text:
Do only sentient being suffer
All I can think of off the top of mind head is the zen claim that mountains are buddha nature. Do they suffer? They are composed of parts, and I believe that there is a type of suffering from "conditioned existence", in Pali.

i mean i don't think i could have been born as a rock. but i think i could die unonscious. just thinking out loud

Suffering is a kind of meaning-making. If there's semiosis - there can be suffering. Semiosis is not limited to sentient beings or even to living beings, but it does require some kind of functional ecosystem, I think. So the current destructive processes in the Earth's ecosystem are a kind of suffering inasmuch as they interfere with natural semiosis, IMO.

i have no opinion on anything anymore... there's too manny, and too much weeirdness

Is a mountain heavy?
It may be heavy in and of itself, but as long as we don't try to lift it up, it won't be heavy for us. ... The Weight of Mountains

My person thinks that householder goes after every, even foolish thought and does not scare to even let it become speech. The serial of questions found is amazing... Don't he like to train a little of letting go of useless thoughts, don't giving them attention, otherwise they are just further nourished, wasting time and resources: causing suffering even not aware.
Better reflecting on mountains in this way: The Simile of the Mountains, for it helps not to wast hard gained human existence.
[note that this isn't giving for entertaining, stacks, exchange and other world-binding trades but for escape from this wheel]

I believe that there is a type of suffering from "conditioned existence", in Pali

Assuming you're thinking of a phrase like sabbe sankhara dukkha, I think that's usually translated as, something like, "all conditioned things are unsatisfactory".
That's not saying that mountains feel dissatisfaction themselves -- I think it's saying that sentient beings (i.e. who have "feelings" and who perceive "mountains" etc.) can't find things such as mountains to be a permanent source of satisfaction.
See also topics like:

Why is 'dukkha' included in one of the three marks of existence?
Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

i'm not saying mountains have feelings. i mean, feeling is a specific thing, it's noty the same as suffering

Do only sentient being suffer?

Not all sentient beings suffer.Those who have attained Nirvana do not suffer at all. They are freed from suffering.

All I can think of off the top of mind head is the zen claim that
mountains are buddha nature. Do they suffer? They are composed of
parts, and I believe that there is a type of suffering from
"conditioned existence", in Pali.

I have not read anything Zen but Buddha Nature is free of suffering. You asked Do mountains suffer ? That is not the right way to look at it. Suppose anyone believes I am mountains then he is bound to suffer. Ordinary person may even believe I am Earth but such a belief can not end suffering because sabbe Dhamma Anatta i.e Earth is not me , mine or myself.(Same applies to Water , Air , Fire etc)

does the buddha nature exist apart from phenomena, though?

@satirical_buddhist  Buddha nature is the nature of nirvana. It is the nature of unborn, uncreate ,unbecoming, unoriginated, unformed. Phenomenon and thoughts are Anatta...


text:
Do we perceive the whole?
According to I think all Buddhists, the whole is nothing more than its parts. I've read it claimed that, given everything is partite, nothing exists. Perhaps Being means something more than its parts, though I'm not sure. Anyway, do we perceive - with or as the skandhas - something as a thing that is more than its parts? Such as a chariot.
I think that would mean that things that don't exist can sometimes be the object of perception. In turn, that interests me because beings without any existence may - perhaps - be in some sense permanent and non-empty, as well as impermanent and empty.
The implications for karma seem obvious.

Update: it definitely seems that Theravada Buddhists claim that we only infer the whole, and do not perceive it. I'm unsure about the Mahayana, especially given how often "the whole universe" crops up in discussing the bodhisattva. So, if I may ask two follow up points:

is the inference to a whole like something: so that the whole in some sense belongs to our mental life?
what about in the Mahayana?

ps i will add a bounty when i can

We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.

sounds about right, with the implication we do not perceive the whole, as we don't need to... at least in theravada. however, some references would be ideal

Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context).
This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis of inference.
The understanding that all entities without exception are inference and that in reality entities are not delineated (and lack fixed identities) is a big part of realization of Emptiness.

i more or less agree, thanks

As one perceives so he thinks, speaks... perceiving and interpreting are two different mental spectrums and because mind is slippery, hardly to grasp, the Buddha didn't encouraged not instructed, trained, to develop householder-emptiness...

The “whole” is neither the sum of parts, nor a unity. From the perspective of relative knowledge it would more correctly be stated to be multiplicity found in unity, but as soon as you start conceiving a thing called “unity” you are lost. This is philosophical.
From the perspective of absolute truth, there is nothing that can be accurately said—language is incapable of encompassing the absolute. Poetry helps a little though.
From the perspective of how we perceive, clearly our senses deliver a continuous (for the most part) stream of nerve impulses to the brain. Science asserts that then, once those impulses reach the brain, it and its constituent, “consciousness,” creates the experience of colorful light, sounds, sensations of touch and stretch, smells, and tastes, and somehow the brain organizes that into intelligible experiences—clearly an interpretation of what is arriving at any time. At the present time, however, this process is just asserted, and not shown, by scientists, who are constrained by their adherence to a certain understanding of reality, at any given time.
A better way to understand what is happening—a more Buddhist way—is to see all of those nerve impulses reaching various areas of the brain as the conditions for the manifestation in mind (mind and brain not being equivalent) of the various perceptions that flood over us throughout our waking moments. In this way, karma, and character, and even mood, as well as the body of our current state of understanding (our ‘knowledge’) have a place in the conditioning of what arises in mind. This way of understanding what is happening better fits both our wakeful experiences and our dreams while sleeping, or being ‘unconscious’.
In the end, mind is the only source of manifested experiences. So what do we perceive—the whole? The “whole” of what exactly? Our imaginary entities and their ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’?
Thus, direct meditative knowledge of the wisdom mind is the goal of mind-training, just as having a “ripped body” is the goal of weight-training. Wholes and parts are just concepts, as are what they describe, and these are like the wind: they arrive and create chaos in our mind, blowing concepts around like leaves, and then suddenly, they disappear once one has trained their mind to chill out and pay attention to what is truly happening.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Looking for a canonical reference: everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life
Looking for a canonical reference: that everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life.
I'm fairly sure I've seen that claimed in scholarship, either Buddhist or otherwise.

The question is about common interpretations of AN 4.123.

anything in the current adhidamma?

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


text:
How to let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge
How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up.
So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

i hope this isn't too much like self help

In the West, we tend to affirm protest, intervention, resentment, and even revenge. In contrast, the Buddha tells us to let it go. That's quite a contrast to deal with.

AN5.162:6.10: In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and body, and the fact that they don’t get an openness and clarity of heart from time to time, and think of them with nothing but compassion, kindness, and sympathy:  ‘Oh, may this person give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.  Why is that?  So that, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re not reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’

When the behavior of others disturbs us, we must first acknowledge that the perception of disturbance is within us--we see ugliness to which feel aversion and experience a desire to "make it right". Propelled by this aversion and desire, our resulting actions are corrupted by our own aversion and desire. Because of this, we generate suffering for ourselves with delusions of righteousness.
So our first action is to deal with the mess inside, clean it up and let it go. If our feelings are hurt, we let that go. If we feel resentment, we let that go. If we feel anger, we let that go. We have to let all the clinging go. Because if we don't let go, our actions will have an unskillful root. Such actions always lead to more suffering.
Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.
The Buddha discusses the danger of fake friends, and urges us to be wise in the relationships we start and maintain:

DN31:15.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, the spender.

Fake friends aside, we can look to become a good friend worthy of good friends:

DN31:21.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend in good times and bad, the counselor, and the one who’s compassionate.

Let go of bad relationships. Open your heart to good-hearted relationships. And keep your heart open even to people from bad relationships--there may come a time when such a person comes back to you to make amends. Be open to that.

that's the thing tho... how do we let go of bad relationships if we don't really know they are bad etc.?

i guess in our behaviour yeah. thanks

This my person likes most: "It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience." And it would be really good if people alway do what they shop, even for free...

And - of course as a child of communism understandable to think on rights first - the question actually askes of what the "victim" should do, right? "Victim-duties" are asked, if wishing to call it like that. Consumer, of course, do seldom other then help each other as if victims...

In additiibn, one may see it as demand from a bad relation, or not repaiable gift of a good, a task: Karma and Gratitude, Bhante Thanissaro

Good time to think about whether ones behaviour is total out of control? What does good householder think: Maybe good to investigate the matter and try to get back on earth and stay mindful?

where is your compassion for me? my behaviour is fine compared to the other party., imho

Ever thought that pointing on pimple is a seldom to receive compassion? May good householder just take a look first. At least he asked for reason and answer. One very self-centered may not see his acts but just wonders why suddenly alone. Satirical, isn't it.

Btw. there are no limits of raising questions but some might feel disturbed and make of moderating out of personal preverances...

huh? what do you mean? how i am disturbing whom?

Many questions seem not be really considered as if good householder wouldn't be on stage but uses the place just as garbage deposit of arising fermentations. On the other hand, question like this here isn't bad at all if really not aware why people actually may turn away. So it's a very practical case here as well (stacks and exchange seeker don't like practicing, that is the 'problem', they seek for real things in words and signs...)

i don't think this is getting a better answer, i will delete if you do your answer

it's, as told, actually a good question and good to reflect on the matter. Remember the Kesi Sutta in regard of stopping to feed which is actually, if intentional, hard 'punishment' which might have causes but not forgething that all could be also just ones own movie feeling not regarded, lacking food of touch. Good householder seems like as if needing much personal attention, food...


text:
The unity of samadhi and prajna
Does any extant tradition claim that the unity of samadhi and prajna^ is actual from the beginning of the bodhisatva path, so that it is available to the neophyte - just with less power of something similar to more advanced bodhisatvas?
^e. g. Chinul:

Samadhi being prajna, it is quiescent and yet always knowing.

or Platform Sutra:

To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion... a lamp and its light.

So you can see, they are one, yet - perhaps - not everyone realizes this in their practice?
Just asking because I think it may be the meaning of human life etc..

Inhaling and exhaling are both part of one breath.  The former requires the latter and vice versa, but they employ completely different modalities.

i maybe agree ha @user19511

Of course it is.  You can't have prajna without samadhi.  Think of a shovel versus a backhoe.  With a little shovel you can clear away a little debris and dig little holes.
With a backhoe, you can move mountains.  So to with concentration and wisdom.  Your samatha practice is the tool that allows you to clear away your own obstacles and access insight and wisdom.  And just like in the shovel example with the little samadhi of the novice comes little prajna; with the big samadhi of the adept comes bigger prajna.

Noble Eightfold Path is further summarised into three main categories namely Sila, Samadhi, and Panna. Noble Eightfold Path should be practiced as a whole. You can't practice only a selected limb and called it "Noble" Hence all three Sila, Samadhi and Panna should be practiced together in NEP.

Good householder,
If by "Bodhisatta-way", the path of the Buddha, the path of release from stress and wandering on, is meant "being (satta) after bodhi (awakening)", then there is a different for a either student nor finished and a student. To reach the path developing right view, pañña, straighten it, comes before concentration, while one on the path focuses on concentration to reach refined pañña and knowing and vision.
If by "Bodhisatta" ideals of certain sects, which desire for reasoning for useless wandering on and continue harm for themselves and others, is meant: it's by nature of this that in all ways right view, right samadhi, pañña is avoided since the path of the Buddha would bind one toward release and unbound. So in short, since there is no different between an ordinary worldling and a "Bodhisatta", neither is there right view nor right concentration present and easy recognise-able by lack of right Right Resolve and going after confused resolve, harmful, unwise, attached.
The unite of concentration and wisdom arises, can be developed after having gained path, having completed the purification of virtue after right view had arosen. It is therefore a "unite", path-section only accessable for Noble ones till the ten-fold path of the Arahat.
[Note that this hasn't been given for stacks, exchanges, trade for wandering on, bond to it, but for escape and release from this wheel]

We don't call it "samadhi" when it's partially distracted and we don't call it "prajna" when it's partially confused.
In other words, whether something of the kind may be available to a beginner, it's not qualified to be called those two terms.
You might ask: ok, even if the case, is there a unity of aiming at prajna and samadhi?
-- Yes, and that's what's known as the unity of Samatha and Vipassana - also known as the practice of meditation.


text:
What is prajna?
In the west, when we talk about wisdom we tend to mean knowing the value of things. As far as I tell, prajna is about emptiness, at least in its perfected aspect. So does it also allow us knowledge of what is valuable, or is that something that the path is founded on - good karma nd liberation from suffering - so that really all the sages have very little to say about it?

why downvoted??

Prajna is direct practical realization of Buddha-Dharma.
It is when you 1) clearly see in front of your nose (and everywhere around you) all that cool stuff being spoken about in Buddhist books,  and 2) have attained actual hands-on mastery of these theories and principles in your own day-to-day life.
Another way to say the above, Prajna is when 1) you attained a whole new level of discernment, when various ethically important qualities of processes and phenomena are clearly discerned by you. And 2) you learned to put these discernment skills to good practical use.

nice, grounded, answer. thanks

Kusala (ku=bad, sala=cutting off/away) is doing which getting at least 2 values, now and then (6 values--present value, next value, nibbana, own value, others' value, each others' value. See the last quote.)
Pajānāna (Pa+ñā) is understanding the possible various angles/aspects, causes and effects -- realities, in each moment. It means not only value and not only emptiness.
The Buddhist Followers use every kind of Pajānāna to enlighten Nibbāna properly.
It is impossible to say "I am a genius man in emptiness but I don't like to give or mettā" because giving and mettā always arise with the Pajānāna of emptiness.
The real Nibbāna is teaching only in the Buddha's teaching because of the Buddha is teaching of understanding in the proper&possible path to understand emptiness, causes&effects. And the proper&possible path includes the basis which supporting to understand the emptiness, such as understanding karma, understanding mettā, understanding people, understanding the smallest elements, etc.
The possible reality can't esily arise without it's supporters.
This is why the Buddha teach everything included Samatha, 40 Kammatthāna, not only Vipassanā.
Ñāna is Proficiency Pajānāna. It's when you are knowing one, you understanding every aspect of that one together in same moment without using thinking or comprehending time requirement because you are professional of it's relations, causes and effects, already.

For kusala see AndhaSutta (blinder of 2 values):

These are the three people found in the world.
Neither suitable wealth, nor merit do they make. They lose on both
counts, those who are blind, with ruined eyes.
And now the one-eyed person is explained. By methods good and bad,
that devious person seeks wealth.
Both by fraudulent, thieving deeds, and also by lies, the young man’s
skilled at piling up money, and enjoying sensual pleasures. From here
they go to hell— the one-eyed person is ruined.
And now the two-eyed is explained, the best individual. Their wealth
is earned legitimately, money acquired by their own hard work.
They give with best of intentions, that peaceful-hearted person. They
go to a good place, where there is no sorrow.
The blind and the one-eyed, you should avoid from afar. But you should
keep the two-eyed close, the best individual.”

can you clarify your first sentence there, please?

I have edited the answer.

Capable of upvoting (praise) of what is or leads to essential, a mind directed to unbond: this is called pañña.
Tendency of downvoting (blame) of what leads or is essential, a mind directed toward views, stacks, exchange and trade: this is called lack of pañña.
Uncapable to trace the essence in the essential, seeing unessential as essence, how could a grasper of pointless ever benefit of even highest knowledge?
Those who regard
non-essence as essence
and see essence as non-,
don't get to the essence,
ranging about in wrong resolves.
But those who know
essence as essence,
and non-essence as non-,
get to the essence,
   ranging about in right resolves. ✦
As a Khmer proverb, an advice, says:

យល់តូច កំុអាលខំ យល់ធំ កំុអាលស្រាយ
Understanding/knowing little,
don't brand (judge) things.
(even if) Understanding much,
don't brand (judge) as heartwood.`

...

The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head). story

So the Sublime Buddha did not pay much judgement in regard of wisdom viciversa knowledge but whether corrupt and a fool or not:
Got the essence or another death having searched for stacks, exchange and for gains where nothing would hold?
Be(come) wise!
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, binding trades in the world but for escape from the bond of fool]


text:
Is anything ever complete?
I think Buddhists agree that the past cannot return, look at e.g. Dogen on firewood, or perhaps the Awakening of Faith

all that had been conceived in the past was as
hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is
like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the
future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly.

There are no "wholes" in Buddhism. But are there, conventionally speaking?

Vasubandhu rejects both wholes and combined sets (whether cohesive or
merely contiguous). Wholes are rejected by appealing to the Buddhist
reductionist principle which says that only the component parts of an
entity are real (aggregated wholes, on this view, are not).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
I was merely some things may be of the sort that could potentially be wholes, but never are: and so they are never complete. Is that the case, why, and if so, so what?

Take the canonical example of a chariot.
Does anyone say that the chariot is not ultimately real, but you can conventionally find the chariot in among its parts - that it has then itself as a part - meaning the chariot appears to be a whole: it is potentially but not actually as there is always more.

Please briefly clarify what is meant conceptually, and in what sense & context & object class(es), by wholes & complete

huh? i'm confused what you even mean, let alone how to clarify words @MH

Thank you for your kind comment; then conventional objective objects could be whole & complete, as could existential & undescribable things, although undescribable things would be undescribable by language, as mentioned by Dogen Daishi

Everything is work in progress (becoming)  except Nibbana (non-becoming) according to Buddhism.

is nirvana a thing?

is non-becoming is another becoming?

What is complete or whole?
A car which is not missing any parts is surely complete or whole, by convention.
Buddhism is not concerned about this. It is only concerned with the fact that the car, as a conditioned thing is impermanent, and also the car as a phenomena that is not self and not belonging to a self.
When your car becomes damaged or has problems, this causes you suffering. It's not because it became incomplete. It's because it is impermanent, and you assumed it as belonging to your-self.
Please see the River Sutta. Please also see this answer for the longer story of the red car.

that's just not true at all. there's lots of discussion on parts and wholes

@satirical_buddhist You could be more specific about which school of Buddhism you're asking about. You mentioned Dogen in the question; ruben2020's answer seems to be more based on the suttas, and soteriology not ontology.

hey sorrry, everyone @ChrisW i'm wastiung my life, apologies for that. see you

I think it's an observation or an axiom of Buddhism that things which are put together -- physically pieced together from components, and/or constructed in the mind -- they come apart again.
In this sense at least, things are not whole.
They are not permanent, they are subject to change -- and empty of "self", being "mere aggregates".
A thing might be complete though in another sense of the word "complete" -- not "finally constructed", but "finished", "undone" (deconstructed).
An action can be complete too -- finished, not continued -- "perfect" in the grammatical sense.
Arguably only what is not constructed (e.g. nibbana) is complete in being not subject to change.

I say "arguably", I think that various Buddhists over time made more and more of these "philosophical arguments" -- but the kind of statement I'm referencing here, about sankharas and nibbana, are mentioned even in the earliest tranche.
The last words of the Buddha were something like,

vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā”ti
Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.

I've also seen (and remember) that translated as,

All compound things are subject to decay.

Conversely the first words of the Buddha include the following which I think are relevent here because they point to the possibility of an action or an intention, an endeavour, being completed:

This is the noble truth of suffering.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another. ‘This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of suffering has been completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering has been given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering has been realized.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
‘This is the noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering has been developed.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.

See also these suttas refencing a palmyra stump -- see also What is effluent? which I think is to do with the kind of mental habit or tendencies which keep people from finishing (or being finished) with things.

Arahat, once reached, means complete and Mahaparinibbana is the ultimate (comp)lete*, good householder. No use of seeking else, seeking of complete in the world. May good householder hurry up for it's gain, and such as philosophy will always be incomplete, a waste of time and effort, for the wise.

*while meaning of complete in it's use might fit, the real meaning doesn't as real (comp)lete isn't compound.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever world-binding trade, but for Completeness.]


text:
How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively do so about rebirth?
How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively -- non literal -- not what is ordinarily meant -- do so about rebirth? They surely cannot believe rebirth is literal, so what exactly is it?
An answer from any perspective would be most welcome.

Among these Buddhists, however, this has led to the rejection not of
non-self but of rebirth. (Historically this response was not unknown
among East Asian Buddhists, and it is not rare among Western Buddhists
today.) The evidence that the Buddha himself accepted rebirth and
karma seems quite strong, however... this sort of ‘noble lie’ justification for the Buddha teaching a doctrine he does not accept fails in the face of the evidence that he also taught it to quite advanced monastics

Emphasis added
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#KarReb
So I'm not asking what the Buddha thought - we don't actually know - or any specific historical Buddhists. I am just seeking clarity on how you think of rebirth without literal karma^ , pretty uninterested in its psychological / self justification aspect, thanks.
^

a causal relationship between action (karma) and ‘fruit’ (phala), the
latter being an experience of pleasure, pain or indifference for the
agent of the action

What do you mean by "figuratively" when applied to karma?

that the agent of the action experiences its karmic result @ruben2020 i'd guess

isn't that what's called "literal"?

The question isn't clear to me. The reference doesn't mention "figurative". The word "figurative" to me means, "metaphorical". If you're asking about people who think of karma "figuratively" or "metaphorically" -- what is "karma" a "metaphor" of? Can you quote anyone describing it as a metaphor? And I think you're saying that people who think of karma "figuratively" think of rebirth as "figurative" too. So you're asking for any explanation of a "figurative" understanding of karma and of rebirth? But excluding any "psychological" aspect??

it just means non-literal, if you look it up @ChrisW

"departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical"

theis is not the place to try and explain what 'metaphor' means, sorry

The first question I asked on this site was about "rebirth" and how to understand that: Is rebirth a delusional belief? That has 23 answers -- perhaps one of those helps to answer this question?

To help try clarify: maybe question is ~What do people who, instead of considering the traditional standard consideration that karma is a valid concept, instead consider karma to be figurative & metaphorical, what do those people consider rb to be, eg, do they consider rb to be figurative, metaphorical, delusional, etc; &, the question may be asking for replies based on the idea of rb having connection to karma; perhaps a modified version of this question could be asked as a metaquestion, since Buddhism is generally considered to include concepts of rb and of karma as being literally valid

You are looking at karma and rebirth as having two different perspectives - figurative/ metaphorical or literal.
There's another two ways to look at this - "there is a self" and "all phenomena is not self".
If there is a self, you would think that the person who committed some action, would experience its results.
If there is a self, this self would be reborn after death. Most people take consciousness to be the self i.e. the same consciousness that moves throughout one's life and then after death, continues in another body.
What if all phenomena is not self?
From the SN 12.17 (although this quote comes from here):

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

So, the Buddha taught karma, but he also taught anatta.
In AN 5.57 (below), the Buddha told us to think "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma", but this is only a soteriological tool, a skillful means, and not proof that there is a self.

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

And what about rebirth?
From MN 38:

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true,
Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand
the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness
that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."

When it comes to rebirth, you must ask WHO or WHAT is reborn?
Is it the self? Is it consciousness? None of these are permanent even in one's life. They are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arising and ceasing. The self is just a mental idea. Please see this answer.
So what is reborn? Well, suffering is reborn, and the mental idea of the self is reborn.

I think of karma, seeds of karma, and fruits of karma as individual's action, latent effects of such action, and individual experience resulting from past action, correspondingly. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.
I think of rebirth as a type of karmic process that spans multiple lifetimes. An action is performed in one life, its seeds remain latent after death, then in another life the effects of those actions influence, shape, and configure individual's background, environment, and therefore personality, in a certain way. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.

'Kamma' means 'intentional action' therefore is never 'figurative'.
As for the word 'rebirth' meaning 'reincarnation', there appears no equivalent Pali word in the original scriptures. Therefore what is actually 'figurative' is the idea of a 'rebirth after the ending of life'.
In original Buddhism, the literal meaning of 'death' ('marana') & 'following from' ('upapajjati') appears to refer to types of egoism or self-views.
SN 12.2 defines 'death' as the death of 'a being'. SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define 'a being' as a state of attachment; as a view.
In summary, because of attachment or self-view, kamma is performed; and because of attachment or self-view, results of kamma are reaped.

I don't know if you're familiar with psychology, but there's a theory there called the "Cycle of Violence", which holds that violent acts repeat themselves. They don't just repeat themselves within relationships — as each person in turn takes revenge or retribution for the other's violent behavior — but repeat across society as people turn their desire for retribution outward towards others.  They even repeat across generations, where those who are exposed to violent acts as children expose their own children to violence. Exposure to violence creates a kind of 'resonance' such that violence arises in us and exposes others.
Expanding this idea brings us to a non-reincarnation understanding of karma. Every attitude we present to the world — anger, joy, avarice, fear, stubbornness, vanity, peace, etc — impacts those around us. And like tuning forks, others resonate to our attitude, sympathetically or discordantly, outwards to others and back to us, so that the whole world (to some limited extent) rings like a bell to our attitude. Once we're caught in that resonance, that tone keeps coming back to our lives; as that tone spreads outward, others get caught in it, and that tone keeps coming back to their lives.
If we think of the 'self' as the confluence of those attitudes (the collection of frequencies we resonate at), then that 'self' is constantly reconstructing itself out of its own echoes. Even after a body dies, that self still constantly reconstructs itself in other bodies that have been caught in the resonance.
The dharma, thus, is to still those resonances we do not wish to reconstruct themselves. By not taking those attitudes, and not resonating to them when we are exposed to them in the world, by stilling the self, we pass on only what is universal and good, and that 'self' never reconstitutes itself.

If you assume no 'I' or '' mine', no rebirth.
If you assume 'I' or 'mine', rebirth makes sense.
The universe is empty, energy can only change forms. So for 'now', everywhere sums up to 0.
Flip 90 degrees, so for 'here' (I), everywhen sums up to 0.
This is kamma-vipaka. All action has entirely linear consequences overall. Good = good, bad = bad. This way, action can sum to 0.
But it is a lower truth - because it assumes an 'I', it is not worthy of monks, who must eschew all self concern.
An approximation, not unlike God as an approximation, except more accurate.

I think of rebirth as the end of a life, nothing more, with the caveat that the agent experiences the result.
I do not know how to unpack that tension into everyday language, but such is the middle, anyway.

Each word by itself makes sense, but together it reads as utter nonsense, sorry.

ha, well at least there's that then.


text:
Help with finding a specific sutta
I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how beings we meet in this life (family, friends, animals etc.) have all been our parents, friends, loved ones, pets etc. in previous lives. What sutta is that?
Thank you for your time.

From SN 15.14:

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. … It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

Good householder,
Who one actually meets is a matter of tendency, a matter of past and present upanissays-paccaya (strong condition/dependence causes). The meeting of other being is a matter of Upanissaya (strong condition/relation/foundation, giving into).

'Puggalokpi, upanissaya paccayena paccayo.' Upanissaya-Paccaya

It's because of relation being ones foundation, that one is wise in nourishing relation toward 'the Sublime', toward admirable people, and to turn away from those firmly caught in the world.
In case of preferring what's given not from world-binding sources but from the Triple Gems, from those heading or having already unrelated: Mata Sutta: Mother.

A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

One should be clear that it's hard to ever gain the path if no relation with the/a Sublime Buddha, with the Jewels.
Maybe also good on this topic are the effects of association:

Q&A What's the effect of association with outcasts?
Umgang mit Weisen pflegen - Association with the Wise
Association with the Devas - associated Rebirth
Association with pets - Associated rebith?

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for gain bound to relation toward escape from this wheel]


text:
Does this count as breaking the first precept?
Let’s say that my face was itchy but just before I scratch it, I just remember that there might be face mites living on my face and I might be killing them. And as I’m scratching my face, I keep thinking that I might be killing the face mites. My original intention was to scratch my face but if I think I might be killing the face mites but continue to scratch my face because it’s itchy then does that count as breaking the first precept?

interesting also in that itching could be illusory in some contexts, and that when the mterial was written down, & presently, lots of persons weren't/ aren't aware of such mites, &, whether the relief or illusion of relief from the illusion would be recieved as pleasant/ desirous, etc; and whether each thusly demised mite or if demise of a flock of mites would be just one infraction, or a flock of infractions, then extrapolating as for the rest of the question; general cleanliness; and the inconsistent level of consideration re the situation might also be of interest in the context of the q

if Asker could please indicate if asking only re Therevada texts, or for all contexts of Buddhisms answers, could be helpful for replying

The first precept is:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Conditions that Break the Precept
(By Ñanavara Thera)
The five factors of the first precept are:
* pano -- presence of a living being.
* panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
* vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
* upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
* tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

All factors must be fulfilled in order to break the first precept.
If you can answer yes to all of them then the first precept is broken. If you can answer no to one of them the precept is not broken.

This is a great answer. It's clear, doesn't digress and has a reference!

Thank you Erik:)

Aside of possible akusala actions (which is as soon as mental approve or wishing death, factor of intention), good householder, there are those factors to prove whether a full offence or not:

Object: living being, (In Vinaya a wording of "even small as a egg of a bed-bug" is found, here also perception of living being matters, of course)
Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting to cause that beings death. “Knowingly” also includes the factor of —
Perception: perceiving the object as a living being.
Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that being to die.
Result: The life-faculty of the being is cut as the result of one's act.

So the matter of the perception isn't that easy here (from seeing it, till thinking it might be). Acting in doubt, of course is another wrongdoing, but an other.
Also wheter alive and whether death on one action may make it difficult to know.
Don't forget for example that one "knowns" that there are being under the soil where stepping on, or doesn't he actually?
Most importand, how ever, is intention. It's actally an not easy topic and my person currently struggle with sand fleas, which actually need to be removed as well. Since month heavy disease because of those tiny beings. Knowing things in detail often makes things not easier. For many years not known that this "throns" are parts of living beings.
In any case, may one always be most patient and try all to cause most less harm => Sila, Metta.
Enduring just pains is of cause a very needed practice to cut off certain fermentaions arising on it. Circumstances, how ever, are always different and proves can be at east only by oneself if honest and discerning enoug.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding tade but for escape from this wheel, a gift for such]


text:
Need help with finding a specific Sutta
I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how a person who only for a moment cultivates loving-kindness or mindfulness has not wasted his or her spiritual life.
What sutta is that?
Thank you for your time.

Here are some finger-snapping and udder-pulling moments of love and mindfulness:

AN1.53:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant cultivates a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.54:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant develops a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.55:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant focuses on a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN9.20:9.1: It would be more fruitful develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.”

AN9.20:8.9: It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.

SN20.4:1.2: “Mendicants, suppose one person was to give a gift of a hundred pots of rice in the morning, at midday, and in the evening. And someone else was to develop a heart of love, even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder. The latter would be more fruitful.

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.406:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.407:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.408:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have not arisen do arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.409:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development, even for the time of a finger snap …

There may be more...

Perhaps the Velāma Sutta (AN 9.20) which ends:

It would be more fruitful to undertake the training rules—not to kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence—than to go for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha with a confident heart.
It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.
It would be more fruitful develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.”

That includes the "even if only for a moment" idea, although not the "has not wasted his or her spiritual life".
There's also AN 1.53 and AN 1.54 which is a more exact match:

“If, mendicants, a mendicant cultivates a mind of love even as long as a finger snap, they’re called a mendicant who does not lack absorption, who follows the Teacher’s instructions, who responds to advice, and who does not eat the country’s alms in vain. How much more so those who make much of it!”

“If, mendicants, a mendicant develops a mind of love even as long as a finger snap, they’re called a mendicant who does not lack absorption, who follows the Teacher’s instructions, who responds to advice, and who does not eat the country’s alms in vain. How much more so those who make much of it!”


text:
Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why?
My preference would be a Theravada based answer to the following question:

Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and
why?

Thank you. :)

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the four most important texts within KN are:

Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")
Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")

The reason for this is that these texts contain the teachings of the Buddha himself, compared to other texts which only contain other things like biographies, stories, sayings of other monks and nuns, chants etc.
I listed Sutta Nipata on top as it is said to be one of the earliest texts of the Pali Canon, but the linguistic style of Sutta Nipata makes it harder to understand compared to the other three on the list. So, you're better off starting with the other three.
The Dhammapada is the easiest to read as it contains many chapters filled with short verses.
From the Dhammapada:

Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

Better than a thousand useless verses is one useful verse, hearing which one attains peace.

Better than reciting a hundred meaningless verses is the reciting of one verse of Dhamma, hearing which one attains peace.

You might want to read Dr. Hammalawa SADDHĀTISSA 's translation of the Sutta-Nipāta. Quoting the author:Only a handful of translations of the Sutta-Nipāta have been made in English but these are, doubtless because of their metrical rendering, generally archaic and stilted in expression; moreover, they are out of print. I was persuaded to prepare a prose version which would convey the spirit of this important text in contemporary language and, it is hoped, stand the test of time more effectively than its predecessors.

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the five most important texts within KN are:

Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")
Theragata & Therigata
Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")

The Dhammapada is hardcore and to the point.
The Itivuttaka is easy to read, heartwood and contains some important explanatory teachings that appear not found elsewhere (eg. Iti 44, Iti 49, Iti 96); even though these teachings are related to the core teachings of the suttas.
The Udana is fun but appears to contain some probably belated, miraculous yet amusing texts (such as new born children talking dhamma). It also contains lots of hardcore illuminating wisdom teachings.
The Theragata & Therigata are mature.
I listed Sutta Nipata on the bottom because, due to its nature of often being in "verse" (vs "prose"), the language is often more archaic thus vague. Also, it contains what appear to be belated texts, such as Metta & Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The other texts are best avoided, appearing to be belated texts loaded with superstition & wrong views, such as Jataka, other past lives books & Milindapanha. These texts do show however how quickly the Buddha-Dhamma degenerated. The Paṭisambhidāmagga commentary was obviously not composed by Venerable Sariputta and is often inaccurate.

Questions of King Milinda (the original ancient text only, i.e. parts 1 and 2, not the later additions) is by far my favorite text in KN. Unfortunately a good English translation of this text is hard to get by, as internet is full of abridged and approximately-translated (adapted) versions.
I like it because it provides excellent description of core Dhamma topics without using the same standard formulas that are copied word by word  all over the Pali Canon.

I recommend these first:

KN.Khuddakapatha, it means "the small canons for the beginners to recite and practice". According to KN. Kuddakapatha's commentary.

The elder masters have taught the way for laymen and monks to get start in Buddha's teaching by taking Threefold Refuge, then they are going to teach 10 precepts which laymen and monks should practice first...
evaṃ saraṇagamanehi sāsanotāraṃ dassetvā sāsanaṃ otiṇṇena upāsakena vā pabbajitena vā yesu sikkhāpadesu paṭhamaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ, tāni dassetuṃ nikkhittassa sikkhāpadapāṭhassa idāni vaṇṇanatthaṃ ayaṃ mātikā

KN.Patisambhidamagga, it means "the way to attain analyzing wisdom". It was authored by ven.Sariputta, The Marshal of the Dhamma.  This canon describes steps by steps of wisdom meditations from start, how to learn, to the end, how to be The SammasamBuddha, completely. Every commentary and sub-commentary, include VisuddhiMagga (Path Of Purification), base on this canon. Actually, the whole tipitaka's structure base on Sariputta's teaching because the Buddha often admire Sariputta.

The Mahāvagga, Mahākhandhaka

When (97) (Sāriputta and Moggallāna), who had reached emancipation in the perfect destruction of the substrata (of existence), which is a profound subject accessible only to knowledge, came to the Veluvana, the Teacher, who saw them, foretold about [\q 150/] them: ‘These two companions who are now coming Kolita and Upatissa -- these will be a pair of (true) pupils, a most distinguished, auspicious pair.’

Aṅguttara Nikāya 1. Ekakanipāta XIII. Ekapuggalavagga A Certain person.

Bhikkhus, I do not know of any other person who could follow up the teaching proclaimed by the Thus Gone One other than Sāriputta. Bhikkhus, Sāriputta follows up the teaching proclaimed by me.

DN 33 SangitiSutta-Reciting in Concert.

Soon after they left, the Buddha looked around the Saṅgha of monks, who were so very silent. He addressed Venerable Sāriputta, “Sāriputta, the Saṅgha of mendicants is rid of dullness and drowsiness. Give them some Dhamma talk as you feel inspired. My back is sore, I’ll stretch it.”
“Yes, sir,” Sāriputta replied.

So, most of 1st Buddhist Council leaders often go to listen his dhamma talk in MN32 Mahagosingasalasutta- The Longer Discourse at Gosiṅga.

so i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in the sal forest park at Gosiṅga, together with several well-known senior disciples, such as the 1. venerables Sāriputta, Mahāmoggallāna, 2.Mahākassapa, 3.Anuruddha, Revata, 4.Ānanda, and others.
Then in the late afternoon, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna came out of retreat, went to Venerable Mahākassapa, and said, “Come, Reverend Kassapa, let’s go to Venerable Sāriputta to hear the teaching.”
“Yes, reverend,” Mahākassapa replied. Then, together with Venerable Anuruddha, they went to Sāriputta to hear the teaching.
Seeing them, Venerable Ānanda went to Venerable Revata, told him what was happening, and invited him also.

In above sutta, everybody was the leader of 1st buddhist council, except ven. Sariputta. However, Sariputta's students were the leaders instead of him. This is in DighaNikaya's commentary.

As I've explained, 500 bhikkhus in first council recited 80 Bhanavara of Khandhaka (VN.Bhikkhu,Bhikkhuni,Maha,Cula) and 25 Bhanavara of Parivara together, then called it Vinaya-Pitaka. At the end of reciting, the land shook. 500 bhikkhus in first council ordered Upali "Teach VinayaPitaka to your students, Avuso".
...
500 bhikkhus in first council recited 64 Bhanavara in systematized language which included 34 Sutta 3 Vagga step by step (SilakkhandhaVagga, Mahavagga, Pathikavagga) together, then called it DigaNikaya and ordered Ananda "Teach DigaNikaya to your students, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited MajjhimaNikaya 80 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Sariputta's students "Keep it, Avuso".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited SamyuttaNikaya 100 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Kassapa "Teach SamyuttaNikaya to your students, Bhante".
Then 500 bhikkhus in first council recited AnguttaraNikaya 120 Bhanavara together, and they ordered Anuruddha "Teach AnguttaraNikaya to your students, Avuso".

The other canons in Khudakanikaya are important as well depending on the proper of the situation to use each one, ie. KN Gathadhammapada for daily life, KN Theragatha for seeing the sample view of Arahanta or important monks' life history.

In a hurry, or afraid to waste 'precious' time?
If, good householder, wishes to get the most important first, so as it was used to traditional (by the elders, not the market and consumers preferences), actually, if investigating, careful and with broader understanding, the collection of the Tipitaka is actually sorted, 1, 2...
If generally searching for inspiration, getting the right words at the right time for release, random selection is possible the best way, if still outside. Food and preferences are very different and if wishing to get the whole for an enter required, there is the requirement of a teacher, knowing which is good at certain time.
There are also many parts in this Nikaya which aren't really avaliable and also somehow "mobbed" in western, modern world. So not easy to find them anywhere promoted.
Most importand, in regard of having actually benefit, is getting the teaching as a real gift, not even demanded, and to come to such point, most importand: Better to Give than to Consume & Respect, Confidence and Patient
Since the Tipitaka isn't really thought as a common literature, but a collection for insider, this Nikaya's first Sutta starts with the right approach:
I go to the Buddha for refuge.
I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A second time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A second time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A second time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A third time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A third time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A third time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

And continues with the The Ten Training Rules of a novice, someone serious with the huge gift.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
How do I control my mind?
How can I prevent harmful thoughts and intentions from coming into my head?
How can I remove them if they do come into my head?
Even if I try to forget about them, I will still remember it. So how can I forget about them and never remember it?

Try the strategies suggested in MN 20: https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/bodhi

Your thoughts are OK. Accept, treasure and move on.

I believe it was Joseph Goldstein who said "Don't try to stop your thoughts. You can't. The goal of meditation is not elimination, but illumination."

Practise what is explained in MN 19.
In other words, it is not sufficient to label a thought as "harmful" and then worry about it.
Instead, when the harmfulness of the harmful thought is thoroughly considered & examined, the harmful thought will end, due to truly understanding its harmful nature.

Upvoted for clarifying the fact that thoughts cannot be stopped, removed or forgotten.

Thoughts can be stopped, removed or forgotten. But this is not relevant to the current question.

First things first. The original question is literally asking about preventing, removing and forgetting thoughts. so how are those behaviors not relevant to the question?

Best you provide your own answer rather than make comments perverting & misrepresenting what others write. Your comments are not useful but are intrusions upon another's answers.

I think your answer sums up what i would try to convey myself, so my own reply would likely only repeat what you've already written. Regarding my perverting and misrepresenting, there has likely been a misunderstanding somewhere. One way to clear it up is to look into it (incidentally by refraining from removing or forgetting the discussion), in case you'd be interested anytime ahead.

The discussion is useful and not a perversion. Thank you both. Upvoted.

Who cares if they come or go?  They aren’t you.  Do you get upset when you breath in?  Or when you put a hat on?  Why frustrate yourself with externalities?  You have no more control of your thoughts than the sky controls the number of clouds.  Does the sky worry itself on overcast days?
The second patriarch came to Bodhidharma’s cave.  “Master, my mind gives me no rest.  How can I pacify it?” “Show me your mind and I will pacify it for you,” the western barbarian replied.
There is no mind.  There is no pacification.

To me this is an enjoyable answer. I see enlightenment here, not in the other answers.

Stop listening to them. Stop recalling them. Stop rolling them over in your mind.
If you stop doing all of that, they won’t draw your attention away from what is actually happening, they won’t bother you, or stress you out, and you won’t remember them because they will just evaporate as if they were never there.
You do all that by earnestly practicing meditation with the guidance of a qualified teacher—and preferably not a secular teacher of mindfulness because of their serious limitations.
Do that and you can become liberated from all the troubles of an uncontrolled mind.
Update:

When you attempt to suppress emotions, thoughts, or perceptions—when you forcefully try to control them—you are chaining yourself to them. You should never try to suppress anything that arises during meditation, nor during your mindful moments during your daily life.
Instead, you must train your mind not to wander distractedly along with your emotions, or thoughts, or all the myriad of perceptions that arise throughout your day and practice sessions. You train your mind to remain with that which you are mindfully doing. In the case of meditation, your mind remains in the practice, whatever it is, regardless of whatever happens.
Of course, there are times in your normal daily life when, not having fully trained your mind, you may be distracted by some, or all, of these things and you may feel the need to try to suppress them—but remember that when you engage with them in this way you are shackling yourself to them by doing so!
Trying to suppress emotions, thoughts, and perceptions is at best nothing more than a quick fix that will return frequently to haunt you in your practice, and even worse, trying to do so is a sure way to become disenchanted with meditation.
The better way, and the one that a trained mind provides you the faculty to follow, is that you are never more than momentarily disturbed because your mind doesn’t wander, doesn’t get distracted, is totally focused as you intend to be, and is never straining—you are at ease, like an unmovable mountain. The mind thus finds great ease and calm in all that it does, and easily lets thoughts, emotions, and perceptions pass without engaging with them.
In between these two—a mind not yet trained, and one that is—you should strive to notice what is arising at all times. When distracting thoughts arise you should note them and then redirect your mind back to your desired center of focus. And it should be the same for emotions, as well as distracting perceptions.

My article on the danger of secular meditation: https://medium.com/p/2a2fe0617ffd

I like that you say what to do and then give a method on how to do it. (Stop. Use meditation to stop.) Very clear and direct. Thank you for the link I asked about in my earlier comment! It makes some clear arguments.

Concentrating on stopping binds you to what you want to stop. Why not just let the thoughts come and let them go like fish through water, without wrestling with them?

That is true Timm. And language is fluid, it’s meaning often vague. I can stop my car by taking my foot off the accelerator and letting it slow down and then stop, or I can jam my foot on the break pedal and force it to stop. It was more the former meaning in my words, which for brevity, and while knowing nothing of the level of understanding of the OP, I left it vague. But see my article “Do Not Try To Suppress Anything” for complete clarity on my part: https://medium.com/p/d87b521a9807

Stopping gently gives you more time to bind. That's OK, you have one way, I another. Though I still think that these thoughts shouldn't be given that much attention.

Thanks for the update James. Seems we've been on the same path all along. I just don't make a big thing about it.

Are you addressing my answer to the OP’s question, Timm? I don’t understand what you mean by “I don’t make a big deal about it.” Is that why you didn’t answer the OP’s question? What are you on about? Can you be more clear?

Yes, I'm commenting on your answer. I read your last edit explaining – as I understand it – that the OP shouldn't focus on stopping the thoughts but train his mind to let them go. I didn't mean to criticise you. I realised that you and I are not so different in our approach, the only difference being that you would recommend meditation, etc. My approach is what I tried to express in my answer: there's no need to spend much time on the issue; the only need is to accept the thought and bid it farewell. I have answered the OP's question, but I think I'll expand it a bit. Is that more clear?

Yes, thank you.

This is based mainly on my experience and in my imperfect understanding of the Dhamma. So, take this with a grain of salt.
I think it's useful to define "control". If you understand 'control' as the act of making things go according to your desires, then such notion can be deceiving and illusory, if not nuanced.
Things arise and cease according presence of their required conditions and causes; if those don't come together in the requiered way, things will not arise.
Knowing the above one can should reflect on the possible way one acts on the world or in one's "own" mind: an action is the intervention of the present state of things of the world/mind, and which condition to come to be is intention. The result of the action will go according to your expectations if the action affects the state of things in the necessary way as to successfully bring the conditions of the desired things to come together in the necessary way it requires.
Action is the execution of changes in the state of things, preceded by an intention. The three main ways in which we can act is through thoughts (modifying the state of the mind), words (modifying other's state of mind) and bodily acts (modifying the physical world).
In order to "control" you mind, one should know what the desired state of things is, i.e. how you expect the mind to be after you have exerted "your" control and will. Once you know that, what should be done is to influence the state of things to bring the necessary conditions to the state of things desired to arise. To "control" the mind, you need to keep track of the state of the mind (feelings, intentions, perceptions, etc.) in every present context, and based on the context perceived, you can decide what to do with it: if the things detected are unwholesome, you can let it go or not feed it; of it's wholesome, you can keep it and develop it. The degree of success will depend on your familiarity and amount of practice with paying attention to whatever presents in the mind, and on the correct identification and effectiveness in the influence of the factors needed to lead the mind into the desired state of things.
Finally, the Buddha offers us a definition, categorization and explanation of what's wholesome and what's not: that is contained in the development of Right View
Kind regards!

The way my teachers taught me about this, it's not about "controlling your mind", that's the wrong way to look at it. It is about letting go of attachments which create those disturbances. Once you clearly see your attachments and their roots (prejudices, stereotypes, traumas) then resolving them is a matter of focus and firm intent. Once attachments are out, the disturbing thoughts still by themselves.

Pacifying the mind
Huike said to Bodhidharma, "My mind is anxious. Please pacify it."
Bodhidharma replied, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it."
Huike said, "Although I've sought it, I cannot find it."
"There," Bodhidharma replied, "I have pacified your mind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazu_Huike#Pacifying_the_mind
There's not much more to say. I'll leave you with some thoughts that may help you to realise that what you're experiencing is really not a big deal.
Thoughts come. If you try to control them, they will become stubborn and call more loudly for attention. You need to deal with it, but in a more relaxed way. Look at the thought without judgement. Accept its coming, its stay, and its going. You are just a spectator, not involved.
Still you are human and your greatest strength is love. Let the thought not be unwanted and wither away. Treasure it for its message; it came to you at this time for a reason that may not lie on the surface. It is calling you, and only you can understand. That is the treasure. With this enrichment you can bid the thought farewell.


text:
Was it ever stated that monks can’t show their psychic powers to lay people?
I heard it was one of the monk rules. What sutta says monks can’t show their powers to lay people? The Buddha showed his psychic powers to many lay people so why can’t monks?

Perhaps you have confused with this rule from the Bhikkhu Patimokkha:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

This rule is more about attainments (e.g. jhana, stream entry etc.) rather than about psychic powers.

A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa. In the origin story leading up to that rule, the Buddha levels strong criticism at such an act: “Just as a woman might expose her vagina for a miserable wooden māsaka coin, so too have you displayed a superior human state, a wonder of psychic power, to lay people for the sake of a miserable wooden bowl.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0016.html

@Dhammadhatu Then this is the best answer to the question that "A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkaṭa".

Cv.V.8.2 is not sutta. Regards

DN 11 describes the drawbacks of the miracle of psychic power.
SN 41.4 is related to this topic.
Also, are we certain the Buddha showed his psychic powers to many lay people? Which suttas describe this?

It's right, good householder, that a Bhikkhu would do something like this - in showing his powers ('let them/him see my power') - isn't given by the Buddha to do so, and is breaking a rule with it. (mentioned as confused here already, but right: Pācittiya 8, as the 'smallest' transgression)
If mention over-worldly powers, yet not having such, it can even touch a crown rule, downfall rule, meaning no more Bhikkhu (yet not if simply over-estimating ones gains). If having, telling, showing, it's a break of the main rules Bhikkus use to cite all 14/15 days.
Although there are many instances found in the Suttas where Bhikkhus deliberately, even on request by lay-people, showed miracles and higher powers (thinking on Ven. Moggallāna, the foremost skilled in it, and praised for it by the Buddha), it seems that the Buddha later formulated this rule, some say maybe correct "he didn't trust his monks in this regard, and sure a corrupt instance (where such was made for gain or favor) gave reason to take care here.
This being one reason: using it not to inspire Faith and cut down pride (like for example the Uruvela-miracles, as maybe the most excessive sample, the Buddha made use of such)
Another, very important: if a monk does not really know the right time for a good use, even if well meant, most people are strong attached to such, would not be much attracted by the Dhamma and seek for such powers, or people able to do, as their refuge, cutting them off from Dhamma.
For the actor of such, there is huge danger to get attached to such skill, likewise mistakenly taking it as refuge.
Such is actually very common, such bad ways, even corrupt and as lies, if thinking on those providing spells, water cleaning, chanting for expelling, ... and goes up till higher powers, aside of what's called 'animal trade'.
It's, how ever, not to blame if Monks use there skills to turn others toward the Dhamma, path, yet not 'showing', letting know... how ever, sensitive (starting usually with Stream-enter) people might get aware.
Since people of this days would not even see miracles as such, would at large doubt all even if confronted, there is also less use of it in a 'god-less' society, under materialists and marxists. So one might need to go for a land of miracles to get such things known, loses doubts in regard of such.
(and as someone here as usual is up speading doubt with strawmans, although knowing it clear by himself, in saying 'we aren't sure that he did, which sutta says...': many, many Suttas, not to speak about Vinaya, commentaries...,  provide that the Sublime Buddha used them often, showed them at proper occasions)
[Note that this 'miracle' isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for increase of Saddha and toward vimutti from this wheel]


text:
Where can this story be found?
In the story the Buddha creates a golden lotus and gives it to a monk who soon after attains arahantship.
Story is in attached screenshot taken from the book "Fundamentals of Insight Meditation", by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

In the commentary story of Dhammapada Verse 285, good householder.

Cut off your craving as one plucks an autumn lily with the hand. Nibbana has been expounded on by the Buddha; cultivate that Path which leads to it.

Withering...... old-age, sickness and decay...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape from the wheel]

Thank you Bhante


text:
North American: Where Can I Ordain Under The Tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw?
I am a Theravada Buddhist living in North America practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. My queries (regarding Theravada monasticism) are the following:

1) Can anyone recommend a or more than one bhikkhu monastery anywhere in
North America that I can ordain in that follows the tradition of or a
tradition similar to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition?
2) Does anyone know if I would be able to practice (as an ordained bhikkhu) the tradition I am under (the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition) while in a monastery practicing a tradition other than my own (e.g. the Thai forest tradition)?

Thank you!

Asker maybe doesnt have an active account currently as there doesnt seem to be any link to know if Asker will be likely to see replies

Good householder,
Sadhu, at first, for general desire in going forth.
Good to let go of consumer-behaviour at first place and approach ordination like a backpacker a new journey idea, or a worker his next holiday... good householder. One who closes the doors behind, at his home, with right adpiration, will be opened the gates by the Devas along his way for seeking the join the sages and trace the path to Unbound.
In regard to 1: Best ask Bhante Yuttadhammo, as he dwells in Canada, personally. Usually one approaches a Bhikkhu in proper way, and ask's for going forth. The rest would be careful organiced by the Bhikkhu, approaching the Sangha. He might ask if good householder has a Nissaya, teacher. So seeking for a Bhikkhu accepting one as disciple, is propably first to make.
Generally it's not so straight toward homeless state to ask in regard of going forth in lay communities and have geografical, national (identification with home, house, group) preferances, wishes, as such is merely seeking for another home rather that desire the going forth, good householder.
What does householder expect to hear from householders, or to household returned, in regard of going forth? Like to ask about work on the rice-fields in a city coffee-shop, or to google wikipedia...
See also: Q&A How to ordain as a monk of the Buddha?
In regard of 2: Usually traditions upholding Vinaya accept each other, althought sticking to wrong views can be everywhere a hindrance. How ever: it actually does not really depend on Branch or near relation but on personal Upanissaya with particular communities, individuals and kamma of beings is all different. So useless to make founded predictions. Good theacher, knowing one, knowing others, would know if fitting together in regard of Vinaya, way of conducts for pleasing dwelling for Sekhas.
Mudita and may good householder make good use of all his good condition and past merits for fast reaching security in the homeless - state.
(...and there is not such as "my tradition" idea on a journey to liberation. Good to seek for the Buddhas and Noble ones tradition, making such never ones own before it actually is by reaching Arahat-hood)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other home-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

#2 I think you will more often than not run into issues over the long term if you live with people who train differently. The Mahasi system complete with 16 stages of insight and the path-insight & fruition-insight modes of development, that is going to be viewed skeptically and likely wrong training by most TFT.
If you really want to be a Mahasi system monk then it narrows down your ordination options a lot. Also most Mahasi monks, ~95% afaik, are using money and you should be prepared for that.
Thus if you are looking for a place in NA, where Mahasi system is held to be true, where they accomodate westerners and where monks don't use money, in this case i think this probably doesn't exist anywhere in the world but i am not sure.


text:
Looking for a Sutta wherein the Buddha talks about dreams
In the Dhamma talk "Sleeping and dreaming", by Ajahn Punnadhammo, he mentions that in the Anguttara Nikaya (no specific sutta mentioned) the Buddha talked about the origins of dreams and different kinds of dreams.
He taught that some dreams could be visions of the past and future, messages from Devas and "Wind in the belly" meaning random content with no real significance.
What sutta is this?
Thank you for your time.

This answer said that's in the Milinda Pañha.

Source: milindapañha, anumānapañho, vessantaravaggo, supinapañho

That is the right answer (by Ven. Yuttadhammo). Thanks @ChrisW.

The OP asked about the Anguttara Nikaya. The Milinda Pañha is in the KN and is probably not a "sutta".

@Dhammadhatu True enough. And a common reason for not finding something is looking for it in the wrong place. :-)

"When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, five great dreams appeared to him. Which five?"
AN 5.196


text:
What causes the arising of fear that the sense of "me" will be threatened by the fruition of my practice?
When practicing meditation (samatha and vipassana) intensely it feels like the sense of self is disintegrating and breaking apart. What causes that?

The Pali suttas teach self-identity is born from craving. For example:

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
Blessed One. MN 44
He assumes form to be a self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now
what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN
22.81
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
MN 26

From when you were very young, your mind attached to things due to both craving & fear. For example, as a baby, your body was hungry and you attached to your mother, who was the source of food. Or when you were lonely & frightened, you craved your mother's attention. Since your children, your life has probably continued like this. While you may not crave your mother for food & comfort, you probably have sought pleasures & attention from other things, so to escape the instinctual fear of being alone, bored & restlessness. From these objects the mind craves & attaches to, a sense of self-identity is born, such as: "My mother, my toys, my food, my friends, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my husband, my wife, my profession, my sport, my favourite pop star, my favourite movie, etc".
Meditation is similar to being alone. Because the sense of self-identity is built upon external attachments, the sense of self-identity can reduce &/or break apart in meditation. What remains is the original fear the mind has been escaping since it was born into the world.
If your mind is naturally strong, you endure this fear until it passes. Even the Buddha did this, as described below:

So when fear & terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I
would not stand or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would
keep standing until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand
up or walk. I would keep sitting until I had subdued that fear &
terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was lying down, I would
not sit up or stand or walk. I would keep lying down until I had
subdued that fear & terror. MN 4

However, there are meditators unable to endure this fear. For example, i listened to a Western monk of 30 years who has given up on even trying to overcome this fear. He spends most of his time as a monk talking & teaching.
This lecture has a good introduction about what the 'self' is: Anattā and Rebirth
by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu

That's a great answer. Why did that monk give up? He might not work through the fear in this life, it might take many life times but at least he would have started untying the knot.

It's caused by the sense of self disintegrating and breaking apart.  That's kind of the whole point.  What you think of as you, the thing you identify with your name, is actually a fiction.  It's just a concept, an agreed upon convention.  It's convenient...I mean, having a name makes it a lot easier for your boss to pay you at the end of week...but this you who you take to be you keeps you from seeing who you really are.
Buddhist practice is many things, but chiefly it is a process of disentangling our mistaken identities.  It's about ceasing to identify with this flesh, this mind, these habits, these loves, and these hates and instead seeing ourselves as not body, not mind, no habits, and something that is beyond love and hate.  Undertaking this process can be painful.  Nothing characterizes our smaller selves more than its desperate scrambling for continued existence.  The more you sit, the more insight that awakens, the more it will claw and scratch.  If you are going to practice the great way, be prepared to struggle.  Be prepared to be wounded.

"When you realize what the real is, you will see that we pass from one
husk to another like travelers stopping for a night's lodging. But if
you do not realize it yet, I earnestly advise you not to rush about
wildly. When earth, water, fire, and air suddenly separate, you will
be like a crab struggling in boiling water with its seven or eight
arms and legs. When that happens, don't say I didn't warn you."
From Case 35 of the Mumonkan

Thank you very much.


text:
What effect does social media, mobile gaming and watching movies have on my meditation practice?
I use FB and Instagram quite a lot. I also play a mobile game called Genshin Impact which is an RPG-game where one can level up ones heroes and gain new abilities and weapons to defeat monsters and other creatures. It's a huge open-world game with tons of stuff to do.
The movies I watch are usually horror movies such as Hereditary, Midsommar, The Conjuring, Sinister or science fiction movies such as Arrival, Interstellar, Moon etc.
Will I be better served without these activities?
What effect will the absence of those activities have on my meditation practice?

maybe if could include what types of  communications & what types of films could be helpful, as content etc could vary significantly, also venue, music/ sound  :)

@MH. Do you mean what games and movies I watch?

yes, many films seem fine & some games are okay, & music; also might depend on what specific contemplation/ meditation , eg some things are restful & serene etc, other things less so etc, thank you  :)

@MH. Okay, I updated my question and added a description of my activities - is it better now?

thank you for including additional information  :)

If you are regularly practising meditation, you should know for yourself how various activities affect your meditation.
For example, if desires & thoughts about various activities pop into your mind regularly when meditating then obviously these activities are hindering the development of meditative concentration.
In summary, if the quality of your social media, mobile gaming and watching movies is related to lust, violence & restlessness then they will inevitably hinder concentration meditation.
But if social media & movies are of a more wholesome quality then they will not hinder meditation.
Note: I am too old to know what mobile gaming is.

You let go of the grosser forms of happiness, the grosser strategies for happiness, and get used to more and more refined ones. And they finally take you to the point where there's no course left but to let go of strategies. All strategies..... This is the way to true happiness.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu

This video really tell me something. Emptiness is to develop good habits and watching TV, video games, etc are draining your energy and keep an deilllusion that world is so perfect but the real life is way too much different yet will lead you to a mindset to have life dissatisfacion.
https://youtu.be/lrnqdezWaTE

I think u have heard some famous actors shown up in perfect life in the TV but suicide next few months right. Their real life and their acting are totally 2 different worlds. I knew few of them and saw them the life in mental illness state. So choose the right TV program :)

Thanks little star:)

If one was on the Titanic, one might realize that social media, mobile gaming and watching movies are unproductive. Focusing on such trivial activities, one might suffer a painful death and end up being reborn craving for air and warm water.
Life is short. We can spend that time grasping at the unsatisfactory. Or we can seek out and let go of the root of suffering.
Do social media, mobile gaming and watching movies give us lasting happiness or do we have to "keep playing"?


text:
Help with balance between meditation practice and lay life
The more I meditate the more weird I become. I feel stressed out while being with groups of people. I don't know what to say and I find the conversational topics deeply boring, meaningless and useless.
As a consequence of this I tend to isolate myself, communicate via social media and meditate many hours daily in my apartment. I don't really like to be around people when I meditate intensely.
I feel this life is more and more useless and sometimes I want to become a monastic and live in a jungle or forest. I can't do that right now because of paying off my student loan. If I didn't have that loan I would have gone forth by now.
It seems like I can't find a balance between the life of a meditator and as a lay person. Meditation pulls me inwards and makes me not want to be around people but the lay person in me still wants lay life type of things. I'm deeply ambivalent and conflicted about this. I feel like I'm being pulled in opposite directions and it feels like the meditation practice is ruining my life.
Is it possible to find a balance and still live in this world as a meditator or do I have to give up either the meditation practice or the lay life?

nice question, maybe also some aspects of The Middle Way appropriate to question  :)

I struggled with a similar problem for years, maybe decades. You see, the goal I set for myself back in 1995 was to figure out what that enlightenment thing was all about without leaving the world.
My logic was simple: if ego is the root of suffering and confusion, and it is the ego that tells me that I'm not satisfied with the worldly life and want something better, then wouldn't it be the perfect practice to actually not let the ego get what it wants? And so I practiced the path of pure egolessness while staying fully embedded inside the worldly circumstances.
Egolessness is a tricky game. You cannot allow yourself to indulge in any disbalance, since leaning in any direction would be used by the ego as its support. You can't be too worldly, too spiritual, too real, too nice, too anything - the only way to not feed ego is to not take any identifiable determinable form. You can't even be egoless. This rabbit hole goes pretty far :)
Needless to say, as I was mastering this, I went through phases similar to yours. I could barely talk to people at a BBQ party. I could not enjoy corporate lunches. I was rather conflicted about having a family, I certainly didn't enjoy it as a normal person would. I felt like I was playing this game without being part of this world. Sometimes I felt I was the most fake and the most egoistic person in the whole world. At other times I felt I was one with God. At yet other times I felt EVERYTHING was wrong. Or I felt I was losing my mind and could not concentrate on my own thoughts, as even my thoughts were fake.
Somehow in parallel with all that I did okay taking care of my job and my family, not because I was interested in it but rather as an effect of my effort to be as egoless as possible... But as much as I tried to always do what was necessary and required of me at each moment, I just couldn't pass for a normal person. My friends thought I was weird. They couldn't decide if I was a pushover or a jerk or maybe a sociopath. Can't blame them, I'm guessing it's hard to be a friend of someone who methodically tries to stop being anyone.
Fast forward to present, looking back at those 20 years I can tell you three things:

It's okay to be weird. There are all kinds of weird people out there, weird in their funny ways. Why don't we have our right to be weird in our own ways?!
It's just a phase. One day your practice will bear its fruit and things will get clear. The conflict between "is" and "should" will get resolved (not necessarily through reconciling the two).
You can't run away from Samsara nor from your ego. If your mind is not at peace and you go somewhere, you'll take your problems with you. The only way to solve this is by solving the root problem, which is our innate ignorance about the nature of peace. Once we get clear in our own head how things work, the source of that perpetual conflict disappears and you don't have to be in the Himalayas for that.

Thank you kindly for this answer - it means a lot to me. You describe exactly what I'm going through. Especially bullet point number 3 is so true. It's not possible to run from this because the problem resides in the mind. Thank you again.

You are welcome, sweetie.

Is it possible to find a balance?
Yes. In fact, it is necessary to find balance.
The path is more than immersion. In fact, the practice is three-fold and comprises: wisdom, ethics, and immersion:

MN44:11.2: “The three practice categories are not included in the noble eightfold path. Rather, the noble eightfold path is included in the three practice categories.

”Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.

Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are
included in the category of ethics.

Right effort, right mindfulness,
and right immersion: these things are included in the category of
immersion.

Although one may see the wisdom of the Noble Eightfold Path and practice immersion, one cannot omit ethics. Just like a three-legged stool missing a leg, so too would we topple over without the third practice, ethics. The middle part of the path is firmly rooted in ethics. And what are ethics? Ethics are what we practice when in the company of others.
MN8 has a good list of 44 ethical considerations that apply to all. Here are the first five:

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

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’

MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’

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

Being mindful of ethics when with others and will strengthen wisdom as well as immersion. Practice of ethics paves the way for the practice of immersion, which is later in the path. If any step on the path is difficult, look back at the steps that may have been skipped! All the steps on the Noble Eightfold Path matter. Right Immersion is the eight step. Seven steps precede and are quite important.

Thank you very much for reminding me about the ethics of our practice.


text:
How does the Buddha subdue fear in MN4?
In MN4 does the Buddha subdue the fear by:

Observing it with mindfulness until it goes away, thereby seeing the Three Characteristics?
Subdue it with samatha meditation, i.e. to shift attention away from the fear, thereby gaining temporary seclusion from it?

So when fear & terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I
would not stand or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would
keep standing until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand
up or walk. I would keep sitting until I had subdued that fear &
terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was lying down, I would
not sit up or stand or walk. I would keep lying down until I had
subdued that fear & terror. MN 4

Good question! Not everyone finds this episode interesting - and yet it illustrates a very important point.
Buddha subdues his fear by bringing all of his attention to the present moment.

As I was staying there a deer came by, or a peacock snapped a twig, or the wind rustled the leaves. Then I thought, ‘Is this that fear and dread coming?’ Then I thought, ‘Why do I always meditate expecting that fear and terror to come? Why don’t I get rid of that fear and dread just as it comes, while remaining just as I am?’

Normally when we are afraid, our mind gets split. Half of it is in the present moment and another half runs to a hypothetical future, imagining the dreadful scenario. Buddha said, why do I always do that, why do I imagine things? Rather than worry about them why don't I focus on what I was doing?
This happens a lot to us. We imagine what our neighbors think about us, we imagine our audience judging us when giving a lecture, we imagine things lurking in the night when putting the trash can out for pickup. The more we worry about them the more we lose our ground and our connection with the real situation.
Instead if we can focus on doing what we started - which is what actually matters anyway - then we will not only stop experiencing fear, we will do better in terms of meeting an actual danger if it should ever come.