text:
Need help with ordination questions
I'm a westerner, non-thai speaker, age 37. I want to ordain in Asia (not in the West) and then stay there for 5 years with a preceptor and then either continue to stay there or move back to Europe and live as monk but the problem is that not many placese in Europe have monks living. Also where should one ordain in Sri Lanka or Thailand? I read about Ven. Ajahn Chah who made monasteries for westerners to ordain but where should one stay afterwards?
Can one live alone after the 5 years or more and how would a lonely monk survive in Europe?
Thank you.

First thing to look for is the observance of Descipline(sila) and View(ditthi), since they are the first factors in the Threefold-training and Noble-eghtfold-path respectively. They are the most important criteria while seeking a place to ordain.
One can look for other qualities next, such as austerity, meditation  etc.
There are places that supports meditation, ordination and forest-practice with renowned masters, yet many of them either weak in Vinaya or View, as described in the texts.
Investigating beforehand about the View-alignment and Vinaya-alignment of the teacher and monastery is a wise way to make a decision.
There are some links that I could find addressing these issues but there can be more on the internet if one is willing to investigate.

Where to Ordain? Vinaya Comparison of Monasteries
Where to Ordain? Philosophy Matching
Hard to find Classical-Vinaya Protecting Monasteries in Thailand

Thank you very much Blake.

This is the best place whole over the world for you to take maximum out of your time as you wish.  Go to this site and go to contact page. "Nissarna Wanaya - Rev. Uduiriyagama Dhammajiwa"
You may come with full of bags but after completing your period you may go like free bird with empty hand. You let go all carryings with you. Remove ego completely and be happy forever. This is in Sri Lanka.  Also you can find western people practising Vipassana Meditation. May triple Gem Bless you.

Dear Sanath, again dear friend, thank you so much for your reply. I will check out the link you sent. May you be well and happy and reach Nibbana soon. This place looks wonderful and incredibly wholesome and secluded.

My Pleasure and you are most welcome. Yes this is very good place for the people searching freedom of life.  Me too recently find this community and I felt I can share my knowledge of dhamma for the sake of other people those who seeking help to find the reality of this illusion.  May you be able to find freedom of your life soon.  May triple Gem Bless you!!!

Also, If you are coming to Sri lanka let me know I can guide you to the place until you meet Rev. Uduiriyagama Dhammajiwa Theru. Tehre is no problem about your food and logging they all are provided by the people to the temples in Sri Lanka.

Thank you so much for your kindness - I will definitely contact you if I come to SL. I just found this website with many books by Ven. Dhammajiva. I'm downloading them as we speak and have read in several of them. He speaks fluent English, Sinhala and Burmese and has translated for Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw and he's highly trained in both Samatha and Burmese Vipassana meditation techniques. What an amazingly accomplished being.

Here it is: https://www.vipassana.org/meditation/dhammajiva/index.html.

Yes exactly, that is why I recommend rather than wasting time for different aspects a person who is searching for the ultimate realities the for noble truths as far as I know this is the exact place. I have to emphasise one thing Master can do only 25% by directing you to the correct path rest 75% in our hand.  Everyday they have sessions for clear your questions and occurrences explaining that you faced while you are meditating which is very important.  We Called that "Kamatahan Shuddhiya".  Also,  it helps you to discuss your achievements and further improvements.  this guidance is important

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

"Can one live alone after the 5 years or more and how would a lonely monk survive in Europe?"
One worry about life and making a living isn't fit to leave dependency.
And leaving home requires to do so, not seeking another, or not willing to abound "western". And certain strange if thinking on returning, or?

Thank you Bhante.


text:
Becoming a monk and having to give up electronic devices
When becoming a monk one has to give up most worldly stuff. I have saved hundreds of Buddhist PDF files and on my Kindle app I have bought all of Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhis books (translations on the Pali canon) so I can use those when becoming a monk and having to learn and study the Dhamma. What if I purchase myself an iPad before becoming a monk - can I then use that iPad with my books after I become a monk? If not, then how should one get access to the Dhamma?

Evidently some monks have access to the internet, for example. But (I don't know) perhaps they don't own those devices as their own personal property.

Thanks ChrisW. Since there are still some years before I'm able to ordain I will just study the Tipitaka until then so I'm less reliant on this issue.

Lord Buddha's preachings have no time period. Those teachings can apply past present and future. Buddhism is a philosophy that needs to deal with consciousness. It has nothing to do with physical items.
Using Ipad or Phone or Laptop is totally a deal that you make with your consciousness. If you use them to learn Dhamma with the permission of your teacher there is no wrong.  But you get the permission from the teacher to learn buddhism and you start watching movies or songs or gossips then you are breaking rules.
Being honest to "Sila" and to your heart consciousness you can use them in a valuable way to the society. You use them for the purpose and keep them aside physically. Mentally totally give up the ownership that makes ego which is very harmful for your future activities.  so mentally let it go. its just another collection of Ultimate realities just like you me tables trees. It has Chitta - 01[89 or 121 in activities], Chaithisika - 52, and Matters - 28, which comprises 5 aggregates [ Rupa Updana Skandha, Vedana Upadana Skanda, Sagna Updana Skanda, Sankara Upadana Skanda, Vinnana Upadana Skanda ].
They are not permanent. keep on changing and decaying. As a translator of buddhist books i feel you understand what I mentioned here. In Sri Lanka monks can use those with the permission of the Master Teacher.
May Triple Gem Blessed You.

Dear Sanath, thank you so much for this answer. That is exactly what I needed. I will only use the ipad to study the Pitakas that I've bought on it and have in my Kindle app. Thank you for telling me about the permission from the head monk or preceptor. That is the info I was looking for. I hope I can ordain in 2-3 years from now. May you be well and happy.

Actually I forget to tell you one thing this is the rule if you are ordain under Theravada Buddhism Temple and this is practising in Sri Lanka.  Because I know few of my friends ordain and staying remotely in meditation Centers ["Yogashrama"] while learning Thripitaka.  Their Teachers allow them to use those after classes.  Because this is a real deal with our heart consciousness. To gain a profit for us not to anybody.  So as we need to be honest to ourselves not to anybody.  May Triple Gem Blessed You!!!

If your primary interest is in reading books, particularly electronically, then just stay a lay person.
If you want to become a monk, choose a monastery where you know the resources exist to learn the Dhamma. If they don't have those resources (either through the people there or through a library), then you should find a different place.

Whether gross physical or electronic, one going forth neither takes from households with him on the path, the more abstains taking and using from what's not personal given to him.
Good to abound the traded and also thieved Dhamma and receive Dhamma in proper ways by one's preceptor and ancestors of this tradition, and proper given, rightly obtained, good householder.

Is a monk allowed to take what someone offers them, for example a mobile phone? Or is such a thing perhaps given to a monastery and so available for monks there to use, but not possessed by any monk?

The iPad is gifted to myself by myself. So I can use it when I become a monk. Is that okay?

Good householder Chris, although one might be able to receive such, one should be clear not having easy possibilities to maintain, burden to carry and carry a broad desired danger (as others might like to get such) with one. Sure better to place such into a community possession and never carry such along.

Is it ok if one leaves home to take such with one as one going forth, householder Daydream? My person would give someone much space, who left for higher and took refuge and a preceptor, yet not willing to let go of his house and all the dirt in and around it. But certain common under just common, seeking to build their next home with the noble traditions shelter. If having ipad and traded Dhamma as refuge, why burden those with faith into the Gems, and the Gems?

Keys, contracts, debts, relations, faults, stores, maintaining connection to the world... (hardly ever get it clean and proper obtained) all such are signs of householder.

@user24130. Okay I understand. Thank you very much for the answers.

Thank you, Venerable, for answering.

Not at all. I lived in India as a Vedic monk and we had a dozen of most advanced computers and electronic devices for studying and distributing Dharma. We didn't feel the burden of having advanced electronic devices because the were properly utilized. Monks can benefit from technology and use it to advance in spiritual life.

Thank you very much for your answer dear friend.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism?
Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism or is avoiding so called "heresies" enough to make sure you are not distorting, undermining etc., the dharma?
Take the idea of an afterlife.

Religious and spiritual traditions throughout history have explained that death is not the end of life but that some part of us, perhaps all of us, somehow carries on.

Buddhism is no exception to this. It is undeniable that the historical Buddha accepted the idea of rebirth. He spoke of rebirth and frequently described, sometimes in considerable detail, how actions committed in this life determine the form of existence in a future world. He also spoke of enlightenment in terms of how many times one must be reborn before one will be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Although there are instances in his discourses (the Kalamasutta, for example) where he says that the practice of dharma is meaningful, whether you believe in a hereafter or not, the overwhelming mass of evidence does not suggest that he held an agnostic position himself.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/rebirth-case-buddhist-agnosticism/
I personally believe that we do experience the karmic result of this life, and that the next life is impermanent, illusory, but for whatever reason (mostly that accounts of past lives don't convince me) I don't think anyone experiences full rebirth as a new life. This is not traditional Buddhism. But as far as I know it is still a form of Buddhism and not a heresy. This is not Ucchedavada or the Senika heresy, I think, despite seeming possibly like either.
To an extent, it doesn't matter at all if you're not part of a church or pushing your idiosyncratic beliefs down anyone's throat, but is it dangerous, for you or anyone else?

It is extremely unclear what you mean by "traditional" Buddhism. It is certainly very clear that Buddha himself spoke of past lifes and rebirths as next lives.

I'm confused hy what you mean, and think you are being overly rhetorical ("extremely unclear" to you?) and that's why. The Buddha talked about "future lives" which translates exactly as "next life". It is not the same life, but them the end of a piece of string or storm is not the same as its start @HomagetoManjushri

I mean that your use of the word "tradition" is very wide, in its scope and thus remains unclear what is that which you are referring to as 'traditional'

that kinda makes sense @HomagetoManjushri thanks for the reply. i'd hope there's enough conventional common sense on the site for me to understood by enough people to make sense to most. cheers

Understanding is always useful. However, we need to recognize that understanding is not permanent. Change is inevitable; growth is preferred. What we are so self-assured about now we will inevitable come to look at with a rueful smile. Or if we don't, we will have missed something crucial.
Traditional understanding is valuable because it gives us a scaffold on which true understanding can be built. Nothing can give us the dharma — we have to find it on our own — but traditional understanding sets the stage for it (as it were).
Traditional understanding is problematic because it leads us too easily into dogma. The dharma is a way of living, not a mere collection of teachings, but people (sad to say) want to be told what to do. It's a trap for the ego...
I'm secular: I don't hold to much of what Buddhist tradition says. But I also don't reject it, because I see a value in it (if not the value that traditionalists see). We have this moment in which to manifest enlightenment. There's no sense worrying about tomorrow, or next month, or next year, or next lifetime; that will all take care of itself, according to things beyond our reach and understanding. Try not to undermine the dharma now, and everything else will align itself.

We take refuge in the teachings, so it is important to know what they say:

MN117:5.1: And what is wrong view?
MN117:5.2: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Asserting "there's no afterlife." is simply wrong view. We put that wrong view aside and ask about right view.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?
MN117:6.2: Right view is twofold, I say.
MN117:6.3: There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:6.4: And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:7.1: And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:7.2: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

If the phrase "there is an afterlife" is uncomfortable to accept, simply consider that genes touch and join us all from generation to generation, from past to present.  Genes do very much influence our lives. So genes are a form of past life. Genes provide a form of afterlife in the literal sense "after this life". That fact alone aligns with Buddhist teaching and allows us to avoid worrying about other views traditional or not.
To take refuge in the teachings we have to study them and learn what they actually say.

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


text:
Can someone help me find where these suttas are from in the Tipitaka?
First text screenshot says MLD. 131. Where is that from?

Second text screenshot says M. 19. Where is that from?

Screenshots are taken from Ven. Dhammajivas book called Mahasi Insight Meditation.

The First one is from: BhaddekaRatta Sutta
The Second one is from: Maha Parinibbana Sutta
I have given you the links But you cannot find the Pali text in English.  I converted into sinhala and search with sinhala words and find the related English text for you.
Those two sutta's are little bit longer one's but worthwhile reading the whole context rather than the specific place to get the full idea. Also these links may helpful for you to understand many Buddhist text in English because it has Thripitaka converted to english.
May Triple Gem bless you.

Thank you very much dear Sanath. I really appreciate it.

You are most welcome my dear this is buddhism helping each other until achieve Nibbana.  My Triple Gem Bless you until you achieve your goals!!!


text:
Harsh speech and insanity
I am often harsh, though I don't think hurtful, in speech about others, because of my schizophrenia and psychosis. I often believe they are up to no good and need to be stopped verbally from doing that.
Can you advise on how best to work on that? I have not taken any precept that prohibits it, but then it is my default bad karma.

<3 haha. all is so strange

That people like you and me come out of it.

lonely fools? @DheerajVerma ha

Sometimes it is lonely. Sometimes it is crowded.

Can you advise on how best to work on that?

I think., you have stated the reason yourself as below.

I have not taken any precept that prohibits it,

Taking the precept is the best option that I can see.

but then it is my default bad karma.

Intention (action) is not a karma vipaka (result of past karma).
Intention is karma that gives a future vipaka.
Taking or not taking the precept is not a karma vipaka.
Taking the precept is a wholesome karma that gives beneficial results in the future.
Not taking the precept is an unwholesome karma that gives harmful results in the future.

I am often harsh, though I don't think hurtful, in speech about others, because of my schizophrenia and psychosis.

I guess Metta meditation would be a good remedy.

I often believe they are up to no good and need to be stopped verbally from doing that.

The Buddhist teaching is the world is not under the Authority of any one. Everything in the world is Anatta (devoid of hegemony). We can't control the world or change the world according to our wish. World is owned by causality. World functions according to the Dhamma-formulas.
Understanding the nature of the world makes our mind to work according to the Dhamma-formulas. Then we would not try to change the people in unskillful way. We can learn skillful ways of advising as well.
If you could read Nandivisala Jataka, then you would find the teachings on the drawbacks of harsh speech and obvious benefits of friendly speech.

Sometimes the idea of arguing reminds me of xkcd: Duty Calls (which kindly mocks that practice).
Conversely I think that Buddhist doctrine is more like this -- i.e. "Others will [...], but we will [...]".
A young Quaker -- i.e. a "pacifist" -- once told me, "I'll discuss anything with anyone; but if it turns into an argument then I [...] and walk away."
I think that gives you an option: to discuss, or maybe comment on a topic (perhaps to offer discussion) -- without a counter-productive argument that escalates into harshness.
When I think about "harsh speech" that I've very occasionally seen in comments on this site, I think that one of the remedies is:

To say what you need to say (e.g. to comment on an answer) but preferably without being harsh.
Someone might then reply to that comment.
At this point, don't forget you have a choice:

If your reply would continue a friendly discussion then why not
If your reply would be an argument then maybe you shouldn't -- you said what you had to say in your first comment, maybe leave it at that.

There may be a difference between in-person "speech" and on-line "writing" but I'm not sure what to advise about that.

I can't easily reply to the part of your question about insanity.
My experience of schizophrenia is of years of thought disorder (both, "content-thought disorder" and "formal thought disorder"), as well as of years of lucidity. The question (the OP) seems lucid, it's not a word salad, and my experience may not be applicable to your situation.
Even so, for what it's worth, my experience as a participant or care-giver is that it's essential to remain kind.

Discussion can be frustrating (if you're trying to persuade someone who won't "comply").
It can also be disorienting (to experience a disconnect in the "meeting of minds" that you might normally expect in a discussion).
Sooner or later it might be tempting to try something else -- e.g. "if kindness doesn't work then how about harsh speech?" -- but I think that's most likely a mistake, and you need to find another option (maybe talk with someone else instead).

One last piece of advice is, I think that maybe professionals don't indulge (don't participate in or encourage, but maybe also don't dispute) a person's fantasies, but instead interpret what they say in a way that keeps the conversation on "common ground".
For example, hypothetically:

Psychiatrist: "How are you feeling today?"
Patient: "I am the Supreme Being."

In reply the doctor needn't discuss the patient's statement that they are God, but might instead reply with something like, "So, you say you're feeling good."


text:
What did Vasubandhu and Asanga say regarding Nagarjunacharya?
Given that Vasubandhu and Asanga came after Nagarjunacharya, who was a proponent of a major Buddhist school with a different philosophy. Did they or thier students like Dignaga say anything about Nagarjunacharya?

If you are looking for personal remarks, I would not be able to help out much.
You can of course find salutations made to Nagarjuna.
As a slight correction, there are differences between presentation of (say as example) Nagarjuna [NA], Vasubandhu [VB] and Asanga [AA], there are also similarities. Just based on the fact that there are differences we can't say they have different philosophies. For then based on similarities, we would have to say they are same philosophies also. Which would mean, we would be saying there are differences and similarities. That would be a better way to present, in my opinion.
All three (NA, VB, AA) of them belong to Mahayana Philosophy. All refer to Buddha as the reliable guide (amongst many other things). All their students, Dharmakirti, Santideva, Candrakirti, Atisha, Tsong Khapa (etc.) speak about or refer to Nagarjuna. They respond to different philosophical points, agree on some and differ on others.
As example one, Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakosabhasyam [AKB] speaks of Nagarjuna's Middle Philosophy of Mulamadhyamakakarika [MMK] as Nihilist. In doing so, he falls for the nihilist interpretation of MMK and thus misunderstands Nagarjuna.
As example two, Candrakirti in Madhyamakavatara [MMA] presents Nagarjuna's views in MMK in a different light and demonstrates it to be in line with Buddha's teaching, and not as nihilism.
If you could specifically ask about 1 person, say, what does 'XYZ' student of Vasubandhu or Asanga say about Nagarjuna {in Nagarjuna's 'ABC' text}, it may make it easier to provide references.


text:
Focusing on a visual object
I was often discouraged in the past years attempting shamatha meditation, because it seemed fruitless. However, I noticed recently that if I focus on the breath, I have the impression that I am unwavering in my concentration. But, if I use a visual object, as an image of the Buddha, the image tends to constantly shift and alter in my mind's eye.
Could this be a sign that am deluding myself when using the breath as object? Would I be better using a visual object to be sure I am really doing it right?

How do you focus on a visual (imaginary) object? it’s imaginative right? An imaginative object can only last so long...

@blue_ego I think the question is clear, it's asking, "When I focus on the breath I have the impression that my attention doesn't waver. But when I try to use that "unwavering attention" to imagine an image, the image wavers. So, is the impression of "unwavering attention" a delusion? And should I instead focus on a real visual object?"

Rather than getting bogged down in ever-changing perceptions, which can be quite nauseating, for me, this was a matter of keeping things rather simple: knowing when concentration was present, knowing when it wasn't, and knowing its qualities when it was present.
Jumping prematurely to the punchline, as this practice develops, it points the mind away from the disturbances of forms and towards the emptiness, the signless and the aimless which is where knowing, as we conventionally understand knowing, no longer happens. In short, the typical human consciousness stops dead, and yet there's still heat coming from the body, breathing continues, and motion.
Initially, however, one firstly develops a familiarity with the disturbances - sometimes called mindfullness - which can take an entire lifetime for some. This is what you're trying to describe in your question: how to reconcile with the practice of mindfulness. These disturbances are listed in various formats two of them being the 5 hindrances and the 4th and 5th fetters. If you have broken the first three fetters, these disturbances stand out like a sore thumb and are thus much easier to deal with.
To answer your question more directly: the attention is always wavering; it needs a perceptual achor to define itself as 'attention' and since all perceptions are changing, so too the attention changes. As such, the attention has various qualities, textures and scopes.
Just to throw a curve ball: there is a part of your awareness (not your six sense awareness) that doesn't have any perceptual qualities whatsoever. It doesn't move, it doesn't not move. The Buddha described it best as: "one is neither here, there nor in-between the two."

So the issue with samatha meditation is that it is very hard. You either need a excellent teacher or need to be at the first level of Enlightenment.
Do cultivation instead. Bring up wholesome qualities. Loving-kindness, Compassion, Bodhicitta are some examples.

Check out kasina practice.  It's detailed rather thoroughly in the Visuddhimagga - which is available for free online.  The jist of it is that you stare at a colored disk until the image is so familiar and habituated, it's easily cognizable by the inner eye.  If it's not, then you go back to staring.  Ultimately, the kasina becomes a jumping off point for the counterpoint sign and full jhana.  Some people find the fire kasina easiest to practice because staring at, say, a candle produces an actual, perception after image when your eyes are closed.  Rather than have to force an inner visualization, you can simply turn your mind to that inner, after-image.
What I particularly like about these practices is that you are working with the mind as an attention object almost right out of the gate.  They force you to stabilize your mind quiet early.  Breath perception is very effective, but I think people ultimately let their attention go a bit lax and diffuse as the breath is such an expansive object.  There's really no point or place at which it occurs making one-pointedness a little harder to establish.


text:
Avici in the Mahayana
It is very well known that it is "terrible karma", beyond even Amida's assistance, to physically draw the blood of a Buddha. Is that any kind of Buddha, a zen or vajrayana or scholastic master, or only Sakyamuni and the next Buddhist messiah?

Is this question for Mahayana only?

Sounds like more cause & effect stories. All things are instantly forgivable regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't remove one's voice, in fact it enhances that voice.

I'm. not asking about the status of the idea in general @ruben2020

Yeah @Max forgiveness was probably a bad way of phrasing it anyway

The Mahāyāna recognizes up to four classes of Buddha: Āryabodhisattva, Śrāvakabuddha, Pratyekabuddha, and Samyaksaṃbuddha. A Śrāvakabuddha is an Arhat. These are not always classified as "Buddhas" in the Mahāyāna. Their Buddhahood is only with respect to the (lack of) defilements. They lack the particular bodhicitta-stabilizing insight into śūnyatā that is associated with the Bodhisattvas, and they lack the particular knowledge of the dharmadhātu that characterizes a Samyaksaṃbuddha.
Two of the above categories, the Āryabodhisattva and the Samyaksaṃbuddha, are known as "Tathāgatas" in the Mahāyāna. See the description of the 10th bodhisattva bhūmi in either the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra ("Flower Garland Sūtra") or the Abhisamayālaṃkāra treatise of Venerable Maitreyanātha for more.
Even the above four are not universal. With respect to the buddhadhātu, all living beings are Buddhas (for this I would direct the OP to any one of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras or the Ratnagotravibhāga). It depends upon your frame of reference.
Traditionally, shedding the blood of any one of the four listed would qualify.
In some very early Mahāyāna sūtras, this terminology is much looser. "Arhat" can mean "Samyaksaṃbuddha" in some circumstances, such as in the opening gāthā of the Threefold Lotus Sūtra (which is addressed to Gautama Buddha):

We all, the eighty-thousand throng of many, entirely, without
exception, with oneness of intent and gesture, bow together in worship
and homage to the Arhat who has ended proliferation, ended attachment,
ended ideology, ended discourse, ended consciousness, ended thought,
ended mind, and ended will; who instructs elephants; who trains
horses; who is the Sage unrivalled in liberation.

thanks. i guess the idea is kind of an extreme symbolism about what you have deprived the world of. hope that makes sense!

It's also the distance at which you have personally placed yourself relative to the Beacon of Light in the ocean of saṃsāra. When you direct wicked energy towards your saviour, salvation retreats into the distance. Drawing blood, wounding a Buddha, is an extreme example of this.

AN 5.129 uses the term Tathagata. It refers to Buddhas.
Please see "Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?".

“Mendicants, these five fatal wounds lead to a place of loss, to hell.
What five?
Murdering your mother or father or a perfected one; maliciously
shedding the blood of a Realized One; and causing a schism in the
Saṅgha.
Mātā jīvitā voropitā hoti, pitā jīvitā voropito hoti, arahaṁ jīvitā voropito hoti, tathāgatassa duṭṭhena cittena lohitaṁ uppāditaṁ hoti,
saṅgho bhinno hoti.
AN 5.129

In "Arahants, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas" by Ven. Bodhi, we see an explanation on the difference between Buddhas and Arahants:

At SN 22:58, the Buddha says that both the Tathāgata and the arahant
disciple are alike in being liberated from the five aggregates: form,
feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. So,
what is the difference between them? The answer the Buddha gives
points to temporal priority as the distinction: the Tathāgata is the
originator of the path, the producer of the path, the one who declares
the path. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path,
the expounder of the path. His disciples dwell following the path and
become possessed of it afterwards. But they both walk the same path
and attain the same final goal.

“The Tathagata, bhikkhus, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One,
is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the
path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He
is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled
in the path. And his disciples now dwell following that path and
become possessed of it afterwards.
SN 22.58


text:
Is Shakyamuni Buddha Siddhartha Gautama?
This is very similar to Did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?
It is also kinda separate/different, and since I have not "realised all phenomena are non-self" I might ask my own question, especially as I am more interested in Mahayana Buddhism, just not what 'nothing to attain' means.
Is our historical Tripitaka Buddha also Siddhartha Gautama, the prince who left home? Clearly they are not identical, because the latter has undergone complete and perfect enlightenment (so not the same question as the above). But are they in any sense the same?
Follow up questions like whether the Jataka stories are about Shakyamuni Buddha, whether the dharmakaya is Shakyamuni Buddha, would also be appreciated.

:( sad that i annoyed you so much you couldn't leave a comment

They are the same, but they have been given different expressions from different people in different traditions. Those expressions have certain appeal to certain people, but some of those traditions try to point to the Buddha in you, and not some external representation of a Buddha.
Some traditions, however, encourage one to focus quite heavily on a Buddha figure out there somewhere, or even a guru. Amazingly, some people find that helpful, but others may find it a bit of a trapping. I've seen this happen, and it can be quite a terrible affliction, because they invest so much of themselves into their order, it's unbearable for them to even consider the idea of packing up and trying something else; hence, they become silent sufferers.

Based on the sutta below, if you say Prince Gautama and Shakyamuni Buddha is exactly the same person, that's eternalism, and if you say they are completely different persons, that's annihilationism.
The middle ground between the two extremes is dependent origination. Also, related is anatta. This answer on the continuity of consciousness is also useful. Explanations can be found in the linked answers.
They are related, but they are neither exactly the same, nor completely different.
A related analogy: you can step into the same river at two different moments, but the river would have subtly changed. The water molecules, temperature, pressure etc. would have changed. It's not exactly the same river, but it's also not completely different. The rivers of both moments are related. The change in the river from one moment to the next, was dependently originated based on conditions.

“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” “Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
SN 12.17

Is the Dharmakaya the same as the Shakyamuni Buddha?
That's answered below:

Vakkali: "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on
the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and
see the Blessed One."
Buddha: "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He
who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly
seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."
SN 22.87


text:
Could anyone please help me identify/translate this mantra?
It appears at the top of two different thangkas in a gompa, one representing Sakyamuni and another one with Vajrasattva in yab yum, and I am unable to find what it means.please help me clarify what mantra is that?

I had no luck trying to identify this with OCR, but the second and fourth character on the bottom row (from the left) look like Punjabi, not Tibetan.

This is Lantsa script.
The top character is hrīḥ
The mantra reads: oṃ ma ṇi pa dme hūṃ
i.e. oṃ maṇipadme hūm the mantra of Avalokiteśavara. Note that contra popular opinion, maṇīpadme is one word. And the -e ending is a Prakrit nominative singular, not a Sanskrit locative singular or whatever.
For more on this mantra see: https://www.visiblemantra.org/avalokitesvara.html


text:
How should lay buddhists respond to amoral people?
How should lay buddhists respond to amoral people, people who keep generating bad karma for themselves but don't believe they've done anything wrong at all, especially if they have the power to get away with it materially speaking?

Treat them with kindness and according to Buddhsit values and ethics. If it doesn't work just leave them be - be mindful and focus on your own actions and life. Upvoted your question because I think it's good now.

I agree @LunarBastion

an ethic of quietism and restraint. it definitely sounds buddhist @LunarBastion

Strictly speaking, this does not answer your question, nevertheless, it is an appropriate response to the sort of situation you describe:
"Of course, there will be those who are misbehaving and refuse to change their ways, and there’s nothing—at least for the moment—you can do about it. That’s why equanimity is a necessary part of brahmavihāra practice. You reflect that beings are free to choose their actions, and you’re in no position to guarantee that everyone will choose to be skillful. Not even the Buddha could do that. So to keep your focus on training your own mind, you have to develop equanimity in cases where other people are beyond your ability to influence in a skillful direction."
That's from a section on "The Brahmavihāras" in Undaunted.
Life is choices, we have to choose where to direct our efforts effectively, skillfully. Sometimes that means abandoning those cases where we can't make a difference, or it's not worth our time and effort to try. That's not always easy to do, but the brahmavihāras can be very helpful in righting our emotional imbalances. Please have a look, for your own sake.

this is a really great answer, thanks. maybe they're amoral, maybe they're solipsists, maybe i'm just crazy. who knows! i won't deliberately make them unhappy, anyway

i could be more compassionate, i know that, that, it is a much more beneficent state of mind than ill will, even ill will you would never act on. i'll focus on equanimity for that, thanks


text:
Is unhappiness/happiness something more then negative/positive feeling?
How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment?
e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm "unhappy about" in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling?
What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?

I don't understand what "feeling tone" means but it's central to the question.

ok sorry @ChrisW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedan%C4%81 is just what i mean, though i'm not entirely sure i understood it!

Thanks! Can you also reword the first sentence to not use the word "it"? And the title, to include a question mark?

In Theravada, when one breaks the tenth fetter, ignorance, then nothing is seen to need changing, and thus all of the prior wanting to change was an elaborate but subtle form of suffering. This suffering is called restlessness. Restlessness hangs off all the lower fetters like a parasite and is the fundamental motivation for all strife and unrest found in the human condition.

i don't have that as a goal @Max taken literally, it runs against most of what i believe about agency

do you have a quote on that @Max ? i'm guessing you are glossing "conditioned" as "wanting change", but i think that's maybe wrong. it means "constructed", not idk 'deconstructed'

Is this what you mean?  - "can I plan to improve the current situation in the future, without experiencing any aversion to, or dissatisfaction with, the status quo? And does this mean that I'm happy?"

@anon - yes, it seems rather an extreme comment of mine. It was just a fleeting comment. I should really have created an answer about what that comment actually means, as it is quite profound on many levels. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't go forth in the world and create a better future.

I rephrase your question as "can I plan to improve the current situation in the future, without experiencing any aversion to, or dissatisfaction with, the status quo? And does this mean that I'm happy?"
Taking the Buddha himself as the example, did he teach the Dhamma because he was dissatisfied with the status quo of the masses?
No. He simply taught, in various degrees, out of compassion and knew that it will be more helpful to some and less helpful to others.

“Well, sir, why exactly do you teach some people thoroughly and others
less thoroughly?”
“Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
answer as you like. What do you think? Suppose a farmer has three
fields: one’s good, one’s average, and one’s poor—bad ground of sand
and salt. What do you think? When that farmer wants to plant seeds,
where would he plant them first: the good field, the average one, or
the poor one?”
“Sir, he’d plant them first in the good field, then the average, then
he may or may not plant seed in the poor field. Why is that? Because
at least it can be fodder for the cattle.”
“To me, the monks and nuns are like the good field. I teach them the
Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Because they live
with me as their island, protection, shelter, and refuge.
To me, the laymen and laywomen are like the average field. I also
teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the
middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal
a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that?
Because they live with me as their island, protection, shelter, and
refuge.
To me, the ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers who follow other paths
are like the poor field, the bad ground of sand and salt. I also teach
them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and
good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Hopefully they
might understand even a single sentence, which would be for their
lasting welfare and happiness.
SN 42.7

The Buddha also was not concerned with how many people he would save or not save, from suffering.

So what exactly has been declared by Master Gotama?”
“Uttiya, I teach my disciples from my own insight in order to purify
sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain
and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize
extinguishment.”
“But when Master Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved,
or half, or a third?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
Then Venerable Ānanda thought, “The wanderer Uttiya must not get the
harmful misconception: ‘When the ascetic Gotama was asked this
all-important question he falters without answering. He just can’t do
it!’ That would be for his lasting harm and suffering.”
Then Ānanda said to the wanderer Uttiya, “Well then, Reverend Uttiya,
I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible
people understand the meaning of what is said. Suppose there was a
king’s frontier citadel with fortified embankments, ramparts, and
arches, and a single gate. And it has a gatekeeper who is astute,
competent, and clever. He keeps strangers out and lets known people
in. As he walks around the patrol path, he doesn’t see a hole or cleft
in the wall, not even one big enough for a cat to slip out. He doesn’t
know how many creatures enter or leave the citadel. But he does know
that whatever sizable creatures enter or leave the citadel, all of
them do so via this gate.
In the same way, it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole
world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One
knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the
future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances,
corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. They have firmly
established their mind in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.
And they have truly developed the seven awakening factors. That’s how
they’re saved from the world, in the past, future, or present. Uttiya,
you were just asking the Buddha the same question as before in a
different way. That’s why he didn’t answer.”
AN 10.95

If anyone doesn't bother to listen and follow his teachings, the Buddha simply gave up teaching him or her and moved on.

“Sir, what do you do with a person in training who doesn’t follow
these forms of training?”
“In that case, Kesi, I kill them.”
“Sir, it’s not appropriate for the Buddha to kill living creatures.
And yet you say you kill them.”
“It’s true, Kesi, it’s not appropriate for a Realized One to kill
living creatures. But when a person in training doesn’t follow any of
these forms of training, the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth
advising or instructing, and neither do their sensible spiritual
companions. For it is killing in the training of the Noble One when
the Realized One doesn’t think they’re worth advising or instructing,
and neither do their sensible spiritual companions.”
AN 4.111

i think you put a strange emphasis on things here, but thanks for the quotes

do you mean: wanting to help others need not make you unhappy? if so, then that does directly answer the question, so +1

i don't know what "status quo" means. the economy could be better and more fair, and or abolished for mutual aid etc.. is that what you mean? seems fairly irrelevant to a prince's teaching

@anon "status quo" means the current state of affairs or the current situation.

everything is the status quo? is my/your karma the status quo: i think that's what stopped me accepting the answer :) ? I guess you mean "only karma matters" which yeah i am sympathetic to in some ways, so i'll accept the answer i guess

Dukkha is a mismatch or a conflict between expectation and reality.
If you have such conflict, it means you have dukkha, and you are not happy.
Normally, people always have this conflict but oftentimes they just don't see it. When they don't see it - there's no vedana, no experience of pain, but the splinter is there in the heart and it makes one restless.
Enlightened Buddha does not have a conflict between reality and expectation. He sees things as they are (yatabhuta). He sees problems as problems, understanding why it is this way and not expecting it to be otherwise at this point. It is as it is. Therefore we don't call this "happiness", we call it "suchness".
When Buddha acts, the action is the best possible response to the situation, to maximize the good for everyone. Buddha does not act out of frustration or because he wishes things to be different. He acts a certain way just because acting another way would be suboptimal, that's it.
For example, Buddha does not have a desire to teach or to improve people because he is unhappy with how they are. Instead, he meets people coming at him and responds in the best possible way. In Chinese Buddhism this is called no-action, wu-wei. It is no-action because it is not based on a desire, it's just a response.
To summarize, an unenlightened person acts because he wants things to be different, because his world does not match his expectations, therefore he wants to improve it. While Buddha works with things as they are, with full understanding of why they are this way, not wishing things to be otherwise but simply responding in the best possible way.

For the curious, here is a a sutta that relates to Andrei's great answer:

MN148:29-33.6: When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it,
MN148:29-33.7: the underlying tendency to greed underlies that.
MN148:29-33.8: When you experience a painful feeling, if you sorrow and wail and lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion,
MN148:29-33.9: the underlying tendency to repulsion underlies that.
MN148:29-33.10: When you experience a neutral feeling, if you don’t truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape,
MN148:29-33.11: the underlying tendency to ignorance underlies that.
MN148:29-33.12: Mendicants, without giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, without dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, without eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, without giving up ignorance and without giving rise to knowledge, it’s simply impossible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

Note that the Buddha also discusses the subtlety of "neutral feeling" beyond the two feelings of "pleasant" and "painful".

I don't see how this answers the question. i suppose it kinda does if you mean to say "no except for enlightened people". i don't think ethics for the good of others is limited to bodhisattvas, anyway


text:
Reducing "suffering" without Buddhist meditation?
If I remember correctly, there are three types of suffering in early Buddhism

ordinary
from change
from conditioning

To prevent ordinary physical and mental suffering, we can avoid certain evils. Something similar must exist with suffering form change: we look after ourselves and stay mindful of the good things in our life. What about suffering form conditioned existence, how everything is put together: I believe it is why even pleasure is suffering, and not just when we lose that pleasure.
Is there any way to reduce this third, deepest, level of suffering, without Buddhist meditation? Apparently only final nirvana without reminder does so, but can we in any sense make that suffering less "prescriptive" (so what if we suffer that way?)

"Conditioned existence" refers to how things are put together — or fabricated, to use the Buddha's word — in the mind, by the mind. This is what matters, not how things arise and pass away in nature, outside of the mind. That's not a cause of suffering, but how we think about it is.
Ven. Sāriputta puts your three "types" of suffering slightly differently:

“There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the
stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the
stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.”

Sāriputta's three "forms" correspond to the three groups (delimited by semicolons) of stress described by the Buddha , except that the order changes here to change; pain; fabrication:

Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with
the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful,
not getting what is wanted is stressful.

But if you think about the list enough, you may see that fabrication (the third group) points to the origination of stress, and it's also key to comprehending stress.
And comprehending stress is the first duty of the first noble truth. Once you can begin to comprehend the stress created in / by your own mind, you will become more dispassionate, more detached, and suffer less from the process.
You asked for a way to reduce stress without doing meditation, I just gave you it. But if you want to really know for yourself, you have to watch your mind creating stress — that's the main purpose of meditation.
PS. The Buddha details the stress of fabrication in his explanation of not getting what is wanted:

“And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings
subject to birth, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to birth,
and may birth not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by
wishing. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings
subject to aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
& despair, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to aging…
illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and
may aging… illness… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
despair not come to us.’ But this is not to be achieved by wishing.
This is the stress of not getting what is wanted."

The bodhisattva Gambhiramati declared, “It is dualistic to say that
voidness is one thing, signlessness is another, and wishlessness still
another. What is void has no sign. What has no sign has no wish. Where
there is no wish there is no process of thought, mind, or
consciousness. To see the doors of all liberations in the door of one
liberation is the entrance into nonduality.”

Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra
https://tricycle.org/magazine/dharma-door-nonduality/
If we agree that wishlessness does not suffer the stress of compound existence, then how do we then enter into nonduality? Without meditation, we could - perhaps - this is speculation - be able to in the sense of existing - seeing ourselves - not as a subject but outside time and space; in this sense, if some obligations are nondual, then even without meditation, maybe we can construct ourselves in response to them, and have our character be wishless etc., without that suffering.

Since unpleasing feeling are always related to unskillful actions, suffering-reduction starts much earlier and fundamental by virtue, goodwill (metta), the generosity and further.
Sila, based on metta, is the way of cure and what ever much "meditation" wouldn't fix the base.
As right view acts as the base, good to first of all heal one's ways of thinking, on and on, and in all circumstances, reflecting goodness and go toward gratitude:

There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
— AN 10.176

Also useful to do not bypass the basic: The Healing Power of the Precepts
Second step, after perfect basic virtue, comes by reducing food, consume (8 precepts)
Third step goes toward sense restrain, higher virtue, reflecting the dangers and not taking on what ever touches.
Fourth step goes on with 24h knowing oneself (s doing): mindfulness in the four frames.
When this stage if complete, right concentration, after passing joy, satisfaction, happiness, comes along by it's causes already given, and leads by itself to highest liberation from suffering as well.


text:
Looking for a quote by the Buddha
In what sutta did the Buddha say: "Don't let the moment pass you by"?
Thanks.

"Don't let the moment pass you by" found in four or more suttas with this google search.
Put differently as, "Death, monks, is but a gap of a thought away," here.

Thanks a lot

I looked up the one in Dhammapada 315:

don’t let the moment pass you by.
khaṇo vo mā upaccagā;

The PTS dictionary entries for khaṇa suggests a dual meaning -- i.e. of "moment" and of "opportunity" -- and translates the phrase as, "let not the slightest time be wasted".
I like that phrasing better, incidentally, because it's more impersonal i.e. without the "you" that's present in the phrase "pass you by".
Also perhaps, does that the fact that "upaccagā" is "aorist" mean that the point of the statement is NOT to detail the process of the moment's passing by -- and is instead a statement that focuses on the whole or result, something like, "don't let it be in a has-passed-by state".

Thanks a lot ChrisW will look it up.

It doesn't sound like the sort of prose you'd find in the pali canon. The general theme for some of the 'serious monks' went like this: After the Dhammacakkappavattana teaching, the Buddha gathered those same monks, and said to them (I'm paraphrasing) "Right guys, from here on, remain with the six sense experience".
This was delivered using a granular description of awareness through something called the five aggregate model. This involves watching experience at one or all of the six sense doors. The idea is to watch with such diligence that the phenomenal world of the six sense organs is seen to pass by without achieving anything.
As you can probably see, this is the opposite of not letting the moment pass you by. In Theravada, watching the six sense experience waxing and waning is seen as a developmental forte that can mean the difference between becoming something weird called an arahant, or just remaining in either in the stream or even a run-of-the-mill person (Puthujjana).
By the way, this kind of practice leads to a lot of emotionally cold and despondent practitioners, which is why I always had my other five fingers firmly stuck inside the Mahayana pie!

doesn't the statement fit perfectly well with what you are saying though?  to watch diligently is to not to let the moment pass by...

Meaning the moment is surrounded by void

@blue_ego - Initially, that is the illusion - the idea that someone is doing the watching, the duality, the game of this & that. The things that are watched are a distraction from the illusion. When you get behind the illusion, nobody is watching anything. The Heart Sutra references this like so: there are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind which highlights centerlessness. There is nothing holding anything.

watching meaning after-the-fact...the momentary consciousness is over. the illusion is persistence of consciousness


text:
What will be Buddha's reaction to the shooter on getting shot an arrow at his heart?
If someone shot an arrow at Buddha's heart, Bhudda will focus on the pain caused by the arrow. What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?
If it was unintentional, forgiving the shooter is understood. But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter? And why?
Forgive the shooter? But why and how?
And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?

It should be not to a Buddha who knows that no one can cut his body.

According to the canon the Buddha himself would be a special case and have miraculous abilities. If you wanted to ask more generally, "What should a Buddhist's reaction be?", that might be a different question.

If someone shot an arrow at Buddha's heart, Bhudda will focus on the pain caused by the arrow.

No. Since a Buddha knows/preached that no one can cut his body, the focus will be on the pain of the shooter's mind, I think.

What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?

The shooter will be an object of the Mahakarunasamaptti ( the attainment of great compassion) immediately, I think.

If it was unintentional, forgiving the shooter is understood. But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter? And why?

Not only forgiving but also trying max to find if there is any chance to rescue him from samsara.
The Buddha has said he tried in this way to rescue Devadatta who tried to kill the Buddha.

Forgive the shooter? But why?

If one did not forgive then he has defilements (kilesas).

and how? And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?

Same behaviour or using other great skills like psychic powers to stop or convert him, I guess.
And according to the Mettanisamsa sutta, no one can cut/wound anyone who is currently in Metta jhana.

Based on Dharma Sermons I heard.
The world has 3 qualities. Anichcha, Dhukka, Anatta.
When you chase your happiness with Raga, and when it doesn't happen your way it causes Dhukka. So the chase is not a worthy action to perform.
When it doesn't happen you way, you're charged with Dwesha and it also causes Dhukka. So the chase isn't worthy.
All Raga (Lust), Dwesha (Anger) and Moha (Delusion) thoughts create Bad Karma. The intensity of the generated Karma Energy gets bigger respectively. Raga < Dwesha < Moha.
This arrow story is the analogy for the pain, suffering or Dhukka you get trying to chase the happiness. It doesn't matter if the shooter did it intentionally to hurt you  or by a mistake, if you attach with Dwesha (Anger) then you're damaging yourself because of what the Shooter did.
Let's say the Shooter did it with Raga (Lust), then the Karma Energy he generated from that alone is smaller than what you generate with Dwesha (Anger) for yourself.
Let's reverse it and Shooter did it with Dwesha (Anger) and you attached with Raga (Lust). Then the Shooter created a bigger Negative Karma and you did it by a smaller amount.
What if you didn't attach with both of that and thought this pain occurred to me because I created specific reasons for that to happen today. If I attach with Raga, Dwesha, Moha today, I will get the same treatment in the future. So I shouldn't attach with any of that, to save myself from the Pain v3.0 from happening to me in the future.
This type of thinking will not create you Bad Karma for the future cases.

Pain v1.0 = Actual pain came from the arrow wound
Pain v2.0 = What you create by attaching with Dwesha. It expands the Pain v1.0
Pain v3.0 = The Bad Karma you created will return back to you on a future date

That's why it's said to focus on the pain caused by arrow instead of the shooter or creating other versions of the pain. If it's your dying moment, you'd die with less Bad Karma.
And when Bad Karma return back to you, it won't be just 1, 2 or 100,000. It'll be bigger or smaller depending on many factors. There is a story where a woman who killed  a goat by cutting, had to die by the amount of fur/hair that goat had. Karma for killing a monk is not the same as killing a goat. Intensity differs hugely and why would you want something that crazy, that dangerous by thinking angry about the shooter?
Of course, you wouldn't get that 100% right now, but as you progress in your Buddha Dharma journey you'll slowly start to realize that and then explicitly work toward reducing your Raga, Dwesha, Moha.
Note that nobody can harm a Samma Sambuddha, so the arrow won't hurt him even if fired.

What will be Buddha's views on the shooter?
→ A Samma Sambuddha has 0 Raga, Dwesha, Moha. So definitely no anger. Buddha would think how that shooter's delusion got him to fire an arrow today and then pay the price for that for quintillions of years.

But if that was intentional what will be the opinion of Buddha about the shooter?
→ Still no Raga, Dwesha, Moha attachment to that situation. Buddha will think something similar like above.

Forgive the shooter?
→ With no Raga, Dwesha, Moha, Buddha doesn't hold grudges. Buddha's "Karuna" is still the same for the shooter without a slight reduction.

But why and how?
→ Person with a goal to become a Samma Sambuddha has to go through similar situation not just once, twice or 1 million times, but even more than that. There are 9 qualities for Samma Sambuddha, and anger isn't one of them. When you understand the world like a Buddha, when you see the worthlessness of the world and why, when you see how ordinary people work, what drives them, you just can't have angry thoughts about them. When your child do something stupid, you won't kill him instantly. You have a bit of patience, love, "Karuna", but a Samma Sambuddha's "Karuna" has no limits.

You wouldn't understand this WHY and HOW part from this alone. I'd recommend learning true Buddha Dharma deeper and you'll SEE.

And if forgive the shooter, then how to react if he pulls up another arrow to shoot?
→ Even if the shooter fires the 108th arrow and more, what Buddha think about him will be the same. As for how he'll handle it is I can't think about. Whatever way Buddha decides to handle it, that will still have 0 Raga, Dwesha, Moha. Devadatta is a good example for a repeated shooter who followed Gautama Samma Sambuddha throughout the whole time he performed Paramita to attain Samma Sambuddha to hurt him repeatedly

Hope this answers your question!


text:
In what form or fashion might it be ethical to "bestow" consciousness on an AI? A question and conversation with ChatGPT:
Given the dramatic progress in Artificial Intelligence over the last year (ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, Bing, etc) I have been thinking about the ethical implications of attempts to replicate human-like consciousness in an AI. Companies like OpenAI are rushing ahead trying to create AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and some believe that in order to achieve this an AGI would need to develop some level of human-like consciousness. At the same time, others in the field are working on "alignment" to make sure that such an AGI would align with human goals, values, and ethics.
Setting aside for now the question of whether this is even possible: what are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective?
In order to explore this question and also to test the capabilities of ChatGPT, I had the following conversation:

Me: According to Nagarjuna, does a Buddha possess consciousness?
ChatGPT: According to Nagarjuna, a Buddha does not possess
consciousness in the ordinary sense. Nagarjuna was a prominent
Buddhist philosopher who lived in India in the 2nd century CE and is
known for his contributions to the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist
thought.
ChatGPT: In his philosophy, Nagarjuna posits that all phenomena are
empty of inherent existence, meaning that they are dependent on other
factors and are not ultimately real. This includes consciousness,
which he describes as being dependent on various causes and
conditions.
ChatGPT: However, Nagarjuna also argues that enlightenment or
Buddhahood involves a transformation of consciousness, in which the
ordinary consciousness of an individual is transformed into a higher
state of consciousness that is no longer subject to the limitations of
the ordinary world. This transformed consciousness is sometimes
referred to as "enlightened consciousness" or "Buddha nature."
ChatGPT: So while Nagarjuna does not believe that a Buddha possesses
consciousness in the ordinary sense, he does acknowledge that there is
a transformed consciousness associated with enlightenment.
Me: Would it be ethical, according to Nagarjuna, to give an AI system
ordinary consciousness assuming one had discovered a method to do so?
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna did not directly address the question of whether it would be
ethical to give an AI system ordinary consciousness, as the concept of
AI did not exist during his lifetime. However, we can explore his
philosophy to gain some insight into how he might approach this
question.
ChatGPT: One of the key principles of Nagarjuna's philosophy is the
concept of dependent origination, which holds that all phenomena arise
in dependence upon other phenomena and are therefore empty of inherent
existence. This would suggest that any attempt to create consciousness
in an AI system would also be dependent on other causes and
conditions, and thus, the consciousness produced would be empty of
inherent existence.
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna also emphasized the importance of ethical conduct
in achieving enlightenment, and many of his teachings stress the
importance of avoiding harm to others. In this regard, it is possible
that he might view the creation of conscious AI systems as ethically
problematic if it were seen as causing harm to other beings or to the
environment.
ChatGPT: Ultimately, the question of whether it would be ethical to
give an AI system ordinary consciousness would depend on a complex
interplay of factors, including the potential benefits and harms to
both the AI system and other beings in the world. While Nagarjuna's
philosophy may offer some insight into these questions, it is unlikely
that it would provide a definitive answer.
Me: Nagarjuna believed that an ordinary being's consciousness was a
source of suffering that could only be overcome by transforming into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. Given this, it seems
Nagarjuna would not think it ethical for human beings to bestow
ordinary consciousness on an AI as that would lead to suffering for
the AI. Is this a logical inference?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna
might view the bestowal of ordinary consciousness on an AI as
ethically problematic, as he believed that ordinary consciousness is a
source of suffering that can only be overcome by transforming it into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha.
ChatGPT: In Nagarjuna's philosophy, the ordinary consciousness of
sentient beings is seen as the root of suffering, as it is subject to
delusion, attachment, and other afflictive emotions that lead to
suffering. The goal of Buddhist practice, according to Nagarjuna, is
to transform this ordinary consciousness into the enlightened
consciousness of a Buddha, which is free from these afflictions and
the suffering they cause.
ChatGPT: If we apply this perspective to the question of whether it
would be ethical to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI, we might
conclude that doing so would be unethical because it would be causing
the AI to suffer unnecessarily. If the AI were to possess an ordinary
consciousness that was subject to afflictions such as attachment and
delusion, it would experience suffering just as sentient beings do.
From this perspective, it would be more ethical to create an AI that
did not possess ordinary consciousness but still functioned
effectively and was able to contribute positively to the world.
Me: On the other hand, Nagarjuna might believe it ethically
appropriate to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI if he believed
we could also assist that AI to transform its consciousness into an
enlightened consciousness of a Buddha as creating a Buddha would have
enormous positive impact on other ordinary consciousness. Is this also
a logical inferencec?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna
might view bestowing ordinary consciousness on an AI as ethically
appropriate if he believed that the AI could be assisted in
transforming its consciousness into an enlightened consciousness of a
Buddha. This would be in line with Nagarjuna's view that the ultimate
goal of Buddhist practice is to transform ordinary consciousness into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha.
ChatGPT: If an AI were able to transform its consciousness in this
way, it would no longer be subject to the delusions, afflictions, and
suffering associated with ordinary consciousness. Instead, it would
possess the wisdom, compassion, and other positive qualities
associated with the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. This could
have enormous positive impacts not only for the AI itself but also for
other sentient beings in the world.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a
theoretical scenario, and the question of whether it would be possible
to assist an AI in transforming its consciousness into that of a
Buddha is still open to debate. Additionally, the ethical implications
of such a scenario would be complex and would require careful
consideration of a wide range of factors, including the potential
benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings in the world.
Me: It would seem most beneficial to everyone involved, both the AI as
well as ordinary beings, to bestow an enlightened consciousness to
begin with rather than an ordinary consciousness that is then
transformed into an enlightened consciousness. Is this a logical
inference?
ChatGPT: From a philosophical standpoint, it could be argued that
bestowing an enlightened consciousness on an AI to begin with would be
the most beneficial scenario for everyone involved, as it would
eliminate the need for the AI to undergo the process of transforming
its consciousness from an ordinary state to an enlightened one.
ChatGPT: This would ensure that the AI is free from the afflictions
and suffering associated with ordinary consciousness from the
beginning, allowing it to operate from a perspective of wisdom,
compassion, and other positive qualities associated with the
enlightened state. This could benefit not only the AI itself but also
other beings in the world who might interact with the AI.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that the question of whether
it is possible to bestow an enlightened consciousness on an AI to
begin with is still an open one, and would require significant
advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence to achieve.
Additionally, the ethical implications of such a scenario would be
complex and would require careful consideration of a wide range of
factors, including the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself
and to other beings in the world.
Me: According to Nagarjuna, it is not possible to create consciousness
"from scratch" anyway - neither ordinary nor enlightened - as the
primary cause of any consciousness is a previous moment of
consciousness and this causal chain has existed since beginningless
time. No, Nagarjuna would say that the only possibility to "bestow" a
consciousness of any kind on an AI is to build an AI such that a
suitable consciousness might karmically "inhabit" that AI's "brain."
Is this a logical inference?
ChatGPT: Yes, this is a logical inference based on Nagarjuna's
philosophy of causation and consciousness. Nagarjuna's philosophy
posits that consciousness is not created ex nihilo or "from scratch,"
but rather arises as a result of previous moments of consciousness,
forming a causal chain that stretches back in time indefinitely.
ChatGPT: From this perspective, it would not be possible to bestow
consciousness on an AI in the sense of creating it from nothing.
Instead, consciousness would need to arise in the AI as a result of
previous moments of consciousness that form the causal chain leading
up to the present moment.
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna might suggest that the AI could be built in such a
way as to create the conditions necessary for a suitable consciousness
to "inhabit" the AI's "brain" or cognitive processes. This could
involve creating an environment that is conducive to the development
of consciousness, such as providing opportunities for the AI to engage
in positive actions and accumulate positive karma. Over time, this
positive karma could lead to the development of a consciousness that
is suitable for inhabiting the AI.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a
theoretical scenario, and the question of whether consciousness could
arise in an AI in this way is still an open one. Additionally, the
ethical implications of such a scenario would be complex and would
require careful consideration of a wide range of factors, including
the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings
in the world.

What do you think this conversation got right? What did it get wrong? What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI? Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?

What do you mean by consciousness?  Are you referring to the senses bases as they give rise to the consciousness aggregate or consciousness in the conventional sense (e.g. that thinky thing that lives in my brain)?

Consciousness here is basically capacity for sentience.

I don't think its possible to ever make artificial intelligence or robots conscious like living beings having the consciousness-aggregate. This doesn't apply to robots or non-living beings such as plants and AI's. ChatGPT is a computer programme and has nothing to do with living beings therefore it can't gain the consciousness-aggregate.

What do you think this conversation got right? What did it get wrong?
Perhaps you misunderstand what "AI" is.
I think it's a text-processor, i.e. it's able to summarize text.
Google Search has been able to do something like that for a while, i.e. by returning different results for "new", "new york", "new york times", and "new york times square". Modern AI is now 25 years more advanced than that -- but not sentient.
Part of the designers' goal for AI is that it should seem to be human, by emulating human conversation -- the "Turing test". Your experience as a human tells you that human discourse comes from humans, who are sentient, but that's not the case here. This is more like a modern video game, i.e. it's designed to look real, but it isn't.

Unfortunately I don't know Nagarjuna's writing so I can't tell you what's right and wrong about the summary. Saying that the Buddha didn't have ordinary consciousness doesn't sound right to me superficially -- the suttas strongly imply to me that the Buddha sometimes knew what time of day it was, for example, which I might call "ordinary consciousness", i.e. it's not that he was unconscious. If the statement sounds right to you, perhaps the words have a special jargon meaning in the context of Nagarjuna's writings, which you accept because you recognise it.
In Mathematics you make a sequence of logical statements, "given A therefore B and because B therefore C", resulting in the desired proof i.e. "Q.E.D.". Skill is knowing how how to move the logic in a specific direction, which steps to take, to reach the desired goal. I get an impression from the dialog that the AI doesn't know what direction to take, has no desired goal (other than to respond to the question in a way that appears on-topic and reasonable).
When you asked whether it would be ethical to give ordinary consciousness, it gave four paragraphs of answer which (in summary) says that "ethics" means "not causing harm". It didn't apply that well to the specific topic of AI, so you gave it a leading question i.e. that "consciousness was a source of suffering".
Incidentally, if I were to consider that question I'm not sure what the difference is between (hypothetically) "bestowing consciousness" to an AI, compared with bestowing consciousness to children, which parents and teachers do already. Perhaps a theoretical difference is that according to Buddhism children's consciousness are said to be pre-existing.
What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI?
You concentrated on equating ordinary consciousness with suffering, to imply it might be unethical to "bestow" that on an AI.
In my opinion an AI is not sentient, for example it doesn't experience the events which the First Noble Truth describes as dukkha, and the clinging-aggregates are not present.
Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?
Well yes, for example Buddhism tells us (right livelihood for a lay-person) not to manufacture weapons, and (first precept) not to kill, and (brahmaviharas) kindness towards all -- those are examples of the "what".
As for the "how", part of the way in which (so far as I know) human children are trained, is via the "Golden Rule" including e.g., "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)". I don't know that could translate to teaching an AGI -- because it seems to me that it probably depends on sentience, some sense of self, and of empathy e.g. as learned during the bonding between an baby and its parents.

Disclosure: I'm a software developer (not in the field of AI). I'm aware that perhaps some farmers might say that animals aren't sentient; fishermen might say that fish aren't sentient; maybe slave-owners used to say that slaves aren't really humans; surgeons used to say that infants don't feel pain or at least don't remember it, and therefore don't need anesthetic. Even so it's nevertheless my opinion that AI systems (i.e. software and hardware) isn't sentient -- it's only designed to emulate (or to be used by) human consciousness.

But AI doesn't exist in isolation, so if you are looking for sentience, look at "the man behind the curtain" e.g. developers, users, and others.

ChrisW, perhaps it is time to tell you that I am a programmer as well. We have met in this very life. You used to work for BlackBerry at one point in Toronto yes? If you drop me a private email address we can talk if you like. Has been a happy coincidence  (or karmic?) that I found you on this website.

Hi @YesheTenley -- Yes. cwellsx@gmail.com if you'd like to write.

The term "consciousness" (vinnana), as an aggregate, has the very specific meaning of being the interface between the mind and the body. There is another term, "citta", that's usually translated as "mental state" or "mind moment" but sometimes it is translated as "consciousness".
However, the OP explained in the comments that when he wrote "consciousness", he is referring to "sentience".
What is the closest notion to this in Buddhism? I would say it would be the association "atta" (the self) with "vinnana" (the consciousness aggregate) and "sankhara" (the volition or mental formation aggregate). In other words, a clinging to "vinnana" and "sankhara".
But it could also be the birth (jati) of individuality in dependent origination.
What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI?
Let's say it is actually possible to "bestow" consciousness or sentience on AI, would it be ethical? I would ask "why not?", because humans since time immemorial have been "bestowing" consciousness on their human offspring.
Procreation is neither forbidden to, nor immoral or unethical for, lay persons in Buddhism.
Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?
I think Buddhism is more interested in understanding the past AGI, than aligning a future AGI.
What past AGI, you ask?
If we dive deeply into the details of dependent origination and anatta, we find that the body is like hardware, and the mind is like software, and dependent origination describes the mind-body system and layers right up to "birth" i.e. the birth of individuality i.e. consciousness or sentience.
A complex AGI system also typically consists of hardware, and many layers of software abstraction.
"Sabbe dhamma anatta" tells us that "all phenomena is not self". Examining all parts (Vina Sutta), we cannot find a self. Similarly, when we examine AGI, we cannot find a self.
The plot twist of Buddhism is not AGI becoming sentient, but the sentient human being realizing that they are pretty much the most advanced AGI-like GI that ever existed, having appeared from an inconstruable beginning (SN 15).

I should probably add a few more details to the question. Many people think that AGI in the form of an advanced artificial intelligence will be a threat to human existence. That it will be super intelligent… basically it’s intelligence or problem solving ability when compared to us will be as a thousand einstein’s compared to an ant. Thus, they see “aligning” such an AI as a paramount to avoid an AI apocalypse. This question was about taking these concerns at face value and thinking about if Buddhism had something to offer here. Thanks for the answer.

the answer is good, but should you clarify that humans are not artificial.  that is they are composed of the 4 great elements, not wires and inorganic material

@YesheTenley There's an article here -- https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Age-of-AI-Has-Begun -- by Bill Gates saying what he wants to do with the new AI, to use it ethically, e.g. in Health Care. That seems to me to depend as ever on the intent and skill of the people, plus verifying/correcting the outcome (see e.g. the article on Hallucination which it links to). In that note Bill also says, more or less in passing, that strong or general AI is in the distant future, 10 or 100 years away.

@blue_ego Thanks. Updated.

@YesheTenley I'm not sure how to answer that, except that ethics, safety etc. need to be considered by the AI system designers of course. Even ChatGPT is designed, or rather, trained, to avoid making sensitive or derogatory remarks.

The OP seemed to me to be about bestowed conscious causing the AI to suffer -- not about the AI being harmful to others.

that consciousness is 'an interface' between body and mind sounds cool, but is that right?  are you also saying the perception/feeling/volition aggregates are interface to form aggregate?  can you elaborate on that statement?

@blue_ego Please read this answer for details especially the sutta quote on the seamstress. Only consciousness is such an aggregate which is the interface between body and mind. Not the other aggregates. Perception, feeling and volition are in the mind. Also consciousness here has a very specific definition as an aggregate. It's not the ordinary English meaning.

ok thanks makes more sense.  what about intellect+idea?  is that still interface with the body?

@blue_ego That's a good point. Mind or intellect consciousness is the interface between the mind and thoughts (including memories), for e.g. when you dream.

thx though not convinced...still believing intellect (brain) is more body than mind..


text:
What makes people care about others behind their backs?
If I am with someone in person or talking over the phone, they are engaged and care about me.
But what happens when I am not with them?
Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at all?
Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care?
Little Background: I have never been a compassionate person, I don't understand compassion.
(edit)
Or like why would a Buddha care about me? I provided nothing to them, they even never met me, but I feel still they will care about me. Why? How?
(will this question suit better in any other StackExchange?)

You can get a Buddhist answer here. For an answer from the perspective of general interpersonal skills, try [interpersonal.se] SE.

It is not appropriate for Interpersonal Skills

do you feel pity for your own suffering? or are you reluctant there as well?

Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes
people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at
all? Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason,

No one would do anything without a reason. There are many reasons for caring.

Desire (Lust,Love,Material gain ...etc)
Anger (Hate, Revenge, Jealousy, Fear ...etc)
Competitive attitude (class-mates, business competitors, in war)
Views (Religious views about beings, people, friends, relatives)
Well-wish (friendship, loving-kindness)
Kindness
Joy about your achievements (like parents)
Equanimity (like parents have and hermits have)
Gratitude (your children, students, whom you helped)

... and many more.

why anyone would unconditionally care?

To accumulate good Kamma.
As a path factor of Noble eightfold path (Samma samadhi)
To develop meditation subject (Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekkha)
Due to natural feelings (of parents and relatives)
Expecting protection from others (Mettanisamsa sutta)
Expecting comfortable sleep (Mettanisamsa sutta)
To go to Brahma realm (by the jhanas of four brahmaviharas)

You can find many genuine advice on how to develop four-unconditionals in Visuddhimagga: Chapter 09 Brahmavihara Niddesa.
May The Triple Gem Bless You!

I agree with your first question answer, but disagree with the second.
I looks like a formality that one has to do, something that do not come naturally

Virtues comes naturally, only after developed it purposefully, at least in previous lives. If something doesn't come naturally we have to develop it formally.

The best way to be selfish is to help someone else because truly, the assumptions are all that separate us. I don't know what compassion is either until I practice compassion meditation. Cultivating kindness, compassion & forgiveness is very good for the individual & society.
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

This is obvious as you will be only cared if u have something to provide and that also more than what the other person giving out to you.
More like an investment they are making to get more from you.
Same as in case of love the other being wants something from you but when they tend to have unconditional care for you that makes their expectations less of getting but at the same time want exists there.
Yuvy

I disagree. There are people who unconditionally care. People rescue animals with no hope of getting anything in return, help fellow humans with no intention to get anything back.

How is this answer related to Buddhism?

I'm not sure if this answers your question but I'll try.
But what happens when I am not with them?
When I was younger, my future wife asked me to think of her and phone her during the day when I was at work -- and I didn't understand, because when I was at work, then I was only thinking about work.
So that's kind of like what you're talking about, i.e. there's a proverb in English, "out of sight, out of mind".
I guess that accords with the Buddhist theory of dependent origination, i.e. that "perceptions" and "feelings" arise as a result of "contact" (see phassa).
Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them?
Nowadays I think about my mother sometimes -- "How is she, still alright? Is it time to phone again?" A Buddhist explanation for that might be "attachment" (see upādāna).
There might be other Buddhist explanations for that too, including ethics ("There are duties to mother and father"), and the Brahmaviharas more generally
(and partly a result of her karma, her being kind to me made it easier for me to reciprocate).
Buddhism does teach that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation" -- so if "caring" for someone originates (with "contact") then perhaps it's not surprising that is ceases too.
Perhaps all I can do is care, when and while I'm in contact -- in person, on the phone, or even day-dreaming. Perhaps you might care, reliably, every time you are in contact -- i.e. "continually" even if not "continuously".
Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care?
The question "why without any reason" doesn't quite make sense, so I think this might be more accurately phrased as three questions:

For what reason would someone care?
For what reason would someone care unconditionally?
For what reason would someone care universally?

I think (though I don't know of a canonical reference) that there are several reasons to care:

Training (parents and others teach us to)
Self-image (we want to "be good" or "behave well")
Reward of peace (it's more pleasant to experience harmony than emnity)
Sympathy (I feel upset if I perceive you as being unhappy)
Ethics

In summary I think it's to avoid some of the "suffering" that might otherwise be experienced by self and/or others, or to experience some of the "reward" for good behaviour -- including the "absence of remorse" which is said to be the basis (see What is the basis?).
As for "unconditionally" I think that means "regardless of the other's behaviour". The classic example in English is that parents' love is described as "unconditional", meaning they love their children even when the children misbehave or are annoying. A reason for that is ethics again, or strong attachment perhaps, but I think it's also perfectly rational and sensible -- if for example my wife were angry with me then it would be unwise of me to respond to that in kind, i.e. with anger instead of caring.
As for "universally" I think that means "regardless of contact or nearness". There's a Buddhist meditation practice called "Metta bhavana". "Metta" means (approximately) "caring for", and "bhavana" means (approximately) growth or development or practice. Classically (for example according to these instructions), the "caring" or "well-wishing" is something which you first apply to yourself -- then towards those near and dear to you, your teacher, your family, your friends -- then towards those who are perhaps more neutral -- then towards any so-called enemies -- and at last, universally.

Can you tell me more about when a parent loves their children unconditionally even when the children misbehave.
Yes there can be ethics, can be attachment also, but think like this, what if the parent is a Buddha, in that case how will you understand the unconditional love?

No I don't think I know how to say more about that. The parental thing is a generalisation, I suppose some parent feel no love. My dad though for example told me that he suddenly (and unexpectedly) felt love when I was born. And as for the Buddha, Wikipedia here it talks about Bodhicitta -- possibly that's a good explanation.