text:
Is the seer and seen different? Example i saw tree . tree and "me" are different? Or tree and "me" are same?
Is the seer and seen different?
Is th watcher and watching different ?
Is the observer and observe different?
camera and picture  are different ?
For example
I saw  a tree?
Tree and "me" different?
Tree and "me" same?
It is very difficult question.
Please correct if  i use wrong grammar

My mind say.we are mirror. But this is  philosophy. Not experience

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because its Hinduism

My dear friend.  Hindu ,muslim, Christian,buddhism. it is clothes . Please  you are Not cloth....You wear muslim cloth,buddhism cloth,Hindu cloth.this is not you .This is not your identity.

A self, a tree are merely concepts - they don't exist in reality. Ultimately one cannot go out and locate a tree or a self. What exist is experiences; the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking.
When you see a tree, there is a seeing going on, ie. the visual process - there is the eye sense faculty and its corresponding object which is light. The idea that it's a separate you or self that is seeing a tree is merely an idea, a mental formation.
In reality there is no seer behind the seeing. There is an object and mind arising to that object at any given moment. This can clearly be seen in Vipassana meditation.

It is the people who rely on the commentaries, like [REMOVED BY A MODERATOR], who talk a lot about  ''doer''
They say that being enlightened is when there is no doer, instead there is ''pure action'' or ''pure phenomena''.
for instance Mahasi quotes this

Thus one realizes that feeling itself is what feels the plea- sure
  associated with pleasant sense objects and so on. We con- ventionally
  say with regard to the appearance of feeling, “I feel.” 512 In order
  to point out that there is no doer apart from actual phe- nomena, the
  commentary says that feeling itself is what feels. 513

https://wisdomexperience.org/academy/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Manual-of-Insight-for-Course.pdf
The pali word they use is ''Karaka atta'' http://www.abhidhamma.com/Mahasi_anatta.pdf
you have to read all their texts to know what they say about ''a doer''.
Their obsession with the doer comes from their lack of understanding the baya sutta, where they cram their view of lack of doer, instead of lack of craving, because the popular view is that ''people suffer because they judge, so when they do not judge they do not suffer'', and ''phenomenologically'' it would mean that there is no subject-object, ie no doer, but only phenomena .
If you want a sutta talking about doer (or lack of doer) there is this
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do
  you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4]
  clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. [5]
“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ...
  is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of
  steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is
  there an element of endeavoring?” [10]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings
  clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

Bikkhu sujato translate attakāro as ''one's volition''

Thanks bro ......

I would say this represents a conventional view, to be balanced by an ultimate view for which there is no doer. Not arguing, just noting that these quotes do not settle the matter.

You may as well ask: is the left hand the same as the right hand? Both are part of a greater whole, both work together to tie a knot, sure. But that knot wouldn't get tied if the two hands were the same.
When you see a tree, there is you, there is the tree, and there is the awareness that you are seeing a tree. That last is like a knot that you and the tree tie together, forming the basis of a mental object. If you rise to the level of the non-dual then the boundaries of identity disappear; there is no you, there is no tree, and that knot of a mental object unravels.

Bro great .. ..


text:
How are "all types of beings originally formless"?
How are "all types of beings originally formless"?

p100 The Sutra of Hui-neng, Grand Master of Zen: With Hui-neng's
Commentary on the Diamond Sutra

I'm asking because this page [quoting His Highness the Dalai Lama] says

Immediately thereupon, the intermediate state begins—except for those
  reborn in the formless realms of infinite space, infinite
  consciousness, "nothingness" or peak of cyclic existence, for whom the
  new life begins immediately upon death

If we all are originally formless, then our original nature has no intermediate state, while our unenlightened state does.
How can that be?

I'm unable to understand the question. How can an original state have an intermediate state? How can an unenlightened state not have an intermediate state?

The pull downwards into form, into the unenlightened craving for identity, is driven by craving. Craving leads to grasping and then to rebirth.

SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition.
SN12.23:4.7: And what is it?
SN12.23:4.8: You should say: ‘Continued existence.’
SN12.23:4.9: I say that continued existence has a vital condition.
SN12.23:4.10: And what is it?
SN12.23:4.11: You should say: ‘Grasping.’

In contrast, moving upwards skillfully, we have practice that leads to the formless and beyond:

SN46.54:15.9: The apex of the heart’s release by equanimity is the dimension of nothingness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.”

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Software Engineer not challenged enough at work, feels like wasting my time
I work as a software engineer. I've been working at this workplace for around 2 years. But, I don't find the work challenging enough (just boring bugfixes only). Given that I spend 8 hours at my workplace, I probably do just around 3 hours of productive work. I think I am wasting my time. Is it bad if I want better work ? Should I consider this as my aversion and just continue with my work ?

All Buddhism is going to tell you on this issue is that you do not have to suffer your way through it. You have a number of attachments:

An attachment to your job, which may be due to loyalty, fear, a sense of personal responsibility, etc
An attachment to having challenging (meaningful, fulfilling) work
A set of self-identification attachments, in which you envision yourself as more successful and productive than you actually are

There is nothing wrong with you staying in this job and continuing to do this work. There is nothing wrong with you deciding to advance yourself (either by finding a different job or by working for advancement within this company). The only problematic thing would sitting in this state of dissatisfaction because you cannot resolve these competing attachments. So, contemplate these attachments a bit to try to get at their root; meditate a bit to clear your head. Then make a choice, and trust it's the right one.

Examine feelings to understand inclination and motivation. In particular, pay attention to neutral feelings, which yield to ignorance for the unaware. Neutral feelings are very subtle and seductive.

MN44:27.2: “The underlying tendency to greed should be given up when it comes to pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency to repulsion should be given up when it comes to painful feeling. The underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.”

Fixing bugs does not happen in a vacuum. The bugs are part of larger problems and contexts that need to be addressed. People are always involved. Take an interest in the larger purpose of your work, its impact on the world and how you might work with others to apply your skills in a broader context. To do so requires an open heart.

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

Write open source code and talk more with people to understand their needs. Live and work with your heart.

I work as a software developer myself and I can relate to that ,I used to get attached to making better features and also thought that I wasn't productive enough ,like spaced out ,this is perfectly normal ,and according to dependent origination everything happens for a reason ,including the feelings you are having towards the subject ,maybe you felt burnout from prior constant work .
What I learned is that I was a perfectionist and there was a desire to showoff or prove myself as I was a junior dev ,and this over time lead to burnout ,I figured out I was too concerned about it ,actually all feelings are possible ,any work situation is possible ,bugs can always be there ,even if it was long time since they showed up ,basically don't narrow yourself to what you should always do to fix life,life is not code.
If you don't know what to do ,then thats the case ,you don't know what to do ,you don't need to constantly know what to do,its not natural to always know what to do.

I think Buddhist doctrine is just that work (or anything else for that matter) isn't going to be perpetual bliss, if what you're looking for is:

Constant novelty
Permanence
Praise
Comfort
Ever-increasing wealth, leisure, power, fame, etc.

According to the canon isn't it better to become a monk instead, and to practice that full-time?
And if you want to evaluate the work you do, evaluate it on the basis of, "What is right, what is ethical? What course of action may 'benefit self and others'? What will I not regret, what is it that will cause 'no remorse'?"
This answer referenced some of the kind of advice there is about lay livelihood in the canon.

Is it bad if I want better work ?
Not necessarily.
There may be a distinction between "craving" (which is always unwholesome) versus "desire" -- which is sometimes wholesome, especially if desire for something "virtuous" (like enlightened behaviour).
See https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=chanda
As well as whether it's virtuous (e.g. compassionate) people might also distinguish between whether it's "skilful".
So a "skilful" kind of desire might actually do the things that would be necessary to arrive there, to achieve that ("achieve" is perhaps also known as "finish" or "to have accomplished, completed").

What "matters", possibly, is the inter-personal relationships ... the people you work with.
You phrased this as a question about desire/aversion which can seem very internal/solitary.
And software engineering can seem impersonal: working only with machines.
But it's people who we work with and for, people we benefit, people we're kind to or not kind to, people who'd consider us a co-worker or not, people whose lives are affected (or not) somehow.
Does work benefit someone -- are they glad you do it?
Does the work give an opportunity to live -- and to live peacefully?
Is it an unethical waste, not just of what you want to be doing, but of what you might and should be doing?
Maybe that's a slightly broader question to ask.
If you continue to do it then will you experience "remorse", i.e., "I 'should not' have done that, it was morally wrong"?
Another thing that matters is, who are you with? Are you with good people, bad people? Because -- both from personal experience and because the suttas say so repeatedly -- I think that you become a better person if you spend time with good people (and, unless you're enlightened, worse if you spend time with bad people). So I think it's probably judged fine and proper to want to find and keep "good company", to develop "good" friendship.

As always, Ted Wrigley's answer is brilliant and a great starting point for mine ;)
In the final perspective, there is not much difference between suppressing your aversion on one hand, and leaving in hope of finding a better place, on the other. Both are the actions of samsaric mind - called "monkey mind" or "hunting dog mind" in Zen.
What really matters is being true. Until you learn to be true, you will keep recreating these situations, over and over again.
Being true is what's called "finding your true self" in Zen, or "Mahamudra" in Kagyu.
When you master being true, you no longer make these half-choices that create these situations of conflict between "should" and "can". You are 100% authentic. If you leave - you leave 100%. If you stay, you stay 100%. First of all, in your own mind.
More importantly, when you are true every step along the way, these kinds of situations do not arise.

"True" has two meanings that I know of: a) not lying; b) something like as used in the phrase "No true Scotsman". And I think I didn't used to find the latter kind of usage really precise enough, to be understandable and reliable guidance, when I tried to understand Buddhism via modern authors' paraphrases. And I mix with that the idea of sunyata, of things being or not being true (their true selves, real). So I didn't used to find this kind of answer helpful: too pointy-at-the-moon perhaps, insufficiently grounded possibly.

Not lying to oneself. In sync with things-as-they-are. With no hindrance in the mind.

If you have been there two years then you are still probably considered a "junior developer".  Next time you have a review with your boss, ask for a more active role.  You probably have a good understanding of how the code works.  Suffering is not about being bored, it is about wanting to do something else AND not doing anything about it.

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


text:
Is upaya a lie?
According to upaya, the doctrine of 'skillful means', as it appears in the Lotus Sutra, was the Buddha lying when he said that there are three vehicles? Presumably he knew there was only one: so why wasn't his deception evil?
I am referring to the claim in e.g. the parable of there being three chariots, when there is in fact only one. Or  Shariputra's claim that he thought he was "deceived" when believing he could not be a Buddha.
I believe it's generally characterized as "deception" according to the scholastic tradition that is based on the lotus sutra.

In a very meaningful sense, every action of the Buddha whether of body, speech, or mind was upaya: skillful means. What's more, every utterance of the Buddha was an approximation of the truth when heard, understood, and conceptualized by sentient beings. This is necessarily so because all conceptualizations are mere approximations and are by nature deceptive in that they are tainted by the ignorance of sentient beings.
The only way to the real truth - untainted by conceptualizations and elaborations - is via direct perception of emptiness. This must be experienced, not just inferred or understood by way of explanation, even if that explanation is coming from an Enlightened One.
The real truth is the utter emptiness of inherent existence of any existing thing. Because nothing whatsoever has inherent existence that leaves only conventionally existent things. The problem many people have with upaya and understanding how it is not meant to mean a fictional contrivance as opposed to some other more truthful thing is that: there are no things that are inherently existence so in this sense... ALL existing things are fictional contrivances; they only have illusion-like existence.
I'll repeat this because it is hard to understand: take rebirth being described as an 'upaya' that the Buddha uses only to guide people into right behavior. The subtle conceit of many who think this is that the Buddha really didn't believe in rebirth and that in actuality rebirth doesn't exist and it can't be the case that Napolean was reborn as Donald Trump. They believe that the Buddha wasn't being 100% truthful when he told Ananda that he once was Jotipāla in a past life. However, he was being 100% truthful, but this truth is a conventional truth just like the God describing a cup of liquid as ambrosia, a human describing it as water and a hungry ghost describing it as pus. All of these are conventional truths and none of them are false. There isn't some ultimate perspective unbound from the context that will distinguish which one is right. In the Lotus Sutra this is the situation that is being described.
Insofar as all conceptualizations or elaborations are mere approximation of the truth and tainted by ignorance, then you could say they are only illusion-like truths. But have no doubt the Buddha's actions - all of them - are Noble and motivated purely for the benefit of sentient beings.
Evil does not enter into it. That is a category error. Karma is a universal law much like universal physical laws. There is no great scale or moral arbiter dispensing justice or punishment based on moral judgements of karmic actions. This is just a wrong conception of what the Buddha was after when describing karma and dependent origination. Often western peoples who grow up with the cultural traditions and religions of monotheism where moral absolutes are a result of judgement by a higher power struggle with this. The Buddha never understood or intended to describe the law of karma as a form of universal justice or punishment for moral laws given from on high.
You can judge karmic actions based on the fruits they produce. Do they lead to suffering? To happiness? Do they have benefit? Do they harm? What has been empirically found is that actions that are undertaken out of pure motivation - cherishing others in combination with wisdom - are of benefit and bring happiness. Similarly, actions undertaken out of selfish motivation - cherishing oneself in combination with ignorance - are harmful and bring suffering. The Buddha is the personification of perfect motivation and perfect wisdom.

The starting point of Buddhism is the idea that everyone begins in a state of ignorance. It is our ignorance that creates tanhā and dukkha, and it is the cessation of tanhā and dukkha that brings about wisdom and enlightenment. But ignorance, by its nature, comes in a multitude of forms. Your ignorance is not the same as my ignorance, his ignorance is not the same as hers, theirs is not the same as ours...
Upaya is an acknowledgement that we are all working out of different bubbles of ignorance, and that — so long as we are trapped in our own bubble — different tools might be 'skillful' for the context of ignorance we happen to be trapped in. Even tools that are not entirely correct might be sufficient for the state we are in. For instance, someone deeply attached the sensual world, filled with urges and cravings and jealousies, might find a more structured, disciplined environment useful (sravakayana); someone more critical and mind-oriented might find it hard to accept and embrace doctrine, and might find an independent path useful (pratyekabuddhayana).
There's no value judgement to this; it makes no sense to think that your ignorance is right and my ignorance is wrong. And we don't want to commit to a one-size-fits-all policy that helps some more than others. In that sense, upaya is a form of compassion, because it allows for the differences in our misunderstandings so that all can see progress.

Very good answer. To this I would only add that upaya is usually a simplification. For example, Santa Claus is a simplification of ethics. It's used as a stand-in for something more complex that the student is not ready to understand yet, designed to function similarly to the real thing (e.g. good behavior leads to good results etc).

Ted Wrigley's answer is the right one in my opinion, and I will just quote an example here.
One person may still have self view and is therefore within the ignorance bubble or "world" of self view.
In SN 44.10, Vacchagotta, who had deeply entrenched self view and who was then incapable of understanding dependent origination or anatta, asked the Buddha whether there is a self or there isn't a self.
The Buddha did not want to mislead him by saying there is a self (i.e. eternalism), and also did not want to confuse him by saying there isn't a self (i.e. annihilationism). The Buddha could also see that Vacchagotta was not capable of understanding dependent origination and anatta at that point in time. So, he just kept silent.
For such persons, the Buddha employed skillful means (upaya) by teaching reflections such as the one below so that they may abandon the habit of misconduct and cultivate virtue.
This is skillful means because thinking "I am", associating self with the five aggregates and pondering a future state of self (such as rebirth), is based on conceit and also self view. However, the Buddha still employed it in a skillful way, despite it being inconsistent with the higher practice associated with anatta.
Telling lies to mislead others for malevolent reasons or for personal gain is just like injuring others with a knife. However, in this case, the Buddha is using the "knife" like a skillful surgeon to remove the tumour of misconduct. This is teaching the right view with effluents according to MN 117.

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

Meanwhile, for a more advanced practitioner like Bahiya, the Buddha taught anatta. This is teaching the noble right view according to MN 117.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
Ud 1.10

His upaya wasn't a deception, not evil, and definitely not a lie. Say, one takes up Taekwondo, Judo, and Karate. Are they 3 different vehicles? yes (meaning there're different forms, methods, and techniques). Are they one vehicle? yes (meaning the ultimate goal is the same, maximizing one's survivability in combat and perfecting one's character).

not my downvote, but this just reads like an opinion and is -- imho -- a mischaracterization of the one vehicle

But saying that the Buddha lied when mentioning the 3 vehicles, or it's ok to lie just for the sake of Upaya, IS a mischaracterization. Do you think that the Buddha lied in the Lotus Sutra? I don't think so, as per the analogy mentioned in my post.

no, i don't think so.

it's a disanalogy though because the goal is the one vehicle

no, the goal is not the vehicle, it's where it leads you to. The raft is not the goal, the shore is.

i mean the goal cannot be reached with judo

"The “Expedient Means” (second) chapter of the Lotus Sutra says, “The Buddhas, utilizing the power of expedient means, apply distinctions to the one Buddha vehicle and preach as though it were three.” It also says, “In the Buddha lands of the ten directions there is only the Law of the one vehicle, there are not two, there are not three.”
Nichiren Buddhism Dictionary
It's a question of tailoring the teaching to be most useful to the person given their stage of realisation. Thus in Mahayana there are the 'Three Turnings of the Wheel' - each suitable at their level. But it's all one process and one teaching.


text:
Object of Focus for Mindfulness (Non-judgment)
In the context of modern mindfulness, one should pay attention to awareness non-judgmentally. I have tried this, and wondered whether it is possible to do so without an object, e.g. the breath. Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of this movement in the West, advised in one of his talks/books that one should keep with the object for a long time, even years.
What is the effect of attending to awareness without any object, merely being non-judgmental to what arises? Is there such a thing?

You’ll quickly lose you focus.  It’s kinda like the white dot in the midst of yin.  Without some energy holding it up, passivity falls into oblivion.

How one can be aware without any object? To be aware or mindful means to be aware/mindful of something, isn't it? Therefore, in the context of Buddhist meditation one can choose an object like breath or body and fix attention on it or be aware of it, while it changes from moment to moment (in-breath/out-breath, body sensations etc.). One can also be aware of the "present moment", which means not focusing on anything specific, but maintaining open field of awareness and registering whatever enters that field (again: breath, body sensations, but also sounds, thoughts, emotions, internal commentator, smells, tastes etc.). Anything that natural flow of our everyday experience brings to us. And then comes in the other element you mentioned, our reactions to these experiences, which can also be an object of our non-judgemental awareness. Observing these reactions is much more beneficial than focusing only on the experiences of the so called first order. By becoming aware of these reactions we first of all see which one of them increase our frustration and which one contribute to our inner peace. By learning that, we can slowly start changing these reactions and thus transforming our life.


text:
Is there any authentic Chan Buddhist lineage operating in the West/Europe?
I mean Chinese Chan Buddhism, not Japanese Zen or Korean Seon. If not, what is the best course of action if one wants to become a monk in Mahayana Buddhism, but not in Theravada and not in Vajrayana? I am especially fond of Master Xuyun, are any of his disciples still around?

There's only two Ch'an lines active in the West that I know of, the first one founded by Hsuan Hua. Its headquarters are in California. It has branch temples, for the West mainly in the US, listed on this page.
The second is the Western Chan Fellowship, who actually list Xuyun in their lineage, and has branches in the US and Europe.

this is a good answer: 'authentic' is loaded unless we're talking about lineage

The answer was great indeed. As for authentic, loaded or not, there are authentic and inauthentic practitioners and lineages, Xuyun mentioned the degeneracy of dharma and decreasing human potentialities several times in his dharma talks. I would like to practice in a serious environment, there are far too many abusive teachers around. Btw, does anyone know if the current teacher of Western Chan Fellowships is 'controversy free'? https://www.westernchanfellowship.org/about-the-western-chan-fellowship/teachers-of-the-western-chan-fellowship/#c1843

There’s an Obaku lineage in NJ.  It’s not purely Chinese, but definitely more “mainland” than it is Japan.
Of course, unless you’re looking tie back into your family’s culture, does the nationality really matter?  Sitting is sitting.  Your legs hurt the same if you’re speaking Chinese, Japanese, or English.


text:
Am i physical body?
Physical body always change with time.
But I can't say this is me because  I am not child now.
I am Not teen now.
I am lose with time slowly slowly.

Your physical body counts as one of the five aggregates (skandha-rupa). As such it's considered impermanent, a source for craving/clinging, and therefore problematic to be identified with.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html

Buddha said people take at least one of the five aggregate as self. Which is called the five clinging-aggregate. This is one of the wrong views or Sakkhaya Dithi. It appears you take mind (one of the five aggregates) as the self.


text:
Is buddha's paths corrupt as no one attains the goal nowadays? (or are they?)
Anyone reaching nirvana in recent years?
People practise buddhism for many years but no one achieves nirvana. No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā). The only theories Buddhism offers are anātman, nirvana, and the five aggregates, so my question is this: Is the Buddha's path corrupt, because no one achieves the goal?

I wonder why you suppose nobody reaches the goal, especially as the Buddha tells us we call all do this. I would suggest the question is based on a false premise. .

Good question, the popular buddhism is not the correct path to Nivana. That's the simplest answer.
There are many famous teachers (even in this forum) but they haven't achieved Nivana. Most of them have reached some Dhyana but its not aarya (noble) Dhayana. So they have misguided them self by the state of dhyana they have.
Keep looking if you have reasons you will find the correct dhamma. In next 10 years noble dhamma will come out.
With Metta..!

Since many do not talk about attainments it is difficult to ascertain who has reached Nirvana, but there those who have practised fully would have realised it. This is a conjecture on can reach by taking the 1st few steps one reaches certain milestones in the path.
If you consider more milestones than the final goal itself there would be many more people who have reacht it.
Some milestones one would encounter are as follows:

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan
Ones own practise will reveal to you what as further one practices more milestones are reached.

Unsure of the reasoning behind your question...
Can we simply deduce that,  the way to grow a plant is false simply because we couldn't find a plant on the moon?

Is buddha's paths corrupt?
That's difficult to answer objectively. Are you referring to the path which is:

As preserved in the texts?
As embodied by successful followers or masters (perhaps aka the "noble" sangha)
As embodied by various other people you might point to?
As embodied by you?

No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā)
Sorry but I think that has ever been true by definition (and by nature) -- nibbana is anatta, having/being no self.
no one achieves the goal
I think the path itself is worth knowing and practising -- for example to make the cessation of suffering easier or more habitual, and to avoid the causes for its arising.
If the goal is the "greatest good" then the path which leads towards it is, I don't know, "better than nothing" as they say in English?
Complicated or lengthy to explain in detail but there are small realisations maybe like this one which seem to me to be significant:

So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing, not having been constructed (sankharaed)-- it was the result of not-doing, is not itself subject to ending and is a small taste of Nibbana.

There's more about "the goal" versus "the way to the goal" in the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).

I know for certain that there is one person who has achieved this lofty state of Nibbana. May I for now call him Ven. Jahn Galt?  John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is not identified by name in that novel until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer. What is important here for you and I, is that this Ven. ‘Jahn Galt’ who is an Arahant can show you the correct way. For example one correction I will make here. It is not ‘Nirvana’, but ‘Nibbana”.
Nibbana means freed from existential captivity or having existential relationships extinguished. The antonym is samsaric captivity. One who is captive in the circle of raga, dvesha and moha creates own existential relationships for survival and goes adrift. All three binds of captivity are like strings woven together (bāna) causing samsaric existence to continue. Nibbana is the outcome of eradication or uprooting of all three strings of the bāna.
For your next main question, YES, the 'Buddhism' that is known to us in the present day is CORRUPT. It is high time that this corruption is shown as there can be at least one or two of you can then attain Nibbana in this very life.
As expounded by the Buddha, the Buddha Dhamma that discusses the noble path toward the attainment of Nibbana is known as Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma (pati – bond; ichcha – desire; sam – 3 fetters – lobha, dvesha & moha; uppãda – arise). To comprehend the four immovable truths (chatu ariya sachcha), the knowledge of the Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma is indispensable. Gaining of true penetrative wisdom, to grasp the reality of life (or existence) as it is (yathābhuta gñana), is possible only through full comprehension of the four immovable truths. This is not about gaining the full extent of theoretical knowledge or learning but rather, attaining a penetrative deep experience that exceeds the dimensions of conventional wisdom while transforming one’s attitudinal inner view on life/existence.

Nice bro.......

It's a good thing Ayn Rand is dead, or I suspect her head would explode.

"It is high time that this corruption is shown..." Followed by not explaining what this corruption is or where it can be seen...

@Muuski I think it's saying that the corruption is, "gaining the full extent of theoretical knowledge or learning", instead of the Buddha Dhamma which is, "Gaining of true penetrative wisdom, to grasp the reality of life (or existence) as it is (yathābhuta gñana), ... through full comprehension of the four immovable truths" and "attaining a penetrative deep experience that exceeds the dimensions of conventional wisdom while transforming one’s attitudinal inner view on life/existence".

I have achieved nirvana. But it took me 4 years of practising extreme ascetism. I took cold shower everyday for 2 years and practised semen retention in those 4 years. There comes a day where you think you might lose yourself, your body, your mind. It's hard to unlearn all the wrong teaching of childhood. Once you are in state of jhana you feel some electromagnetic current inside your body. To achieve this sensation you need to practise semen retention and have strong moral codes. Once you go 4th jhana the perception disappears and something else takes place. There's no pleasure but you feel like you are downloading awakening from the universe. After it's completion the truth becomes crystal clear. I cannot explain these things in words because it can be only explained though experience. World,  worldy people appears same but your consciousness feels very different. You can't relate to anybody, there's no attachment. In this state of nirvana, all you are is pure consciousness. You will find it yourself. If you want to achieve it then there are only two codes : 1. Very strong moral. 2. Semen retention. Everything else will fall into place itself. Lastly, remember 8 noble fold path is very real in this practise.

I’ve been retaining semen for 29 years!  How come I’m not enlightened?  I know.  It’s these damn ovaries again, isn’t it?


text:
Who judges Karma?
I know the Buddhism does not believes in the existence of personal god.But if it is the case that there is no personal God who is capable of interacting with his own creation,then who/how to determine(s) whether a person/creation has done/involved  something which can be treated as bad/good aspects of Karma ?
In Buddhism Karma refers to the actions driven by intention which manifested itself in physical, vocal or mental form which leads to future consequences(having  a moral character).Also the cycle of rebirth determined by this Karma.
If this decision is made at the end of one's life,who/how are these decision made by an impersonal force.How can these forces do anything?Doesn't it necessarily requires a 'personal being' to judge?And who is the final judge of a Karma?

Think of karma like gravity. Nobody decides when and where it operates. It would be strictly deterministic in its workings. For Buddhism the world is law-governed. . .   .

@PeterJ Yes.Thanks for the response.

@Malavika May be this question would help you How does Karma works?

No one judges karma, and karma does not require a judge for it to work.
It's a natural law: what you sow is what you reap. Your actions set up potential for future arising of either conflict and discord or peace and harmony. If you create causes of conflict, you reap (all or some of) their results. If you create causes of peace, likewise.

On the contrary, personal gods are quite the norm in Buddhism, and many of them interact with humans regularly. Read more Buddhist sutras and you may notice this as well.
If you drink poison or medicine, there is no need for an external agent to determine what effect it will have on you. Its effect will be determined by both its nature and the disposition of the one affected.
Lord Yama is the god that holds the office of judgement, but this role seems to be a play on the manifestation of karma that occurs by natural processes anyhow. He is an interlocutor. If a human teacher can inform you of what is right and wrong, and scold or praise you, certainly a deity can do the same, regardless of his or her position in the universe.

Karma works without a judge. It's as much cause and effect as the moon orbiting Earth because of gravity or the wind blows leaves. Karma is.
Karma also has effects on this life, even in the short term.

The answer to this really depends on what you are thinking of as judgment.
If you are speaking about the sensation that is experienced as a result of an intentional act of thought, word or deed, then you are the judge (before the fact). As you intend to create experience of pleasure, you will experience pleasure; as you intend to create experience of pain, you will experience pain; as you intend to end kamma, you will experience neither pain nor pleasure.
If you are speaking about the intensity of such experiences of sensations resulting from your own actions, then, I suggest that this too is a matter judged by yourself, but yourself at the highest perspective - that will be, from the Buddhist point of view, the view closest to the Four Truths, or, stated another way, it will depend on your degree of detachment - in your experience. Here you will find that a change in perspective also has the power to change the experience. So you not only judge, but you are in control of the sentence. The danger here, and you did not ask about the danger of judging, is that the further the foundation of your view is from the highest, the harsher will be your own judgment of yourself. The fully developed compassionate heart is very forgiving.
If you are speaking about the material manifestation, the 'form', (e.g., an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) that results from your intentionally created pleasure or pain or experience without pleasure or pain, then this is something that is beyond the scope of most people to determine. I have a theory that it is the collective wisdom of all beings since the beginning of time, but that is just my view.
See: http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_10_dasakanipata.htm#p75
For a warning concerning attempting to judge such matters before you have experienced the full maturity of awakening. One of the 'fruits' of arahantship is this ability.

That time has no beginning and so no judge as well, is a quality of wisdom of one has reached the path already. Other beings have other views since unthinkable times, yes, and will mostly continue as well.

Kamma (action) & vipaka (results) is merely a neurological mechanism.
For example, you get angry or become violent towards another person. When you are self-righteously angry or violent in a survival instinct mode, adrenaline is pumping through your nervous system therefore there is a sense of euphoria when you are angry or violent. But when the social situation/circumstance ends and the adrenaline & euphoria also ends, the stress of the anger & violence inwardly remains. Then you suffer from stress & tension and possibly regret & remorse. This is merely a  neurological mechanism following natural law.
For example, you have wrong view about sex and believe women are sexually equal to men. So you have sexual fantasies about imagined insatiable women (with equal insatiable sexual voyeurism as men) and watch pornography, generating both feelings of pleasure & motivations of lust. But due to continued wrong view & repeated exposure, the sense of pleasure decreases but the unfulfillment of lust grows. Therefore, you suffer from frustration and are reborn as a hungry ghost because you can't get enough pleasure to satiate your building of frustration, restlessness & lust. You try to justify your wrong views with an attachment to a literal reading of the 3rd precept in Buddhism but you remain reborn as a hungry ghost. Eventually, you meet a very lusty woman who validates your delusions about sex but, soon after, this woman gets pregnant, enjoys having children, as has more children. Her natural reproductive lusts wane/ease but, due to your wrong view, you still believe women are sexually equal to men. Your wife, however, no longer desires much sex, you fight, yet divorced, you lose your money to the ex-wife & children, and you spend the rest of your life having sex with prostitutes, about who you continue to believe are sexually equal to men. The prostitutes tell you that your ex-wife was abnormal and you believe the prostitutes, believing they are Buddhas because they can have sex with an empty emotionless mind. This is natural law.

Opponent-process theory is a psychological and neurological model that
accounts for a wide range of behaviors, Every process that has an
affective balance, (i.e. is pleasant or unpleasant), is followed by a
secondary, "opponent process". This opponent process sets in after the
primary process is quieted. With repeated exposure, the primary
process becomes weaker while the opponent process is strengthened.
According to opponent-process theory, drug addiction is the result of
an emotional pairing of pleasure and the emotional symptoms associated
with withdrawal. At the beginning of drug or any substance use, there
are high levels of pleasure and low levels of withdrawal. Over time,
however, as the levels of pleasure from using the drug decrease, the
levels of withdrawal symptoms increase.
Opponent-process theory

So now you say about insatiable women, earlier you said about impermanence women. Have you changed your view. If so good for you.

Sounds like you can't read the English language very well.

Unfulfillment about sexual lust etc. might be true due to adaptation, but to say that a woman's sexuality wanes after she had enough children, is an over-simplification, over-generalization & even sexist, as it portrays women as being only reproductive machines. Correct me if I misunderstood.

Also, your argument about the lusty men ends up in a complete slippery slope argument, as you only mention the bad results. It's also what's called catastrophizing. Men & women alike can feel high levels of sexual desire without consciously thinking about children. The immediate (biological) cause might be reproduction, but it's also done because it's pleasurable & we see more advantages in doing it than disadvantages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/cognitive-distortions-definition-of-catastrophizing

Keep justifying porn addiction and similar lust addictions & fantasies. Its always impressive how PASSIONATE the comments become to maintain the image that women sex objects. The Buddha taught to view women as "mothers, sisters & daughters".

@Val Correct me if I misunderstood. I think that Dhammadhatu has specific examples in mind based on his several personal experiences, and generalises somewhat from there, selects references to quote which might appear to support his theory or view, and doesn't take at all kindly to his generalisation being contradicted even in the slightest, saying that to even question what he wrote is to "justify porn addiction" etc.

This is natural law. Hey, DD -- I thought that was a pretty graphic example, kind of horrific -- I wondered where it came from and questioned how even a Bodhisattva might tolerate exposure to that kind of suffering well enough to be able or willing to help "save" the person in question. Then I thought, perhaps the Buddha already has done what they can -- since the text is a product of your imagination, and you have evidently heard the dhamma given that you're able and even keen to repeat it. May you be well...

So if I view a woman as a mother or sister, do I not somehow objectify them? We always objectify; it's called heuristics. Porn has been used for many thousand years (even in ancient times, but it's irrelevant) & it's not because men want to degrade women but to stimulate fantasies in both. I see no direct cause in watching porn & 24/7 viewing a woman as a sexual object ONLY. Let alone in violating their human rights. That's jumping to conclusions. I am well aware that a woman is a complex being, with all the five aggregates, but this thought might not be always in front of the mind.

Furthermore, even if I lust after a woman because I decided not to live a monk lifestyle, it does not follow logically that I'll act violently or harass her. There is a stronger correlation towards sexual advances, that's true, but even this is not guaranteed. Humans have the capacities to learn not to act upon their desires. You DD seem to demonize porn & we see were this leade: Christian churches & even some monks sexually abuse women & children. And no, porn doesn't cause guilt either. It's the Bible that tells them to feel guilt. Only thoughts can "make" you feel guilt.

The Sigalovada Sutta states that "a man provides a woman with adornments". I could too now see this as sexist, or alternatively, I can acknowledge the cultural time & that a lot of women like adornments. Also "handing over dominance" is also somewhat vaguely stated. I am pretty sure in ancient India it was the case that men were seen as superior, but this could be viewed as another extreme, or it could perhaps mean, handing authority with regards to household and/or children's matters. Why does it mention being courteous to her? The women might not? I am being obv provocative here.

Things are seen as "sexist" by Cultural Marxists rather than by Buddhists. Even today, a husband should give his wife gifts.

A quick research on Culture Marxist with Google unfortunately confirms your unreliability & biased view. Just look for yourself. Wikipedia even states that's a conspiracy theory. By the way, between Buddhist & "Cultural Marxists" is a grey area. A lot of people are found there. Being more tolerant or liberal doesn't mean to embrace a laisses-faire attitude, DD. Your errors come from catastrophizing & over-generalizations. Two common cognitive distortions.

OK. Then the ideas posts are simply heretical and wrong view. That is probably why many Buddhist bloggers don't have a relationship with a woman & are addicted to pornography, leading to the lower realms, such as hell.

Not having a relationship might have various reasons. Lack of being assertive, emotional problems about approaching women.. you name it. Addictions is not magically caused but by our "musty" thinking. Everything that   acts as an escape such as porn is not the best answer to deal with one's problem, I don't ever said that, but as fallible as humans are, people need to relax and if they sometimes escape, I'd say it's ok if done in conjunction with questioning one's beliefs.

Sorry but I am reliable and not biased. Men with right view will marry women in the right way for the right purpose. Men with right view don't follow the Cultural Marxist way of "approaching" women for sex.

People can use all kinds of things as an escape, but they'd better be aware that they are often just temporary one's. Changing one's thinking is key and demonizing porn is actually.. well I dont want to start that again

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Do Buddhists talk about insides?
Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'.
But do they talk about "insides" at all?
I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I think you must be thinking of 'middle'. Things have beginnings, middles, and ends. And yes the suttas are filled with discussions of all three.
"It was not until I had thoroughly understood the six senses, the origin of the six senses, the satisfaction of the six senses, the problem with the six senses, the end of the six senses, and the way to the end of the six senses, that I knew of myself that I had attained the highest attaining."
Buddhism also discusses 'inside' vs. 'outside' or 'internal' vs. 'external' which is more easily understood as 'personal' vs. 'impersonal'; subjective versus objective.

interesting reply, thanks

there is 'mutual inclusion' as the middle, right?

Just occurred to me, in terms of "middle":

Each of the ten realms or worlds are contained within each realm, the
  "mutual possession of the ten realms" (Jap. jikkai gogu).

In Tendai. Whereas in Huayen

Samsara is reality as experienced with dukkha. Awakening of Faith in
  Mahayana presents these aspects as mutually inclusive and inseparable.

The aggregates of mind and body, being ever subject to cause and effect, as we saw above, pass through the inconceivably rapid moments of arising, presently existing, and ceasing (uppaada, .thiti, bha"nga), just as the unending waves of the sea or as a river in flood sweeps to a climax and subsides. Indeed, human life is compared to a mountain stream that flows and rushes on, changing incessantly (AN 7.70) "nadisoto viya," like a flowing stream.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html

somewhat helpful thanks


text:
Planting without soil & harm ideas: giving inspiration, motivation
My person thought of motivating, encouraging each other in supporting the foundation for meditation, complete Sila incl. right livelihood, if bound to house-life, viewing on the aspects of, planting food without soil & harm.
Maybe some of you here like to share each other not only motivation like:
Why could this be a good livelihood?
How could this be a good livelihood?
but also tips in how to do practical and simple without much material need and high tech.
How to do it for your own in least harmful way?
If wishing to share it foremost dedicated to the Sangha and it's devoted Noble followers, to have a change of higher merits, one can use the dedicated place here as well.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for a way out of that wheel)

Samana(if I am not mistaken) , If by " without soil & harm" you mean "my traces of bad habbits should not be there in devotees" then stop making or even a desire to make others your student or student of any human( one who is not enlightened) cause as a student,  we tend to follow our master's habbits.  Dhamma(right teachings)  is only teacher.
Along with this,  stop writing, "(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for a way out of that wheel)" everytime cause it gives creepy feeling of " someone wants to steal-away your ideas/theory or might blame you in future". Act independently,  act naturally, don't  bother about anything.  Old age is only to enjoy the merits of young&hot blood times not to be bound by bad or evil.

How can/could my person help good householder Alex? Nyom seems to be gravely stressed.

Thanks!  You asked me that's  enough.  You don't  need to struggle for me(well! not now).  Hope you are good in your health(mental & physical).  My metta to you & your enviornment.

If struggling for someone, would that help another or oneself, good householder?

Giving a metaphor-like answer on growing in Dhamma without soil (Nissaya) is also fine, if Nyom likes to give a useful share for his fellows here.

No need for me atleast!  helping hands, if raised with healthy mind induces good vibrations in oneself & another.

If so, then good to modify your Introduction text.

It all starts with food.

AN10.27:10.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’ Becoming completely disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding this one thing, seeing its limits and fully comprehending its meaning, a mendicant makes an end of suffering in this very life.

To live, we must eat. And since we have physical bodies, we need physical food. That food must also eat and is sustained by conditions. There is much food on the Earth, but if we allow greed to take it all, then we starve. And die.
Because the food we eat must itself also eat, we have to provide harmonious conditions for a sustained abundance of food. We need to understand and practice permaculture, which is sustainable and ecologically aware agriculture.
And this brings us to the fifth peril of modern times:

AN5.80:6.2: In such conditions it can be expected that they will engage in storing up goods for their own use, and making obvious hints about digging the earth and cutting plants. This is the fifth future peril that has not currently arisen, but will arise in the future … These are the five future perils that have not currently arisen, but will arise in the future. You should look out for them and try to give them up.”

In many places today, humans practice slash and burn farming. Sometimes it  is blatant, as in the Amazon, where jungle is cleared for farmland. Sometimes it is subtle, where topsoil is consumed inexorably by imprudent and intensive farming. All these are unsustainable. Our children will starve.
But we can learn how to give back. We can learn how to sustain and feed the planet that feeds us. We can learn how to not to kill, not to slash and not to burn. We can all learn this. We all need to learn this. All of us need to understand this so that we can act for the greater good with awareness. This is not just about farmers and farming. This is a way of life for all of us to learn. With sustainable agriculture and gardening we can feed each other.
Try this one very simple, very difficult thing. Grow a plant that will feed you. It takes months to grow one head of broccoli. Try it. Try it with a friend. And when you understand how difficult this is to grow a single meal, you will deeply understand the heartbreaking importance of agriculture. It takes quite a long time and many helping hands to feed the world so it can feed us. Start now and help  feed the world. All the world. Not just humans. All the world.
Nurture the world or starve.

Regarding "planting without soil", I recommend Kratky hydroponics
method with soil in netpots. But that really is a thread for Gardening SE. Interestingly, hydroponics does address the "do not dig" prohibition of the Vinaya, but harvesting is still problematic from a Vinaya point of view.
Discussions are beyond the scope of StackExchange. For those interested, I've started another thread at SuttaCentral.net

Sadhu, so fare. maybe good to add that one uses most harmless food not to live at least, but to live on to escape the wheel of food and eater. May good householder feel welcome to share simple tips for simple people on the track to search for escape here:  http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9634.0.html maybe soon some pictures of very simple ways, yet practical.

Indeed. This is an enormous and deep subject. I am myself but a student of permaculture. I was shocked at how hard it was to grow a single head of broccoli. Yet that struggle has inspired me to devote what life I have remaining towards understanding and supporting permaculture and wholesome food. Let us all reach out to each other and help with this. We cannot do this alone.

"Nurture the world or starve." isn't right. Nurture the world and you stay bond. Nurture what is worthy to nuture lead to escape and nothing to worry of those who are not to be shown that any food involvs harm for other.

Yes. You're right. Nurture the world or starve is incomplete. AN5.80 discusses four other perils. There is much much more to be aware of.

"Let us all reach out to each other and help with this.", get your way for 4000 monasteries, and millions of Buddhist with simple and practical solutions, leaving harmful hightech behind.

The flesh of the Son. Nyom might know it, should be leading, no matter whether the Son is traced in a beefsteak or in a tomato. Yet better ways are direct killing are useful, of cause.

At the very least, read the suttas and become inspired to walk the Noble Eightfold Path.

Would you follow those wakling or already done?

So, it's time to leave this food center here again. Much succes in leavong home!

"hydroponics does address the "do not dig" prohibition of the Vinaya, but harvesting is still problematic from a Vinaya point of view.", also kammical when already perceiving it a living being. There are, how ever, many householder, who don't perceive it that way, so for them such ways are great. A monk (Bhikkhu) of cause can not harvest. But actually they could plant, without breaking Vinaya or unskillful action, if looking not to let living being in the water, sink into soil and die. Much success with Nyoms undertakings, and if wishing to help out directly and very practical, he knows where.

My person suggest the Ashrams helper today, that he can lead experiments in the middle of the forest next the futur lay visitor hall, if good householder likes to give him assistance, as monastery sample, he may feel welcome.

Excellent suggestion. And how might one contact the Ashram's helper today in the middle of the forest to discuss experiments with hydroponics?

If other would do all efforts for one, where would the place for his own merits? People think often given is from above to below but great merits wouldn't work that way.

Maybe good householder wasn't that attentive, since shared already before: ដាំដោយគ្មានដី ការចិញ្ចឹមជីវិតត្រឹមត្រូវ Planting without soil & harm Hydroponics, one way, in just one case.

I posted on the newsgroup. http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9634.15.html
I actually would recommend that monastics join a FB group such as https://www.facebook.com/groups/KratkyHydroponics/  since it was difficult to create informative posts on the sangham.net site

How could a monastic, if not alajji, if abstaining from not personaly given without strings, if not a householder in robes, ever join FB... and yes, own labor is harder then use others recources, rely on given is "harder" as to share taken, good householder. Also this is why there are small and great merits.

Alas, I have failed you. You will need to find your own answer. Please note that lotus flowers blossom in mud. FaceBook is just mud.

As if it would have been subjected for my person. Does Nyom think that it is proper to invest time in farming?. And yes, the Buddha askes one to come out of the mud first, leave home fist. It's like hydroponics. This area is called punna kiriya vatthu, the borderlands. Lotos also age, get sick and die in the mud.


text:
Recovery from Meditation
When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?
If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

The basic rule is more is better. After this it's a matter of practicality.

More is better.  Period.  If you want some nuance to this answer, once you start getting above three hours straight in your sits, you start to get into diminishing returns.
The untrained mind and all of its obstacles and doubts is like a game of whack a mole.  You’ve got to keep swinging, every day, if you ever expect to make any progress.

Meditation is recovery: a recovery period from the strenuous activities of thinking and acting and doing. You'll find that if you meditate extensively, even your need for sleep drops to a minimum, because neither your body nor your mind needs down-time.
Of course, if you meditate from a place of achievement, as though you are trying to accomplish something specific and are thus training yourself to be a superior meditator... Well, that can be exhausting in its own right, though it is a stage all of us go through on the path.
Don't be obsessive about meditation. Daily meditation is good, but putting more than an hour a day into meditation is probably excessive (unless you are specifically intending to go the monastic route). On a three-day, ten-day, or thirty-day retreat you might spend as much as eight hours a day meditating, and that's fine, but you should take breaks for meals, walking, and other bodily necessities. You can — technically speaking — meditate for as long as you like (or rather, for as long as you're able), if you have the proper support system. I'm sure you've heard stories of gurus and monastics who've spent weeks in meditation, being fed and cared for by devotees. But for the most part, you can trust your greater self. Once you've established yourself well enough that you can comfortable meditate for an hour or so, just forget about time. You'll go into the meditative state, and when it's the right time for you to come out of it, you'll come out of it. Big-mind knows better than little-mind what's needed; little-mind just has to come to understand that.

If u know about Middle way then this will not be a problem.overworking always cause to exhaustion , not working will always end in failures,......For mediation u have first  do a research about different meditation methods and their practices  and build proper basic understanding about it.After that it will  help u to find a proper teacher to learn the proper techniques and good practices.Then u will be ur own guide  and u will undestand and make ur own schedule according to ur state of the mind.................Lord Buddha Life story explain it all if ur undestand well.Even he also become a disciple of three teachers and learn all methods used in those time to create his own way.Which we call today the Middle way.


text:
Trying to Meditate Longer
I am currently meditating thirty minutes per day. I wonder whether I should meditate an hour instead or meditate for thirty minutes twice.
Basically, I meditate on compassion and after thirty minutes I'm not generating much of anything. I just sit there moving about on my chair, wondering about the time, etc.
Does this saturation after thirty minutes occur because I have always meditated this amount of time before? Or is it because I'm just not ready yet? In other words, are we used to whatever amount of meditation we're usually doing?
If this is so, would it be better to just always try to sit an hour if I'm capable? Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?

Joggers or long distance runners didn't just start out running for hours. They build up their stamina slowly and steadily over time. So use the same approach for meditation. Build it up gradually and don't settle for the 30-min achievement. It's probably too short for any significant deep absorption state anyway. There're advanced meditators who immerse themselves in deep absorption for days.

This is great answer.

Right Immersion is the eight stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is upheld and nurtured by the preceding seven stages of Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort and Right Immersion.

AN7.45:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these seven prerequisites for immersion.  What seven? Right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness.

Circle back and deepen the seven prerequisites. Then, naturally, immersion will deepen.

sadhu, sadhu! without cause no effect.

Please do not enter into competing with yourself mode. Pushing yourself to sit one hour just to follow the clock does not bring much benefit to us. It is just misusing our power of will. Instead, better try to listen to your mind when 30 minutes is about to finish. What does it say? "Ah, I'm glad I'm finished!" And immediately after that: "But I should sit longer!" And the struggle starts. This might bring an important insight into how with all these shoulds and shouldn'ts we create our own suffering. Once you understood that, just relax and stay sitting as long as it is appropriate for the situation you are in. Sometimes it's 30 minutes, other times 45 or 60. But whatever are the minutes, the benefit is the same if you manage to maintain this kind of awareness of your mind's work and than manage to extend this awareness also into the rest of the day. Good luck!

Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?

If you don't have good enough teacher, YES you should because you maybe get the problem and fix them yourself when the very long long time gone by. It is definitely better than watching TV.
However, if you have good teacher, NO you shouldn't because he will teach you the proper better faster tools to modify your living for the meditation, such as yoga before meditation, or body trick for longer sitting, etc. The meditation will be faster higher qualities and longer period by this way.

If your purpose of meditation is to achieve jhana, the quality of your concentration while meditating is much more important than the length of your sitting.
Jhana is defined in "The Path of Purification" as "The centering of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants evenly and rightly on a single object, undistracted and unscattered".
In order to approach this state of mind, one should try to eliminate any trivial thoughts and focus on your meditation subject in a period of time. So I think you should try your best to prolong the time you focus on your meditation subject without any trivial thoughts arising. Try not to resist or indulge in your thoughts. Just put them in the "background" once you find them. During 30 minutes of meditation, you may find that you can only concentrate for 5 minutes or even less. Making this concentration-time longer should be the objective.


text:
Do Mahayana Buddhists explain birth and extinction in the same way?
Nirvana is the extinction of rebirth, and birth is its arising. Right?
Is the debate throughout Buddhism on the "difference" between samsara and nirvana one of how to explain, rather than describe or reach etc., the two? So that when we read the Buddha say the two are the same, that means that they are explained in the same way, not that they appear to be the same thing.

From the beginning of the wikipedia article

In the Buddhist tradition, Nirvana has commonly been interpreted as
  the extinction of the "three fires", or "three poisons", passion
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā). When these
  fires are extinguished, release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) is
  attained.

I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment: a lifetime as much as the aggregates at an instant. Also, see 'dependent origination'.

Both the Sarvāstivāda [the Mahayana's tripitaka] and the post-canonical Theravāda constructed a
  radical doctrine of momentariness (Skt., kṣāṇavāda, Pali, khāṇavāda)
  that atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a
  succession of discrete, momentary events that pass out of existence as
  soon as they have originated

This is true of the Abhidhamma, see Karunadasa:

in the Pali Suttas, unlike the Abhidhamma, the notion of change is not
  presented either as the doctrine of momentariness or as a formulated
  theory of moments... the Pali suttas say that it is peculiar to the
  Abhidhamma.

And this from Charles Bartley

After the death of an enlightened one there is no rebirth

Or this from Keown

At the age of 80 he passed away into final nirvana, from which he
  would not be reborn

Moreover, non-abiding is likewise the end of rebirth. Tharpa:

Non-abdiding in nirvana in the irreversible cessation... of all rebirth

The Buddhists personalists -- which no longer exist and shared in much the same sutta basket -- believed not just that only a sentient being could create -- in series -- a new mind-body after death -- all Buddhists claim this -- but that something was the same during its life.

it is the pudgala that appropriates and sustains a body for a
  certain amount of time.

Thank you for the edit and the quotes are clear. I'm not sure I understand the question though. You asked, "Do Buddhists explain birth and extinction in the same way?" -- does that mean simply, Do all Buddhists and all schools of Buddhism have the same way of explaining what 'birth' means? Plus do they all agree on how to explain 'extinction'?"

You mention Mahayana and the difference between between samsara and nirvana. I guess that derives from Nagarjuna's saying "nirvana is samsara". As such that's not a topic which "all Buddhists" (nor all Buddhist doctrine, all explanation) are concerned with (especially "non-Mahayana" suttas), so ... for that reason too I didn't understand the question, where it's asking about "all Buddhists"?

ok i tried to edit it to clarify, sorry. it's quite a strange question, really

how / why has such a well referenced and clear question been downvoted so much?

I can't tell you. People downvote for all sorts of reasons. Maybe one downvote was left-over from when it was less clear, maybe another one was (I can only guess) due to its asking about Mahayana or rebirth or something, which wasn't what somebody to see in a question.

@ChrisW yeah i dunno, people have their opinions i guess

The idea in Mahayana is not that they appear to the same thing since if we are ignorant they certainly do not, or that they are explained in the same way. The idea is that they are not different things. As ever we can refer to blind men feeling an elephant.

There is no difference in manner or extent between the rebirth we experience from moment to moment and the rebirth we experience from life to life. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand the subtlest meaning of the Buddha's teachings on emptiness or anatta.
Therefore, think about what this means for your question. When an enlightened one first becomes enlightened and reaches nirvana does an enlightened one continue to exist from moment to moment? Does he not exist from moment to moment? Both exists and does not exist? Neither exists nor not exists? Whatever the answer... then to that exact same extent and manner an enlightened one will continue to exist from life to life. To say otherwise is to assert that something has materially changed such that after nirvana an enlightened one continues in that very life, but utterly ends or is annihilated at the end of that life. This cannot be the case. It would mean an enlightened one substantially existed or inherently existed in some way and that this ended or was annihilated at death.
It is important to know the manner in which the three poisons end. The real liberation comes through knowledge or the extinction of ignorance. From this, the other poisons are extinguished as they rely upon ignorance to sustain them. Nirvana is nothing more than waking up to the knowledge of reality as it really is rather than by perceptions and conceptions clouded by ignorance.
Think about what Nagarjuna is saying here:

It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does
  not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and
  does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.

Verse 17 and 18 assert that there is no distinction between the way an enlightened one exists from moment to moment as compared to life to life.
Verse 19 and 20 draw on the prior verses to show there is no distinction between nirvana and samsara. Nothing has materially changed except where before there was ignorance now there is knowledge.
It is like waking up from a dream even as the dream perceptions continue... there is no longer any doubt that one is perceiving a dream. Not one iota of doubt. The ignorance of the dreamer has been replaced with the sure knowledge of an awakened one.

this is a good answer, thanks. i agree with it. but it is also the buddha's "last life" -- am i not right there?

+1   In short for Mahayana all distinctions are conceptual, and this would include Samsara-Nirvana, It requires the reduction of all categories of thought. .

Short answer is no sorta_buddhist. If you post a new question I can try to elucidate a longer answer, but I'm wary of adding a lot in the comments as it is discouraged for a good reason.

I know really little of Mahayana doctrine, sorry.
For a start some people talk about "perception" rather than "appearance".
The "appearance" of a thing sounds like it's some inherent property of that thing -- which is contradicted by the doctrine on emptiness, isn't it?
Whereas "perception" talks about how (and/or whether) you perceive it -- if "appearance" sounds like it's "objective" then "perception" sounds more "subjective".
And I don't know but I guess that "nirvana is samsara" is a statement about perception -- that "nirvana" is a dualistic and value-laden statement, and therefore etc.
And is the vedanā doctrine related to that, or is that quite different?
But anyway that is (about "perception"), as well as possibly about "appearance" -- which I guess means (in a Mahayana context), "where do you draw boundaries which distinguish one thing from another?"

And the first part of the question asked about the difference between "explanation" and "description" -- but I guess I see no practical or significant difference between those two words, so, no go there.

You mentioned "reaching" too.
That might be a temporal statement. For example SN 56.11 talks about things which are "to be done" (in future), "are done" (presently), and "have been done" (see also "Perfect (grammar)").
The suttas talk of a gradual training (and step-by-step explanations).
I think that ("gradual") is true of Tibetan Buddhism too -- but it can be a subject of debate, so maybe different schools etc.
There's some Buddha-nature doctrine: I think one might consider whether that means that  things 'can' have -- or whether they 'already' have -- that nature.
You might see also this answer for one description (from Shin) -- possibly the Brahmana Sutta (about "going to the park") from the Pali suttas.

As for this ...

I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment

... then, "maybe yes, something like that ..." -- but that's possibly not the only truth. I think that traditional Buddhists see it (whatever it is) as being true over several time-scales -- moment-to-moment, life-to-life, even aeon-to-aeon.
Perhaps one (educated) view is that if rebirth is moment-to-moment, then "death" too is something of a fiction. Something like this answer -- What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth? -- which I think is Theravada, might be orthodox even if some people concentrate more or only on what's "evident" etc.
I don't much want to get into describing what or who is reborn. I think that the Pali suttas suggests that's "only suffering" -- Vajira Sutta.
Also "identity views" or "self-views" (including "I do or I don't exist") are an origin of suffering, and a thicket of views and a product of unwise attention.
Whether and when the Tathagata "exists" is famously "undeclared".
And that too might be "gradual", at least according to the Theravada doctrine, see e.g. How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
In Mahayana (and perhaps before) the existence or body of the Buddha came to be associated with the Dharmakāya.

this is a long answer, and it's not clear if you are trying to correct the question -- which i don't think does have any mistakes in it

Perhaps I was trying to address the question, as I read it -- but given your comment perhaps I still don't understand the question as you intended it.

@sorta_buddhist That sounds to me like a Physics question. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

ok well it comes down to a question on philosophy: whether we can explain the direction of irreversible events https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69398/can-real-events-be-irreversible because if not then birth and death -- as universals -- i'm sure have the same explanation. which in turn may suggest other key buddhist beliefs.

I think the Buddhist doctrine is that "sankharas are anicca" -- i.e. that "things-put-together are impermanent" -- which agrees with "entropy". Plus "dependent co-arising" about how things are constructed. Plus "emptiness" which (amongst other things) suggests that our definitions/perceptions of "things" are themselves fabrications (and to be viewed wisely).


text:
Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?
Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?
I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, place, ever be impermanent independent of the body?
Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

I need help understanding the question. The idea that Buddha-nature might be a variable seems odd to me. What leads you translate this as 'place'? It's a word that seems inappropriate for a placeless phenomenon. I'm a little confused as to what is being asked, but this may just be me. . .

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?

Yes and No. As Najarjuna stated: Neither one nor different (非一非異).
Also as the Heart Sutra stated: Neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increased nor decreased, therefore formless in Emptiness it is; no Taking, Thinking, Conducting or Cognizing; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; nor vision, sound, smell, taste, touch or phenomena; no dimension of eyes so forth even no dimension of consciousness; no ignorance also no ending of ignorance, so forth even no aging-death or ending of aging-death; no suffering, aggregating, cessation or the path, no wisdom also nor has any attainment. (This supposed is addressing to Śāriputra. But only few understand who or what is "Śāriputra" in the Heart Sutra. Xuanzhang translated it as 舍利子, not 舍利弗, the later is common translation for Śāriputra.)
Because this "Buddha-nature" is not an object or concept, anything the human mind capable of conceiving is not it. Like you can draw the moon, photograph the moon, look at the moon, but you cannot touch it or hold it in your hand. You might argue that the spaceman can touch the moon. But no. Think about it, he is only touching the moondust. Therefore the teachings can only teach what it is not.

Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness

In the strict sense, we cannot talk about nothingness either. Many talk in our common language as if "nothingness" does really exist - see the mistake? Even the 7th Dhyana the Sphere of Nothingness, that nothingness is just a "pretence" - explaint by ancient meditation teachers in the Sutras. It is a kind of stoppage of mental activity or conceptual proliferation. Hence the Sutra said one died at the 7th Dhyana will be reborn in the Asamjnisattvah Heaven (the heaven without thought) and followed by the stupid animal realm.
Ultimately, talking about Buddha-nature perhaps a good exercise, but only seeing it gives the real taste.

All Arahants are the same mentally only differ from the appearance and skills. I can't locate the supporting sutta right now. The same applies to Buddhas. For instance, Paceka Buddha's can't teach Dhamma to others.


text:
Nature of True Cognition
What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.
In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.
Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?
So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.

The true cognition in Buddhism is tautologically defined as directly knowing and seeing things as they are.
The explanation of this is threefold.
First, this means a mode of cognition without a contradiction, not prone to contradicting evidence.
Second, it means a mode of cognition which, when taken as a  basis for decision-making and action, does not lead to conflict or suffering, but to peace.
Third, it is cognition that is an extension of the ontological nature beyond words, beyond generalizations and concepts, beyond discrete representation.
This last point means, this cognition is so featureless that it may seem like there's none, and yet it is actually a lot more accurate than our naive crude models we take for the truth.

What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth? Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process? I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.

The epistemology in buddhism is a tricky one, and does not easily lend itself to western philosophical concepts as far as i can tell. However, i see no claims within buddhism that the path to enlightenment is a strictly deductive practice. The onus is on the practicioner to verify dhamma through empirical (if you will) observations. For the latter, right mindfulness and right concentration plays a huge part.

In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.

It is increasingly important depending on what stage of enlightenment you are representing. However, true understanding is not the primary goal, but rather a consequence of relinquishing the fetters binding us to suffering.

Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?

I think it's hard, perhaps impossible to understand the immaterial realms/arupa dhyanas with concepts based on the material realms/rupa dhyanas. To nuance this, one can of course look into the several stages of dhyana for a more detailed rundown of the different progressive characteristics of concentration.

The truth of Buddhism is directly verifiable in the context of its objective, which is the end of suffering. Indeed, this is laid out in the Four Noble Truths.

SN56.15:1.5: “Sir, I remember that suffering is the first noble truth you’ve taught; the origin of suffering is the second;the cessation of suffering is the third; and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is the fourth.

Within this system of axioms, truth is indeed verifiable and deducible.
Conventional belief systems are rooted in identity view, which is incompatible with the four Noble Truths. In other words, if one assumes the truth of identity view, then it is a struggle to have faith in the four Noble Truths.
In mathematics, we must declare our axioms in any proof of truth. For certain sets of axioms, we end up with Euclidean, flat geometry. For other sets of axioms, we end up with hyperbolic geometry. Truth is therefore experienced relative to an axiomatic basis, which is nothing but a set of asserted beliefs. Truth is really about consistency and applicability. The utility and scope of any system of beliefs is its ability to predict outcomes verifiable through direct experience.
Cognition is therefore dependent on axioms, core beliefs held to be truths. And the fruit of that cognition is completely bound up with those beliefs. For those who believe in materialism, the fruit is that which killed King Midas. For those who believe in eternal life, death awaits unconquered. For those who believe in the four Noble Truths, the end of suffering is directly verifiable.
Indeed the practice of Buddhism is basically the gentle erasure of false cognition based on identity view. For if identity is nothing but continued existence of cravings, then one might skillfully wish and practice for the truth of:

AN4.198:15.5: living without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.

What is the nature of a true cognition in Buddhism, or what Buddhism considers as truth?
Upper-case Truth would be Being. As Aristotle notes, the only certain form of knowledge is 'knowledge by identity'. We can know what we are. All else is speculation.
Is it the same as what people consider a logical conclusion made with an empirical process?
Definitely not. You might have made a calculation error or misperceived the empirical facts.
I feel it cannot be exactly that as various truths exist in Buddhism that aren't easily verifiable with mere deduction.
No absolute truths are verifiable by deduction. This would be the reason why any purely scholastic metaphysics is hopeless, as history shows.
In addition, how important is truthful cognition/perception in Buddhism? How far can you get practicing things like mindfulness, compassion, etc. without being capable of ascertaining things as 'true' for oneself.
Well, we have not made much progress if we have not ascertained to some extent the truth of the teachings. As time goes by truthful cognition would be vital but it would not be possible at the start, prior to understanding something of the nature of Reality and the relationship between cognition and consciousness, so the best course is to not worry about deduction and just sit and wait to find out, much as the Buddha advises. I prefer to do the sums, but this does not bring 'true' knowledge, only good arguments for dealing with sceptics.
The proviso would be that it is possible, as Nagarjuna demonstrates, to demonstrate in logic that a neutral metaphysical theory is the only one consistent with reason. This is lower-case knowledge, but valuable and important nevertheless. It surprises me that more Buddhists do not realise that the teachings solve all formal metaphysical problems.
Finally, and I guess I should've asked this before, what effects/qualities does true information have in Buddhism? Is it timeless? Universal? Beyond doubt?
Yes, timeless, universal and beyond doubt. But only when we know it is. If we do not know then it is not knowledge. Think of it as an immediate knowledge of pain. When we have an immediate knowledge of pain we do not doubt it. Immediate knowledge of truth is incapable of doubt, only of incorrect interpretation. For the true sage their Knowledge is their living Reality, no more questionable than 2=2=4 and possibly less so.
So to clarify, these three questions are respectively asking the nature, the importance, and the consequences of truth in Buddhism.
It's a good question and much more could usefully be said. The essential point is that Knowledge is not a relative phenomenon. Rather. it is attained by a collapse of the knower-known distinction. Thus the Oracle's advice to 'Know Thyself' since then, apart from trivia, we will know everything there is to know.
Bear in mind that this is in some ways a Mahayana answer. Other traditions pay less attention to logic and metaphysics. In Buddhism we either know or we don't, and while performing calculations may tell us where the knowledge lies and give us confidence in the practice it cannot produce upper-case Knowledge.

The unfortunate truth about Buddhism is that the more you study it, the more it seems that no one can really figure out what is real anymore. Every expert has a philosophy that leads further away from the core and the core never seems to satisfy much because it contents itself to turn your quest for answers into a shell game, especially where celebrity experts on the subject concern themselves with your destiny. Why else would you entertain Zen when it doesn’t agree much with Mahayana? Are there at least two versions of Siddartha? More than one version of his revelations?
Hokkien Buddhists graft all sorts of rituals and gods into their Chinese religion. So do Tibetans, who received the religion after conquering China with the Mongols. They colour their Buddhas dark blue for their good luck and protection car stickers. So many people claim to be the next Buddha until they are caught in a scandal or fade into obscurity. It is whatever you want it to be as long as you don’t take anything to final conclusions. Just focus on getting a better karma score before your last breath, no matter how loose the definition.
Why not go to family court and see if you want to know what the nature of cognition is? There is so much that happens there, everyone there wants the truth.


text:
Giving not outside in relation to merits, how should this proper perceived?

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five?...He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower." An05.175

What does one think is meant here by gifts and by outside, the Sangha?
How would a wise understand it correct in line with the Dhamma?
(not sure if MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ might help for investigation the question on topic without going astray)
(Note that this has not been given for trade, exchance, stacks and stucks but for exit from this wheel)

I think this is merely a reference to a typical aspect of religious life. Whenever we have a body of people who dedicate their lives to religious pursuits — be they clergymen or monastics — those people have no means of support other than the generosity of lay people. This binds the lay followers and the devotees together: the lay followers put their hopes for salvation on the full-time adherents; the full-time-adherents get their subsistence from the labor of lay followers. Someone who gives donations to a different group is breaking that bond; that has an impact both on the community as a whole and on his own progress on the path.
Imagine someone who attends a Christian congregation, but gives a good part of his donations to a Hindu temple down the road. There are reasons one might do that, but it inevitably calls into question his commitment to the Christian congregation and Christian teachings as a whole. Is he trying to hedge his bets, in case the Hindus are 'right'? Is his boss Hindu, and he is trying to curry favor? Hmph.
It's often a good idea when faced with lists like this to focus less on the individual items and more on the common theme. The goal here is to convince lay followers to show a commitment equivalent to that of monastics, within their means. They shouldn't split their attention between this and that; sometimes being committed to the sangha and sometimes being committed to other groups or principles. If you think about it, it is difficult to violate any one of these precepts without simultaneously violating the others, and that is the essential concern.

re-, better just legion, boundage, yes. It's like marriage. Thoghtful answer, good householder. Just one thing: the goal isn't to maintain supply, but to bind them toward the same path, if not now and in this existance, then to lay out the conditions, Upanissaya. What ever is feed, inward, outward, that grows for one, that makes Upanissaya. Who cares much about Fremdgeher. All here not a matter of generosity but already Sila within a relation.

I dislike being called a 'householder'; please avoid that in the future. Archaic term...

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The word in question is dakkhiṇeyya.
Bhikkhu Sujato's translation

They seek outside of the Buddhist community for those worthy of religious donations.
  ito ca bahiddhā dakkhiṇeyyaṃ gavesati;

Curiously the Pali text doesn't say "outside the Sangha" or "outside of the Buddhist community" -- it just says bahiddhā ("outside").

It's not curious to gain no insight and inside if seeking for answers outside. Or does Nyom think that Sujato and his Kibbutz is any but inside?