text:
Did the Buddha say anything about bullying?
Did the Buddha say anything about bullying, turning others against you out of boredom, malice, unconcern for their well being, stuff like that? How does it differ from e.g, "harsh speech": is it still karmically bad, if it's all cloak and daggers?
I mean for me, you really have to treat the well being of others as an end in itself, if you want to be "ethical". I don't think I just mean intrinsically valuable, a moral good, but intrinsically valuable independent of any other goals you have. In which case you can't sacrifice the wellness of someone for something else.

There is this story about a bhikkhu killing a swan in the commentary to dhp393;

Once there was a bhikkhu who was very skilful in throwing stones; he could even hit fast-moving objects without fail. One day, while sitting with another bhikkhu after having their bath in the Aciravati River, he saw two swans flying at some distance. He told his friend that he would get one of the swans by throwing a stone at it. At that instant, the swan, hearing voices, turned its neck and the bhikkhu threw a pebble at the bird. The pebble went through one eye and came out of the other eye of the bird. The bird cried out in pain and agony and dropped dead at the feet of the young bhikkhu.
Other bhikkhus seeing the incident took the young bhikkhu to the Buddha. The Buddha reprimanded him and said, "My son, why have you killed this bird? Why especially you, a member of my Order, who should be practising loving-kindness to all beings and who should be striving ardently for liberation from the round of rebirths? Even during the period outside the Teaching, the wise practised morality and observed the precepts. A bhikkhu must have control over his hands, his feet and his tongue." https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=362

I recall hearing or reading another story about a person from a low caste being abused, iirc people were throwing stones at a guy for no particular reason other than him being from the bad caste and the Tathagatha intervened by placing himself inbetween the abusers and the abused. Unfortunely i can't remember the origin and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will post it, i guess it's also from the Dhp commentary.

I'm interested in that story as well. Hopefully it can be located.

So some other Dhp verses with commentary with stone-throwing include 72 (which kills a paccekabuddha) and 173 (which kills Thera Angulimala); but I didn't see the one you mentioned, in the Dhp.

Verse 197 has him putting himself between two parties of warring kinfolk; but their quarrel was about water.

Thanks @ChrisW.

Everybody, included outsider laymen and animals,  must be effected by 10 Akusalakammapatha and 10 Kusalakamapatha. There are many explaination such as in DN 1,2:

"Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing and pleasing to people at large. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, and the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. This, too, is part of his virtue.

For the techniques in MN Araṇavibhaṅgasuttaṃ (I cut some part here, it is better to recite whole Sutta and find the word linking yourself every day a year. It's going to appear clearer and clearer):

It was said, do not tell secrets, do not express destruction of
desires in the face. Why was it said so? There bhikkhus, if you know
of some secret, which did not happen, is not true, not conducive to
good, if possible do not tell that secret. If you know of some secret
which happened, is true and is not conducive to good, train not to
tell it. If you know of some secret which happened, is true and is
conducive to good, know the right time to tell it. There, bhikkhus, if
you know of some destruction of desires that did not happen, is not
true, not conducive to good, if possible do not tell that destruction
of desires in the face. If you know of some destruction of desires
that happened, is true and is not conducive to good, train not to tell
it. in the face. If you know of some destruction of desires that
happened, is true and is conducive to good, know the right time to
tell it. in the face. If it was said, do not tell secrets, do not
express destruction of desires in the face, it was said on account of
this.
It was said, do not express words hastily, speak leisurely. Why was it
said so? Bhikkhus, the one speaking hastily, fatigues the body,
disturbs the mind and voice, the throat gets sore, and the words not
well enunciated, are not well understood. The one speaking leisurely,
does not, fatigue the body, disturb the mind and voice, the throat
does not get sore, and the well enunciated words, are well understood
If it was said do not express words hastily, speak leisurely. it was
said on account of this.
It was said, do not insist for local expressions and do not over ride
the popular usage. Why was it said so? Bhikkhus, how is there
insistence for local expressions and how is the popular usage over
ridden? Bhikkhus, in a certain state the bowl is known as Pātīti, in
another Pattaṃ, in another Vitthaṃ, in another Sarāvaṇ, in another
Dhāropan, in another Poṇan, and Pisīlan in yet another. By whatever
name it is known in that and other state, it is taken as the highest
truth and all else is not the truth. This is insisting for local
expressions and over riding the popular usage. Bhikkhus, how is there
no insistence for local expession and no over riding of popular usage?
Bhikkhus, in a certain state the bowl is known as Pātīti, in another
Pattaṃ, in another Vitthaṃ, in another Sarāvaṇ, in another Dhāropan,
in another Poṇan, and Pisīlan in yet another. By whatever name it is
known in that and other state, the venerable one knows, it is the bowl
that is known, and thinks nothing more about it. Thus there is no
insistence for local expession and no over riding of popular usage. If
it was said, do not insist for local expressions and do not over ride
the popular usage. it was said on account of this.
Therefore bhikkhus, ‘He that finds pleasantness in rebirth, yoked to
low, vile, useless not noble pleasures, is with, unpleasantness,
troubles, fever, lament and is in the wrong method’, this thing is
with a refuge Therefore bhikkhus, ‘He that does not find pleasantness
in rebirth, unyoked from low, vile, useless not noble pleasures is
without, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the right
method,’ this thing is without a refuge. Therefore bhikkhus, Yoked to
the not noble useless torturing of the self, one is with,
unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the wrong method,’
this thing is with a refuge. Therefore bhikkhus, ‘Unyoked from the not
noble useless torturing of the self, one is without, unpleasantness,
troubles, fever, lament and is in the right method,’ this thing is
without a refuge. Therefore bhikkhus, the Thus Gone One has
realizedthe middle path, which is conducive to wisdom, peace,
knowledge, enlightenment and extinction. it is without,
unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the right method.
‘this thing is without a refuge. Therefore bhikkhus, praising and
blaming and not giving the Teaching. is with, unpleasantness,
troubles, fever, lament and is in the wrong method’, this thing is
with a refugeTherefore bhikkhus, without praising and blaming giving
the Teaching. is without unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and
is in theright method’, this thing is without a refuge. Therefore
bhikkhus, sense pleasures, vile pleasures of the not noble ordinary
man is with, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the
wrong method,’ this thing is with a refuge. Therefore bhikkhus, non
sensual pleasure, the pleasure of seclusion, appeasement and
enlightenment. is without, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and
is in the right method. ‘this thing is without a refuge. Bhikkhus,
that secret, which did not happen, is not true, not conducive to good,
is with, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the wrong
method’, this thing is with a refuge. Bhikkhus, that secret which
happened, is true and is not conducive to good is with,
unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is in the wrong method’,
this thing is with a refuge Bhikkhus, that secret which happened, is
true and is conducive to good, is without, unpleasantness, troubles,
fever, lament and is in the right method’, this thing is without a
refuge There, bhikkhus, the destruction of desires that did not
happen, is not true, not conducive to good, told in the face. is with,
unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is the wrong method’, this
thing is with a refuge There, bhikkhus, the destruction of desires
that happened, is true and is not conducive to good, told in the face.
is with, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament is the wrong method’,
this thing is with a refuge. There, bhikkhus, thedestruction of
desires that happened, is true and is conducive to good, ṭold in the
face. is without, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is the
right method’, this thing is without a refuge. There, bhikkhus,
insisting for local expressions and over riding the popular usage. is
with, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is the wrong
method’, this thing is with a refuge. There, bhikkhus, not insisting
for local expressions and not over riding the popular usage. is
without, unpleasantness, troubles, fever, lament and is the right
method’, this thing is without a refuge.
Therefore, bhikkhus, we should train knowing the things with a refuge
and without a refuge. The clansman Subhūti has fallen to the methd of
things without a refuge.”

The Buddha taught kids to not bully and harm a snake. And that applies to all in general.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
occasion, a large number of boys on the road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's
Grove were hitting a snake with a stick. Then early in the morning the
Blessed One adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
went into Sāvatthī for alms. He saw the large number of boys on the
road between Sāvatthī & Jeta's Grove hitting the snake with a stick.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
occasion exclaimed:
Whoever hits with a stick
beings desiring ease,
when he himself is looking for ease,
will meet with no ease after death.
Whoever doesn't hit with a stick
beings desiring ease,
when he himself is looking for ease,
will meet with ease after death.
Ud 2.3

The same thing in Dhammapada 131 - 132.


text:
Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation?
Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation? I've never taken classes in the former, but the latter seems to teach you to relax -- and then follow the breath spontaneously.
Is this about right?
To stay alert, in zazen, I focus on the tip of my nose, as and when I need to. If my thoughts bother me, I mentally turn toward them (both literally and metaphorically).
I believe that is still zazen?
I don't have any other questions about how to meditate, anymore; though I'm unsure what enlightenment or jhana is.

oddly, i think when i meditate i do not focus enough on the goal of enlightenment

Shikantaza in original usage means ~'only sit', and the term was introduced into fairly standard usage by Dogen Daishi c.1250AD. This is in the context of Original Traditional Authentic Soto Zen, where the term is fairly similar to zazen, which means ~'sit & contemplate' etc, and so, within context, the two terms authentically mean about the same thing: sasaru means to sit/squat, & is pronounced 'za' in that sort of word construction, and zen means ~think/contemplate. In the term shikantaza, the 'zen' part is inferred from context, and shiken in this context means ~only.
Traditionally, in Soto Zen, shikantaza & zazen aren't directly about concentrating on breathing or on the nose or on relaxing, etc, and shikantaza more explicitly indicates that with the 'shi' meaning ~'only' part. So maybe the Asker was participating in something that was was similar but might have differences in meaning and of what's meant by the terms zen & shikantaza!
This answer is from the context of The Traditional Soto Zen instructed c.1250AD by Dogen Daishi. There may be other places that use the term shikantaza and the term zazen differently. Nice interesting question.

i didn't mean to imply it has anything "directly about" my nose or my breathing. but yeah, thank you...

ah gotcha haha.

You are very welcome; and it  was understood that you hadn't intended to imply that, & 'aren't directly' was included to clarify that the answerer realised that maybe some places instruct things and do things differently from the fairly specific context of the answer. and that of course sitting in one spot has something to do with breathing and posture etc, just that that or counting etc wasn't intended as being implied as the main aspect of what zazen & shiktaza are 'doing'. Your comment is appreciated :)

To sit in zazen is to sit facing emptiness.  M H's answer is absolutely correct, but like most things in Zen there is more to the story once your practice deepens.  Relaxation and concentration on a focal point have their place, but really what zazen is after is the arousal of mushin or "no-mind".  In early Zen, and later in Soto, they sat in pi-kuan or wall gazing.  You'd literally just sit facing a wall.  No fancy techniques, no mantras, kasinas, or even the breath.  Just you, your cushion, and a surface staring back at you.  As you advanced in your sitting, little by little, things began to fall away.  (In fact, if you don't allow them to, you will drive yourself batty doing this practice.)  As that is happening, concurrently, you'll also begin to internalize that blank wall.  This happens through no effort of your own.  As you let go of you, emptiness is revealed.  Eventually you become the blankness - mushin - itself.  The wall becomes secondary if not entirely ancillary.
So don't worry about your thoughts, don't worry about the tip of your nose, and certainly don't worry about spontaneity.  Just sit and don't move.  Stare at the wall and see what happens.

if i am to drop my approach to meditation, without a teacher i will need to do so for a reason... the pursuit of enlightenment ?

How about just having more satisfying sits?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do you explain Zeno's paradox in Buddhist terms?
I thought id ask how you would explain what is commonly referred to as "Zeno' Paradox of Achillies racing the turtle" in Buddhist terms.
For those who aren't familiar the paradox is like this Youtube Animation;

Achillies is supposed to race a turtle.
Achillies gives the turtle a head start of say 10 meters.
Achillies runs at 10 meters per second.
The Turtle runs at 2 meters per second.
Achillies starts the race from the point A as the turtle starts the race from point B which is B=A+10meters.
By the time [+1 second] Achillies reaches the point B, the turtle will have moved from the point B at a speed of 2 meters/second and after 1 second will have reached the point C=B+2meters, moving B to C and remain ahead of Achillies by 2 meters.
By the time [+1.2 second] Achilies moves A to B and B to C, reaching the point C; the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.2 that it took Achilies to cover the 12meters going first from A to B then from B to C, the turtle will have moved from B to C and further from C to D wherein D=C+0.4meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.4 meters.
By the time [+1.24 seconds] Achillies reaches the point D, the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.24 seconds that it took Achilies to cover the 12.4 meters going first A to B, then B to C and furthermore from C to D; the turtle will have moved B to C, C to D and furthermore from D to E wherein E=D+0.08meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.08 meters.
This is then supposed to go on indefinitely with Achillies paradoxically never reaching the turtle due to infinite division of space & time into smaller intervals.

The reason i am asking is because i have not seen Buddhists do this before, am curious as to whether someone here can provide a comprehensible explaination and  want to develop an answer myself even tho i have an idea of how id answer this.
Let's just assume for simplicity sake that it's just a thought experiment and a ground for confusion rather than a "true paradox" of some sort.
I want substantiated answers based on texts know to be true such as the sutta-pitaka but it's not a requirement.

I think that SN 51.15 is an example:

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

I think that Brahman Unnabha argues from the pespective of paradox -- that it's infinite i.e. "endless".
And Ananda replies something like, "When you arrived, that was the end of that" -- which is IMO more or less a description of how a real arrow behaves, without getting caught in the mentally-constructed paradox.

I notice I've changed the formulation of the paradox -- not "Achilles and the Tortoise" but just an arrow -- so I'm actually referring to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.
IMO they're about the same paradox: because you can simply subtract the tortoise's speed from Achilles's so that it's the description of the relative motion, between a moving object and a (relatively) stationary target.
Doing that, i.e. subtracting to transform one to the other, is a safe/valid transformation -- except at speeds approaching the speed of light.

The canonical Buddhist answer will be from Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

And also the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow from MN 63.
In physics, this is answered using the Planck constant for time and space.

In Maths I think this is answered or explained as being a convergent series.

I think one needs to put this paradox in terms of Sabbe Sutta;

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Having put it in terms of the all it proves that the problem can only be rightly described in terms of what is seen & thought about and thus in terms of the workings of perception.
The thought experiment itself is of a race analogue to what can be seen. He is essentially here thinking about what is seen, ie seeing people racing. His paradox relies on slipping by the Sabba Sutta, he postulates existence of objects repudiating the all and not subject to the "mechanics" of perception.
What one sees that one thinks about, here one sees the two racing and thinks about it in terms of velocity, distance and etc.
What Zeno does is assuming that perception too arises and ceases in progressively smaller intervals but this is an unsubstantiated assumption because;

it contradicts the norm; if there is an analogue race he can't actually percieve 'Now im percepient of the turtle being this far ahead and now i am percepient of it being that far ahead' ad infinitum.

What he'll have to admit is that at some point he won't be able to be percepient of who's actually ahead due to the workings of perception.
Thus the problem becomes that of an inadequate thinking about the workings of perception.
One can here go on to explain how perception is dependently originated and how mind arises as one thing and ceases as another but it's unnecessary i think.

I didn't understand the explanation, i.e. "if there is an analogue race", why he can't (as Zeno claims) perceive ad infinitum, why/how it contradicts the norm, and what that has to do with the Sabbe Sutta.

The thought experiment itself is of a race analogue to what can be seen. He is essentially here thinking about what is seen, ie seeing people racing. His paradox relies on slipping by the Sabba Sutta, he postulates existence of objects repudiating the all and not subject to the "mechanics" of perception.

He is talking about a world outside of a perception frame of reference.

I cannot directly see viruses with my own eyes, but I can use a scanning electron microscope to observe viruses. So, I think seeing viruses is still acceptable according to Sabbe Sutta. If the reducing distances are still larger than the Planck constants for space and time, then being able to see or observe the race is more of a question of technology than perception.

Fifty years ago, we could not observe gravitational waves, but today we can do so using LIGO. Fifty years ago we could not observe the Higgs boson, but today we can do so using the LHC. Fifty years ago, we could not observe black holes, but today we could do so using the global network of deep space observatories. So, it's about technology.

Measurement is an act of observation. If you can't measure who is ahead that is analogue to not being able to see who is ahead. Means of observation are irrelevant and are a matter of relative precision. The act of measurement collapses the wave function.

The point is that one can't talk about matter [objects] as a reality if the wave function is not collapsed, this is proven by the double slit experiment. Therefore this race occurs in the context of perception and is a matter of perception.

Im not sure what you are talking about with regards to seeing viruses. Viruses don't exist repudiating the All, you would be in disagreement with the Sutta if you held that. World exists in as far as it's perceived&conceived through six senses.

Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) "Chapter 2 - Critique of Walking" is the same as Zenos paradox that you outlined. If you Google Zeno and Nagarjuna on Motion you will see many articles written by Translators and Philosophers comparing the two.
Both thinkers use the idea to prove that conventional reality is not the ultimate truth, but the ultimate truth they posit is a polar opposite. For Nagarjuna it is Emptiness and for Zeno one unchanging being.
The idea doesn’t end in disproving motion only, check this video to see how Zeno expound the idea to cover wider topic.  Nagarjuna also use it to disprove a lot of ideas that we think as truth, he also use the same method to disprove the momentary consciousness posited by the Abhidhammist  (i.e Theravada Buddhist).
So, you may ask, is the paradox proven? No it remain a paradox.
In the west there has been many attempt to prove it, but at every age it resurrect itself as unproven. In recent history, the Giants of mathematician gather in Vienna to come up with an all-encompassing mathematical proof, but a man by the name Kurt Gödel dug out Zeno and called the whole project a bluff. Again with the advance of computer some tough computers will be the answer, but Alan Turing showed up and pulled the  Zeno card on computers too.
Quoted below is Candrakiri Lucid commentary on MMK.

At this point, someone says, «By negating production, you have
established that interdependent origination  has  the  quality  of
not  being  ceased  and  so  on.  Nevertheless,  in  order  to  prove
that interdependent  origination  has  neither  coming  nor  going,
you  must  state  an  additional  argument  to refute the action
(kriyā) that is going to and fro (gamanāgamana), which is commonly
accepted in the  world.»
In response, we say that if going (gamana), exemplified by the action
of walking, 1  were to exist, then one would necessarily conceive of
walking in relation to the spot on the path where one has just walked;
or one would conceive of it in relation to the spot where one has not
yet walked; or one would conceive of it in relation to the spot where
one is currently walking. But none of this makes sense. So  he says:
2.1. First of all, it is not the case that one is now walking where one just walked; one is also not walking where one has not yet walked;
and without the spots where one already walked and where one has not
yet walked, one has no knowledge of a currently walked upon spot; the
currently walked upon spot is thus not being walked upon.   Here,
“where one just walked” expresses that part of the path on which the
action of walking has just  ceased.  That  which  is  now  affected
by  the  action  of  walking  is  expressed  by,  “one  is  now
walking.” It is incoherent to speak of “where one just walked”—meaning
the place where the action of motion has just ceased—with the phrase
“one is now walking,” which expresses a connection with a presently
existing action of walking. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, “One is
walking where one just  walked.”  The phrase “first of all” indicates
the order in which the various possibilities are negated.
So too, “one is not now walking where one has not yet walked.” The
phrase “where one has not yet walked” expresses a part of the road
where a future action of motion has not yet occurred. The phrase “one
is now walking” expresses a present action of motion. Therefore, since
the future and the present are completely distinct, it does not make
sense to say, “One is now walking where one has not  yet walked.” If
one has not yet walked upon it, how can one be now walking on it? And
if one is walking on it, how can it be a spot where one has not yet
walked?
Furthermore, there is no action of walking on the currently walked
upon spot because “without the spots where one has already walked and
where one has not yet walked, the currently walked upon spot is not
being walked upon or known.”
In this context, the spot that the walker has traversed is for him a
walked upon spot; and the spot that he has not yet traversed is for
him a not yet walked upon spot. But in isolation from the walked upon
spot and the not yet walked upon spot, we do not see any third spot
that would be “the currently walked upon spot.”  And  since  that  is
the case, “one has  no knowledge  of  a  currently  walked upon spot.”
Here, na gamyate (i.e., “is not being walked upon”) is taken to mean
“is not known.” Therefore, since  one  has  no  knowledge  of  it,
there  is  no  currently  walked  upon  spot.  Hence,  that  spot  is
not affected by the activity of motion; that is, it is not currently
walked upon. Hence, there is also is no action of walking even in the
currently walked upon spot.    But someone might say, «There is a spot
that is tread upon by the feet of the walking walker. That is the
currently walked upon spot!»
This is not the case because the mover’s feet are a conglomeration of
atomic particles. The area behind an atom located on the tip of the
toe is included in the spot already walked upon, relative to that
atom; but the spot in front of an atom located at the back of the heel
is included in the spot not yet  walked upon, relative to that atom.
Feet cannot exist without the atomic particles of which feet are
composed.  Therefore,  there  is  no  currently  walked  upon  spot
without  being  either  a  spot  already walked upon or one not yet
walked upon. And just as one analyzed the feet, so should one analyze
the atomic particles in terms of the relation between their front and
back parts. Moreover, if someone says that the currently walked upon
spot is the spot that one has halfway walked upon, then one uses the
answer that has been given in the analysis of production. 3  Therefore
it is established, “The currently walked upon spot is not being walked
upon or known.”

Hi. I just wonder what is "momentary consciousness posited by the Abhidhammist (i.e Theravada Buddhist)" a reference to? I've never seen this momentariness of which you speak in the Theravadin Abhidhamma, which book/passage are you referring to? Thanks

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abhidharma/#TimImpMom

Ok i see it is a reference to post-canonical Theravada, i am thinking this is probably a doctrine that might have some basis in 5th century commentary Vsm and finally expounded in the Abhidhammatha Sangaha of 10th century. Afaik It is foreign to the early Theravada and is not in their canonical Abhidhamma

Please read starting from Paragraph 5, the section from Paragraph 5 in Part-2 is applicable to Theravada exposition as it is today..For Theravadins they called the theory of momentariness Khāṇavāda..... Part 5 on 'Causation' also show the same method employed to counter 'momentary dharmas' idea in the Abhidharma.

Thanks seems like a nice summary

@Ruslan Pardon me for jumping in, but "momentary consciousness" reminds me of this kind of topic -- see also these answers -- or this -- I don't know but from those answers, that does appear to be Theravada and Abhidhamma.

They say some of it is in the yamaka, i have't read that book

The Hero & The Tortoise Paradox etc are more about measurement & distance description: eg, infinitesimal division of distance, walk 10 meters in ten seconds: the time is finite & the distance is finite, yet both the time interval & distance interval may be divided into arbitrarily many pieces(which dont even have to be identical in magnitude); cf an existential goal: may arrive there after a while, but the time interval and progress interval can be divided into infinitesimal bits(which dont have to be identical in magnitude). Maybe SN51.15 would be an example of an illustration of this, where the distance is a different sort of path than literally a sprinting racetrack. Maybe a key point in both would be that progress doesn't have to be measured in ever smaller increments, and that a result is a result, however the interval is measured. And the Hero passes the tortoise after a certain time interval: the measurement of either the time or the distance can be divided into arbitrarily many small bits, but the whole amount is the whole amount, sort of like a meter ruler: it's still a meter whether the divisions are in cm or mm or microns, etc.

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


text:
Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it?
Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it? I thought that only substantial beings could be completely in control of everything that happens to them, and not just because things are impermanent.
Also, conditioned things are a result of past karma, which is often said to be an unconscious process of seeds becoming ripe. So surely it would only be under out control over the course of very many lives, at least?
The Points of Controversy -- theravada -- refute the claim that everything is from karma, including karma, of the rajagirikas and siddhatthikas. But it does not show that for anything but new karma. The sautrantikas taught that there is no life faculty sustaining events between life and death, because karma alone is "sufficient" to account for all destinies.

this is accepted by all Buddhists... theravada or mahayana

The Lioness in Bloom, p33
Further, Bodhidharma exhorted

the practice of following conditions, sentient beings  lack a self and
are all whirled around by conditions and karma; suffering  and joy are
to be equally accepted, for both arise from conditions. If I
encounter excellent karmic recompense, such as honor and so forth, it
is  in response to causes in my past lives. Even if I should encounter
such  recompense in the present, the necessary conditions for it will
exhaust  themselves, and it will again cease to exist. What is there
to be joyful  about in its existence? Gain and loss follow conditions.
Mind has neither increase nor decrease. Unmoved by the winds of joy,
one is mysteriously in accordance with the path. Therefore, it is
called the practice of  following conditions.

Bodhidharnma, Two Entrances

Not everything is caused by karma. Some things are caused by other reasons, like the weather. The Sivaka Sutta talks about this. There's a summary at the bottom:

Bile, phlegm, and also wind,
Imbalance and climate too,
Carelessness and assault,
With kamma result as the eighth.

To quote the sutta in detail:

“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
… caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they
overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say
that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

The Acintita Sutta states that you can't work out karma and its results precisely:

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

What's more skillful is to develop one's virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña) as stated in the Lonaphala Sutta. That will mitigate the ill effects of past karma (actions).
As for future karma (actions), to avoid accumulating karma debts, it is skillful to adopt the following skillful thinking from the Themes Sutta:

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

so something can't be caused by bile AND phlegm?

@sorta_buddhist The Sivaka Sutta states eight possible causes of why things happen to you: bile, phlegm, wind (in your body), imbalance, climate, carelessness, assault or harm by others and karma result. But I think we should not take this too strictly. It just means things happen to you because of your past karma, but things also happen to you due to other causes. Whether there are 8 or 80 such causes is not important.

yes, but there is a question here... is everything a result of karma? is it a sufficient condition for everything that occurs to us? much like the wind is for the movement of clouds?

@sorta_buddhist No. That's what it means. I will quote more of the sutta then it will become clearer.

ok, make sure of it ha

anyway, is everything under our control, or not?

@sorta_buddhist No, not everything is under our control. But also, it's not that everything is not under our control. Some things are under our control - our present and future conduct.

yep you're right see e.g. p68 of the selfless mind -- there are, a few, "functional", mental states that are not caused by karma

@sorta_buddhist From the book The Selfless Mind by Peter Harvey?

yes, that' right... i'm unsure if that is the case for everyone, but it' fine anyway

There are 24 controllers in Patthāna, Karma is just a controller in 24.
Some controllers can arise without Karma, such as a tree or water, because  there are many controllers can create effects together without Karma-controller. Even Karma's effects require many other controllers, Ie. Arahanta's past Karma (which never effect) can't create new life for Arahanta because there are no Tanha-controller and Avijjā-controller in Arahanta.
See AbhidhammaPitaka Patthāna.

can you quote it?

https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/patthana-dhamma

can you quote it?

I quoted it in the answer.

Karma is intention / volition. It is the only thing under your control as a human. Your intension to know, to learn, and to be liberated is all Karma.
What is volition?


text:
There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent?
There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? Answer from any reputable tradition.

The manifestation of illusory appearances.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality.

The Buddha mentions three eternalist doctrines that exemplify conventional permanence. Let's skip the first two since they are weaker variations of this third one:

DN28:15.18: Furthermore, some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their past lives for as many as forty eons of the expansion and contraction of the cosmos, with features and details. They say, ‘I know that in the past the cosmos expanded or contracted.  I don’t know whether in the future the cosmos will expand or contract.

This third conventional doctrine leaps to the following conclusion:

DN28:15.25:The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.  They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’ This is the third eternalist doctrine. This is unsurpassable when it comes to eternalist doctrines.

In DN1, the Buddha explains the limitations of these very impressive conventional views:

DN1:1.36.1: The Realized One understands this:  ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’

And then the Buddha turns away from convention and goes beyond:

DN1:1.36.3: He understands this, and what goes beyond this. Yet since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.

To paraphrase, "you can come back as much as you like, but why?"
Arahants and non-returners do not return and are not seen by humans or devas after their body breaks up. Conventional permanence seeks return. That is why it is bound to suffering. Because a vital condition for suffering is rebirth.

SN12.23:4.3: I say that suffering has a vital condition.  And what is it?  You should say: ‘Rebirth.’

interesting answer, thanks you can you clarify the last statement?

Thank you. I've added the SN12.23 clarification.

There is nothing one should take as self as whatever you take as a self it will case unsatisfactoriness and is not permanent and not in one's control.
A normal worldling will consider conventionally that here is a self and it is permanent and it is satisfactory and it is in one's control. But it is not permanent and not in one's control and is not satisfactory.

i don't mean self in the substantial sense. i think, ha

Suffering or unsatisfactoriness is conventionally permanent for the conventional self.
Impermanence is conventionally permanent for the conventional self.

this is the sort of thing i had in mind, but you need references


text:
What are the differences between sex cults and the tantric tradition?
What is the difference between sex cults, and the tantric tradition? I understand that the latter has a lot of tradition and ritual behind it
And while there is a strict monastic code, I imagine, in the tantric tradition, monks are encouraged to have sex with their disciples. Furthermore, any claims that there is a direct lineage all the way back to our Buddha, Shakyamuni, is as doubtful as it is in zen; these practices may be Indian, but aren't specifically his.
I'm not saying that a power imbalance in a religious context of sexual activity needs to be abusive, but it can be. So why not here?

There is a HUGE difference between Tantra sex and sex cults. Tantric sex is for one purpose only. That is  that the union of two people becomes a microcosm of union with the universe, a state of enlightenment. The entire motivation is love and compassion And desire for enlightenment to serve all.
There is no lust.
Sex cults thrive on lust. Orgasm is for personal pleasure. There is a power differential.
There are innumerable religious leaders who purportedly were encouraging sex between themselves and students. That is very wrong. It is not tantric sex. That is abuse of power.

First, a cult in the proper sense is simply a group of people who follow the practices of a single teacher. Cults are not inherently bad, and in fact most established faiths are technically cults to the extent that they follow the singular teachings of someone like Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Moses, Muhammad, etc. However, cults can at times form around poisonous leaders who present themselves as wise or enlightened. One must suspend disbelief in matters of faith, but one should not abandon it entirely...
Tantra in the modern (lay) sense is a system generally holds that sexual energy can be used as a tool in spiritual development. Technically speaking, tantra is any system that tries to weave esoteric teachings and practices into common, everyday life (not separate out esoteric life into monastic settings), but because of the emotional power of sexuality in everyday life, tantra has gradually been subsumed by sexuality in the Western world. At any rate, tantrics take sex far more seriously than most people, and it's rare that you'll find a (proper) Tantric teacher who indulges in sex with disciples, acolytes, or lay practitioners. Sex is not 'casual' for them, and their goal is not sex in itself but the ecstatic state that one can achieve by the cultured flow of sexual energy.
Of course in the Buddhist sense, sex is a dangerous fixation. Most Buddhists on the high (monastic) path renounce sex because it is too subject to tanhā. The monastic life becomes a world distinct from the ordinary world, in which higher states of being are cultivated. Tantric traditions have survived in Tibetan Buddhism, primarily in deity and energy yogas. Tibetan Buddhists accept sexual practices as well, though not without consequences (see the recent troubles in the Shambhala Movement). Most modern sexual Tantra derives from Indian/Hindu traditions, which have always carried a more congenial (if complicated) relationship to sexuality (through Shiva/Shakti deity practices). But in the West, with the West's typically prudish-prurient attitudes towards sex, poisonous teachers are rife. One needs to take care.

According to the dictionary, the term 'cult' doesn't necessarily pertains to something negative or false. The cult can be healthy and original. A group of wise men can take texts of tantric sex and relive the original powerful practices of established tantric traditions. In fact, tantric traditions can become old and no longer living (more ritualistic rather than conscious, scientific, intelligent).
On the other hand, cults can be bogus while tantric traditions hold the original teachings and practices that bring people to enlightenment.

Seduction is the undertaking of Maras.
Remember when daughters of Mara were trying to seduce the Buddha?
That's evil.
When beings first start having sex this occurs;

Those who saw them having sex pelted them with dirt, ashes, or cow-dung, saying, ‘Get lost, filth! Get lost, filth! How on earth can one being do that to another?’

Lust comes into play due to perversion of view, seeing attractiveness in the unattractive;

Perceiving constancy in the inconstant,
pleasure in the stressful,
self in what's not-self,
attractiveness in the unattractive,
beings, destroyed by wrong-view,
go mad, out of their minds.
Bound to Mara's yoke,
from the yoke they find no rest.
Beings go on to the wandering-on,
leading to birth & death.

Therefore;

Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge."

I think it is clear that there can be no Buddhist sex cults, only sex cults.

Is this answer intended to explain Vajrayana?

I am explaining sex cults and ethics based on Buddhist texts, it's tagged cults & ethics.

I do think those texts are in the vajrayana canon tho or at least authoritative.

As to whether i did intend to explain vajrayana, do not ask me that

Normally the vajrayana tag would imply the question is looking for an answer which describes the Vajraya perspective or doctrine. I think the OP was trying to ask something about "the tantric tradition".

I think here op is clearly asking about sex cults, ethics and tantrayana. Anyway i answered based on texts held to be true in vajrayana tradition so either way it's on point.

Not that this comment answers the OP's question, but I think I noticed previously that this guy for example has a, I don't know, a relaxed attitude towards sexuality -- doesn't discourage sexual relationships between students, maybe does discourage people who have hang-ups or something about sex (or encourages them to go elsewhere). Not that I approve (nor especially disapprove) of that, but not everyone who self-identifies as Buddhist (this guy identifies as diamond way) has the attitude toward sex that's implied by the quotes in this answer.

Apparently he's against people being "inhibited" -- see e.g. the answer to, "What many people do not expect from a Buddhist Master is the inclusion of sexuality in the teaching" in this interview. Yes I know that's not consistent with the Pali suttas' doctrine for monks.

Yea many people are pro sex in Tibetan sects; " Sex between clergymen and boys is by no means a uniquely Catholic phenomenon, a noted American scholar said Wednesday -- it's been going on in Buddhist monasteries in Asia for centuries.[...]Although the Buddha clearly proscribed sex of any kind in monasteries, "we know of incidents where members of the Bob-Dob, an order enforcing discipline among Tibetan monks, fought each other over boys,"

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/05/01/Feature-Buddhisms-pedophile-monks/81841020273948/#:~:text=According%20to%20Zwilling%2C%20monks%20having,of%20Buddhism's%20three%2Dfold%20refuge.&text=%22Actually%2C%20pedophilia%20is%20hardly%20mentioned,writings%2C%22%20he%20went%20on.


text:
When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?
When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?

The word means 'formations'[1] or 'that which has been put together'
and 'that which puts together'.

I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

The word 'unconditioned', as is the thought of & the understanding of this word, all these are Sankhara and are conditioned.
That which is rightly thought of as unconditioned is not a sankhara, that which one understands as 'unconditioned' is not conditioned even tho one's thinking of it is conditioned.
If one is fixated in wrong views one can think of something conditioned and think of it as unconditioned due to stupidity.
Having discerned the cessation of the conditioned as a principally unconditioned reality, it is proclaimed to be unconditioned.

It would be helpful for the person who downvoted this answer to explain why they downvoted as I cannot see what this issue is here?

I think of it this way: The Buddha's concept of "dependent origination" is similar to the modern idea of "emergence".
It's just a way of creating "maps" of sensory experience which enable us to better predict sensory experience.
Like so:
We notice, when THIS set of conditions is present, THIS phenomenon arises/emerges.
If, however, we remove one of these required conditions, the phenomenon will no longer arise/emerge.
The phenomenon has become "unconditioned".
For example: Consider avijjā: the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths.
Avijjā is the root condition of the dependent origination of suffering.
If the first arrow penetrates the heart (condition 1: dukkha), and we choose to respond to this by craving and clinging to a desired sensory experience (condition 2: taṇhā & upādāna) and thereby go to war with the part of us which desires to see the world the way it actually is (avijjā), the inner conflict between these 2 parts manifests as "suffering".
i.e. All suffering is a conflict between these 2 parts.
i.e. The purpose of dukkha is to alert us to mispredictions in our model which predicts sensory experience so that we can humbly correct the error in the model which gave rise to the misprediciton. If we, instead, cling to the broken model, this is unskillful. The wise part of us that knows it is unskillful will continue to protest until we correct the error.
If we, instead, choose to resolve the inner conflict between the 2 parts by (1) renouncing craving and clinging (condition 2) and seeking to see the world the way it actually is (condition 3), then we are removing the conditions for the emergence of the phenomenon of suffering.
i.e. We are "unconditioning" the phenomenon of suffering.

The purpose of unconditioned is to help unfix one's grasping of self (sankhara aggregate). Anytime it happens a person finds a good self, Buddha pulls the rug out from under them offering the conditions for their self. Then without those, self is unstableness. Unconditioned is nirvana? Unbinding? I guess also space? Not sure what else..
Edit: well i guess unbinding has attachment as its condition, perhaps, but hard to imagine it

The conditioned/unconditioned dichotomy is a tough one to reconcile with, especially using the intellect. It's just not compatible. All logical reasoning falls apart due to the sheer simplicity of everything. That's why the mind goes quite: it's been stunned into the truth.

i agree it's a fickle answer, but what else can you reconcile with if not the intellect?  2 sides of the same coin. both string us along.  both bound us to reason.

Well, I up voted your answer. I'm not sure what the down vote was about. Down votes should only be applied upon the condition that a comment is left to explain the down vote. But you're right, though. The intellect is all you have to work with up until a certain point.

If buddha wasnt then whats with the attraction...should not be that way

Formation is okay, back two other meaning are not okay.
Sankhara are coworker originators.
Sankhata are lucky men or victims.
Every aggregates must be many cause states (conditioners) and many effect states (conditioned).
There are only two unconditioned, Nibbāna and Illusion (Paññatti, included name).
Nibbāna, a reality, is not conditioned by any Sankhara because it is  the cessation state of Sankhara. It is the opposite of conditioned. Whoever , aggregates, knew Nibbāna must going to never born by conditioners again in 7 births. It is never arise but it is still a state either one know it or not. And  who want to know this reality must practice hard follow the Buddha only, except SammāSambuddha and PaccekaSambuddha.
Illusion (Paññatti, included name) is not conditioned because it is just imagination which must  imagined by  someone. It is not reality, not truth. And it is not the opposite of aggregates because erything, all aggregates, Nibbāna and all Illusions, can be imagined by thinking (mind;Cittu-Uppāda).
See Abhidhamma, especially Patthāna (24 conditions), for more information.

.. But is not Paññati conditioned by the one that imagines?

Nibbana and Pannatti never arise because they never be conditioned by anything. If one say "Paññati conditioned by the one that imagines" it means every imagine must has the right conditioners' relations to be a really arising conditioned effect. It is impossible. One imagines "I am a world's commander", but it is never arise, unreality, because it is never conditioned by any realities. All imaginations are lacking of conditioners to be real. (to be continue...)

(continue) However, minds can image an imagination by collecting realities and imaginations, so some Pannatti look really real, such as human is Pannatti  which minds generate it from Aggregate-Realities and Real+Unreal Aggregates' Pannatti. Another, this is just the beginning of the insight meditation there are many other things to know to meditate the meditations such as the smallest elements of minds' millisecond, etc. The smallest real elements are the way to make sure we understand everything real, not just an imagine. It causes Abhidhamma and causes the Buddha is the only best teacher.

Form is illusion no?


text:
Are ideas real?
If I have the idea of an "apple" or its taste,

is the idea as real as the apple itself?

Specifically

do the objects of the 6th consciousness depend on anything except the 6th consciousness?

In normal philosophical terms

does the idea depend on the mind having the idea, in order to exist?

I think these are all equivalent questions, because causation is the conventional truth - ideas, the ultimate - no causation, and the middle - the buddha nature or mind-body.

The illusion (AtthaPaññatti;UpādāyaPaññatti) and the name (NāmaPaññatti) are not real, never arise. I think they are called "Conceptual (Paññati)" in english, right?
Everything is Paññatti which imagine by mind, not real. except arisable 5 aggregates which depending on various origins each time and Nibbāna which never arise and not depending on anything. The mind uses them to imagine Paññatti.
The real is  each arisable element in 5 aggregates which mind using to create illusion and name. Even if we talking about the 5 aggregates which possible to arise in the future, this 5 aggregates is real as well. Opposite, the 5 aggregates which being not arisable, is NāmaPaññatti instead.
Each arisable element (both Nāmas and Rūpas) are depending on various origin to really arise.
So, the Buddhā said in SN SaṅkhataLakkhaṇaSutta:

Sankhatalakhaṇasuttaṃ –– The signs of a compounded

Bhikkhus, these three are the signs of a compounded. What three? The arising is evident, the fading is evident and the change is evident. Bhikkhus, these three are the signs of a compounded.

Nibbāna is real because it is the opposite of ariseable clinging 5 aggregates. no one can finish 5 aggregates while everyone are knowing Paññatti everyday. Only Nibbāna can finish 5 aggregates after one knows it.
Another, the special illusion is used in the concentration meditation to avoid 5 strings. This is like a stable brighter and brighter light which appear only at mind door only. This is the way to get out of 5 strings in CittaVisuddhi (mind purification).
See AbhidhammatthaSaṅgaha chapter 8 Paññatti.

this is an ok answer, but you're not answering directly enough. probably my english... do the objects of the 6th consciousness, ideas, depend upon the 6th consciousness only?

Yes, 5 doors accept only reality, only 5 strings reality. So, Self is imagined on mind door only. Then if we meditate Samatha&Vipassanā enough, we can analysis everything as only depending and uncountable smallest arising elements, then no controllable aggregates appear. 3 characteristics included non-self, are going to appear clearer and clearer after meditate that. Everything is Paññatti which imagine by mind, not real, except arisable 5 aggregates which depending on various origins each time and Nibbāna which never arise and not depending on anything. The mind uses them to imagine Paññatti.

sorry bonn, i'm not very au fait with buddhit jargon and terminology. are you saying that they DO only depend on the mind? i disagree, but will accept this answer in lieu of one i do agree with

People think 5 strings are real Self, person who being controllable, in mind door, but the truth is there are only uncountable uncontrollable arising elements at every doors, six doors. People don't realize and can't see  this truth on every moments, then  think "Self is reality".

And I said like this: we can know reality in every doors, but the imagination is only created by mind door because there are no any imagines (concept, illusion, name, self) which being real, ariseable. I'm sorry my english is not good enough. I'm a Thai, english is not my native language. And even it is, this still hard to describe.

The 6th c’ss works with memories of past experiences, as well as sense
impressions from the five sensory consciousnesses, in tandem or
separately.

the 2nd point
But

That the impressions are coalesced into the idea of an “apple” requires
having acquired that concept previously, learning what it means, and
then applying it to novel sensations.

the 3rd point
The three are not identical, according this "personal communication"


text:
Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original?
Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original? If so, who are the most important Pali poets, and is anyone still writing in it?

If you googled for Pali poetry, the first result is this page. There are at least 35 Pali poems on that page.
Andrew Olendzki extracted these Pali poems from the Pali Canon and translated them, as he explained here:

Here you will find many poems
that I have translated from the
Pali over the years. .....
These poems all come from various parts of the Pali Canon: Theragatha,
Therigatha, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Samyutta Nikaya, etc. They
are listed here from the newest to oldest, and I will add new
translations from time to time to the top of the list.

Side note:
With details found in this answer, you will find that the original meaning of the word "pāli" itself is "canon", originating from the commentaries upon the Pali Canon. People from centuries ago couldn't even remember the original name of this dialect or language, so they mistakenly called it "Pāli", thinking the term "pāli-bhāsā" (which actually means language of the canon) actually referred to a name - Pali language. The term "bhāsā" means language. By the way, there is no upper case or lower case in Pali.
So you will find that Pali is used only in the Pali Canon, commentaries upon the canon and also later writings related to the canon like the Visuddhimagga. So, it's very unlikely that you will find non-Buddhist poems in Pali. Pali is not a common literary language unlike Classical Sanskrit.

what about outside the Pali canon? there's scope for a much more expansive answer than that

@sorta_buddhist With details found in this answer, you will find that the etymology of the word "pāli" itself means "canon", originating from the commentaries upon the Pali Canon. People from centuries ago didn't even remember the original name of this dialect or language, so they mistakenly called it "Pāli", thinking the term "pāli-bhāsā" (which actually means language of the canon) actually refered to a name - Pali language. The term "bhāsā" means language.

@sorta_buddhist So you will find that Pali is used only in the Pali Canon, commentaries upon the canon and also later writings related to the canon like the Visuddhimagga. It's very unlikely that you will find non-Buddhist poems in Pali. Pali is not a common literary language unlike Classical Sanskrit.


text:
How close is English to Pali?
How close is English to Pali? If you look at the etymological pages in wiktionary, for English words, it often includes a "Proto-Indo-European" root, and sometimes mentions Sanksrit too. Take e.g. 'mad'
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mad#Etymology

From Middle English mad, madde, madd, medd, from Old English ġemǣdd,
ġemǣded (“enraged”), past participle of ġemǣdan, *mǣdan (“to make
insane or foolish”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to change;
damage; cripple; injure; make mad”), from Proto-Germanic *maidaz
("weak; crippled"; compare Old English gemād (“silly, mad”), Old High
German gimeit (“foolish, crazy”), Gothic  (gamaiþs,
“crippled”)), from Proto-Indo-European *mey- ("to change"; compare Old
Irish máel (“bald, dull”), Old Lithuanian ap-maitinti (“to wound”),
Sanskrit मेथति (méthati, “he hurts, comes to blows”)).

Is there anywhere I can read about Pali as a language that has influenced the etymon, development, of English today?

You can find this info on the wikipedia page for Indo-European Languages in the form of a family tree below, with Pali and English highlighted with a yellow box.
Legend:

Green: Language still in use
Red: Language extinct
White: Categories

English is a Germanic language, while Pali is an Indo-Iranian language. Both come under the major family of Indo-European languages.

Credits: Modified from this image


text:
In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause?
In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking.
And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

a rather poor example, since cancers that are not caused by smoking are not the effect of smoking, so it has nothing to do with the question. and by definition, causality means the relation between cause and effect, so no, ontologically there can not be any effect without a cause.
and this is actually the precise approach for the noble truth on the eradication of suffering, since the eradication of the cause leads to the eradication of the effect. thus, eliminating craving, or tanha, one eliminates suffering or dukkha.

in Madhyamika,the effect depends on the cause,wich one can say IS the effect because arising and Cessation do not occur.in Theravadan Kshanabhanga however,the effect is independant of the cause and the effect arises only when the cause has ceased.

this is confusing.  can you rewrite it a little?

No effects can arise without multiple causes. The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes.
Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must cause by other various origins definitely. The doctor, practitioner, should find the other else instead.
That's why aggregates is called "sankhata (being caused by causes)".

Cause and effect are not independent but are meditated by mind.

Good householder,
As for Unbound, Nibbana, yes, it's independent from cause, all else, no, no single phenomena can be found in the world, not depending on cause.
Suññata, how ever, is conditioned, required nourishment.
[Not given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades of other kind but to be used torward the Unconditioned]

In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause?

It depends which Buddhism, and especially which insight tradition.  But for the Madhyamaka the answer is a definitive no.
Why? Because effects depend upon causes and causes depend upon effects.
Moreover, all compounded phenomena - that is all existent 'things' arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. Nothing is independent.  In Madhyamaka Buddhism, the interdependent arising, momentary change, and eventual dissolution of all existent things demonstrates their lack of objective, independent, intrinsic, inherent, or essential existence.  It is because of the fact of causality that there is no ontological independence.  Indeed, ontological independence is what is known as 'self' - and the refutation of this - the emptiness or lacking of self in all phenomena, is emptiness, which answers your second question:

what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

TL:DR; 'ontological independence' is a fiction - a fiction that ignorance superimposes upon all phenomena, especially our personal aggregates. Being a fiction it is naturally absent from all phenomena (all fictions are naturally absent). The natural absence of this fiction is called 'suchness'. The general term for the absence of inherent existence (aka ontological independence) is emptiness - which is merely shorthand for 'empty of inherent existence', where 'empty' merely means 'lacking'.
Why is the natural absence of a fiction important in Buddhism? Because we naturally assume it to be present - and this assumption is toxic, destructive, and binds us to continuing torment.
It is good to supply sources. Here is Candrakirti commenting on Aryadeva's 400 verses:

"We are not proponents of nonexistence, for we are proponents of dependent-arising." Are we proponents of real (ontologically independent) things? No because we are proponents only of dependent-arising. What is the meaning of dependent-arising? It means the absence of intrinsic existence; it means no intrinsically existent production; it means the arising of effects whose nature is similar to a magician's illusion (in that it appears to be inherently existent, but it is not); ... it means emptiness and selflessness"

In Buddhism, an the effect is generally not ontologically independent of the cause. For example, in the teaching of Dependent Origination, each of the twelve conditions contains the first cause of ignorance within them, as described below:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
SN 22.81
On seeing a form with the eye, he is infatuated with pleasing forms,
and gets upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness
unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't discern, as it
has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where
those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Engaged thus
in compliance & opposition, he relishes any feeling he feels —
pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it & remains
fastened to it. As he relishes that feeling, welcomes it, & remains
fastened to it, delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is
clinging.
MN 38

It can be discerned in the quotes above, for example, feeling cannot arise without a form (sense object) and the feeling & delight must continue to persist for clinging (attachment) to arise & persist.


text:
The Simultaneity of Cause and Effect

The conventional Buddhist view of causality is that the present
negative and positive effects we see in our lives are a result of
negative and positive causes that we created in the past. So in order
to attain Buddhahood, which is the goal of Buddhist practice, it would
take lifetimes of painstaking efforts to replace all the negative
causes we’ve made with positive causes, while avoiding making
additional negative causes. Based on this view, the possibility of
attaining Buddhahood seems remote and almost impossible.
In contrast, Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the law of cause and
effect is simultaneous.

https://www.worldtribune.org/2017/11/cause-and-effect/
I side against it, which could even cover my slight antipathy toward Nichiren Buddhism.
If the effect depends on past causes, then doesn't the metaphor of a fire going out -- and going nowhere -- when the fuel runs out, only work when a cause can run out of effects, which, for me, hints at svabhava.
Does a cause running itself down only occur if it has svabhava? And what arguments are there for and against the law of cause and effect being simultaneous?
I have a "theory" that Nichiren Buddhism cannot help us in our "next live"; in deed, that mappo -- and Nichiren Buddhism -- condemns all to the Abrahamic hell, even as zen -- the monastic life -- may still be available. But I won't get into it.

Traditional Standard 日蓮仏教/ Nichiren Buddhism at Minobu Yama c.1280AD is about refinement and being kindly and nice and is quite based on The Teachings of The Buddha, & Guidance of 日蓮/ Nichiren Daishi, His writings, and careful consideration of The Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Buddhism is about the present and future, yet doesnot discount the past, and Nichiren Daishi didn't discount the past: Nichiren Daishi instructed that past karma could be 'expunged' through observance of The Teachings in The Lotus Sutra, conceiveably in present Lifetimes.
The Organisation of the text cited in the question is fairly recent, and the text cited isnot Nichiren Daishi's Teachings; maybe the article suffered in translation, since 'simultaneous' wouldnot typically be understood as 'within one lifetime', or, maybe some places actually would intend to say what it says. Standard Traditional Nichiren Buddhism is based on Teachings of The Buddha, And Traditional Nichiren Buddhism doesnotsay cause & effect are simultaneous in that sense. Interesting citation and good question.


text:
Momentariness, but birth and death?
If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible?
I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

They are supposedly sutta based school so idk why you don't want sutta analysis because certainly their positions were supposedly derived from those texts. I don't think i can for sure say what their exact doctrine was as i only read the wiki but i think i get their problem with momentariness could be.

yeah i don't get what you're not knowing here @MAGA2020 i do not want sutta analysis cos it will only be a poor substitute for scholarship.

So you are asking explicitly about the views of those who follow the sutta and how their understanding developed but you don't want to know the analysis of sutta that are basis for their understanding. Im not understanding how this can be answered without analyzing the sutta. The school you referenced are Suttavadins, it's in their name.

The breath dies as it is born

@MAGA2020 I think the Sautrāntika school derived their own abhidharma and that this question is asking about some element from that -- the OP's comment, "a poor substitute for scholarship", implies to me that to answer this question you need to be a scholar who knows that the Sautrāntika doctrine/abhidharma was, and not simply give your own opinion of the question based only on your own understanding of the suttas.

I would say there were two ways of looking at this.

You can't exist "for" an instant but you can exist "at" this instant.
You are not living five minutes ago, or two hours in the future.
You are living at this precise moment.
"You" are living in this instant and this "you"
is different to the "you" of last week or last year or five mins ago.  As you experience things, you change and become a different person.  You don't die or become a different being.

“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” ✦
[Note that this isn't dedicated for stacks, exchange and what ever world-binding trade but for release from this wheel]

What an assemblies of people with no Nissaya, down-voting the peak of the Buddhas Dhamma... not capable of proper attention but after exchange, stacks and trade...


text:
The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"?
The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that.
An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy".
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

What is the basis of this question? What inspired this question? What gives you the impression that the Buddhas may be submissive and androgynous? Is it the paintings and/or idols of the Buddha? Or is it some statements from the suttas?

i'm sorry, what are you confused about @ruben2020 how is adding those details going to make for a more easily answered queston?

Well, from the suttas, I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Buddha was submissive and/or androgynous - so I am just wondering where that comes from. So, yes, it would help with answering the question.

good enough @ruben2020

Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”

The traditional description of the Buddha's physical characteristics include "well retracted male organ" -- so perhaps "androgynous" in that sense.
I understand "alpha" as being a social adjective -- there are alpha males and alpha females -- and the Buddha was "alpha" in that sense i.e. socially: a leader, able to dominate (confidently and indisputably lead or teach) any assembly (of people) and any individual, with kings too (and gods) being respectful.
I think it's rude and missing the point to be asking about people's genitals, but since you ask.
You mentioned in a comment,

please be aware that 'alpha male' derives from animal behaviour, and the need for access to women's bodies / physical intimidation over other males. so you side with the 'macho' buddha

I don't think that's how the term "alpha" is applied to human beings -- some alpha humans might be faithfully married or celibate -- IMO it's just a matter of being recognised as socially superior or second to none.
For example here's a quote from a sutta, MN 12:

Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the ten?

To answer some of the details in your question, I think it's that the Dhamma (the Buddha's doctrine) is seen as being "best" -- that's why and on the subject of which the Buddha dominates an assembly -- the Buddha is described as "an unsurpassed teacher of Gods and men" but the Buddha himself reveres the Dhamma, see Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior"
You might see the Buddha as "submissive", e.g. not flaring up when insulted -- see SN 7.2 -- I wouldn't call that submissive though, I see it as self-controlled, heedful (keeping your eye on the prize), and skilfully cooperative:

You live for the good of both
— your own, the other's —
when, knowing the other's provoked,
you mindfully grow calm.

There's a fair bit of doctrine about not arguing with each other, and about how arguments (including arguments about the Dhamma) might be associated with conceit.

thanks for anwer, chris... not sure enlightenment is a "prize" hmm

"eye on the prize" is an idiom (perhaps an Americanism) -- like "keep your eye on the ball", or "don't lose sight of the goal", more generally "don't get distracted" (in this context, getting involved with or overwhelmed by someone else's anger or misbehaviour).

over literal of me  then

Not all Buddhist agree on many, many things

There are martial descriptions of Buddha — he is the Jina, the
conqueror. See John Powers’ A Bull of a Man that discusses the imagery
of Buddha’s masculinity. Julius Evola, the Italian fascist, wrote a
book, The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery
According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts, which highlights passages
that make Buddha sound macho, comparable to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch as
it was understood at that time.
As is well known, the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara = Guanyin morphs into
a female in E Asia. There are passages in some Buddhist texts that
dismiss difference between male and female, and others that emphasize
that only a male can become a Buddha, regardless of how many female
lives he may have had in the past.

For what it's worth, I think the bodhisattva vows are counter to the macho need to play to win, to lead others rather than assist their self power, etc.. ymmv, maybe dependent on whether you see the Buddha responding to others according to need, as I do, or capacity

the lion's roar will appear. He will use the power he achieved in deep
meditation to benefit countless beings

but this doesn't preclude courage, or skill.

If Answerer would know if the cited texts or excerpts are freely viewable online and could include where such might be found would be good, and perhaps similar sources regarding Kuanyin/Guanyin, and also connected painting & statuary styles. Thank you.

No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.

'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane.

I think you got the definition of "Alpha male" wrong by associating it with putting "me" and "mine" first. In dire situations like that scene in the Titanic when it starts sinking, a coward is always the guy who puts himself first, and he'd have no problem with kicking and pushing women and young children aside to secure a spot on a life boat, Or when a defensive position under heavy attack from the enemy, the coward always runs first while the alpha male stays and fight. It'd take the tremendous courage of an alpha male to be the first guy to enter and the last guy to leave in dire situations. Similarly, real Buddhist asceticism is certainly not for the faint of heart, and so in that regard, we can say the Buddha was THE alpha male among all alpha males, for He was the one who defeated Mara and his armies of lust, hatred, and ignorance; while we all more or less are still slaves bowing down to his power!


text:
Is this sexual misconduct?
I met a woman, far, far below me in status and physical, and mental, attractiveness. I told her I was in love with her, and now refuse to retract that, or to explain why I refuse to. In fact, this woman is very mentally ill, and she seems distressed by me...
It's not misconduct, because I'm not lying - right -- whoever else I'm involving myself with?

You told a woman that you love her and now you are refusing to go back on that statement?

yes. i refuse to discuss my declaration of love, and it's confusing her @MAGA2020 it's not infidelity - whatever happens - because she just doesn't know how i feel etc., right?

let's put it another way -- is my "sexual misconduct" limited to people i am having sex with? what about my fiance?

I still don't understand the circumstances. Is it that you have a fiance but got into an intrigue with a somehow handicapped woman?

I think you may be asking the wrong question. At the very least, you need to add details: Does 'met' mean 'slept with'? Does she know about your fiancé or your fiancé about her? Are there other women besides these? But more to the point: Protesting your love for someone in the same breath that you describe her as inferior in every way, mentally ill, and distressed by you... That strikes me as deep, deep attachment. Any ostensible sexual misconduct is a symptom of something else. Your question isn't really about her or the situation; it's about you and how you relate to the world.

The Noble Eightfold path comprises three practices: wisdom, ethics and immersion. It takes wisdom to ask about ethics. A good source of ethics is MN8. In particular, some of the following considerations may or may not apply. You would know best:
It may be cruel to continue distressing this woman:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Love is synonymous with care and nurture. Is she feeling cared and nurtured by you?

MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

Love is often confounded with lust. Is there a degree of covetousness here?

MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

The stated perspective of status imbalance is concerning. The danger to be wary of here is a perceived disparity of value. The Buddha spoke with open heart to all castes:

MN8:12.28: ‘Others will be contemptuous, but here we will be without contempt.’

MN8:12.34: ‘Others will be arrogant, but here we will not be arrogant.’

There may be a difference of understanding regarding the meaning of the word, "love". To not discuss definitions might be construed as deceitful. Some people understand "love" as "I crave you". Others understand "love" as "I am grateful for and open to you". You don't need to explain the why of your feelings, but perhaps a simple discussion about what "love" means to you might be an act of love and compassion that would explain why you are rejoicing in her and thereby give her equanimity.

MN8:12.32: ‘Others will be deceitful, but here we will not be deceitful.’

In most societies, a declaration of love involves expectations. What are the expectations here? The Buddha lived without expectation. His love was limitless.

MN8:12.40: ‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

May you both find peace.

you come off really well there mate, cheers

Strictly, according to the Pali suttas, "sexual misconduct" seems to have two meanings.

For lay people it means having sexual relations with someone you shouldn't -- typically with members of other people's families, e.g. their spouses or children.
Some modern Buddhist societies (e.g. in Thailand) appear to allow married men to hire prostitutes.

For ordained people it means sexual relations period, i.e. all sexual relations are misconduct.

Lying or "false speech" might have a strict definition too, it's something like ...

Intending to deceive
Acting on that intent

... so speaking to deceive is false speech, and keeping silent in order to deceive is not.
The statement "I love you" might be meant to deceive -- for example if it's intended to be understood as a promise which you don't intend to keep.
Still the fact that something doesn't technically break a precept doesn't IMO imply it's ethical, nor wise. I guess there's no explicit precept against hitting or intimidating people, for example, but I don't think of that as moral.
A lot of what you say in the question sounds disturbing to me: i.e. saying that someone is "far below you"; being unclear about your personal boundaries when you have a fiancé (or is she a fiancée); and maybe making life more difficult for someone who you say is already "mentally ill".

do you have a quote for the first paragraph? not how i understood it all huh

There's a more detailed answer with references here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35116/254


text:
Is nirvana a conceptual construction?
Is nirvana a conceptual construction - empty in that way? For any / only some Buddhists.
I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation. If it is a conceptual construction in the sense of having no reality outside what it is in conventional designation (blissful etc.), that might be an answer. If some rock has no qualities that we cannot define, then maybe there is nothing to add to its existence, nothing to puzzle over and ask why or how.

"I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation."
And therein lies your problem.  If you are trying to figure it out, you are dealing in concepts, not nirvana.  Every word you speak answers itself.  It is a closed loop.  A closed system.  Step outside.  How would you define a word without using language?  See the following:

Case 5 of the Mumonkan Kyogen's "Man Up a Tree"
The Case:
Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branch
with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb.
Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of
Bodhidharma's coming from the West?' If he does not answer, he fails
to respond to the question. If he does answer, he will lose his life.
What would you do in such a situation?"
Mumon's Comment:
Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail. Though
you can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no use. If
you solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has been
dead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up to
now. Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him.
Mumon's Verse:
Kyõgen is truly thoughtless; His vice and poison are endless. He stops
up the mouths of the monks,  And devil's eyes sprout from their
bodies.

Instead of worrying about concepts, search for the word that has neither sound nor meaning.

really great answer, thanks

Is nirvana a conceptual construction? For any / only some Buddhists

Of course it'd depend on who you ask. To a deep-sea fish, the fresh breeze of the open sky will remain a conceptual construction, but to a man on land, that's something possible to have first-hand experience of. Similarly, Nibbana will remain a conceptual construction until one's attained awakening like the Buddha and His noble disciples.

so your answer is "no"? a reference would help you here

"no" and "yes", depending on the group of people already specified.

hm interesting. but you seem to also be saying that the buddha claimed unambiguously it isn't

Again, whether it is or is not depends on the frame of reference.

ok cool.   do  you have a quote  to support your claim that nirvana is not a conceptual construction to his noble disciples?

A simple quote will do no justice, you'll have to read the whole sutta to get the idea. Read MN 27: https://suttacentral.net/mn27/en/bodhi . Also please provide the exact reason or background to your inquiry ?

there is no reference to conceptual construction therein... dwai

You instantly replied, that indicates you have not read it. By the way, please answer my question.

ok done, right ?

done or not done, it's up to you. I can go on forever if you like.

sorry i'm not clear what you're talking about now

sorry, what is it that you meant "done"?

i edited my question, that's what i meant

From the way you interact, I'm not sure whether you're really serious in learning more, or just trolling. But either way, I'm still gonna do my part, which is to share infos, cuz if you don't read it, others will. Now, back to your added inquiry, there's already an excellent answer on dhammwheel, which you should check out: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=576140#p576140

i think you have an attitude problem... no need to blame me

The problem is blatantly obvious in your alias, SATIRICAL_BUDDHIST

ok well i tried to change it but can't for another month or so. sorry

When language is involved, everything becomes a conceptual construct. That's the problem with language, you have to create a concept of something to explain something. The question in itself is unclear, but Nirvana is a goal, or a state. It's a state of freedom from suffering and rebirth. When you reach nirvana, your mind is free from the 3 fires. The fires of ignorance/delusion, attatchment/greed and aversion/hate. You do not experience rebirth anymore, as you have removed the attachment to life.

Nirvana or Nibbana is not a thought or concept of the mind. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.
I quote from this answer below. Please see that answer for a detailed analysis including sutta quotes.

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.
Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.

Also from that answer:
From AN 9.34 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it.

is that what conceptual construction means then -- a mere idea of empirical reality?

@satirical_buddhist It's simply the complete absence of dukkha (suffering / discontent).

of what though?

@satirical_buddhist If you read that answer, it quotes AN 9.34: Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss! Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?” Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it."

i'm unconvinced that answers my question. which was not about happiness without feeling, but happiness wthout anything being happy

but i  can easily conceive of happiness without feelig. that is pretty standard religion / morality i think. not sure about happiness without a happy thing

@satirical_buddhist Nirvana is translated here as "extinguishment". That should give you a hint. It extinguishes everything that can make you unhappy, suffer or feel dissatisfied.

so are rocks happy?

@satirical_buddhist Rocks do not have feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do have feeling and maybe perception, but they do not have consciousness and mental formations. Only beings with all five aggregates who experience mental suffering, can attain Nirvana.

confusing. so the sentient being that undergoes nirvana is what is happy?

@satirical_buddhist The sentient being that attains Nirvana has found a stable source of happiness - the only stable source of happiness there is.

Obviously people have conceptions about it (and those conceptions are conceptual constructions).
I think that nibbana itself is defined as unconstructed -- or unconditioned -- or more literally, "undefiled", "extinguished", etc., are among its many attributes.
I think the idea is that because it isn't constructed, it is therefore not subject to decay and coming apart -- according to the "three characteristics", it's "sankharas" (i.e. constructed things) which are impermanent ... and nibbana isn't a sankhara.
I'm using "conditioned" and "constructed" here as synonyms, which perhaps isn't quite right, but I think it's along the right lines -- see also this answer (which says that the non-construction of something may depend on some condition, but that what's unconstructed isn't itself impermanent).

This is a good question. I have not experienced anything close to Nirvana. But from what Buddha has said we can understand it as a natural state of unborn , uncreate and as a state of unbecoming. It is grasped conceptually but once nirvana is achieved you don’t need to hold on to any concept. It is a natural state of unborn existence...

Are you asking about the referent of the word "nirvana"?
The referent of the word nirvana is a concept of nirvana, and the referent of that concept is ... WHAT?
The referent of that concept is the actual experiential liberation of the mind.
Liberation from what? Liberation from the confines of concepts and therefore from the dukkha that comes from the clash between concepts, or between the concepts on one hand and the ontological reality on the other.
Now you tell me, is this Liberation a conceptual construct? For you perhaps it is, because you are asking about it? For me - not anymore, because I attained it in practice.
Once attained, the concept of nirvana has no referent. One does not engage in semiotic games anymore. No bullshit like "nirvana" and "liberation".

Does the "reference/referent" duality exist in Buddhism, or is that (perhaps like "ideal/real") an artefact of western philosophy?

i think we can do without bragging about attainment, but thank you for the answer

@ChrisW it's a common feature of Tibetan Mahayana treatises, it comes up quite a lot.

It seemed to me refreshingly absent in the suttas -- with that absence being a welcome (and radical) simplification -- albeit perhaps implied by "conceptual proliferation" or some things like that.

Some aspects of Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka-karika could suggest that, but that is not the “orthodox” Madhyamika stance, at least amongst Tibetans