text:
Do Buddha represent the Cosmic Man? Does it have similarity to Brahman?
Why the historic saviours and prophets of mankind only existed in scriptures or only in the past?
Why do no saviour was found in the world, which have seen by some men actually?
Why Buddha keeps his hair, but the disciples are bald?
I believe the Buddha is synonym to the cosmic man, the Brahman or the Absolute of the Upanishad.
I feel no man named Buddha existed but the term coined to the awakened one or the absolute. It has been replaced with Brahman.
Shaven head of disciple means they have shaven their mind of impurity to attain the Teacher, The Tathagata.
The 'Tat' is Upanishadic word from greatest dictum, 'Tat Tvam Assi'!
Do Tathagata really mean who have arrived at 'Tat' or the Absolute?
Please I have these doubts in my mind!

Hair of the Buddha

Is the title of tathagata ever literal?

The wind moves among the willows, a deep twilight red; the muttering of a thousand voices. And yet, stillness...

In that stillness, actor shed-off the mask, lo! Who is in the house brother?

Master is in the house!  And says the Diogenes, 'Art of serving a master, is to rule him!' wonder of wonder!

Of course is the Sublime Buddha his disciples 'Brahma', the Sangha and their faithful follower, good householder, one not only having formed the space but filled it up with the teaching to go beyond dependency.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things.
"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

He who, unstinting,
made the mass-donation of Dhamma,
the Tathagata,
sympathetic to all beings:
    to one of that sort
— the best of beings, human & divine —
living beings pay homage —
    to one gone
    to the beyond
    of becoming.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release for this wheel]

I agree respected sir. Even 'Brahma is also the disciple of Buddha. And Buddha said, 'I am Brahman indeed!'. What I asked is not about Brahma but the Brahman or Absolute. Upanishada says, 'Brahm janati iti Brahmana' (those who know Brahm is really called as the Brahman). They say Brahman is highest truth. Also they says, 'Who attain Brahman,  then birth and death can't apply to the one who knows it. It ceases'.  In that sense Buddha is word synonym to Brahman.

They have same historic saviours always existed in the past. Nobody seen them with personal account. Not only that, but the same teachings are there in different religious texts. Like concept of 'The one who know Brahm, is Brahmana', exists also in Christianity. The John says, ''A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' Here John is Brahm and the one who arrive and know as greater than him, the John. Where are these historic men came from? Who breathed forth the scriptures? Bible says, 'Lord breathed forth the scriptures. Can this be true?

As long as it does not touch hidden desire for one of the three kinds, sensuality, craving for being, craving for not-being, it would serve the path toward liberation, good householder. The rest is useless philosophy, trying to take hold on something lying beyond the world, causing just suffering. Walk on, good Brahman, don't waste precious time. Ehipassiko! With his Path the Sublime Buddha invites all to come and see, see for themselves.

Doubt fades only by enter the stream. As this here isn't a conductive place, good householder, as all others, wishing to progress, may make use of given "Brahma-realm"

Good monk. Don't judge others for their cravings and delusions. Don't think others as downgraded and mean. For, you can't know the other one who, may have supassed in vision and wisdom. May have attain tranquility and near the sublime goal. In my case I feel nothing as obscure. Good wishes for your journey sir and may you attain peace!

What a fart...

The Buddha is a title which means The Awakened One.
Gautama Buddha was one of a number of Buddhas who, according to tradition, appeared in history.
Gautama Buddha really did exist as a real person, and there is some archaeological evidence for this. Please see National Geographic's most recent article "Buddha's birthplace yields clues about his mysterious life".
In the Pali Canon, the word Brahma refers to a class of high level gods, who are not immortals. In fact, no person exists forever in Buddhism. Also, the word brahman in the Pali Canon refers to what the Hindu scriptures call brahmana or brahmin, the priestly class of people.
Nowhere does the term Brahman, as referring to God or the Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth, exist in the Pali Canon.
After he passed away, there is no way for anyone to contact Gautama Buddha anywhere by prayers or anything like that. By attaining enlightenment, you don't become one with the Buddha and you certainly don't become spiritually connected to him. That doesn't fit in with the notion of Brahman in Hinduism.
"Tathāgata" is formed by "tathā" + "gata" meaning "one who has thus gone". It has nothing to do with Hinduism's "tat twam asi" (That thou art i.e. you are that Ultimate Reality).
The idea of Brahman in Hinduism is a personification of the Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Reality. The Buddha rejected this kind of view as eternalism (sassatavada in Pali or sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) in many suttas.
Some people say Nibbana is Brahman, but Nibbana is simply what is experienced by the mind which is free from defilements and fetters. It is not an Ultimate Reality i.e. it's not an eternal state of existence.
If we venture into Mahayana Buddhism, some Hindus may say that the Buddha Nature is Brahman. But the Buddha Nature is simply the potential to become a Buddha. It's not any kind of Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth.
In Mahayana Buddhism, some may say that the Buddha exists eternally in his Dharma Body. This comes from a saying of the Buddha in the Pali suttas to the effect of "when you see me, you see the Dharma. When you see the Dharma, you see me". This means that there is nothing special about the Buddha's form or personality to idolize. What is special about the Buddha is the Dharma - his teachings.
There is no such thing as Cosmic Man or Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. Consciousness is impermanent and dependent on sensory media. It doesn't exist independently from the six senses, looking through multiple living beings simultaneously.

'By knowing the uncreat and unborn, you have silenced yourself, you have already attained Nirvana!'._Dhammapada
One can have no doubt what unborn, uncreat means.  The ultimate reality or Brahman? Upanishadic teacher said, 'Silence is That! Brahmin is the sect of people. Brahman is the uncreat and unborn or Absolute. Essense is same. Even Buddhism is not one sects, they have multiple branches as much as 32 sects like Sarvastivadin, mahayan, hinyan who follows different approch to truth. They hold their sects as true, like what Theravada do.

@SandeepTelang Indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp wrote in Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study: "Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum (true substance)," or similarly."

I have never seen or heard any Mahayanist or Mahayana text that would say that Buddha Nature is Brahman. This idea seems to only exist in the mind of people who disagree with Mahayana.

@Andrei Volkov: What if it is there? Tathāgatagarbha is not the name for Brahman with attribute. Tathāgatagarbha is synonym to 'Universe is Brahman, neither beginning nor end, always changes. Like a city in mirror, universe exists in it, but he is not in it.' Mahayana says the same, even, Nagarjuna goes further and declared ,'Samsara is Nirvana (World is That(Nirvana) either exists, not, not not, nor both.Truth don't live in scriptures.  Jesus died, Mohammad died, Buddha died, Brahma died, crores of Saint died, Behold 'That one never dies!' 'Thou are that'!

mind of an Arahant will one day cease (SN 22.85) where as the element of Nibbana never ceases (Ud 8.3; MN 115.  Also one aspect of knowing the awakened one is like this. 'If anyone says, he know Brahman, know not, for it knows itself'! Knower dies! 'If anybody says I saw it, know not, for it see itself!' seer dies!...it is the realm where seer, act of seeing and object to be seen in one. What a wonder!


text:
Major differences between breath meditation and body scan meditation?
I have done several Vipassana retreats in the past. Some questions came up to me several times without being able to answer them.

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g. Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e Anapana Sati meditation)?

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my breathing simultaneously?

For starters i am not sure how you differentiate between the two. The literal content of anapanasati sutta teaches us to examine several different aspects including but not limited to bodily sensations or breathing.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g.
Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e
Anapana Sati meditation)?

Besides the obvious difference in meditation objects, there will likely be a wider range of experiences perceived during a body scan, as you become more receptive to any/all body functions, aches, hunger, et c, compared to focusing solely on the breath.
Also, scanning the body systematically too quickly can make you less perceptive to anicca - i.e. the non-permanence of a singular sensation - compared to being attentive to your breath only where you'll be gradually more attentive to subtle changes. On the other hand, shifting your attention as taught in anapanasati can aid you in practicing the discernment of mental factors.

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to
focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware
of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my
breathing simultaneously?

Choose one object at a time. It will train you in maintaining singular focus (ekagatta), and will also enable you to examine how bodily phenomena transforms, or whether they are successively stilled (or not), for instance. If other sensations arises you will likely shift your attention regardless of whether you intend to or not, so focus on practicing returning your attention to your initial meditation object.

Why is good householder doing such retreats and what should be their purpose? Asked back, since it matters in regard of a releaseful answer.
Could he here and now investigate that matter and gives an account, a truthfully here if still necessary?

In Satipathana there are four frames of references.
The fist is the contemplation of the body. (Kayanupassana)
Awareness of the breath is considered body contemplation. This includes any bodily actions such as walking, sitting, and sleeping as well.
The second limb is the contemplation of feeling. (Vedanaupassana) Here your contemplation on the body such as the pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling of the body.
It appears to be the breath meditation is the first limb and the body scanning is the second limb.

I have done several Vipassana retreats in the past.

The retreats you have done are "Goenka" retreats and what was taught there is not the same as the "vipassana" & "anapanasati" taught by the Buddha.

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g.
Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e
Anapana Sati meditation)?

Both of the above contrived techniques taught by Goenka are not what the Buddha taught.

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body?

Why would you want to focus attention across the body?

I am able to focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when
I am aware of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay
aware of my breathing simultaneously?

Buddhist meditation is about keeping the mind free from greed, hatred, delusion & craving. Therefore, whatever sense experience comes into the mind, such as experiencing the breathing at the nose, in the throat, in the chest, in the abdomen, etc, the mind simply experiences it without having greed, aversion or cravings towards it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Signless Meditation • 8th Jhana
We find in Thig 3.3 the following verses :

I attain the meditations on emptiness and signlessness whenever I
want.
I am the Buddha’s rightful daughter, always delighting in quenching.

How, dear friends, would you relate the attainment of the signless to the jhana of neither perception nor non perception ?
Thank you for your most appreciated insightful comments. May you all be well and safe.

The 8th Jhana should be "The realm of neither sensation nor no sensation"
"The realm of neither sensation nor no sensation (neva saññā nāsaññāyatana) – the attention is withdrawn even from the awareness of nothing. Therefore, the attention is not focused on any sensation, though not remaining totally unconscious. Th is is being at the threshold of consciousness." Page 47 from here
Then he began to enter the cognitive ecstasies:
(5) The realm of infinite space
(6) The realm of infinite perception
(7) The realm of nothingness
(8) The realm of neither sensation nor no sensation
(9) The cessation of sensation and feeling.
Page 114 from here

As explained in many suttas, for example in MN121, in the gradual training approach the signless concentration is the next step after "neither perception nor nonperception" and the last step before The Final Liberating Realization.
If you search this site for the words signlessness, signless, nimitta, animitta, and semiotics - you will find many of my detailed answers on these topics.
For a detailed analysis of Pali sources, see this nice article: "Signless" Meditations in Pali Buddhism.
This topic is of the utmost importance because it connects the Early Buddhism and Mahayana into one teaching.

Signless is not a jhana and is not neither perception nor non perception. For example, both SN 40.9 & MN 121 appear to say the signless can be attained after the sphere of  neither perception nor non perception.
However, other suttas, such as SN 41.6, repeated in MN 44, say the signless can be attained after emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling.
Therefore, the impression is the foremost signlessness does not occur directly from a furtherance of "tranquilization" (as described in SN 36.11, MN 111, MN 26, etc) after the sphere of  neither perception nor non perception. Instead, it appears the foremost signless occurs after emerging from  the sphere of  neither perception nor non perception; or otherwise, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling; when the mind becomes increasing conscious rather than less conscious.
MN 43, AN 6.13, AN 7.56 and particularly MN 121 & AN 6.60 appears to clearly say the signless is not the foremost in liberation; is not emptiness (sunnata); and is not Nibbana.
MN 121 says:

‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by choices and
intentions.’
‘ayampi kho animitto cetosamādhi abhisaṅkhato abhisañcetayito’.
They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions
is impermanent and liable to cessation.’
‘Yaṃ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṃ abhisañcetayitaṃ tadaniccaṃ
nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti.

AN 6.60 says:

Take the case of another person who, not focusing on any signs, enters
and remains in the signless immersion of the heart.
Idha, panāvuso, ekacco puggalo sabbanimittānaṃ amanasikārā animittaṃ
cetosamādhiṃ upasampajja viharati.
Thinking, ‘I get the signless immersion of the heart!’ they mix
closely with monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; with rulers and their
ministers, and with teachers of other paths and their followers.
So ‘lābhimhi animittassa cetosamādhissā’ti saṃsaṭṭho viharati
bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīhi upāsakehi upāsikāhi raññā rājamahāmattehi
titthiyehi titthiyasāvakehi.
As they mix closely, they become intimate and loose, spending time
chatting, and so lust infects their mind.
Tassa saṃsaṭṭhassa vissatthassa pākatassa bhassamanuyuttassa viharato
rāgo cittaṃ anuddhaṃseti.
They reject the training and return to a lesser life.
So rāgānuddhaṃsitena cittena sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya hīnāyāvattati.

Based on the above, it also appears there are varying degrees of signlessness. In other words, it appears the signless is not always dependent upon emerging from the sphere of perception nor non-perception or emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling.
Therefore, when the Mahayana attempts to say the signless is superior to or transcends Nibbana; that Nibbana is merely a sign or concept; that Nibbana is the same as Samsara; obviously the Mahayana are wrong & lost in concepts about imagined non-concepts or lost in signs about imagined non-signs.

Here desciple talking of eyes of wisdom. The object that is signless and void, a deliverance for the Arhat. Jhana is litterally mean Dhyana, one pointed awareness, to that of object, in which the 'observer is turn into the observed phenomenon'! Like, one who goes to 'see', but turn into 'seen'. The seer (I) dies. The one got this wisdom eyes, the 'I' died. When 'I' is no more, then birth, becoming, old age and unwanted thing happens to whome?
Here the desciple have followed the Eightfold path and completed the journey, exclaimed the verse in hapiness!

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


text:
Buddha teaches the extinguishing of suffering, what if an individual is okay with suffering?
Is there any commentary on the path of choosing to coexist with suffering?
For example, some people think that suffering adds color to life, that the lows makes the highs better.
Or how some individuals find meaning in their suffering.
What does buddhism say about someone, after learning about suffering, chooses to accept it?
Also, what do you personally think about this path?

The word used by the Buddha is "dukkha", not suffering.
Dukkha is (by definition) the pain you experience when things are not how you want them to be, either objectively wrong or subjectively wrong, and you can do nothing to fix it.
For someone you describe, suffering is not wrong, therefore for them it is not dukkha. But any other aspects of life having a character of conflict between "is" and "should" will still be experienced as pain by this person. So liberation from that is still relevant for them.
Of course if they have absolutely no trace of conflict in their mind, then for them there's no dukkha, but what can we say about their environment? Do they have the insight to avoid creating pain in other people? They themselves may see suffering as peace, but does that hold for the others in their life, and if not, what does it tell about them?
Coming back to your question, this relationship between suffering and suchness is one of the key topics of Mahayana. Indeed, if suffering is an inevitable part of the relative life, and we accept the relative in its entirety as a manifestation of the absolute, doesn't it mean we accept suffering, too? And what happens to the painful aspect of suffering when we accept it? Hence the Mahayana's motto, "Samsara is Nirvana".
In short, your question is a valid one and the answer is in Mahayana's concept of the unity of the two truths, the relative and the absolute.

In Buddhism, the only reason why someone embraces suffering / unsatisfactoriness and chooses to co-exist with suffering / unsatisfactoriness, is due to clinging or attachment to sensual pleasures and existence (the idea to become something or somebody).
From SN 6.1:

“This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to
understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle,
comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it
and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific
conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see
this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of
all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
extinguishment. And if I were to teach this principle, others might
not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”

This is further elaborated in MN 75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.

Also from the Dhammapada:

Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
best.

This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.

Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.

You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of
Mara.

And also:

Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.

But whoever overcomes this wretched craving, so difficult to overcome, from him sorrows fall away like water from a lotus leaf.

What does buddhism say about someone, after learning about suffering, chooses to accept it?

It's difficult for the average typical worldling to "choose to accept" suffering. The 3 poisons come pre-packaged with the human operating system. So, when facing the unpleasant, what's the typical reaction? Resentment, anger, or frustration. Facing the pleasant? Craving, clinging, lusting after. So, interestingly, the only reliable way to be able to choose to accept suffering is... the cultivation of the Buddha Dhamma through Sila/Samadhi/Panna so that gradually one's loving-kindness, compassion, joy, AND EQUANIMITY are strong enough to enable one to do so. Without the Path, "choosing to accept suffering" is just another coping mechanism to mask the issue while all the underlying unwholesome tendencies for lust, anger, ignorance remain simmering below the surface and will strike again when new conditions arise.

Good householder,
"Whatever is felt comes under stress (dukkha)."

Alone
possible never investigated but actually what ever beings are doing, day in, day out, in every act by body, speech and mind, is to aviod and escape stress&suffering (dukkha). Even if there is one seeking suffering, actually it's for the sake of well-being.
Hence the idea of telling oneself that it's fine as it is, is also nothing else then another try to escape it.
That is why the very root cause of suffering isn't will (to not escape it) but not-knowing, delusion, ignor-ance (in regard of suffering and the way out).
Whoever sees
        pleasure as stress,
sees    pain as an arrow,
sees    peaceful neither-pleasure-
nor-pain
        as inconstant:
    he is a monk
    who's seen rightly.
    From that he is there set free.
        A master of direct knowing,
            at peace,
        he is a sage
        gone beyond bonds.

(iti)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worls-binding trades but for an escape from suffering by it]


text:
Nibbana: Not an Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth?
A certain Brahman (lay priest, as he uses this term) here told:

Nibbana is simply what is experienced by the mind which is free from defilements and fetters. It is not an Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth.

So according this, Nibbana isn't real but something, a maybe 'unconditioned Mind' experianses, and mind is obiviously assumed to be real.
What did the Buddha told in regard of Nibbana and Mind?
"Nibbānaṃ anicca. Cittānaṃ saraṇaṃ hotu."?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades or to entertain the mind, but for an escape to lasting freedom from debt]

By the way, I updated my statement to say "Nibbana is simply what is experienced by the mind which is free from defilements and fetters. It is not an Ultimate Reality i.e. it's not an eternal state of existence." I meant Ultimate Reality from the Hindu sense of the term.

Most, when one is after an enemy, one actually becomes total the same... as soon as a view is grasped..

"Nirvāna has been described by the Buddha not as the ending of rebirth (jāti nirodho), but as the ending of the delusion of existence (bhava nirodho Nibbānaŋ), by awakening from the dream of existence (samma sambodhi)." Page 57 from here
"The paradigm shift (nirodha samāpatti) where the meditator withdraws from the paradigm of existence (bhava) and gets established in the paradigm of experience (nirodha), brings about the freedom or liberation (vimutti) from emotional excitements (tanhā) and accompanying suffering (dukkha), ending in the imperturbable serenity, Nibbāna. This means the mind that was purified will never become polluted again." Page 78 from here

What a declared misinterpretation of the Buddha, saying mind is the ultimate reality and Nibbana a word for it's experiance... Outstanding nonsens... 'Is not ending of birth...', and uncountable stated otherwise by the Sublime Buddha. That's fist grade eternalists philosophy... and this from a disciple and his followers...

Nibbāna is Nirodha-AriyaSacca.
Nirodha is finishing of arising and arising's causes.
Ariya is Ultimate Meditated People.
Sacca is Truth.
Recite and memorize DN MahāsatipatthānaSutta SaccaPabba in Pali everyday for more information.

Useless answer, like most. If to greedy to sacrifices time, why answer at all young householder?


text:
Has the Buddha taught anything about how one should approach fixing society?

Has the Buddha taught anything about how one should approach fixing society?

Does the Buddha advocate for striving to make society better?

Does the Buddha have any practices for groups and societies that would lead society to less suffering?

Does the Buddha have any teachings about Justice and  Social Justice?

Related: Buddhist teachings on nation building & politics

Related: Buddhism to change the world

Related: Buddhism as a political party?

Yes.
The best is the sutta on World Turning Monarch (DN 26).
In addition other two important sutta are Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) and Parabhava Sutta (Snp 1.6).
There are many other suttas on the values of a great country.

I was referrting to  SN 1.6

Good householder,
Depending and enjoying certain society, one has of course duties in ones relations of which are of many kind for a householder. One not coming after his duties increases debt and endangers to be cut off while still full of desires.
In regard of getting understood the means, ways and kind of approaches, judgement from a wise perspective, this generous work makes many things clear: Wisdom over Justice.
Particularly, if one part-takes in the Buddhas society, nourishes on it, even benefits from it, one would have those duties there:

"Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.
"A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal. He should completely avoid theft.
"A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should not go to another's wife.
"Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do so. He should completely avoid falsehood.
"A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people.

Do not kill a living being;
do not take what is not given;
do not speak a lie;
do not drink intoxicants;
abstain from sexual intercourse;
do not eat food at night, at the wrong time;
do not wear flower-garlands nor use perfumes;
use the ground as a bed or sleep on a mat.

"This is called the eight-factored observance made known by the Awakened One who has reached the end of suffering.
"With a gladdened mind observe the observance day (uposatha), complete with its eight factors, on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the (lunar) fortnight and also the special holiday of the half month. In the morning, with a pure heart and a joyful mind, a wise man, after observing the uposatha, should distribute suitable food and drink to the community of bhikkhus. He should support his mother and father as his duty and engage in lawful trading. A layman who carries this out diligently goes to the devas called "Self-radiant." [7]

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades or entertainment that binds but for an escape from this kind of society]

Does the Buddha have any practices for groups and societies that would lead society to less suffering?

I do have an answer for this part, from Tibetan and Ch'an Buddhism, found in a Terma teaching passed on by the tertön Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö. This teaching is about what happens-—and the suffering it causes-—during the Dharma-ending time (now).

Ananda pleaded with the Victorious One:

“Victorious One, because you consider things with great compassion, spare humankind this torment.”

And the Victorious One replied to the venerable Ananda:

"I have this to say about it. While I was residing in the great expanse of space, I was thinking of and gazing on the beings of the world. So, listen! There is a teaching useful during the time when the dark age arises. If one writes of it, propagates it, and practices the "Great Responsiveness Meditation" and recitation, impurities and obscurations will be quickly purified. If one sincerely makes offerings to this spiritual text with flowers and incense, all sentient beings will benefit. By propagating this text and writing about it, one will obtain a good existence throughout all of one's lives."

The full English translation, from which the above quote is taken, was done by Stephen B. Aldridge  (Ka-rma gSung-rab rgya-mtsho) with the assistance of Ngor Thar-brtse mKhan-po, bSod-nams rgya-mtsho Rin-po-che. It is available in full in my article “Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö's Prophecy of Things to Come”
Great Responsiveness Meditation is the practice used by Avalokitasvara (referred to as “the One Who Hears the Cries of the World” in the following quote) to become enlightened, which Manjurshi asserts is the best practice for all of us today:

Great Assembly! Ānanda! Halt the puppet show
Of your distorted hearing! Merely turn your hearing round
To listen to your genuine true nature,
Which is the destination of the Path that is supreme.
This is the genuine way to break through to enlightenment.

It is the way that the innumerable Buddhas followed
Straight to nirvana's gate. All Thus-Come Ones of eons past
Succeeded by this method. Through this method, Bodhisattvas,
Too, right now are gaining perfect understanding.

Among the people of the future, those who undertake
A spiritual practice should rely upon this teaching.
I myself became enlightened by this very method.
He Who Hears the Cries is not the only one.

The Buddha, the World-Honored One, made a request
That I consider methods that will rescue beings
Who in the Dharma's ending-time resolve their minds
Upon attainment of transcendence and nirvana.
The best of all the methods is the practice
Taught by the One Who Hears the Cries of the World.

The sages who attained enlightenment by other means
Were aided by the Buddha's awe-inspiring spiritual power,
And each was specially taught how to abandon all affliction.
Some of these paths are shallow, some go deep; these teachings vary.

I bow now in respect to all the Buddhas, and I bow
To all their Dharma-treasuries and to the marvelous ones
Who've put an end to outflows. And may beings of the future
Be empowered so that they will have no doubts
That this one method is the most accessible.

It is the easiest way to reach enlightenment.
It is the teaching most appropriate
For Ānanda and for the beings drowning
In the Dharma's ending-time. They only need
This practice of the faculty of hearing
For them to break through to enlightenment,
For it surpasses all the other methods.
It is the genuine path to the true mind.(taken from: “The Śūraṅgama Sūtra,” Buddhist Text Translation Society, 2009, pgs 253-257)

Research "engaged Buddhism." It is a movement within Buddhism that was started by Thich Nhat Hahn and addresses this specific question.


text:
Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism?
Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism?
Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path. The way I understand the eightfold path is a generic path not exclusive to Buddhism. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism.
I was trying to convince this to many in Dhamma Wheel without much support.
I like to know the opinion of this learned Buddhist community.
Link to the discussion in Dhamma Wheel.
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38202

Please clarify, what you mean by the difference between the "eightfold path" and the "noble eightfold path"?

@ChrisW. Only the Noble Eightfold Path (as taught by fully enlightened Buddhas) can lead to complete freedom from suffering.

Every living being is following the eightfold path whether knowingly or unknowingly. What Buddha asked was to change that path to a Noble Eightfold Path.

Arguing about the Dhamma, the Noble Eightfold Path is not helpful.

DN1:1.1.4: Meanwhile, Suppiya criticized the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha in many ways, but his pupil Brahmadatta praised them in many ways.

It is not helpful because it does not bring peace.

DN1:1.5.1: “Mendicants, if others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and exasperated. You’ll get angry and upset, which would be an obstacle for you alone.

DN1:1.6.3: If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and excited. You’ll get thrilled, elated, and excited, which would be an obstacle for you alone.

For peace, avoid the prime net, the net of views discussed at length in DN1.

Is the Eightfold Path exclusive to Buddhism?

The general principle behind some limbs of the 8NP are quite universal across religions (ex: "Thou shall not kill" is a reflection/implementation of Right-Action; or: "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean." is Right-Speech, etc...). However, if looking at it as one fully elucidated and systematized whole, then yes, 8NP is exclusive to Buddhism.

Good householder,
While one could, in times of no Sammasambuddha, discover the path for oneself and become a privat Buddha, only a Sammasambuddha can teach it, hence it is, was, will be always 'Buddhism' (following the/a Buddha) which provides and teaches the Noble eightfold path, the path to Unbond, liberation, freedom from suffering.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trade but for an escape from this wheel]

The Noble Eightfold Path is exclusive to Buddhism, whether discovered by Gautama Buddha or Buddhas before him.
As stated in Dhammapada 254 - 255, noble contemplatives cannot be found outside the Buddha's teachings. The term "noble" or "ariya" here is a technical term in Buddhism, and doesn't refer to its ordinary meaning.
The simplest hint is that you cannot find the Right View of the Noble Eightfold Path outside Buddhism.
Of course, you can find eightfold paths anywhere.
For e.g. in the famous Hindu text Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, he taught the Ashtanga Yoga or Eight Limbs of Yoga.
And guess what image I found on the Ashtanga Yoga wikipedia page:

That's certainly an eightfold path, just not the Buddhist noble one.

Also please see this answer.
Even within Buddhism, there is both the noble and non-noble versions of Right Action, Right Speech, Right Livelihood and Right Thought (according to MN 117). The noble version applies to Buddhist monks while the non-noble version applies to Buddhist lay followers.
I speculate that the non-noble version of Right Action, Right Speech, Right Livelihood and Right Thought (according to MN 117) may also apply to followers of other religions, but only if they follow the definition strictly.


text:
How to choose a career?
People say, "Do something that you love. Such that you work does not seem like a burden". This is also something that we hear in pop-culture. Like "Follow your passion"
On the other hand, in Buddhist practices it is taught that we should let go of attachments. Like, We should try and experience everything without being judgmental about how we react to it. 'An enlightened one, has no attachment, takes no delight in pleasant experiences, has overcome the sign of "pleasant", has no fear, has no resistance to difficult experiences'. Then, how should someone choose a career path if s/he also wants to be a practicing Buddhist?

It depends on what your goals are.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is to become enlightened, my advice is to find a profession that will bring about as little discomfort and personal conflict as possible. Work that brings anger, guilt, frustration, etc will naturally be distracting from your goal, and will make it more difficult to achieve. You want to find a job that you won’t “take home” with you. One that doesn’t encourage suffering within yourself. Or, if you have the luxury, become a monk! Becoming a monk is the fast track to removing yourself from situations that impede progress towards enlightenment. The bottom line here is, if you want to become enlightened, do a job that isn’t going to distract you from your goal.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is just to live under the guidance of teachings, I would suggest just choosing a job that doesn’t violate the precepts. That way you can feel good about what you are doing, and will run into less conflict overall.

As to complement, for lay followers it is crucial to avoid wrong types of livelihood.

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which
five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
business in intoxicants, and business in poison."
— AN 5.177

https://accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html

Good householder,
Buddhist practices it is taught that we should let go of attachments.

Certain missguide/mis-guiding teacher and traders in Dhamma may say such, as for the Buddha and his good following disciples: No, one needs to have strong attachment to kusala (skillful), the training, the path and liberation, if wishing to escape from suffering, seeking for long term happiness.
That is then already the answer as well: what ever livelihood isn't involving the need of unskillful deeds, does not harm oneself or others, doesn't cause remorse, is a livelihood which a wise person would be attached to, strifes after it.
As for the most excellent career: becoming a Stream-enter, once-returner, non-returner, Arahat best by making use of the unexceled right livelihood: monastic disciple of the Buddha, going forth.
The earlier, the better and the higher can the blessed career be expected.
So how much fear has good householder of real career, how much attached to common pleasures, ordinary carees, is he, so not to strive for highest happiness possible to reach by human efforts?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but to bind one toward Unbound, to escape from this wheel]


text:
What is ariya or noble?
What is ariya or noble?
This term is used in multiple places like Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariyasaccāni), Noble Eightfold Path (ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga), noble sangha (ariya saṅgha).

Good householder,
although wondering why one who steady teaches others about what is Sublime, Higher, Perfect, ask about the meaning of Ariya...
PTS-dictionary:

Ariya, (adj. -n.) (Vedic ārya, of uncertain etym. The other Pāli forms are ayira & ayya) 1. (racial) Aryan D. II, 87. ‹-› 2. (social) noble, distinguished, of high birth.—3. (ethical) in accord with the customs and ideals of the Aryan clans, held in esteem by Aryans, generally approved. Hence: right, good, ideal.

In regard of people:
The answer by Dhammadhatu isn't that bad aside of a grammar issue making "without enemy" to a dual or in both direction valid, but actually means that oneself sees nothing and nobody as enemy. It might be, and even in the Buddhas case, that an Ariya has people around who look after harming or winning over him.
Ariya is a Sublime person beyond ordinary, worthy of hospitality, veneration and gifts, one who has metta toward all beings, one having reached tge level of integrity, the Stream, has faced the Deathless and to certain amount awakened. One training after reaching this ancestor-ship is called a lower-Ariya (Dhamma-, Faith-follower practicing proper, having universal metta; having heard the good Dhamma and regards the Gems, bound to become Ariya before death).
In regard of qualities and deeds: Likewise Sublime, Exalted, not ordinary, common.
So if one touches or 'inter'-acts with the Sublime Gems one is wise to always regard them as Sublime, beyond even kings, world-ruler, Gods, father, mother, child, oneself.
Disregard or even harm of what is Ariya has very disadvantageous impact not only downwardly but can even totally cut one of from an upward path for long time.
This is why asking for forgiveness is a common and frequently conducted practice as one would be otherwise out of refuge, cut off the Gems.
Worthy to mention as very importand: One who does not recognize such as Ariya, Sublime, a common 'communist' is absolutly incapable to either work his way upwardly nor ever able to reach path or fruits, like one denying swimming is possible is actually bound to drow.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding and common trades but to gain escape in becoming an Ariya, not staying a slave of commu/onism]

The events of the Pali Canon took place during the historical period when the more civilized culture of Aryans (likely descendants of the great Mesopotamian civilization, perhaps of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Iranian origins) were migrating into the valley of Indus and mixing with the local Dravidian cultures which were many centuries behind in social order, economic relationships, and technology.
By the Buddha's time this millennium-long process was maybe 3/4 complete. So by that time the word Arya stopped referring to the ethnicity and instead came to mean "civilized" or "advanced" or "savvy", hence the use we know.
From this we can see why connotations of the word "Aryan" are similar to those of the other word Buddha used a lot, "samma" (usually translated as "right"). Samma means "high quality" or "made to high standards", and Aryans are the bearers of those high standards, people of care and discernment in ethical behavior as well as in analytical thinking.
Therefore, Four Aryan Truths, Aryan Eightfold Training, Aryan Community -- are the Truths, the Training, and the Community of the high-standards people, the people of enlightenment.

The view, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness & concentration that is towards Nibbana (and only Nibbana), that will be Noble. The knowledge and the liberation of such practice, that will be Noble.
So in short, Nibbana or the practice towards it (i.e. the Noble Eight Fold Path), that is what is Noble.
Four Noble Truths - one who has realized the Four Noble Truths has attained Nibbana.
Noble Eight Fold Path - the practice one undertakes to attain Nibbana.
Noble Sangha - the four pairs, the eight kinds of persons developing or developed the Noble Eight Fold Path and have attained the fruits of it.
If you carefully read The Great Forty discourse you can see this. That is a great discourse to understand the Noble Eight-Fold Path.

“And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

For anyone looking to learn and develop the Noble Eight Fold Path that will result in the Noble Fruits and attain Nibbana, you can look at the Meditations explained here. (Start with "Noble Eightfold path meditation").
https://www.anaalaya.com/Med_English.php

Buddhadasa taught:

The word “noble” could mean something like excellent, exalted,
honourable or respectable, however the word “Ariya” has the meaning
“to be without enemies”. So do these two words correspond
sufficiently? When we speak of the Ariya Sacca we should understand
“Ariya” in the sense of “being without enemies”. Here enemies is meant
in the broadest sense, being free of things which aren’t right for us,
things which are undesirable, so we’ll be looking at the Noble Truths
in this way.

In Buddhist tradition, Ariya refers to the eight types of  Ariya people. (Sotapanna,Sakdagami, Anagami,Arahant) in Magga and Phala states (ie4x2=8)
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm


text:
What is the actual status of the Dalai Lama in regard of Dhamma-Vinaya?
Since a Tibetan religious leader is often counted in the West and under modern people (yet actually known just in Tibet and as far as western modern media reach, unknown or not regarded in 95% of the Buddhist World), it would be good to ask of what rule and status this well-known person actually has in regard of the Buddhas Sasana, Dhamma-Vinaya.
Taken this as reference and base of the question:
What is the/a formal status of the Dalai Lama according to Vinaya? (for example: Bhikkhu, Samanera, Brahman, teacher of other sect, faithful lay follower, one having attained ordination by thief, doubter, trader, politician... and why?)
What is the ideal status (at least as recognize-able broadly) of the Dali Lama according to the Dhamma? (for example: faithful worldling, doubtful worldling, stream-enter, ... Arahat, Paccekabuddha... and why)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]

The number of followers should be inconsequential to the veracity or value of a teaching, it says so in the Kalama Sutra: "Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places". You pose the question as if numbers of followers do matter. Buddhism has approximately 470 million adherents across the globe, 360 million (the vast majority) of which follow Mahayana. This by no means invalidates Gelugpa or Theravada.

If I identified myself with Tibetan Buddhism or Mahayana or Gelug etc. - I would get upset at this question. It's good that I clearly see how identification leads to side-taking, discord, and suffering.

The 14th Dalai Lama has no standing in the Theravada Buddhist tradition.
However, in the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist tradition and conforming to the Dharma and Vinaya of Tibetan Buddhism (and in particular, the Gelug school), the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is:

a Tibetan Buddhist monk
a Tibetan Buddhist lama i.e. a teacher of the Dharma (as taught in Tibetan Buddhism)
a tulku (reincarnate custodian of a specific lineage of teachings)
incarnation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara
head of the Gelug ("Yellow Hat") school of Tibetan Buddhism

The bodhisattva's achievements in Mahayana Buddhism is measured in bhumi levels. However, it's unclear to me what is the bhumi level of Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara.

Was that all given by the Buddha?

@SamanaJohann It doesn't appear in the Early Buddhist Texts, but some of these may be derived from later Mahayana sutras like the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra, Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Lotus Sutra etc. And don't forget Mahayana Buddhism also has other Buddhas not mentioned in the Early Buddhist Texts like Amitabha Buddha. It's a different tradition with different authoritative sources.

So not founded in the Vinaya of the Buddha of which is still transfered and alive?

Avalokitasvara accomplished the tenth bhumi. Beings at this level can, among other siddhis, manifest in limitless forms for the benefit of others and transcend the ordinary laws of time and space.  This is the defining capability of Avalokitasvara which enables the Bodhisattva to come to the aid of all beings. (I am only responding @ruben2020’s stated uncertainty about this point alone.)

@SamanaJohann As mentioned by ChrisW,  the Dalai Lama was ordained according to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya which also originated from the Sthaviravada school.

This says that the Dalai Lama is ordained according to the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama Bestows Ordination Vows
Today, His Holiness the Dalai  Lama gave a group of monks full ordination according to the  Mulasarvastivada Vinaya tradition that was established in Tibet by  the Indian Abbot Shantarakshita in the eighth century CE at the  behest of the Tibetan Emperor Trisong Deutsan.

Prior to the ordination His Holiness and the senior Bhikshus who  assisted him performed the ceremony of confession and restoration,  confessing and purifying any infractions of their own vows in  preparation for granting the ordination to others.

Wikipedia says,

The Mūlasarvāstivāda was one of the early Buddhist schools of India. The origins of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and their relationship to the Sarvāstivāda sect still remain largely unknown, although various theories exist.
The continuity of the Mūlasarvāstivāda monastic order remains in Tibetan Buddhism, although until recently, only Mūlasarvāstivādin bhikṣus (monks) existed: the bhikṣuṇī order had never been introduced.

Vinaya lineage
The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya is one of three surviving vinaya lineages, along with the Dharmaguptaka and Theravāda. The Tibetan Emperor Ralpacan restricted Buddhist ordination to the Mūlasarvāstivādin vinaya. As Mongolian Buddhism was introduced from Tibet, Mongolian ordination follows this rule as well.
The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya is extant in Tibetan (9th century translation) and Chinese (8th century translation), and to some extent in the original Sanskrit.

When I researched this answer I remember reading of some people who claimed to be Tibetan Buddhist teachers, who were told they weren't welcome to visit the Dalai Lama because they weren't living according to the Vinaya (e.g. they were known to be associating with women).

There's also this article:

Meeting Delegates to the Second Dialogue on Vinaya
This morning His Holiness the Dalai Lama met with delegates who had participated in a Second Dialogue on Vinaya. They included representatives of the Sri Lankan, Burmese, Thai, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Indian and Tibetan Buddhist Traditions. Among reports read to the gathering was one from a senior Elder of the Thai Forest Monk’s tradition, who approved of the spirit of the meeting, but expressed regret that since proceedings were being held in a hotel it was inappropriate for him as a Forest Monk to attend. Nevertheless, he encouraged delegates by quoting the Buddha’s having told Ananda that after his passing away, the Vinaya would be the disciples’ guide. He added that as long as the Vinaya prevailed, the Buddha’s teachings would survive.
Further reports clarified that in their discussions delegates had recognised that although the various Vinaya traditions may vary in the numbers of specific precepts, they shared the seven fundamental divisions of the Vinaya. There are proposals for further such dialogues to be held.
His Holiness opened his remarks by declaring his own status:

“I am a Bhikshu, who received full ordination in 1954, and I belong to the Nalanda Tradition that was introduced to Tibet from India in the 8th century. The person primarily responsible for this was Shantarakshita, one of the foremost scholars of Nalanda University, a Bhikshu, philosopher and logician. He was invited by the Tibetan Emperor. The Nalanda Tradition places great emphasis on the use of reason over mere faith.

So actually "Shantarakshita"-ism derived from an University and not out of a Uposatha Sala, right? Scientists?

I don't know Śāntarakṣita, whether he lived in a "university" or in a "monastery". Perhaps that's a modern distinction, and in those times some monasteries were universities; certainly even now the Tibetan tradition involves a lot of education -- see "Geshe". Wikipedia says that Śāntarakṣita was "abbot of Nalanda", and that Nalanda was "a revered Buddhist monastery which also served as a renowned centre of learning".


text:
Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?
The question is likely inappropriate here, but I'll try anyway. Hopefully nobody will take offense.
Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?
"Uncommon" would be, for example, that all the anagamis/arahants you know are renowned teachers. Likely less than 100 worldwide.
On the other hand, "common" would be if you know of 3 or 4 anagamis/arahants around in the same temple. Hinting at a much bigger number worldwide, on the thousands.
I'm sure someone that goes frequently to temples can give a clear answer. Or maybe someone can do some back of the envelope math.
Thanks.

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).
In addition, in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants or draw up statistics.

Silly question. If you spent any time with Buddhists you'd realize they have zero agreement on interpretation of most doctrinal points, including the definitions of the stream-entry, non-return, and arhantship. How can anyone quantify a number of people in category A, when there's no agreed upon definition of that category?!
Since you tagged your question as "teacher", consider this: if enlightenment constitutes direct insight into the mechanism behind the mind constructing its perception of reality, if having this insight liberates from dukkha and death, and if the insight itself involves realizing the limits of conceptualization as such, would a realized individual be inclined to see the world and him- or herself in terms of such concepts as "an arahant" or "a buddha" or would they rather be inclined to see such conceptualization as a source of trouble?

Hi! I see how it could be difficult to define Sakadagami and Anagami, and although it seems to me that Sotapanna is somehow clearer in it's caracterization than those two higher stages, I thought the definition of an Arahant was objectively defined: an individual that experience no more dissatisfaction. Is there any disagreement with that last definition?

If such a person were to talk to a regular dissatisfied person, and this second person were to explain to them the nature of their dissatisfaction, would the first person be able to put themselves in the second person's shoes and imagine their dissatisfaction vividly enough to experience its somatic component, would that count as feeling dissatisfied or not? In simple words, can they feel dissatisfaction on behalf of other people?

@AndreiVolkov I can start to see what you're aiming for. That's an interesting question. Without thinking to much about it (which could lead me to wrong conclusions), I'd would say that in the subjectivity of the arahant, he does not experience the affective and emotional urgency to change the way things are. If he changes things, he does it to keep the body healthy, by reasoning, by prudence, by compassion, and so on. The phenomenological experience of dissatisfaction (which I'm not able to define properly, but to merely indicate or point to its arising) does not present itself anymore.

"he does not experience the affective and emotional urgency to change the way things are" - so back to my question above, does he experience someone else's affective urgency affectively or does he/she remain cold to the others' pain? In simple words, is arahant capable of true empathy (experiencing the feelings of others)?

@AndreiVolkov Good question, but I think I'm getting closer to proliferation and speculation by answering. However, I'd dare to say no, arahants are not able to feel exactly what others could feel. Maybe he knows and remembers how it felt dukkha in the past, and understands how one acts upon its arising. But I doubt they have this level of ability of reflecting others' feelings.

Interesting. Okay, thanks for this exchange. Moved most of the comments to this chat.

I imagine it's defined in SN 56.11 -- "suffering has been understood, origin of suffering has been given up, cessation of suffering has been realised, practice has been developed". By analogy a doctor can demonstrate real compassion towards a suffering patient (perhaps an addict even), without the doctor's actually being ill themselves.

Well, that sounds nice and simple but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Based on the progression of jhanas the dichotomy of sukha/dukkha is transcended on the fourth jhana. Based on the Three Marks of existence, dukkha is inherent, it doesn't disappear. The Buddha says  in many ways it is the I-making that creates the "ground" for the dukkha to stand on. The Buddha's mind has no limits, so to say "in Buddha's [limited] scope of subjectivity there's no dukkha" is wrong. Or do you think arahant is different from Buddha in this regard and his/her mind is limited?

@AndreiVolkov From what I've read and practiced (which is not that much, in relation to what others here have), I wouldn't say "the dichotomy of sukha/dukkha is transcended", because it seems like a metaphor for what is going on which maybe doesn't explain in detail what is happening. Based on the teaching of DO, maybe we could say that dukkha arises due to some general kind of conditions, and arahantship is the cessation of those conditions; if the necessary conditions are not present, the phenomenon dependent on the cannot come to be.

@AndreiVolkov When Nibbana is attained, the unconditioned is there. Dukkha is one of two marks that are features of only conditioned phenomena (anicca and dukkha; anatta being defined as a mark of all dhammas). And if we agree with Nibbana being unconditioned and dukkha being a mark of the conditioned, then we could say that arahants do not have the conditions for the arising of dukkha (but nothing is said about the uprooting of the arising of sukha). I may be wrong, though. This could be a good question to be made in the site. Kind regards!

I happen to think you are wrong, and I even think "how dare this guy who only studies Buddhism for a few years, limiting himself to Pali Canon, dare to argue with someone who studied it for two and a half decades, both Pali Canon and the many centuries worth of subsequent analysis." ;) But then again, I may be wrong too, so thank you for this healthy debate.

I know this is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think you will need to discover the true number of arahants that exist for yourself.
Unfortunately it’s difficult for a non-arahant to assess if someone else is an arahant due to the nature of Nirvana. Nirvana is completely impossible to describe, and the descriptions arahants come up with could never be used as a metric of attainment. Not only is any description of Nirvana a half-truth, but an arahant would be describing a state another has never experienced. How could it possibly be assessed?
When you have completed the path though, you can deduce fairly accurately if another has experienced Nirvana based on how they talk about its many facets. By comparing what they say to your own experience and asking probing questions, it tends to become fairly obvious if they have become free. Arahants tend to not regurgitate the same old teachings, but bring about a new perspective based on their own experience. When they say something truly insightful that aligns with your shared experience, it is about as close as someone is going to get to verifying someone else’s attainments.
If you really want to know, you are going to have to become an arahant yourself. If it’s not even 100% verifiable to an arahant of another is also an arahant. Much less so if you have never experienced Nirvana. I suggest you complete the path and then go out and talk to people! If someone else told you a number, you’d just be taking it on blind faith otherwise.

According to the commentaries of the elders, good householder, the times of Arahats and the next two Noble pairs are already gone and there would be maximum Stream-enter for another while.
Since the Sangha at large moves toward carry signs of householders, such looks reasonable, not able to overcome sense pleasure.
On the other hand one should be aware that one sees only what one knows. And it's impossible for a worldling to recognize a Noble, a Innoble rightly for sure.
There are, how ever, Noble Ones, and those with Upanissaya or up to build Upanissaya toward the Sangha are sure to meet. So like always never seek for failures and reasons outwardly but focus on own development, on base (Nissaya) and fruits are sure to appear when conditions are arise, yet when or where... nobody knows before.
At least, the very matter of decay should be an urge for wise, as only fools will be left and it's by the Dhammas very nature that those wise, having taken on, disappear in the sphere of Samsara.
Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection
[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel.]

Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?

Obviously only one who's developed the supernormal powers/Iddhis would be able to know for certain. For the rest of us, it'd be all just speculation. But just for some context and perspective: there're currently ~ 2,800 billionaires in the world at the end of 2019, out of the world's total population of 7.8 billion ( or ~ 0.000035897% ). Now if the kamma for some mundane worldly achievement is that rare, how much rarer would that be of the kind required for supramundane attainments like the Four Fruits!!


text:
Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists?
I recall reading words or translations in the Pali suttas suggesting the following:

It is a path of decline to give donations to non-Buddhists.

It is most meritorious to give donations to the Noble Sangha & higher Ariyans

People are sick, injured & disabled in this life due to violence they have done in past lives.

Today, I read a post soliciting for donations on a Buddhist forum for a sick non-Buddhist. Since the time of the post, no one has given a donation, except me. Because I am simple minded & a sucker for bleeding hearts, I gave a US$37 dollar donation, to symbolize the 37 bodhipakkhiyādhammā, which include the 7 factors of enlightenment, which, according to the suttas, cure disease & illness.
My questions are:

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm? In other words, should I practise equanimity?

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

What is the karmic destination of a person that solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

Good Brahman, good householder,
sure is it that good householder's intent is not so kusala provoking intended, but anyway my person will answer for what ever, who ever, can be healed:

Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists?

Not at all, but always good to give to the sick. Not a single being not worthy to receive the basic means for life, even if a 'bad' one. Sure, such merits are most in sphere of Sila in ones relation or not that upwardly, yet secure not usuall fall down and keep ones level.

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

One can not force or stop anothers beings actions, kamma, nor fruits. Yet one can provide with conditions that certain fruits could ripe. What one gives he gain and given can be only what one has gained/one has. Taking on given is the receivers thing, being touched and where.
**There are five proper times/occasions, always good to give and toward anyone, even if not beloved, enemy, bad: **

when a being approaches new (one comes)

when a being leaves

in times of sickness

in times of hunger

and best and alway, with merits strong upward: to those with virtue, metta (Ariya, training for Ariya)
  In the proper season they give —
  those with discernment,
  responsive, free from stinginess.
 Having been given in proper season,
  with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
  — straightened, Such —
  their offering bears an abundance.
  Those who rejoice in that gift
  or give assistance,
   they, too, have a share of the merit,
  and the offering isn't depleted by that.
   So, with an unhesitant mind,
   one should give where the gift bears
   great fruit.
      Merit is what establishes
      living beings in the next life.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

One isn't urged to control or teach other lessons since most not even able to have oneself under control. Such thought's a strong connected with defilements and wrong view.
If really wise, one gives always if one is able to without harm (against precepts, rules bond to)

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?

Sure, if deliberately seeking of non-support of the Noble Sangha, being an outcast, one is sure to walk straight toward hell. Yet, not to forget is that ones perception counts of what is perceived and how to react on it.
As for giving to the Sangha, even if defacto only perceived as such, not Noble yet, see 'former' Bhante Varados last suspicious gift before he actually headed toward highest, gained firm path of release:
MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

Supreme leader of the Dhamma is the Buddha, and if perceiving the Tatagatha, one is wise to be quick. It's always of high results to give toward the Sangha of the Buddhas disciples (monks).
As for Johann, good householder wouldn't be able, since he had turned over the bowl long time ago toward householder Dhammadhatu and those bound to him.
(And serious asked: aside that there is NO way one could make my person receive money even indirectly and seldom one would meet even other possibility if no Upanissaya, even if strong wishing, does good householder think that in good ten years dwelling as beggar in spheres good householder dwells even the effort of giving a spoon of rice was made? If not simply sharing forward the merits of others, there wouldn't be any reason to enter this outwardly homeland of marxists and traders void of basics. As if a monk would look for alms under not so wise Devas or hundry ghosts.)

What is the karmic destination of the troll, who solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

It's not a matter whether Buddhist or non in regard of giving at the first four proper times. If one lives in dependency of the Buddhaparisa and in certain corrupt way leads their wealth outside, such is of course demeritious. As for praise and prefer of what is to be blamed or minor, such leads also downwardly.
As for 'troll': Three things are praised, encouraged by wise: support of parents, generosity, go forth. Someone calls someone encouraging toward generosity, even at certain right time, is therefore to be seen as fool.
Often has good householder be told about the unfortune Moneylender, heirless and not able to enjoy his whealth as he destroyed his merits by having doubts later... disregarded Sublime.
And as the Buddha warned, less more harmful for oneself as to discourage others from doing good, generosity.
So may good householder have ways to possible not fulfill a complete transgression, or finds ways to confess and apologize, so that, aside of not able to run away from the poorness he will meet, may be able to wander on.
As the Buddha told: be quick!
Be quick in doing
  what's admirable.
  Restrain your mind
  from what's evil.
  When you're slow
  in making merit,
 evil delights the mind.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

While such are kusala thought, they are bond to heavens, Samsara. If able to practice vosaga, real giving and abound desires after garlands of the mind at all, if such done as effect of insight: much mudita, yet in householders really bad situation, possible difficult before not having solved old and out of the hole of transression.
Best wishes, metta & mudita
Addition because useful for understanding the comments since easy disappearing often:

And at least, in regard of householders bad advise, in his answer, to do not seek for the Noble Ones for ones generosity: Indeed, Noble Ones, at least an Arahat, is not in need, or wishes for gifts, yet not only Dhammadhatu would need a punsh of merits and really a missery when cutted off by ones stupidy... encouraging public to don't give toward the Sangha in a Dhammic room, possing there to be a wise and Noble one.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]

Having given this gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html

For that reason it was told, since the only way to escape the wheel of ones kamma, good Brahman. Overestimate, on the other side, 'i can', thought the same, again highway to hell...

Never, as well, regregt a good action of the past, easy when rage comes up.

Five aggregates offered a donation on behalf of the merit of Bhikkhu Johann. https://imgur.com/n4oOWz2

Good householder, we don't accept, even if not overturned the bowls, gifts after having given the Dhamma. And of course no money in any case (Atma does not accept money-keeper either). And my person isn't a conventional Bhikkhu, Nyom. How ever, Sadhu for all included skilfulness, it bears it's great fruits anyway.

It's great and a blessing, if one, giving at proper time, thinks on the Sublime Sangha, think's 'oh may he met it soon as well one time with gotten eyes suported by this means of mine' mudita!

And sadhu for non-stinginess of sharing own merits (modern, wester, usuall incapable0 or doing it to harm others or lift oneself, if in seldom cases. A blessing if a gift get's purified placed on right place, btw.

So better, next time, not "on behave" (since telling to use money would be also a fault, but "toward the Sublime Sangha, and may all meet it soon", no need for mention perception of aggregates of an individual here.

Also good to know: monks would not be given to suggest or personally give given in faith toward lay people (not looking for ordaining) exept in special cases. So monks are actually general not given to give what is given infaith to "non-buddhists", lay people, animals, but given of course to praise giving generally and encourage to it.

And reading Brahmans Answer, again an outstanding mark of a total lost fool in paving his road downwardly... really outstanding and warning for many who are capable.

reviling the Ariya Sangha is the downward course. sabbe dhamma anatta. sabbe dhamma dhatu. saññā marīcikāya. viññāṇaṃ māyāya

Now imagine the disprais of making Dana toward them... a fool isn't able to gain Dhamma, as the spoon doesn't tastes the soup. Eager to try to maintain foolish garlands anyway.

So monks are actually general not given to give what is given infaith to "non-buddhists", lay people, animals Isn't there a sutta which says that when you wash a bowl and pour away the dirty water, you should do so with the thought, "may this water benefit small (invisible) creatures"?

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I
stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life
karma?

I have only ever read one sutta that implies the above, namely, MN 135. Since MN 135 is addressed to a Brahmin, it is obviously fake dharma. If MN 135 was true, it would have been taught to many Buddhists in many suttas.
The myriad suttas about kamma are about how current kamma determines the future (rather than about how the present is determined by an unknown past). Sutta such as AN 3.61 says if we believe past lives cause our current problems, we cannot solve our current problems and protect ourselves from more problems.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn
the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

The situation of Angulimala pertains to the present life. His prior evil actions in the present life caused people to take revenge on him in the present life. The situation of Angulimala is unrelated to ideas of past life karma.

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead,
blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring
demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?
In other words, should I practise equanimity?

No. The Ariya Sangha already have the greatest gift, namely, the gift of enlightenment. Your material gifts are not needed for the Ariya Sangha. Due to their great fine repute, the Ariya Sangha have sufficient requisites.

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as
Samana Johann?

No. The bhikkhus are well looked after. They have sufficient requisites.

What is the karmic destination of a troll that solicits donations from
Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

Good destination because the troll has faith in the universal goodness & compassion of Buddhists.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the
donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness &
beautifies my heart?

Yes. Past life determination is superstition. Buddhism teaches any type of rupa (physical form) can be subject to illness & injury. Also, Buddhism teaches unimpaired physical & mental faculties assist in enlightenment. Therefore, we should, as best as possible, according to our means, help a man preserve his remaining eye sight. Metta-karuna is one of the greatest things.


text:
North American: Where Can I Ordain Under The Tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw?
I am a Theravada Buddhist living in North America practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. My queries (regarding Theravada monasticism) are the following:

1) Can anyone recommend a or more than one bhikkhu monastery anywhere in
North America that I can ordain in that follows the tradition of or a
tradition similar to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition?
2) Does anyone know if I would be able to practice (as an ordained bhikkhu) the tradition I am under (the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition) while in a monastery practicing a tradition other than my own (e.g. the Thai forest tradition)?

Thank you!

Asker maybe doesnt have an active account currently as there doesnt seem to be any link to know if Asker will be likely to see replies

Good householder,
Sadhu, at first, for general desire in going forth.
Good to let go of consumer-behaviour at first place and approach ordination like a backpacker a new journey idea, or a worker his next holiday... good householder. One who closes the doors behind, at his home, with right adpiration, will be opened the gates by the Devas along his way for seeking the join the sages and trace the path to Unbound.
In regard to 1: Best ask Bhante Yuttadhammo, as he dwells in Canada, personally. Usually one approaches a Bhikkhu in proper way, and ask's for going forth. The rest would be careful organiced by the Bhikkhu, approaching the Sangha. He might ask if good householder has a Nissaya, teacher. So seeking for a Bhikkhu accepting one as disciple, is propably first to make.
Generally it's not so straight toward homeless state to ask in regard of going forth in lay communities and have geografical, national (identification with home, house, group) preferances, wishes, as such is merely seeking for another home rather that desire the going forth, good householder.
What does householder expect to hear from householders, or to household returned, in regard of going forth? Like to ask about work on the rice-fields in a city coffee-shop, or to google wikipedia...
See also: Q&A How to ordain as a monk of the Buddha?
In regard of 2: Usually traditions upholding Vinaya accept each other, althought sticking to wrong views can be everywhere a hindrance. How ever: it actually does not really depend on Branch or near relation but on personal Upanissaya with particular communities, individuals and kamma of beings is all different. So useless to make founded predictions. Good theacher, knowing one, knowing others, would know if fitting together in regard of Vinaya, way of conducts for pleasing dwelling for Sekhas.
Mudita and may good householder make good use of all his good condition and past merits for fast reaching security in the homeless - state.
(...and there is not such as "my tradition" idea on a journey to liberation. Good to seek for the Buddhas and Noble ones tradition, making such never ones own before it actually is by reaching Arahat-hood)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other home-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

#2 I think you will more often than not run into issues over the long term if you live with people who train differently. The Mahasi system complete with 16 stages of insight and the path-insight & fruition-insight modes of development, that is going to be viewed skeptically and likely wrong training by most TFT.
If you really want to be a Mahasi system monk then it narrows down your ordination options a lot. Also most Mahasi monks, ~95% afaik, are using money and you should be prepared for that.
Thus if you are looking for a place in NA, where Mahasi system is held to be true, where they accomodate westerners and where monks don't use money, in this case i think this probably doesn't exist anywhere in the world but i am not sure.