text:
Why lay people should give alms?
I do know alms giving is a chance for lay people to do good deeds, however I do not see the right intention of the monk. I feel the compassion is one sided. A lay person becomes homeless not because he has compassion for the lay people, but for himself first. If his first intention is true, how can we say while receiving alms his intention has changed and now has compassion for lay people only so that he can survive, meditate and attain nibbana?
What if lay people did not exists? What would be the condition for a buddhist monk not to exist. As long as there are lay people, monks will exist too?
I feel there is a ego behind monks receving alms. It is explained that buddha wanted monks to spend more time meditating rather than cooking or growing own food.
The exchange and doubling of merits is a business minded solution. A lay person works very hard and it would not be proper to use anyone just to satisfy there own ego using a business minded approach very similar to slavery.
How different is a buddhist monk from a hindu brahman or a christian priest, where they always need an offering to satisfy there gods. May be the monks feel they have understood more, but the truth has not changed. The give and take has not stopped, the approach is same and the reason is not different either.
I feel the lay people giving alms is only satisfying the monk needs to attain nibbana. I do understand the good deed part, but out of compassion, I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it.
Lay people are not slaves, do buddhist monks need food of lay people ?

Why lay people should give alms?
I expect it's human nature -- in almost every society, some people feed their children, their parents, and/or the homeless/destitute -- also guests, and teachers, and (in some societies) travellers -- without being paid to.
A lay person becomes homeless not because he has compassion for the lay people, but for himself first.
I'm not sure that's so. In some societies virtually every man takes the vows, at least temporarily.
See also this article:

Today, young men sometimes enter the monastery through a sense of obligation, largely to please their parents. Ordination bestows great merit on the family and helps improve their karmic consequences. For many, is the ultimate act of filial piety: demonstrating obedience, respect, gratitude, and devotion to the people who raised him.

In summary there are several reasons, maybe mixed.
What if lay people did not exists? What would be the condition for a buddhist monk not to exist. As long as there are lay people, monks will exist too?
When no lay people support monks then monks don't subsist there -- see for example this theory of why Buddhism declined in India after the Arab invasion:

Buddhists were mostly dependent on the merchant class
The invasion changed the trade routes, cutting off old trade and establishing new trade with Arabia
Muslims merchants prospered with the new trade routes while Buddhist merchants became poorer, which encouraged Buddhist merchants to convert
Without the support of urban merchants, the Buddhist monasteries declined
Without the Buddhist monasteries, the rural non-mercantile Buddhists became "vulnerable" to conversion, either to Islam or to Hinduism. Hinduism wasn't so vulnerable because its strength was in rural, non-mercantile economy

Supporting monks is how a people can live in a Buddhist society.
And, unlike paying taxes, it's voluntary.
A lay person works very hard and it would not be proper to use anyone just to satisfy there own ego using a business minded approach very similar to slavery.
I think that was an argument used by the communist Chinese when they invaded Tibet -- i.e. that they were liberating the Tibetan people who were held as serfs by the land-owning monasteries.
Still in my opinion an important reason why a modern capitalist society is unlike "slavery" is that even poor people (or "wage slaves") have some choice about who they work for and with.
The fact that donations to monastics are voluntary, even unasked-for, seems to me to make it very unlike slavery.
I do understand the good deed part, but out of compassion, I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it.
I think that people see monks as a "field of merit" i.e. an opportunity for lay people to plant good deeds and harvest merit.
As for monks, I get the impression from the suttas that they take this consideration as a strong incentive (not to disrobe but) to be good monks, to keep the Vinaya, so as to be "worthy" of offerings.

I feel the lay people giving alms is only satisfying the ego of a monk to attain nibbana. I do understand the good deed part, but out of compassion, I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it.

Lay people are not slaves, do buddhist monks need food of lay people ?

Couple things, the merit derived from giving is not only dependent on the purity of heart on the part of the giver, but also on the part of the receiver. If you give to a serial killer, serial rapist, serial cheater, then the resultant merit will be quite minimal. But if giving to a monk, provided that the monk has observed/cultivated moral virtues, meditation, and wisdom to a high degree, the merit will be much higher.
Regarding the ego of a monk, you already knew that Nibbana can only be attained after one has renounced all ego, right? You are giving alms to them not to boost their ego, but to help renounce all traces of it to attain the highest goal. By the way, the symbiosis relationship between monks and lays go much further than just food donation. It's a chance for the two sides to interact so that the monks could get sustainments to help with their noble quest, while in returns, addressing any inquiries the lays might have about the Noble Teaching, or advising on any issues they're facing in their daily life. It's a good win-win relationship.

The food offering is very similar to the one given to hindu brahmins or christian priests. There should be a better solution to this. Please update your answer for this questions as well. Thanks.

But why do you see a problem with food offering, whether to Buddhist monks or to other contemplatives of other religions? While I can't speak for those other sects, the mutual benefits for both lays and monks in the Buddhist context have been clearly provided.

The following points describe the gist of it:

Monks should not be too preoccupied with worldly tasks such as farming and cooking, and instead they should focus on the study and practice of the Dhamma (teachings).
Going on alms round at certain times of the day and behaving in a certain way (e.g. how to take alms, how to eat etc.) as prescribed by the monastic rules, is a form of rigorous training of renunciation for the monks.
Lay people get a chance to make merit and do charity, which brightens and purifies their mind. This is the chance of lay people to exercise compassion.
Charity by lay people is completely voluntary. They are not compelled to do so and they are not slaves.
Monks being dependent on lay people do not become deluded into thinking that monks can be independent of the material world, and all persons should become monks. Monks get to appreciate the validity, usefulness and role of the lay follower path.
By interacting with lay people, monks remain in touch with understanding the intricacies of lay life and the material world.
By interacting with lay people, monks get the chance to teach lay people, which brings merit to monks because the greatest gift is the gift of the Dhamma. This is the chance of monks to exercise compassion and, also brighten and purify their minds.
When monks receive questions by lay people, they get the chance to be exposed to thinking and pondering questions of Dhamma that they may otherwise not get exposed to. This helps them progress further in their path.
By interacting with monks, lay people get exposed to renunciation.
By interacting with monks, lay people get the chance to be taught the Dhamma and its practice. Lay people stand the chance to receive the greatest gift of all, the gift of the Dhamma.

In other words, the design of dependency of monks and lay people on each other leads to the middle way of right renunciation away from the extremes of asceticism and worldly indulgence. The monastic order and the lay followers become like the yin and yang of the institution of Buddhism.

The Buddha and his disciples don't teach stingy people, avoid them as they are incapable of proper attention and incapable to gain any concentration. They aren't demanding anything and are sure not to have much lose if stingy people are not trying to build up relation with the liberation. They are even not forced to stop stealing the Dhamma and trade in exchanges outwardly. People are hire of their actions.

I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it.

So it's proper then to immediately stop eating as it's all taken from other being who put a lot of effort into earning it, even killed for it much ...
Maybe good to think about who's worthy to receive gifts and if by oneself worthy to take not given or start to side ways of generosity outside of foolish stingyness based on total unqualified hypocrisy. Much compassion with those so poor incapable to give a "beggar" with noble aspiration.
Can someone open a gofundme for Christopher the hard working poor who desires to learn about the Dhamma yet so poor that incapable to give outside of stingy people at BSE, the circle 'worthy' of gifts?
"Stand up for freedom, equality and brotherhood, good follower of our red future!"...
Really poor this communist marxist folk of hard working consumers... the liberal slaves of desires.

What's the problem? Do you want to live in a world even more greedy and stingy than the current one?
You do not want to receive food voluntarily given from someone because he/she has put much effort into it, but you don’t see any problem in consuming sensuality as a householder? Whenever you consume a sensual pleasure, someone else was deprived of something so that you could consume it. How much beings have been suffering and deprived of their belongs so that you can get all the sensual pleasures which you are used to consume? The monks have given up their share of sensual pleasure, hence they are doing much more to alleviate the suffering in the world than a regular householder could do.


text:
if the self is an illusion what is the point of self respect?
I am trying my best to digest the concept of the non-self but each time it hits a fundumental question, that i can't stop thinking of. If the self is an illusion, what is the point of self awerness meaning self respect, self esteem... is it important to have them in this context.

Is the self an illusion? Who said that and where does it say that?

A baby doesn't think of identity, of self or of non-self. A baby doesn't think of self-respect or self-esteem, but a baby isn't enlightened either:

MN64:3.3: For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them?
MN64:3.4: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

In MN64, the Buddha teaches about the five lower fetters. Identity view is the first fetter.

MN64:5.2: Their heart is overcome and mired in identity view,
MN64:5.3: and they don’t truly understand the escape from identity view that has arisen.
MN64:5.4: That identity view is reinforced in them, not eliminated: it is a lower fetter.
MN64:5.5: Their heart is overcome and mired in doubt,
MN64:5.6: and they don’t truly understand the escape from doubt that has arisen.
MN64:5.7: That doubt is reinforced in them, not eliminated: it is a lower fetter.

Identity view is a problem because it taints our interactions, making them cumbersome and lopsided. Identity view creates a problem of "me versus world".  For example, to say "always respect others" is a tainted view. To say "always respect yourself" is a tainted view. However, saying "respect the skillful" has no notion of self or non-self.

AN2.19:1.6: ‘Give up the unskillful.’
AN2.19:1.7: And if giving up the unskillful led to harm and suffering, I would not say:
AN2.19:1.8: ‘Give up the unskillful.’
AN2.19:1.9: But giving up the unskillful leads to welfare and happiness, so I say:
AN2.19:1.10: ‘Give up the unskillful.’
AN2.19:2.1: Mendicants, develop the skillful.

After deep meditation, I once went to my Roshi and bowed, saying, "there is no self." Roshi tapped me on the knee and said, "what is that?".

Depends on where one is on the Path, there're different levels of penetration into the truth of Anatta/Not-Self. Only those who have attained one of the Four Noble Stages would be able to "live" that truth. At our level, the worldling's level, there'll always be a sense of self-identity, no matter how much book-knowledge one's acquired about the concept. And since we always have this sense of self which tends to work toward the negative side most of the time: selfish, self-serving, self-interested, etc... there's a need for their counter-balances: self-respect, self-esteem, etc. to steer them back toward the positive side. And hopefully, with more and more cultivation, hence more progress on the Path, one'd be able transcend all self-identifications, good and bad, to really penetrate the truth of Anatta/Not-Self.

There is fairly famous example of abstraction by Alfred Korzybski.
Suppose you see a fan with blades. If you turn on the fan, the blades will spin, when the blades are spinning you will see a disc.
You will see that disc because the blades are spinning and it can be said that you see a disc where there is no disc.
Some might say that the disc you see is an illusion and the disc is not real.
However it doesn't mean that the disc means nothing, for if you were to touch the disc you would get hurt by the blades.
The disc is then rather a useful abstraction, an abstraction produced by the nervous system.
It is likewise with words. We can't pin down the self as a truth or reality but it doesn't mean that the word means nothing.

No-self is a difficult concept. The problematic here is the objectification of the self: the construction of a representation of the self in intellectual/cognitive/emotional terms. In other words, we might think:

I'm a barber (or a banker, or a bookmaker...)
I'm a spouse (or single, or separated...)
I'm an atheist (or agnostic, or anabaptist...)

and in thinking those things we set up a list of self-expectations, self-demands, self-negations, etc. This is the creation of an identity, something we think should be permanent and inviolate, but (by definition in Buddhism) isn't. That leads to craving and discontentment and a host of associated problems.
On the other hand, there is a subject, something that creates these identities, holds these abstract principles, and observes this 'self-object'. We often assume that the subject that observes this self-object is identical to the self-object that it observes, but that's not the case.  The subject is... something else, which we can only learn to access through meditative practices that wean us away from identified thinking.
Self-esteem, self-respect, self-love, etc, are attachments to that self-object: i.e., we feel self esteem when we live up to the demands and expectations of the self-object, and lose self-worth when we fail to do so. But the subject that observes doesn't have much use for self-worth, be it high or low. It is merely, keenly aware of what is. Once we rid ourselves of the self-object and live as subjects, ideas like pride and shame (elements of self-worth) no longer have any real hold on us.

If the self is an illusion
I think that "self views" (or "views about self") can be a problem, not strictly necessary, and helpful to do without -- but that's not central to this question so let's, just accept that as a theory or premise for now.
what is the point of self awareness meaning self respect, self esteem
For a start, I don't think you have to bring "self" into that.
There are factors of enlightenment -- including "energy", "concentration" -- you can see these as existing and useful, for example: "Energy is good and useful." You don't need to bring "self" into it at all, for example you needn't say "that's my energy" nor "that energy is me".
As well as the positive or beneficial factors I think that a lot of Buddhist doctrine is about removing harmful factors, which are sometimes translated "afflictive emotions".
When you mention "self-esteem" and "self-respect", I see that as the absence of a negative -- which does not require a belief in or a view of "self -- and that negative's non-existing is what's important, not "self-esteem" especially but "no remorse". That "absence of a negative" might be difficult to perceive and to enjoy, and not what people are usually taught to be aware of -- we're usually taught to be aware of "existent" things -- but I think that's important.
For example, one of the fundamental doctrines might be "absence of remorse" which results from "skilful virtue". An "absence of remorse" is necessary for serenity and so on, e.g. as listed in AN 11.1. That doesn't require a theory of self, what's more important is to not engage in behaviour that causes remorse.
Similarly I suppose that "self esteem" might be related to or necessary for confidence, enthusiasm, a willingness to try something -- for example, "I think I am a good, safe driver, and therefore I am willing to try to drive a car even though in theory it might be dangerous". I think I'd argue though that "self" there is just a phrase, a verbal short-hand -- you're called "self-confident" but what you're really confident in is the experience of learning, understanding, practicing, studying how to drive safely, and diligence and proper attention when doing so -- those are the "factors" which enable anyone or everyone to drive, they're not especially "self".
Surely it's possible to be confident without being "self"-confident. Canonically I think that Buddhists should, instead of self-views, have "verified/confirmed confidence in the Buddha, the Sanga, and the Dhamma".
Lastly I suppose the attributes you mentioned -- self-respect and self-esteem -- might be seen as beneficial or necessary because they're antidotes to some debilitating poison, i.e. "low self-esteem" or "no self-respect" or however you might phrase that, maybe "fear", "depression", "defeatism", perhaps "shamelessness" and other factors listed as defilements. But I think that this answer pointed out that those are maybe two side of the same coin, e.g. "I am good", "I am bad", "I am superior", "I am inferior", are all of them "conceits" or possibly variations of "self-view" or "views of self" -- and possibly it's better to see the world, e.g. "this causes that" and so on, without (or at least with less) ego-centrism. Remember that Buddhism is a "middle way", i.e. "avoiding both extremes". You might see that both extremes -- e.g. "self-confidence" and "lack of self-confidence" -- are potentially harmful. Possibly it's more sensible to do away with both, and if anything base "confidence" on something other than "self".

The Internet. You know what it is. You are here.
You use the Internet and you can communicate with others who use it.
We are often concerned about our data privacy and information security on the Internet.
If our access to the Internet is broken, we would be concerned because we do many things through it, for e.g. electronic banking.
But a hundred years ago, the Internet did not exist.
Even today, you cannot find a single thing called Internet. It's an emergent concept. It exists but it's not permanent, standalone or unchanging. You cannot pinpoint an exact thing called "Internet". It's a fuzzy concept that is sharpened by a label given by your mind.
The self is also an emergent concept. It exists, but just like the Internet, it's not permanent, standalone or unchanging.
Your self was always changing throughout your life and even throughout your day.
A person who suffered from dementia or brain damage would even have complete personality changes. Where did their self go to, then? You cannot pinpoint an exact thing called "self". It's a fuzzy concept that is sharpened by a label given by your mind.
In Buddhism, the purpose of "all phenomena is not self" is simply to avoid clinging to the idea of a permanent, standalone, unchanging self or associating things with it.
By not clinging to impermanent things, and letting them go, you can become free from suffering and discontent.

“Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping downwards,
flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on either bank of
the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it would overhang it;
if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would overhang it. If a
man being carried along by the current should grasp the kasa grass, it
would break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster;
if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would break off and he would
thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the
rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he would thereby
meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus
… He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
SN 22.93

However, sometimes, it may be beneficial and skillful to make use of the concept of the self, as stated in the sutta quote below.
So, whether we use or don't use the concept of the self on the path, is pragmatic and methodological, rather than the self being ontological and metaphysical.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

The other answers are good.  I just wanted to add a few thoughts.
self is a homonym.
Within the Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism,in Bodhisattva yogacaryā catuḥ śatakaṭikā 256.1.7 Candrakirti identifies the self as:

an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an
intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness.

Note that he says 'things' (or phenomena).  Within the Madhyamaka, the meaning of 'self' is not to do with the person alone.
Buddhapālita adds, while commenting on Nagārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (in Buddhapālita-mula-madhyamaka-vrtti, P5242, 73.5.6-74.1.2),

What is the reality of things just as it is? It is the absence of self. Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence are obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to it.

The perception that we naturally have that things (including ourselves) exist as independent, self-contained, objectively existent is an error, a mistake, a delusion, an affliction.
This perception is the definition of 'ignorance' - we see things (and ourselves) in a way that they are not.
Having self-respect means something else. It means respect for the person.  The person exists, but not how we perceive it.  I exist - but not as I perceive myself.
So, while the carefully defined 'self' is a non-existent, both self-grasping (the delusional perception of 'self') exists - and keeps us bound to samsara, and likewise the person exists.
The manner of all existence (of person, delusion, etc.) is that these things exist with the specific qualification that they do not exist as we normally perceive them. They exist as transitory dependant-arising compositions with no essence, no independence, and without efficacy (i.e. they are not worthy of either attachment or hostility).
Therefore the perceived self is not really an illusion - it is a non-existent (Illusions are external, whereas our perceptions of self is internal, generated by ignorance).  Those things that exist are like an illusion in that we endow those things which exist with a power, quality, or efficacy that they do not have. This includes the person.
Self-respect is absolutely valid and necessary.  This is when we identify the meaning of self to be that of the person.  We need to value and respect all people - all sentient beings. We need to develop compassion and loving-kindness to all beings - this includes ourselves.
We need to recognise our own suffering - the coarse suffering of pain, as well as the more subtle suffering of change, and the most important suffering of all - that while our actions are contaminated by mistaken perception, the consequences of our actions will likewise be contaminated.
Once we experientially recognise that truth, then our compassion for all beings becomes unshakeable.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The role of being in a position of power in acquiring karma
Let's look at Alice and Bob. I'm going to emphasize gender roles on purpose, because the gender you were born as is not random.
Bob is a naturally powerful, intelligent, strong man who started his adult life as a solder. Every war he fought in was just and he was always on the good guy's side, and every man he shot was evil and deserved it. Eventually after he is honorably discharged he ends up in a position of high authority, say a criminal judge. He sorts out good people from the bad and doles out what they deserve, and due to his great wisdom he never made a mistake in judgement or caused a miscarriage of justice.
Alice is a weak woman of inconstant and average natural intelligence. She never had what it takes to punish anybody (because of her lack of talents and unremarkableness could she could never end up in a position of authority where she could punish others--not even as a forum moderator who bans trolls) and she was too weak to kill anybody.
Now let's look at the summaries of these two lives.
While everything Bob did was just and morally correct... that doesn't change the immutable reality that he ended up in a position where he did take life and inflicted suffering on others. That does not exactly look like the reflection of someone who lived his previous life as an arhat.
And Alice was fortunate enough where she could never kill or inflict suffering on others... at least in one regard (as a punisher). Even if it was because she never had the opportunity, the fact that she was born in a life without such opportunities is a reflection of something.
According to karma, who got the better life, that is, the life more likely to be reborn as either a better human or a being in the higher realms?

She never had what it takes to punish anybody
At least in the Western societies that I am in, women may an immense "power", for better or worse -- but often within a family or a circle of friends, instead of "public life".
she was too weak to kill anybody
I think that, according to Buddhism, your intention is important. Her actions aren't unimportant, but you don't mention her motive: is she kind or malicious, selfish or generous, does she intend to benefit people or to hurt them?
who got the better life
I think that Buddhism teaches generalities about karma -- i.e. there's good karma, bad karma, no karma, and that karma is intention or intentional action.
But karma is complicated -- there's a lot of it, good and bad -- and it takes supernatural powers to see how karma plays out, and whether someone goes to a   higher or a lower realm after death, i.e. the Buddha could do that but other people can't.

In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
[Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal (An 3.99)](Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal)

So this kind of question -- about the precise workings-out of karma -- may be unanswerable. Especially when the people in question are fictitious.

According to karma, who got the better life, that is, the life more likely to be reborn as either a better human or a being in the higher realms?

Well, Bob will get reborn into some of the most beautiful Heavenly realms, enjoy the most wonderful life there for a while and then get reborn into some of the most horrific hell realms and suffer tremendously; while Alice will get reborn as a normal and kind human being again and again... ;-) ok, jokes aside, i think you get the idea, good and bad kammas don't get mixed up or cancel each other out. If it worked like that, the great Venerable Moggallana wouldn't have to suffer his ghastly death under the hands of a bunch of bandits even after he had attained Arahantship. For one who does some very wholesome kamma while also commits some grave one at the same time, the future rewards and punishments will be just as proportional. In the case of Alice, since she doesn't kill, that'd eliminate any potentially horrific kamma in the future. All she needs to do is to try to cultivate only wholesome kamma and she'll reap the corresponded wholesome future rebirths. And if going even beyond wholesome worldly kamma, she also cultivates supramundane kamma (ie. practice 4 Noble Truths, 8-fold Noble Path, perfecting Sila/Samadhi/Panna, etc.), she could eventually get that ultimate supreme reward: Nibbana. And that's the real beauty of the Buddha's Teaching, it's available to anyone willing to cultivate it regardless of caste, social status, gender, age, intelligence, etc...

Having lived, living, like a real powerful and wealthy being, put goodwill, compassion, appreciation and equanimity toward all being into action, not only does such live the Brahma-life (holly/sublime life) here but will reappear in the Realm of the Brahmas. Also such is gained right here, nowhere else, so don't one miss out a seldom chance, now as you got such a powerful position.

"We’re not in this to compete. We’re here because each of us has a disease inside, the disease of craving and ignorance that causes us to cause suffering. We’re here to treat that disease, but at the same time we want to make sure that our treatment doesn’t have a bad effect on other people."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "The Implications of Goodwill" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Shorttalks/171011(short)_The_Implications_of_Goodwill.pdf

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


text:
Buddha speaks on time
Does the buddha ever speak on time?  Does he ever say, "...time doesn't matter..."? I have this weird feeling he is said to have spoken that. I don't know in which sutra that is, or it might have been in a dream, but really, I'm not sure where I got the idea. I assume it was in a certain context if it was really said, and that he wasn't dismissing the time element as trivial, such as a lifetime...

I thought this paper was interesting: 'A Taxonomy of Views about Time in Buddhist and Western Philosophy'
https://philarchive.org/archive/MILATO-11 (pdf)

Does the buddha ever speak on time? Does he ever say, "...time doesn't matter..."?

No, if any, He only emphasizes the preciousness of time and how one should not waste it in order to make progress on the Path. It's no coincidence that the below expression is a common stock phrase being mentioned in many Suttas:

"These are the feet of trees, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhu, do not be heedless. Do not have cause to regret it later. This is my instruction to you.”

svākhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
ehipassiko opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī
Here dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko means that dhamma is timeless and 'here & Now'.

For example Sanditthika Sutta: Visible Here-&-Now (AN 6.47)

Sandiṭṭhiko means Dhamma is proficient view of the mastery (he finished practiced himself). akāliko means Dhamma gives it's resultant immediately because of that proficient  view. Dhamma is focusing on Nibbana as Magga-mind's object. Proficient view is Magga-mind's factor, 8 noble path. Magga-mind's resultant is absorbing. The difference is the proficient noble-view in 4 noble truth, noble view of all real arising&vanishing, noble view of all real craving, noble view of real-vanishing-of-all-craving (Nibbana), and noble view of all real eight-noble-path. (continue)

(continue) Real means not just an imagination, but what-depending-on-origin is real arising and vanishing uncountable times per second, not something like "all moment, in this one second we are reading, is wholesome only" because it's impossible, imagination. And what can finish the origin is really done it's job permanently, not something like  "if we drunk we will be really happy only but the next day the truth is we still headache stomachache suffering bla bla bla never ending".

Yes buddha had explained akaliko  by stating you achieve in this life. but that was an explanation or example. the litteral or gramatical meaning of akaliko is timelessness.

akāliko means immediately effective. akāliko does not mean timeless

In the sutta quote below, the Buddha taught as follows, referring to himself and other Buddhas as "the Tathagata":

(1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
(2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
them.
(3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.
(4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
say them.
(5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
them.
(6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."
Abhaya Sutta (MN58)

Someone may think why I don't quote Abhidhamma directly even it is easier and shorter?
It's because I don't know which readers trust in Abhidhamma, so some reader may has not enough five faculties to meditate Jhana and memorize Tipitaka with Abhidhamma for quicker understand. However, they still have a little chance to understand Dhamma and meditate the five faculties by longer reference and taking longer time to study. So, this answer is very long by Sutta instead of Abhidhamma.
However, if someone need it, tell me.
Nibbana is not time because Nibbana is never arise according to MN 144 Channovādasutta...

“So, Reverend Channa, you should pay close attention to this instruction of the Buddha whenever you can: ‘For the dependent there is agitation. For the independent there’s no agitation. When there’s no agitation there is tranquility. When there is tranquility there’s no inclination. When there’s no inclination there’s no coming and going. When there’s no coming and going there’s no passing away and reappearing (time). When there’s no passing away and reappearing there’s no this world or world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering (Dhamma[Nibbana]).’” And when the venerables Sāriputta and Mahācunda had given Venerable Channa this advice they got up from their seat and left.

People who knew Nibbana has no arising anymore after 7th rebirth at the most according to KN RatanaSutta...

Those who have seen clearly the noble truths
well-taught by the one of deep discernment —
regardless of what [later] might make them heedless —
will come to no eighth state of becoming. 2
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Sangha.
By this truth may there be well-being.

And DN22

[c] "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving [from arising and vanishing(time) kaya vedana citta dhamma, suffering -- (you need to remember entire sutta to understand this parenthesis)].

[You need to be at least the Jhana mastery to understand this quote...] And nibbana is the main origin of AnantarikaSamadhi [Phala], the resultant Phala-absorbing-concentration of the origin Magga-absorbing-concentration, according to KN RatanaSutta...

[Nibbana] The exquisite Deathless — ending, dispassion —
discovered by the Sakyan Sage in concentration [the Buddha's Magga]:
There is nothing to equal that Dhamma.
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Dhamma.
By this truth may there be well-being.

What concentration which the excellent Awakened One extolled as pure
and called the nothing-in-between[the Budhha's Phala]:
No equal to that concentration can be found.
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Dhamma.
By this truth may there be well-being.

And SN 22.81 Parileyyaka Sutta [My english is not that good so I'm not sure others' translate are right. It should be translated like this according to the Pali.]

evaṃpi   kho   bhikkhave   jānato  evaṃ  passato anantarā āsavānaṃ khayo hotīti.
When the practitioner proficiently understand proficiently see [the truth] like that[Magga is finishing craving, not finished], then his finished [craving-]taints is arising [Phala is finished craving, never arise anymore].

And AN SamkhittaSutta, etc.

so   imesaṃ   pañcannaṃ   indriyānaṃ  muduttā dandhaṃ   anantariyaṃ[Magga] pāpuṇāti  āsavānaṃ  khayāya[Phala]  ayaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave dukkhā paṭipadā dandhābhiññā.
Because of his weak five faculties, he difficultly attain the nothing-in-between-to-give[Magga]-the-finished-taints[Phala]. This is called a person who difficult to practice and taking long time to enlighten.

nice answer. very nice. i will finish later..

What am I becoming as the days & nights fly past? A person gone forth should often reflect on this.
Kathaṁbhūtassa me rattindivā vītivattantī’ti pabbajitena abhiṇhaṁ
paccavekkhitabbaṁ.
AN 10.48

the context is important.  i don't know the context. somewhere just recently i remember reading something like, 'buddha leans like the tower of Pisa'. i can't find it, but somehow the idea is striking - beautiful I suppose. what it means i don't know, but I can imagine the tower saying something like 'time doesn't matter'. there is something eternal about it. if you've ever seen it, you would understand.


text:
How much worthy to pay for one who keeps precepts, metta?
Say a soldier can be hired for maybe $100 a day: What would be a suitable price to offer that one would live in accordance with the Dhamma, keeping precepts based on metta for all beings, a day?

Keeping the precepts -- i.e. "no killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, or drunkenness" -- is assumed and is essential for every job I know of. Anyone who doesn't keep those precepts wouldn't be hired for, or will be fired from, any job.

The undoing of rebirth is one's pay.
One who is rightly striving is not looking for any other pay.
They are only looking to exhaust their time.

"All too many times people will break a precept and then they regret it for the rest of their lives, saying, “I wish I had a million dollars and could go back and undo that.” But a million dollars can’t do that. You, though, have a precept that can prevent you from doing that kind of thing, so it’s worth more than a million dollars. Think about that every time you feel tempted to do something that’s against the precepts. Your precepts are your real treasures. By holding the mind fenced in this way, you free yourself from all kinds of regret. This is how a fence can lead to freedom."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Virtue" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Shorttalks/170730(short)_Virtue.pdf


text:
Unconditional access to knowledge supported, benefical?
Is the modern idea of unconditional access to knowledge, teachings, supported by the Noble Ones, or maybe even seen as cause of decay and not benefical for many as well as the tradition?
What are then the conditions that one gains to be taught certain levels?
How are those teaching without care of possible required conditions regarded by the teacher and elders?

Thanks for asking.
I get the impression for example from the story of The Weaver's Daughter (which begins as follows) that the Buddha himself was willing to give a dhamma talk to an entire village, even though only one person in the audience might be able to benefit immediately:

For one day, when the Teacher came to Alavi, the residents of Alavi invited him to a meal and gave alms. At the end of the meal the Teacher spoke the words of thanksgiving, saying: "Practice meditation on death, saying to yourselves, 'Uncertain is my life. Certain is my death. I shall surely die. Death will be the termination of my life. Life is unstable. Death is sure.' For they that have not practiced meditation on death will tremble and fear when their last hour comes, and will die screaming screams of terror, even as a man without a stick, on seeing a snake, is stricken with fear. But those who have practiced meditation on death will have no fear when their last hour comes, but will be like a steadfast man who, seeing a snake even afar off, takes it up with his stick and tosses it away. Therefore practice meditation on death."
With a single exception all those who heard this discourse remained absorbed in their worldly duties as before.

There are some conditions, as you know, for giving a dhamma talk -- related to expressions of respect from the audience -- see this answer for some references to the Vinaya. In summary the conditions seem to be:

The audience must show some respect

The audience must be self-selected, actively choosing to listen

One may not expound from a soapbox in the marketplace... to the indifference of passers by.

A talk should be more than only repeating what you have learned by rote

... to prevent the pupils from looking down on the teacher.

Another condition relating to what's allowable is payment.

I believe that you personally are not keen on the dhamma being like broadcast, e.g. by laypeople, and maybe on the internet (though you think that some internet sites are allowable) -- including on this site -- and that in fact you sometimes describe this as "taking what is not given", referring to the Dhamma in general and to some copyrighted works in particular.
I guess my own feeling is that making the elements of Dhamma available to everyone is good, even though not everyone can benefit in the same way. A lot of people will have their own experience -- my first introduction might have been a book -- or for example:

When I was a little boy back in the dark soviet years, I could not possibly come in contact with True Dharma. My glimpse of light was a song by an alcoholic folk singer ...
For someone deep in the darkness even a little glimpse of light can show the direction out.

The Buddha taught for compassion's sake, remember also what he said about "the closed fist of the teacher".

"anupubbi-katha" might fit more to the wise's view rather then ideas fitting to ones misdeeds. What compassionate in teaching high if not capable to get the base? Let running in circles? Disciples have a teacher. Non-disciple not.

Thank you for this answer, ChrisW.


text:
What does samudaya mean?
What does samudaya mean?  I'm seeing: "community", "arising", "the origin, or cause of suffering"
When I read samudaya on the wiki, I became uncertain.
Then somehow i read it as "ignorance together with dukkha", and somehow that made sense..(dependent origination?)
any verification?

But aren’t evil deeds also the cause for suffering? Why would one do evil deeds then? Craving? So craving can also be the origin of suffering? Doubts?

Sometimes the meaning of a word depends on the context in which it's used -- where are you reading it? Also did you mean samudaya (not "sumudaya")?

Its samudaya  not sumudaya

@ChrisW I reading at the wikipedia..

@ChrisW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

@ChrisW Avidya means ignorance, so it could be context, or my interpretation might be off.  Perhaps 'origin' is best

@lilredindy was a dumb question...

Samudaya (in Sanskrit) in the context of Buddhism and dependent origination (paticcaya samutpada {Pali} pratitya-samutpada {Sanskrit}) literally connotes origination, arising.
"Community" is a contemporary meaning of the Hindi word samudaya, whose pronunciation also differs.
When the context is suffering, quite possibly one of the immediate follow up question for analysis in the buddhist context would be cause of suffering. In that and such context, samudaya can come to connote the cause of origin of suffering.

They're all right.
Past lives ignorants cause this life. And the arising ignorant is causing life as well.
If you can see the past lives, you will see yourselves when doing karma, both wholesome and unwholesome, with ignorant.
And if you see trillion times per second arising mind moments, you will see uncountable ignorant with unwholesome and switching in between vanished wholesome.
Why ignorant is at first
When unwholesome mind and mind-factors arise, many of them always or often arise together.
However, if the practitioner don't ignore at first whether "clinging on arising and vanishing realities is causing of suffering", they don't want to cling on anything, then all unwholesome minds can't arise.
Meditate Jhana-Mastery and see the arising and vanishing yourself to see the truth whether "we are clinging on only arising and vanishing trillion times per second", then you will see "how much we ignore entire lives".

Samudaya or the origin is nicely explained in Concentration Sutta (SN 22.5)

“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of form? What is the origin of
feeling? What is the origin of perception? What is the origin of
volitional formations? What is the origin of consciousness?
“Here, bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding.
And what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to
what does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it,
and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises.
Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition,
existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth
as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
suffering.

If you want to understand samudaya according to Concentration Sutta, refer to this teaching and do the meditations explained at the end.

Samudaya is described in 3 methods according to Orthodox Theravada.

Ariya sacca method -> Tanha (craving)
Paticcasamuppada method -> 12 links (including Tanha) rooted in
Avijja (ignorance)
Patthana method -> More detailed with 24 causes

We have to patiently learn them little by little.
The Omniscient One has stated that the Dhamma is very deep and hard to see in many suttas.
Let's take time and learn it properly.


text:
Where does it say "in-between worlds"?
I don't know where I am getting all these ideas; perhaps it's my failing memory, or whatever.  But which sutta does it say something about, "...in-between worlds..."?  I'm fairly certain I read this in the text...bummer i can't find it...what quality standard?

Or in between bodies?

@ruben2020 hmm..no i suppose the word i'm considering is world, or realm, or dimension, etc..

i suppose it's good to think of this as some kind of useful fabrication anyway, since it's just satisfying me in a very temporary way...

@lilredindy another dumb question

@lilredindy perhaps this, but not sure...https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp5_4.html#stnp_note5.4.03, see footnotes

"“Bhikkhus, there are world interstices, vacant and abysmal regions of blinding darkness and gloom, where the light of the sun and moon, so powerful and mighty, does not reach.”" ~~ SN 56.46 ~~

Although the phrasing is not identical, a possible explanation for "in-between world" can be found here:
"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."


text:
what is difference between volition and intention?
As per buddhism what is the difference between volition and intention?
If there is any difference what is right pali word for volition and what is right pali word for intention?
I presume sankhara is volition. and cetnā is intention.
There are other word also that we should throw light. they are Chanda, and Sankappa, vaci sankhara. kaya sankhara.
And If you answer is that they are same then.
(1) the wastrn philosopher descriminates that.
(2) Moreover  There is volition in every feeling/phassa  as said by buddha.  When we do breath observation.There is intention to observe breath and that is boosted time and again. But at the same time there is volition to scratch/move my body or to suffer my bodily pain.. there must be different between this two volition. isn't it.?
I guess one of the two(volition/intention) is conscious and other is unconscious!!

i am no expert, not the least, but these those two, volition and intention, seem to be the same, while sankhara is referring to formation, the way one puts things together.

thinking on the matter some, perhaps there is a difference.  the definitions are different. volition is choice (action), intention is choice guided by an anticipated outcome

Yes exactly. There is volition in every feeling/phassa as said by sutta.  when we do breath observation. even that is intetion to observe breaht and that boosted time and again. But at the same time there is volitionto scratch/move my body or to suffer my bodily pain.. there must be different between this two volition. isnt it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Intention, choosing, willing...all of these fall under the category of desire...that’s how I think about it...there may be nuance but essentially desire drives causality

I want to answer - mostly my own question - without starting a new thread and because the topic is similar.  Prior, I was under the impression these two ideas, volition and intention, are different, but for all intensive purposes they are the same.  mind(citta) has 7 primary mental factors(cetasika):  feeling(vedana), perception (sanna), voltion(cetana), one-pointedness(ekagatta), life faculty (jivitindriya), attention(manasikara), contact (phassa).
The metal factors come together to form mindset(citta).
The text (dhamma) basically says volition (cetana) is kamma (A 6.63). Although this is completely true, I would point out that actions without intention  - underlying tendencies(anusaya) and karmic imprint(bija) - rely on the karma principle.  This is quite clearly stated in SN 12.38.  Even though every moment presents a choice, it's not practical.  I don't choose to make my tea in the morning, it just happens from habit.  The other side of this coin indicates a acute awareness of our choices.  Does being more aware of choice produce altered outcomes?  Sometimes. Does ignorance absolve one of karma?  My guess is no.  That only intentional acts produce karma is misleading.  Things happen all the time without our being aware, but that doesn't mean the process of causality skips a beat.
If there is a distinction to be made between intention and choice, I would opine it's expectation; intention implies expectation, but that's minutia I suppose.

imo, samskara is not mental factors, but the combination of mental factors that result in mental formations or samskara.

this raises another idea, the karma of children vs adult....if a child steals a candy bar and doesn't get caught, is there a consequence for the ignorant child?  perhaps ignorance does excuse individuals from certain effects.  In fact, they say ignorance is bliss.

Exectly and thats why there are grades of volition. Subtle to gross.  Thought sutta never descriminate gradation of volition. But enflish language is making 2 grade.   Intentiob is subtle volition. And volition is gross intention.  Volition has same root as volunteering. So volition is more conscious then intention

i should not have said speculation, I should say nuance...for example, perception and recognition....similiar right? but perhaps differences arise through association

They're similar, but sankhara has broader meaning in different contexts than cetana. For more details see the dictionary's definition here and here

I guess you are looking for either a work of philology and translation, which is too deep to ask from any stackexchange, and anathema to some, or an instance of someone lacking volition and retaining what some people might call intention; or vice versa.

Right Resolve or Intention: the giving up of home and adopting the
life of a religious mendicant in order to follow the path

Emphasis added.
Can we lose "right intention" in the process of being reborn and retaining volition (be that unconsciously or otherwise)? Do we lose "right intention" when we momentarily want to escape the monastic life? etc.
Perhaps this argument appears too cute or clever to appease anyone: but it does show that in some sense - whether or not it's in a relevant sense - the will to be a mendicant is not the same as right intention.
Unless, of course, "the path" does not even exist conventionally or is identical to what we want.

And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.
SN 22.56

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

And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily
fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are
called fabrications.
"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body.
That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then
breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are
verbal fabrications.
SN 41.6

And why, bhikkhus, do you call them fabrications? ‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
SN 22.79

And what is the conditioned that they fabrications?
They fabricate conditioned form as form;
they fabricate conditioned feeling as feeling;
they fabricate conditioned perception as perception;
they fabricate conditioned fabrications as fabrications;
they fabricate conditioned consciousness as consciousness.
SN 22.79

"From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form...
"From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness...
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
SN 12.2

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name.
SN 12.2

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61

It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
SN 12.67

people her have habit of just putting large text from tripitak. completely ignoring the question. I have scanned many such suttas before asking this question. particularly this I have gone through at list 20 time.... Still I have this question. i want fresh explaination.


text:
How to achieve magga nana?
During meditation practice have experienced mind was stopped. But some says it is samadi,not the magga phala.but now I don't have  thoughts  over myself. They say magga phala is shut down  .so what is shut down mean?

Better to refer Sattavisuddhi in Visuddhimagga. It is the classical book of reference. Therein many characteristics of magga-phala and the way to achieve them is extensively described.

Please add some examples.


text:
I think cetasikas are programmed submind?
So far I was under impression that cetasicas are elementary  mental factor. but I did not pay attention to all 52 of them.Today when I show Samma ājiva is also a cetasika.  It changed my  view toward cetasika.
They are not elementary mental process  which comes along with birth.
I now think that cetsikas are programmed subminds or parallel minds.and it can be dynamically added.Most of the beautiful cetasikas are developed by practice of buddhism. isnt’it?
And with little exaggeration I can say that, I can develop a modern cetasika like samma-mobile.
samma-mobile is the right usage of mobile.dont try to justify that right use of mobile as part of something already there in so-and-so cetasika.. just take it as example only.
With total re-programming process only dedicated to right usage of mobile. I can build a fresh submind /cetasca related to mobile usage.and then it will be mounted so effective to the level of mind moments. and evaluate each mind moment from the perspective of mobile usage.

So far I was under impression that cetasicas are elementary mental
factor.

Cetasikas are mental factors. (characteristics of minds).
They don't arise alone.
They arise with mind and other cetasikas.
When they arise they arise at the same time.
When they cease they cease at the same time.
They have the same object.
They depend on the same Rupa.

Today when I show Samma ājiva is also a cetasika. It changed my view
toward cetasika.

There are 3 Virati-cetasikas (abstinent-cetasikas)
They are not long time existing actions as you have thought. They are momentary.
When we abstain from a verbal or bodily wrong doing, the "abstinent-cetasikas" arises in the mind. It is a virati-cetasika.

And with little exaggeration I can say that, I can develop a modern
cetasika like samma-mobile.
No. All the cetasikas that exists were already found by the Buddha. That is why he was omniscient.
It is considered the number 52 can not be changed.

If think of the new-cetasika you have mentioned, it should be a combined one of 2/3 virati cetasikas.

Wikipedia appears to have a sufficient article on the fifty-two mental factors found in the mass-market Theravada commentary called Abhidhammattha-Sangaha. Wikipedia divides the fifty-two cetasika into:

Seven universal mental factors
Six occasional mental factors
Fourteen unwholesome mental factors
Twenty-five beautiful mental factors.

Sammā-ājīva (right livelihood) is one of the beautiful mental factors rather than is a universal mental factors. The beautiful mental factors (sobhana cetasika) accompany the wholesome consciousnesses (kusala citta).


text:
A recovering drug addict's struggle with ignorance and Beginner's Mind
I, as most addicts do, have a deeply embedded and exaggerated difficulty with desire/aversion.
I am only coming to understand the nature of my own ignorance experientially now. It is frightening for me, because the fear of relapse, that aversion, is usually the primary culprit as the potential cause of my relapse. And I always feel on the verge of it. Yet other past factors play in as egoic reference experiences from the past.
When I began to observe the inner workings of mind and experience, I began to see that much of my desire/aversion and egoic attachments are automatic.
My current short-tempered anger at the smallest things, moods and striving seem programmed.
Mindfulness keeps transitioning into a task and an objective, as does meditation.
Being and letting be collapses into a means to an end. To avert the life that was and safeguard a desirable future.
I have a lot to lose, when my mind is hijacked by craving (in the broader buddhist context.)
For someone who came from a life, where the world was continually and habitually deemed good/bad, I should/shouldn't, they should/shouldn't, want/don't want, like/don't like, I wanted to ask for guidance around Beginner's Mind and cultivating equanimity and understanding. To see things as they are, I as I am now, and the same in relationship with others.
I recognise I am living my life, seeing things as they were, pitted against the purity of what is, on replay in my thoughts, beliefs. Ego overlayed onto a now I feel blinded and jaded to. It has present moments simply feel burdensome to me.
Anything that could assist a practice of beginner's mind meditation/mindfulness, cultivating non-judgmental awareness and understanding to 'unknot' a confused mind would mean the world to me.
Anything to note/notice on this journey in bringing purity and clarity to my present reality would help me.
Thanks so much.

It is a good question. I think it requires slow and gradual steps to transition into a state of dettachment. I would suggest trying to identify what things trigger you into the automatic behavior loops of drugs. For instance, are you more likely to take them when you are stressed ? Once you have these answers, trying to think of better ways to dealing with you triggers.

@lilredindy The question was, "I wanted to ask for guidance around Beginner's Mind and ..."

It is frightening for me, because the fear of relapse, that aversion, is usually the primary culprit as the potential cause of my relapse. And I always feel on the verge of it.
I'm not sure I understand this; because on the contrary in my experience relapse might be caused by non-fear, or a moment of what a Buddhist could call "heedlessness" (or I might call "recklessness") e.g. "It's Ok if I relapse".
But perhaps you're saying the cause is your "always feeling on the verge of it" -- i.e. the fact that you are "always" thinking about it.
I remember that, when I was quitting cigarettes for example, the habitual craving for a cigarette would arise, would recur. And because that filled my mind, I was unable to do anything else except think about it -- or to wait for that thought, that craving, to go away.
Fortunately, after a while -- days, weeks, months, years -- the frequency and intensity of those arising-of-cravings becomes less and less. The thought virtually never occurs to me now -- the only reason I'm remembering it now is because I was deliberately trying to relate what you wrote to some recollection my own experience -- but even so it doesn't trouble me, there's no desire remaining.
My current short-tempered anger at the smallest things, moods and striving seem programmed.
I'm not sure it's relevant but I occasionally feel short-tempered, especially around other people.
Maybe in theory I should feel disappointed that I have that tendency, it contradicts an ideal self-image. In practice I want to be tolerant or maybe forgiving of that weakness or tendency -- it's "only human" and "like everyone else" -- what matters more is whether or how much I allow myself to act on it (e.g. by saying something short-tempered -- or, worse, by thinking that acting in anger is justified).
But yes I think I might misbehave if I'm too stressed -- in my experience, if you shout at me for long enough I'm going to get upset, for example -- and part of living is to "manage stress" as they say, and to avoid getting into too-stressful situations.
There are some stressful conditions that I can handle, and others where my ability to handle myself well begins to deteriorate.
Mindfulness keeps transitioning into a task and an objective, as does meditation.
That's my experience too and perhaps it's not wrong, it's justifiable.
I'm not sure what your experience is with Buddhism -- your asking about Beginner's Mind implies that perhaps it's Zen.

Some answers such as those here suggest that Zen students are not taught dharma.
I've also read on this site someone saying that his Zen practice didn't make sense until he did read the Pali suttas

From the perspective of the suttas' tradition I think that "mindfulness" means "remembering the dharma" -- and there absolutely is a goal, a task, an objective: i.e. to end stress, to end the tendencies from which stress arises.
For someone who came from a life, where the world was continually and habitually deemed good/bad, I should/shouldn't, they should/shouldn't, want/don't want, like/don't like
I think that's a feature of dhamma in the suttas: for example speech is "Noble" or "Right", or it's isn't; actions are "skilful" or "unskilful"; results are stressful or fortunate.
I found the doctrine more reality-based (more true and useful) than a naive understanding of Christianity, which teaches that the reason for doing or not-doing something is "because that's God's will".
I wanted to ask for guidance around Beginner's Mind and cultivating equanimity and understanding. To see things as they are, I as I am now, and the same in relationship with others.
I guess you've been told something about being non-judgemental, which you're finding difficult.
I haven't been taught Zen, so ... and given that a statement tends not to be the whole truth, it's difficult to say something about what Beginner's Mind is; but here goes:

Wikipedia: Shoshin
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (prologue)

From the latter:

For Zen students, the most important thing is not to be dualistic. Our "original mind" includes everything within itself. It is always rich and sufficient within itself. You should not lose your self-sufficient state of mind. This does not mean a closed mind but actually an empty mind and a ready mind. If your mind is empty it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.

Incidentally the first part of that, saying that the mind is "self-sufficient", reminds me of or was a topic of several chapters of a Tibetan-tradition book titled Vivid Awareness: but some of that book made some sense to me because it used words like "skilful" or kusala which I'd already met.
The second part of that mentions being "empty, open, and ready for anything".
Here's a description of thought-process from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

Well, those were the commonest setbacks I can think of: out-of-sequence reassembly, intermittent failure and parts problems. But
although setbacks are the commonest gumption traps they’re only the external cause of gumption loss. Time now to consider some of
the internal gumption traps that operate at the same time.
As the course description of gumptionology indicated, this internal part of the field can be broken down into three main types of
internal gumption traps: those that block affective understanding, called "value traps"; those that block cognitive understanding, called
"truth traps"; and those that block psychomotor behavior, called "muscle traps." The value traps are by far the largest and the most
dangerous group.
Of the value traps, the most widespread and pernicious is value rigidity. This is an inability to revalue what one sees because of
commitment to previous values. In motorcycle maintenance, you must rediscover what you do as you go. Rigid values make this
impossible.
The typical situation is that the motorcycle doesn’t work. The facts are there but you don’t see them. You’re looking right at them, but
they don’t yet have enough value. This is what Phædrus was talking about. Quality, value, creates the subjects and objects of the world.
The facts do not exist until value has created them. If your values are rigid you can’t really learn new facts.
This often shows up in premature diagnosis, when you’re sure you know what the trouble is, and then when it isn’t, you’re stuck. Then
you’ve got to find some new clues, but before you can find them you’ve got to clear your head of old opinions. If you’re plagued with
value rigidity you can fail to see the real answer even when it’s staring you right in the face because you can’t see the new answer’s
importance.
The birth of a new fact is always a wonderful thing to experience. It’s dualistically called a "discovery" because of the presumption that
it has an existence independent of anyone’s awareness of it. When it comes along, it always has, at first, a low value. Then, depending
on the value-looseness of the observer and the potential quality of the fact, its value increases, either slowly or rapidly, or the value
wanes and the fact disappears.
The overwhelming majority of facts, the sights and sounds that are around us every second and the relationships among them and
everything in our memory...these have no Quality, in fact have a negative quality. If they were all present at once our consciousness
would be so jammed with meaningless data we couldn’t think or act. So we preselect on the basis of Quality, or, to put it Phædrus’
way, the track of Quality preselects what data we’re going to be conscious of, and it makes this selection in such a way as to best
harmonize what we are with what we are becoming.
What you have to do, if you get caught in this gumption trap of value rigidity, is slow down...you’re going to have to slow down
anyway whether you want to or not...but slow down deliberately and go over ground that you’ve been over before to see if the things
you thought were important were really important and to—well—just stare at the machine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just live
with it for a while. Watch it the way you watch a line when fishing and before long, as sure as you live, you’ll get a little nibble, a little
fact asking in a timid, humble way if you’re interested in it. That’s the way the world keeps on happening. Be interested in it.
At first try to understand this new fact not so much in terms of your big problem as for its own sake. That problem may not be as big as
you think it is. And that fact may not be as small as you think it is. It may not be the fact you want but at least you should be very sure
of that before you send the fact away. Often before you send it away you will discover it has friends who are right next to it and are
watching to see what your response is. Among the friends may be the exact fact you are looking for.
After a while you may find that the nibbles you get are more interesting than your original purpose of fixing the machine. When that
happens you’ve reached a kind of point of arrival. Then you’re no longer strictly a motorcycle mechanic, you’re also a motorcycle
scientist, and you’ve completely conquered the gumption trap of value rigidity.

Things to note:

Being too impatient, too selfish, interferes with seeing the many details of the world as it is, which takes time, is a process (on that subject I think the Buddha says it's possible for an enlightened person to know anything and everything but not simultaneously)

The activity is purposeful -- trying to diagnose and correct a fault in his motorcycle

It's a skilful mix of value-driven behaviour -- "I'd prefer a well-maintained motorcycle" -- while warning against "value rigidity" which can result in overlooking real cause and effective action

Some equanimity is important to the process -- earlier in the same book,

"What I wanted to say," I finally get in, "is that I’ve a set of instructions at home which open up great realms for the improvement of
technical writing. They begin, ‘Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind.’ "

Also one of those sentences seems to me relevant to the problem of addition or substance abuse:

This is an inability to revalue what one sees because of
commitment to previous values.

Like maybe in reality the addiction is part of the problem, but a "previous value" had seized on it as a solution.
Also I think that word "commitment" is related to what Buddhist might call "identity-view", for example, "I am this person and I have these problems and this history" and so on; but that too is empty, conditioned.
Anything to note/notice on this journey in bringing purity and clarity to my present reality would help me.

Doing good. Not doing things you regret (remorse). Doing things you don't regret.
I think that's said to be a basis.
Sure it's a bit judgemental. Except that "seeing no reason for remorse" when recollecting an action is sort of an absence of judgment, kind of refreshing/liberating, no regret.

I'm quite fond of this description of meditation (in Shin Buddhism).
It reminds me of The Recollections from the Pali tradition.

There's an answer here, describing Zen, which says that it is formally "goalless".

... hence the official statement that meditation has no goal.

I think there are "stages" of enlightenment. It's orthodox to talk about a "gradual training". The talk of "no goal" might be relevant quite near the end of the training, or continue to be relevant until the end -- but it may be confusing at the beginning.
I think the doctrine of the Three poisons says that people feel desire for what's attractive, feel aversion for what's unwanted, and feel delusion or confusion about what's neither.
There's a sutta which suggests that "desire" (of the good kind) and discrimination are instrumental, at least at the beginning of the path.

"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant ...
SN 51.15


text:
On what basis does the 'right' in Buddhism come from?
In the Noble Eight Fold path, the practices which are said to be done often have a suffix of 'right' to them. My question is, on what basis is this 'right' found? Could a logical explanation be given?

The 'Right' in Buddhism (Samma or Samyak, literally "done well" or "properly done") is that which is causally connected with peace (and Peace). It is causally connected with peace because it removes (arrests and prevents) the causes of non-peace, and because it ('the right') is itself caused and supported by such wholesome factors. The Buddhist right is a virtuous circle building up to Peace.
Unlike most ethical systems, Buddhism is exceedingly deterministic. The Buddha himself said his Dharma was based on the invariant law of nature:

when this exists - that exists. Arising of this leads to arising of that. When this doesn't exist - that doesn't exist. Cessation of this leads to cessation of that.

I suppose it makes sense: when someone seeds irresolvable contradictions, in the end someone has to reap the fruits. And vice versa, when irresolvable contradictions are not sowed, there are no contradictions to be experienced when the seeds would fruit.
Therefore the Right Speech is right because it being factual rather than lying, reconciling rather than divisive, helpful rather than abusing, and useful rather than idle - it functions as a factor of Peace by not creating latent tendencies leaning towards irreconcilable contradictions.
Similarly, Right Samadhi (here in the sense of meditation) is right because being a succession of jhanas it arrests and prevents inner causes of subtle contradictions towards more and more refined inner peace.
The rest of the factors in the Eightfold Path can be analyzed the same way. It's always about cultivating cessation and prevention of causes, either direct or indirect, that would  lead to an eventual experience of irreconcilable contradiction known as suffering. And cultivation of wholesome factors conducive to Peace.

Think of it this way... If you want to go to a friend's house, there are probably dozens of paths you can take to get there. Some are shorter, some are more pleasant to walk, some go by your favorite coffeeshop or bookstore, etc. There are also many, many, many paths you can walk that will take you someplace else entirely, so that you never reach your friend's house at all.   The 'right' path to your friend's house is whatever path gets you there reasonably quickly, reasonably pleasantly, and reasonably safely.
That's all that 'right' means in this Buddhist context. The eightfold path spells out things that monastics should adhere to so that the journey toward attainment will be fast and direct. It's a roadmap that keeps one out of the mire and free of unforeseen obstacles.

When I read this question I felt this is like someone catching the snake from its tail. If we catch the snake from the tail it can bite us.  but if we catch the snake from the head or neck it cannot move or bite anybody.  Likewise we need to catch the dhamma in a right place. Without knowing the theory correctly if we catch the word and start experimenting with the knowledge of our max 50 to 60 years[our age] it is not fair when we compare with the our Lord buddha's knowledge. We have to trust and stand the Point lord Buddha is always right.  I might get wrong somewhere and I need to find where I got wrong.
If that is the case you can find the answer easily. In your case if you study the "Patichchasamuthpada" the causes and the effects. You will find the exact answer for your question.  Also,  you need to study how the "Karma" works on each mind. Then you need to learn Chiththa -01[89 or 121 in actions], and chaithisika -52, and Chiththa Vithi[Who the 17 minds together completing the action]. Once you learn these you can find where exactly you get the "Samma Right" or Wrong.
When the consciousness is in action each mind working with 52 chithisikas. Mainly it has  25 Beautiful or wholesome factors and 14 unwholesome factors which occurs due to 6 causes. Greed[Loba], Dosa[Hatred], Moha[delusion]which creates unwholesome mental factors and Non-Greed[Aloba], Non-hatred[adosa]Wisdom[Amoha]which creates wholesome factors. 7 Universal mental factors are there in all minds irrespective of the wholesome unwholesome acts. 6 Occasional factors vary change accordingly to the wholesome and unwholesome minds.
This is a very small brief that I wanted to prove you exactly how you can find the line of the Right[Samma] and Wrong[mithya]. To Learn exactly you need to learn Chiththa, chaithicika, rupa, Nibbana.  Lord Buddha's speeches he never utter any single word that may not helpful to the society. All his words directly aim to the Nibban. If we can direct our actions and thoughts to the nibbana it is not too far. It is already within us.  But Nibbana is surrounded by lot of garbage in our samsara collection.  We need to meditate and bring this up by removing all the garbage surrounded Nibbana then it starts blooming. May Triple Gem blessings helps you to find Nibbana Soon. If you willing to learn just follow the link and follow lessons.Loving and Kindness

Where is this image from? Was there text which explained the image in more detail?

This picture I created to show 52 mental factors in brief in one chart showing its segregation. For anybody who wants to learn go to this link and follow from the introduction then you can understand exactly the right and the wrong the difference between the real and the seeing worlds. use this link https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

The basis of the right is within the gambit of the soteriological context and causation.
The soteriological context is removing suffering (Nirvana) and maximizing happiness (Buddhahood). The causation involved demonstrates the principle of causation (dependent origination) and its comprehensive account, with regards to mental states, phenomenon in general and the soteriological context.
The right is right on the basis of the causation. As an example, a hired assassin also needs immense amount of concentration (amongst other skills) to carry out his task. But this concentration is not beneficial for attaining Nirvana or happiness. And thus, such concentration is wrong concentration.
Such, is the basis of the ''right'', in short.

There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in buddhism. There are two word. 'Samma' and 'kushala'.
Both are trying to help in discriminating based on the goal i.e Nibbana.
Kushala means skilful that helps you towards your goal. Here your goal is nibbana.
Similarly Samma has various meaning based on context. But main theme is BALANCE.
In case where optimum is important. I.e not "too much  and not too less" then  Samna word is used.
But still the purpose is to stay put on the path(Nibbana).


text:
Reference request where Buddha calls a monk "janitor"
Iirc there is a text where the Buddha called a monk "janitor" for being devoted to cleaning.
It's probably in the Dhp commentary but i am not sure.
Two monks ordained, one spent his time practicing whereas the other was cleaning a lot & criticizing the meditator.


text:
Sexuality, marriage and the fourth precept
Let's say a person were to seek for, and enter a monogamous heterosexual relationship and eventually marriage, but actually he or she is either homosexual or bisexual (but more inclined to homosexuality).
This person may genuinely believe that he or she can live the heterosexual lifestyle and marriage, and persevere in making it successful, without infidelity, despite not being intrinsically or naturally heterosexual. This may be due to conforming to social norms, local laws (where same-sex marriages and homosexuality may be illegal) and parental expectations, plus the desire to have one's own biological children, the normal way.
This person may also avoid openly telling this to their prospective partner, otherwise they may lose their chance at being accepted.
Would this be violating the fourth precept of not telling lies (and not being dishonest)?
How should this person approach this situation instead?

Related: Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

As I explained in this answer, the purpose of Right Speech is to avoid creating latent causes of future suffering. Lying sets in motion an alternative narrative that gets its own life and eventually comes in conflict with the narrative based on truth. It ends up becoming a kind of irreconcilable contradiction that someone somewhere (often you, but also others) experiences as personal suffering.
In your example, if you don't lie to anyone, but simply hide the truth - guess what - the conflict between the two narratives is still inevitable. Granted, it does not directly involve anyone, it stays "in your head" - but that does not make it any less problematic. Not only it will make you suffer internally, you being perpetually in a state of inner conflict will eventually spill on your partner and on other people around you.
This is why being who you are, by which I mean being authentic in your relationships with the World - instead of suppressing the truth and playing a role - plays a tremendously important role in the Buddhist practice, at least in the Zen and Vajrayana schools that I trained in.
Of course this doesn't mean being unhinged. There's still ethiquette and compassion and taking on suffering to relieve  someone else's. There are real-life situations when subjecting oneself to inner suffering is the best available option. But to live one's life at-large in a state of unresolved contradiction is definitely not conducive to the Buddhist quest for personal and global Peace.
This is why coming out and being real is extremely important - not just in terms of one's sexual orientation but in all forms of authentic expression. I suppose you knew this intuitively but it's kind of nice to clearly see the mechanism at work here, I hope it will help you to settle this issue.


text:
Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"
Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"? Is it metaphysical or ontological claim, that nothing that "exists" will exist forever?
Or is it a claim that nothing can always be (meaning having that nature, rather than 'exist') anything? If not that latter, does Buddhism universally agree that there is no awareness of something being what it is, without existence?

Can I be aware of, for example, a shape being red without existence and "permanently" in the standard way of using that word, even if "everything is impermanent"?

I think the assertion is that all sankharas are impermanent -- Three marks of existence -- more specifically "all conditioned things".
The idea is that most things are "conditioned" -- they have conditions in which they come into being, or are fabricated -- and they cease when those conditions cease to be.
So "a sight" (for example) is conditioned -- the conditions for seeing are an "eye" plus a "visual object" plus an "internal sense of sight" -- sight arises when these make contact, and any or every sight is impermanent (i.e. when that contact ceases). The same is true for other sense-impressions (including thoughts).
Physical objects are impermanent too, they're created from other things and eventually destroyed.
In summary, "all that arises, ceases".
Conversely whatever is "unconditioned" isn't impermanent.

This wasn't targeted enough to the question, but thanks for the thought/s

There were a lot of words I didn't understand in the question: metaphysical, ontological, "have nature" as opposed to existing, what "nothing" means in that context, and the whole sentence after that. And I don't understand what you could be calling "permanent"  or "permanently" in the last sentence.

@ChrisW I think they mean the in-and-of-itself quality of the red shape, the objective quality that is, e.g. the red shape will always be red whenever present

Well I don't understand the syntax or the vocabulary of the question. But I think this answer is a quick explanation or a summary of what the suttas say.

Anicca according to wisdomlib means:

anicca : (adj.) not stable; impermanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

From the AccessToInsight Glossary for A:

anicca: Inconstant; unsteady; impermanent.

This is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 17 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and
perished.
So impermanent are conditions,
Evaṃ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unstable are conditions,
evaṃ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;
so unreliable are conditions.
evaṃ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.
DN 17

You may be happy and confident today, based on your close-knit family, dependable friends, good looks, fantastic health, abundant wealth, productive career or business etc. But all these will not last forever. They are impermanent (aniccā), unstable (addhuvā) and unreliable (anassāsikā). To peg your happiness or sense of self to these things will bring suffering. That's the relationship of impermanence to suffering. Also see SN 22.93 below.
The purpose of seeing conditioned things as impermanent, unstable and unreliable, is so that you can become disillusioned, dispassionate and free from clinging.
It's not metaphysics or ontology. It's pragmatism and methodological.

“Suppose, mendicants, there was a mountain river that flowed swiftly,
going far, carrying all before it. If wild sugarcane, kusa grass,
reeds, vetiver, or trees grew on either bank, they’d overhang the
river. And if a person who was being swept along by the current
grabbed the wild sugarcane, kusa grass, reeds, vetiver, or trees, it’d
break off, and they’d come to ruin because of that.
In the same way, an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble
ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble
ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor
trained in the teaching of the good persons.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self
in form. But their form breaks off, and they come to ruin because of
that. They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as
self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in
consciousness. But their consciousness breaks off, and they come to
ruin because of that.
What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or
impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is
no return to any state of existence.’”
SN 22.93

A red square will always be a red square. The term "red" defines a certain frequency range. The term "square" defines a certain geometrical relationship.  These are abstractions which we use to name what we see. So "red square" is a name.
Yet when we see a red square, we actually see only a form that matches the name "red square".  And these forms, such as a printed or painted red square are impermanent. The printing or painting of a red square is always impermanent. Printings and paintings fade and crumble away with time.
So we can talk and talk about red squares forever. But all that we see as a red square will crumble away. These perceived forms are impermanent. Understanding that these forms are impermanent leads us to question our restless grasping for such forms (as in "that's MY red square!").

SN22.157:1.10: Is form permanent or impermanent?”
SN22.157:1.11: “Impermanent, sir.” …
SN22.157:1.13: “But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would fetters, insistence, and shackles arise?”

Names are intangible. Forms are tangible yet unsatisfactorily impermanent. Grasping and holding on to impermanence is suffering.

DN15:3.1: So: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress

Even the concept of a red square is impermanent -- though you may imagine (at least temporarily) that what you're imagining is some eternal platonic ideal.

@ChrisW actually, in Ven. Sujato's translations, the Buddha does not (!) talk about permanence or impermanence with regard to "name". Instead, "form" is what is associated with impermanence. So we have to be very careful when talking about names being impermanent.  This was quite a surprise to me and led to this answer.

Everything is not impermanent. All composite phenomena are impermanent. It is an important distinction to be made. It is not a claim. It is an assertion about the nature of reality. That makes it an ontological claim. I am unaware of any such claim "nothing exists will exist forever".
But here are my two points about it-
If you are trying to understand the 'claim' within Buddhist perspective first, which is what I am assuming you are attempting to do (for you have posted a question on this site). Something which doesnt exist may come into existence at some point or it may not. There would be other conditions that determine that. The impermanence does not say anything related to anything that doesnt exist exist forever. YOu may find it useful to understand impermanence without such idea. Once you get what buddhists mean by impermanence, you may think about other problems as and how you like.

Your second question is also a question which is trying to understand something through buddhism but not understanding buddhism first. Your questions wil change.

As to answer you example question, yes we can and in fact that is how we live in the world. We are aware of a red apple as a red apple without thinking of it in terms of existence or permanence. These are conceptual categories that are applied according to specific rules. I again implore you to read about the concept of impermanence from reliable scholars and books of buddhism with wheich you can then think about particular problems.

Red can not always remain red. Everything is impermanent. Nirvana is neither permanent or impermanent.Sight is impermanent. Sound is impermanent. House is impermanent.Jobs are impermanent. All forms are impermanent. All feelings are impermanent.
Impermanent not only applies to existence but also to current state. Nothing can remain in its current state forever. It is bound to change and vanish. Similarly impermanence also means it is bound to arise again. All things, processes,feelings,perceptions,choices,consciousness  (all sanskaras) arise , change and vanish ; this is called impermanence.
Nirvana is a mystery it is neither stable nor unstable. It is extinguishment.Buddha even gives up extinguishment and says I am not extinguishment, extinguishment is not mine or myself.Except Nirvana all is impermanent.

By “quickly” I assume you mean an answer that does not take a lot of time to answer. One that is not TLDR; that goes on and on forever. But even overly long answers come to an end. Everything comes to an end. That’s neither metaphysical, nor ontological. It’s a fact. An event with a beginning and an end. We experience the start of the event and the end of the event. Some events are really short lived, others go on for millennia, like the erosion of a mountain, some even longer, like the Sun. But none continue ‘forever’ — not even the universe.
Do you grok the perspective here? It’s not some bullshit ‘objective’ conceptual view from nowhere, or a God’s Eye view overlooking all of metaphysical ‘eternity’. The Buddha wasn’t interested in metaphysics and he specifically eviscerated the ontological basis of Ontology.
And that is where there is a problem with your question: you are trying to twist impermanence into a metaphysical assertion, or an ontological one. It’s neither. It’s just the universal fact that no event lasts forever.
Emptiness is what you need to incorporate into your calculus, because impermanence and emptiness are two aspects of one truth. By not incorporating emptiness into your question, you are creating a golem out of impermanence.
Emptiness is a complex dialectical understanding about what “exists”, and different schools of Buddhism hold to varying applications of the doctrine. No ‘thing’ can be truly said to exist because no thing has an independent self-nature. You can say your fingers exist, but you’re really confusing yourself because fingers don’t exist on their own. I’ll leave it to you to expand on that.
I said “dialectical” because not even Emptiness exists as an independent thing.
And yet, though nothing exists in the naïve sense of that word, it’s not a void. It’s not nihilism. It is a plenum of events of varying durations. It is a fullness, rather than an emptiness. The point here being that Emptiness refers to the lack of independent selfhood, and that’s it.
It breaks ontology though.
“Exists” means being, in our common meaning of “to be.” And it implies that in being, something has an independent self-nature. It’s real. It’s material, etc., etc.
But that is just an illusion that happens because of our ignorance (lack of direct insight really).
So, can you experience “a shape being red without existence and "permanence"* in the standard way of using that word,” even if everything is impermanent? Of course! You do it anytime you look at something that is red.
Of course, the redness has little to do with the thing you are labeling as being red. (I’ll skip all the junior high-school physics lessons about why that is.) It has to do with the entire context of the moment, including the thing, you, and the light source, but also the time of day, the weather, etc. This is called codependent origination.
The crux of all this is that you have to distinguish between the common meaning of existence, and the Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness. Otherwise, you are just asserting erroneous interpretations of the very unique and very profound insights of the Buddha.
The End
See?!