text:
What is wrong speech according to Buddhism?
Is something a lie if I don’t have bad or evil intentions but what I said turns out to be false? I’m trying to protect my five precepts but sometimes when I say something it turns out to be false but I just said what I know at that time. I wasn’t trying to deceive or tell lies. I just said what I know but I found out later that I was wrong. So is that a lie? I didn’t have any bad intentions. I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false.

That isn't a lie. To lie you have to have the intent of deception. Therefore, it isn't lying and it isn't wrong speech. However, that doesn't mean the remaining content of what you said is right speech.

Check this link out for more information on right speech.

@user29568 Please post that as an answer, not as a comment.

I don't think the fourth precept is defined in detailed in suttas. Actually I don't think any of the precepts are defined in detail -- perhaps they are in a commentary.
Something like that precept, though, is defined in the vinaya (for monks) -- see Chapter 8, page 298, of The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, which includes:

Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

But I don't understand your question saying, "I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false" -- because, how could you "know" something that's false?
I think (I hope) I'd tend to phrase that as, "I think that so-and-so", or "Someone once told me so-and-so", or "I guess that so-and-so", or "Such-and-such a reference says so-and-so" -- not, "I know that so-and-so is true" when I'm not sure.
If I'm not sure about something, then conveying more certainty than I have (e.g. by saying, "X is definitely true") is in my opinion misrepresenting the truth about how good my knowledge is, how much certainty I have, how trust-worthy it is.
Anyway you should probably read that chapter of the vinaya, it includes various details which I won't quote here.
The vinaya says it's wrong to break a promise, too. In my opinion (though, I'd guess, not according to Buddhist scripture) that means you should avoid kind of implying (perhaps an implied promise) that something is true when it isn't -- so for example if you're not certain then don't imply you're certain.
Since you mentioned "wrong speech" you might also want to read about "right speech" more generally, i.e. one of the factors of the noble eightfold path (I don't know whether that's exactly the same as the fourth precept):

Right Speech (quotes from Suttas)
Right Speech (a little essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

+1. Great point about 'knowing'. We should try to speak with rigour. Not an easy thing to do. I read one piece of advice which states that we should never say anything that is falsifiable. Good advice for all philosophers, albeit there will be exceptions for every rule. .

The advice to the young Rahula (for example) about not lying seemed to me, on the outside, about being trustworthy and retrained by a sense of shame (e.g. "don't do anything you wouldn't want to admit to" isn't effective if you're willing to lie about what you've done) -- but on the inside it's about knowing reality, not lying to yourself about what's what.

On a separate topic, about philosophy not Buddhism, I've heard "falsifiable" used only in a different sense -- e.g. a statement like "God exists" or "there is a teapot floating in the asteroid belt" are an example of an "unfalsifiable" claim ... perhaps I'd call them "untestable". I think people regard those claims as "unscientific", perhaps "unprovable". So "falsifiable" (meaning "we can test to see whether it's false") is kind of good, although "false" is bad; I think that means that useful/practical claims are falsifiable but true.

Quite right, falsifiability is a topic in itself. Here it just refers to what you say in your answer. If we make a statement about which we are unsure then it may be falsified but if we preface it with 'I believe' or 'It seems to me' then it becomes unfalsifiable,. When we state something as a fact we should know it is one. Likewise we are advised not to make claims about experience that go beyond our experience. All claims should be testable (and tested) but not necessarily empirically. Common sense really.

In addition to the answers provided, to be safe, if you were unsure of something you have to indicate that you were unsure of it. Same for if you don't know, say you don't know. If it is not something you personally verified, make sure you indicate that as well.
Especially if the topic in question was dire or can have a big impact to others based on your answers, I would advise you be very careful of giving the right answers because not only it would bring impact to others, but also risky in committing false speech.

In the broader context of ignoble speech, we have DN33:

Four ignoble expressions:
  speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical.

Notice that lying is included in the first of these. Lying is intentional. One states what is false. You had no intention of lying but your speech was false. And you felt doubt and perhaps remorse later.
To blurt out something baldly and assertively is dangerous as you've found yourself later that the statement was false. Rather than hinder yourself with remorse (part of the five hindrances), simply be mindful that as the name and forms we use in speech come into being, they also must mutate and cease. Perhaps the simplest mindful thing to do is prefix statements (especially any "obvious truths") with "it is said", "i have heard", or other qualifying phrases. The effort of doing so will gradually pay off and help mindfulness grow.
And from DN33 as well:

refraining from speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical

Which also means that saying nothing at all is also fine.

If you say for example, "from what I know:...", or, "I have heard that:...", then there would be no lie (at worst it's useless chatter). If you say it as f you really know for example, "it is...", "he has...", "that is wrong...", with definite speech -- and if happens that your assumptions turn out to be wrong, you understood wrong -- then you did not really know, and that it was simply a lie.
If you speak in ways of truthfulness, it's not possible to lie.
Think on that, if saying, "tomorrow I will do this and that...", or in ways of, "I am...", and of how many lies are around on places like this?
One who says "i know" but does not; "I see" but does not; "I have heard" but hasn't; is called a liar by those who are serious.
And one should not forget that, to gain liberation, it requires to abandon all kinds of stealing the truth; and untruthfulness starts with stopping "speaking of what is not true."
For the most speech is to defend one's world, identification and it would require freedom from stinginess (e.g. Noble person) to have not simply just this intention, however excused or hidden.
One may think on Rahula's first lesson he got. There is no way in Dhamma for one who does not start right here; and even the Bodhisatta, although still (before enlightenment) breaking this or that precept, never failed in sacca, truthfulness. Truthfulness as well as the Buddha-Dhamma is not for everyone, not to speak about careless.
Yet think then on the even more fine matter of changing ones mind, and it's impact.
Much liberating gain in going truthfully into this matter, rather to seek approve under equal and lower with the defiled "I had the intention" excuse (yet not even recognize the drive).
[Text is not placed for trade or to be used for any wordily exchange]

Changing answers and especially meaning and dedications, deleting content and censore, is as wrong speech, stealing the truth. Shamefully and of no use to share anything with people not dear of even deliberated lies and common stealing... much karuna if caught in such a sociaty and in association with balas. Their teacher a deliberated thief... how could his disciples be different...

I'll undo that edit. It is unconventional on this site to add that kind of text (i.e. to end the answer with a 'dedication' such as "Text is not placed for trade or to be used for any wordily exchange") -- but as long as the text is short and not hostile, and important to you, I think it's harmless.


text:
Offering water to a buddha statue?
Does offering water to a Buddha statue increase merits? Can I get more merits from offering food or drinks to a buddha statue than from giving money to beggars?

It's important to notice the purpose of practicing Dana, or the virtue of charity. It is to let go of stinginess, of clinging, and of attachment. So while it's true that there're wholesome resultant merits, as long as one keeps in mind the true purpose of the practice, one won't fall into that common mistake of treating Dana as a transaction which leads to differentiating/calculating who/where/when to donate to maximize the "returns". With the right intent, whether offering water to Buddha statue or donating to the poor or helping the sick, or whatever, every single act adds up and help one to be able to let go (as opposed to pick up more) all clinging and attachments.

Offering food to animals and other puthujjanas who do not exercise sense restrain is already ''not of great fruits'' like the buddha phrase it (because the recipient precisely will delight and crave more delight which leads to more afflictions and suffering, whereas the human who at least train to see the danger of the 5 aggregates and of lust for them will train to not delight in the food), so offering food to a rock is going only to waste food. Keep food for people and animals, instead of rocks.
The puthujjanas who give and pray to rocks are turning some activities into rituals and cling to them  while claiming they are good people for creating those rituals. THose puthujjanas completely fail to understand karma.
As you know, there are sankharas and karmas and there are puthujjanas who claim that:

only actions [thoughts, talks, movements of the body] matters to be a good human, intentions do not matter.
Those puthujjanas love to turn their activities into rituals. For instance, if their ritual is to put a fork on the left of a plate,  they claim that they can think of, let's say, the favorite singer and songs while they put the fork on the left of the plate and they claim since the forkis at the proper place, the ritual is complete and they have generated ''merit'' (even thought they thought of something else than putting the fork on the left of the plate) or a good action and therefore they are good people.
only intentions matter. A human can do any action, as long as the human has right intentions behind those actions, this human is a good person.
Those puthujjanas love to claim that caring about the outcome of an action is useless or even detrimental to the fruit of the action.
Those puthujjanas claim that as long as they have a good intention, like compassion, while they do an action, no matter what this action is , since they feel sad and delude themselves that they are compassionate and detached from the outcome of the action, they are good people.
Those puthujjanas  are the most dangerous since they can do horrible actions like euthanizing animals or humans and they delude themselves into being righteous.
They are so messed up in their heads that they believe that as long as they feel sad and act only to alleviate the suffering of people by killing them, they do right actions.
SOme of those puthujjanas claim that they are good people, because they feel detached from the outcome of their actions: you can do whatever you want as long as you are detached from the outcome.

Now the claim of the buddha is precisely that you cannot separate the intention from the karma of an action.
The buddha claimed famously that

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

some puthujjanas like the ones who claim that ''only intentions matter, any actions are permitted as long as the right intentions are behind the actions'' love to cut the quote at "Intention, I tell you, is kamma.'' to justify their horrible ways and their horrible doctrine which never stops the suffering.
Karma is a stuff that is done and the source of that karma is the ''intending'' according to the buddha.
There are sankharas, which are typically called intentions today, and the output of the sankharas are actions which are tainted by karmas, which means that they are colored by karma.
There are 3 color of karmas which are useless to stop the suffering of puthujjanas:

"And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case
  where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication,
  fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious
  mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication,
  having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated
  an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On
  rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious
  contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that
  are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is
  called kamma that is dark with dark result.
"And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the
  case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily
  fabrication... a non-injurious verbal fabrication... a non-injurious
  mental fabrication... He rearises in a non-injurious world... There he
  is touched by non-injurious contacts... He experiences feelings that
  are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Ever-radiant Devas. This
  is called kamma that is bright with bright result.
"And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result?
  There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily
  fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a verbal fabrication
  that is injurious & non-injurious... a mental fabrication that is
  injurious & non-injurious... He rearises in an injurious &
  non-injurious world... There he is touched by injurious &
  non-injurious contacts... He experiences injurious & non-injurious
  feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some
  devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that
  is dark & bright with dark & bright result.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Now the claim of the buddha is that karma and sankharas are a bad thing, since they are conditioned. And whatever is conditioned leads to suffering sooner or later. So as long as you perform actions which are  of those 3 karmic colors, you will suffer and the people who crave delights that you try to help by karmic deeds will suffer too.
Fortunately, the buddha claims he found the way to stop this horrible karma and sankharas and he claims that There is only one color of actions which leads to the cessation of suffering:

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark
  nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is
  neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading
  to the ending of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is
  the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the
  cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of
  kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of
  kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the
  cessation of kamma.

Now giving some stuff to a human is an action, sometimes it is a karmic action which will therefore lead to suffering for somebody, but a few times the human who gives stuff to another human will color this action by the right karma, the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result'' and that stuff leads to less suffering.
now ''human gives stuff to another human'' is an action that involves two human and the the fruit of the action involves the two humans.
First the human who gives must have the right citta and mano during the offering. It is not easy for a puthujjana to use rightfully the citta and mano during the offering, because puthujjanas have created so many mistakenviews tied to giving.
As usual with the phutjjanas their views stems from their idiotic dichotomies, the most famous one being the egotistical-selfless dichotomy. Some puthujjanas claim that being egotistical is good and selfless is bad, some puthujjanas claim the opposite. But both managed to tie their mistaken view of egotism and selflessness to giving.
THe buddha listed a few of their mistaken ways here https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/thanissaro
THe giving of great fruit is always the giving that leads to the cessation of suffering for the human who gives. It turns out that this giving is not even about the view that giving is right because it calms the citta, but because ''it is an ornament of the citta'' which just means that giving to people who have sense restrain is the right thing to do.
But the fruit also depends on the human who receives the offering:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html

THe human who receives the offering matters a lot. When you give to puthujjanas who crave to delight in sensuality, you may only make things worse for them, even though you may improve your own situation. but when you give to any human who strives for ''sense restrain'', you can go blindly and not even care about what this human will do with your offering, precisely because this human will not delight in your offering and will not generate more craving and more afflictions. The times where you can stop caring about the outcome of your offering are the times when give stuff to THe humans who do not delight in sensuality.
The buddha rephrased all that here:

"And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.
"And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.
"And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.
"Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html
On the contrary, when you give stuff to puthujjanas who do not strive to avoid delight in sensuality, you must be super careful about what you do and say, because you can make things worse for them very easily by making delight and making them crave more.
So when you give to humans who crave delights, you always must use your mano and citta like this:

‘Does this act with the body that I am doing lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both?
  https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato

It is hard for a puthujjana to help other puthujjanas, because in the dhamma, helping others is about calming the citta, the mano and the kaya, the opposite of making other puthujjanas  excited, so the puthujjana who wants ''helping others'' like they say, who struggles a lot with that already, will not have much actions left besides giving stuff to humans who are good at senses restrain.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dukkha Nana - deep knowledge of our own suffering
In which school of Buddism is dukkha nana a recognised term?
Where is dukkha nana discussed in the Pali canon?
The nearest I can find to dukkha nana is klesha-mara which maybe related in some way.
Speaking specifically of dukkha nana that has arisen as a result of practice, what is your experiential interpretation of dukkha nana?

I think ñāṇa is the Pali word for "insight" or "knowledge" (jñāna in Sanskrit), used in a phrase like "vipassanā-ñāṇa".

So, simply, dukkha nana is just insight into suffering. There's a guy called Daniel Ingram who uses this term to describe a significant and often very difficult phase in the practice. I was curious as to whether it was mentioned in the Pali canon. https://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+The+Progress+of+Insight

"ñāṇa" is the Pali word for "insight" or "knowledge" (jñāna in Sanskrit), used in a phrase like "vipassanā-ñāṇa".
It appears in the Pali canon, for example in SN 45.8 in the definition of Right View:

“And what is the noble eightfold path?
  “Katamo ca, bhikkhave, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo?
It is right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
  Seyyathidaṃ—sammādiṭṭhi … pe … sammāsamādhi.
And what is right view?
  Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi?
Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.
  Yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhasamudaye ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhe ñāṇaṃ, dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya ñāṇaṃ—

I see from Google that some (contemporary) people use "dukkha nana" in the context of "dark night", however:

I don't remember much from "dark night" topics on this site, though there have been some
I don't know how to relate the "dark night" phrase to what I read in the suttas

Instead of "dark night" (e.g. as described in this answer), the message I get from the suttas is that:

Dukkha is discovered in 'real life' (as it were), and not during or as a result of practice -- e.g. the story of Gotami
"Knowledge of dukkha" is right view, it's insight into the cause of dukkha, its origin and cessation (e.g. the four noble truths) -- which might be from meditation but in the suttas I think it's usually (at least initially) as a result of hearing the dhamma explained (perhaps that explanation is then confirmed in meditation)

I don't quite trust the English-language "ego"-related words -- "ego" is Latin and/or Freudian originally, isn't it? Likewise I guess that the phrase "dark night" comes from the Christian tradition, I haven't tried to learn how that's related to Buddhism -- I'm pretty sure that Buddhist doctrine teaches, or at least that the Pali suttas teach, that there isn't a soul and that any and all self-views are associated with suffering.
In any case accepting the anatta view does not seem to me to be associated with suffering (not a "dark night", a "death of ego") -- instead I remember it as being always more like more like this:

her madness left her and her right mind was established

and:

And the master then uttered this verse:

A person with a mind that clings,
    Deranged, to sons or possessions,
    Is swept away by death that comes
     — Like mighty flood to sleeping town.

At the conclusion of this verse, confirmed in the fruit of stream-entry,
  she asked the master [for permission] to go forth [into the homeless life].

But who am I to tell you, you know, what other people experience?
Still I do remember reading people saying, on this site, or saying that their teachers said, that you should beware of people telling you that there are various specific stages of insight or meditation to go through, specific experiences.

I think the same or similar is in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

‘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.
  ‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

And the next two lines:

This noble truth of suffering should be completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññeyyan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe … pe … udapādi.
‘This noble truth of suffering has been completely understood.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
  ‘Taṃ kho panidaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ pariññātan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

The participle there is Pariññāta, from the verb Parijānāti, a variant of the verb Jānāti.
I think that jānāti is the same root as ñāṇa, i.e. jānāti is the verb "to know" and ñāṇa is the noun "knowledge".
The sutta might contradict what I said above about "specific stages" e.g. because perhaps it lists some:

Dukkha "should be completely understood" ... "has been completely understood"
The origin of suffering "should be given up" ... "has been given up"
The cessation of suffering "should be realized" ... "has been realized"
The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering "should be developed" ... "has been developed".

"you should beware of people telling you that there are various specific stages of insight or meditation to go through, specific experiences." - Yes, mapping should be used very cautiously. Awakening seems to be a very innate and individual happening.

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


text:
Losing enlightenment
I would like to ask if someone has known an enlightened being who lost it.
Is there any Buddhist texts about this?
I believe it can happen with some brain problem maybe.

There're 4 "grades" of enlightenment (Stream-entry, Once-return, Non-return, and Arahantship). By the time one's reached the 1st stage, one's guaranteed non-retrogression and will only have at most 7 more rebirths. (ref: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html )

Householder Seckin, those interested,
Actually many, most, believing that they have found awakening, but actually didn't, of what ever stage, sooner or later will lose that, often very painful and sometimes having cut themselves off from any attaining. This being the reason, the Buddha did not tell much on the matter that once having reached the stream (first stage of awakening) one is no more able to fall, right away destinated for full awakening, althought it could require another hardships within further 7 existences. So it's most empathized to focus on gaining right view, as the entrance and stick firm, till the "End" with the safe Bet, even there are many out there suggesting different, and stay not by first things first.
A possible more extended answer, as well as given space for discussion on go deeper, can be given found here: [Q&A] Losing enlightenment (possible?)
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining binding to world, but as exit for higher and beyond)

Actually householder @seckin did, by having an account here, and others could use also for commercial and not good purposes. So maybe think again where things are secure given. It's not my persons website, but that of the Sangha.

Suffering has a cause householder @seckin , and this and path really out needs to be seen, done. Maybe this gives rise, since related and hard to find alone, real release. Vi-bhava at least, is not enought, leads to new becoming as well. Body might be left behind, kamma follows anyway.

I don't know if this is something that is possible. Steve Taylor has done a 10 year study of enlightened (I use that word extremely liberally in the case of his study) individuals in which he documents some cases where people have lost the state in his book The Leap - The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening. However, in my opinion his 10 year study only really scratches the very surface. I say this because there are many who are fooled into thinking that they are enlightened when in fact they probably entered a jhanic state for sometime then lost it. This is the tomfoolery of awakening. Jhanic experiences can be drastically life changing and one can attach that change to a conclusion concerning their spiritual discovery only to become disappointed by the certainty of impermanence.
Additionally, from the Buddhist perspective, enlightenment occurs at Sotapanna stage when one enters the stream but one is still subjected to conditioned states in the stream. Apparently, there is a place where conditioning no longer has any influence, termed nibbana or enlightenment. Im not sure how one could fall back from the stream having realised knowledge of the four noble truths and suffering.

One can be very convincing when insight occurs through jhana. Sometimes jhana is intoxicating with a self constructed wiseness that is unshakable and through mere speech one can subdue the speech and thoughts of others. Perhaps the one big twist in all of this is a definition of enlightenment I heard from Adyashanti: enlightenment is to realise that there is nothing to realise; everything just is.

I can't answer because I have no personal experience of being in nibbana.

Yes, it must because of that, jhanic state. Interesting.

"This is the tomfoolery of awakening." - Great phrase. .

According to Buddhist teaching becoming Sotapanna is the only way to assure Nibbana.
"The laywoman Sujata, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Of course this can happen. It's not because you experience enlightenment that you won't get hungry, or angry, or {your favorite condition goes here} after that. It also doesn't mean you can't experience it again an hour later. Life does not end at satori. In some traditions, it is even considered counterproductive to dwell on/in the experience. A good book on this is "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry" by Jack Kornfield.


text:
Buddhism Perspective on Frustration
I noticed I rarely get mad at people, but when I engage in a task, I get extremely frustrated when things go wrong. My head hurts, I despair (e.g. this is pointless, worthless), and often avoid the task.
1) What is this? What is it caused by?
2) What is the remedy to such frustration?

From the perspective of training I received, this is a (very) obvious case of "attachment" - to things being "right", and likely also to success and praise.
I suspect, your frustration and anger are your reactions to dukkha generated when in your mind there is a mismatch between your expectation of how the task is supposed to proceed, and how it actually goes.
In my understanding, there are two steps here: one, attachment to an idea of things going perfectly generates dukkha; and two your aversion to dukkha generating frustration and anger. I would not be surprised if there were an element of self-reflection going on as well. As in, thoughts like "why don't other people run into these problems and I do?" or "this is my bad luck". And probably some reverse projection of these back onto the world e.g. "I'm running into these issues because someone else did a sloppy job." and/or "This world is broken! Things never go right and everything is in a mess! It's hopeless!"
From Buddhism's perspectives these are all pathological thoughts rooted in attachment, aversion, and confusion. The root of all this is ignorance - an incorrect expectation of how things are supposed to work, based on an incorrect (overly simplified!) idea of how things work in general.
So, naturally, the remedy is to meditate on how things work!

why exactly things don't go perfectly?
where do the obstacles come from?
if it's the other people who did it imperfectly, why could they not do it perfectly?
what are all the factors at play?
can things ever be perfect?
what is "perfection" anyway, and does my mind play the role in defining it?
is my definition of "perfection" truly objective, or is it partially biased and somewhat one-sided?
aren't things already perfect in some global sense?
does my attachment to idea of how things should be, that leads to frustration, does it help me or others?
does being in a frustrated state lead to my long-term happiness?
when things go different from my idea of how they were supposed to, can I learn to not lag behind reality in my mind and to keep updating my idea to always match reality?
if I learn to stay in sync like that at all times, would I not be stable and at peace?
could it be that this is what Buddhism is actually about?

The last question is obviously a leading question on my part, sorry about that ;)
But yes, analysis like this, and resulting change in perspective is how these things are to be resolved, in my opinion.

Quoting a topic on Dhamma Wheel:

From MN 20:

Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome

And Ven. Bodhi's note:

MA: When thoughts of sensual desire arise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on foulness (see MN 10.10); when the thoughts are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is attention to impermanence. When thoughts of hate arise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on loving-kindness; when they are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is attention to the elements (see MN 10.12). The remedy for thoughts connected with delusion is living under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into its meaning, listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes.

The first quote (from MN 20) and probably the second are taken from Bikkhu Bodhi's THE MIDDLE LENGTH DISCOURSES OF THE BUDDHA.


text:
What does wrong freedom or wrong release mean?
This is from the Paṭhamaadhammasutta (AN10.113).

Katamo ca bhikkhave adhammo ca anattho ca?
Micchā-diṭṭhi, micchā-saŋkappo,
  micchā-vācā micchā-kammanto, micchā-ājīvo,  micchā-vāyāmo,  micchā-sati,micchā-samādhi, micchā-ñāṇaɱ, micchā-vimutti.
And what are not-dhamma and not-aim?
Wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong living,
  wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration, wrong knowledge,
  wrong release.

(Found on Obo-net.)
Does anyone know what wrong release could be? Does the Buddha explain this anywhere?
I can't really understand how release can be wrong. Seems to me that one is or is not released.

one guess is such a form of release may be relative to a prior (existing) state of being.  this form of release may not be conducive to further release...

more likely it's associated with release following the noble 8-fold path..

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN29.html#mn29note03

All other releases or freedom which are not that of Nibbana (e.g. still subject to birth, aging, sickness end death), are called miccha, wrong. There are countless of them. With every action, in all ways of desire beings seeks for release. micchā-magga, the wrong way of practice leads to miccha-vimutti, wrong release (no release). The nature of wrong freedom, which is gained on and on, after certain stilling, is that it does not last, is dependend and subject to decay.
To count them all would be endless, but maybe such words like "pseudo-liberalism" or "householder-equanimity" in wordily spheres or the many kinds of Nihilism incl. based on Jhana may help. The possible most structured list of miccha-vimutti by the Sublime Buddha can be found in the Brahma Net. And here a sample of an atheist: "I live free of the guilt of sin and the fear of Hell."

"N'atthi santi param sukham"
  "The is no peace like (the peace) of happiness beyond" (e.g. Nibbana)"

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not thought for any trade, stakes or exchange for wordily gains]

I don't think it's defined in the suttas, though it's mentioned in several.
I guess it's some kind of carelessness that may arise as a result of wrong view -- perhaps "nothing matters because it's all erased when you die (annihilationism)", or, "I'm sure to go to heaven because I practice the correct rites and rituals", or, etc.
In contrast, buddha-vacana.org identifies two types of right liberation:

vimutti: emancipation, release, liberation. There are two types of liberation, explained at AN 2.32:

ceto·vimutti (liberation of the mind) -- from absence of desire
paññā·vimutti (liberation by wisdom) -- from absence of ignorance

Puthujjanas have created so many mistaken views, so do not expect to find a long list.
Usually the Samyutta about ditthis is here
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm
Here is how wrong view arises
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.154/en/sujato
which is clinging on 5 aggregates. So anything, like view, speach, samadhi, following grasping at the 5 aggregates is qualified of wrong.
The buddha explains that in the first sermon. he has his citta in samadhi but he did not know that grasping is wrong and that samadhi stemming form grasping is wrong samadhi, while the good samadhi is the samadhi based on sense restrain and relinquishment and ultimately viroga


text:
"The number of dust on the earth could be counted..."
In the video documentary Go Beyond Samsara - Part 2, it mentions that Buddha had said:

"The number of dust on the earth could be counted, but the number of
  beings that had been one's parents is in no case calculable"

I'd like to see this in its fuller context. Where in the pali canon or other scriptures did the buddha say this and can you point me to it?
I have researched and I can only find similar biblical references like here.
Note: The video link above will play at the very moment in question.

From the context -- i.e. the video being maybe from Taiwan, and the message being about compassion towards animals -- I guess this could be from e.g. a Mahayana scripture and not the Pali canon.

@Chris - That's fine. I've added a Mahayana tag to widen the scope as I'd still like to see it in its context if, at all, it exists.

@Chris - I figure that by adding the Mahayana tag it would reduce the scope somewhat, so I've removed it and modified the question slightly.

Theoretically or usually, a tag like pali-canon or mahayana or etc. means that you want to restrict the topic to a specific source or tradition (I think that use of tags is described here). I think it's likely to be Mahayana, anyway maybe (since you're not sure of the source) you could delete all the tags and just add the [tag:reference-request] tag instead.

Try it just in your room and you may get the answer, in the dust case. There is a simile by the Buddha that one could meassure the size/amout of water in the great ozeans to empathize the meaning of immeasureable, "endless". The statement of unlimited relatives is also not totally correct. How ever, both matters (that in regard of relatives and that of "imperceptible", inconstruable, note that in different context) are touched here: Mata
[This is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for commercial purpose, trade, stake or any exchange for wordily gain and should be totally deleted, and gifts like that rejected, if the place does not allow Dhamma-Dana but possible uses it for such. Otherwise one would cheat the site owner.]

THe puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim that people you see around you could have been your parents or loved ones in a previous life.
From this, they embarrass themselves even more by inferring that ''therefore you must be nice to them'', so that they build their humanist ethic and feel good about themselves. As usual they confuse the sila of the dhama with humanism.
Their confusion stems from their confusion of the dependent origination of the 5 aggregates with the dependent origination that they invented which they called ''inter-being'' which is just the eastern humanism where people depend on each others.
Those puthujjanas prefer to care more about the thousands little objects and humans they see each day and slap the words sunnata and dependent origination on it Whereas the claim of the buddha is precisely that instead of caring about those objects, what matters is to see how conditioned the 5 aggregates are.
Puthujjanas who do not cling to mental masturbation already know that objects and livelihood are conditioned, and this knowledge doe snot get them enlightened, but a few intellectuals pass this dull, bland, common knowledge as being awaken.
The philosophers are the textbook case of overthinking, they focus on a few words and they build a new system around it, a new semantics, a new doctrine.
Their story begins with the a famous claim that what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta. THen a natural question by Puthujjanas is ''why are things anatta'' and of course, the answer is that ''things are anatta because it is the way they are''. IT is a disappointing answer, because it is a stupid question in the first place.
But of course, for the Puthujjanas who are intellectuals, this answer is not intellectual enough. No, what matter to those Puthujjanas is to put another ''...because XYZ'' after ''because they are anatta'': They claim that things are anatta because they are sunyata. They picked the word sunyataand blew it out of proportion, by using it on their deep craving to find an essence in things.
When those Puthujjanas run out of ideas to intellectualize further their views, they stop and claim that the last bit of their sequence of ideas is in fact how reality is, so it goes

idea A because idea B, idea B because idea C, .... , idea X because
  idea Y, idea Y because idea Z, and idea Z because reality is Z
  (expressed by idea Z). Which means ''Y because Z because it is the way
  it is, end of the story''

Now it turns out that the story imagined by those Puthujjanas does indeed stop  at sunyata:  things are sunyata because things are sunyata, because that is what things are, because it is the way things are.
And of course, those people love to feel smart for applying their fantasy to the most attractive word there is:

Nibbana (the Unconditioned) is anatta because nibanna is sunyata. And
  Why is nibanna sunyata? Nibanna is sunyata because nibanna is sunyata.

With the crown of their speculations being the fantasy that:

sunyata itself is sunyata

THis jewel of theirs is precisely what neuters their speculations. It puts a stop to the chain of ''because XYZ'' and adds nothing to the story.
Thus,  It is easy for those puthujjanas to claim that ''

If dependent origination is true, then my attainment of enlightenment is mutually dependent on the attainment of all other beings.

So their craving for slapping sunyata eveyrwhere is utterly useless. They had an extra word and they stop here. It is already bad to intellectualize, but intellectualizing further by adding a useless word is embarrassing. But at least they obtain what they craved all along, fantasizing a true nature of ''the self'', as if things had a true nature and a not so true nature.
Later on, they cannot help themselves from claiming that their intellectualization is the dhamma and even more embarrassing, that it is a better dhama than the one from what they call the ''pali canon'' today,
But the intellectuals do not stop here. Those puthujjanas crave so much speculating and basing their life on their fantasies that they picked another word and blew it out of proportion by mixing it with their favorite topic: craving to attribute an essence or a true nature to things that they perceive.
Their new and equally  toxic fairy tale is about applying what they read about dependent origination to their craving for true nature of things like the external object.
THe dependent origination is and always will be about the conditions for the birth of an aggregate and the condition for the death of an aggregate. Dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of the objects that Puthujjanas love to cling to and which live ''in reality'' like they say.
On the contrary, if there is ONE thing that the buddha does NOT focus on is precisely those stuff of what Puthujjanas call ''objective reality''. It is utterly useless and never conductive to nirvana.
In fact, Puthujjanas know very well that the objects they crave are fabricated. Puthujjanas know that the meal they cook is sunyata.Puthujjanas know very well that their car is sunyata, that clouds are sunyata. THey know that when they change the summer tires on their car, to put a winter tires, the drive-ability of the car changes a lot, that the fuel consumption changes a lot, to the point of driving a totally different car. They know that when they change the gearbox or the engine, the car no longer behaves like the car before to the point of being a different car. And knowing that all those objects are sunyata does not get them to stop being Puthujjanas, does not stop the cravings they have for the objects nor the craving they have to find the ''real nature'' of things. Knowing that a carrot is fabricated is not reaching nibanna.
The dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of a carrot nor the about the condition of the death of a carrot.
THe buddha and the bikkhus used the analogy of the fabricated chariot and the scent of the flower, the sound of a lute https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html
 to talk about the 5 aggregates precisely because Puthujjanas know those objects and that the all those objects are fabricated. The fabrication of the chariot is not new to Puthujjanas. What is new to Puthujjanas is that the 5 aggregates are fabricated, just like their car is fabricated. This is the claim which is amazing.
Claiming that a carrot is sunyata is the most bland, common, vulgar claim for the Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkya-ditthi.
On the contrary, for the toxic Puthujjanas who love to pat themselves on the back for intellectualizing even more the few bits they read about the dhamma, the claim that a carrot is sunyata  is amazing, is deep, is the most profound revelation that there is.
The intellectuals find amazing what the Puthujjanas who do not create much views beyond sakkya ditthi do not find amazing at all.
it's like living in a builidng with many floors. Puthujjanas who know that the objects they fabricate are fabricated live on the floor 0, and the one who cannot help themselves from intellectualizing live on floor 100.
Puthujjanas who love to live up their dreams high at the floor 100 have completely forgotten that floor 0 exist. Then they pat themselves on the back for constructing a whole fairy tale leading them to discover that floor 0 have always existed. THen , the buddha lives at floor -1  and tells the Puthujjanas at floor 0 that there is a floor below them.
But it gets worst for those Puthujjanas clinging to rationalize that they experience. Because they exhaust themselves by struggling to fight their  views, they run out of energy when it is time to kill the lusts for the various 5 senses.
In fact, the most toxic Puthujjanas are not even interested in restraining their actions and prefer to claim that they already are awaken, because they delude themselves even more by creating the view that all that matters to reach nibanna is to have good intentions, so they go on carrying on their actions of Puthujjanas while building the fantasy that they have good intention while they are doing them. In order to express this new  view, that they love to pass as deep and pragmatic, They create the most moronic claim ever uttered by a deluded Puthujjana :

''Samsara is only nirvana seen from a place of confusion'' or  "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?
They really feel smart and deep when they say that.
On the contrary, the Puthujjanas who already know that carrots are sunyata have zero need to kill the speculations created by the toxic Puthujjanas. The Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkyaditthi struggle the least to reach nibbanna. Those Puthujjanas are easy to talk to and the easiest way to make them ''understand'' that the 5 aggregates are conditioned is to talk to them and create analogies from their daily life with all those objects that they work so hard to fabricate and service. Those non-philosopers  Puthujjanas do not confuse samsara with nirvana. Those Puthujjanas do not get awaken by seeing that cars are fabricated, they get awaken by seeing that the 5 aggregates are conditioned which leads to the death of the lusts for the aggregates which kills the aggregates at least at parinibbanna, if not at nibanna.
The goal is not to see that a carrot is sunyata, nor that to see that a car is sunyata , nor that a sound is sunyata . The goal is only to see that the aggregates are sunyata which leads to see that  in the ''sound there is only the sound'' (an no other stuff like lust), to cognize the earth element as only the earth element, contrary to puthujjanas who cognize the earth element as earth element+sakkaya ditthi and later on, speculate on this sakkayaditthi and turn that into their numerous mistaken:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
  [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
  [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
  delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
  tell you.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

Overall your answer is largely unmelodious, based around finger-pointing and divisive. However, I understand that this is your perception and that you've made some interesting points.

"Unmelodious" is an interesting comment -- perhaps it's meant to be a bit ugly, to undo a rosy, self-satisfied view or self-view. I think it may be divisive if you identify with it -- "that's criticising me, that's me who is being criticised". Perhaps it's kinder to see it as well-intentioned and partially true. I think the effort is admirable (it's long and coherent, maybe unorthodox and lucid), and maybe it's no more hostile than is necessary for its message. I think it's less than ideal in three ways: 1) it doesn't literally answer the OP's question (it's tangential to the topic);

it's one-sided in that it doesn't identify what's good or helpful about the Mahayana doctrines; 3) it's not very 'constructive' criticism (i.e. having said that "humanist ethic", "intellectualising", "feeling smart", and so on are at best insufficient, it's not explicitly 'prescriptive' -- I think the 'prescription' latent in it is that "the dhamma teaches dependent origination of aggregates, and isn't a doctrine about the obvious emptiness/fabrication of so-called 'objective reality'" and "it's about killing lusts, not about congratulating yourself for good intentions").

It's kind of hostile towards whole schools of Buddhism ("The puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim etc.") which is forbidden on this site -- so if anyone complains about that then I might have to edit it somehow. Perhaps though, I don't know, people won't complain and will just see it for what it is. I think that criticisms of schools is often probably a mistake or made in ignorance ... there's a "rule" on this site that if you want to talk about a school's doctrine (e.g. Mahayana) then you should do so from within the perspective of that school.

I suspect that, ironically, perhaps the sunyata doctrine might be intended for "philosophers" as something of an antidote to (even a condemnation of) "intellectualising".

I dislike this post but am uncertain who it is attacking. It appears to attack just about everyone. The tone of the essay does not reassure me as to the authority of the author. A perfectly good Zen saying is called 'moronic' so I presume this is an attack on Zen. Is that it? Or is it an attack on the 'muggles'. If so it's cheap shot. Or is it an attack on the Mahayana view. If so I'm up for some fisticuffs. Nagarjuna is my hero. I'd vote to delete just for the unpleasantness.and lack of coherent argument. .   .

@ChrisW - it's fine here. I have extracted what I found to be helpful from the post but I understand that the post may have different impacts on other people.

"Very well, then, great king, I will question you in return about this very same matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think great king: Do you have an accountant or actuary or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as 'so many grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of grains of sand' or 'so many thousands of grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand'?"
"No, lady."
"Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as 'so many buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of buckets of water' or 'so many thousands of buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water'?"
"No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.html

Thank you. I don't see the quote from my question nor a variation of the quote from my question in the sutra you provided.

The Boddhisattva vow, for example, includes a statement that the number of beings is unbounded (perhaps uncounted or immeasurable).
References to "parents" are easy to find, especially context of not hurting animals -- for example ...

"All male beings have been my father and all females
  have been my mother. There is not a single being who
  has not given birth to me during my previous lives,
  hence all beings of the Six Realms are my parents."

... but I don't know and haven't found one which says that the dust could be counted.


text:
Managing sloth and torpor in meditation?
Recently sloth and torpor has been a huge hindrance in meditation; my biggest hindrance as it happens. I've managed to reduce the bulk of it but I find that it's still hanging around in some sessions. For the most part, I can see sloth and torpor trying to engulf me and thus am able to take evasive action by refocusing my meditative state. Sometimes though, it gets me even to the point of falling asleep. It's been with me now for months on and off. 18 months previous to this it hasn't really effected me like it has now.
Here are some descriptions of the hindrance in question:
Heaviness of mind, like wading through oil. Tiredness when I don't appear to be tired outside of meditation. Falling asleep. Dullness of mind. Sinking into a gloop.
The Buddha compared it to (I'm paraphrasing here) being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside.
The largely recommended antidote by my sangha is to rouse energy by exerting myself outside of meditation. This has not been helpful or perhaps I'm not receiving the message correctly. It seems to be more of a mind thing and that is the route I'd like to take to address it so I've been sitting and watching and trying to evade it. I just can't seem to eliminate it completely. I have some sessions where I am free of it and some sessions that start out with meditative potential only to be confronted some-way through the session with the dealings of sloth and torpor.
Things I've tried: bright light from a light box and also from daylight, light exercise before meditation, opening my eyes in mid-session, water on my face before a session.

Mumonkan Case 16: When the Bell Sounds
Unmon said, "The world is vast and wide.  Why do you put on your
  seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"
Mumon's Comment
In studying Zen, you should not be swayed by sounds and forms.  Even
  though you attain insight when hearing a voice or seeing a form, this
  is simply the ordinary way of things. Don't you know that the real Zen
  student commands sounds, controls forms, is clear-sighted at every
  event and free on every occasion?
Granted you are free, just tell me: Does the sound come to the ear or
  does the ear go to the sound? If both sound and silence die away, at
  such a juncture how could you talk of Zen?  While listening with you
  ear, you cannot tell. When hearing with your eye, you are truly
  intimate.
Mumon's Verse
With realization, things make one family;  Without realization,
  things are separated in a thousand ways. Without realization,
  things make one family; With realization, things are separated in
  a thousand ways.

Medhini gives a good gloss of the traditional techniques for overcoming sloth/torpor.  Honestly, I'd try those first before moving into what I'm about to say.
One thing I've noticed in my own practice is that my own sloth and torpor is inversely proportional to my clarity of intention.  What I mean by that is sometimes we take up an object of meditation but don't fully commit to it.  We might focus on the tip of our nose, for instance, but never quite arouse a sense of clear intention.  Our vitaka - our applied thought - is more like someone lazily flopping on a bed.  We just sort of hang out there in a haze of comfortable, quasi-concentration.  And then we promptly fall asleep.
Instead, imagine the intention of a monk putting on his seven piece robe before sitting down for meditation.  Or take a look at this bloke doing some iado:
https://youtu.be/byAgl-b2xFs
That is how you want to approach your concentration object.  Command sound,
 control form!  Your breath is like a razor sharp sword.  Don't let it escape your attention for even a moment.  Handle it as if your life depended on it!

So... Assuming you're still accepting answers... The traditional methods for overcoming the "sloth and torpor" all involve applying some kind of antidotes opposite to the problem: walking, washing face with cold water, exercise, visualizations of light etc.
In my own experience I've discovered something else. It looks like this type of sleepiness is different from the normal one that happens when one is tired or bored. Indeed, you yourself said that the drowsiness does not exist outside of meditation.
As I observed this phenomenon I got convinced that it has nothing to do with regular "sloth and torpor" and has an entirely different nature. So I watched it carefully. Here is what happens in my case. My mind gets super heavy to the point of blacking out and I just can't maintain it awake however much forceful effort I apply. Then, I can either keep trying to fight it, or give in to it. So I tried giving in - but without stopping my meditation session. What I found is that there was another region of mind - another chunk of my subjective mental space - that was actually fully awake that I could enter! All I had to do is stop boxing myself and holding my attention to the limited region of mind-space - and allow myself to experience mind-space outside of the box.
Based on this experience, my theory is, this phenomenon has to do with the way our attention is managed. It looks like when meditation is actually effective it leads to calming down of thoughts in our habitual region of attention, but we still keep our "manas" attached to the same region it was on during the day, so now with the "lights out" this region is experienced as this heavy sleepy condition.
This is indirectly confirmed by the Tibetan texts on meditation, which say that this sleepy state is actually a stage that indicates that meditation is going well, and that the task of the meditator is to learn to break through.
For me, this break through involves no longer holding to that same region of mind-space that's gone dark, but by relaxing and opening to the other regions of mind. I can't say I've mastered this reliably 100% but I can do it more or less well, so at this point I'm pretty sure this is a real thing and not just my imagination.
You are free to take this with a grain of salt, though you are welcome to try it and see if it works for you. I'd be interested to know if anyone gets the same experience, so we could confirm or deny this.

Yes, different from normal sleepiness as sometimes I have hypnotic thoughts more recently of eating. I’m not hungry. I think mind is struggling because body is calm, mind is largely free from deliberate cognition – basically, all the senses are calmed but tongue consciousness is actually quite powerful due to the desire to sustain the physical form. On noticing this, I’ve become more attentive when eating actual food. There are some other interesting aspects that directly relate to your answer especially about other mind spaces but too much to add here.

Also recently experiencing the challenge of sloth and torpor. All hinderances are actually a great opportunity for our growth, our spiritual evolution and our inner/overstanding of what is in the way, is the way.
In addition to the traditional suggestions, perhaps checking out if any of the following lines of inquiry concerning sloth and torpor are helpful, wholesome, wise, and skillful:
What is the relationship to the hinderance? How is the hinderance approached and handled? Is conflict with the hinderance present?
What happens when expanding awareness or switching to a more open awareness practice?
Does rapidly recalling dharma knowledge and teachings aid in dispelling lethargy?
What if it wasn’t sloth and torpor? What if powerful metta is being sent (to what is experienced as (our) consciousness, energy, mental activity and body)? [Recall the behavior of the charging drunken war elephant when encountering metta from the historical Buddha.] What happens when what is perceived as sloth and torpor gives way to allowing and receiving metta, or loving-kindness?
Can sloth and torpor allow for a closer examination of the largely unknown processes and thresholds of hypnagogic and liminal states?
Can employment of the iddhis of engagement, enthusiasm, energy and investigation strengthen vitakka (the continual attending/(re)aiming/(re)applying of attention on/to the meditation object)?
Or can simply changing the (originally chosen) meditation object help?

The Buddha gave some suggestion on how to deal with sleepiness.
Like:

pulling your earlobes (don't ask me why);
do walking meditation and
if all fails, go to sleep.

I don't remember the other suggestions he gave, there were more.
Other suggestions:

imagine light in the mind;
think of something that makes you happy as happiness dispels clouds;
reorganise your daily life, make it simpler, do less, do one thing at a time... stuff like that.

Also, don't forget the most important thing: understand the sleepiness! Everything needs to be understood.
Good luck.


text:
Did the Buddha prescribe other meditations besides breath meditation? (for concentration, jhana)
After reading Ajahn Brahm, Leigh Brasington, and Ayya Khema's books on meditation, I have not been able to reach the jhanas through breath meditation.
If I stay with the breath long enough to reach "access concentration", or at least, if the breath does become fine and imperceptable, I do not experience any bliss or pleasant feelings, and my mind asks, "Now what? Nothing is happening."
Are there stories of the Buddha recommending different styles of meditation (for concentration leading to jhana) depending on the individual disposition of the listener?
I've struggled with aversion and craving not to be. So would the Buddha, for example, prescribe metta meditation here? Please give references. Thank you.

Did not see the question, sorry. I am looking more for confirmation in the suttas that the Buddha did indeed prescribe different meditation methods (for concentration leading to jhana) to listeners of different dispositions. But seeing your answer, that may be enough. Thank you.

Found this question on kasinas but nothing said on the disposition of the meditator.

You might want to ask a different question, about "joy" or "piti", but there are existing topics about about that too -- piti and joy.


text:
Benefits of five precepts
I believe in karma and rebirth but I don’t understand one thing. How does five precepts give you merits? Isn’t it only preventing bad karma? If you don’t kill any living beings or don’t steal anything then how do you get merits when you are not doing anything. You are only preventing bad karma.

how Is this related to the question?

I'm sorry. It's my wrong reading. I deleted it already.

Actually abstaining from breaking the precepts does a lot more than just passive non-doing. By asbstaining from killing, one's given a great gift to many others: the freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction:

"“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness." ~~ AN 8.39 ~~

Karma is a state of the mind. Keeping to  a precept involves many wholesome states of the mind.
Ex: When a mosquito bites you, aversion to pain and in turn hate towards the mosquito might arise in the mind. But if
you are keeping to the first precept, the view that killing is wrong will arise in the mind. That is the right view(Samma-ditthi) which is good Karma. Then you will decide not to harm the mosquito. That is the right action(Samma-kammantha) which is good Karma. Or you might see it just as pain and don't react at all. That is the right mindfulness(Samma-sati) and right effort(Samma-vayama) which are good Karma. Or you might do Metta(loving kindness) towards the mosquito to prevent yourself from giving into aversion. That's the right intention(Samma-sankappa) and the right effort which are good Karma. Also when you do Silanussati(reflecting on your virtues), it's again the right mindfulness and the right effort which are good Karma.
Similar wholesome mind states are involved with other precepts as well.

I still don’t understand how is not doing anything an action? Did the Buddha said any action that does not cause harm to self or others is good? Is there a neither skillful nor unskillful action? I have this view that generosity is the only way to make merits and that the five precepts are there to prevent bad karma.

When greed, hatred and ignorance arise in the mind, any mind state that arise to counter those unwholesome states is a wholesome mind state. Such mind states are meritorious. I'm guessing you don't practice Satipatthana meditation. This maybe why it's difficult for you to understand.

So any actions that doesn’t cause harm to self or others is skillful? Sometimes, I practice Mahāsi meditation.

This is how I understand. When you are about to lie but you didn’t lie then that is right action. When you make a decision to abstain from killing that is right action. When you abandon unskillful actions then that is right action.

Any action that is driven by wholesome metal qualities is meritorious except in the case of Arahaths

Making a decision not to do evil is driven by a wholesome mental quality.

The objective of Buddhism is not about keeping a score of bad karma and good karma. Rather, it is about becoming free from suffering and this is related to one's state of mind.
A key benefit of the observance of the five precepts is that it leads to stream entry, which is the first stage of enlightenment. Upon reaching stream entry, one would no longer be reborn in lower realms, and would reach full enlightenment in no more than seven lifetimes.
The Vera Sutta below lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled through the observance of the five precepts
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.
Interestingly, the sutta does not say that the five precepts lead to stream entry. Rather, it says that reaching a certain state of mind i.e. the stilling of the five forms of fear and animosity (which correspond to the five precepts) would lead to stream entry.
If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also result in a state of mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).
From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
  of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
  is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
  discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
  method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
  animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
  states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
  stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening!'
"Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?
"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
  condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
  fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
  pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
  produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
  animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
  of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
  animosity is thus stilled.
"When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...
"When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
  that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
  animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
  lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
  refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
  nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
  experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
  from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
  that fear & animosity is thus stilled.
"These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.

So a stream winner is free of nervousness before an assembly?

@TheDBSGuy If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. This is the kind of fear that is stilled. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from both such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also results in a mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).

@TheDBSGuy Furthermore, a stream winner is freed of self-view. I don't think it's possible to feel nervous if one no longer clings to a self.

@bot1131357 Actually, a stream winner can still experience conceit. Please see this question.

@ruben2020 That makes sense. Thank you for correcting me. Would it make sense to say that conceit is a conditioned habit, whereas self-view fuels the the conditioning of this habit?


text:
Four Analytical Knowledges
Is it still possible to attain the four analytical knowledge? Bare insight seems to be the lowest attainment among arahants.

I research it and found it here: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Dhammatthavinicchaya/30-Analytical-Knowledges.htm

I need some help for correct below writing's grammar.
I don't understand the question, can you rewrite the question by the below pāli word? Why you think "direct knowledge of the four analytical knowledge"? Because if it means "Abhiññā of Paṭisambhidā", it looks weird according to below title sequence.
The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism
The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism, start from sīla to paṭisambhidā, summarized from paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, abhidhamma, atthhakathā, and all sāriputta's canons:
Paññā = understand the fact: causes&effects.
Paṭivedha = Paññā.
Ñāṇa = Expert Paññā.
Dassana = View, Understood, Diṭṭhi, Cakkhu.
SammāDiṭṭhi =SammāDassaṇa.
Ñātapariññā = Base of sammādassaṇa.
Tīraṇapariññā = Beginning sammādassaṇa practice.
Pahānapariññā = Advance sammādassaṇa practice.
Visuddhi = The base level which cleared from the extended enemy of the next level's enemy, so it is able to go to the next level.
Sīla = Arising physical & verbal behavior.
SīlaAdhiSikkhā = Physical & verbal behavior's training that supporting CittaVisuddhi.
SīlaVisuddhi = The CittaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AvītikkamaKilesa, extending from CittaVisuddhi's enemy (PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, CittaVisuddhi.
AvītikkamaKilesa = Present life's arising physical & verbal unwholesome, extending from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.
PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa = Present life's arising mental unwholesome, extending from AnusayaKilesa.
AnusayaKilesa = Unwholesome behavior which ready to arise in the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa". It arises as the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa", but it stands as the name "AnusayaKilesa". It is similar to behavior because you can't find your behavior in any organ when you are not doing it, but you know your behavior still available to arise. The arising unwhole behavior is AvītikkamaKilesa/PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.
Citta = Arising mind's behavior, Arising consciousness's behavior, arising Thought's behavior.
CittaAdhiSikkhā = Thought behavior's training that supporting DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.
CittaVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa, extending from DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's enemy (AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.
SammāDassana = Right understood of conditioner and conditioned (four noble truth, dependent origination);  diṭṭhivisuddhi + kaṇkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi; nāmarūpaparicchedañāṇa+paccayapariggahañāṇa; Ñātapariññā; Vipassanā Paññā; YathābūtaÑāṇaDassana.
four noble truth, dependent origination = conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates.
DiṭṭhiVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi's enemy (VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi.
Attā (of the wrong view) = The misunderstood concept of conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates. This misunderstood concept make ordinary people think "there are some controllable aggregates left to be nihilistic or eternal". But the truth is "there are no any controllable aggregates to be nihilistic or eternal. There are only uncontrollable conditioner aggregates and uncontrollable conditioned aggregates".
AttaAnuDiṭṭhi = The misunderstood behavior about aggregates whether "some/whole aggregates are Attā".
KaṅkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi = The MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's enemy (VipassanāUpakKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi.
Vipassanā = SammāDassaṇa; VipassanāPaññā; Vipassanā; Ñātapariññā; Pajānāti.
Anupassnā = ÑāṇaDassaṇa; VipassanāÑāṇa; Vipassanā Bhāvanā; Vipassanā Meditation; Tīraṇapariññā + Pahānapariññā; Anupassati.
MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = SammāDassaṇa at cleared ñāṇa level from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the right or wrong practice [maggāmagga;paṭipadā]) of the next level's enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to practice watching three characteristics without confusing of the right or wrong practice; BapavaUdayabbayañāṇa.
PaṭipadāÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level  from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth) of the next level enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the ignorant about the four noble truth forever by the complete&perfect watching three characteristics; From Bhaṅgañāṇa to Anulomañāṇa.
ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level(enlightenment) from the extending enemy (fetters; saṇyojana) of the next level enemy (rebirth; becoming; bhava; paṭisandhiviññāṇa), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the rebirth as many as the level of the enlightenment.
Paṭisambhidā = ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi according to Abhi. Vibhaṅgo ñāṇavatthuvibhaṅga, Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo mahāvaggo ñāṇakathā mātikā, Paṭisambhidāmaggo's atthakathā, Visuddhimagga Khandhaniddeso. All ariya must enlighten Paṭisambhidā of own meditation. They can analysis everything about own meditation (super mundane jhāna), but they maybe don't know about mundane jhāna, Abhiññā, and the other practitioners' meditation. They enlightened Paṭisambhidā of own meditation only, they may be not the Paṭisambhidappatto.
Tevijjo = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of jhāna. That expertise increases the power of ÑāṇaDassana to be greater, to be able to recall many past lives and to be able to recall many deaths&rebirths more than the practitioner who is no an expert of jhāna. Normally, the only vipassanā practitioner can recall about 1-2 past lives, but the expert of jhāna can recall more than that. The expert of jhāna spend the lesser time to recall the past lives at the same number of life.
Abhiññā = Special practice of an expert, vasī, of jhāna. Two Abhiññā, Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa and Cutūpapatañāṇa, have the similar practice as ÑāṇaDassaṇa, so the expert of jhāna can enlighten as a Tevijjo easier.
Chaḷabhiñño = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of every Abhiññā.
Paṭisambhidappatto = Chaḷabhiñño who is an expert of own and the others' Paṭisambhidā.
For the example question:

if I become a stream-enterer I will automatically have four analytical knowledge right? Will I also have three clear knowledge and six higher knowledge?

if you become a stream-enterer without being an expert of jhāna&abhiñña&paṭisambhidā, you are a stream-enterer who automatically have only four analytical knowledge right of your meditation. You are only a Sukkhavipassako, but you are not Paṭisambhidappatto, Chaḷabhiñño, Tevijjo.
For the conclusion:

Buddhism's Existing Period Counting
The contexts about Buddhism's Existing Period Counting appear as 3 tenses in Aṭṭakathā:
1. The existing enlightenment of the current Buddha's follower (45BBE - about 5,000 BE):
Buddhism's existing period counting of current Buddha  according to Vinaya.A. (samanta.3) Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā, An.A. (manoratha.1) Dutiyapamadadivaggavannana:
1st 1000 years after Gotama, Current Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2nd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

3rd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Anāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Anāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

4th 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sakadāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sakadāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

Sotāpanna with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>
Sotāpanna via Insight-only still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

2. The previous KassapaBuddha (uncountable millions of years ago):
KassapaSamBuddha's, previous Buddha's, Buddhism existing period counting appear in Di.A. (sumangala.3) Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā; It using the past tense verbs). And Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2) Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā, which connects to that Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā:
1st 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2rd 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

3th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

4th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years  after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

Pāṭimokkha memorizer still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

3. The current Buddha's living time (45 - 0 BBE):
The sequence of existing enlightenment of the Buddha's followers just in current alive buddha's time, not died, appear in Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2)  Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā.It's explaining the Buddha's answer to KassapaThera's question in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Saddhammappaṭirūpakasutta:

"What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

At alive GotamaSamBuddha's time after he has enlightened, at the beginning Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta via Insight-only still occur. As time went by Anāgāmī still occur. As time went by Sakadāgāmi still occur. As time went by Sotāpanna still occur. As time went by Sīpavanta still occur.

A short term of all above Buddha's periods are up and down depending on the situation, but it tends to go down in long-term of every period. It's something like this:

Cr. wikipedia

So can we attain anagami with four analytical knowledge?

We must attain ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge, but it doesn't means we will be paṭisambhidappatto after enlightened. Paṭisambhidappatto requires more qualification than normal Paṭisambhidā, such as being the expert of jāna, Abhiñña, and  Paṭisambhidā.

Are there any method to attain Ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge?

Paṭisambhidāmagga means the method to attain Ariya-magga with four analytical knowledge. You can use path of purification instead. Again, every Ariya has four analytical knowledge, but only the Qualify ariya can be paṭisambhidappatto. I recommend Pa-Auk, if you want to enlighten with  four analytical knowledge. https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/

so I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Can we stay attain arahantship with four analytical knowledge or can we attain anagami with four analytical knowledge but will we lose the four analytical knowledge after becoming arahant?

I am sorry, I have forgotten the point. According to aṭṭhakathā, nowadays we can attain anāgāmi with four analytical knowledge at most. Ariya never loses the four analytical knowledge. Every ariya has four analytical knowledge.

So all ariya automatically get four analytical knowledge after their attainment?

All ariya practiced four analytical knowledge, so they all get the four analytical knowledge automatically after their attainment. They graduated what they have practiced.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I've read a book (in Chinese) by Ven. Mahinda (a Buddhist monk from Pa-Auk Myanmar Forest Tradition) and here is a rough translation (by me) with regards to the 5000 years of Dhamma.
His source is from commentary on Digha Nikaya (D.A.3.161)
1st 1000 years    Arahant with Four Analytical Knowledges
2nd 1000 years    Arahant with Six Higher Knowledges
3rd 1000 years    Arahant with Three Clear Knowledges
4th 1000 years    Arahant via Insight-only
Final 1000 years  1st Three Paths and Fruits (i.e. impossible to attain Arahant-hood)

The table above shows the highest attainment possible for each of the 1000 years. If we were to solely based on this commentary, the Four Analytical Knowledges and Six Higher Knowledges cannot be attained any more.

So does that mean that arahant via jhana are not possible anymore? So we can only become arahant by practicing vipassana. Can we still have the six higher knowledge is the three clear knowledge?

Hi, the historical Buddha passed away for about 25xx years ago. Thus, we are at the "3rd 1000 years" now. Therefore Six Higher Knowledges is also impossible. Three Clear Knowledges is the highest anyone can achieve now.

Hi, for your other question regarding jhana and vipassana, I'm not very sure. But you can take a look at the note number 2 in this Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.163.than.html)

Buddhaghosa said that in our current time only arahant via bare insight is possible? I don’t know which is true.

@BurningJade Please read my answer in the title "Buddhism's Exist Period Counting". Give the whole answer to Pa-auk teacher and tell him "the answer from one who knows kalāpa is SamūhaUpādāPaññatti". Tell him that this answer can stop all confusing of "Buddhism's Exist Period Counting".