text:
Dwelling Upon Seeming Levels of Emptiness?
Note: the term sunyata here is being used from the Mahayana context.
Not too long ago, I asked this question about concentration and openness where I suggested that concentration was a hindrance to my practice. I received an answer which informed my intuitive understanding by @Andrei Volkov, in which he recommended a book called The Relaxed Mind by Dza Kilung Rinpoche. This changed my practice and opened up a new discernment concerning space, time and consciousness - essentially the aggregates and their ever subtle perceptions. It also led me to the Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa who also adopts this same openness method.
Thus, shifting my practice to openness (as opposed to strict focus on a single object) I've been noticing a different kind of "not-there-ness". To put this another way: the perception of body as it is normally known is no longer there, but I am still able to function perfectly fine - actually better in terms of how worldly things normally affect me.
It's most noticeable when sitting with people and when they are talking to me. There's a part of my mind that thinks, "who is this person talking to?" because, even though they are looking at me, it is like they are speaking into empty space, like they are in the room by themselves.
Please be clear: what I have described above is NOT the negation of suffering which should become clearer from the following.
I'm not able to reference the aggregates as they usually operate, but I discern that there is the perception of "not-there-ness" which presents as an extremely fine notion of space. However, that space-perception seems to have a definitive location situated where the body was previously and conventionally seen as solid matter giving rise to some sort of here-ness, and thus it's opposite: there-ness.
The form aggregate has taken another blow, but the feeling/perception aggregate has just dropped into a more refined level and thus is still able to create clinging to the idea of "space-body" because space-body has a very subtle pleasantness. In Theravada this might be known as arūpa-rāga: craving for immaterial existence thus perpetuating the consciousness aggregate in its entirety. It took me a while to see this, and I could only see it by opening my practice from where I was able to gain situational understanding or a bigger picture.
Here in these regions, it seems the motions of samsara cleverly uses indirect methods to sustain the samsaric body. I guess it can only operate at its current level of awareness, and if that level of awareness is largely formless then its movements should naturally reflect the subtleties of formlessness. Therefore, from a Mahayana perspective, I cannot see this as form is emptiness and emptiness is form. I cannot see this as sunyata. However, it may offer promise, but in ways that are now counter-intuitive.
My question is a little obscure, but I think it has some relevance:

Having studied sutta after sutta and read various works of the
masters, I'm making a reasoned observation that the enlightened mind
knows it is liberated, that it knows sunyata, but to what extent is that knowing not of the self such that one can know sunyata?
There always appears to be a claimant to the ever emerging subtleties
of emptiness rendering the idea of ending suffering a fallacy.

After nearly five years of intensive lay practice I'm getting quite tired of it all and find myself practising less and less. Although this is more helpful than a hindrance.
NOTE: I'm not sure if the term space-body is associated with any school. I've just used it spontaneously and completely impromptu. If it does have such an association, it may not share the same conceptual understanding with regard to the context of this question.

Your understanding is standing in the way of your progress.
In “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form” for example, the word “emptiness” has two different referents. The first one points to the direct meditative insight of the emptiness of all manifested form. The second refers to your understanding that the insight provokes. It is the discriminating mind getting in the way, extruding the direct meditative experience through your conceptual understanding, so to speak.
Please note that I am not saying that the normal understanding of that expression showing an equivalence between form and emptiness is wrong. I am pointing out that there is a subtler meaning at the juncture you’ve reached.

In addition, [the instructions] on clarifying doubt and subduing hinderances are as follows. While maintaining the continuity of the great, indwelling fundamental nature, if one thinks that the nature of this awareness is empty, the one ascribing emptiness to this is the intellect, which has a focal point. The way the meditative concentration with a focal point does not produce Buddhahood is as stated in the “Perfected Skill of the Lion” tantra: “The meaning of the nature of phenomena cannot be seen through meditation with concentration. The samādhi of one’s own appearances eludes the direction of concentration. Free from elaboration, the nature of phenomena is equal to the limits of space. All mental considerations are devoid of conceptual fixation with objects. The dharmakāya Buddha free from the four extremes, such as existing or not, is one's own awareness.” (“The Yeshe Lama,” by Jigme Lingpa, translated by Lama Chönam and Sangye Khandro, 2008, page 57)

To which I will add: ... in leaving behind the idea of independent inherent natures in all things, we must not lose sight of the fact that reality is nondual, and thus, the appearances are not something separate and apart from the naturing and its essential cognitive role, i.e., knowing is the activity of manifesting, not understanding what is manifested.
Accomplishing this through a direct insight is the threshold of full enlightenment, and thus, this is the final step in the direct and universal path to enlightenment. However, the difficulty in this last step is that all mental formations must be left behind, all impulses to do anything whatever must be left behind, all perception and apperception must be left behind, so that all limitations are sublimated into absolute freedom.
In practice, this is a state in which there is just spaciousness. No thought of a meditator meditating, or of accomplishment, enlightenment, wisdom, perfection, nor anything else. No thoughts arise. Sensations are no longer attended to, not because one stops attending to them, but because that discriminating response is simply no longer functioning. If you turn your mind toward such a sensation, it will be actively apperceived as a sensation of a particular type, so the mind must rest as it is: spaciousness —but not just empty dead space. Instead, one reaches a stage where there is just clear lucidity, in the sense of reflexive knowing that we can also call clarity. This means our normal perspective evaporates. Time no longer passes. There is not even a need for the concept of "now." Just illumination without limit. Beyond this, there can be only poetry.
One final suggestion. Ok, a few... You have to stop looking for answers in texts, because that just provides conceptual understanding, and as I said, that is no longer helping you. You have to have faith (or trust, which is the same thing) in your path. Stop knowing what everything is in that limiting way and realize the necessarily true meaning of knowing. Perhaps look into where that “claimant” you mention is. You might be truly surprised.

I agree with everything in your answer, and your last paragraph nailed it.

Impermanence is unsatisfactory. Chasing impermanence leads to suffering. What then should be known as known?
To this point, the Venerable Sariputta teaches:

DN34:1.3.23: What two things should be produced?
DN34:1.3.24: Two knowledges:
DN34:1.3.25: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
DN34:1.3.27: What two things should be directly known?
DN34:1.3.28: Two elements:
DN34:1.3.29: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

The conditioned and unconditioned elements are known by their characteristics:

AN3.47:0.3: 47. Characteristics of the Conditioned
AN3.47:1.1: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:1.2: What three?
AN3.47:1.3: Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:1.4: These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN3.47:2.0: Characteristics of the Unconditioned
AN3.47:2.1: “Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:2.2: What three?
AN3.47:2.3: No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:2.4: These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

These characteristics guide the knowing.
Knowing is informed by perception. Perceiving the form of a cup, one perceives simultaneously the emptiness within. They are one and the same. By relinquishing form, emptiness necessarily grows as described in MN121:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

Are not the unconditioned and the conditioned reflections of each other? Where lies the knowing of that?

Thanks for the feedback. The element characteristics are now described above.

Thanks for your valued input. In the unification of unconditioned and conditioned as described thus: Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness. Where lies the knowing there? Or have I gone too far?

Thanks for the additional question. MN121 may be of help here.

Yes, MN 121 seems to be like the whack-a-mole game for me recently, showing up here, there, and everywhere. I'll spend some time with MN 121 again and see what occurs. Great answer! ;-)

Consider listening to MN121. That listening is in the moment and will require relinquishing  the skittering of thoughts. Listen to Pali along with English. The restlessness of the mind becomes apparent and can, as a result, be relinquished. Relinquish to insight.

self is a thought
emptiness begins to be known by consciousness when the self thought is dissolved by openness samadhi
knowing emptiness is wisdom
consciousness knows emptiness with wisdom

Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
MN 43


text:
What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?
What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?
I don't think it can cease to really exist, as it never really existed in the first place. Does the effect somehow - metaphorically - crowd out the cause? Or is the effect sufficient - even necessary - for the cause not to appear?
What is a good way of thinking about this?

i guess it ceases to be a cause. but i'm confused whether it still appears to be what it was, etc.

I found a very helpful analysis from a respected academic.

"cause” is a label for the efficient discharge of a condition or set
of conditions that effect a change. Once that moment of efficacy is
discharged, the cause is gone, done.... to be communicative, [you]
have to refer to a general category, not a specific particular. The
category “cat” survives the life and death of all sorts of cats, since
it is an abstraction. Likewise “cause.”

Furthermore, on the subject of whether a cause is just a cause, or can be something in addition to its causal discharge

According to most Buddhist schools, something is ONLY real (dravya) if
it discharges causal efficacy. Some schools argued whether it only
existed in that moment, or could have a latency period. Those
accepting momentariness insisted on the first, the Sarvastivadins
tried to make a case for the latter (and they had competing theories
about how that would work).

Put differently, momentariness means that something ceases as soon as it has an effect: immediately; as soon as it arises.

Yes, good research! There are different models on how karma can be understood. I guess you could take your pick. The main thing is not to cement those models as absolute certainties.

I think the right way to think about this, according to Mahayana Buddhism, is that it is our mind that delineates the spatiotemporal continuum and identifies a cause.
In other words, things are not discrete, not discontinuous - so there are no separate "events" to begin with. In the general case, an event does not and cannot have a precise spatial and temporal boundary. Some events may have more or less well-defined boundaries but that's just a happy accident that we can't expect of most events. Usually when we examine an event very carefully we will see that it is "leaking" outside its boundaries, the boundaries are not accurate.
In summary, any "event" that we call "an effect" is a product of our own delineation. In Mahayana we say "event is empty", meaning it's an empty construct, not something concrete that exists ontologically but an abstraction we project onto our observation of the world.
Next, let's talk about the causes. Every "event" that we have thus delineated always exists in some context. The context is the environment that gave rise to the event. This environment is also contiguous and nondiscrete. As we analyze it with our mind we can identify some specific conditions that supported arising of our event. This is to say that an event does not usually (ever?) have a single cause. Instead, our mind delineates the background or the environment and identifies primary and secondary causes and conditions that were necessary for the arising of the event.
Now, what would happen if some of the secondary conditions did not exist or existed in a different way? Most likely the event they were to produce would be slightly (or very) different. Would we consider it the same event then? This is a very important question because it taps into the concept of "sameness" or identity. What makes an event itself? How different does it need to be before we start considering it an entirely different event? If we analyze this question deeply we will understand that sameness or identity is also empty, is also an abstraction, projection, convention, imputation.
From this last point we can conclude that so-called primary and secondary causes and conditions are also entirely our own designation. We pick some aspects of the environment from which an event arisen and designate them as important for this event, designate them as causes or even The Cause.
Finally, let's get to your actual question, what happens to the cause once the effect has arisen. Now we can understand that both the cause and the effect were our designations or our delineations to begin with. It's the entire environment that continuously and contiguously transforms.
The effect grows out of the environment like a sprout grows out of the seed (with other necessary conditions being the moisture, the warmth, the nutrients in the soil etc). What happens to the seed after the sprout has grown? Parts of the seed transform into the sprout while other parts dry or rot away. What happens to the molecules of water, nutrients etc.? They are used as the building blocks for the sprout. What happens to the warmth? The warmth or the vibration of the atoms is passed on to some chemical reactions that serve the growth of the sprout. Entire environment in the neighborhood of the sprout transforms.
Individual things only exist as analytical designations. Because everything keeps on changing (whether growing or falling apart or mixing with something else or gradually changing to something else) - in some sense exact things only exist for an infinitely short moment, and in the next moment they are no more, having passed their energy and information on to some successors (either slightly different from themselves or very different). In another sense things don't disappear at all, they just keep transforming and mixing with parts of other things. Neither of these descriptions is 100% accurate, but they point at Truth which is the living reality underneath our concepts.
This is the right way to think about this, as far as I know. If you want to do a formal study of this analysis, in Buddhism it's called "Madhyamaka".

This is such a brilliant insight!

It's probably best to fragment this into two pieces for ease of comprehension.

form-convention
formless wisdom

Form-convention could be seen as the domain of cause and effect of which the mind is the cause and the body is the effect. Due to our clinging with the body we cannot see how the effect part is related to our actions; clinging to the body clouds our judgment and this is largely known as ignorance. In this instance, the causes are continuously put forth and the effects continue regardless - they just takes on different forms.
Formless wisdom is seeing this clearly to such a degree that all identification with the body ceases and the causes that were previously generated from body-clinging now cease.
In essence, all karmas converge at the mind, are dispensed by the mind and can be ended at the mind. There are other types of karmas which produce vipakas that linger like a fine mist. Not much you can do about those. When they come to the fore, manage them as wisely as possible.
So to answer to your question, the effects are always generated so long as we are identified with the body, but they take different forms. There can still exist residual vipakas (effects) that haven't yet come to light.

Your question is interesting. What happens to the cause...?? Simply put cause becomes the  effect. That’s what happens. Take for example a bat hitting a ball. Bat hits and suffers a reaction due to the impact and a small dent is left on its surface. Similarly for ball, a small dent is left on its surface as well... another example would be putting ghee into the fire. Ghee burns flaring up the fire... ghee gets consumes and fire which consumes burns even more brightly...

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does downvoting an answer qualify as divisive and harsh speech?
In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this:

To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is
extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh
speech.

Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means...
Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

If this is a question about how this site works, it should be on Buddhism Meta SE. If this is a question on Buddhism e.g. on the precept on correct speech, then it should be here, on Buddhism SE. So, which is it? Do you intend to ask whether downvoting violates the precept on correct speech? Or do you intend to ask what is the purpose of downvoting on this site?

I intend to ask whether downvoting violates the precept on correct speech. That is what I understood the comment to be asserting. I'm asking others if this is true.

upvoting can be divisive if you're upvoting someone using harmful speech!

I personally rarely downvote anything.  I upvote helpful content, and I feel like that's the kindest thing to do.

For those who may be jumping in after seeing this reach the Hot Questions list, this question is about downvoting behavior as interpreted in Buddhism rather than Stack Exchange policies or practices such as the Code of Conduct.

Downvoting is a major tool in the SE box, deliberately provided for whatever reason. Pretty-much by definition, that means in SE's terms it can't by itself qualify as unhelpful, divisive or harsh. Whether people misuse their power is a different question. In the wider world where motive can only be guessed, isn't down-voting "merely" a claim or statement that something is either wrong or inappropriate? Is the precept on "correct" speech a new translation of that on "right" or "loving" speech? I suggest down-voting should be allowed only with explanation and again, that's a different thing.

The intention behind the action is what matters. If, for example, a tyrannical user seeks to impose his will upon other users in order to control their speech, is it justified for those users to punish the tyrant until he changes his behavior? I believe the answer is YES. Moral restraints exist in all religions for 1 purpose. To keep the peace. If the rules are not enforced, there will be no peace. Therefore, rule enforcement is necessary. Do not censor the speech of others. Raise your objections and let others decide.

Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.
A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.
Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.
Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!
In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.
Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.
From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.
I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.
As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.
Then again, I think this falls into the territory of "the right timing and a sense of tact". Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.
Just my 2 cents.

I mostly agree with Andrei, so much so I will not try to enter my own answer. It is clear that Buddha did ‘downvote’ wrong thinking, both questions and answers, many times in the Sutras. So it cannot be wrong. However, he usually followed it up with right view teachings to help educate and lead the confused to correct knowledge.
For me, simply ‘downvoting’ without some correcting and clarifying comments could be misunderstood and construed as unhelpful and divisive. Something to be avoided.
I’d invite comments on this idea – not just downvotes, please. ;>)

Does anonymity really circumvent harsh speech? Wouldn't that be a rather significant loophole, like allowing you to be as harsh as you want in an anonymous message you send someone? Or, perhaps more applicable to this scenario, allowing people to e.g. take part in mobs shouting harsh things, given that the recipient may not know who actually shouted which what (other than just someone in the mob)? Or one might even argue any participation on a website using an alias would entirely fall under this loophole.

Good point. I think anonymous downvote is different from anonymous insult. The main point I make is, harsh speech is bad because of its propensity for generating conflict. Anonymous downvote was meant to be the simplest and least conflictogenic way of providing negative feedback. If it were not anonymous it would be more conflictogenic, can we agree on this? That said I agree that merely being anonymous does not make unwholesome communication wholesome.

Indeed there might be a bit less conflict than if it weren't anonymous, although I would argue whether it causes suffering is perhaps more applicable here. That isn't clearly better or worse when there's anonymity. But for both of those it probably indeed comes down to "the right timing and a sense of tact", and how it compares to other options in a specific situation. It also depends whether or not you consider "harsh speech" to include acceptable negative feedback (i.e. "harsh but acceptable" or "not harsh because acceptable"), but this may just be semantics.

Right. I'm glad we got beyond the basic rules of thumb and into wise application of principles. To me the principle that conflict/discord/clash/disharmony is the essence of dukkha and that therefore preventing one I can prevent the other has been extremely helpful to understand.

The purpose of upvoting and downvoting answers on this site is to give the community the chance to determine the quality of the answers.
So, the better the answer (in terms of being on-topic, correct, accurate, answers the question and supported by elaboration and references), the more upvotes it should get.
On the other hand, an answer which is on-topic and allowed (not spam, rude etc.), but is wrong or inaccurate, should get downvotes. In fact, I think it is beneficial to downvote wrong answers, so that readers are able to identify it as a negative example i.e. an example of wrong understanding.
Is it incorrect speech to downvote?
According to MN 58:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."

I would say the third case above is the case for downvoting.
Downvoting an answer may be unendearing and disagreeable to the person answering.
If users can judge whether the correctness of an answer is factual and true, and if declaring this is beneficial for the answerer and other readers, then upvoting or downvoting is the proper time to express this, according to the way this site works. This is correct speech.
It's only incorrect speech if you know an answer to be correct, yet downvote it, or vice versa.

It's a well-known or frequently-expressed feeling on other SE sites -- a downvote feels like an insult, and a downvote without a comment seems rude and unhelpful.
Even so, in spite of the fact that users may not like it, SE allows it -- people can downvote, and aren't required to comment.
I recommend you comment -- if you can be friendly, and with a comment maybe phrased as a question or as constructive criticism suggestion -- especially with a new user, who might be sensitive to the community's reaction to their post.
I might also recommend that you don't comment in any of the following scenarios (if a comment is no better than or worse than no comment):

If the comment isn't informative, for example:

I"m downvoting this answer because of your view about X, which is wrong I tell you.

If it's not new information:

As I've told you 50 times already, I disagree with your view about X

If experience tells you that commenting on this particular person's answer usually leads to more arguments and "division" than not commenting

I agree it may be perceived as harsh.
As for whether it breaks a precept, is immoral, I think that depends.
Canonically the Buddha would have "a sense of the proper time" for saying "things that are factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others" -- which most people don't necessarily.
But the Buddha might also sometimes not correct -- or stop correcting -- mistakes:

Was the Buddha harsh?
Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech?

I personally avoid downvoting and harsh comments unless it is extremely necessary because it hurts the sentiments of poster and vilifies the atmosphere.
Buddha criticised many times but it was out of compassion. Those who try to be emotionless while judging have wrongly interpreted the teachings. The point is to be as considerate as possible while judging a human being... there is no substitute for a sincere compassion.

I doubt we’ll find a sutra reference that speaks about downvoting answers, so I’ll just relate a personal experience here. Early on, there was a person that downvoted seemingly every one of my answers for a period of time, and I found that very divisive, especially because his comments were not helpful, other than to let me know that it was he that was doing it. That kind of downvoting, in my opinion, does not conform to right speech. But this was contextual. If an answer misrepresents Buddhism in general, or is based on something else entirely, then downvoting that probably does at least conform to defending the Dharma, if not also being right speech.

there is a sutta reference

A downvote is meant to mean, "This answer is not useful". So someone might downvote an answer not just for being wrong but for being too short, difficult to understand, or even unreferenced or something like that. So there's more than one reason to downvote (which is why a comment to explain the downvote can be helpful too, "helpful" meaning that it might help the author see how to improve the answer), equally though there are (as you said) comments that don't seem to be helpful.

These are concerning public dhamma discourse and what is abusive circumstance

There Venerable Sāriputta addressed the mendicants:
“That is possible.”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.
And for a third time, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
Then Venerable Sāriputta thought, “Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me
three times, and not one mendicant agrees with me. Why don’t I go to
see the Buddha?”
Then Sāriputta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and
said to the mendicants:
That is possible.”
When he said this, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible, Reverend
Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.
And for a third time, Udāyī said to him, “This is not possible,
Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”
Then Venerable Sāriputta thought, “Even in front of the Buddha
Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me three times, and not one mendicant
agrees with me. I’d better stay silent.” Then Sāriputta fell silent.
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Udāyī, “But Udāyī, do you believe in
a mind-made body?”
“For those gods, sir, who are formless, made of perception.”
“Udāyī, what has an incompetent fool like you got to say? How on earth
could you imagine you’ve got something worth saying!”
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Ānanda, “Ānanda! There’s a senior
mendicant being harassed, and you just watch it happening. Don’t you
have any compassion for a senior mendicant who is being harassed?”
https://suttacentral.net/an5.166/en/sujato

Downvoting, pestering, contradicting and annoying the righteous is like that. It is wrong action.

"The practice of Dhamma, [1] the practice of continence, [2] mastery of this is said to be best if a person has gone forth from home to the homeless life. But if he is garrulous and, like a brute, delights in hurting others, his life is evil and his impurity increases.
"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.
"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.06.irel.html

These are some of the harshest reprimands in the sutta.

Yes it is. It's hardly to assume that any here isn't lead by unskilful mind using it and what ever system is build to serve common people successfully requires to make use of greed, aversion and ignorance. Well, and people here are foremost devoted and feel obligated to serve Mara. At least lazyness to write, and fear to get rebuked or different punished by system-servers, will lead one to make use of it either and so, in best common way, mixed kamma will be always the peak of skillful use of vote.
At least, to do not fall into other foolish views, it's totally not generally that dispraise and rebuke is wrong speech, but leads even to heaven if right and proper investigated, but as for the ordinary person, not arrived at the Dhamma, naturally corrupt, either praise, blame and equanimity will be in 95% of cases akusala.
"Dhammo have rakkhati dammacāriṁ"
Hard would it be, if even searching for, to appear in good companionship...
(and sure, one is free to up- downvote here, or confused just walk on, or gain conviction by catching proper attention, watching foremost the frames of reference)

Of these four persons, Potaliya, he who speaks both in dispraise of
what deserves dispraise seasonably saying what is a fact and true and
in praise of what is praiseworthy, saying seasonably what is a fact
and true - he is the most admirable and rare.
AN 4.100

I do not think downvoting is harsh speech.  This is a Q&A platform that individual should allow to post their opinion.
With good intention and no harsh remarks, downvoting could be a wake up call to the question posted, improving the quality of the future questions.
Use it right, it is a good feature to have!

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


text:
How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms?
How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms?
Obviously, as humans in the desire realm, we can suffer misfortune, etc., due to our karma. But what about events in these other realms, either when in absorption or reborn there?
Is being reborn there just one constant bliss?

the downvote i assume was Dhammadhatu due to his attempt at denouncing the mahayana (which incidentally is v bad karma). unnecessary

Would you prefer to make this a specifically-Mahayana question, inviting only answers based on Mahayana doctrine?

the 'desire realm' also appears in the abhidamma i believe @ChrisW

Downvotes are anonymous and so it is probably not helpful to speculate about who did what or for what purpose

Taking a Theravada view, the immaterial realms - what you call formless - occur when a practitioner dies whilst dwelling in one of the four arupa ayatanas:

The dimension of the perception of space
The dimensions of the perception boundless consciousness
The dimensions of the perception of nothingness
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception

Because these states still contain figments of conditionality, after death the mind (citta) gravitates to those figments thus perpetuating the continuation of that respective consciousness. As I currently understand, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is considered to be at the very prelude to the finality of reality in the grand scheme of dhamma: the figments of consciousness that exist there are too tenuous to cause any major form-based re-becoming disturbances. The task here is traversing the pleasure of being relinquished from those form-based consciousnesses.
I have a long held a contention about the commonly held view in Theravada concerning rupa jhana and arupa ayatanas. The contention concerns the progressive models from jhana to ayatana that are often touted. In my view they are very distinct and either set doesn't necessarily inform the other set.
Back to the question: what we could say is that the practitioner, working in the sensuous domain, having previously developed his mind in accordance with dhamma, and having passed away, now finds himself dwelling in some heightened pleasurable state; one of the four arupa ayatanas. This could be said to have happened because the cause of that final state was due to the practice: due to this karma the practitioner traversed from the form state to the formless.

yeah i would've naively equated the rebirth (and perhaps its style and duration) to karma. obvious and answerable addendum is whether e.g. formless beings can suffer in any sense (except from conditioning itself)

They suffer as their 'state' exhausts its upkeep similar to how humans, delirious with happiness, and with that happiness coming to an end, they lament and suffer. Better to find real-world observations than create imaginary beings somewhere in the cosmos.

i asked about meditative absorptions also! what about them, do meditators experience e.g. leg pain in trance states?

is that due to karma? etc., no need to be dismissive of someone who thinks that Buddhist cosmology has meaning

It has meaning, but a meaning that is best applied within the conventions of here-and-now practice. From my experience the perception of pain changes not just on the cushion, but in daily life. This can only happen if you are fully conscious and not emerged in a trance state. If it seems like you're in a trance, then that sounds like torpor.

The Buddha never called the "human realm" the "desire realm". The Buddha described the "human realm" as follows:

SN 56.61 The beings born (paccājāyanti) as humans (manussesu) are
few, while those not born as humans are many. Why is that? It is
because they have not seen the four noble truths.
AN 6.39 Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be
evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus,
from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an
animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
SN 56.47 Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface
once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single
hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain
the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
cessation of suffering.

Kamma obviously can exist in the form and formless realms, because these realms can be a type of becoming caused by craving, as follows:

SN 12.2 And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual
becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.
AN 3.76 "Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property,
would sensuality-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”
“If there were no kamma ripening in the form-property, would
form-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”
“If there were no kamma ripening in the formless-property, would
formless-becoming be discerned?”
“No, lord.”

Naturally, the bliss of the form & formless realms is impermanent, as follows:

AN 4.123 Again, there is the case where an individual, with the
stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the
second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of
awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal
assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through
that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling
away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with
the Abhassara[1] devas.[2] The Abhassara devas, monks, have a
life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there,
having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the
animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the
Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of
those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is
the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor,
between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated
run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

MN 111 Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of
the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,'
Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of nothingness. Whatever
qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness — the perception
of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling,
perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence,
mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after
another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to
him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not
having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained
unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He
discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there
really was for him.

hey, sorry i think i'm being a bit obnoxious to you... there are early buddhists who only followed the sutta pitaka, but to say that only these buddhists got it looks like a deformation of what is a living tradition called "buddhism".

buddhism is "fixed law" (AN 3.136; SN 12.20) and not "living/evolving"


text:
Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
At least in everyday senses of suffering.
Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples).
But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples).
Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Can you refine the question to give a definition of what you mean by "hurting ourselves" and under what circumstances? Maybe you can give an illustrative example or an allegory? Try and come up with a counterexample and explain why it still fails and you can still "gloss" karma this way?

Are you asking if we can interpret karma as a form of self-harm? If so that might be a better title, or at least some variation of that, which might draw in more interest.

Not to claim Alan Watts to be a great Buddhist scholar, but he glossed karma as "What you do, happens to you."  Phrasing it in this neutral way, rather than just talking of hurt, gave him great leeway in using it as a teaching tool.

can you define "ourselves"?

Frustration and suffering arise from unskillful intentions. That's bad kamma.

DN33:1.11.154: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.

Harmony and happiness arise from skillful intentions. That's good kamma.

DN33:1.11.155: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.

More commonly, the two are mixed and muddied.

DN33:1.11.156: There
are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.

However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up.

DN33:1.11.157: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.

Looking for the limit of faults is chasing the conditioned, the impermanent and the unsatisfactory.
Instead, look for the limitless in love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

Can you quote some evidence to support "However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up"?

Indeed. One place is AN6.57:  And how does someone ... give rise to extinguishment, which is neither dark nor bright?
The "letting go of kamma" is from "kammakkhayāya" in DN33.

What is karma ?
Under ignorance karma is done by me but for enlightened beings all karma happens with end result as dukha or suffering...
karma under ignorance bears fruits of good and bad for me... but for enlightened beings all karma results in dukha or suffering...
Does all karma results in hurting ourselves?
Invalid question.,. Hurting happens but whose hurt is it anyway ? We can’t say... what happens is dukha or suffering.,, which can removed by giving up craving to enjoy feelings or attachments.., if we give up cravings for feelings or attachments ...the suffering disappears...,. Remember all feelings and attachments as not yours , as not me and not as myself...
What do you do with things not yours including karma?
You don’t care ..., no matter what happens you let it be as not yours or not me or not as myself...,
Essentially you don’t let whatever happens as due to you or due to your self or due to something which belongs to you ..
This is how you escape karma.,,

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only
really hurting ourselves?

If the mind has right samadhi (which includes hyper sensitiveness), the mind can realize all bad kamma (be it mental, verbal or physical) is hurting oneself; because the mind can directly feel the bad vibrations of its nasty intentions.
However, for those without right samadhi, such as the common puthujjana (worldling), they must see how bad kamma hurts others.

But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g.
frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are
just examples).

The Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (at SN 37.30) taught a woman that lacks beautiful visual appearance & wealth will still be accepted by others if she has ethical behaviour (morality). If we have faith in the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka, we will be confident the most important thing is our ethical behaviour. For example, the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka taught a woman, despite her genetic physical appearance, will look ugly & deformed when she is angry.

Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a
trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn,
and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a
giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments,
beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore,
she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains,
honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds
grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and returns (āgacchati) to such a
state, wherever she comes forth (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of
very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little
wealth and little influence.
AN 4.197

AN 4.197 clearly shows how angry people hurt themselves.


text:
Is there an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi?
Is there a an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi?
Of the available links only second chapter is available.
If the full version is available, please provide the link for it.

Can down voters please say why you are downvoting. So that if there's something I can fix, I will fix it.

Maybe it is because you aspirated the T in "Dharmakīrti?" Who knows? It's a fine question, so it's back to 0 from -1 now.

Yes, there are quite a few trasnlations available in ENglish, by reputed scholars of the field. The book has a total of five chapters. SOme works cover individual chapters like Tom J.F. Tilleman's translation, which is of the fourth chapter or Nagatomi's PhD disstertation which is a translation work of the first chapter. Another scholar by the name of John D. Dunne has some parts translated, in his book titiled Foundations of Dharmakirti's Philosophy. There is a translation by Mookerjee and Nagasaki. There is an e-text by MOtoi Ono. Then there are some translations that include the commentary. But to be able to access good translations, you would very likely need UNiversity access or individual subscriptions. Books are more easily available.
Edit: You may find the following link useful.
https://east.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/buddh/ind/7/16/

Here is a chapter.
I didn't see any full translations, but you can find bits like this, also like the second chapter you found.
https://www.academia.edu/30822030/Dharmakirtis_Pramanavarttika_An_annotated_translation_of_the_fourth_chapter_Vol_1_k_1_148_

I'm especially looking for the first chapter which is just not foubd anywhere.

The formatting is absolutely terrible on this old document, but I also found this: https://archive.org/stream/AStudyOfDharmakirtisPramanavarttikaMasatoshiNagatomi/A%20study%20of%20Dharmakirti%27s%20Pramanavarttika_%20-%20Masatoshi%20Nagatomi_djvu.txt

even in this the first chapter seems to be missing and onlysecond chaptee is present. I'm trying to find Dharmakirti's refutation of authorlessness and authority of Vedas. I cant find it. Its supposed to be there in the first chapter. I can't find it in the link you have given.

On this page here, https://east.ikga.oeaw.ac.at/buddh/ind/7/16/, you'll see "Mookerjee, Satkari, and Hojun Nagasaki. 1964. The Pramāṇavārttikam of Dharmakīrti: An English Translation of the First Chapter with the Autocommentary and with Elaborate Comments. Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra Research Publication 4. Patna: Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra."

If you can track that down, hopefully it would be the whole first chapter.

thanks for the amazing work. I know about this book. But this book is copyright protected and is not available online.

Have you tried looking in the library catalogs of nearby universities?

I'm in a country where the nearest university library which has this book is in a different country.


text:
Did the Buddha break his promise?
In MN 138, the Buddha said this:

The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you a statement & its analysis. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated. When — his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned — from lack of clinging/sustenance he would be unagitated, there is no seed for the conditions of future birth, aging, death, or stress."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.
Then, not long after the Blessed One had left, this thought occurred to the monks: "This brief statement the Blessed One has made, after which he went into his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning

I thought the Buddha always kept his promises. Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?

I don’t see where he promised to analyse...

Those are two sentences. Perhaps the first is the statement and the second the analysis.

Also in the Pali it's a single compound word:

Mendicants, I shall teach you the analysis of a recitation passage.
uddesavibhaṅgaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi.

uddesa

recitation, instruction; indication; brief indication, brief statement;
summary exposition instructing, specifying; inviting; food for a specific person

vibhaṅga
distribution; division; classification

So maybe there's no promise of a separate analysis -- it's just the word they use, like "explanation" or "dhamma-talk" or something like that, and this one happened to be a very short one.
Also I wonder whether uddesa is necessarily always verbal (apparently they often are, so often that one was expected) -- whether this might be a teaching-by-example instead of a verbal analysis.

From the MN 58 quote below, we see that the Buddha has a sense of proper time for saying things which are factual, true and beneficial.
So, we can only surmise that the Buddha gave a statement without its detailed analysis, to give the monks time to think about his statement, before explaining to them the detailed analysis at a proper time, later. Why is that? It's because he has compassion for the monks.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.
In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."

That makes sense.

He did analyze it. His exposition was to return to his hut and simply move on without being externally or internally bound. This is very similar to the Zen story about kicking over the water jug.

When Master Guishan was under Baizhang, he had the position of tenzo [cook]. Baizhang wanted to choose a master for Great Gui Mountain in the province of Konan. He called the head monk and the rest of his disciples together to have them present their views and said that the outstanding person should be sent.
Then he took a water jug, put it on the floor, and said, “You may not call this a water jug. What will you call it?”
The head monk said, “It cannot be called a wooden sandal.”
Baizhang then asked Guishan. Guishan immediately kicked over the water jug and left.
Baizhang laughed and said, “First monk, you have been defeated by Guishan.”
So he ordered Guishan to found the new monastery.

The Buddha's analysis was straightforward and direct. Effectively he told us to understand this teaching ourselves through direct insight and ongoing practice, without further ado, and certainly without extra babble.

First, a disclaimer: I cannot give assurance that this answer is found in Theravada Buddhism, as your question is tagged, nor am I answering the question in the title. I am answering the question you pose at the end of your description: “Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?”
The Buddha said: “I will teach you a statement & its analysis.” He did not say that those were two different things. In fact, the statement is the analysis of itself. It tells us how to investigate. Investigate what? Investigate the Dharma, that which the Buddha was teaching. He gives directions on how to do it, by training our mind so that it is not externally, nor internally fixed, and therefore without attachment to views or understandings (sustenance) that feed our discursive thoughts.  For example, by being attached to the understanding that analyzing a statement is something done in a procedural way, rather than by an intuitive insight about its meaning.
Here is a quote from the Mahayana, found in the Surangama Sutra:

Ananda, if you are now desirous of more perfectly understanding Supreme Enlightenment and the enlightening nature of pure Mind-Essence, you must learn to answer questions spontaneously with no recourse to discriminating thinking. For the Tathagatas in the ten quarters of the universes have been delivered from the ever returning cycle of deaths and rebirths by this same single way, namely, by reliance upon their intuitive minds.”


text:
Is it bad karma if you say something that turns out to be false?
In DN 27, the Buddha said that the Brahmins make bad karma for speaking falsely.

“Actually, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins are forgetting their tradition when they say this to you. For brahmin women are seen menstruating, being pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding. Yet even though they’re born from a brahmin womb they say: Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ They misrepresent the brahmins, speak falsely, and make much bad karma.

So my question is do you get bad karma if you say something you thought was true but turned out to be false?

No. When it comes to lying, bad karma is not related to the actual truthfulness of what was said.
Rather, it comes from intention. Speaking the untruth intentionally is bad karma and a violation of one of the five precepts. Please see this answer for more details.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

From Iti 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."

I still don't know the answer. The last sentence does say, literally, "false" (not "divisive") speech -- i.e. "musā ca bhāsanti". So the logical implication seems to be, either that Brahmins speak falsehood "intentionally", or that bad karma is made even without that intention?

@ChrisW It appears that the Pali term used here is indeed about lying although it's not clear to me from the context of the brahmins' statement on how it's about lying.

@rht You could ask the question directly on Buddhism SE. It's a good question.

You should not say things which will turn out to be false or is false intentionally. However if you have said something which turned out to be false unintentionally then it is alright.
Honesty and integrity are the hallmarks of the followers of Buddha.
Sometimes a person is a pathological liar... he doesn’t know that he is lying... he believes that whatever he is saying is true. In such cases it is necessary to reprimand him so that he doesn’t get into or put others into big danger...you can call lying intentionally as bad karma ...

Kamma forms when (1) there is intention, intention of ill will, intention of causing others to quarrel (2) you do it, you really speak in such (3) the result, the speak causing quarrel as it intended to be.
ALL above 3 need to happen to form a bad kamma.
Thus, say something you thought was true (with no bad intention) but turned out to be false due to everything are conditionally arises/ceases, is not a bad kamma, and you do not break the precept.
However, a note here - are you sure "your thought were true", were your intention sincere? were your intention compassionate? were your intention good for you and others (both)?
Referring to Dhammapada 1st verse :
Mind is the chief forerunner of all evil states.
Experiences are led by and produced chiefly by the mind.
If one speaks or acts with a corrupted impure mind,
Suffering will follows just like the wheel of an ox-cart when the ox pulls.


text:
What are Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?
There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists.
One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false.
These are the two steps

Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness)
Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity)

I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity.
Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find.

The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats."[4] In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000).[5] He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma.[6] Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus:
"The unquestioned authority of the Vedas;
the belief in a world-creator;
the quest for purification through ritual bathing;
the arrogant division into castes;
the practice of mortification to atone for sin—
these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men."

So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?
I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas.

Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

I don’t see how authorlessness can lead to 0% defects and 100% accuracy... are you saying that vedas are a compendium of human knowledge which was modified as new knowledge came in ? If so why haven’t they incorporated Anatta? Anatta is real. Any text which fails to incorporate it is either false or incomplete.

@Sacrificial I'm only stating what the Vedantists believe. Moreover that was not the point of question.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I added the [tag:reference-request] tag -- answers without a reference are off-topic, not an answer.

@ChrisW thanks man for the edit

Maybe modern philosopher Wittgenstein 's  Private Language Argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument) can help explain why a book written in human-sharable public language must have author(s) in the same category of human. Imagine we human are much more advanced than birds, we can know anything birds know, but not vice versa, but we cannot write anything in language or symbols to communicate with birds. As the old saying goes "ghosts in hell see the same water as perished dirts to avoid", so ghosts in hell cannot understand our word "water" as same or similar as ours...

@DoubleKnot this is a beautiful comment. Wittigenstein's theory is subtle and sophisticated. Your application of that to this is wonderful. Kudos.

This excerpt from DN 13 may answer your question sufficiently.

“Well, of the brahmins who are proficient in the three Vedas,
Vāseṭṭha, is there even a single one who has seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers’ teachers seen Brahmā
with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has anyone back to the seventh generation of teachers seen
Brahmā with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, what of the ancient hermits of the brahmins, namely Aṭṭhaka,
Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṅgīrasa, Bhāradvāja,
Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, and Bhagu? They were the authors and propagators of
the hymns. Their hymnal was sung and propagated and compiled in
ancient times; and these days, brahmins continue to sing and chant it,
chanting what was chanted and teaching what was taught. Did they say:
‘We know and see where Brahmā is or what way he lies’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that none of the brahmins have seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, and not even the ancient hermits claimed to know where he is.
Yet the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas say: ‘We teach the path
to the company of that which we neither know nor see. This is the only
straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to
the company of Brahmā.’
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.
Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front:
the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last
one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’
statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the
first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one
does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void
and hollow.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to
them and beseech them, following their course from where they rise to
where they set with joined palms held in worship?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins
proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of
the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct
route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun
and moon’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the
company of the sun and moon.
But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which
they neither know nor see.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.

This doesn't answer the question. I'm more interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like, in response to the authorlessness of Vedas.

Moreover the Vedantists would not say no to the question that Buddha asked. Vedantists hold that the ancient rishis all saw God  and were given Vedas. So the answer would be yes, the ancient Seers have seen and experienced God or Brahman

The answer to my question is supposed to be there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika by Dharmakirti. I could not find it.

A large section of the Tattvasangraha is devoted to arguments for and arguments against the reliability of the Vedas. The Tattvasangraha by the 8th century Buddhist Shantarakshita is an eight-century works detailling on the various philosophical systems from around that time (including both Buddhist and non-Buddhist).
From Wikipedia: “Śāntarakṣita defended a synthetic philosophy which combined Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and the logico-epistemology of Dharmakirti into a novel Madhyamaka philosophical system”.
The first couple of verses of the arguments against goes as follows:

All this is the product of the false pride of the twice-born people. There is no truth in this, even by the slightest change.—(2352)
Even though there is no author, the Veda cannot be regarded as saying what is true;—because it is devoid of those excellences in its source which would make it truthful;—just as in the absence of defects, the word is not regarded as false,—(2353)
It is only in the case of the works of persons that the question arises as to whether the excellences are there or not. hence there is no need for such an enquiry in the case in question; and we have not the slightest idea of there being any excellence at all.—(2354)
Thus, inasmuch as the causes of truthfulness and falsity,—in the share (a) of wisdom and mercy and (b) of absence of mercy, etc.,—are not there, the said two qualities cannot belong to the Veda.—(2355)
Thus the Veda is reduced to futility,—like such sentences as ‘six cakes’.—If it be argued that “meanings are actually comprehended (from Vedic sentences), in respect of actions and active agents”,—[the answer is that] there may be such comprehension in cases where there are explanations supplied by men,—as in the case of the doings of Urvaśī,—even though the words (of the Veda) by themselves do not really convey any such meaning at all,—as held by you.—(2356-2357)


text:
The five incurable actions

"There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."
AN 5.129

If someone tries to kill an arahant, Buddha or their parents but they don’t get hurt even a little bit, do you still go to hell for “attempting” to kill them? Or is it only incurable if you have succeeded in killing them?

Since going to hell is a dangerous experiment to conduct, let's focus instead on what we can all verify. In particular, note that action conditioned by ignorance in body, speech or mind cause pleasure and pain to arise.

AN4.171:1.1: “Mendicants, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
AN4.171:1.2: As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
AN4.171:1.3: As long as there’s a mind, the intention that gives rise to mental action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. But these only apply when conditioned by ignorance.

Killing is a bodily action. Thinking about killing is a mental action. Therefore, just thinking about killing a parent will cause pain and suffering. The difference between killing and thinking about killing a parent is that one cannot unkill a parent. But one can relinquish the thought of killing a parent--even if that thought arises again. And in relinquishing the thought of killing, one can also gradually relinquish ignorance. In this way, thinking about killing a parent is like standing on the edge of hell, leaning forward.
For those who fall into hell there is slim hope.

MN50:21.1: Then Māra Dūsī took possession of a certain boy, picked up a rock, and hit Vidhura on the head, cracking it open.
MN50:21.2: Then Vidhura, with blood pouring from his cracked skull, still followed behind the Buddha Kakusandha.
MN50:21.3: Then the Buddha Kakusandha turned his whole body, the way that elephants do, to look back, saying,
MN50:21.4: ‘This Māra Dūsī knows no bounds.’
MN50:21.5: And with that look Māra Dūsī fell from that place and was reborn in the Great Hell.

Once in Hell, the pain lasts for a very long time as one struggles to emerge from Hell. There is no "parole". There is no doctor nor cure (atekicchā). A sentence to Hell must be served in its entirety.

MN50:23.2: For ten thousand years I roasted in the annex of that Great Hell, experiencing the pain called ‘emergence’.

Eventually, Dūsī served his sentence and was released. And eventually, Dūsī became known as Moggallāna, one of the Gautama Buddha's chief disciples.
So rather than jump into Hell for ten thousand years, perhaps it is better to pull back from the precipice to Hell. Perhaps it is best to restrain and relinquish unskillful thoughts.

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already
low, degraded, and misdirected as they think:
Yo so, gāmaṇi,
yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ
dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:
‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed,
or annihilated!’
His foes kill him and finish him off, and  when his
body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The
Fallen’.
SN 42.3

From the sutta quote above, we see that the warrior who strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) in battle, is already deep in the low, degraded and misdirected mindset of killing.
Similarly, just having the fleeting thought of hurting the Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's mother, killing one's father or causing a schism in the Buddha's sangha, is not sufficient to be considered an incurable action.
It's an incurable action only when one strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) to commit those heinous acts, regardless of whether he has actually been successful or not, just as in the case of the warrior in battle.
So, yes, even an unsuccessful intentional and deliberate attempt to perform these wicked acts would be incurable.

The OP asked in the comments to the effect of: What about Angulimala who killed many humans and attempted to kill the Buddha, but eventually became an arahant?
When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.
So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.
It's just like the difference between intentionally killing an unknown woman who the killer did not know to be his mother, and intentionally killing his own mother knowingly. The latter carries more terrible consequences than the former.
Please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote:

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

Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.

The sutta below clearly shows that merely thinking about hurting Ven. Sariputta did not cause karmic consequences for the yakkha.
However, intentionally striving and exerting himself to hurt Ven. Sariputta caused the yakkha to experience karmic consequences, even if Ven. Sariputta was not successfully hurt the way he intended him to be.
This shows that striving and exerting oneself results in karmic consequences, whether or not the intended action reached its intended outcome.

And on that occasion two yakkhas who were companions were flying from
north to south on some business or other. They saw Ven. Sāriputta —
his head newly shaven — sitting in the open air. Seeing him, the first
yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to give this contemplative a
blow on the head."
When this was said, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of
that, my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A second time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A second time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that,
my good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
A third time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A third time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that, my
good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
Then the first yakkha, ignoring the second yakkha, gave Ven. Sāriputta
a blow on the head. And with that blow he might have knocked over an
elephant seven or eight cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But
right there the yakkha — yelling, "I'm burning!" — fell into the Great
Hell.
Now, Ven. Moggallāna — with his divine eye, pure and surpassing the
human — saw the yakkha give Ven. Sāriputta a blow on the head. Seeing
this, he went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, said to him, "I hope
you are well, friend Sāriputta. I hope you are comfortable. I hope you
are feeling no pain."
"I am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a
slight headache."
"How amazing, friend Sāriputta! How astounding! How great your power &
might! Just now a yakkha gave you a blow on the head. So great was
that blow that he might have knocked over an elephant seven or eight
cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But all you say is this: 'I
am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a slight
headache'!"
"How amazing, friend Moggallāna! How astounding! How great your power
& might! Where you saw a yakkha just now, I didn't even see a dust
devil!"
Ud 4.4

Then how did Angulimala get cured? He still killed a lot of humans and attempted to kill the Buddha

The sutta seems to be suggesting that if you die while thinking “ ‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’”, you would be reborn in hell.

How can you be guilty of ie matricide if your parents are alive? Degraded doesn't mean degraded to the point equal to that of having done. If the two were equal then the act has no karmic potency and is ethically neutral. Wrong answer, proven by contradiction. If you were correct then Angulimalla would not have been able to become an Arahant because he tried to kill the Buddha, it is said that he exhausted himself trying to kill the Buddha and initially planned on murdering his mother iirc.

@Usefuldonut When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.

So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.

@ruben2020 He did not know it was the Buddha but that doesn’t matter. The Buddha is still Buddha. If someone kills an arahant, thinking it was just a normal monk, he would still be destined to hell because the monk turned out to be an arahant. However, if that arahant uses his psychic powers to completely prevent the killer from killing him, then the killer is not destined for hell because he didn’t kill the arahant.

@Usefuldonut please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." (AN 6.63). Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.

I can see where you're going with this. It might have been helpful to include how sankharas play a role in determining an outcome, since sankharas are per-conditioned internal troughs or grooves where thoughts, speech and actions naturally incline themselves. These three aspects lead to actions (karma) which in turn render a new conditioned situation, which in this instance one might call the apayas or the woeful realms.

@Max The important word here is intention or cetana.

I assumed you would be able to fill in the gaps. My apologies.

@Max Are you trying to describe how intention arises in the mind? This is discussed in other answers like this one discussing the relationship between vitakka, vicara and papanca i.e. chains of thought processes.

Usually, one who fails in following his intention, based on wrong view, sees himself right after his fail in hell. Think on crazy people after destructive things now hold back in performing them material. Likewise a person who desire to hold on wrong view, but fails to get approve. This, reflected, might release not only from the target of the adept here but also from it's underlying similarity. Just look right here, good householder.
Kamma has three/four ways of progress, by body, by signs, speech in order a deed, by rejoice and approve. Destruction and harm in one of those ways has it's hellish results. Not having a gun or not reaching out being handicapped doesn't prevent from kamma. Otherwise education camps and prisons would be good ways to make ways of people generally better.
Btw. holding on grave wrong views is the sixth, a 'problem' most modern people have, incapable to get the Dhammas track.
So take care when thinking gaming is just a game and watching movies and news just entertainment.


text:
Your mind accusing you
How do I deal with my mind accusing me of something I’m not doing?
For example, if you are walking, and your mind tells you that you are killing insects or bacteria, how do you deal with it?
Or
For example, if your skin gets itchy and you want to scratch but your mind tells you that you are killing ants or bacteria that might be causing your skin to be itchy. Your original intention was to scratch your skin because it’s itchy but your mind tells you that you are going to kill insects or bacteria that might be on your skin, you don’t listen to your mind and scratch your skin anyway. Is this bad karma?
Sorry if this is hard to understand. I try to make it clear.

Bacteria do not appear to be "breathing creatures" therefore appear excluded from the 1st precept.
The 1st precept is about intentional killing therefore excludes non-intentional killing of insects.

The commentary to Dhammapada 1 precisely addresses the topic of unintentionally killing insects:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala (who was blind) came
to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha.
The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you
had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living
insects. Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he
could have no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." .....
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

Kamma is tied to volition, the precepts are there to establish minimum guidelines for "good" behaviour, but try to understand the why. As Dhammadhatu pointed out, the first precept relates to intentional killing, it exists to prevent actions based on hatred and ill-will, which generate bad kamma, i.e., more hatred and ill-will. If you are not acting out of hatred, then you are not conditioning your mind to indulge in hatred and so are not generating "hate-kamma".
As for dealing with your mind, remember that you are not your thoughts. Don't be afraid of them, see them arise and pass away, don't delight in them nor be ashamed of them. And, more importantly, be kind and patient to them, thought patterns are a habit which can be unlearned, but only through patience and understanding.

My friend, you are "thinking too much"...:)
"thinking too much" is a Volition in 5 aggregates, this is when our thinking is out of dhamma, out of 4NT, out of N8FP.
Try to bring your thought back to knowing exactly what your body is doing, aware of what your body is doing and nothing else.  Ask yourself "what am I doing now?" if your mind is cloudy.
Hopefully, your mind will back to it calm state and out of the "thinking too much" mode.