining some "external" knowledge. All these things will make it harder for you to become enlightened.
Tldr; Morally there's no issue. If you do, enlightenment may be harder to realize. If you are seriously working hard to become enlightened, abstain. If enlightenment this lifetime isn't your top priority but is a goal, maybe just do it sparingly? If you don't care about enlightenment, do it as much as you'd like!

My understanding is that anyone seeking Nibbana should be refrain from animal arts. it may be a monk or a lay person.

While Upasaka SarathW is right in his answer, the "matter" is that only a monks life might provide such. So if caught in householder life, it's good to make it lesser and lesser "animal".
Kamma (action) "is" kamma, the path "is" one, does not care much about social stand, clothes... right "is" right, wrong "is" wrong.
(Note: Not given to keep one in trade, exchange, stacks increasing or other animal arts binding toward worlds but to possible escape beyond the world.)


text:
Is there a proper name for my recent experience?
I don't meditate often, and I've never had an experience like the following while meditating, but I feel that the following experience probably has a proper name in Buddhism (or Hinduism for that matter).
A few days ago, I woke up to a horrible bout of depressive thoughts (deep depression being something I have been struggling with for almost as long as I can remember). I have gotten better at combating it recently, but this particular time, after the storm of bad thoughts had been beaten back, I had this feeling that my awareness somehow expanded. I felt as thought I could see my emotions and opinions and thoughts pass in front of me, almost like I was standing in the middle of a carousel with different lenses passing in front of me, those "lenses" being my notions and emotions through which I viewed the world; it was as if I had somehow "stepped back" 15 or so feet to view from a more removed vantage point. I noticed that my ability to "manage" my emotions went through the roof, and I was much, much happier all day. I also noticed that it was hard for me to say words that I felt were untruthful, or to say things I didn't know were true or not, as I could feel in my stomach whether they were truthful or not. I also (weirdly) felt as if I could tell when others said something they didn't actually believe, or if they were lying. I felt as if most "talk" was mainly chatter, not in a condescending sense, but more in a "not worth it" sense. I felt as if many things I used to take stock in just became... flat, totally uninteresting. I felt this state until I went to bed that night.
But now, a few days later, I'm back to the way I was (as far as I can tell) and I also had a depressive bout as well (I'm guessing somehow brought on in part by this experience). The things that didn't matter that day, the opinions and expectations of others, their ideologies and so on, suddenly popped back up, are no longer "flat" so to speak, and are "real" again -- though not as "real" to me as they had been previously.
Is there a proper name for this state of consciousness?

@PeterJ If you want to answer questions please post them as an answer.

Common signs of depression:
---> Decreased Interest or Pleasure
The second core symptom of major depressive disorder is a decreased interest or pleasure in things that were once enjoyed. A person exhibiting this symptom will show markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, daily activities.
---> Disengaged
A developed practice of being distant or disengaged, uninvolved with things that usually matter, negligent towards loved ones.
Depression can be dangerous, do not take it lightly and seek proper medical support is also a preferred way.

As Krizalid said, it is always important to take care of your mental health. Asking for professional help can improve the way you deal with emotions and thoughts.
That being said, I suggest taking the best of that situation (the "feeling" of being able to watch the emotions and mindstates impersonally, and the knowledge of the possibility of finding progressive peace and tranquility through mental training, like the one offered by the Buddha through the Noble Eightfold Path), but keeping in mind that such experiences are conditioned and impermanent. Try to not get attached to it, don't become obsessed with trying to feel it again, and pay attention to not use this as a way to increase (maybe unconsciously) your "ego" or ideas born from conceit, about an "I" which is "more spiritual" and superior than everyone else.
I'm not saying that what you felt was false nor a delusion. I'm just suggesting to keep your feet on the ground, and to maybe use this as a motivation for getting in touch with the mind and its processes. Buddhism offers a lot of tools, knowledge and strategies for knowing the mind better, for understading the motivations behind our deeds, and for learning how to deal with such underlying processes.
I wish you the best, and feel free to ask here whatever you may need to be answered (related to Buddhism, of course).
Have a wonderful day!

I don't know what the experience was but there are many things going on and if i was to paraphrase it using what i think to be Buddhist terminology i would explore the application terms like;

The faculty and power of conscientiousness; ... of concern; ... of
discernment
Fear and shame of wrong-doing
Renunciation joy
States that are Good in Relation to the Sensuous Universe

Basically when faculties are developed, the range of potential states to be experienced is altered. The novelty of the experiences associated with the faculty development is many-fold and that is about as far as i would go of what you wrote in the OP.

It sounds exactly like you had a dissociative episode. The National Alliance on Mental Illness lists some symptoms as:

Out-of-body experiences, such as feeling as though you are watching a movie of yourself
Mental health problems such as depression
A sense of detachment from your emotions, or emotional numbness
A lack of a sense of self-identity

The fact that this matches up exactly with how you describe your experience means I would be extremely cautious about assuming you are "progressing" in any way like some other commenters have said. It is likely that this entire experience was a symptom of your depression, and if it continues to happen you really should seek medical advice.

Whoever downvoted me: please explain why? Do you disagree that it could be a medical issue or do you just have a problem with the wording of my answer?

I disagree with "sounds exactly like". I think those symptoms assume it's a disorder, or pathological -- which isn't clear from the OP, who also wrote, my ability to "manage" my emotions went through the roof, and I was much, much happier all day. I'm not saying "medical advice" is bad, but making psychiatric diagnoses without seeing someone nor even interviewing them is maybe untrue. Even with psychiatric training it's difficult to make accurate diagnoses, partly because symptoms are a matter of degree (a spectrum, not binary), and because it's relevant to make "differential diagnoses".

Also I thought it didn't add much e.g. to the first two answers, also it doesn't the question: which asks whether the experience "has a proper name in Buddhism". I think it's reasonable that a person on this site may want help with interpreting their experience within a Buddhist framework, and "you crazy!" isn't obviously a helpful answer (see also Answers vs Advice).

ChrisW has a point. But I'm neutralizing the vote due to:

If OP has a medical condition, seeking professional help (if not already) rather than knowing a Buddhism term should be the priority.
Given the description by OP being very vague and hugely subjective, and unknown context (e.g. notion of the world, content of chatter..), almost impossible to provide any accurate answer to OP's question.
Even if it is answered, the accuracy is questionable, and unlikely benefit OP's medical condition, instead may risk give OP a wrong sense of "progression".. as mentioned by JessSTJ.


text:
Does skillful means include meditation?
I've tried a few different Buddhist groups and they are quite prescriptive when it comes to meditation practices. They have their own system and everyone does it. But the Buddha used skillful means when teaching which I understand to be tailoring the teachings to his audience - for instance I've heard that the Kalama Sutta is an example.
So did the Buddha teach meditation practices as skillful means? - i.e. give one person one practice and another one a different one. Not so much one person gets the beginner practice and the other one the advanced but people get different practices irrespective of their 'level' i.e. two advanced practitioners get different ones to suit them.
It would be great if you could give references to standard texts for this (i.e. Pali Canon, Diamond sutra etc....)
Many Thanks as always

No doubt there are skillful and unskillful approaches to meditation, but I would see skillful means as a consequence of meditation and the acquisition of wisdom, and dependent on this, rather than as including them.  ,

So far as I know, the Pali canon doesn't teach "skilful means" (or, what might you call it, "provisional truth"), in the Mahayana sense.
DN 16 for example,

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?

I suppose that the Kalama sutta isn't "skilful means" in the sense of being a "lie-to-children" -- rather it's, if anything, part of a single albeit gradual training.
I think the one thing in the Pali canon, which people cite as an example of "skilful means", is the simile of the raft in MN 22, i.e. that the dhamma is like a raft, for crossing the river and not for holding onto on the other side.
In his introduction to MN 22, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that should be read with the watersnake simile, i.e. ...

Having established this point, the discourse illustrates it with the simile of the water-snake, which in turn is an introduction to the simile of the raft. It is important to underline the connection between these two similes, for it is often missed. Many a casual reader has concluded from the simile of the raft simply that the Dhamma is to be let go. In fact, one major Mahayana text — the Diamond Sutra — interprets the raft simile as meaning that one has to let go of the raft in order to cross the river. However, the simile of the water-snake makes the point that the Dhamma has to be grasped; the trick lies in grasping it properly. When this point is then applied to the raft simile, the implication is clear: One has to hold onto the raft properly in order to cross the river. Only when one has reached the safety of the further shore can one let go.
Taken together, these two similes set the stage for the remainder of the discourse, which focuses on the teaching of not-self. This is one of the most easily misapprehended teachings in the Canon largely because it is possible to draw the wrong inferences from it.

That said, the suttas don't go into a lot of detail about meditation -- or they do, there are whole suttas on it, but whether there's one form or several, tranquillity and/or insight, breathing and/or other 'objects' -- so different contemporary people might have different views which they argue are based on the suttas.

I might have read something in the Vinaya rather than the Sutta, that the person who decides where each monk should be housed ought to maybe group them according to their character -- e.g. those who like to discuss things together in one place, and the ones who like to meditate in silence together in another.

This one of Andrei's answers might be relevant too: it's answering a question about Zen but references a Pali sutta. It implies there's some "skill" or expedience e.g. in assigning a motive to meditation (e.g. for a beginner the motive might be "for tranquillity" or "for liberation").

+1. Thanks for that Chris. I forgot - the skillful means stuff was from the Lotus Sutra. I thought it was in the Pali Canon too but I'm sure you are right. The Kalama Sutra was for rebirth where people have said that it's not an saying rebirth isn't right it's more saying that the Kalamas aren't into it so he says something else. Not sure it that is right or it is skillful means

:-) I don't think of (don't remember) the Kalama Sutta as being about rebirth. I think of it as their saying, "Different teachers say different things and contradict each other, who are we to believe?" It does mention "If there is a world after death" at the end, but I think of that as saying, "good now and hereafter" i.e. both not either/or ... and as being "free from hostility" (at the end) instead of "they deprecate them, revile them" (at the beginning) -- an argument against arguing, as well as against greed.

Maybe the Bhikkhuni Sutta is an example of skilful means -- using conceit (relying on it and then abandoning it).

It is my impression that the instructions are mostly seen as methods for development of;

Perceptions
Factors of Enlightenment

The perceptions include and are not limited to;

Perception of Mindfulness of Breathing
Perception of Inconstancy
Perception of Not-Self
Perception of Danger
Perception of Compassion
Perception of Altruistic Joy
Perception of Unattractiveness
Perception of Mindfulness of Death
Perception of Old Age
Perception of Sympathy
Perception of Abandoning
Perception of Drawbacks

It is a fact that all these methods are referred to as development of perceptions, this is seen in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html
Apart from the unusual use of the term "perception" one can see that each of these developments sheds light on the overall development of faculties(discernment, concentration, effort, mindfulness and conviction).
As for development of the factors of enlightenment their development is explained as timely and untimely, wherein it is explained that there is a proper and unproper time to develop the enlightenment factor of concentration... of joy... of tranquility... of effort ... of equanimity.
IE when one is restless it is wrong time to develop the factor of energy and a good time to develop the factor of concentration.
The way to develop the various factors is also explained in variety and detail, ie;

There is a development of concentration which leads to Pleasant
Abiding in the here & now
There is a development of concentration which leads to Knowledge and Vision
There is a development of concentration which leads to Persistent Mindfulness
There is a development of concentration which leads to leads to the ending of the effluents
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html

Returning to the development of perceptions, as it seems to me, they are associated with the various factors of enlightenment and faculties and have their own expected results and timely application, here are examples;

If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations.
Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of lacking a self in unpleasantness and abiding much in it, whatever distinctions arise as superior, inferior or equal in the sixfold conscious body and all external signs, are appeased and well released.
Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of impermanence and abiding much in it, gain, honour and fame keeps away, it shrinks and rolls away. The mind stretches out and gets established in equanimity or loathing

The comprehensive breakdown of all the perceptions is too much to get into in a post here but it is all encompassing training for all situations for the proper attending to reality as it occurs.
IE consider the Perception of Abandoning;

"And what is the perception of abandoning? There is the case where a monk doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of ill-will. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of harmfulness. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This is called the perception of abandoning.

To do this there are guides in the Sutta, in particular https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html
wherein there are given 5 steps for mastering thoughts and crushing the unwholesome thought formations as they occur.
Therefore if one has a teacher he would ideally just tell you what to do from time to time but if one was one's own teacher relying on the Sutta one would develop wholesome qualities all of the time in as far as there is an opening and opportunity.
One would develop what is lacking and is favorable, be it to counter some unwholesome tendencies or achieving pleasure not associated with sensuality in order to achieve contentment with the holy life, one would constantly develop the good by "skillful means".

If it is based on right view, yes. One the pth is reached, yes, based on right view most proper means toward fruit.
If based on wrong view, wrong virtue, effort... no. It could actually harm if mistaken.
Samma-Samadhi has the path, as condition. Nothing to worry about it when right effort goes into straighten right view, right virtue... livelihood.
The Noble Eight-fold Path is probably read and read often. Maybe right effort again.
"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...

"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

In the case Samadhi is used as "livelihood" (giving one certain pleasure to go on), such, dwelling in Jhana (actually the 3. is suggested here), is of course right means as long as not growing "addicted". If such can be attained (easy) without right view... there have and will be doubts.
*(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment keeping one self and others bound, but for going beyond.)

One of the three bases of merit (puññakiriyā-vatthu) in the Sutta:

giving (dāna-maya)
virtue (sīla-maya)
mental development (bhāvanā-maya)

Also included in the 10 meritorious deed:

Giving (Dāna-maya)
Virtue (Sīla-maya)
Mental development (Bhāvanā-maya)
Honoring others (Apacāyana-maya)
Offering service (Veyyāvaca-maya)
Dedicating (or transferring) merit to others (Pāli:Pattidāna-maya; Sanskrit: puṇyapariṇāmanā)
Rejoicing in others' merit (Pattānumodanā-maya)
Listening to teachings (Dhammassavana-maya)
Instructing others in the teachings (Dhammadesanā-maya)
Straightening one's own views in accordance with the Teachings (Diṭṭhujukamma)

This is further expanded in the 89 (short form) / 121 (long form) types of minds in the Abhidhamma of which Fine-Material-Sphere Consciousness (rūpāvacaracittāni) : 15 + Immaterial-Sphere Consciousness (arūpāvacaracittāni) : 12 + Supramundane Consciousness (lokuttaracittāni) : 8 = 35 (short form) / Fine-Material-Sphere Consciousness (rūpāvacaracittāni) : 15 + Immaterial-Sphere Consciousness (arūpāvacaracittāni) : 12 + Supramundane Consciousness (lokuttaracittāni) : 40 = 62 (long form) relate to meditation based mind states.
For completeness what is unwholesome is:

In giving up the taking of life, the practitioner will accomplish freedom from vexations;
In giving up stealing, the practitioner will find security in life, economically, socially and spiritually;
In giving up wrongful (sexual) conduct, the practitioner will find inner peace and peace in the family life;
In giving up lying, the practitioner will attain purity of speech and mind;
In giving up slander, the practitioner will be protected socially and spiritually;
In giving up harsh language, the practitioner's words will be more effective;
In giving up frivolous speech, the practitioner will become wise and dignified;
In giving up lust, the practitioner finds freedom in life through contentment and simplicity;
In giving up hatred, the practitioner will develop kindness and gentleness;
In giving up wrong views, the practitioner will not falter in the good and spiritual path.

Source: Merit, kusala, akusala, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma : The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Ācariya Anuruddha General Editor Bhikkhu Bodhi Revised and Edited by Allan R. Bomhard


text:
Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen?
Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen?
So total celibacy, vegetarianism and non violence to any life form, complete abstinence form alcohol, etc..
For the laity without a zen master.

"Perfect" virtue (when based on right view, which could be problematic with certain "Zen-views") is the condition for no remorse, no remorse... happiness, concentration, ... insight... liberation.
When focusing on the foundations, one works smart and straight forward till perfection. One hearing then the good teachings it might plopp.
Good associations/relations so that it might work.
(Note: not given to keep or give to keep in the wheel of trade, exchange, stacks... binding to worlds but for using as escape)

i just feel jaded with reality. sure i'm clinging to that on some "metaphysical" sense, but in reality i can't see a better way to be rn

What does Nyom try to express (hint to ask) or just rhetorical. Asking (proper and at good place) is the way to get known.

ah ok... i don't want fame, i am merely struggling with social reality in various ways

i don't think it's ressentiment, either. perhaps a lack of human trust.

if not too chatty, i mean, there's no-one else i'd rather, yet i would not her either. the argument is sound...

It's always open for everyone, yet leaving ones home, even temporary, is not easy.

thanks. it's not my "wife", merely a random (beautiful) woman. though you're right, i can't leave my home rn

Yes. There is definitely much benefit.
I studied Zen for many years. And yet my practice was indeed strengthened when I started reading the Pali EBTs and observing more precepts. For example, I gave up dinner, cook for my wife and have the leftovers for lunch. And I regularly study the suttas. The suttas actually bring the Zen canon to life in a completely novel way.

Yes, of course.
However, in Zen, as in Vajrayana - and Mahayana in general - there is a strong idea of priorities. It exists in the Pali Canon and Theravada too, but there it is not so strongly emphasized, although they recognize it, too, without a doubt.
In the simplest example, if lying is required to save a life, one or the other concern may have to take precedence, depending on a situation.
In more interesting "Zen" situations, if overcoming your phobia or attachment requires breaking a minor precept, guess what wins.
The way I was trained, whenever you feel too holy and saintly, you should go get drunk or yell at someone etc. Basically, break the pattern. It requires increasingly fine discernment to perfect this skill, with different counter-acts and counter-counter-acts applicable in different situations, but you get the basic idea.
(Reminds me of stories... was it Milarepa? ... who burned the Dharma texts his student was obsessing about. Or that story about Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche forcing a student to watch him throwing rocks at a cat. This last thing of course is extremely cruel, and I'm sure Rinpoche felt the cat's fear and pain deep in his heart. And yet, sometimes these are the kinds of things you have to do in order to help your students overcome some of their stronger attachments, especially attachments to high ethics and spirituality.)
So the above considerations put some limit on how closely you can uphold the precepts, but within those limits, yes absolutely, you should definitely keep them as pure as humanly possible.


text:
How does practicing restraint and performing actions of merit purify the mind?
I just don't understand how morally good actions, can reliably change the state of mind positively over time, in the case where the mind state is negative. For example, let's say there was a hypothetical girl who wanted to purify her mind, but was always agitated, resentful and frustrated. How would practicing the five precepts, make her calm and peaceful?

Well, it seems obvious to me now, but it wasn't always, that our immoral impulsive behavior, both of possessive type and of repulsive type, comes from emotional hangups, so giving in to those hangups feeds them, or creates circumstances that feed them indirectly. So, if this immoral behavior comes from the mind, then by managing behavior we learn to control what?
Anyone who tried the precepts knows they are impossible to keep without paying attention to one's mind and emotions. Precepts force us to control our external behavior, which requires controlling our mind, that's it. No magic.

What about cases where one feels guilty for not killing, stealing, lying, etc., because it's expected of them to do so?

That means one hasn't taken refuge in Dharma. "To take refuge in X" means X is your real boss and you don't give in to any other pressure. You serve your boss, your boss protects you. In this case that boss is Dharma. When you have a clear system of priorities, there is no doubt or guilt. So in that case observing the precepts forces "the girl" to clarify her priorities. Once she has them clear, her mind is calm and peaceful.

There's a term called "habit energy", or "underlying tendency", the hidden force that influences our motive to do/speak/think in wholesome or unwholesome ways. As simple analogy is a chain smoker would tend to carry on his unhealthy habit due to it being persistently re-inforced for so long. But if s/he has the strong will to replace the bad habit with good habits of eating healthy, exercising frequently, etc., then overtime the s/he'll be able to  build up a new wholesome "habit energy" strong enough to overpower the older unhealthy one. Practice senses restraint thru the Five Precepts are just like that.

It is mostly the opposite of

How would practicing the five precepts, make her calm and peaceful?

the result of sati sampajana is the respect of the precepts, not the contrary. This is what puthujjanas struggle a lot to understand. Any puthujjana can follow the 5 precepts for 5 minutes, but it is sati and sampajana a which makes this hold in the long term.

Adhearing to the precepts will only have a positive effect on your mental states if you are currently breaking them. If the girl is always agitated because she is a chronic liar, the precepts will help her. If she is always agitated because she doesn't like her desk job, the precepts will not help her.
What the precepts attempt to prevent are common actions that lead almost always to distracting mental states.
The precepts are a guideline of things you can abstain from to make practicing the cultivation of concentration and wisdom easier. Your meditation sessions will not be as fruitful if you are constantly worried about getting caught in your lie.

loosely, as i understand it,
There are two things going on;

Behavioral conditioning; formation of inclinations and tendencies. The way this occurs can be explained in terms of formation, dismantling and the strengthening of neural formations.
Tweaking the range of possible experiences; consequent direction of one's reality to the supposedly desirable states which happen to have certain pre-requisite causes and conditions. The decisions we make direct us to certain experiences, thus if we aim at specific experiences we ought to bring about the requisite conditions to inevitably bring about the desired outcome.

When one is set on attaining the yet-unattained one usually relies on external guidance as to how to bring about the yet-unattained. In case of the precepts their purpose and result is non-regret, non-regret as ie regret of not following directions, here is an example;
'Person A' is convinced that there exists a 'Place' and that he needs to go to the 'Place' asap as it was a matter of life and death.
However he does not know where it is and how to get there.
'Person A' asks 'Person B' and is told the directions.
'Person A' directs himself to the destination by following the path as it was proclaimed.
Then 'Person A' gets an idea to deviate from the Path and subjectively speaking if his goal is to get to the 'Place' asap, if he was to deviate from the Path, it would absolutely compromise his objective and bring about regret and remorse for wrong-doing. It is wrong here because it is against the objective, if achieving the objective is desired then it is discerned as good, failure is discerned as bad, therefore what leads to failure is bad and what is bad is a cause for remorse and regret.

“Sir, what is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?” “Ānanda, having no regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?”
“Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of joy?”
“Rapture …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of rapture?”
“Tranquility …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of tranquility?”
“Bliss …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of bliss?”
“Immersion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of immersion?”
“Truly knowing and seeing …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing?”
“Disillusionment and dispassion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and
  dispassion?”
“Knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of
  disillusionment and dispassion.
“Mendicants, an ethical person, who has fulfilled ethical conduct,
  need not make a wish: ‘May I have no regrets!’ It’s only natural that
  an ethical person has no regrets. When you have no regrets you need
  not make a wish: ‘May I feel joy!’ It’s only natural that joy springs
  up when you have no regrets. When you feel joy you need not make a
  wish: ‘May I experience rapture!’ It’s only natural that rapture
  arises when you’re joyful. When your mind is full of rapture you need
  not make a wish: ‘May my body become tranquil!’ It’s only natural that
  your body becomes tranquil when your mind is full of rapture. When
  your body is tranquil you need not make a wish: ‘May I feel bliss!’
  It’s only natural to feel bliss when your body is tranquil. When you
  feel bliss you need not make a wish: ‘May my mind be immersed in
  samādhi!’ It’s only natural for the mind to be immersed in samādhi
  when you feel bliss. When your mind is immersed in samādhi you need
  not make a wish: ‘May I truly know and see!’ It’s only natural to
  truly know and see when your mind is immersed in samādhi. When you
  truly know and see you need not make a wish: ‘May I become
  disillusioned and dispassionate!’ It’s only natural to become
  disillusioned and dispassionate when you truly know and see. When
  you’re disillusioned and dispassionate you need not make a wish: ‘May
  I realize the knowledge and vision of freedom!’ It’s only natural to
  realize the knowledge and vision of freedom when you’re disillusioned
  and dispassionate.

If she was only keeping precepts she would not experience the consequences of not following the precepts.
Even tho our reality is subjective and relative as in one's head is big in relation to the head of an ant but is small in relative to an elephant's head, there are also absolutes, ie if one's head is blown off to pieces conditions one will absolutely die.
Similarly one can know that eventho there are many different states called happiness and the discernment of happiness is subjective there is also absolute happiness and everyone can agree that not experiencing unhappiness is happiness and the escape from suffering is pleasant.
Therefore absolutely everyone is interested in the absolute removal of what can be discerned as gross in light of what is supreme.
Therefore when there are to that extent absolutes of good and bad, decision making associated with the ultimate good even at the level of mere morals and conventions will have higher expectation than the consequences of the unfavorable decisions.
The consequences will be as they will be regardless of the subjective perspective and one's understanding of them which may or may not be in accord with objective reality.

All of the three or ten kinds of merits have the function to straighten right view. Once a gross healing and cleaning has reached, right view could be attained, the good Dhamma heard, seen by one self and as a result the path would develop, once the Noble eightfold path is reached, it's fruits in gaining liberation will appear naturaly, on it's given cause.
And as mentioned in another answer, it's function is to gain a clean stand, good selfestimate, by cleaning and become rightly free of remorse, able to access borderlands to the Noble Domain. If not having done merits on what should one build on a good and required stand/state?
As the Buddha told, merits are that what beings establish in auspicious states, states where they could be able to access the path to freedom, go on beyound.
(Note: this is given for doing merits, not for trade, exchange or stackes to bind and stay bound)

was always agitated, resentful and frustrated

frustrated
I think "frustrated" might mean that you want to do something but can't. But keeping the precepts might be relatively easy, might be within reach, something anyone can do. It's not like "getting a job" or "getting married" etc. where you depend on someone else to give you something -- keeping precepts is something you can do by and for yourself. So you can do that, and a "success" is the opposite of a "frustration".
resentful
I think that "resentful" sounds like the classic, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." The precepts tend to concern social behaviour. I imagine that if you break the precepts -- kill people, steal from them, seduce their spouses or children, lie to them, and so on -- then they might retaliate in some way. If they punish you, get angry, stop trusting you, then you might resent that. Or the opposite, if you keep the precepts and people are friendly towards you, then you have less reason to resent them.
Keeping the precepts involves a certain amount of thinking about other people, of "Putting oneself in the place of another" -- I think that kind of unselfishness is an antidote to resentment.
agitated
It's less obvious that 'merely' keeping the precepts is an antidote to agitation -- I think it's possible to keep the precepts and to still experience agitation.
Keeping precepts might reduce the range of what's conceivable -- e.g. lusting after other people's things and bodies becomes off-limits -- maybe that reduces attachment and craving and gets you to think about (wholesome) desire instead.
Also the precepts are fairly stable -- maybe they're suitable as an object of contemplation, i.e. if you "keep them in mind" then that replaces agitation.

Also I'm not sure about "positive", but "less negative" seems obvious.
I don't know if you've met, known, or been an alcoholic for example, but the pursuit of alcohol seems to me a classic example of samsara, e.g. you have some alcohol, you like that, the effect wears off (is impermanent), so you want more. But, the habit is harmful in several ways, and is an activity which doesn't nourish you in a way that might be necessary for you to be more successful and more "positive".
Perhaps the same is true for the other pursuits too which are forbidden by the precepts, i.e. lies, killing, lust, theft.

One more thing is that I think that some of the precepts have further consequences.
The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) for example,

In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.

That engages "shame" as a motive -- i.e. you avoid doing all sorts of harmful things, don't even consider them, to avoid shame.
And the next part of the sutta is abut self-reflection, "Is this action beneficial, or harmful? Will the consequences be pain, or happiness?"
That's a kind of question with far-reaching consequences, and maybe it's important to try for 'honest' answers.
And not lying (to others) is an important component if you ever want to ask someone to support your withdrawing from an addiction.


text:
What is meant by "No limiting action remains there"? MN 99
In the discourse on the four Divine Abodes, what is meant by "... no limiting action remains there, none persists there."

Here a bhikkhu abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with
  benevolence, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
  fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind
  imbued with benevolence, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without
  hostility, and without ill will. When the deliverance of mind by
  benevolence is developed in this way, no limiting action remains
  there, none persists there....

http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/bd_dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/subhasutta.htm
MN 99

I am not sure but i think it is something like this from MN 43:

"The immeasurable awareness-release, the nothingness awareness-release, the emptiness
  awareness-release, the theme-less-awareness-release: There is a way of
  explanation by which these qualities are different in meaning &
  different in name, and there is a way of explanation by which these
  qualities are one in meaning and different only in name.
"And what is the way of explanation by which these qualities are
  different in meaning & different in name? There is the case where a
  monk keeps pervading the first direction[4] — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an
  awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will.
"He keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  compassion ... an awareness imbued with appreciation...
"He keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  equanimity. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an
  awareness imbued with equanimity: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will.
"This is called the immeasurable awareness-release.
"And what is the nothingness awareness-release? There is the case
  where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters
  & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the
  nothingness awareness-release.
"And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where
  a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or
  into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.'[5] This is called the emptiness
  awareness-release.
"And what is the theme-less awareness-release? There is the case where
  a monk, through not attending to all themes, enters & remains in the
  theme-less concentration of awareness.[6] This is called the
  theme-less awareness-release.
"This is the way of explaining by which these qualities are different
  in meaning & different in name.
"And what is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are one in
  meaning and different only in name?
"Passion, friend, is a making of limits. Aversion is a making of
limits. Delusion is a making of limits. In a monk whose fermentations
are ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like
a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
destined for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is
immeasurable awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is
declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty
of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.
*"Passion is a something. Aversion is a something. Delusion is a something. In a
  monk whose fermentations are ended, these have been abandoned, their
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Now, to the extent
  that there is nothingness awareness-release, the unprovoked
  awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked
  awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of
  delusion.
"Passion is a making of themes. Aversion is a making of themes.
  Delusion is a making of themes. In a monk whose fermentations are
  ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a
  palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined
  for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is theme-less
  awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the
  foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion,
  empty of aversion, empty of delusion.
"This, friend, is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are
  one in meaning and different only in name."*

Therefore i would guess that when it is said;
"When the deliverance of mind by loving kindness is developed in this way, no limting action remain there, none persists there"
It means that a mind established in the pervading everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will etc does not give rise to mental, verbal and bodily deeds which would be limiting one's potential for the unprovoked awareness-release which is declared as the superior to the measureless release.

Now, to the extent that there is immeasurable awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.

It's the same word, anyway: pamāṇaka ("measuring by") in MN 99, and appamāṇā ("boundless, unlimited") in MN 43.

Ven. Bodhi's translation for MN 99:

"When the deliverance of mind by loving kindness is developed in this way, no limting action remain there, none persists there"

And his note citing the Comys explanation:

"Limiting action/pamanakatam kammam as kamma pertaining to the sense sphere/kamavacara, contrasted with a limitless or immeasureable action, namely, the jhanas pertaining to the fine-material sphere or the immaterial sphere. In this case the brahmaviharas developed to the jhanic level are intended. When a jhana pertaining to the fine material sphere or the immaterial sphere is attained and mastered, a kamma pertaining to the sense sphere cannot overpower it and gain the opportunity to yeild its own result. Rather, the kamma pertaining to the fine material sphere or the immaterial sphere overpowers the sense spheere kammas and produces its results. Obstructing the result of the sense sphere kammas, the brahmavihara that has been mastered leads to rebirth in the company of Brahma."

I think the metaphor of the trumpeter in the sutta explains the meaning, namely, there is loving-kindness for everyone & everything (except the 'Comy'), without limit, in all directions:

Suppose there was a powerful horn blower. They’d easily make themselves heard in the four directions. In the same way, when the
  heart’s release by equanimity has been developed and cultivated like
  this, any limited (pamāṇakataṃ) deeds (kammaṃ) they’ve done don’t
  remain or persist there. (Sujato)

Just, Vāseṭṭha, as a mighty trumpeter makes himself heard—and that
  without difficulty —in all the four directions; even so of all things
  that have shape or life, there is not one that he passes by or leaves
  aside, but regards them all with mind set free, and deep-felt love.
  (T.W Rhys Davids)

... no limiting action remains there, none persists there. (Bhikkhu Bodhi)

The above said, I particularly recommend the answer of user 1231546, particularly the use of MN 43 for explanation. As cited by user 1231546, the relevant passage is:

Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.
Rāgo kho, āvuso, pamāṇakaraṇo, doso pamāṇakaraṇo, moho pamāṇakaraṇo.
A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated
  them, so they are unable to arise in the future.
The unshakable heart’s release is said to be the best kind of limitless heart’s release (loving-kindness release).
Yāvatā kho, āvuso, appamāṇā cetovimuttiyo, akuppā tāsaṃ cetovimutti aggamakkhāyati.
That unshakable heart’s release is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
Sā kho panākuppā cetovimutti suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena.


text:
If something is relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center?
If something is both relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center? I'm looking for a "yes" from any extant or historical tradition.

I think I recognise "relative truth" and "ultimate" as Buddhist terms. What about "in the centre", though -- what does that mean, how or where is that used?

the doctrine of "two truths" @ChrisW

Yes I guess the "two truths" are "relative truth" and "ultimate truth" -- I don't think I know what "in the centre" means though, haven't read that phrase before so not sure what it's referring to.

I'm unable to understand the question. What do you mean by 'center'. I would also question whether a statement that is relatively true can also be ultimately true. My first thought is that this is impossible.  .

the middle way if often used to equate the two truths @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Okay. So 'center' here refers to the middle way. But the middle way is not between the conventional and the ultimate, as is suggested in the question.  .

it depends on what you mean by "between"... it's just a fact that the middle way was often used to equate the two truths, or deny the two, or say one is better or worse, etc.. there's a lot of east asian literature on this @PeterJ how two truths became three truths, and as such one truth

@user3293056 - Yes. Quite so,.

it is said to normally be between the two truths in the teaching of the one truth of the middle that is also the conventional and absolute. so the question does surely make sense, even if it is not very deep? perhaps that's the issue @PeterJ

You're right in a way and so am I in another. To say 'we exist and exist-not' would be an example of the two truths in practice but here both atomic statements are conventional. Ultimate truth would be indicated by the two statements taken together. So ultimate truth is not stated but pointed to by two conventional truths. The middle way in this case would be seen as between 'exist' and 'not-exist', but neither would be an ultimate truth, Hence the aphorism 'True words seem paradoxical', since to express the middle way requires two opposing conventional statements. . .

that makes sense, though i didn't read it closely, so apologies if i missed anything! @PeterJ

Is the Middle Way the "center" between the Two Truths in said doctrine? If so, please add a refeference to the texts.

the center is another word for the middle @Lanka

If the term 'center' in the question refers to the Middle Way then I'd say the answer is no.
Relative truths are never ultimate truths so immediately there's a problem with the question. Ultimate truths seem paradoxical, as Lao Tsu notes, while relative truths are not truths in a metaphysical sense.
Take the famous comment by Heraclitus 'We exist and exist-not'. This would be a rigorous statement according to Nagarjuna but not 'true'. There would be no such thing as a true ultimate statement since Reality is beyond the reach of linguistic/conceptual fabrications. Dialectical logic cannot decide the truth-values of paradoxical statements.
The reason remarks like this one of Heraclitus are not true is that for an ultimate view there is no Middle Way. A 'Middle Way' assumes two extreme views between which is the Way, but in the very final analysis Nagarjuna rejects the extremes therefore also the idea there is a 'middle way' between them. Thus Heraclitus can combine two relative statements, each of which is true in a sense, for an ultimate statement that is rigorous. He makes no mention of a middle way, however, but juxtaposes two half-truths to show the inadequacy of both.
This is the via negativa, the avoidance of making positive statements about the world, necessary for the Middle Way view because all positive or extreme metaphysical theories would be wrong.
Briefly - Relative truths are never ultimately true. Ultimate truths cannot be stated but may be indicated in rigorous language. No statement is both relatively and ultimately true. All relative truths are not ultimate truths. Truth outruns language (because of its subject/predicate structure)  and conceptualisation (because it requires the categories of thought, which are not fundamental).
Thus all relative truths would be untrue for an ultimate analysis and all ultimate truths would be unsayable, but may be 'pointed at' by the use of a language of contradiction that combines opposing relative truths.
The need to combine two relative truths for a rigorous ultimate statement means that a relative truth is never an absolute truth. Statements that are in the 'center' may be rigorous but are never simply true or false. The notion of 'true' and 'false' belong to the realm of relative statements. An ultimate statement will seem paradoxical, not simply true or false.
So all in all the question is formulated in a way that does not allow a simple answer. This one is hasty and may not be at all clear but perhaps it indicates the various relevant issues that need to be considered.

I'm not sure if it's relevant to say this, but I think that "Middle" Way is classically used to deny (or to be in contrast to, different than) the two extremes:

SN 56.11
Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth. What two? Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.

Similarly it's neither eternalism nor annihilationism.
Or neither lust, nor hatred.
The PTS dictionary says,

Applied almost exclusively in contrast pairs with terms of more or less, in triplets like "small -- medium -- big," or "first -- middle -- last"

I suppose that "middle" in this sense doesn't mean "half-way in between" -- it means "neither one nor the other".

it's definitely a relevant answer, and it's the standard / common sense understanding of the middle way. but then in the chinese doctrinal classification e.g. there was a lot of work on systematizing different teachings, e.g. about the meaning of the "middle way". so your answer is good and on topic, but it may not speak for the whole of buddhism

Given the vagueness of the question, an answer from the extant and historical tradition of mathematics may serve:
Relative to 41, 42 is ultimately the next number. But this is false for the real numbers.

Yes, always. Ultimate has only ultimate as relative. While relative has only relative as relative. Understand? There is no more relation to relative once ultimate has reached, Nyom.
See also Change-of-lineage for more.
The tradition is called "tradition of the Noble Ones (ariya puggala)".
(Note that this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade end entertain relations but for escape from bounds toward world.)

i'm not sure that is always true, but your answer seems coherent

The Buddhist Roots of Zhu Xi's Philosophical Thought
I'm not sure, but would guess that yes in the exclusive middle, but not in the non-exclusive middle.
Often, different interpretations of the 'middle' demarcate the different teachings. So perhaps something relatively and ultimately true can be false in the center, just not for its perfect expression.

That sounds like -- or maybe related to or derived from -- four-valued Catuṣkoṭi logic (e.g. "this, or that, or both, or neither").

i'm almost certain that the main tiantai thinker uses the catuskoti, but am not certain, and it may just be a form of presentation, not sure at all @ChrisW

Catuskoti logic is just Aristotelian logic applied on two orthogonal axes. It is not some idiosyncratic abandonment of the way we usually think. Nagarjuna's argument depends utterly on the principle that where an idea gives rise to a contradiction it should be rejected. I don't know why there is such confusion on this issue since it is not rocket-science.

not sure who you think you're proving wrong, who is confused @PeterJ ? it's obvious that something can be presented in the catuskoti either trivially or meaningfully -- i.e. that the four alternatives are actually all there can logically be. obviously, lots of what is stated in the Catuskoti is an abandonment of how we usually think. and no-one is suggesting meditating on there being four alternatives rather than two

i'm just not sure what you think @ChrisW has got wrong. or is he not wrong? i derived that comment question from two valued logic, but i'm not confused about it

The catuskoti is not an abandonment of how we usually think but a particular way of doing it. Aristotle would have had no problem with it. if we abandon the way we usually think, especially the LEM, then we won't be able to understand  our own thoughts. I guess you're a fan of Graham Priest and his idea that Buddhist doctrine is logically incoherent.

no not really @PeterJ i just think there's room for him too

@user3293056 - You'll have to excuse my passion but I believe Priest is dong great harm to Buddhism.and needs to be stopped, and I will oppose him at every turn. I believe he talks utter nonsense and can't understand why he does not see this. If you look for an essay entitled 'Aristotle, Nagarjuna and the Law of Contradiction in Buddhist Philosophy' you might find my formal response.  .

ah that's interesting... clever guy though, and it surely has some appeal outside buddhist studies? @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Yeah, that's the problem. He is clever and prominent and able to confuse lots of people with his ideas. He believes that Nagarjuna did not understand metaphysics.and proves that nobody can, not even the Buddha. It is an astonishingly creative misunderstanding.

yeah, true, the truth will win surely win out and it's not like we can't enjoy the events that lead to that @PeterJ however baffled

We can enjoy the process of learning etc, as you say. But professional philosophers have a professional responsibility to do their homework and deserve the flack they get if they don't. . .