text:
How can we make sense of the Universe from the Buddhist perspective?
I know this is the kind of the question Buddha discouraged to ponder upon with the example of the poisonous arrow.
But after 25 centuries, after what Newton and Einstien and Astronomers and Scientists have bought in light for us, the enormous size of our Universe. It is billions and billions of kilometers across, our earth is a small planet circling an average star which circles an ordinary galaxy on its periphery.
Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us. And then there is empty space, huge empty space. The nothingness or emptiness of the universe.
And then there is us. A miracle, what sets this question is the paradox of our complexity (biological) against the background of the emptiness of outer space. And here we have reached the conclusion of the first noble truth of Dukkha!!!
Looking at the star-filled night sky, as a Buddhist, how do I make sense of all this?

You ask 'How do I make sense of this'? It seems to me Buddhist practice and study is all about making sense of it. Space and time are described as like an illusion. I find this the only plausible explanation of  quantum physics. You might like to read the explanation of QM by physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff (an Aurobindian) or the discussion of space-time by the mathematician Hermann Weyl. Their explanations are consistent with ultimate non-existence of these phenomena and their reduciblity in metaphysics.or experience.  .

I find or found Buddhism (Buddhist doctrine and the subject-matter of Buddhism) more interesting or useful than e.g. astronomy or physics, because Buddhism speaks to (is relevant to) the human condition whereas physics doesn't really especially.
I suppose your saying "biological complexity" might be (unwisely) privileging a specific view of self. Scientifically I suppose that "empty outer space" is complex too, especially if you look at very big or very small bits of it. All atoms (including every atom except hydrogen which now makes 'earth' and 'life on earth') were originally created in the interiors of now-gone collapsing stars -- however I find that (fact) to be of passing interest but just not practical.
I think that "as a Buddhist" you might consider the Simsapa Sutta:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Having done that, if or when you perceive the universe, the night sky, and/or science, you might perceive it with some equanimity, with good-will, without attachment, and so on.

Thank you for this answer. This makes the most sense, that, all that we know from the Buddha is just as much as handful of those leaves and there's just so much more that was not said...and we should attain to Nibbana to know that if at all we want and of everything that is there the Dhamma is all that is needed as knowledge. So this keeps the mystery alive while simultaneously taking us towards Nibbana by following Dhamma. Did I get it right?

There may be other intelligent lifeforms out there, as there are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars surrounded by planets. As physicist, futurist and science communicator Michio Kaku says, ants are not aware of human beings standing near them and looking at them. Similarly, there may be beings far more intelligent than us looking at us right now, but we may not be aware of them.
How does a Buddhist make sense of the billions of galaxies and stars and planets out there?
As we know, none of the planets, stars, galaxies will last forever. Everything dies out eventually, including our whole universe. Apparently, we could be living in a multiverse where there are many universes. An entire universe itself could experience birth and death, what more things inside them. Who knows? There could even be a multiverse of multiverses. But one thing for sure - everything changes and nothing lasts forever.
That's how a Buddhist should make sense of our glorious universe - everything changes and nothing lasts forever. "Sabbe sankhara anicca" - everything that is conditioned and compounded is impermanent.
The Buddhist should also remember one of the Buddha's last words from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

vayadhammā saṅkhārā, appamādena sampādetha.
  All conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on with heedfulness!

Thankyou for the answer. So at the end we should remind ourself that its anicca, anyways...

In the Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan the Buddha acknowledges such questions:

As far as the sun & moon revolve, illumining the directions with their light, there extends the thousand-fold cosmos. In that thousand-fold cosmos there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns,... And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior....

For the disenchantment, this remedy:

There are these There are these eight dimensions of [mental] mastery. Which eight? (see sutta)

I made a slight edit, because what the disciple is disenchanted with, is the fact that even the Great Brahma, the most supreme of the thousand-fold cosmos, there is still aberration and change. This means that the disciple is disenchanted with the universe that is changing and impermanent.

Yes, adding that sharpens the point that even supreme mastery of such knowledge is subject to birth and death and therefore does not satisfy. I'll submit an edit to your answer and delete this one if accepted.

It's OK. You can maintain your answer.

Thank you for the answer. You are suggesting practicle application to get disenchanted by the mystery that is universe.

Looking at the stars, you can make sense of it as "seeing... seeing.. seeing...". Because that's the only thing you can be sure of. The entities you assume to exist based on seeing will always be fabrications that you can never sense.
When you think about the billions of galaxies or infinite space etc., you can make sense of it as "thinking... thinking... thinking...". Because that's the only thing you can be sure of. The entities you assume to exist based on thinking will always be fabrications that you can never sense.

Just ignore it. I dont remember exactly which súthra it is. Our nobel teacher once said dont try to search such things
1. End of the universe.
2. How the karma happens.
3. Life of lord buddha
Because knowledge these will not helping you to follow nobel eight path.

They're the "unanswered questions", in MN 63 and MN 72.

If you want to search for answer unanswered questions like this, you woudnt be able to search answers for your own question. Cause this kind a questions are off limits for humans.

I think those are not unanswered, those questions does have answers but humans cannot understand them. Simple as that.

They're "unanswered" in the sense that the Blessed One said (in MN 63) that he did not declare an answer, and (in MN 72) that he did not hold a view or a position.

For me i realy dont have questions about such a subjects. As long as they are not help me for understanding dhamma, i just ignore them.

Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us.

Well, "as far as we know" is the key point here. It's exactly the fact that the universe is so vast, that it's practically a mathematical impossibility to say we're the only intelligent life form ever existed. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson put it best:

Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean.”

Or Dr. Carl Sagan's "Flatlanders" analogy is another good one about the limitation of humans knowledge. Keeping those possibilities in mind, the questions about the "miracle" or "paradox of complexity" automatically get resolved by themselves.

I know this is the kind of the question Buddha discouraged to ponder
  upon with the example of the poisonous arrow.

Exactly. It is a waste of time. We are suffering from illness and world needs to shift attention to the cure as described by Buddha.

But after 25 centuries, after what Newton and Einstien and Astronomers
  and Scientists have bought in light for us, the enormous size of our
  Universe. It is billions and billions of kilometers across, our earth
  is a small planet circling an average star which circles an ordinary
  galaxy on its periphery.
  Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far
  as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us. And
  then there is empty space, huge empty space. The nothingness or
  emptiness of the universe.

In past I had spent some time ,when I was ignorant, thinking about such realities. All such realities are empty. They do not last forever. They are impermanent. They are changeable and perishable and therefore cause of suffering. Earth will get destroyed. Sun , Moon, Stars , Black holes , atoms all will one day get destroyed. Even the nothingness will not be there. As long as you cling to such realities you will keep coming back to existence. Even the laws of Physics are not permanent. There is no beauty in the constitution of Universe. In fact it might be ugly.

And then there is us. A miracle, what sets this question is the
  paradox of our complexity (biological) against the background of the
  emptiness of outer space. And here we have reached the conclusion of
  the first noble truth of Dukkha!!!

If Universe and us is a miracle then it is a ugly miracle. Existence , birth itself is suffering. That conclusion is actually a miracle. We have evolved from simple life to complex life. Complexity of a AI might leave you wondering how they created AI but it was a step by step process. Complexity of music might leave you wondering how they created the music but it was a step by step process. Body is also complex. But do you believe that you exist in the body ? No you don't. Body is without any self. Body is the cause of suffering as it will change and perish. Your craving for the beauty of the body might result in another rebirth. Abandon such cravings.

Looking at the star-filled night sky, as a Buddhist, how do I make
  sense of all this?

I think as a Buddhist , one would be dispassionate about such empty Dhammas.

Thank you for the answer but I think you are being a little pessimistic.

There was no such thing as modern day language, the scientific method, Newtonian physics, or higher mathematics during The Buddha's time-period those things seem to have come into existence around the 17th Century.
So there was no possibility of anyone asking The Buddha or any arahant to prove or explain things in modern scientific terms. It's also not exactly clear what certain things in modern terms mean because modern language is different.
However the Pali canons mention all types of concepts that only relatively recently came in:

Big Bang and Big Crunch (expansion and contraction of the universe)
Time dilation (time moving at a different pace on other worlds)
Cyclic model
World systems like galaxies

During The Buddha's time he encouraged those with doubt to ask questions.
In modern times if an arahant well-developed in the six higher knowledges or paccekabuddha or sammasambuddha appears they should be able to easily scientifically prove their ideas through modern means if someone challenged them to.
Something like that actually happened when the arahant Kumara encountered an ancient atheist Prince Payasi, here's an exerpt:

"Well, Reverend Kumara, I had friends who followed the right path, who
  were very good people and citizens in every respect. By any right, as
  certain Holy men have said, they should have gone to the Heaven of the
  Thirty Three Devas. Yet, when one of them died, I said to him, "You
  have always been trustworthy and dependable. Certain Holy men say
  that, because of your lifestyle and because you followed the right
  path, you will be reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty Three Devas. If
  this is so, please come and tell me if it is true, or send a messenger
  to tell me if it is true. To date, they have neither contacted me nor
  sent a messenger."
"Hmm. Well, Prince… Consider this. In the Heaven of the Thirty Three
  Devas, time passes at a different pace, and people live much longer.
  In the period of our century, one hundred years, only a single day,
  twenty four hours would have passed for them. Thirty of these hundred
  year days make up one of their months, twelve such months make a year
  and a thousand such years is roughly the life span of those born into
  the Heaven of the Thirty Three Devas. Suppose your friend decided, "I
  will go back to that unclean world just long enough to deliver my
  message to the Prince – I shall set out tomorrow. Or perhaps, after I
  have seen some more of this place, in two or three days, I will set
  out to go see him." – would he have been able to?"
"Of course not, Reverend Kumara, because, by the reasoning you have
  given, we should all be long dead by the time he had spent three days
  there. However, I do not think that those born in the Heaven of the
  Thirty Three Devas would be so long lived, or that time could pass at a different
  pace. How do you know about their lifespan or their time?" (DN 23,
  Payasi Sutta)

The idea of time moving at a different pace on other worlds is something that only recently came in.
But remember there was no such thing as the scientific method or higher mathematics back then so one could challenge an arahant to experimentally prove something like we can now in modern times.
It seems like The Buddha is the only teacher in history who debated in a bold calm fearless manner claiming to know that his ways are true. Still in modern times I don't know if there's any teacher like that.
If someone really is an arahant and also well-developed in the six higher knowledges scientifically proving something should be an easy task for them.
This means in modern times if a skilled arahant or paccekabuddha arises and someone challenges them they should be able to scientifically prove that they are right...it would probably bedazzle and astonish the world...
I wonder however if there really are any arahants that exist in this world...


text:
What do you do to prepare for death?
There are probably a lot of ways to prepare for death. I myself can't come up with more than:

Reflecting on ones own death on a daily basis;
Don't buy stuff that's useless so that it's easier for loved ones to clean up after you.

Are there more things one could do? And what do you yourself to prepare?
Looking for inspiration.
So, I'm not so much interested in the process of dying, but what you do on a daily basis in the years and decades before.

Found a dhamma talk on the practice of mindfulness of death:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xy01jkEsnQ

I prepare for death by watching clouds.
Appearances of entities arise when certain elements come together, and then morph beyond recognition as elements drift apart.
Death is all around us at all times. Everything is changing, always. I prepare for death by letting go of fixed ideas about who I am. Every moment is a different configuration and there's no me in that.
There is no birth and death, only continuous transformation. I learned this by watching the clouds.

Accepted because of its sheer simplicity. :)

There is some excerpt authored by Dalai Lama if you are not negative towards Tibetan Buddhism and the Great Vehicle in general. This is how he approaches preparations for death, with some steps of advice: Preparing to Die.
Generally speaking, this topic of preparations is covered in depth by Tibetans, this is why they oftentimes wear skull beads, to be constantly reminded of death. If you discern a couple of contextual (Vajrayanic) notions you might find it valuable.
Summary of advice from Advice on Dying: And Living a Better Life by Dalai Lama:

If you cultivate a sense of the uncertainty of the time of death, you will make better use of your time.
To prevent procrastination with regard to spiritual practice, take care not to come under the influence of the illusion of permanence.
Realize that no matter how wonderful a situation may be, its nature is such that it must end.
Do not think that there will be time later.
Be frank about facing your own death. Skillfully encourage others to be frank about their deaths. Do not deceive each other with
  compliments when the time of death is near. Honesty will foster
  courage and joy.

The 'Summary Advice' on the bottom of the page contains some useful pointers. This kind of advice is indeed what I'm looking for. Thanks. :)

These sound more like an preparation for life than for death. Probably intentionally.

You wouldn't ask this question unless there is some fear or worry of dying. Otherwise you might as well ask "how to prepare for the setting of the sun?".
So you need to work on that fear. But, what causes this fear?

Tanhaya japati soko
tanhaya jayati bhayam
tanhaya vippamuttassa
natthi soko kuto bhayam.
Craving begets sorrow, craving begets fear. For him who is free from
craving there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him?
Dhammapada Verse 216

Hence you need to work on eliminating craving. Enlightened beings do not have such questions regarding death as they do not fear or worry.

I have no reason to fear death. :)

Then this question is as valid as asking "how do i prepare for exhaling after inhaling?" :)

No, @Sankha. That is just your opinion. I have a different one.

@Medhini it's not like I'm going to tell your opinion in my answer :)

To prepare for death I imagine that when I will be dying I won't die like I have died all my past lives and I won't die in suffering.
I imagine that I have attained Nibbana and I will be dying a conscious and aware death. I will know that death is coming and I will know that death is happening.
I imagine I won't have to come back. The holy life would have been lived.

If I understand you correctly you're preparing for death by imagening how you would be at that time? Do you practise those imaginations daily, weekly? It's not really clear to me yet.

I am not preparing for my bodily death, I am preparing for my 'ego death' which I understand as Nibbana. So its kind of paradox that in the preparation of later you are preparing for the former. I dont do it as a practise, like daily or weekly, only when thought about death comes to my mind, I think about the way I will be dying. This also helps to strengthen my practise. So to answer your exact question, 'what do you do to prepare for death?' I practise dhamma to attain Nibbana to prepare for my death. I hope this clears the confusion.

Focusing more on your second point rather than the spiritual aspect of getting to grips with the prospect of your own death:

[making it] easier for loved ones to clean up after you.

There are many things you can do to help your loved ones in such a situation. Generally, the hardest thing to do for people in mourning is to take decisions. So, in addition to making it easier on them by not having much clutter, make sure that there's a clear plan. The plan may vary based on your culture and that of your loved ones, it may also vary based on your local laws because not all countries handle an individual's death the same way.
For example, a plan may include

a written will (make sure it is clear, with no room for interpretation). Depending on your local laws you may want to consult a lawyer or other professional.
Funeral arrangements: a clear outline of your choice regarding cremation/embalming/burial, whether or not you want a wake, choose your clothes and casket etc.

Basically go through all the decisions that need to be made after one's death and try to make as many as you can yourself before you pass. When my uncle passed away (car accident), my grandparents found out just how much effort was involved in planning the procedures. They planned everything for their own funerals so that we wouldn't have to go through it when they passed - they even paid for it in advance so that there would be no financial stress in the mourning period. It made it much easier for the whole family to go along with the plan than to come up with one when the time came.
In addition to making it easier on your loved ones, having a plan ensures that you get what you want.

Is this what you personally do to prepare for death? Or don't you consider death at all? Like, it's more something for later in life?

It's not a complete list, and doesn't include any of the psychological approach for death. There were already many good suggestions for the spiritual side of things, so I focused on more concrete steps to take. You mentioned buying less things as a considerate act towards people dear to you that would have to clean up after you, so I expanded on that list and named a few things that could make it easier for your close ones to clean up after you pass. I'm still in my early twenties so I haven't gone through that list myself yet, but I plan to do it later in life.

From page 82 of this Vinaya commentary,
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should [... focus on ...]  how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:

“The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
    virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
    dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
    body, you should be heedful in your attention.”

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example,
  MN 143,
  SN 36.7, and
  AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed [...] at inspiring
  calm and insight.

Some/various schools of Buddhism have a detailed doctrine on this subject e.g. Tibetan Nyingma tradition referenced in this answer to How to die professionally?
Other related topics may include Experiencing physical pain and Last thought before death?
One more reference -- a Zen story: Three Days More
I think a lot of people will say that the best preparation is the "enter the stream" (and so also abandon identity-view).

This is when one dies and/or the days/weeks leading up to it. What about now, the current situation? You don't contemplate it? What do you do personally? And do you think that stream-enterers no longer have to prepare for death at all?

What about now, the current situation? I thought the quote suggested that now would be a good time for "attainment of the paths and fruitions", to have a "best object possible" on which to focus thoughts. And do you think that stream-enterers no longer have to prepare for death at all? Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote, "the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death ... True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana."

Sorry, none of it answers my original question.

@Medhiṇī Death comes (e.g. for your family and friends) whether you're prepared for it or not. After it comes, you're living with it all the time.

If the previous post doesn't answer your question...here's something, I don't do but know people do.
Read the 'Tibetan book of the Dead', it will teach you everything that's going to happen after you die and before you will be reborn.  In the bardo. You do the pratice to prepare for whats to come.
Also you can learn, how to attain 'rainbow body' when you die. Its an esoteric Tibetan practise I read in Jetsunma Tenzing Plamos book. Though nobody but the Lamas can teach you how to do that. This will surely prepare you for death.

I'll put that on my Buddhist-bucket-list. Thanks. :)

There is no "you" or "I" which dies. Birth, life, and death all happen, but rather than have the experience as it truly is, we remain in a tiny box sometimes called "the ego" which has a hard time seeing anything except as it pertains to itself. This is only a delusion. One prepares for death the same way one prepares for life, by finding liberation from this small limited ego-self. In fact, life itself is the best preparation for death, because of the natural lessons that arise when one awakens to them.
No Death, No Fear -- Comforting Wisdom for Life by Thich Nhat Hanh.

Hi Eric. Not to complain but just fyi, when posting a link or a reference it's often good to quote a bit from it -- is there any paragraph in the book that's especially relevant to the question and answer, e.g. to help the OP determine whether they're likely find an answer to their question in that book? Also fwiw I hesitate to post hyperlinks (instead of citing the title) to entire books because of their copyright (conversely, quoting a bit is fair use). But if I do post a hyperlink I include the title as well as the URL, in case e.g. the URL changes in future.

I'd like to share an answer I got to this question on a different site.

Contemplate death every day. (It's something the Buddha apparently advised.)
Do good.
Read the 'Discourse on the Purābheda Sutta' by Mahāsi Sayādaw.

Plus a suggestion from a monk I don't remember the name of:

Keep a 'book of merits'. (Someone can read it to the person lying on the death bed to help remember good things to ease the mind and help a good rebirth.)

And here a video that explains how to contemplate death correctly:

Appointment with Death.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
As a lay follower how to deal with uncontrollable sexual urges?
I have totally refrained from sexual misconduct and after reading the answers about Masturbation to the previous question on this site I have even refrained from that. Also, I have practically zero sexual thoughts during meditation.
But you see, as we eat food, the body automatically produces semen which is beyond our control. This accumulates and as the epididymis gets full either it ends up in a nightfall or heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control.
How to deal with this problem? Do monks face this problem?

I think this is a duplicate of Dealing with Lust and/or Sexual Desire, Masturbating and Asuba Bawana and maybe others, isn't it?

I checked them, I think it's not duplicate, as, wrt the first question, I am not asking about dealing with pornography and masturbation, I have crossed that, and wrt to the second question, the lust in question is not regular, its some kind of 'lust attack'. Though the answers somewhat answer my question. I might suggest not close it.

Is the main/only difference (between this question and the others) what you described in the 2nd paragraph of this question (which I didn't really understand)?

Yes you can say that. What it says that hiw tobdeal with lust that is not much of psychological but a byproduct of biological processes.

Why did you stop with masturbation in particular? If  you are spiritually not that developed (meaning that you have no good emotional replacements or not much experience in vipassana), when you live in an environment where you are constantly exposed to the opposed sex, thoughts/urges will inevitably come up and it's not wise to surpress them or feel guilty about them. If you haven't set a specific goal and seen its advantages, your restraint in conduct & the motivation & determination will be short-term. We don't know if all monks live celibate & if so happily? We only see them in videos.

Friedrick, I suggest that you gather modern information about masturbation because your ideas seem to be incorrect. There is no such thing as wasted semen. Also, I suggest you to question your beliefs about your guilt. Prof. Windy Dryden published a lot of helpful guides connected with cognitive behavioural therapy in how to deal with negative emotions. The most important points you better learn is to hold flexible beliefs. These contain of self/other & world acceptance and non-dogmatic beliefs ("I would/nt like to have X but there is no law of the universe that I MUST/MUST NOT GET IT

@Val whats the name of specific book? There are many by him. Also I read daniel goldman about managing emotions, it doesnot help me as much as meditation does.

In short, it is all about beliefs you hold. As humans we have preferences, values and goals (like being healthy, getting along with others, being happy etc). These are all fine if they are not commandments that MUST happen because we all know that sometimes in life our   preferences get frustrated. If this happens it makes sense to feel healthy negative emotions like sadness or regret (instead of depression & guilt respectively). These healthy emotions stem from believes that state that you have a strong desire but it must not necessarily happen & it's not the end of the world. Pm for question

@Val how to PM? Also i used the word 'involuntary', not matter what i believe, the feeling pops up without control. Open up a chat room. We chat.

By the way, do you speak german?

@Val No, I don't...its google translate.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I am online....

@Val In a comment you said, "If you haven't set a specific goal and seen its advantages". I think there's some truth in that (which I didn't touch on in my answer), I don't know if that's something you could make into an answer.

What it says that how to deal with lust that is not much of psychological but a byproduct of biological processes.
I read some people describe it as some kind of "physical need", but I don't buy into that theory.
I suppose it's more like an itch, where if you stop scratching then it stops itching after a while.
An itch too is a "byproduct of biological processes": but so what.
I suppose you can "deal with" (or avoid) this problem via a combination of "psychological" measures (e.g. guarding the senses to avoid attaching to objects of sexual desire, e.g. to sights and ideas and bodily sensations); and maybe "physical" measures (e.g. having some other physical exercise, and enough sleep); and maybe "emotional" too (e.g. feeling happy with things as they are); and perhaps "conceit" i.e. comparing yourself to other people (e.g. "they don't, and I can be like them" -- see here and here).
There are other "psychological" suggestions too (e.g. meditation on foulness of the body, graveyard meditation) in the linked topics. But maybe that style or topic of sustained thought is a raft i.e. you don't need it after you arrive on the other shore (i.e. after cessation).
Perhaps people's bodies vary from person to person as well as from time to time, but I'm pretty sure that Buddhism considers food for example to be some kind of necessity, but not lust.
Maybe "the control of urges" is learned over time, e.g. growing from being a teenager to being adult.
Do monks face this problem?
Maybe not: the Vinaya considers it an offence.
Or, who knows, maybe they do: I've also read claims that few monks really live according to the Vinaya.
I once read of a monk (of Western origin) who suicided after complaining of priapism or satyriasis (hypersexuality), and dysentery (reference) -- but I hope that's an abnormal experience.

Just because the Vinaya calls an act an offense doesn't mean that monks do not experience an urge, after all they too are just human beings. One cannot by an act of will stop sexual interest. It is by cutting the cause that will lead to disinterest and that happens at the 2nd stage of enlightenment (once returner)

@Val I thought the question wasn't whether there's ever an urge, but the question says that there are "heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control" -- I don't know to what extent that's entirely true, and should accepted as an unalterable truth. To the extent that it is true, I suppose the reference given at the end of OyaMist's answer becomes relevant. Perhaps it's a matter of how to interpret the word "urge": i.e. if you have and act on an urge, then is that or isn't that the same as acting "intentionally"?

Stuck on the horny of a dilemma? Want to get rid of it?

The Root of All Things (Mūlapariyāya Sutta MN 1)
But he doesn’t conceive extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive as extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

There are indeed simple things that can be done. From "I am horny", simply acknowledge "there is horniness". Unhook the self. There is horniness breathing in. There is horniness breathing out. There is a fly in the room breathing in. There is a fly in the room breathing out. There is breathing in long. There is breathing in short. There is cutting vegetables breathing in long. There is cutting vegetables breathing out long. Etc.
In the modern world with dayglow sexuality in all visible forms around you on the internet or even walking down the street seeing exciting attire or cut bodies, there is a constant stream of distraction. Seeking and abiding in solitude can provide relief. You will need time to deal with each explosion of craving. Exposing yourself to constant stimulus is counterproductive. Look down. Look aside. "No, thank you."
As you relinquish the craving, note that there is also danger in relishing the fight against horniness (hence quote above). As Ajahn Chah might have said. "Can you endure?"
Note: While sleeping, if the sperm is released during a dream, no fault is being committed. Just observe and let go.

Apologies for not seeing latter part of question. Updated answer with monastic rule reference

If you are a layperson you are not expected to abandon all of these urges apart from the actual sexual misconduct, which is mainly harm to others, and depending how people view it, might or might not include masturbation (for some claim it takes two to tango). You are also not expected to abandon your wife as the object of your love and so on.
Unless you, of course, take up Eight precepts, instead of Five. You can, however, attain a decent life full of happiness, joy and bliss getting away with just this simple way. For example, I only take Eight precepts occasionally for short period of time, i.e. a month.
I would not advise to overthink that and be too harsh on yourself and just try to be reasonable about it instead. Too much restriction, too quickly, and the one might get a certain extent of back pressure which causes misery. As such, especially when suppressed, things might get worse, even out of control. In short, take it easy, there will be time and day where you have certain enough insight in Emptiness, or shall I say, things deprived of their Self essence, that you no longer perceive women in such way.
Now, there are antidotes for sexual lust in Buddhism, it might be helpful to read on overcoming Five Mental Hindrances or in Mahayana, Seven point cause and effect method, where practitioner equalizes self and the others completely, for instance, viewing other beings as objects of deepest endearment - here, all women as our mothers.
But most importantly, cultivate patience in regard to such basic and powerful innate instincts, so do not tread on yourself by mistake; this is not liberation from suffering, this is applying it.

This message does not reply directly to the question, but A few days ago I found this sutta
https://suttacentral.net/an7.50/en/sujato
Numbered Discourses 7
Aṅguttara Nikāya 7

A Great Sacrifice
Mahāyaññavagga
Sex
Methunasutta

he phrases the liberation in this term

As long as I saw that these seven sexual fetters—or even one of them—had not been given up in me, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.
But when I saw that these seven sexual fetters—every one of them—had been given up in me, I announced my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.

perhaps you can strive to do the opposite of what a person ''who lives the celibate life impurely'' does

As a lay follower how to deal with uncontrollable sexual urges?

Treat it as you would with any other physical/mental phenomena: observe it with mindfulness in the present moment.

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


text:
As Buddhists, what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet?
I finished watching two movies on the life of H.H the Dalai Lama (Kundun and Seven years in Tibet) which also highlight the tragedy of Tibet. Historically Tibet can be said as the only country which has dedicated itself to the attainment of Nibbana (take this with a pinch of salt). A huge amount of cultural heritage and Buddhist documents must have been lost during the cultural revolution.
So what do you make out of the tragedy of Tibet?
Do we learn any lessons about Karma?
Do you think that for protection of Dhamma Tibet should have indulged in dealing with arms?
If you are a Vajrayana, do you care for Liberation of Tibet?
P.S: Not being judgemental towards the Chinese.

Should we close this as 100% opinion-based?

Yes, it is kind of, but can it not be given the leverage of being a question of, 'doing a meaningful contribution towards the bigger understanding of Buddhist life'.

Actually you know, I can seperate those questions and make it appear like they will have objective answers. But in current form it make better sense, so I would suggest to not close it. But if that might affect the BU.stack its your call.

@AndreiVolkov I think it's a polling question again, i.e. it's asking about/for the opinion of every user on a (random) topic. Just because it's asked here doesn't automatically make it a question about Buddhism. And even just because it's asked about a Buddhist country doesn't make it a question about Buddhism or about Buddhist culture. It's nearly on-topic but it should concentrate more on being a specific question. Also asking "lessons learned about kamma" is more or less a duplicate of the earlier question about kamma and Jews in the Holocaust isn't it: so maybe not that question again.

We've had questions about arms before, so I don't know what good asking about arms in Tibet might be. And asking "do you care?" is IMO a weak (open-ended) question, like "I can't think of a good question to ask, but say whatever you think is important about it." Maybe it would be better for a discussion site (elsewhere) than for Q+A (here). Anyway I closed another topic recently for being a polling question, I think I should do the same for this one.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a polling question. You could also use the chat room for this topic if you want to.

@ChrisW I do get your point, and not arguing to re-open it, but you know what, sometimes when the context changes, the way we look at our understanding of something also changes. For an e.g. when the gravity is pondered for heavenly objects we use space-time curve to solve the equations rather than Newton's laws. As with the changing context, we need better understanding. I know the Karma deal, but with Tibet, it was something to be rethought as it let me wonder is Aniccaa a higher law than Karma, and so on and so forth...

Tibet was invaded 65 years ago, few of us experienced "the context changing". If you'd like to reopen maybe ask a more specific question. You might see also e.g. Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist, e.g. about kamma.

Another thing I mistrust about this question as-is is that someone is likely to answer it with (not an anti-Chinese but) an anti-Tibetan and anti-Dalai Lama answer, that consists of and includes statements about politics and history. But, the politics and history of Tibet and His Holiness' role in that, are topics which IMO the users of site aren't experts at assessing and putting into context, so may be more on topic on the History.SE or Politics.SE or Skeptics.SE sites -- so instead I'd rather you try to keep the questions more specifically about Buddhism and/or personal practice and so on.

I am sorry @ChrisW, didn't mean to be passive-aggressive. I did get the answer in the holocaust link. :)

I believe this question has been asked 2500 years ago. Please see Mahāparinibbānasutta DN16:

I will wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I will destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!


text:
Why are all the Buddhas born in Indian subcontinent only?
From this list of previous Buddhas it looks like all were Indians.( I mean from their names).
Ancient Greece or Egypt were also developed enough to have understood the Dhamma.
We can consider Socretes and Moses from that part, but India(Nepal) was chosen for the Buddha.
What's the reason?

There is no reason. Instead, if we actually use "reason" or "intelligence" ("yoniso manasikara"), we will conclude this is totally improbable, which is why the teachings about past Buddhas found in the DN are probably fake propaganda composed after the Buddha when Ashoka and the Buddhist clergy were undermining Brahmanism/Hindism. Theravada teaches to wisely reflect on any teaching heard or read. Theravada Buddhism is not about blind faith in every sutta but the verification of a sutta via meditative insight. To believe Buddhas only arise in India is like believing the Messiah only comes to the Chosen People (Jews) in Israel. Its non-sense religious political propaganda.

From your answers, you seem to always have an opinion about the authenticity of account and Theravada interpretation. Where can I get to read this?

Sorry. All I posted was my personal opinion (apart from saying all sutta must be reflected on with wisdom, which the suttas teach).

Just as fishes are found in water and monkeys are found on trees. Different races are found in different regions of the world. They differ in their skin color, language , necessities , dominating elements and philosophies. Out of this segregated reality Jesus , Ram , Buddhas are born. Nothing happens without reason. Jesus manifested because of the conditions around him. Ram or Krishna manifested because of the conditions around them. Similarly Buddha manifested because of the conditions around him. It is no surprise that Buddha came from Indian subcontinent because he came up with a theory of Anatta which was opposite to what was preached by Hindus. That insight required conditions created by Hindus. Similarly we can say Jesus came up his theory to resolve the issues faced by middle east people. Ram and Krishna also had a purpose which was relevant to their surroundings. No one was taught to be Buddha or Ram or Jesus, they were the product of Life and its environment. There should be no shame in saying that Indian subcontinent has been a place from where great sages and Buddhas came into being. If Buddha arises again then most probably he will arise in the East because East has the conditions for his growth.

We have to keep in mind the fact that general knowledge and education level of folks 2500 years ago was way different from modern time people. It was an age without internet and without any effective communication means. Geography wasn't a standardized formal academic discipline in schools, and majority of the population were un-educated folks. To them the concepts of Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, their cultures and languages were virtually non-existent. So if there was an ancient Buddha in China with a name "Chong", or Europe with a name "Kon", or Africa with a name "!Non", it would be much easier to be rendered as "John" by an American Buddha when He teaches His disciples in a subsequent period. The Dhamma would be much easier propagated to everyone once its ideas, concepts, and names were translated to the dialect local people back then could understand.

You surmised that the previous Buddhas were all born in the Indian subcontinent, simply because they had names that sounded Indian.
If you look at the excerpt from an academic paper below, certain Greek and Egyptian kings had Indian-sounding names in Emperor Ashoka's edicts, but this did not mean that they were Indian. Turamaya was Ptolemy, Maka or Maga was Magas, Alikasudara or Alikyasudala was Alexander. In fact, Greece was known as Yavana in Sanskrit (from Ionia). So, just because previous Buddhas had Indian-sounding names, it does not mean that they were Indian or that they resided in the Indian subcontinent. It only shows that they had Prakritized or Sanskritized names.
From the paper entitled "Antiochus, King of the Yavanas" by Jarl Charpentier :

As concerns  Turamaya  there  can  happily  be no
  doubt. That it denotes one of the Ptolemies has been
  taken for granted ever since the days of Prinsep; and
  it seems  quite  obvious  that  none  but Ptolemy  II
  Philadelphus, whose long reign  covered  nearly  four
  decenniums   (285-247  B.C.) ,  would  fit  into  the
  chronology  of Asoka's  reign."  As for Maka  or Maga
  there existed, no doubt, more than one princeling  of
  the name of Magas; but there can be little doubt that
  we hare to do here with  that Magas  of Cyrene  whose
  regnal years fall between  c.  300-250  B.C.  Already
  Buhler(3) remarked that Amtekina (G., K.) or Amtikini
  (Sh.) would  rather  render  a Greek  Avtigenes  than
  Avtigenes. However, although we know of at least
  one Antigenes," he, for obvious  reasons, cannot come
  in here.  The old Antigonos who met his fate at Ipsus
  (301 B.C.) seems to be Out of the question;  and thus
  there  remains  only his grandson, surnamed  from the
  place  of his  birth  Gonatas, whose  reign  extended
  between  276 and 239  B.C.  Finally, Alikasudara  (or
  Alikyasudala, K.) has long been taken to be Alexander
  of  Epirus(5)  who  was  the   son  of  Pyrrhus   and
  Antigone.

That is an interesting take on the subject...it would have been so much mysterious if any of the dhamma sutra...e.g. the heart sutra would have found in the sarcophagus... the world would have become so much mystery to live in...

This can be an entirely different question altogether, but given what you say, will you call Socrates or Jesus as enlightened masters trying to explain the Dhamma, to the respective audience in respective culture and language...in that case case it would nullify the argument that Buddhas will only be born in India.

The Buddhavaṁsa gives the birthplaces too. I'd guess these were known (places) and in India.

@FriedrickNietzsche Jesus and Socrates cannot be Buddhas. The Buddhas have to teach the Four Noble Truths, the three marks of existence (including anatta), the Eightfold Noble Path and dependent origination.

It's Universal law. Which we cannot simply understand why.

Please add a reference to that statement.

I cannot remember exactly which sutta it is, if im not mistaken in that sutta, says there are some inccidents related to buddhas life, will be confusing to ordinary people. And its all depends on the way we looking at it. If we look it through scientific way those will be just rumor, else we look it with faith on buddhas teaching it'll not be problem at all.

Thanks. I will try to look for it as well.

Yes all buddhas were from india, that's a certain of world..In future also  buddhas'll be born only in india..When a Bodhisathwa(buddha before enlightenment)looking for feasibility to be born, country and place are among major five factors, and always the country selected was india..
With the geographical positioning of india ,it has a special energy that is needed to make a buddha..As you mentioned in the same time greece,egypt...those countries also were developed but they didn't have that geographical factor which india had..And also otherwise buddha needed wise people who could understand the buddha serments, For that they needed to had spiritual and mental development, I think those western countries only had physical development more than mental development in that time..So buddha had to choose india to plant the seed of buddhism


text:
How can mindfulness/awareness be employed effectively for Forgiveness?
I don't want to harbor ill-will anymore and I want to forgive others for what they did to me and also forgive myself for my past actions.
So I remain aware and mindful of the thoughts of ill-will that pop up and mindful of corresponding feelings. But this does not seem to alleviate the stream of thoughts and feelings all day.
How can mindfulness be employed effectively for forgiveness?

What do you think being able to forgive someone else would provide you?  What would it provide them? When you've done something wrong and regret it do you find solace when others forgive you? What happens when they don't forgive you even though you've apologized? I'm asking these questions because I think there might be something deeper going on then your question indicates. Like maybe you are confusing regret and guilt? Or you have some belief in universal justice still?

@YesheTenley I just have a continuous stream of thoughts and thereby bad feeling about how my close friends behaved with me and on other occasions how I behaved, I don't want these thoughts and feelings anymore. Yes, I also regret what I did and that also has a component of guilt, so I even want forgiveness for myself. No, I am not saying this for Kaarma or universal justice, I really just want to start feeling good about myself, about who I am.

I want forgiveness for what others did to me and also forgiveness for myself for my past actions.

The first part isn't in your sphere of control. Having preferences like that other people better forgive you is in and of itself ok, however, if you turn that healthy preference into a command that they SHOULD forgive that will result -as in your case - in anger.
You can however cultivate self-acceptance. You judge your acts as bad but not your personhood. You judge the deed, not the doer, for the doer is fallible and too complex to give a global evaluation.
Just observing ill-will won't necessarily change your underlying beliefs and the resulting perceptions. You need an alternative perception that weakens the old belief. Therefore, mettā is employed to attenuate anger and increase kindness.
Refer to MN 62

"Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

~
You can also try to view people as unique, complex and fallible human beings (like you!), whose mind and body are constantly changing (like yours!),  and that they too are often prey of environmental factors and prior mind/body conditioning (again, like you!) -> At that moment in time these people haven't had better coping skills to regulate their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. In short: "It seemed so to them."
See them as human beings that have certain aspects that are annoying and then you can take that aspect and wish them metta with regards to the opposite positive quality. So if a person is annoying or dishonest, you can wish them: "May they know the happiness resulting from honesty and friendliness".
No matter which technique you employ, repetition is key. I employ especially the self accepting technique for over 2 years and it works out. Of course, sometimes I do get angry, but that is to be expected because I too am a fallible human being who can learn from his mistakes and try to restrain himself in the future.

My teacher gave me the following instructions.
After the vipassana meditation session, end with giving and asking forgiveness; and after that do a short metta wish.
Example:
<< forgiveness >>
I wish to ask for forgiveness from all beings and persons whom I have, in the past, with or without intention, hurt or harmed in thoughts, words or deeds.
I wish to forgive all beings and persons who have, in the past, with or without intentions, hurt or harmed me in thoughts, words or deeds.
[Note: English is not my first language. Please create a sentence that makes more sense to you. Hope you get the gist though.|
<< metta wish >>
Ahaṁ sukhito homi (niddukkho homi, avero homi, abyāpajjho
homi, anīgho homi, sukhī attānaṁ pariharāmi)
May I be happy, free from suffering, free from enmity, diseases and grief, free from troubles, difficulties and dangers and look after myself with ease.
Sabbe sattā sukhitā hontu (niddukkhā hontu, averā hontu,
abyāpajjhā hontu, anīgha hontu, sukhī attānaṁ pariharantu)
May all beings be happy, free from suffering, free from animosity, diseases and grief, free from troubles, difficulties and dangers and look after themselves with ease.
I usually do that one just in Pali.
So, both things are to be done at the end of each regular meditation session.
Hope this helps.

In vipassana (seeing "not-self'), the idea of "beings" ("satta") ceases. The view of "beings" ("satta") belongs to Mara. Refer to SN 5.10 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html and SN 23.2 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html.

First, it may be right to disassociate the act from the person. I'm told that a state-of-the-art among pre-school teachers (and maybe parents), for example, is that when a young child does something wrong, you don't say:

You're a bad boy!

You reprove the act, not the person:

Don't hit people when you want something. Ask for it, use your words.

Two reasons:

The criticism is more specific (what not to do) and constructive (what to do instead)
The lesson that "I am a bad boy" is not the lesson that you want the child to learn!

Similarly you might think about your friends "That was an unskillful action, hurtful", rather than, "They are bad, they hurt me" etc.

Second, if I fall of a bicycle unexpectedly and hurt myself, I've been inclined to worry about it until I work out how and why it happened -- so I can avoid repeating the mistake ... because I don't want to live in fear of its happening again for the same unknown reason.
Likewise it seems to me that a sincere and important part of an apology is something like, "I did wrong and I won't do it again."
I think that if you have any real assurance that it won't happen again, then you can afford to forgive and/or forget it (but otherwise that's more difficult).
Sometimes the hurt is of a kind where you can't get an apology: where "they" won't apologise, or the actor is a bit impersonal (maybe a war, a crime, a car crash). That kind of experience can cause what people call "post traumatic stress disorder" (PTSD) where you keep reliving the experience. PTSD is a real problem, there are therapies for it (I don't know of any Buddhist therapies) that you might want to investigate further, one of which they call "mindfulness" -- which includes being/remaining aware of what's happening now and the fact that the traumatic experience is past.

Third, if you want to forgive yourself in some way, perhaps it's good to do good things -- to intend well (e.g., kindly), and to act well when possible.
Buddhism praises both harmlessness and generosity, for example. Practising either or both of these, perhaps remembering (when you recollect your "past lives") that you have been harmless and well-intentioned, may result in your experiencing no remorse.

Fourth, you may want to compare yourself with others -- see that you're like others, better than some, only human ... not judge yourself too harshly.
The Christian prayer includes "forgive us, like we forgive others" (which sounds sensible to me).
Also when "compare yourself with others" it's good to find or recognise people who you think may be better than you, and learn from them, learn to practice as they do.

I marked this answer up, even though we should be trying to wean Friedrick Nietzsche away from Christianity.

I think there's something like it in a metta chant for example too: "May i be free... May you be free..."

I think instructions for metta mediation (metta bhavana) say to start with someone dear to you (because it's easier to generate metta for someone dear), and then take as your object someone less dear -- intending that the same metta as for the dear person will be generated for your less dear person. I did mention a Christian version here, because I found it more succinct (quotable), explicitly about "forgiveness", and relevant to the (perhaps slightly unusual, according to Buddhism) situation where a person isn't already feeling that about themself.

"Mindfulness" means to "remember to apply" the teachings.
Therefore, mindfulness remembers the teaching that anger & hatred bring suffering and thus remembers to give up anger, hatred, resentment, etc, per Dhp 5:

Dhp 5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Mindfulness also remembers the reality of Dependent Origination; that the "doer" of bad karma is "ignorance" rather than "persons", per SN 12.17.

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition,
  formations come to be; with formations as
  condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of
  ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation
  of formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the
  cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”

Thus, similarly, the "doer" of past unskillful action was "ignorance" rather than "myself".
If it is realised the doer of past unskillful actions was "ignorance" then those actions will also be seen clearly as wrong actions; thus those actions will not be repeated in the future. Dhp says:

172. He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
173. He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.


text:
Critique of interview with secular Buddhist author of "Why Buddhism is True"
I wonder what critique other self-identified Secular Buddhists on this forum would have of this new interview with self-proclaimed Secular Buddhist author Robert Wright.

What are the specific doctrines that are discarded as "supernatural?"

Now, for some questions for non self-identified Secular Buddhists:

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"
Towards the end of the interview the interlocutors discuss what Buddhism has to say about Tribalism/Racism. Is Buddhism a prescription for overcoming Tribalism/Racism as they say?

Cheers!

Is this an invitation for an opinion-based discussion?

I think this is inline with https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28504/can-you-criticise-or-improve-ven-bodhis-description-of-mahayana --> questions like this. Also, facts are not inherently existent. No ultimate distinction can be made between fact and opinion :)

I not sure this question is allowed here. We try to avoid topics where you're invited to disagree with or criticise other schools. Assuming that "secular Buddhism" is (a form of) Buddhism, imagine asking this same question about Mahayana -- "What critique do users have about Mahayana? Will it turn into a full and robust etc.?" I think it's OK to ask questions of or about secular Buddhists like "What do 'secular Buddhists' believe?" but not to invite general criticism.

In this topic I asked for a more-Mahayana perspective on allegedly-Mahayana doctrine.

That's true Chris. OTOH, I don't remember ever seeing any self-identified Secular Buddhists here, but maybe they are lurking. I'm also not sure if any self-identified Secular Buddhists would regard it as a tradition. But if anyone is offended or feels like this is an attack then it should be deleted. Can we wait to see if anyone so feels?

So, defense is allowed, not offense?

More like, where there is no controversy why invent one? Or where there is no problem why find a solution? I'm curious of the answers and think I might learn something, but if you and Chris think this is going to invite controversy then I am fine with deleting it. I'll just have to get over my attachment to it ;)

@AndreiVolkov I don't know what you mean by "defense", why that might be necessary: I think we hope to do without hostile questions.

I certainly didn't intend it as hostile but if others find it hostile, then it should be deleted.

@ChrisW like, your question about Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana was inviting "defense" of Mahayana (what you called "more-Mahayana perspective").

Right, I didn't think that question about Mahayana was hostile at all and in fact I found the question and responses very appropriate and illuminating.

Like if a question is inviting the views of others without making definitive statements that are controversial is that hostile? If I had said something like, "secular buddhism is definitely wrong so don't even try to defend it but just tell me why you think it is so wrong too" that would be inappropriate IMO.

I think members of the "Triratna" community (I've seen some here) consider themselves "secular". And I can think of at least one regular user who "discards" rebirth. I don't think the question is hostile, I fear it almost inevitably invites some seemingly-"hostile" answers i.e. which disparage any "secular" views.

Sorry. If you read something (e.g. an interview) elsewhere that you don't understand it's good that you should be able to ask about it here. But users (the community) on Meta when this site was started worried about the fact that this site is for all forms of Buddhism/Buddhist, wanted to avoid one school attacking another (which apparently they'd experienced more than enough of on other/previous sites), and so have a bit of firewall between schools. Ask about any school (or perhaps you call it tenet system) but preferably (or only) from within the context/perspective of that school.

I've edited the question now to hopefully be ok. Thank you both for helping me realize my own bias. I hadn't anticipated that self-identified Secular Buddhists would be answering and some of those questions are not appropriate for non self-identified Secular Buddhists.

Do you have any specific question[s] about the interview? Is it only a non-specific question like, "Does everything in this interview accurately portray secular Buddhism?" Are there any especially questionable bit[s] of the interview that you'd want to quote or highlight? I ask because the specific questions seems to be about the future of secular Buddhism (not about the interview), so I'm wondering a bit, what you're asking about the interview, what the interview has to do with it.

#1 and #2 are very general that occurred to me with interview as condition, but #3, #4 and #5 all occurred with interview as substantial cause :)

The only part of this question that I see as legit is #4. Everything else to me invites hypothetical future-looking speculation.

Read the interview? That was a big part of it :) Anyway, only responses seem to be you and Chris so maybe i'll just delete it again.

Look good now? If so, maybe delete these comments?

@Yeshe Tenley. Question #3 might invite to primarily opinion-based answers and/or discussions. Please see our policy on "asking questions".

@Lanka, I've edited #3. Better?

@YesheTenley I think we have a permissive moderation policy for questions. "Too opinion-based" (or even "Unclear what you're asking") isn't great, but I wouldn't close a question for that reason. But "comparisons" (e.g. "is secular better?") and "hostile" (e.g. "secular is bad am I right?") are possible reasons for closing, IMO. I'm not sure that you'll get good answers to the question as-is, or quick answers (perhaps the secular buddhists I'm thinking of aren't here any more, or not frequently), but I'm not against the question any more.

Maybe not too many answers, but thank you all for the exercise in helping me improve the questions.

... even if you were asking people to predict the future. They might not be able to answer fully/accurately but might (if they were expert) have some relevant datum by way of reply.

@YesheTenley. I think so, yes. Thank you for the effort.

Here are partial answers to "what beliefs are discarded?" -- Matthew's doesn't name specific beliefs but says it depends on what form of Buddhism (Pali, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan) they secularize -- Bakmoon's says something similar, "varies tremendously based on what tradition they are adapting their teachings from", and that there's a secularized vipassana, and (IMO may hint that it's not that they discard the supernatural elements but more) that they ignore them and concentrate on "just a few (texts or elements) that they consider important".

Yeshe Tenley. Please improve the quality of your question. Please choose some quotes from the interview for critique. Thanks

Just got this book as a gift, so far an interesting read

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"
I find two definitions of "fundamental attribution error":

One is the view that behaviour characteristics are innate (or inherent in the person) rather than situational -- Wikipedia:

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the concept that, in contrast to interpretations of their own behavior, people tend to (unduly) emphasize the agent's internal characteristics (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining other people's behavior. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are".

The author uses it in what may be a slightly different way -- e.g. here is the same author writing for Wired -- saying it's affected by our view of which tribe (friend or enemy) a person belongs to:

After all, we tend to interpret the errors of our enemies and rivals in an unfavorable light, while explaining away the errors of our allies in more innocent terms.
Indeed, this tendency itself involves a cognitive bias, one that is less famous than confirmation bias. It’s called “attribution error,” and it, too, is dividing America.
In a context of intense tribalism, attribution error works like this: If people we identify as members of our tribe do something bad—if they’re mean to someone, say, or they break the law—we tend to attribute the behavior to “situational” factors. They had been under stress at work, or they were pressured by bad actors into misbehaving, or whatever. If members of the enemy tribe do something bad, we’re more likely to explain the behavior in “dispositional” terms—the bad behavior emanates from their basic disposition, their character. It’s just the kind of thing that people like them do.

You ask for sutta references. I think an obvious example is the Buddha's attitude to what a "holy man" is.
That's conveniently summarised in the Dhammapada (but I think the same doctrine exists in many suttas too):

Because he has discarded evil, he is called a holy man. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.

and:

Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and:

He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience — him do I call a holy man.

My analysis:

People used to be called "holy" because of their birth i.e. if they were born Brahmin -- i.e. their holiness was considered innate -- and Buddhism contradicts the view, that they are holy because they're born holy.
This also says that people are not holy merely because they're called (named) or viewed as holy, or merely bear the outward signs of being members of a holy caste.
I'm not sure about the converse:

Maybe Buddhism suggests (instead of their birth or caste or maybe even their view) there is a good test for when a man can or should be considered holy -- i.e. when a person's behaviour can be attributed to the person's internal characteristics -- i.e. for example,

He who without resentment endures abuse

Perhaps this is the right time to consider someone inherently holy, because it seems to be an example of when their behaviour isn't dependent on external situation.
(Not just "enduring abuse" -- other admirable qualities are described in this chapter.)
Maybe Buddhism suggests that a person is holy when they're serene because they're unaffected, when they are independent, i.e. because they are a recluse and renunciate.
Or, maybe a social psychologist, who holds that the "fundamental attribution error" doctrine is always true, might argue that even this is somehow an example of situational or something "dependent" (a reaction) rather than "inherent" (an action) -- I don't know (because I'm not a social psychologist and don't know exactly how they define and use their FAE doctrine).

As well as or instead of this (definition of "a holy man"), you might (I don't know) also view the FAE as having parallels with Buddhist the doctrine on emptiness (i.e. that things are dependent not inherent), and maybe the "non-self", "two truths", and "dependent origination" doctrines too.
The author's doctrine may come via doctrine on emptiness (not to mention, his own practice) -- e.g. as evidenced by the previous paragraph in the Wired article:

I think the more you go down the path, the clearer the connection between practice and your everyday moral behavior. As I said, all the way down the path is this idea of emptiness where you’re not projecting essences onto lamps or weeds or people, but if you just get a little ways down the path and are reacting a little less emotionally to people, you can make real progress. Can I talk about a cognitive bias that fascinates me because it's so subtle?

The article you referenced mentions morality too, by the way:

We talked about the illusion of self, the psychology of tribalism, how meditation can make us more moral, and why he thinks spreading meditation practice could be socially transformative

Buddhism has some "moral" doctrine too, as you know -- perhaps metta bhavana (meditation) for example, towards everyone (not just for "my own tribe" -- not to mention, whether it's proper to have a "my" tribe) -- not holding ill-will -- or in the context of contemporary American politics, Buddhism might frown on "fake news" (wrong speech) and, who knows, perhaps even any political, tribal, divisive (unendearing, unbeneficial) news and speech even if 'true'.
I don't want to start a discussion of "injustice (in America and elsewhere)" here, though.
In context, the main or final example he gave of what he called "fascinating" appeared to be "demonizing the leader of the country they want to invade" -- a reference to the year-long lead-up to (i.e. the media campaign to justify) the invasion of Iraq (which included what some people now call 'fabricated' evidence or false pretexts e.g. related to WMD).


text:
Does truth of emptiness imply that nothing existent ever ends?
Can emptiness be understood as a conservation law? In other words, is it true that to posit a true end to any existent is to necessarily presuppose that it truly existed before it ended? Another way of saying it, to posit that with death and the break up of the body that a person truly ended is to presuppose that the person truly existed in the body beforehand?
Doesn't viewing the true destruction of a chariot presuppose that the chariot truly existed in the first place?
Doesn't viewing the true destruction of the body presuppose that the body truly existed in the first place?
Can an illusion ever truly end? Or does illusion necessarily give birth to subsequent moments of new illusion?
To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death different? Doesn't supposing a true end for an illusion-like phenomenon necessarily imply that someone has mistaken the illusion for something real? Is this one consequence of the equation emptiness === form?

Like the first verse of Nagarjuna's Madhyamikakarika, Prasangika refute the four extremes of production. Nagarjuna says:

Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a
  cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

What is produced is not truly produced (in the sense that it is not inherently produced), and what ceases does not truly cease (in the sense that it does not inherently cease). There is (conventional) production from another, but not inherent (or true) production from another... and there is no production from itself, be it truly/ultimately or conventionality.
You say:

To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing
  phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from
  moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death
  different?

It's a great question. Death is different in that the mental continuum separates from the body. There is no such separation before death (except in rare cases of powa etc.) That is how death is different from the constant changes that occur in life. Even though no aggregate stays the same from one moment to the next, there is usually no such separation (of the mind stream from the body) before death.
In addition, since the aggregates belong to the same continuum, we can impute the same name on them although they have changed. It is what we do when we look a picture of us at age 10 and say "Look! It's me when I was ten."

How about the conservation law part or this as implication in equation of emptiness === form? iow, can anything at all said to truly end at death? either the body, the mind, the person, anything? is there any true end to anything at all? do illusion-like things continue to be illusion-like from the infinite past into the infinite future precisely because they never truly existed in the first place? BTW, so great to hear from you, you awesome illusion-like being! :)

When you burn a table into ashes, it becomes something else (ashes) and it ceases to be a [illusion-like] table. To paraphrase things, Vaïbashika posit that form will never become nothing, and I have never seen a refutation of that, be it by Prasangika or others. Still, the table ceased to exist - even though the form abiding in the table abides in or as ashes. Your body will cease to be a body. As far as I know, all Mahayana schools posit that the mental continuum never ends and that it is never severed, and so it is eternal (but impermanent).

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean with "emptiness === form".

"Vaïbashika posit that form will never become nothing," seems very close to a conservation law indeed. emptiness === form is shorthand for, "Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness." When I say that illusion-like things never truly cease it seems something like to say that conventional existents when they end always act as substantial cause for arising of other conventional existents..."

That the ending of any conventional existent is not a true ending in that the ending always acts as substantial cause to give rise to some new conventional existent? In much the way that burning table turns to ash...

As far as I know, it is indeed correct to posit that when an impermanent conventionality ends, it turns into another (and it is its substantial cause).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Does the absence of the son of a barren woman truly exist?
In Je Tsongkhapa's, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path Volume 3 pages 343-344 we have this:

Therefore, as I explained before, the sword of reasoning cuts through
  phenomena, revealing that they lack even a shred of the two selves,
  and brings forth certainty about selflessness. So if a thing possessed
  of the two selves does not exist, then how could the non- existence
  which is its negation be established in reality? The con- ception that
  the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman
  really exists must be based on the observation of a barren woman and
  her son. If those two are never observed, then no one thinks to
  construct the expression, “The nonexistence of the son of a barren
  woman truly exists.” In the same way, when you see no truly existent
  thing anywhere at all, you also do not give rise to the conception
  that the nonexistence of that truly existent thing is something truly
  existent. Therefore, you stop all thoughts conceiving of signs,
  because if a thought conceives of true existence, it must be a thought
  that conceives of the true existence of either an existent or a
  nonexistent. So if the larger category is negated, then the
  subcategory is negated. This is what KamalaŸıla’s Stages of Meditation
  says.

The context of this passage is a debate on how to generate the direct perception of emptiness. To my understanding, Je Tsongkhapa is refuting the notion that the Path of Seeing can be attained by eliminating all conceptual thought after one has used reason (ie., conceptual thought) to thoroughly conceive of the truth of emptiness.
The above passage to me seems to be saying that we have to use analysis/reason/conceptual thought during meditation to establish that, "the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman really exists." In other words, that emptiness (the nonexistence or negation of the existence of the son of a barren woman) truly exists is the conclusion of analysis directed at the ultimate. Is this so?
However, right after that it says to enter into signlessness you have to stop all thoughts (emphasis in the original) of true existence ie., even the true existence of emptiness.
I'm confused. Is emptiness a true existent (ie., not mistaken with regards to its appearing object)? I think it is. However, in order to enter signlessness do we have to stop thinking this?
What is the correct interpretation of this passage?
I think Je Tsongkhapa must be using "true existence" or "real" existence synonymously here with inherent existence rather than the alternative defintion of, "non-mistaken with regard to its appearing object."
Why? In the very next passage he says this:

Thus, to achieve the nonconceptual sublime wisdom, you alter- nate (1)
  developing certainty, profound certainty, that there is not even a
  particle of true existence in any thing or non-thing whatso- ever, and
  (2) stabilizing your mind on the conclusion thereby reached. You
  cannot achieve such wisdom by simply constricting mental activity
  without any analysis of an object, because this ap- proach does not
  make it possible to eliminate the conception of true existence. This
  is because it is merely not thinking of true existence; it is not
  knowledge of the absence of true existence. In the same way, it is
  merely not thinking of a self, but is not knowledge of the lack of
  self, so cultivating it does not stop the conception of self. There-
  fore, you must distinguish between (1) not thinking about true exist-
  ence or the existence of the two selves, and (2) knowing the lack of
  true existence or the nonexistence of the two selves. Remember this
  critical point.

Thus, I think he must be using 'true existence' synonymously with inherent existence.

@TenzinDorje, is Tsongkhapa here using 'true existence' as non-mistaken with regard to its appearing object or the alternative definition as synonymous with inherent existence? My guess is the latter... as the former seems to yield contradiction.

You are most likely correct. Consider, for instance, "In the same way, when you see no truly existent thing anywhere at all". If 'true existence' meant 'true' in the sense of 'appearing as it exists to a direct perceiver' then this statement would be incorrect.

No, it does not.
One nice book on the topic that I encountered is Mario D'Amato's translation of Madhyāntavibhāga and its Vasubandhu’s commentary. In addition to providing an excellent translation, Prof. D'Amato does an awesome job retelling both texts in his own words, elaborating and clarifying the meaning. Another solid book on the topic is Mahāmudrā, The Moonlight, by Dagpo Tashi Namgyal.
Both books discuss the enlightened mind's perspective, particularly emptiness and signlessness.
In general, it is my understanding that emptiness refers to the fact that all conceptualized representations whatsoever are mere schematic models of the ontological reality and that signlessness refers broadly to the direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation, and specifically to direct ("intuitive") experience of emptiness thereof.
In Mahayana Buddhism there are many ways of inducing direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation -- most of them involve overwhelming or exhausting the discursive (conceptual) mind one way or another. The methods range from sleep deprivation, to teacher making sudden loud noise during student's meditation session, to koans, to analytical methods. The latter are particularly popular with Madhyamaka and Gelug students inclined towards intellectual speculation.
One particular pattern of demonstration involves showing the limits of basic descriptive constructs that pertain to "entity" - by deconstructing their underlying assumptions - which at that moment leaves the student with more or less clear idea of emptiness in their mind. However, in reality, the student is actually grasping onto the "sign" of emptiness (i.e. the handle of the abstraction) while mistakenly assuming to be experiencing the emptiness itself.
So the next step in the demonstration necessarily involves some sort of analytical debunking of the concept of emptiness itself, which hopefully leaves the student with no conceptual ground to stand on. The resulting experience of being "lost" is a door into signlessness.
In this passage, Tsongkhapa uses one particular technique for the second step of the demonstration, the debunking of the concept of emptiness. This particular technique employs simple logic that exploits the dependency between negation and negandum. If negandum does not exist, it says, how can its negation have any existence? The traditional example of a son of a barren woman is an example of a negandum. This impossible son metaphorically stands in for the svabhava of entities -- the intrinsic nature whose emptiness was demonstrated on step 1. This emptiness of the intrinsic nature of all phenomena (including all objects as well as the perceiving subject, "the two selves") is metaphorically compared with the non-existence of the son of a barren woman. The author says: if the son (the intrinsic nature) does not exist, how can its negation (the empty nature) not be a mere figure of speech? The purpose of this passage is not to discuss the intricacies of the notion of "existence" vs "true existence" vs "intrinsic existence" etc. - but to simply knock the concept of emptiness from under the student's feet.
Once the student lets go of the sign of emptiness and enters signlessness, he or she can hopefully see the emptiness of everything directly. This seeing involves actual direct and clear understanding of the limits of conceptual mind and the profound contrast between all models and reality. Hence in the next passage Tsongkhapa comments on the resulting state of "nonconceptual sublime wisdom", "developing profound certainty, that there is not even a particle of true existence in any thing whatsover", "eliminating the conception of true existence", "knowledge of the absence of true existence" and "knowledge of the lack of self".

Thanks for the book recommendations. When I begin to study tantra in more depth I'll keep a look out for it. One thing I'd note is that Tsongkhapa argues in that same passage strenuously against the idea that merely stopping discursive conceptual thought is any kind of realization or leads to a direct perception of reality. He states that the only method leading to direct perception of emptiness is the latter one I think you've explained pretty well.

Few corrections. 1) This is Madhyamaka, which belongs to the general category of "sutrayana". Tantra is a different animal altogether. 2) RE: "mere stopping" - it's a bit complicated. On one hand, having no thoughts "like a fool" is certainly not It. On the other hand, if Madhyamaka's analytical approach were the only way, the other 83999 methods of Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Tantra, Dzogchen etc. would not exist.

Ah, my reference to tantra was in assuming that "Mahāmudrā, The Moonlight" was a tantric text book recommendation as I associate Mahāmudrā with tantra. This is correct, yes?

On the other... I wonder if those 83999 other methods might be highly effective on the path for certain realizations that might be distinct in some subtle way from what Tsongkhapa is after? Because I know that Tsongkhapa advocated Tantra in the highest possible terms. For him, Tantra was the way of the truly advanced student and he thought it indispensable. Speaking personally, I don't think I'm anywhere near advanced enough to go there :)

Correct, Mahamudra is a tantric-style framework. That book, however, starts with a thorough review of "sutrayana"-style meditation and that's where it talks about emptiness. I can't possibly give justice to Tashi Namgyal's analysis - but in my limited understanding, he argues that the final equipoise of the meditation on emptiness must necessarily have an element of insight - in other words, it cannot be devoid of representation...

...While I agree that the final equipoise of the meditation on emptiness cannot be devoid of representation, in my personal experience that representation actually is "signless" -- i.e. it lacks any conceptual labeling. So while it's not a blank state of mind, it is a state of mind without "traditional" (discursive) thoughts - instead it feels rather like a more robust version of intuition, if that makes any sense. The object of that super-intuition is "how things work" in general and "emptiness" in particular.

Anecdotally, this act of letting go of conceptual labeling and switching over to direct intuitive perception can be induced by non-analytical methods, but the end state is supposed to be the same. As always, all of the above is in-my-understanding, which may be completely or partially off.

According to Je Tsonkhapa, the entry to the Path of Preparation is a union of samata and vipassana on emptiness, which is also an inferential cognizer realizing emptiness. This knower if the first wisdom arisen from analytical meditation.
Since an inferential cognizer is a conceptual consciousness, this wisdom realizing emptiness realizes its object by way of a mental image appearing to it. Since the mental image of emptiness is a conventional truth, it appears to the inferential cognizer accompanied with the appearance of true existence. Thus, if one conceives, at this stage, that emptiness exists as it appears, he conceives that emptiness is truly existent in the sense of inherent existence.
Je Tsongkhapa simply means that emptiness (a complete negation) is empty of inherent existence, just as the basis of emptiness is empty of inherent existence.
The first direct realization of emptiness (a union of calm abiding and special insight as well) is the entry to the path of seeing, and it realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. So it is free from both: the appearance of true existence, and the conception of true existence. But Je Tsongkhapa spoke in relation the inferential cognizer in this context.
Additionally, in the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Je Tsonkhapa posits that the 'a inherently existent mine' is utterly non-existent, like the son of a barren woman.

At that time, inherently established mine will not be found by the
  reasoning analyzing suchness, just as, for example, when the son of a
  barren woman is not observed, the mine of the son of a barren
  woman—eyes and so forth—are not observed.

In this context, he uses the analogy of the son of a barren woman to explain that phenomena (as opposed to persons) also are empty.

Do you believe signlessness can be entered through other means than this back and forth between samata and vipassana? ie., can it be entered through 83999 methods of Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Tantra, Dzogchen?

In the Middle-Length Lam Rim, LTK says "First there is the need to check reality and realize emptiness or selflessness and enter the yoga of signlessness. There is no more the appearance of the signs of true existence. Analysis, conceptuality, is done in order to directly realize emptiness. The non-conceptual realization arises from conceptuality." So, what he believed is quiet clear. With respect to tantra, the idea is to realize emptiness with a more subtle mind but doesn't refute the samata-vipassana scheme. I think we should create a chat room on your question but I don't know how...

Here you go.