text:
I'm a widow trying to find myself
My best friend, business partner and lover died four years ago, and I’m struggling to find myself again. I’ve tried meditating before, but it doesn’t seem to work at 5 minutes a day. I have lots of time, please help me. Where do I start?

Please state your problems & short- & long term goals in specific terms. If you're vague, it can be difficult to give you a helpful answer. Also, couple more things: (1) Meditation might not be a cure-all panacea; (2) How have you processed the death and/or being alone/without purpose?; (3) Realize that it takes time to change oneself. Often it's just two steps forwards & one steps backwards, and sometimes even two steps backwards & just one step forward. Best wishes.

Buddhism explains a person's self-identity is generally based on the external things the mind attaches to (MN 44). Therefore, it is expected or normal a widow may struggle with their sense of self if their partner passes away. Buddhism calls this 'aging-&-death', i.e., when a loved one dies, something within the living partner also 'dies' (mentally).
Also, while it may sound pessimistic, Buddhism tells us all conditioned things are impermanent and ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (AN 5.57)
Buddhism also says: "Separation from what is loved/pleasing is suffering" (SN 56.11).
However, Buddhism does not instruct us to completely forget loved ones. DN 31 says: "I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives."
The starting point of Buddhism is Refuge in the Three Jewels, which are the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teachings) & the Sangha (Noble Community).
Since you sound aggrieved, finding a trustworthy Buddhist group may help offer some support and noble friendships.

You may be feeling lonely even after 4 years of separation from your loved one because you are searching for meaning in your life and is not content with the answers that you’ve got so far even from meditating. You continue to feel lonely, for you have not found something even from Buddhism which could satisfactorily be taken as a refuge yet! Sometimes, your loneliness may serve a deeper and more positive purpose if you start seeing Dhamma in a new light.  If you could see Dhamma in this light, the joy of Dhamma is unlike another. One comprehending Dhamma will never be lonely.
For this I will give you another equally plausible meaning to some words in the Buddhist Doctrine. They are aniccata, dukkha & anattata, and it’s opposite,  nicca, sukha and atta. Also of two other words in ‘sam’ (pronounced as ‘sung’), and ‘Iccha’ which means “strong attachment”. ‘sam’ (pronounced as ‘sung’) means grasping with strong desire (sam).
The Buddha Dhamma promulgated the natural phenomenon of nicca, sukha and atta of what is once grasped (upadana) with sam tendencies. (nicca =desired objects are rooted in the mind as unchanging attitudes; sukha=feeling that the desired object always remains pleasurable; atta= the belief that the desired object can be brought under lasting control). This is the very reason that the Buddha Dhamma proclaims …
“Sabbesaṅkhārā aniccā ti,
sabbe sankhara dukka ti,
sabbe dhamma anatta ti”.
(sabbe – all; sankhara – intentional activities based on sam;  anicca – inability to hold steadfastly to outcomes of 3 fetters; dukka - what is desirable inevitably turns in to a conflict; anatta – these outcomes are worth nothing or meaningless to bring under one’s ownership as everything transforms inevitably).
Iccha born in a mind, which arises as a tendency of sam activates nicca, sukha and atta setting the wheel of paticca samuppada in motion. Engaging with a desirable object is known as paticca. Because of paticca, a relationship is born in the mind. This is known as the samuppada dhamma. All the following Pali terms “samudaya” = “samuppada” = “sambavan” = “sambhūta” explain how an existential relationship is formed. All the 4 above terms indicate an effect or a consequence. The cause for samudaya is grasping with strong desire (sam) or paticca. When there is no paticca samudaya will not be born. Paticca, is a mental tendency that latches to the objects encountered by the eye, sounds heard by the ear, odors sensed by the nose, tastes experienced by the tongue, touch detected by the body and mental phenomena (dhamma) pondered in the mind. The reason for paticca is the undisciplined sensorium; Lack of sensory discipline. Sila or code of ethics is required to achieve a disciplined sensorium (samvara). Disciplining of all 6 sense organs eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind can be only done from within by own-self and there is nothing in the external world that can be disciplined.
Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind of person cannot be disciplined by another person. Also no one else can discipline your sense organs on your behalf. One must understand this natural phenomenon.
Samudaya is born only in the mind. The main reason for samudaya to arise is due to actions rooted in 3 fetters/defilements of raga, dosa and moha. To stop samudaya, one must reflect on anicca, dukkha and anatta and prevent inebriation of the mind caused by the former. This approach will lead to renunciation (nibbidā), none affinity or freedom from raga (viragā), no wheeling of thoughts based on sam (niroda) and freedom from all upadana (patinissaggā).
The reflection of anicca, dukkha and anatta is essential to break free of from paticca.
Sabbe sankhāra anicca – all sam based activities end up as anicca
Sabbe sankhāra dukkha – all sam based activities end up in dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta – all phenomena are anatta
(sabbe – all; sankhāra – intentional activities based on sam; anichcha – inability to maintain the nature of what was grasped as iccha i.e. desirability (loba=raga=1st guise)); undesirability (dosa =2nd guise); comparability between the two (moha= 3rd guise); dukkha - result of desirable turns inevitably into unendurable afflictions; anatta – these outcomes are unworthy or meaningless to bring under one’s control since everything transforms inevitably).
One must reflect on the above to break free from paticca. (pati – bond; iccha – desire; sam – 3 fetters – lobha, dosa & moha).

If you are "struggling to find ME again" then you will have experienced what the Buddha told Rahula:

MN62:3.1: Then the Buddha looked back at Rāhula and said, “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

If you have worked closely with someone you love, then you will have experienced the beautiful:

SN46.54:12.8: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

If you have lost someone dear and close to you, then you will have experienced suffering and faith certainly, but perhaps not joy:

SN12.23:3.11: You should say: ‘Joy.’ I say that joy has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Faith.’ I say that faith has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Suffering.’

For immersive meditation, beyond Joy you will need Bliss, Tranquility and Rapture:

SN12.23:2.16: I say that immersion has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Bliss.’ I say that bliss has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Tranquility.’ I say that tranquility has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Rapture.’ I say that rapture has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Joy.’

Perhaps it may be time to start reading the suttas, to rekindle or spark that joy and beyond?
We have all faced and suffered through great loss. I myself and going blind and will never see the stars again unaided. Yet that suffering does bring faith. And that faith does lead to joy and eventually to immersion.
If the suttas do not yet inspire, seek a teacher and a sangha.

Without knowing the OP, but from what was written by her, I'd assume that she has a long way from immersion if she just meditates casually for a couple of minutes. It's also questionable whether the advice in MN62 mentioned above is really all that helpful for her, if she faces loneliness & a sense without purpose.

Good point. I edited the post to take into account suffering.

Loneliness, and isolation are real, physiological problems, not something that can be overcome with the mind.
We are a social species, and our lives can only flourish if great relationships are a part of it. So I would suggest that Buddhism, mainly Zen, can be used as a mindfulness technique, but moreover you need to give yourself time to heal, move on, and find new fulfilling relationships.


text:
Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy?
Simple question: Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy?
[Note that this isn't given for Sex, stacks, trade, exchange but for escape from this wheel]

Possibly-related topic -- Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?

And what is right action?
  Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity.
  Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
Magga-Vibhanga Sutta

Brahmacharya is one of the prime teaching of Buddha. You have a very deep understanding of Buddhism. Thank you for those original words from Pali. Buddha also talks about restraining all 5 senses and taming the desire. Maybe it is for this path of Brahmacharya he never went back to household life as well.

No, the canonical definition of the Eightfold Path does NOT include any explicit mention of celibacy. The actual language is both broader and goes further than mere sexual abstinence.
The right action (samma-kammanta) is defined as abstaining from (three) major types of wrong conduct, one of which is:

Kamesu micchacara

Kamesu is a form of word Kama, which is the same word as in Kama-Sutra and means something like "pleasure of the senses".
Miccha means false or wrong, and Cara or Acara means practice, conduct, behavior.
The literal translation is either "wrong conduct motivated by desire to enjoy sensual pleasures" or "the wrong behavior of enjoying sensual pleasures".
You may interpret this in any way you want, but you have to accept that celibacy is only one of several possible meanings.
Given the usual Buddhist emphasis on the danger of "indulging in the binding types of pleasure", and how it leads to craving and then to suffering, I think we can safely interpret this more broadly as abstaining from all sensory indulging and not just one of sexual nature.
This would therefore include abstaining from indulging in food and deserts, indulging in bodily comfort, indulging in spectator's arts, music, theater, and binge-watching TV, dressing up and using cosmetics or decoration, and all other forms of behavior connected with indulging in pleasures, however harmless and even healthy it may seem to non-Buddhists.

Yes I think that brahmacariyā too is "both broader and goes further than mere sexual abstinence".

Yes, this was the norm. e.g. Wikipedia: "The fourth of the five great vows of Jain monks, for example, is the vow of celibacy, which in this case means a total abstinence from the sensual pleasure of all five senses, including the avoidance of sexual thoughts and desires".

where in the suttas does it say this andrei: "The right action (samma-kammanta) is defined as abstaining from five major types of wrong conduct, one of which is:" . I've only seen samma kammanto defined as a 3fold, with 'kamesu micchachara' sometimes replacing 'abrahmacariya'.

yup, you're right - updated the answer

Gautama Buddha explicitly called his teachings 'The Middle Path,' in the Dhamacakkappavattana Sutta:

Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has
  gone forth from the household life. There is addiction to indulgence
  of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people,
  unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to
  self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.
Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (the Perfect One) has
  realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads
  to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana. And what is that
  Middle Path realized by the Tathagata...? It is the Noble Eightfold
  path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought,
  right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness and right concentration.

The question this raises is whether or not celibacy is done as an act of self-mortification; if so, it is not 'right' in senses the Buddha outlines.
I understand why celibacy is often a feature of monastic settings. Sexual urges are strong, and those who are not yet developed or established on the path are easily caught on that hook. A rigid 'no sex' policy places a barrier against sensual indulgence, keeping those caught on the hook from debasing themselves by imposing a form of self-mortification. Such a rule creates a tension between extremes which is a substitute (although a poor substitute) for a calm middle-ground. After a monk has found his footing, the hedonistic urges attenuate, and the celibacy restriction becomes less necessary; I suspect monks maintain it out of habit, convention, or even the compassionate act of 'setting a right example,' but I do not think it's essential at that stage.
The difficulty of the middle path is that it is a path of constant awareness. Rules are by their nature unconscious — actions we take without reflection — and rigid rules ultimately become a hindrance on the path, like any empty ritual. I'm not suggesting that monks shouldn't be celibate, or that they should; I'm saying that we must develop the right understanding to navigate right action in each situation the world presents to us.

To avoid misunderstanding, "a path of celibacy" means "to walk on a path that requires celibacy". Question is not asking for "a path to celibacy"?
Very straight and simple answer::
Yes.
What is Celibacy?
An activity that is done & maintained to prevent loss of semen(in physical way) and loss of viriya in spiritual way.
**Insight::**
Celibacy from what?
Celibacy from defilements.
What are defilements?
This is a term given for a particular behaviour pattern which consists of sankharas within.
What are sankharas?
These are at atomic scale which act as force for Wrong View, Wrong Livelihood,...
What is Wrong?
Opposite to Right.
What is Right?
This is Noble 8 Fold Path, which I assume is already known by you.
[This is given for those engaged in Sex, Stacks, Trade, Exchange etc. to knock them out of their sleep in darkness]

pācittiya 68 (From the Theravadin monastic code);
Not to affirm that things such as sexual pleasures are not an obstacle to the development of ariyā stage or to jhāna realisations, nor to rebirth in the deva world, when the Buddha explains that these things are precisely an obstacle to those, and not to maintain erroneous views. Those bhikkhu who hear or see another bhikkhu make statements such as these, or saying incorrect things that Buddha never taught, must tell him not to attribute such statements to Buddha, because he never taught these things. In giving him the reasons that cause obstacles to attainments or to favourable rebirths, they must tell him that this is what Buddha taught. They must tell him that such is the dhamma that must be explained to those around us. Next, they must forbid him three times in succession to renounce those words. If he retracts, he does not commit the offence. If he refuses to abandon his view, he commits a dukkaṭa.

People in general hold varying opinions on what exactly is the 8FNP but i can't recall anybody holding that; '8FNP is neither the development nor the attainment of ariyā stage or that of jhāna realisations'
Therefore most would have to accept that in a categorical sense; '8FNP is not a path of sexuality but is rather a path of celibacy'.
If a Theravadin monk refused to accept this and kept affirming that '8FNP is a path of sexuality' or that 'Sexuality is not an obstacle to the development or attainment of the 8FNP' in a categorical sense, then imho, such Bhikkhu would likely be placed outside of community.

I might say "yes but no" -- or, "yes but I wouldn't teach it that way".
Not that I try to teach the N8P at all, but for the sake of answering...
It seems to me that there's potentially some problem of conceit.
Given this topic -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- I summarise conceit as a comparison e.g. "I am better than you".
If or when it exists it seems to me that conceit is an important problem -- harmful to self and/or to others.
A statement like, "I retain my semen therefore I am celibate therefore etc." sounds kind of self-important to me -- not exactly how I'd want to teach doctrine.
To me the word "celibate" implies a comparison -- with "non-celibate" -- and potentially further ideas like "my being celibate is superior" and "you're being non-celibate is despicable" which I think is really kind of wrong.
I don't mean "wrong" as in "untrue" I mean "wrong" as in "unskilful" and potentially "immoral" ... like in the definition of "right speech" it isn't enough that speech be true -- it also needs to be kind, beneficial, said at the proper time, etc.
A lot of the Pali words I like are phrased as a negative -- for example averena for non-hatred or kind.
I wonder if a negative English word would be better than "celibate". The third precepts are phrased as a negative, i.e. "refraining" (refraining from sexual misconduct and/or refraining from sexual activity).
One more thing, I note the Pali word being used -- brahmacariya. I might wish that word were better explained, I think that the "brahmaviharas" are quite well-explained as a positive role model -- things you should do, attitudes you should have -- not only negative.
But anyway...
There's a Tissametteyya Sutta (Snp 4.7) which I'd like to recommend. When I read it (just reading the English, I'm not checking the translation), I read it as starting with a description of celibacy -- for example having "renown and fame" which is diminished by indulgence in sex. There's also reproaching others, words of reprimand, and so on.
It ends like this:

So train yourself in solitude,
  for that’s the life of Noble Ones,
  but not conceive oneself as “best”—
  them near indeed to Nirvāṇa.
The sage who’s rid of sense-desires,
  who to them’s indifferent,
  who’s crossed the flood, is envied then,
  by those enmeshed with pleasures of sense.

Note, "not conceive oneself as best".
Also note, it isn't a state of existence ("I am celibate") -- instead I read it as a state of non-existence of hindrance ("rid of sense-desires").
The very next sutta, Snp 4.8, is about the disadvantages of debate -- loving praise, getting angry, elated, depressed, etc.
So a statement like "the N8P is a path of celibacy not of non-celibacy, it's the path for me and not a path for you" seems to me a situation described by Snp 4.8.
One more story, from  different tradition.

Muddy Road
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

I realise that the story might sounds scandalous to a monk, against vinaya and improper for one who wears the robes you wear -- there's something about the story that I like though.
I was reading today that inhibitions too are a manifestation of ego. That a person who learns to meditate may have less ego therefore fewer inhibitions. Having fewer inhibitions their behaviour (or speech) may become more immoral -- unless they do something about that.
One of the things a person might do, I guess, is accept the Vinaya -- which would preclude the kind of behaviour described in the story "Muddy Road".
And yet I'm not inclined to criticise the people in the story.

Why is that?
  Because I have compassion for the boy, sir.
(MN 58)

brahmacariyam is used in the Dhammapada, verses 155 and 156 -- it's translated as "the holy life" here and "life of Purity" here.
I presume it means specifically chastity when it's used in the context of the 3rd precept (of the "8 precepts").
I think it means something more than that though -- in the context of SN 45.8 perhaps it's "remaining a monk" and in association with the Sangha instead of becoming defeated.
The famous SN 45.2 is an explanation of brahmacariya:

Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
“Mā hevaṃ, ānanda, mā hevaṃ, ānanda.
Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.
Sakalamevidaṃ, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ, yadidaṃ—kalyāṇamittatā kalyāṇasahāyatā kalyāṇasampavaṅkatā.

It's also a word which exists outside the specifically-Buddhist tradition.

This question presupposes that it isnt. And this is only true in one of the two truths. Meaning this is not true for all (at any single given moment in time). Self-cherishers would say celibacy not required for one to enter stream. Once stream winner is a different question.

The own opinion is the most lowest secure, the Sublime Buddha told. And is again a chicken and egg issue, since it is normal that truth isn't seen before really seen for one self. So it's quite normal to be in all the kinds of relation-desire involved till reaching independence. On the seven levels of sex: Methuna Sutta.

Thank you for sharing ur time with us Ven Monk Johann i thank u seven times

Shouldn't we investigate both and come to a ‘middle conclusion’ ?

The Sublime Buddha didn't invited anybody to find out the middle path by himself, but to trust his declaration of it, Nyom: Again The Middles of the Middle Way and on Uposatha: Ill-gotten if just sometimes

Thank you most highly venerable monastic may your happiness and good fortune only increase!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..
But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.
I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.
And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

See also What is tathata?

Your question is an interesting philosophical investigation, if you can break or crack a concept, it will bring you closer to enlightenment, at least. In fact the Gōng'àn (Jap: Koan) is doing the same thing but in the Eastern style, more intuition, and 觀.
I do not think that I can answer you with a word or few sentences to define what is tathata, or suchness. In fact no one has ever been able to do so, else why we left fumbling it but the Buddha not defined it definitely like he did to the aggregates, karma... or paramita?
But perhaps I can help to unknot the knot in your question.

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

No. Parted from phenomena there is no tathata existed independently, parted from tathata neither phenomena. It's like, you cannot say the ocean or a droplet existed independently parted from the water, and vice versa.
Therefore you cannot say "something in addition to". Is the water in addition to the ocean that make the ocean an ocean?

If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

I do not know where does this "suchness of phenomena" phrase come from? Perhaps reading some bad writings on Buddhism by Teacher XYZ? At least, in the Chinese text materials this phrase doesn't exist; this phrase construct is invalid and ludicrous.
In Chinese Buddhism, tathata is 如, or 如如. The
Western civilization doesn't have equivalent concept, but I try to bring it closer for contemplation. The English words if, as it is, such as, as... could be close; or thisness/thatness the textbook one but really a bit misleading though. Hence, while your "the qualitative experience of a taste" is just an "as it is", "if", "as"; how more you can say about an "as it is" for giving the qualitative favor?

But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

Again, you cannot put this 'no experience of taste amounts to its "true state"'; same as, is the true taste of the ocean the amount of all the taste of all the water, or just a drop of water? If it's the former, no existing being has ever known the taste of the ocean (perhaps it's sweet with caramel and orange tang? )

Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?

I can only say, tathata and svabhava are closely related but they are not the same.
Again, you cannot say "phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves", simply phenomena, or anything, cannot have two contradictory qualia(s). You cannot say the rat is in the mammal class also the mammal class is excluding rat.
This last paragraph quoted is clouded with bubbling blurbs perhaps is unhelpful to understand the core teaching. Suggestion, drop it. Sometimes words and the mind's ability to construct syntax is a hindrance.

To answer your real concern,

I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

This saying is an erroneous error. Tathata does NOT mean qualia. If it is that simple to define, why the Buddha has to spend another 20-30 years to teach the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning Sutras?

i don't think 'suchness of phenomena' is an odd phrase. Google talks about "distinguishing Phenomena from Their Intrinsic Nature" or "the true mode of phenomena" [dictionary definition]

I think Mishu was saying you wouldn't see that phrase (combination) in Chinese -- and perhaps implied that "suchness" is a stand-alone noun. Perhaps "suchness of phenomena" would imply that suchness is an attribute (a quality or feature) of phenomena. But you wouldn't say "water is a feature of the ocean" -- water is the ocean.

Phew! Followed you to google: "...the realization of the suchness of all phenomena..." (Tenshin Reb A.); "...suchness of the Tathagata is the suchness of all phenomena..." (S. T. Katz); "To perceive this is to perceive the suchness of phenomena..." (Dalai L.). Raps, babbles. The downfall of grammar is, nonsense can be built formidably to fool. As @ChrisW said, in Chinese is: 諸法如相. "...有漏法無漏法如相。即是過去未來現在諸法如相..." (Pajna-paramita Sutra). Forced translation: Phenomena as the form of Suchness. Not "suchness of phenomena". There is no "suchness" hided inside phenomena, ok?

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
Perhaps it's the opposite -- i.e. phenomena without addition.
The suttas talk about craving and clinging -- from which I gather that you perceive things as "such" when you perceive them without adding craving and clinging etc.
Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?
I have a feeling (given that you're using words like qualia) that you're assuming a knowledge of western philosophy or psychology which I don't have
I think that emptiness might be a doctrine which helps you to deconstruct what you construct when you perceive  -- e.g. "that chariot is merely an assemblage of parts".
And as previously I think that suchness is what's left over, the chariot perceived without addition.
See for example what MN 11 says about "proliferation":

"Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: 'How then, friends, is the goal one or many?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, the goal is one, not many.'[2] — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by lust or free from lust?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from lust, not for one affected by lust.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by hate or free from hate?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from hate, not for one affected by hate.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by delusion or free from delusion?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from delusion, not for one affected by delusion.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by craving or free from craving?' [65] Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from craving, not for one affected by craving.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by clinging or free from clinging?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from clinging, not for one affected by clinging.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one who has vision or for one without vision?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one with vision, not for one without vision.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one who favors and opposes, or for one who does not favor and oppose?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not favor and oppose, not for one who favors and opposes.'[3] — 'But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.'[4]

as a concept though, the chariot a a concept, rather than the chariot

and "chariot" is a word as well

not sure what you mean

Tathata is attitude you have when you really understand how and why things work the way they do.
For example, when kids are being kids, some people get angry. "Why are they noisy, why they don't listen, why they rush to judgement, why they are easily carried away?" etc.  But when you understand kids, you know how they think, you know why this is a natural stage in development, you know how they grow and why it can't be skipped, you know what motivates them - then you don't get frustrated or as much as surprised, you can even manage them effectively. Your experience of kids and your attitude to them at that time is tathata.
Of course this is just a small example to illustrate the principle, but if you expand it to your entire life - you get the real Tathata.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

noun: qualia; plural noun: qualia
a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.

'Tathata' refers to how the laws of nature are the laws of nature, regardless of 'qualia'; regardless of if a Buddha arises to awaken to the laws of nature or not.

Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.
avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
  regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
  principles, specific conditionality.
uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
  dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
  and reveals it.
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
  vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
‘Look,’ he says,
‘Passathā’ti cāha:
‘Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.’
‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’.
So the fact that this is real, not unreal, not otherwise; the specific
  conditionality of it:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā
  idappaccayatā—
this is called dependent origination.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo
SN 12.20

Now, observe that in the realization of impermanence there is the
  realization of many other things simultaneously. When impermanence is
  truly seen, this characteristic of impermanence is also the
  characteristic of dukkham, namely, it is ugly and unbearable. We will
  see the characteristic of not-self in it, also. Because these things
  are always changing, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and beyond our
  control, we realize anatta, also. Then we will see that they are void
  of selfhood, which is sunnata. We will see that they are just thus
  like that. Impermanence is just thus, just like that, thusness. And
  so, tathata is seen as well
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

not a bad answer, but it seems strange to say that dependent origination works "regardless" of there being any experience of it

yes, what the buddha taught seems strange to you.

i think you misunderstood in your rush to condemn someone

surely dependent origination is the dependent origination of experiences of the sense bases etc. if you only meant that dependent origination works independent of being awakened to it, then the answer is unclear

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


text:
Are there suttas that recommend a specific order of the buddhist practices?
Every now and then i see claims that a particular practice of the noble eightfold path (or alternatively, the threefold division) builds on a specific preceding practice.
Two examples of claims (right or wrong) is that right view is a necessary foundation for the other seven practices, or that panna comes last building on the two other thirds in the threefold division.
I am interested in suttas as sources for claims like this, so my question is what specific references there are for describing this type of order of the practices. (Please note that i'm primarily asking for references, and not personal opinions).

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
  forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed
  with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.
MN 117

Bhikkhus, this is the forerunner and precursor of the rising of the
  sun, that is, the dawn. So too, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu this is the
  forerunner and precursor of the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths
  as the really are, that is, right view.
SN 56.37

Mendicants, the dawn is the forerunner and precursor of the sunrise.
In the same way right view is the forerunner and precursor of skillful
  qualities.
Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to
  right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action
  gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right
  effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right
  mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise
  to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
AN 10.121

There is this Chart of the Factors of the Gradual Training
It says it lists the (20 or 30) suttas which describe "gradual training".
That belongs with this document: The Gradual Gradual Training.
Apart from these there are other ways to sequence things -- e.g. there's putting a sequence to the noble eightfold path, which is usually with right view first, though when it's considered as the threefold training I think the doctrine usually starts with virtue (see Anupubbikathā).
Or there's MN 95 which lists a 12-step process (it lists it forward and backwards): faith, approaching the teacher, etc.


text:
Mental States Versus Physical Substrates
If I'm not mistaken, the Abhidhamma mainly explains the mind as mental factors. Modern psychology tends to see the mind as neuronal substrates.
Buddhism's time didn't have the neuroscientific modern view, but in many respects seems more advanced. What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?
For example, I think maybe mental states allows one to simulate and extend what they mean. A person may be angry, very angry, and we can imagine the causes of anger. However, just saying 'dopamine increases in such region' could mean a million things.
Are any other advantages linked to seeing the mind as mental factors?

Is there any use at all in talking about dopamine? Conversely if a mother says to a child, "I can see you're angry" -- for example -- then doesn't that affect labeling help teach emotional self-regulation?

Or are you asking whether the Abhidhamma itself has an explanation for why it (seeing "the mind" as "mental factors") is useful?

I guess I'm trying to ask if understanding the mind through mental states could be more suited to the mind and permits thought processes that learning neuroscience doesn't provide. Also, I'm asking what these are.

Modern psychology does not see the mind as neuronal correlates but just tries to reduce it to such. If mind actually were a neuronal correlate there would be no need to speak of mind. Minds are mental, correlates are physical. I cannot imagine how to see mind as anything other than mental factors.   .

Related: Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not?

What are the benefits specific to seeing the mind as mental states, rather than as a physical substrate?

I'm not convinced that buddhism sees the mind exclusively in terms of mental states, but rather taking both materialism and mental states into account. For instance, dependent origination details the relationship between physical properties and mental phenomena.
I guess it may seem that only mental states are relevant for buddhism while one reads those parts of abhidamma that deals with examining these things.
(On a side note, psychology is a field consisting of a great deal of different disciplines, besides neuroscience. Concepts like mental states are therefore also valid for psychological research).

Buddhism and the "neuroscientific modern view" emphasize different things... Buddhism has an ethical focus and the Abhidhamma classifies mental states as being "ethically-neutral", "unwholesome" or "beautiful". On the other hand, the "neuroscientific modern view" focuses on observables/measurables such as neurons and dopamine. If you want to develop yourself spiritually and escape samsara, the physical substrates model is not going to help.

Before the practitioner meditates insight meditation, he needs to meditate the concentration, mind-practice. People's views are bias and destroited by 5 hindrances and 7 anusaya, especially wrong views.
Understanding about Rūpa and Nāma processing can help the practitioner in concentration meditation.
Mainly, understanding about Rūpa and Nāma processing are base of Paticcasamuppada knowledge. And Paticcasamuppada knowledge is base of 3 characteristics. If the practitioner can't understand Abhidhamma (and can't attain Jhana), their Paticcasamuppada will be only conceptual, unrealistic. And their 3 characteristics will appear blur, conceptual. Many point of view of this practitioner still be the same although he meditates insight meditation.
Can you use first grade knowledge to build robot?
Insight meditation is not easy. It's harder than physic according to Patthana.


text:
In Yogacara Buddhism, is discontinuity an illusion, and does change arise?
Buddhists talk about discontinuity

ordinary consciousness consists of the discrete cetas

and illusion

all is illusion and the external objects are nothing but the creations
  of our mind

In Yogacara, are all moments discontinuous -- the idea that nothing is ever the same thing twice and no two times meet -- and an illusion?
Does that mean that durations -- even-though consisting of impermanent events -- only seem to arise persist decay or cease? Why?

I can intuitively see a link between 1 and 2, and I am in effect asking about that. Put another way: is the flow of time we psychologically experience itself permanent?

just editing this now

I don't know Yogacara, and maybe it's already obvious to those who do, but just perhaps this question might be clearer with a reference -- i.e. quoting "Buddhist talk about discontinuity and illusion".

Thanks. I notice that the first reference is to the Theravada Abhidhamma. The Yogacara Abhidhamma is sufficiently similar on that subject, is it? Or anyway you confirmed that you are asking about cetas, which seemed probable but I wasn't certain. "Nothing is ever the same thing twice" sounded like Heraclitus, and English words (translations) are only approximate sometimes.

i believe the same point is carried across -- see the first question here

AFAIK discontinuity is a Theravada doctrine, I don't think dragging it into Yogacara to juxtapose against its representation-only doctrine is valid. They are two ideas coming from two different traditions.

What Yogacara school you're talking about, Nagarjuna? Many later interpretations are incorrect interpretation of Nagarjuna: the Prasangika/ Candrakirti, Santideva; the Svatantrika/ Bhavyaviveka, Śāntarakṣita. If you can only read English texts, you are likely being poisoned

I find the question contains awkward assumptions. For Nagarjuna nothing would really exist or ever really happen. This would seem to be his answer to Q2 and maybe Q1 also.

@PeterJ not sure what you're getting at. i don't mention Nagarjuna, nor things really existing or happening. what awkward assumptions?

Yogacara is associated with Mahayana thus with Nagarjuna, as Mishu notes, In this case N's teachings are relevant.here. Assumption built into the question are a multiplicity of moments and the idea they have a duration. These make the questions tricky to answer directly. Or, they do for me anyway.   . . .

true, and also disassociated. i believe that there are a multiplicity of moments, and that these appear to have continuity. this is not unique to mahayana buddhism [and all mahayana buddhism kinda "began" with nagarjuna]

Your belief is not consistent with Mahayana.or mysticism in general. You might enjoy this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8CwGUW8vk

obviously if i agreed i would not have posted the question

Like Andrei says, this isn't something normally taken up by yogacara.  Nevertheless, if you wanted to pull this system into the discussion, it would seem that yogacara argues in favor of continuity at least in respect to the unenlightened mind.  One of the characteristics of the alaya vijnana is that it gives a false notion of consistency to the self and the thrice transformed objects of consciousness.  Specifically in regards to mind consciousness, the cetas are superimposed by the alaya in a consistent way.   I don't know of any instance where yogacara makes the argument that all consistency is vacated upon enlightenment, but it stands to reason that once the transformations are abandoned, each sense object and mental construct becomes fully discrete and not warped by residual mental seeds in the alaya.

The teaching that we should regard all phenomena as like an illusion is not exclusive to Yogachara. In fact, this teaching can be found extant in the canonical texts of all surviving Buddhist traditions including both the root texts of the Mahayana and Theravada.
I would suggest dropping this line of inquiry or at least treading very carefully as you seem quite confused about what is being taught by the differing traditions and their soteriological aims. The Yogachara tradition really does not enter into this specific question.

thank you for the concern, but i'm not sure what your point is. yogacara does talk consistently about illusion, arguably more than any other tradition. there's nothing especially confusing about buddhist scholasticism, only what to believe

what is your aim in such scholasticism? your moniker implies you are 'sorta' buddhist. what does this mean? it is a major fault for someone to teach emptiness doctrine to those whose minds are not ready for it and for very good reasons.

oh, i'm trying to work out what is a reasonable / rational belief, that's all. before -- i hope -- practicing [more].

have you taken refuge in the three jewels? do you work on the method aspect of the path? where are you getting your ideas from? i think a lot comes from western academics, no?


text:
Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death?
Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death? Can we experience it? Does it have to be actively conditioning formations for us to experience it, or can we know this nidana even when freed from it?
I'm interested in an answer from any tradition.

it's a "cause", i guess. do causes exist both inside and outside their effects?

Hi sorta_buddhist, I have seen some of your questions on this site and they seem generally oriented towards emptiness questions, but with a lot of western philosophical notions spliced in and without a lot of detail as to where you are getting your questions/notions/definitions from. I've been trying to think how to answer or help you in whatever you are looking for, but it is difficult when the notions and jargon are imprecise or unclear. Take this question: you seem to be asking where (as in physical coordinates) 'ignorance' is, but I don't understand this... are you looking for x,y,z coord?

yeah, i was asking if it had a location.

Buddha said we should investigate for ourselves and seek out such answers. Where is your ignorance? Does it have a location or not? Whatever answer you come up with... why would it be different for others?

that makes sense, thanks.

Where is ignorance, and why does it not end with death?

Ignorance is absence of right view. It's not tangible, as much as it is a lacking.
The buddhist notion of rebirth says that we're destined to samsara until sotapatti/"stream-entry" occurs to break the cycle.

Can we experience it?

The most tangible evidence of avijja/ignorance is dukkha/suffering.

Does it have to be actively conditioning formations for us to experience it, or can we know this nidana even when freed from it?

Regarding the first half of your question, ignorance is most likely conditioning formations in both a passive/and an active sense: Sometimes we end up in trouble without seeing it coming, and sometimes we end up in trouble because we deliberately ignore the consequences we have coming to us. These are two examples of how avijja may affect us.
Can't answer the last part of your question though. Sorry.

fair enough, thanks for the answer

Ignorance includes self-view. Similarly, "death", being the idea "a being" or "a person" dies, is also a self-view. Since "death" is a self-view, the idea/mental construct of "death" cannot end ignorance.
When there is no self-view, there is no ignorance and there is also no idea of "death", as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die....
https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi

Therefore, the 'Deathless' can end ignorance but 'death' cannot end ignorance.

i'm not sure i completely agree, but it's worth stating

i don't expect you to agree, based on the speculative nature of your question.

i mean "no idea of death", fwiw, not the rest of it

its all the same. you criticized me once for rejecting your "mind only" ideas and now you criticize me when i say "death" is a mind only phenomena

i'm not sure we disagree


text:
Mental Fabrication and Empathy
Is there a difference, in terms of mental fabrication, between creativity and imagination (which seem to rely on imagining what's not there) and empathy and mentalizing (which understand how someone's mind/mental affinities are)? Are empathy and mentalizing more 'mindful' and produce less mental fabrication?

As your question implies, creativity, imagination, empathy and mentalizing all have their root in our ability to think abstractly (among other things).
However, I’m not sure that the psychological constructs of empathy and mentalizing corresponds directly to buddhist theoretical concepts, but they can surely be interpreted as components of the brahmaviharas virtues. They are wholesome, since they ameliorate aversion/dosa.
I don’t know, but I suspect that one can’t consider brahmaviharas an actual decrease in mental formations (if one could ever count/measure formations at all), as much as a replacement of unwholesome formations into wholesome ones (according to the principle of  right effort).

Am I right in thinking emptiness and wisdom diminish becoming, just as -- as you mentioned -- brahmaviharas are still karmically (and wholesomely) potent? I recall this from one of the Dalai Lama's books.

@Eggman if by emptiness and wisdom you refer to anatta and panna, they’re wholesome according to dhamma, yes.

There is a difference between perceiving and directly knowing. MN1 discusses this at length.

MN1:7.1: They perceive creatures as creatures. But then they identify with creatures … Why is that?Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Perceiving an unopened bottle, one imagines a bottle opener and looks for that.
Directly knowing an unopened bottle, one creatively uses what is available to open the bottle, even if it just the edge of a table.
Perceiving a hungry, homeless person, one mentalizes them as outside society and ignores them. Directly knowing a hungry, homeless person, one with empathy shares food.
The difference between perceiving and directly knowing is identity view. Perception is skewed by identity view, tangled in craving, aversion and delusion. Direct knowledge is unembellished, without defilements of craving, aversion and delusion.
With mindfulness, one practices relinquishing identity view. One relinquishes the desire in that. One opens up to direct knowledge.

SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.


text:
Moving During Meditation
When I feel dullness in meditation, I tend to move about on the chair, e.g. tilt forwards or backwards, change position to prod myself to wakefulness.
Would such a method be detrimental? Should one aspire to remain completely still during meditation?

If you experience dullness, it's because your thinking mind (little mind) has gotten bored and is trying to put itself to sleep. You can alleviate the dulness by movement, sure — there's nothing wrong with that, exactly — but it's a sideways transition. The more productive approach is to recognize that your thinking mind wants to go to sleep, and that you can detach from it and let it sleep while you remain alert and awake. The thinking mind is just confused: it thinks it's you, and that if it goes to sleep you should go to sleep with it. All you need to do is break that association.

I don't think it matters and you should even get up to do walking meditation if you notice the hindrance of drowsiness, it s not the go-to adjustment but it's definitely one of the things one can do to wake oneself up. See Capala Sutta
The question i would ask is whether adjusting posture is solving your issue because it's probably better to attend to a different theme.
In general i think one of the biggest mistakes is to sit observing the hindrances.
It's not an easy subject to advice on because what one at that time should do depends on what one can do and in that we are all limited by our general knowledge.
I generally counter hindrances by picking themes and making adjustments. Commentary even lists 'tiresome work' as a remedy for drowsiness, not something id recommend but i favor it over nodding aimlessly for half an hour.
If one just has one theme be it development of samadhi which leads to mindfulness & alertness, metta, maranasati, the practise of stilling the breath or the development of other perceptions; if one just does one thing then it is going to be a hit or miss most days and maybe by virtue of general development one might overcome the hindrances at some point but afaik it's not what the Buddha recommends as he taught directed and undirected development.

The mind and body are not different.  When your body moves, your mind moves.  Just as thinking prevents consciousness from settling, when you move your body you are creating just as much disruption.  There's a reason why we sitting is the optimal way to meditate.  We ground our minds in the stability of the body.  An upright body is likewise an upright mind.
I'd also ask you to explore this notion of dullness.  Is this the actual hindrance or are you mistaking dullness for an aversion to stillness?  As our we settle into quiet, our small minds desperately try to regain control and will throw up all sorts of road blocks like boredom, restlessness, and doubt.  Also remember, when we meditate, our minds can become dark and murky.  A lack of crispness and clarity isn't dullness but rather a sign that we are entering a deeper level of awareness.  It's not dullness; instead, it's the first indication that we are moving into something more profound.


text:
How to tackle cold?
Simple question -- how to tackle cold feeling during winter through meditation other than clothes or anything?
Asking for specific meditation details with insight for tackling cold without any tantra or mantra or yantra.

What will be sensations in various parts of body?
What will be various body-parts movement during meditation(other than shaking)?
What will be the thoughts?
Will one have to maintain some pressure within body?
What will be the side effects or hindrances, if any?

All the minute details which can be generalized to everyone.
Don't write answers with advice like, "think to be born in cold countries..."... Here coldness/enviornment refers to the point where meditator will have the need to wear woolen clothes...!
If you have any authoritative (gautama the buddha's only) source for meditation on such, can give that -- but otherwise looking for specific practical experience.
Theorist may consider it a challenge, if they haven't experienced
Be Happy,
Metta

How cold are you asking about -- what temperature, how much wind, wearing what clothing, and for how long?

@chrisw already edited, read question properly, again.

When I asked, "how cold?", I meant, "what temperature?" The other questions -- like "how much wind", and, "for how long", are relevant too, I think. Your edit i.e., "cold enough to need to wear woollen clothes", didn't mean much to me. You don't have to answer but I thought it relevant to ask.

Last comment for @ChrisW on this particulat Q&A thread:: Nope! Thinking in wrong direction. These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.

@Ego Breaker.Such a very ego-full comment...

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is "too open-ended" (as described in the Moderation policies for Questions).

Buddhists usually put on warm clothes if they’re feeling cold. If the feeling persists, consider talking to a physician.

I'm inclined to agree with Erik.
Here's Ven Yuttadhammo, who is Canadian and in Canada -- Ask A Monk: Avoiding Cold -- saying that you might wear a hat "as a matter of course".
I think it's a matter of learning (or being taught) what the body can tolerate -- physical problems include (depending on how cold it is), hypothermia, chilblains, eventually frostbite.
I used to bicycle to and from work, just over an hour each way, in Toronto, year-round. And they were some of my favourite hours of every day, but a slightly extreme/unusual practice in winter and doing it (subzero and wind and sometimes wet for an hour twice a day every day) did depend on wearing winter gloves and boots.
Can I say, "don't be stupid"?
Every Canadian must learn to live with cold (and to dress appropriately). Winter there even in the south might have a daytime high of -10°C for months on end -- but life goes on, for everyone, you go out to go to school or work or exercise.
One danger is that stupidity (or "confusion") is caused by hypothermia -- i.e. if you do become hypothermic you might be too stupid to realise that and do something about it. Once I spent a week mountain-hiking with a school group in spring, and then we were told to watch out for our "buddies" -- we were told that if they stop being able to talk sense, that if they get angry, then perhaps they're hypothermic and we should act on that.
Another thing to know, I guess, is that "feeling cold" is a kind of a good thing -- where it becomes dangerous is if you lose sensation in a body-part -- usually extremities like the ears or toes.
Ditto if you feel overheated when you're not (not that I have experienced that extreme personally).
If you're interested the first place I feel cold is my ribs -- on either side, left and right, and level with my heart. There's no fat there, under the skin. A typical meditation posture might have your elbows down and upper arms against your sides protecting that area.
I reckon you ought to regulate your core temperature -- for health reasons, that's only sensible and a "middle way" practice -- and that skin temperature (and/or skin being wet) doesn't matter as long as you avoid chilblains and frostbite.

This answer is also spam, not from a meditator. Just trying to show ego&stupidity by saying OP to be stupid. Householders are not invited.

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm warning that becoming genuinely cold is a cause of stupidity -- Wikipedia -- "This typically occurs during moderate and severe hypothermia, as the person becomes disoriented, confused, and combative" -- and causes impairments to the body's feeling the cold.

I find this type of unsubstantiated 'stupidity, not a meditator and ego' allegations very rude. Especially from a new account... Looks like a troll/puppet account really. In general i don't see why such patronizing statements are tolerated.

The mods do so much work here and definitely shouldn't have to deal with this crap. It's just abuse and harrasment. Id even bet on whose account it is if id get 2:1

@sigh... I don't really feel abused, I don't think, so don't worry? though I would have deleted the comment if it were addressed to another user. I guess I might recognise which other user account this one is like, though it might not be the one you're thinking of (try not to hold a grudge, eh). I can see my answer's saying, "don't be stupid", might look insulting to the OP (sorry). Perhaps it's a fair comment then and gave me a chance to clarify what I meant to say -- that even a small drop in core body temperature is dangerous, stupefying, and a matter of physics and physiology.

Also that "shaking" (aka shivering) generates heat (from the muscles). So I imagined (at the risk of exaggerating) that if a meditator tried to pacify that shiver reflex or refuses to do something to stay warm then a body might only get colder and more quickly (perhaps even at not-especially cold air temperatures). It might be an altered state but IMO not a sane one, ditto if you're solitary and without a buddy.


text:
Do visual objects have karma?

According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations)
  and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through
  which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the
  Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles.

The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana:

Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory
  sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual
  sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant,
  unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal
  sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the
  associated consciousness.

So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana.
Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned?

I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

sorry if my questions come off as very scattered.

your quotes do not have links. where are you getting this from? if you insist on pursuing such questions I would advise that you refer to the root sources (ie, Nagarjuna's own texts/words) rather than scholarly articles.

Phassa is the liknk of the questions arising or non arising. So olso vedana on it.

And what is touched? Avijja. No avijja, no arising of Vedana.

And giving instead of claiming would lead to the possibility  of the path to and ending of avijja.

Vedana and Sañña arise only if three conditions were present in he first place: sense organ/faculty, sense-stimuli and consciousness specific to that organ/faculty. These three conditions are what is known as 'contact'.
Kamma can be understood as intentional deeds and as the continuation of habitual intentions underlying thoughts, words and bodily actions.
As far as we know with our current understanding of physics, biology and psychology, in order for something to have intentions, that something must have the capacity to sense, to interact, to respond, to interpret, to learn, to modify its behavior according stimuli from the surroundings and from its inner world. According to what I've said, "visual objects" (if understood as entities belonging the outside, "objective" world) only would create kamma if they present the capacities above described.
I'm not sure if this answer your questions, but at least it may provide some lines for future thoughts.
Kind regards!

Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the
  contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned?

Or perhaps there is something in the person who perceives that generates vedana.  In yogacara, we'd call that a transformation.  There are three of them that occur.  A sense perception is ultimately warped first by the store house consciousness and latent seeds, next by the manana (or self-conceit), and finally by the thinking consciousness.  The sensate data itself is neutral.  It has no karma or condition other than what the other three consciousness impose on it.  To take a contemporary example, let's say you see a picture of Donald Trump.  First, you see a picture.  Why yes, that is Donald Trump your thinking mind says.  You've identified him.  Next, your manana might contribute something like how seeing him makes you damn proud that you are an American!  #MAGA  Your store house consciousness might then supply something like an inherent respect to persons of authority.  Perhaps you're also intimidated by the gravity of his office and are overcome by the awe-inspiring regal majesty he represents.  (This actually happens in the reverse order from how I've described it, but for the sake of brevity, this will do for now.)  All of this is overlaid on top of that picture of Donald Trump.  How you react to it, what you feel (i.e. good, bad, or neutral), and what mental karma you generate is wholly dependent on your past karma and how you elect to deal with what comes up in that moment of perception.  You aren't seeing the picture as it really is, but rather how your past deeds, memories, prejudices, and personal obstacles distort that picture.

I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the
  fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still
  experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of
  visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or
  consciousness, but itself karma.

I'm not following.  If it's arupa, then it is, by definition, not dependent on form.  No form, no eyeballs, and no sense objects.

Yes objects that we see have karma.
For example in the story of Arahant Aṅgulimāla, we see that after attaining Arahanthood, Aṅgulimāla got hit by stones and other objects that were thrown at someone/something else. As Aṅgulimāla had to pay off the bad karma he accumulated by killing over 1000 people he got hit by those objects in retaliation. Karma is the reason everything happens.


text:
Why do we need to work?
I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless.
I am extremely confused.

You don't seem at all confused to me. Where is the confusion? .

If I spend 6 years of my life getting a PhD, will it bring me out of my suffering? More precisely, if I spend my getting degrees after degrees, solving problems after problems, etc. is it a waste of time ? I am feeling the emptiness of knowledge.

It is not a waste of time. Emptiness of knowledge is constructive.

It's cause and effect. Because of your ignorence(previous) .... desire and so on, You got a life, you got a body, you got a mind. Now you have to maintain it. It's suffering (now you are feeling it). Solution is to understand dhamma and to be enlightened.

If you can attain the real peace of meditation, it is like becoming a millionaire.
Since you have so much knowledge, who can easily get a job and earn a living, you can consider taking a holiday for a year or more to explore meditation.

Op specifies question: should he become a monk? This answer does not address question... yes he is able to take vacation for a year. But maybe he should be a monk! It sounds easy :p

Becoming a monk has too many distractions. Just go to monastery and practise meditation as a layman for a year. Deciding on monkhood can be done later; after testing the waters of meditation. Kind regards

That there are “too many distractions” is true for a monk and a householder or even an ascetic like myself.

Perhaps monkhood is the middlepath of the OP

Yes. But in my experience at a later time. Becoming monk has so many formalities. With metta

I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless.

The good news is that you can become a monk without having to throw away all your SWE knowledge. You simply just switch the priority around a little bit, instead of using your skillset primarily to make money for yourself, now you can use it for more wholesome purposes for many others.

In a practical context, would this mean for example to switch to open-source projects that have a philanthropist goal? Would this be in line with the path of the monk?

Notice that the path toward complete final liberation is a gradual path with various different stages/levels from low to high, and obviously the number of rules/precepts to observe are proportional to those stages. Monkhood is considered to be an advanced stage reserved for those who are willing to put enlightenment as the utmost highest priority, hence requires the most numerous number of rules to obey. The open-source approach you proposed might be legit. as long as it's being implemented carefully not to break any of the 227 bhikkhu rules as laid out in the Vinaya.

@Mast I think it might be debatable with some monks agreeing and some not. Many monks study or teach to some extent. It might depend on time-of-life too, with a monk doing different things -- whether more "engaged" or less -- at different times. There may be more monastics reading https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ than this site, maybe there would be a place to ask that question -- bearing in mind that community might tend to be biased or self-selecting towards being engaged.

I am also a software engineer and went through this exact situation about 3-4 years ago.
My personal experience (yours may differ) is that its not the nature of work or the outlook of accumulating knowledge (useful or not) that is causing this.
Ask yourself a few questions open mindedly. Drop the assumption that it may be useful or useless to do something.

Why is it a problem for you to do software (or X)? Go really deep here. What exactly is causing the problem?
Do you wish to learn or do something else, does something else interest you? (monkhood is a lifestyle that doesn't come easy)
What is your current personal/financial situation? Do you need to earn a living for yourself or family or someone else?

What happened with me was that once I started meditating, I started to do things more naturally. I did whatever needed to be done. Work stopped bothering me to be honest. I should stop here to say My mind stopped bothering me.
What I think has happened is that, you were intellectually stimulated by software and the world etc., and all that has come to a standstill. The mind is rebelling and debating about the uselessness or usefulness of X, Y, Z tasks and life etc.,
Essentially, your mind should be taking instructions from you, not the other way round. Meditation helps with that. So I suggest you start off with 5-10 minutes of that and see where it goes. It really helps.
I feel it takes a little bit of inside adjustment to align ourselves with life, not mind. Meditation is required for that. Its like recalibrating yourself everyday. You will become more pleasant and aligned with everyday activity. Doesn't matter if it is software or watering the plants...
[Edit for clarification]
By big picture I meant thinking of the world and how it works as a whole and as a consequence, nihilistic thoughts arising.
Examples:
Why is the world like this?
Why do we have a market based economy? Why capitalist government? Why democracy?
Why am I here? What are we doing here?
Another similar question, What's the use of doing X? -- this is the question OP is having.
These may sound like perfectly logical/valid questions at times. In our current state of mind and body that is lacking clear perception, we will not get sufficient answers to these type of questions. In fact, they may also come from a non-achieving mind that is looking for excuses i.e., one that wants to be lazy and do nothing.
So, what's the point of anything at all? What's the point of life? I think this is where you might logically move towards. But we can also ask, what if there's no point? And we're all here doing something, anything, i.e., whatever we want or whatever is restricted by situations we are faced with.
So maybe also ask yourself, should there be a point at all?

Sorry, there's something I didn't understand... -- you wrote, "Drop the assumption that it may be useful or useless to do something", and, "What is your current personal/financial situation?" Aren't those two related, or contradicting each other? A "software engineer" is probably paid, a professional working for money, because the money seems "useful" and they "do something" (i.e. work as a software engineer) to earn it. Can you clarify a bit what you meant when you wrote that?

Why I said drop the assumption of usefulness/uselessness, is because this kind of thinking comes from looking at a very big picture of all the things happening in the world. Why bother moving the needle everyday? What's going to happen if I don't do anything? Almost nihilistic. It probably comes to usefulness if you think of how it helps with family later on in the thought process.

One more question, to be clear... are you saying that the misleading assumption of usefulness comes from looking at the big picture? Or that the better kind of thinking or of seeing (view) comes from looking at the big picture, after dropping misleading assumptions including "usefulness"?

To clarify, by "big picture" I meant the overall way the world works, why we are here, what are we doing here, what's the use of doing X, and such other "existential" questions. In our current state of mind and body, we will not get sufficient answers to these type of questions. In fact, they may also come from a non-achieving mindset that is looking for excuses i.e., one that wants to be lazy and do nothing.

Edited my answer to make that clear

If you are a software engineer, you can do wonders to propagate Dhamma. Please speak to Bhante Sujato who is the administrator of  Sutta Central.
https://suttacentral.net/

How do I concat him?

@nitrogen Via https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/the-watercooler or https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/meta/dev or https://github.com/suttacentral would be my guess -- I don't know a more specific link.

To answer your question: we dont need to work. We dont need to be monks. We dont need to be jobless. We dont need to need. But if we have a job we should be skillful and diligent, this is a responsibility you already undertook. To be dispassionate and useless is okay. I would argue that people accused the buddha of the same things! It is not shameful to be a monk. Lord Buddha became an ascetic “throwing away” or renouncing his right to the throne. My advice: become a monk for one year and then disrobe and come tell us what you have learned.

Is it shameful if I became a monk
I don't think so.
I learned a lot in school that isn't useful to me any more.
I had a colleague who had been a doctor (a "paediatric microbiologist"), and who gave that up to practice software engineering.
I was reading this definition of "conceit" recently:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Is learning useful, since its just accumulation of ideas ?

You're echoing my use of the word "useful". I think Buddhism might talk about what's "virtuous", "harmless", "skilful", "wise", and so on. And as for "learning", Buddhism itself is called a "gradual training". And it's practical too and thus not "just ideas", that's how it's beneficial.

I mean there are plenty of things to learn in this world. I can learn playing guitar, sky diving, mountain biking, chess, etc. But, is it worth it to spend majority of our lives pursuing such learning ? Apart from training in buddhism, I find everything pretty useless.

Dhammadhatus's answer sounds like advice, perhaps consider that. The knowledge (of software) is dependently originated IMO, social and the result of practice -- you might find that the skill doesn't go away and that you can come back to it after a year if you wanted to ... or you might not. Incidentally I think his answer is just slightly wrong -- i.e. that "getting a job" might depend on reputation and not just on knowledge, though also on inter-personal skills and motivations.

All the knowledge you current have is saṁvṛiti, or knowledge of the conventional truth. Becoming a monk is in pursuit of paramārtha, or the ultimate truth. In essence you are not throwing anything away.

Now to your point. In essence, obtaining saṁvṛiti is essentially pointless when we look at the goal of nibbana. That being said, it seems that you are feeling depressed and you are considering becoming a monk (maybe thinking this will solve it).
If you want to become a monastic, I would recommend practicing in your everyday life and slowly transitioning. Take on the eight precepts and spend your time in solitude. In Each and Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikku, he includes a considerable discussion of how to implement meditation into your everyday life.
If you find that this practice leads you to the ending of dukkha, visit a monastery and try it out for a week or a month. After that, you can be confident you are making the right choice.
In my opinion, it would be unwise to quit your job and outright go to a monastery without verifying this is what you want. Monastic life is not all rosy. They work very hard and must be constantly aware. If you do choose the monastic life, you are making the most meriful choice with life and I commend you greatly.

In general it's not shameful to give up a lowly pursuit for something more exquisite. Although if one became a bad monk, developed wrong views and got mixed up in some  sect then it might turn out shameful.

Be gentle on yourself. It's okay to feel confused. Feelings come and feelings go.
Such an abrupt change in your life could lead to more suffering. Look deeply into why you feel the way you do. Do this by breathing mindfully. Thich Nhat Hanh has some excellent reading materials to help you with this.
Before you make a decision, take time to understand where you are and why you feel the way you do.

Why work?

Why do we need to work?

I have asked this question myself, especially when I've become dissatisfied with my own career as a software engineer. There is much I could say in response to your question, but I feel it would be more wise to instead suggest that you ask yourself a different question.

Why do I work?

There are many different reasons why people seek employment, but to find direction and clarity, you need to look inside and find the reasons why you have chosen to work in your given career path.
For example:

Do you need to the income to sustain yourself or others who depend upon you?
Do you have financial obligations that you are expected to fulfill?
Do you feel that you are obligated to work?
Are you concerned that your education will be wasted if you don't continue to work?
Do you find your work engaging or fulfilling?
Does your work provide meaning?
Do you want the money to indulge yourself in various material pleasures?
Do you want the prestige that can come from working in your chosen field?

You have already answered some of these questions in your original post, but it's worth exploring them further.
Impermanence
Job Satisfaction
I suspect that your confusion is due, in part, to a lack of appreciation for impermanence. All things change over time, including one's job. A career that may have been nearly perfect at one point may become dissatisfying later, due to a change in the job, a change in the industry, or a change in oneself.
As an example, early in my career, I had a job that I truly enjoyed. I found the work meaningful and it wasn't overly taxing (which I prefer.) I gained a lot of valuable experience, particularly with "soft skills." As a grew as a professional, I gained a deeper appreciation for the software development lifecycle; in particularly, I learned how the way an organization was structured and how it operated could impact how effective I and my colleagues were as developers.
Eventually, I learned about Agile Software Development Methodologies. The philosophies behind it mirrored my own observations, so I embraced Agile whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, the company I was working for was slow to adopt Agile and didn't begin to experiment with it until almost 20 years after the Agile Manifesto was released. Worse, though, I foresaw many obstacles that would prevent it from being successfully adopted. For that reason, I decided it was best I move on to a new company - one where I could leverage my experience to be more productive and contribute better to my peers, my employer, and society as a whole.
The job I worked at hadn't changed substantially. I, however, had changed. My goals and expectations had changed such that I was no longer satisfied with the job I originally was so enthusiastic about.
Knowledge
Being in the software industry, you should appreciate the need to keep your skills current. Knowledge isn't some possession that you acquire and then gain value from indefinitely. It's something that you need to nurture and grow over time; the value you get from it may be more or less depending upon your circumstances.
This isn't to say your education will become worthless, but rather that leveraging your education is an ongoing decision - one that you can change at any time.
In other words, there's nothing wrong with deciding to switch careers. Don't succumb to the sunk cost fallacy; do whatever is the right thing.
Advice
My advice is to schedule some time off to sit and reflect.
It doesn't have to be much; even a day off at home would be helpful. However, if you can arrange it, I would highly recommend finding a Buddhist community nearby. They may have an introductory workshop you can attend or (if you have enough experience) weekend retreats for mediation.
Whatever you do, be informed and intentional in your actions. There are plenty of opportunities for software engineers so don't be afraid to consider a new job. Also don't be afraid to "waste" your education. You may indeed find life as a monk more fulfilling, but not if you rush into it hoping to escape from your current dissatisfaction.
Best of luck on your journey. I wish you well!