text:
Problematic Nature of Views
This answer states that:

View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction. Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction some view and confidence in these view.

I am confused by this, because I understand the world in terms of views, I have the feeling most people hold on to views. If these views aren't existent, what are people holding on to? I agree that perhaps these views are illusory, as they are impermanent and dependently originated, but doesn't the fact we recognize them imply they have some reality and existence?
More so, when I write for myself I often get insights, but these insights form aggregated beliefs. They're precisely aggregated, abstract ways of seeing things. Does Buddhism precisely condemn this as a cause to suffering?
Lastly, the quote mentions lower levels of abstraction. Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach higher levels of abstraction?

Maybe they mean as with a computer program, there are  levels of abstraction and the lower level would mean more fundamental  and the higher abstraction would be more conseptual.

I have updated this answer cited above for more clarity.

"If you wish to know the Truth, hold no cherished opinions."

When we say "level of abstraction" we don't mean "level of sophistication", but rather "how much generalization this abstraction entails". "High level of abstraction" means a birds-eyes-view with a lot of generalization. "Low-level of abstraction" means we look at particulars.
For example, when we say "In US, Democrats are generally good people, and Republicans are generally more pragmatic than ethical."  -- that's a high level of abstraction, not high level of sophistication.
Most people hold these kind of very general views about things, very much simplified. In fact, the nature of MIND is such that it has tendency to forming and holding on to such simplified views. Children are known for this, as well as unsophisticated adults. Mahayana Buddhists say that "reifying" (grasping as real) such views is the root of suffering. Buddha said, the Highest of the two Right Views (the right view without asavas vs the right view with asavas) is "analysis of dharmas" - meaning, the ultimate right view is to go beyond simplified views and reifyed abstractions.
Why?
Because simplified views omit too much, they are "leaking abstractions", thereby creating potential for mental conflict, which is the nature of suffering.
How do they create potential for mental conflict?

Either two (groups of) people hold opposing simplified views on the same ontological subject, and therefore come in conflict with each other. OR
A person grasps at a simplified view and comes in conflict with REALITY when the details omitted in the simplified view inevitably come up. (One obvious example is Impermanence - i.e. we grasp at an idea of an entity as something fixed, while the reality beyond this simplified abstraction is an assembly of transitory aggregates. Impermanence is just one example of leaking abstraction though, out of million other cases.)

To summarize, grasping at views, specifically grasping at "abstract", "generalized", "simplified" views, and specifically assuming them to be THE ontological reality must be recognized as the root of suffering.

In that case, I understand seeing 'reality' to mean seeing phenomena as they are, without the shortcuts of neglecting the details and simplification. Would such 'real' seeing mean attending to 'particulars' as you say, truly existent entities?
I thought also that Mahayana Buddhism dismissed such entities constituting reality?

Yes. Generally speaking, seeing things as they are means seeing things analytically, in all their multifaceted complexity. But no "truly existing entities", that would be reductivistic materialism. Instead, in Mahayana Buddhism we say, there's no one absolutely correct way of seeing things, views are like tools, different tools for different jobs.

When you see things from "all the sides" at the same time, it's like having multidimensional vision. That's "seeing things as they are". "Entering" that "multidimensional" reality is entering Emptiness and entering Nirvana, I say.

For Buddhists, or at least Mahayanists, the true nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication. It would follow that all views are wrong. Such views are always speculative and abstract. The one exception, of course, would be the view that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication.
Further to this Reality would be free of all distinction and division, thus would  transcend the categories of thought such that all 'positive' statements and views about Reality would be wrong. This is what Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Wisdom.
It would be as a consequence of the nature of Reality that all extreme views are logically indefensible, for they would be wrong. The correct view would not be extreme, but it is debatable whether this can be called a view since it denies the possibility of conceiving (as opposed to knowing) or describing (except seemingly-paradoxically) the genuine nature of Reality. This may be called a neutral or non-dual metaphysical position but this is not a view in itself, unless we say it the view that all other views are wrong.
Some say that Nagarjuna and the Buddha ask us to abandon all views but it seems to me this is not quite right. We are allowed to hold the view that their view is right such that Reality cannot be captured by an expressible or thinkable 'view'.
This is all to do with the limits of language and logic. The issue goes back to the Old Testament Tower of Babel and the hopeless consequences of thinking we can work out what can only be discovered.
The avoidance of abstract views would be necessary for the realisation of the correct one, for this cannot be an abstract view but is a knowledge of what is the case.
This is not to say that abstract theoretical views are never useful or always hopeless. They may be helpful and even useful as approximations, but they would never be rigorous and should only ever be temporary structures that we can expect to become obsolete as our realisation of our true situation deepens.

is reality beyond fabrication? is that was true, there could be no perception of a likeness.  a recursive likeness would be impossible

OP: View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction.

Conceptual objects have constituent parts. These constituent parts have other parts. At the lowest level is what is known as the ultimate reality which has the basic building blocks. This needs to be realised through meditation.

OP: Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction they develop confidence in these views.

A normal person does not see through to the ultimate nature, hence mistake this as either permanent, pleasant, self or beautiful. These perversions at multiple stages which are mear recognition or memory (saññā,vipallāsa), thinking (citta,vipallāsa) or deep ingrained view reinforced through continuous thinking on the experience (ditthi,vipallāsa).
Take a person for example. If you look only at body parts as:

head hairs (Pali: kesā), body hairs (lomā), nails (nakhā), teeth (dantā), skin (taco),
  flesh (maṃsaṃ), tendons (nahāru), bones (aṭṭhi), bone marrow (aṭṭhimiñjaṃ), kidneys (vakkaṃ),
  heart (hadayaṃ), liver (yakanaṃ), pleura (kilomakaṃ), spleen (pihakaṃ), lungs (papphāsaṃ),
  large intestines (antaṃ), small intestines (antaguṇaṃ), undigested food (udariyaṃ), feces (karīsaṃ),
  bile (pittaṃ), phlegm (semhaṃ), pus (pubbo), blood (lohitaṃ), sweat (sedo), fat (medo),
  tears (assu), skin-oil (vasā), saliva (kheḷo), mucus (siṅghānikā), fluid in the joints (lasikā), urine (muttaṃ).

Patikulamanasikara

You will not develop the notion of a person if you look at only the parts or imagine a pile of body parts.
When you are at a saloon and see hair on the floor you think of it as hair. You will not thin of the hair on the floor as me, Jhon, etc. There there is no perception of a person by looking merely at hair. Only when all parts are together there is a notion of a person. If you take hair and dive this further then the notion of hair is lost. Then it will be different chemical complexes. If you go further and break down to the lowest level you will be left wilt subatomic particles which is Buddhism is called Kalapa. When you think of the person you might think beautiful, but if you think of the parts the notion of beauty is lost. If you see a beauty queen or supermodel after a horrific accident in the morgue the notion of beauty is not there anymore.
If you take any object like a car, table, clock, etc. the notion of the concept (car, table, clock) and recognition is there as long as it is a whole. When you look at parts (tyre, planks, cogs) then the original notion and recognition are lost. Generally one perceives a car as and solid permanent object. Laps of time or and accident will prove otherwise.
Now let's take the notion of my car. You meet with and accident and the car is all in parts. Holding onto the notion of the car when could break would bring you sorrow when it does break. If you see that this is compounded as subjected to break and become obsolete then the sorrow is less.
Each physical items one perceives (tree, house, son, garden, etc.) are compounded hence the sum of parts and the notion of an object arises when it is whole and not by the individual constituents. Anything can easily fall apart to the constituents.
Any conceptual item is subjected to the following preventions:

what is impermanent is taken to be permanent;
what is painful is taken to be pleasurable;
what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and
what is impure is taken to be pure.

OP: the fact we recognize them imply they have some reality and existence?

They are made of Rūpa. In conventional terms, we have to recognise them as such, but in reality, they are made of smaller constituents, which have certain properties.
The undue expectation from something compounded than their basic elements (Mahābhūta) will result in pain. If we think of a tree, our notion is that it is solid, lasting unchanging impression. This will be painful when the tree collapses on your house.

OP: Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach higher levels of abstraction?

At the lowest level of abstraction would be real objects (Paramattha Dhammas) corresponding to citta (a moment of consciousness or a moment of experience), cetasika (mental factors accompanying consciousness), rupa (material phenomena) and nibbana (the unconditioned reality). Anything compounded or constructed from by the mind will pannatti which is not real. Following are some constructed items:

Santhana pannatti are concepts of form, like land, mountains, etc.
Samuha pannatti are collective concepts, corresponding to a collection or group of things, like chariot, table.
Disa pannatti refer to concepts of locality.
Kala pannatti refer to concepts of time.
Akasa pannatti refer to space, like caves, wells.
Nimitta pannatti refer to conceptualized images, visualized images.

To function in society one needs this conceptual or conventional sense of objects and truths. E.g. You can say pass me the Jam than saying to pass me the subatomic particles. You can say I am taking a bus than say a mass of subatomic particles in motion with another mass of subatomic particles. You can say it is raining than liquified subatomic particles in motion through a gas medium. Even in Buddhism the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka are in conventional terms. Only in the Abhidhamma one has absolute terms. But when using conventions one should see them unperverted, i.e.:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

But when one is looking through the lens of meditation one should penetrate the conventional sense and see their constituent nature and the true characteristics of conditionally arisen, impermanent, painful, not-self and decaying (not-beautiful), which is the ultimate truth.

Another example on higher-level abstractions (Chariot) breaking down at lower levels (Wheel, Axels, Reighs, Frame, Seat, Draught pole) if found example of the Chariot in the King Milinda's Questions:

But what is a chariot? Nagasena asked. Is it the wheels, or the axles, or the reigns, or the frame, or the seat, or the draught pole? Is it a combination of those elements? Or is it found outside those elements?
The King answered no to each question. Then there is no chariot! Nagasena said.
Now the King acknowledged the designation "chariot" depended on these constituent parts, but that "chariot" itself is a concept, or a mere name.
Just so, Nagasena said, "Nagasena" is a designation for something conceptual. It is a mere name. When the constituent parts are present we call it a chariot; When the Five Skandhas are present, we call it a being.
...
Another way to understand the chariot simile is to imagine the chariot being taken apart. At what point in the dis-assembly does the chariot cease to be a chariot? We can update the simile to make it an automobile. As we disassemble the car, at what point is it not a car? When we take off the wheels? When we remove the seats? When we pry off the cylinder head?
Any judgment we make is subjective. Perhaps you may argue that a pile of car parts is still a car, just not an assembled one. The point is, though, that "car" and "chariot" are concepts we project onto the constituent parts. But there is no "car" or "chariot" essence that somehow dwells within the parts.

O'Brien, Barbara. "King Milinda's Questions and the Chariot Simile." Learn Religions, Jun. 25, 2019, https://www.learnreligions.com/king-milindas-questions-450052.

Ego is a funny thing. We tell ourselves this one little thing. Then we decide it's good or bad. It starts a story like no tomorrow. You get good guys and bad guys when someone becomes this person or that person a whole reality forms on the assumption and association's. So is it true or just a story? Is this who we are?
A student/roshi of mine said it like this: "You shouldn't point at it, it's unlucky."
See the magic of Mara?


text:
Any praise of shred-paramis by the Sublime Budddha?
What does one know or think: Is there any praise of shred-parami (perfections in appearing modest) by the Sublime Buddha, such as in out-fit, outwardly appearing, using of such stuff, and if why? If not why?
To give an idea in a samples of certain "modesty":

Better to catch fishes with the hand instead of catching with high tech, yet still after meat.
Better to wear recycling garments then new, yet still after look.
Better to drive an old car then a new one, yet still after comfort.
Better not to cut hair and let it grow, yet still after appearing certain.
Spreading "I am content with an old camry" to sign out modesty and swifting to rave as soon conditions make it possible.

[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for gaining release from the wheel of hypocrisy and corruption]

Is the perfection in appearing modest nekkhamma(renunciation)?

Sometimes, sometimes the opposite, good @Lowbrow.

I don't know what "shred" means? And  what "appearing certain" means? And "rave" (I don't know about makes of car, but did you mean "RAV4" compared to "Camry")?

The wolf's-Uposatha.

How long do $500 shoes last? Do they make you look smart or stupid for buying them? Clothing is a communication. People dress to their personal desires and look for those in the people they put around them. So if you dress a certain way you project. People who want a friend or sucker or someone to complement them in some way. That's the issue of clothing. You are your environment and the people you surround yourself with. I dress like a regular person on the poor side. I have honestly and Carring and supporting friendships that have an intimate understanding of each other. Before I was a Buddhist I was flamboyant and attracted drama and suffering. Cause and affect are the same you see. Clothes make the man but the man picks the cloths. Find the middle way.

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

Honored Buddhaparisada, Interested,
In relation of modesty, high ascetic practice, th Sublime Buddha counted four modest af ascetic in regard of the four conditions (food, clother, dwelling, medicine), found in the Suttas as well as in the Abhidhamma-Pitaka:
There are four kind of ascetism:
"The fools" who harms himself thinking it's needed to or does not know how to stay comfortable.
"The accumulator", who uses this mode for his honour to gain worldy means.
"The faithful", who follows the praised asceticism by the Buddha in truth that it is useful for the training.
"The complete", who actually does not have desires and lives material modesty without harming himself or others naturally.
Really a good collection to often reflect on, when taking on modesty, to check whether stupidy, defilements, good faith or wisdom is the drive for it behind. Requires good prove and self-honesty of course.
The first two modes accumulate paramis (perfection) toward low realm and hell, while the second two accumulate perfection and foundation for the path and go beyond, if things are right comprehend.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what binds here in this wheel but for escape from it)

Yes, the Buddha praised modesty (in terms of not accumulating things) in the AN 8.53 in the bolded lines below. I think it refers to accumulating things and not accumulating evil kamma.

You might know that certain things
Ye kho tvaṃ, gotami, dhamme jāneyyāsi:
lead to dispassion, not passion;
‘ime dhammā virāgāya saṃvattanti, no sarāgāya;
to being unfettered, not to being fettered;
visaṃyogāya saṃvattanti, no saṃyogāya;
to dispersal, not accumulation;
apacayāya saṃvattanti, no ācayāya;
to fewer desires, not more;
appicchatāya saṃvattanti, no mahicchatāya;
to contentment, not lack of contentment;
santuṭṭhiyā saṃvattanti, no asantuṭṭhiyā;
to seclusion, not crowding;
pavivekāya saṃvattanti, no saṅgaṇikāya;
to energy, not laziness;
vīriyārambhāya saṃvattanti, no kosajjāya;
to being easy to look after, not being hard to look after.
subharatāya saṃvattanti, no dubbharatāyā’ti,
You should definitely bear in mind that these things are
ekaṃsena, gotami, dhāreyyāsi:
the teaching, the training, and the Teacher’s instructions.”
‘eso dhammo, eso vinayo, etaṃ satthusāsanan’”ti.

The question wasn't about modesty general, but certain kind of outwardly appearing like modest, good householder.

perfections in appearing modest ... such as in outfit, outwardly appearing
I don't know about the Abhidhamma but the Buddha didn't seem to praise what's modest only in appearance, for example in the Dhammapada,

141. Neither going about naked, nor matted locks, nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal who has not overcome doubt.
142. Even though he be well-attired, yet if he is poised, calm, controlled and established in the holy life, having set aside violence towards all beings — he, truly, is a holy man, a renunciate, a monk.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself.

If not why?
I think you said why in the question -- i.e. "yet still after" -- I think that sounds like craving.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meditating When Demotivated
I had meditated for some time for 30 min once or twice daily. Now, I am suffering from what seems to be anhedonia, a difficulty in feeling pleasure and being motivated. It makes it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to meditate, and even if I have plenty of time and the yearning to meditate, I cannot seem to sit and do it.
What might one do when motivation is extremely low? Is there no other option than to just 'force oneself' and do it?

I found "Encouragements Towards Awakening" By Bhante Bodhidhamna to be especially helpful at motivating me even at my lowest.

If you find some motivation then there are worldly practices to cultivate motivation.
 When the beginners enthusiasm wore off I just googled how to get motivated. Like how to keep to a schedual. You can trick yourself. You just schedule a sit for only 2 minutes. That's easy to actually do and then when you sit you often will have more momentum past 2 minutes. Then you keep doing it and grow a habit and gradually increase your time. This is just an example. There are different ways to be unmotivated.
You can chant up some motivation.
   Read inspirational quotes over and over.
   There are all kinds of little practices.

Contemplate: death may come at any moment hence I have to strive to practice with diligence and without delay. This will create saṃvega and motivate you.

“But how, bhikshu, do you cultivate the mindfulness of death?”
“Here, bhante, I do it thus:
'Indeed, should I live just the time it takes to breathe in and then out, to breathe out and then in, I would wisely attend to the Blessed One’s teaching, much indeed would be done by me!'
Thus, bhante, I cultivate the mindfulness of death.”

(Atthaka) Maranasati Sutta 1

For most folks just starting out on The Path, it is because we've begun to see the most crucial truth Buddha preached - that life is suffering. This is the impetus behind beginning the incredibly difficult and arduous path of meditation. However, when one's will to practice wanes, it's usually due to one of two reasons:
1) They've become content with life as it is. This should be obvious, because if one were truly discontent, with an answer to said negativity right in front of them, they would continue to practice. But it sounds like your mind, on the whole, has tricked itself into believing your current worldview is "good enough". So go into the question deeply and really ask yourself, are you happy enough? Do you have a craving to seek and find Reality? Can you live with your generating negative karma, with all its harmful effects on the world, until you die?
Or
2) You've become disillusioned about your meditation practice. This has happened to me several times, more so when I first began practicing. What's happened is, your techniques are not yielding sufficient benefits that the time and effort invested seem worth it. This most likely suggests that a) you're not practicing enough or b) you're not practicing correctly. Not only that, but when you start seeing the truth in Buddha's teachings, you should grow intensely excited and interested. This is because real meditation takes a fierceness and presence of mind that will come from a will so strong that it can overcome your anhedonia and spur on practice. Ironically, Buddhism is the most selfish belief system in the world until its not, and in the same way this will required to initially get off your ass must over time be deconstructed, dismantled, and discarded.

On a larger scale, you can as Suminda mentioned, reflect on death. Not knowing when or how it will strike, but that it's guaranteed to happen.
Also, reason-based-motivation is probably the most effective way to get the engine going. Write down the very reasons why you choose to meditate. Do a list of all the benefits, short-term, long-term and life-long wise, both for yourself & for others.
Reflect on this list whenever you can. Whenever procrastination comes up, recognize it, allow it to be there, be curious and act in a value-based manner, despite the short-term discomfort.
Gradually, you learn with this method to relate differently to uncomfortable thoughts & feelings, so they have a lesser grip on you. You also experientially come in contact with benefits that meditation has to offer, for example a tranquil mind and being independently with yourself, without distraction.
Before I forget: Failing along the way is to be expected, so be kind to yourself, don't beat yourself up because it's not helping you. See what works and what doesn't and get back on track.

This is because you approach meditation as doing. Your samsaric mind is in the habit of locking in on a goal and taking steps to attain it. In those cases, the goal is something desirable, something valuable, something that should be good to attain. So when you are working towards a goal, you feel good about pursuing a worthy goal and you feel good about making progress towards something valuable.
However, meditation is not "doing". Meditation is "no-doing" or "un-doing" (wu-wei). The object of meditation is letting go. So for your samsaric mind, the goal of meditation is not valuable! There is nothing lucrative for it to lock on. This is why it feels demotivated. The objective of meditation is to kill the samsaric mind. Of course it has not a slightest interest in going in that direction!
There are two ways to solve this problem.
One is to set some kind of goal for the samsaric mind. Like Enlightenment or Nirvana. The more you think about the pointlessness of Samsara and the more you convince yourself how great and awesome it is to be Enlightened, the more motivation you will create for the samsaric mind. This is a good and valid method, especially for beginners.
For more advanced practitioners it may not work though. Because at some point your realization of Emptiness starts to mature and you may not be able to convince yourself that Nirvana or Enlightenment is a THING solid enough to strive for. At some point you begin to see emptiness of it all, and the tricks that work for a more primitive mind no longer work.
When you reach this point you should switch gears and approach meditation as an exercise of wu-wei, not doing. To do this you should focus exactly on being self-sufficient in the moment, on being in peace, on having just enough - without thinking of meditation as something you DO. Makes sense?
When you do it like that, what you practice is suchness which is the real point of meditation. Then, motivation is not an issue, or more properly speaking motivation is not applicable, because strictly speaking you are no longer "meditating". You are just dwelling in peace. Motivation is only needed for going after something. You don't need motivation in order to dwell in peace.

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


text:
Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows?
Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows, and in what sense might these affect their karma?
I do believe in karma, in some sense, but am struggling to understand something specific -- and a little strange. Suppose person A vows that, as person B is about to be hurt, they will suffer in their place. The event occurs, but person B, in some ill defined sense, does not suffer as much as they otherwise would. Person A then suffers some grave misfortune (perhaps unconnected).
Is person A at fault for their misfortune, karmically speaking?
But this is a just so story. Specifically: is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others?

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

is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others?
Well I think that some people, perhaps wrongly, interpret the Bodhisattva vow as leading to suffering to you, because it's a vow to delay your own nibbana which would cause your own rebirth and continued suffering.
As a second possible example, santa100's answer mentioned 'vows making things happen magically' -- the one thing I remember that might be like that is Sacca-kiriyā -- there are several examples in the canon -- that might be like a vow, and like magic which benefits others ... but harmless, though?
The whole idea seems odd to me, as if there's a fixed amount of bad kamma floating around which somebody has to suffer for and it doesn't quite matter who -- like the converse would be killing people as a sacrifice to gain good fortune for yourself, as if kamma were a 'zero sum' situation -- instead I think that virtue and enlightenment are supposed to benefit everyone, not be harmful.
Then again people do make decisions which seem to be altruistic and self-sacrificing.
Anyway -- you might be interested in Sacca-kiriyā.

"virtue and enlightenment are supposed to benefit everyone, not be harmful" i like the tenor, but you need a reference. also, there are everyday examples of self sacrificing behaviour for altruistic reasons, which are, arguably, virtuous.

thanks for the link btw, it is a great answer to the question especially as it was originally phrased

you need a reference I thought it was a standard theme, of the Pali suttas at least -- e.g. there's https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/bl034.html but I think there's another/better reference, that some people try to benefit self and some benefit others and some benefit both.

self sacrificing behaviour I understand what you mean conventionally but "self" contradicts the anatta doctrine -- if all dhammas are non-self what does "self-sacrificing" mean? Hard to think of an example in the sutta, except perhaps leaving "everything" behind to become a monk, and/or perhaps laypeople being generous with dana -- gifts of requisites (and perhaps of respect).

yeah that's a great reply, thanks! virtuous action is good karma, which i believe form the link Sacca-kiriyā is, is not bad karma!

i still wonder if one can create bad karma from Sacca-kiriyā by vowing not to intend to do something (independent of whether one does or doesn't do that). so the vow is virtuous, but then...

Not sure if vows alone are sufficient to auto-magically make things happens as one wishes. It's much more likely that intention coupled with concrete actions that will bring about the desired result. So in the case of person A, the event's more likely to happen due to s/he following up with actions that helps person B and maybe at the cost of some suffering to himself. About the concept of collective kamma, it probably is just individual kamma bundled together. An example is the atrocities committed by soldiers during a war campaign. Together they all took part in killing, raping, and plundering their enemies' city. So in some distant future, some catastrophic event happens to a group of people, which on the surface seems like "collective" kamma, but in fact the underlying driving force is still individual kamma manifesting itself.

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

Um, a Buddhist can make any vow they please. And eccentricity is only in the eyes of those who judge him/her. To the practitioner, it is simply a necessary step on the path to Satori. And again, the karma generated by one's vows is wholly dependent on that person's own observations about self and world. You are in no position to judge here, so the question is pretty moot with regards to others, and completely subjective in terms of yourself. Namaste.


text:
Mahayana-specific definition of "a buddha"?
We all know the Pali Canon's definition of "The Buddha". The Buddha is one who discovers The Dhamma all by himself without external help, therefore by definition there may be only one Buddha until the teaching is completely forgotten and thus can be re-discovered.
In Mahayana, the situation seems to be different. When Mahayana texts speak about "a buddha" they seem to put a different meaning into this word. In Mahayana, a buddha is someone -- or indeed anyone -- who has attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi - the Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.
At the same time, it does look like in many Mahayana contexts, the term "buddha" may be used rather too liberally. I'm not talking about the precepts, or the laity (which is what I am, at best). We all know that the Dalai Lama is said to be a tulku of Avalokiteśvara, and is presumably a Bodhisattva on the 10th -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Bhumi, and very, very close to enlightenment. I don't know of any similar claims in Tantric traditions outside Tibet. But the Tantric teachings propagated to Tibet via certain Indian masters, ones that East Asian Buddhism claim to share lineage with. Similarly, I know that some contemporary Korean Son monks have claimed to be Buddhas.

Seongcheol was widely recognized in Korea as having been a living
  Buddha, due to his extremely ascetic lifestyle, the duration and
  manner of his meditation training, his central role in reforming
  Korean Buddhism in the post-World War II era, and the quality of his
  oral and written teachings.

I do not believe this is a complete anomaly. Huineng (the 6th Patriarch in China), as well as writing a "Sutra", was said to be on the 10th Bhumi (at least -- though I have read some Western commentators say this is just impossible with standard definitions of the Bhumis) by his disciple Shen-hui, whom I believe all Soto and Rinzai Buddhists, in deed all Buddhists that base their teachings primarily on Huineng, claim is in their lineage.
I am aware that some Tantric traditions do teach "Buddhahood in this very body".
But equally, there is a tradition of great humility in Mahayana Buddhism. The great Tientai (which mutated into Japanese Tendai) master Zhiyi claimed not even to have the appearance or semblance of enlightenment to his practices. Zongmi, who I believe may still be important in Korea, was of a similar, Hua-Yen and Ch'an, mind.
So, where is "the bar"? E.g., are all genuine masters Buddhas -- or near as darn it. That may seem crazy. But are all Buddhas, according to the Mahayana, reborn from the Tusita heaven?

Please no "from the sutta/agama standpoint, all of this is nonesense" answers. Real Mahayana answers only.

Is there a distinction to be made between 'Buddha' and 'buddha'? I've spoken to a friend of Wei Wu Wei who claimed to be a buddha and was not even a Buddhist. I wasn't inclined to argue since to me this is possible, but how it fits in with the sutra teachings is another matter.  .

most M, traditions say we're buddhas by having original enlightenment (hongaku). i think but am unsure that some traditions say that buddhahood in this body need not be by a mahasattva (celestial bodhisattva). hth @PeterJ

@user3293056 - Yes, this was sort of what I was getting at. There is inevitably some confusion over the definition of 'buddha',

I think the Buddha nature is the meaning of life.
As it pertains independent of birth and death, and impermanence, but also depends on them. Just like meaningfulness.
And those that can manifest it in their everyday affairs are Buddhas in that sense. Here is Dogen writing on Aryadeva pointing to Nagarjuna's (bodily) manifesting of the Buddha Nature:

Now,  among  those  skin  bags,*  past  or  present,  who  have  heard
  the  Buddha  Dharma as It has spread through the heavens above, the
  world of humans, and the great thousandfold worlds that comprise the
  universe, which of them has said that the look of someone manifesting
  his or her Spiritual Body is what Buddha Nature is? Throughout the
  great universe, the Venerable Kānadaiba alone has stated it. The rest
  have merely asserted that Buddha Nature is not something seen with the
  eyes, or heard with the ears, or grasped by the mind, or whatever.
  Because they have not realized  that  the  manifesting  of  one’s
  Spiritual  Body  is  Buddha  Nature,  they  have  not stated it.
  Although their ancestral Master was not loath to manifest It, their
  ears were shut so that they never heard about It. Since they had not
  yet comprehended what their Spiritual Body was, It was not something
  that they ever fully discerned. Hoping to see the meditative state
  that is free of characteristics as something with a form  resembling
  the  moon  at  its  full,  they  respectfully  bowed,  but  their
  eyes  had  not yet caught sight of It.

i hope no-one minds my accepting my own answer. nb, most commentators think that (for Dogen) buddhahood is not the manifestation of the buddha nature...

Traditionally in Mahayana (esp. Zen and Tibetan) the student considers the teacher to be a perfect expression of the Eternal Buddha-Nature, "eternal buddha" in short. While the teacher himself traditionally downplays his realizations, sometimes as far as "These are the words of my perfect teacher and I'm just a dumb guy" etc.
The first point goes in line with the idea that all Teaching about ultimate Reality is by definition an expression of said Reality. Therefore anything or anyone that teaches Sat-Dharma is a continuation of Dharmakaya of Buddha - a continuation of Buddha in short - hence "the eternal Buddha":

I, Kuntuzangpo, am the original Buddha of all, and through this prayer
  of mine, may all you beings who wander in the three realms of samsara
  realize this self-arising awareness, and may your great wisdom spontaneously
  increase.
My emanations will continuously manifest in billions of unimaginable
  ways, appearing in forms to help you beings who can be trained.

The second point goes in line with the Mahayana realization that Enlightenment is attainment of no-attainment, and so does not represent anything special to be proud of:

Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, is it true that when you attained Complete Perfect Enlightenment, nothing have been attained?”
The Buddha replied:
This is right, this is right, Subhuti. As to Complete and Perfect Enlightenment, there is absolutely nothing that I attained, and this is why it's called Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.

thanks for the answer. what do those masters say about the tusita heaven, do you know?

TUSHITA is the network name of my Chromecast device.


text:
Eight wordly winds, tanha or upadana?
In essence, the concepts of

eight worldly winds
tanha
upadana

seem to describe the same phenomena.
Is there a specific reason that they are described separately?

The "winds" are "just" objects, the objects, being touched on avijja, tanha and upadana arises. So they do not describe the same, but are chains of depending co-arising, good householder.

Simalar question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9378/what-is-the-difference-between-craving-and-clinging/9380#9380

To me, these are three entirely different things.
Eight Worldly Winds are an allegory for a list of egoistic concerns, like being obsessed with fame, blame, etc.
Tanha (thirst) is a metaphor for craving something unattainable, in other words an inner conflict between "is" and "should".
Upadana (fuel) is a metaphor for "feeding" an unhealthy state of mind by repeatedly thinking about topics that sustain the state.
While in some situations they may occur closely together, they refer to three entirely different phenomena.

Are you saying that tanha isn’t a problem when it pertains to things we can achieve?

Erik, when we can achieve reasonably and without conflict, then it doesn't become Tanha, it's just following path to a goal.

And what is the reasonably? Seeing desire after it as it's cause. One who takes on isn't free.

Like in god realm, Samana, there's no place for Tanha when things go smoothly, but still not free, right.

Eight world winds, tanha and upadana are synonyms for lamp oil, flame and wick. Because of lamp of eight wordly winds oil is generated, because of tanha or flame it burns and the wick or upadana is main support to consume oil and support that to the flame. They are 3 stands never ever seperated. When one leads to 7th i.e Samma Sati one can know and see 3 triads. How to destroy the three is in 8th. Because of 8th, the Samma Samadhi it can be destroyed with blowing out the fame. Samma samadhi means watching all the working of lamp with that of detachment in every day life. No fuel to be generated. But Samma Samadhi needs the Sword of Knowledg i.e. Vision of Unborn. Hope this answer what you are looking for. May all beings happy!

One does not progress toward release from the winds by means of effort in concentration, as right concentration has the requirment of it's condition. As long no vision of going forth, the path can not develop.

Yes. True.That's what I mean honorable sir.  But, forgive me, you may not agree, although I am fool, but the Eightfold path I love. It's like "God is watching over you, he know what you are doing, he is beyond good and evil that's why he is knower of deeds".That's real Samma Ditthi. How can one who know, he is watching, commit misdeeds? Ordinary people doesn't know it! Doing good deeds are virtues. Never in any place Buddha condemn them but he condemn inactivity and misdeeds both. Life lived with good deeds is Nibbana. It's life of peace here and now. Not a goal to be found after death.

When rejoicing in good undertakings themselves, not much thinking toward results and gains, then of cause there is bliss here and now and beyond, being clear of what is kusala and what is akusala. Nothing to fear once these has become clear, good householder. Sharing ones merits toward the world (Gods, Devas, Sangha, wise...) as governing principle .

Is "are synonyms for lamp oil, flame and wick" your own explanation, or can you reference the text which contains this explanation?


text:
Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice?
Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment.
But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

The tag '[tag:the-buddha]' is, "For questions about the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) as a person - his life, sayings, actions, etc." ... so I edited the tag to [tag:mahayana] instead. The tagging on this site isn't very accurate but one purpose we use to for is to identify which school[s] the Q&A is related to. Your writing "we are not yet Buddhas" here is probably related to your previous question, Mahayana-specific definition of “a buddha”? (which I also rettagged as mahayana).

See also this answer to the meta-topic titled, Theravada and Mahayana -- or according to the FAQ, "This is one site for all schools. If you want an answer from the perspective of a specific school, then please add the corresponding tag to your question
(for example, [tag:theravada], [tag:mahayana],  [tag:zen], and so on)."

It is delusion, with all resulting kamma. This case is addressed in MN1:

They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

It may sound like progress, but it isn't. In fact, the Buddha would say the same about conquerers such as Alexander the Great, who grasped at earth:

“Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They perceive earth as earth. But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Constrast this with how the Buddha describes a Realized One. Notice that identify view is absent:

He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

Per MN1, even a trainee "shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? So that they may completely understand it, I say."
Furthermore, per MN1, only "an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones" would "identify as extinguishment."
Therefore, if we can agree that uneducated ordinary persons are entangled in suffering and kamma, we can infer that to think of oneself as enlightened is unskillful, uneducated and ordinary, with all corresponding kamma.
Other suttas reiterate this cautionary point about non-identification with extinguishment in different ways. For example, there is MN44:

“A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Both MN1 and MN44 stress non-identification even for those with experience of extinguishment such as stream-winners. In our practice, we should note that mind is included in good conduct (DN33). And therefore if we do not speak unskillfully, we should also avoid thinking unskillfully.

Three ways of performing good conduct: by body, speech, and mind.

could you add a reference for (this particular) delusion being bad karma? that's more what the question is about, not what attitude it is

I got the impression from this answer that a stream-winner might have "truthful conceit" -- i.e. an accurate (true) assessment of the extent to which they are or are not even partially enlightened (i.e. according to "the four stages of enlightenment"). N.B. that that answer, is maybe "theravada" or "early buddhist" and not "mahayana" -- the same tradition as but a counter-point to this answer which references MN 1.

Thank you both for your comments. I have added more analysis of MN1 as well as references from other suttas that describe how it is unskillful to think of oneself as extinguished.

"Our faith that we are" is a direct disregard to Chan. Surangama Sutra  supported the Chan school. Looking at Chan there is the question: What is Buddha? The answer follows in a modern sense: " about 5 five pounds of flour."
The faith part is only one pillar. No building can be constructed and to think that you have one is certainly bad karma. It's evidence of a incompetent. To claim it finished will result in great suffering.
Others here will bring about obtainment and this issue also as it's connected. The Zen reflection point, or another sobering point to keep with you is that enlightenment or not doesn't create absolution. You remain a victim of cause and effect. Now a nose arrives before you do so there's value to Chan  (the school of sudden enlightenment.)
Chan generally isn't considered an active school because of the teaching. If you are given it quickly and earned it why would there need to be a school for it?  Karma isn't really a matter of white and black or the basics of justice. That's a western misunderstanding. It's a root of suffering in the senseless observation of other that is only a reflection of yourself that's meaning that was intended to be reflected.

i am going to downvote for now, because without a reference it is just an expression of your opinion on buddhism. language like 'absolution' and 'victim' and 'western misunderstanding' also seem very polemical, though i enjoyed the sense you took my "nose"

I also struggle with this answer. I wouldn't even agree that Chan is all about ';sudden enlightenment'. I would rather say it is all about embodied practice as opposed to analysis and sutra reading. If I had to pick a school this would be it and my first Buddhist text, the one that hooked me, was from this school   so the idea it is dead I find rather odd. .  .

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


text:
Relation of Productivity and Entertainment
I've read a question here on music, which caused me to ponder the relationship of effortful, productive behaviours and of consummatory behaviours. I wonder:
Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games? Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals?
I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; what is the Buddhist view on these topics?
Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?
Thank you

There is work and there is play and both can be clung to. Personally I cannot motivate myself if there is no play so what I do is try to turn all my play into productive work.  I make music and I try to incorporate that into the Dhamma like I try to incorporate the need for food, clothing, shelter and medical care into spiritual practice.

Are productive, beneficial behaviours such as spiritual practice, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavours benefitted by entertainment as music, films or games? Or do such forms of entertainment detract from other more meaningful goals?

In a general sense (going outside the scope of buddhism), without an overarching scientific, philosophic or religious framework for defining meaning it is impossible to discern whether these things are beneficial or mere distractions.

I'm wondering because I surmise maybe entertainment produces positive emotions, which are positive in themselves. However, I am uncertain of my conclusion; what is the Buddhist view on these topics?

One way to address this is through the concept of vipallasa:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html

Are positive emotions only virtuous if accompanied by an underlying motivation towards a meaningful aim?

In a strict sense, pleasure seeking is not virtuous in buddhism. Without the moral precepts (sila) in buddhism it would be hard to discern what is virtuous or unvirtuous.

Average laymen need only observe the 5 precepts so can pursue any artistic endeavours or watch any of them.
When observing Uposatha one can take the 8 or 10 precepts where one devote the day to dhamma practice setting aside other household activities. In this case, one puts aside entertainment also.
Entertainment produces unwholesome states:

Tāla,puta Sutta
Therefore, for a serious meditator, this will be a stumbling block.
Also, see: A Buddhist Perspective on Entertainment An Enigma Named Thalaputa

I don't think that the scriptures say that lay-people can heedlessly engage in any entertainment. The Buddha definitely taught to the lay that restraint also should be practised and that good friends and morality is to be sought out.


text:
Nature of Spiritual Writings
When I write certain texts, in the presence of inspiration, the topic turns towards high ideals, for example beauty. The phenomenon is odd and prevalent in my life: I have written hundreds of such texts, where the topic of beauty appears almost spontaneously. It usually generates a strong awe.
I'm unsure what is going on in these cases; am I generating some archetype? Am I engaging in a spiritual process? I even write beauty as 'Beauty', with a capital 'B', to suggest its ideal nature, which was common in western history.
Or, in the context of Buddhism, am I generating more attachment? Basically, despite me not feeling attached, I consistently and inevitably return to the topic of beauty and high ideals, almost in an obsessive manner. People I've shown these texts to say they don't quite follow what I'm saying in them.
For such a somewhat spiritual experience, how can I know whether I'm doing something meaningful and legitimate, or just causing more attachment?
In sum, I'm asking how this experience -- or other spiritual experiences -- are evaluated in Buddhism.

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

When doing your writing see what feelings you get and does it lead to:

a decrease in unwholesome states and/or increase in wholesome states
an increase in unwholesome states and/or decrease in wholesome states

“What now, bhikshus, haven’t you known me to have taught the Dharma in this way:

THE 2 KINDS OF PLEASANT FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of pleasant
feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF PAINFUL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF NEUTRAL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.’?”

... [more detail description of the above follows in the Sutta]

Kīṭā,giri Sutta
If what you write increases lust, fantasy/delusion, greed, etc. then this is unwholesome.
Since ou writing is spiritual it might be wholesome if you write is in line with the Dhamma.
One way to discern how unwholesome states arise is as follows:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta
Dealing with sensations at a more granular level can be found in: Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta

Is there any way to improve one's capacity to discern whether it produces wholesome or unwholesome states? The topics are usually virtuous, but I sometimes doubt / worry that it is unwholesome, without much evidence that it could be unwholesome.

I updated it accordingly.

I don't know what spiritual writing you're talking about, of course.
From my own experience, text[s] like Speaking of Siva (translations of devotional poetry from Bhakti saints) is attractive -- similarly Gibran's The Prophet -- actually I've read a lot of literature, my Dad used to read to me before I could even read for myself -- it's attractive, I find it attractive and engaging, it engages a part, a vocal part, a 'talky' and somewhat rhythmic part of my mind, my brain. I'm not sure it's especially 'spiritual'? It's entertaining and engaging.
Maybe I'm a 'sucker' for literature (as well as friendly speech) -- you mentioned Beauty, for example -- I even get hung up on how well authors like Tolkien use punctuation marks in their dialog.
So I guess it's like music, it's kind of harmless as a hobby -- and the suttas don't recommend music, do they, see also the seventh precept -- though Buddhist literature itself apparently uses a lot of poetic metre (the Dhammapada).
You might also/alternatively want to experiment with what is in a sense 'liberating' -- with not 'engaging' the mind; and perhaps with what's overtly ethical -- perhaps just practical, perhaps generous, etc.
It's not only rhythm that's attractive, perhaps it's also the familiar -- if you "delighted in it" in your first exposure then you may want to seek it out or to recreate that experience again -- almost the very definition of attachment. So vocabulary, like Beauty but also even Ethics, might be hollow.
Here is a famous Christian saying, on approximately that subject (I don't know an equivalent Buddhist one):

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; etc.

It's often read as a text at weddings.
Anyway, and leaving aside the topic of "Christian love" compared with any Buddhist ideals, I think its point is that "speaking with the tongue of angels" isn't of itself a virtue.

This quote from Margaret Fell suggests a similar problem:

We are all thieves, we are all thieves, we have taken the Scriptures in words and know nothing of them in ourselves

A Buddhist-tradition equivalent might be "the finger pointing at the moon" ("the finger" being words, and "the moon" enlightenment).

Maybe it's the opposite i.e. that the allure is specifically the bit that isn't meaningful or valuable :-( ... for example if I wrote, "Meaning guides the mind while Beauty guides the soul". The Buddhist archetype seems to me to maybe begin with ethics (rather than aesthetics), maybe even end with ethics too. The dhamma may be akaliko, but words seem to be conditional.

I expressed myself pretty lousily, I meant to say more: "Words that are ONLY alluring only have allure, but lack meaning." I don't doubt that meaning is the essential quality of valuable speech haha

"So you don't, doubt?", he asked playfully. "Maybe you should doubt, and doubt that? :-) Maybe I doubt ... better than to be certainly wrong, am I right? I once read, "Don't study the subject: study the teacher." Maybe (I'm not sure) what's good or meaningful about buddha-vacana is the fact of its being taught by the Buddha, i.e. because it allows us to study the Buddha, and possibly meaningless (or 'empty' and without 'essence') if it weren't for that -- though I note that the Buddha himself said he revered the Dhamma itself, since he had no other teacher to revere."


text:
Nature of Integrity in Buddhism
Following an answer I received previously, I wonder a question I deem somewhat important:
If a person preaches ideas or advice related to the dharma, but fails to live by those values, is this person lying? If not, is there still a consequence in terms of the person's mind, perhaps integrity?

It's not very conductive for one self and others, but higher as the person who neither praises nor does himself under the four. No need to state that acting unvirtuose is unskillful. So the 2. lowest person.

This is not lying unless you pretend or say you follow the advice.
Dhamma practice is a gradual exercise hence one does not become perfect at once but it is a matter of putting int the effort to increase one's perfection:

cultivate what is wholesome which one does not already do
increase what is wholesome which one already does
abandone what is unwholesome which one already does
prevent the arsing of what is unwholesome which one does not already do

There is a Sutta to say that there are four types of persons.

A person who helps themselves but no help to others.
A person who does not help themselves but help others
A person who neither helps themselves no others.
A person who help themselves and help others

Canonically (perhaps according to the vinaya) I think that the definition of "lying" includes "intent to deceive".
Comparing how you live to an ideal might be self-view or conceit see e.g. How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Note that comparison (conceit) can be beneficial in some circumstance, if you use it as guidance for betterment (see e.g. the Bhikkhuni sutta, or the advice to the young Rahula)


text:
Are Habits a Kind of Attachment?
Some questions have already touched the nature of habits, namely in the sense of good habits or their benefits. This answer explains how attachment occur from a repeated desire to engage in the phenomenon. But, psychology sees this same pattern for habits, and more so, in psychological literature habits occur independently of pleasure and of effort. A habit, when formed, continues usually even when no more satisfaction is derived from it, even if it produces no reward.
Thus, wouldn't bad habits be a form of attachment and potentially even worse given the lack of reward? By definition, unless they are positive, habits will continue occuring again and again despite nothing rewarding is produced.
Does Buddhism consider neutral habits, just habit itself, as unvirtuous? Is doing something repeatedly without reward, compulsively, a kind of potential attachment? Or does the Buddhist concept more so mean a pleasurable form of attachment?
Thank you

Please don't be offended, and I apologize if I'm overstepping the boundaries, but I have to ask this. You ask a lot of questions many of them getting pretty good answers, but you keep finding new topics to ask about. When I was like this, my teacher pointed out it was a sign of overly active discursive mind, that keeps spinning endlessly generating infinite variety of ideas. Tell me, what goes on in your head in the years you've been on this site? Are getting anything from the answers at all? Because it really seems like you don't. Sorry I'm confronting you like this but I really want to know.

I guess you're right that there's a lot of discursive stuff going on. I do feel I'm getting some things from these answers, but I guess I'm perhaps not entirely aware of what the basic problem which affects me is. I feel that in many ways, I'm either backwards or not fully satisfied with my experience, and I feel Buddhism has a lot of answers; but, as you say, across the years I'm still a bit clueless.
I will say, though, that recently I'm less motivated and derive less pleasure from my activities and experience. In any case, perhaps I could answer better on the chatboard. I'm not offended

Sounds like you're experiencing reality as unsatisfying and that is one of the 3 characteristics a meditator who is practicing correctly sees. Do things seem to come and go? Does your understanding come and go? Does the meditation make YOU feel like your not in control? You could be practicing better than you thought.

Kilesa has a residual impression which is called vāsanā which even arhats (other than the Buddha) have. Only a Buddha eliminates that. This is what drives habits. Many habits are reflexive and there no much thoughts of the intention behind it. If it is purely reflexive it does not have karmic consequences.
Initially, when you start doing something this is driven by craving. More you do it it becomes habitual. When it becomes habitual this might surface without craving.
If you think you are developing bad habits you should break them early. Deeply ingrained habits are difficult to break.

Buddha is an arahant

Does Buddhism consider neutral habits, just habit itself, as unvirtuous?

Nothing is a habit in itself. They consists/occurs out of something else, and can be viewed as sankhara.

Is doing something repeatedly without reward, compulsively, a kind of potential attachment?

Yes, there is silabbatupadana - clinging to rituals - for instance. However, one may benefit from specifying what is meant by habit. Sometimes we persevere because we're hard wired that way, and it could arguably be a case of rupa, our constitution.


text:
What did Dogen think a miracle was?
Dogen, Shobogenzo #26

Guishan is the thirty-seventh ancestor, a direct descendant of
  Shakyamuni Buddha. He was a dharma heir of Bhaizhang, Zen Master
  Dazhi, Today buddha ancestors in the ten directions, even those who do
  not call themselves descendants of Guishan, are all in fact his remote
  descendant.
One day, while Guishan was lying down, Yangshan Huiji came to see him.
  Guishan turned to face the wall.
Yangshan said, “I am your student. Please don’t be formal.”
Guishan started to get up.
Yangshan rose to leave.
Guishan said, “Huiji.”
Yangshan returned.
Guishan said, “Let me tell you about my dream.”
Yangshan leaned forward to listen.
Guishan said simply, “Would you interpret my dream for me? I want to
  see how you do it.”
In response Yangshan brought a basin of water and a towel. Guishan
  washed his face and sat up.
Then Xiangyan came in.
Guishan said, “Huiji and I have been sharing miracles. This is no
  small matter.”
Xiangyan said, “I was next door I heard you.”
Guishan said to him, “Why don’t you try now?”
Xiangyan made a bowl of tea and brought it to him.
Guishan praised them, saying, “You two students surpass even
  Shariputra and Maudgalyayana with your marvelous activity!”

I don't think Dogen believed in miracles. Am I right?

As Chogyam Trungpa explained in Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior (or was it in The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation ?), the perfectly enlightened Bodhisattva always does exactly what's right at the moment. The perfectly enlightened Bodhisattva is always on time.
Because their mind is not running ahead nor falling behind, it is always exactly so. Being exactly so, it is without conflict, and is perfectly in sync with the needs of the moment. It is also 100% authentic without pretense, as simple or as complex as presently required.
This is what Dogen said Guishan praised as "miracles" and "no small matter".

Hi Andrei! How do you reconcile what you've said with the events told in the discourse found in SN 54.9, where a group of monks take their lives after practicing the contemplation on the "non-beauty" of the body? How can we interpret what happened there? Thanks in advance. Kind regards!

Reconcile?There's no conflict here to reconcile. Buddha was a young teacher then and assumed the method that worked for him would work for everyone.  Doing what's exactly right at the moment, doesn't mean you don't make mistakes from the future standpoint. You did exactly what you knew was right at the moment, and after that you learned something new, but what you did was right at the moment you did it.

Thanks! How you define "right", then? What makes such quality special, in contrast to the attitude a regular person might have? Let's say, if I feel completely sure about a decision, without any amount of hesitation, is that person doing what's right at the moment? Kind regards!

"Exactly right" is what you do when you are not under influence of asava, i.e. you're not swayed by one or more of the "three poisons". You do what's best for the long term benefit to oneself and others, to the best of your knowledge, as opposed to acting out your neuroses or acting out your ego. When the mind is pure like that, seeing things is clearly "yathabhutam", and the action is "exactly right".

Thank you! Now I understand. Have a nice day!


text:
How to continue practice with pain?
I practiced meditation for 6 months continuously. I used to meditate 45 mins in the morning as well as evening. In weekends, I used to meditate many rounds with breaks in between. I developed fear of loneliness due to which I have suffered from insomnia which has lasted till now though it has gotten a bit better now. I don't know if its dark night of the soul or depression. I have also been suffering from gastritis since 1 year. The stomach pain causes me anxiety and I have not been able to continue my meditation. I am waiting for both my sleep and stomach to get better so that I can continue. I sometimes feel that the problem will last till my death. I don't know how to progress from this phase. My meditation practice had definitely brought many positive changes. I have set milestones for myself regarding the practice that I think I may not reach during this lifetime. Any suggestions for me ?

What is your social life like?

I go to job and come back. Most of the time I am alone. Though, sometimes I meet my friends.

You should not believe meditation is for everyone or should not believe you are a "failure" if meditation does not work out for you. In reality, serious meditation is only for a small minority of people. Some of the meditation in the Western world is just 'fondling' with a service that is advertised so some smooth talkers can make money. Few Westerners are doing actual real meditation.
Fear of loneliness ("dark night of the soul") is certainly a common and inevitable result of extensive and intensive meditation. This existential fear must be passed through to achieve any advanced level of meditation.
Therefore, if meditation has not worked out for you, please do not judge yourself negatively. Many monks meditate for many years but make little progress and disrobe.
You should see a doctor or healer for your gastritis and find some solutions for poor sleep, such as Chinese herbal medicine, exercise, swimming, metta meditation, spiritual friendship, etc.
If you believe in future lives, the Buddha taught lay people to practise generosity & keep the five precepts is enough for 'rebirth' in heaven.  The Buddha generally did not teach meditation to lay people.
The sense of "self" is a natural survival instinct. Meditation can diminish the sense of "self" and this is actually not healthy for most people. Its only a small minority of people who are able to abide without a sense of "self".

Hey DD, is it possible to contact you via E-Mail?

dhammadhatu@bigpond.com.   regards

Please consult a doctor first to find the cause of your stomach pain. By the way, you can keep the pain as your meditation object. (Vedanaupassana)

Consulting a doctor would be suggested as a priority. If the body is not in a good physical condition, then one cannot meditate properly. A healthy body is a pre-requisite. Once, you are fit, as per the advice of your doctor, you can begin your meditation again. Do not worry about things. Certainly take care of yourself, but don't worry.
Your journey, as hard as it is, is for you to make. We all share in the metta of Buddha, boddhisattvas and other enlightened beings. Persistence, patience and determination are qualitites that will help you in this part of your journey, and this part of journey also gives you an oppurtunity to further cultivte these qualities. Things change (anicca).
May you experience anicca nature of sensations in your meditation (and come to realize the changing nature of all phenomenon) and come out of your worriness.

It is not clear what type of meditation you're following at present and the reason for doing so. If you're interested in simply reducing the stress levels at your work place, you may benefit from Mindfulness Meditation. Following 10 years of research at Oxford University targeting stress related problems in schools, the British Government has introduced Mindfulness Meditation, as official education policy in the UK and 5000 teachers have been trained to teach this type of meditation in the schools. It seems a very professional approach to address this problem of stress in schools. If you fall into a similar category, you may benefit from such a program of training. Also recommend the French Lama Matthieu Ricard, who teaches Altruistic Love, Compassion, Loving Kindness, meditation
to the corporate sector such as the Google staff. These are types of meditation designed to de-stress most of us who find our school/work routine stressful. Much of this information is available on youtube.

I am doing self taught mindfulness meditation reading 'Anapanasati Sutta'

Living in a country exposed to a three decade long civil war, it was a roller coaster drive all the way in my meditation. I think it is necessary to fix your mind on to the ultimate purpose of your meditation first, similar to an Olympic athlete targeting a gold medal. This becomes your driving force. Technically it is called Visualization of the Objective. This could be something quite mundane as '' a peaceful atmosphere at your work place'' or something more spiritual.  I found the Mahasi Sayadaw system which gives the mechanics of breathing meditation in great detail, very beneficial.


text:
Immediate Remedies to Judgmental Thoughts
I had previously asked a question about contempt. Since then, I noticed a few things, such as that it's not easy for me to 'cancel' out analytically my judgment of others. If I try to question my judgment and invalidate it, it often doesn't work, especially if I get angry. I know that my judgments are false, but they still arise.
Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment?
The most effective solution so far has been compassion meditation. But that is not always possible in the moment.
What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?
EDIT: I feel perhaps my question is similar to my previous one, but I'm asking for really in the moment remedies, and the diverse options Buddhism recommends.

I have this problem myself  but it is getting better. The first thing I do is to spot the first movement of the mind toward judgment and I send the person metta (May you be well, happy and free from suffering).  This then changes my attitude to a more accepting and more opened mind. One other thing which I find helpful is to remember their faults are mine, I have a potential to do what I disapprove and judge. This brings me back to earth and to a forgiving attitude.

Are there alternatives to analyzing/questioning the judgment?

If you look at it as one of many possible interpretations you avoid the risk of invalidating your point of view.

What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?

One possible reason why we need to judge others is because it creates a feeling of righting a wrong, in a sense. Without knowing too much about you, i am assuming that there is some form of painful feeling that creates a clinging to judgment (ditthupadana).
Therefore, one way to aid letting go of judgment is to examine any painful emotions (dukkha) you might have had prior to these thoughts, and try to accept the emotions as they are.
Further, try to look behind other people's actions, to see if there are motives for acting the way they do. What is their dukkha, their tanha or upadana? This can be very hard, but can also yield compassion that ameliorates our clinging to judge others.

What can be done in the moment where judgmental thoughts arise to remain open?

Treat the mind as something from a distance. Tell yourself for example: "The mind tells me" or alternatively, "Anger is arising in me".
If possible, observe any bodily phenomena with a curious attitude.
Don't push it away. It's not easy.
If the anger is directed towards others you can reflect how you behaved maybe in a similar way or had similar thoughts.
Otherwise distract yourself for a while.
But whatever you do, it will take some time until the mind changes its state, and from my personal experience, emotions strongly bias subsequent thinking, that's why I recommend to notice anger signals early on to nip them in the bud, but again with an open, allowing & curious attitude.

What is thought?
 You aware  your thoughts
Trace your thoughts till it's root
Beacuse my observation say that  thought is illusion
Beacuse thought  is memory
Memory is thought .
Proof
What is  nirvana (buddhism)
You are thinking  not reach this question Because you don't experience.
You don't experience. You don't thinking.
So your are experience  is thought


text:
Dilemma about Money
I earn well enough. But I don't count how much my money I spend. I mostly spend money on just foods only. But here is the problem. If I cook myself at home, I can save a lot of money. However, I spend twice / thrice the same amount if I spend eating outside. Well, the extra amount I could donate for good purposes. But, I don't want to cook at home as I need to wash the utensils and make necessary arrangements that would take my time. I am confused about what should I do?

Buddhist financial management is as follows:

Sigal’ovada Sutta

(1) personal and family use (eg support of parents, spouse, children, servants, and visiting family
  friends and colleagues);
(2) for the benefit of friends (including entertainment of guests and clients);
(3) invest in security and insurance;
(4) the fivefold offering (pañca,balī): given to relatives, to guests, to the departed, to the government (as payment of taxes, etc), and to devas;
(5) for supporting worthy religious (Dharma work).

You don't have to donate, but if you want then why not.

I mostly spend money on just foods only.

If you don't have money when you what to do charity you just need to wash your dishes and do the preparations. It does not have to be much.
Donations helps the dharma stay alive, it will cultivate good karma, it will help Dharma to flourish and prosper. If Dharma is helping you it will help you more if its strong and bigger. It will also help you to be more detached from money for a better cause. I think


text:
Waves of Sadness
I've cut out many addictive behaviours recently, and in line with what I read about addictive things, I've experienced the return of feelings of great sadness and discouragement. Seemingly without pattern, I feel utter sadness, despair, etc. But, as quickly as they are felt, they seem to go away very fast and leave a happy state.
Is there any way to deal more effectively with such states of sadness and despair? I noticed I tend to project these emotions as blame, finding fault in everything.
What does Buddhism recommend for such states?

Does "they seem to go away very fast" mean that you already "deal effectively" with such states?

AN 10.61 says the food/nutriment (ahara) of the five hindrances (which include sadness & despair) are the three unwholesome types of action.
It follows sadness & despair are actually results of addictive behaviours.
If addictive behaviours are stopped, completely, the sadness & despair will eventually disappear, also, because they are not fed/nourished.
You have already experienced the reality that as quickly as they are felt, they seem to go away very fast, and leave a happy state. This is natural mental purification that occurs from avoidance of addictive behaviours. In other words, nature/dhamma is forgiving.
Buddhism recommends patient endurance, mindfulness & ready-wisdom for such states; to avoid a relapse into addictive behaviours.
Mindfulness means 'remembering'. Mindfulness remembers the ready-wisdom (sampajjana) that addictive behaviours lead to sadness & despair. The Buddha said:

They bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater.
MN 22

Always remembering the Buddha's advice is recommended. This is the meaning of mindfulness.

Very helpful, Thanks.

You know, it's probably the reaction to the sadness that we want to deal with by just witnessing it. If we just witness it in one moment then at that moment we cannot react because our mind is filled with sati.
"Oh, there is sadness there, hello sadness would you like something to drink while your here?". You know, I would try to cultivate a metta/karuna attitude about the sadness and anything else that I felt separate from. I have found it surprisingly effective to chant in my head, "It's ok, it's ok" in a compassionate way that aims to have kindness arise with whatever sadness, tension or other dukkha that happens to be laying around my experiencial wilderness.
I might actually see the reaction to the sadness and before I can say hello to the reaction, I have another reaction: I saw the reaction to the sadness! I'm such a great meditator! Then I think,  darn it, there went my ego!  and that is yet another reaction.
These reactions can move so fast one by one like dominoes.

"Neutral feelings with ignorance is painful and the numeral feeling with wisdom is pleasant"
Withdrawal symptoms are the result of not understanding the normal (neutral). So the first action is to understand the cause behind the sadness.
Replace your old habits with some wholesome habits which make you happy.

If you are practicing the technique of Vipassana, then that is a very effective way of dealing with this. It will deal at the root of the problem of your "waves of sadness", without creating any additional "wave" that might errupt at some later time.

As a Buddhist, I can tell you that what you feel is probably the collective suffering in the "state of Man".  That is, there is suffering in the world, so you feel it.
As we are originate from one source, so some degree, we are all responsible for the suffering in the world.
Most, if not all, Buddhist traditions have some concept of karma, and you should see the world as a divine world -- showing who and where your karma can be cleansed every day.  You have to watch for it, and many people look away or avoid it, and they will never reach enlightenment in their lifetime.


text:
Alone with a woman
Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun alone (not a laywoman)?
Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun (considering the rule applies) while others a present?
Is there a specific rule in the Vinaya for this, if so please cite.
What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed (if that's a rule)?

Women should be aware that it is an offence against his discipline if a monk touches a woman. If offering something to a monk either place it in his bowl or on his special receiving cloth — never directly into his hands. Male visitors should be aware that women with shaved heads may prefer not to hand anything to or receive anything directly from you. Put it down first and let the other person pick it up.
Women must be careful entering rooms (such as the library) where a monk might be present; it is an offence for a monk to be alone with a woman in "a secluded place" -- more details here.
Nuns also come under women. So the same rule applies.
What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed
If it is indeed a closed room and if you think they will be receptive to your suggestions, ask the monk in a non-offensive way. ex:  "Bhante, I've heard about this Vinaya rule regarding closed rooms. Would you like me to keep the door open?".
Regardless of whether they agree or not, most important thing for you is to not to get upset. If you get upset, you fail no matter what other people do.

With respect, surely there must be a more 'enlightened' understanding than what is referred to here?
Is the responsibility, onus not belong to the individual rather than that responsibility passed to the 'attachment' in the Buddhist sense?

The question was the OP's trying to understand or interpret the vinaya (i.e. the monastic code of discipline). There is a literal answer to that, how enlightened you are in your understanding of it is a different topic -- but on-topic if you want to answer it (I imagine that kind of answer could lead to disputes though if not carefully worded, people may tell you that the vinaya exists for some good reasons).


text:
Sacrificing myself...or not?
If someone was holding many hostages and I came along and offered to trade myself for the hostages place so they can be let free, would this be right to do or wrong to do and would be detrimental to my practice if I am killed?

Also see Sutta/Sutra guideline for choosing actions in ethical dilemmas , Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics , How do you decide when to stick up for yourself and when to let things go?

Seasonable Gifts, and a gift should neither harm others nor oneself. Would you feel harmed?

Good if knowing that Jesus follower have other ideals than the Buddhas liberating. To and up on a cross and use it for ones gain, isn't really heroic...

Sortly there was the moom-deity Uposatha where people follow the tradition of own-sacrifices toward virtuous: Sasapaṇḍitajātakaṃ

There are no general rules for action and everything depends on the circumstances, so no definite answer can be given. Apparently even being crucified doesn't cut it for some theoretical moralists. .

While it's certainly a noble deed, just remember the Dhamma emphasizes both compassion and wisdom. They are like the 2 wings of a bird and are both equally important. A good Buddhist should also be a good and skillful problem solver. So before resorting to sacrficing oneself, one should be smart and use his intelligence to come up with novel creative solutions that maximize the benefits to both others and oneself first. Self-sacrifice is most noble because not everyone can do it, but it should be a last resort if one decides to do it AFTER all other options have been exhausted.

"Self-sacrifice is most noble" who says so?

It is a highly meritorious deed that could potentially give you heavenly births. But that doesn't mean you have to do it. Using all your money to free the cattle from slaughter houses and starving in the process is also a great deed. But that doesn't mean you have to do it. Offering your life to cultivate goodness is only a requirement of Bodhisattas who aim for Buddhahood. It is called Paramatta Parami. Unless you are aiming for Buddhahood, you don't have to do such things.

"It is a highly meritorious deed" who said so?

It would be detrimental to one's practice if one sacrificed there life out of some  belief that it was  noble rather than  sacrificing thier life because that's the appropriate thing to do for all involved including oneself. One would be less likely to be reborn in the right conditions for practice.
The ideal, the Buddha may or may not find it appropriate to sacrifice themselves(I don't know) but a Buddha wouldn't trade their free mind for it to be taken hostage again. I mean the Buddha wouldn't or couldn't sacrifice Buddhahood, the Buddha would do whatever was appropriate.

"Buddha may find it appropriate to sacrifice themselves", who said so?

A Buddha may or may not find it appropriate. I don't know.

so "but a Buddha wouldn't trade their free mind for it to be taken hostage again."?

I meant a Buddha wouldn't or couldn't sacrifice Buddhahood. I probably could have been a little clearer on that one.

Good that trusting that one wouldn't exchange real liberation for anything, and that real liberation can't be given but needs to be worked out by oneself. mudita

I don't what situation you're considering, but spare a thought for your long-suffering parents?
One of the problems with suicide is the grief it causes to those who are left alive.
I think an axiom of ethics is, that an ethical action is an action which doesn't cause regret or remorse (and, is "praised by the wise").
Depending on the situation, you might at least consider whether an action is, an action which your parents would approve of.
Even if you wanted to become a Buddhist monk, for example, I think the Vinaya requires you to get your parents' permission first, doesn't it? There are ways of doing that, in time, it's not impossible, it is a consideration though.

Sure that not confusing topic? The was one on permission from parents, yes.

If you offer yourself up as a sacrificial lamb thinking that it is a noble or heroic act, you are merely casting yourself into delusion. If you choose to preserve your life because you think doing otherwise would be detrimental to your practice, you are also casting yourself into delusion. This situation — violent men holding hostages — is completely dominated by competing delusions and attachments. It's unwise to view it as a question with a simple, monolithic answer.
The only real question you should ask yourself, as a buddhist, is whether you can guide the people involved — the criminals, the hostages, the police, the bystanders... — out of the collective delusion they have become trapped in, without becoming trapped in it yourself. This is an intensely karmic context, like walking into a hurricane, and unless you have the grounding in being to drain off that maddening energy you'll just get swept up by it, and do no good for anyone.


text:
Parents suppressing the teaching
I love my parents, but for some reason they do not understand my teaching and misinterpret what I say and won't listen to me. Their misinterpretations led them to take all of my books on Buddhism I was studying as well as prevent me from meditation whenever I try or try to be mindful of doing anything, they prevent me from having to do with the Buddha's teachings (However, I can still do online things in secret as you can see). They say that when I leave the house or grow to a sufficient age, then I can resume, but for now, they have the right to take away my religion basically and it is really putting a hard toll on my spiritual growth and practice for purity. They hope it will fade away, but I have used the Dhamma as my practice for two years now and I have grown to know its truth, unlike my parents.
Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should do? Are there
any ways I can continue the practice even though my parents work
effortlessly for me not to do so? How can I work to show metta to them
when I want to but get frustrations when they push away my teachings
or speak as if Buddhism is a "cult" that makes me anti-social and a
bad person, even though I have explained all of it to them?
Please help! Metta!

Best wishes to you in your struggles. Hopefully their resistance can be used to help you grow stronger despite their efforts to slow you down.

I would want to ask why they feel as they do. Are they dogmatic monotheists?

Good thing there is an astronomical amount of free quality dharma on the internet.

You have already answered your question. Be kind to your parents. Do some metta for them. Metta will give you the right view on things and understanding.

You should not be teaching your parents Buddhism. It is forbidden in Buddhism to teach others Buddhism; unless the other people request to be taught (AN 9.5).
You should not be practising "zombie mindfulness" in sight of your parents because this will freak them out. As a Buddhist, your practise is to not cause harm or distress to others. In your parent's home, when with others, you should act naturally and normally.
Apart from this, there is nothing stopping you from meditating in private and also practising right speech, right action & right livelihood in public.
Buddhism (DN 31) says your parents have the duty to train you for a profession, i.e., ensure you receive an education. Your Buddhism should not interfere with your schooling and education.

You don't have to make a show out of your Dharma. You don't need to make it fly in your parents faces. There's no need to convince them of anything. Buddhism is what you practice in your mind. No-one needs to know. In fact, making it a secret practice only makes it more powerful.
When you practice the perfect Buddhism - which is defined as Buddhism without Ego - on the outside you will be perfect, too.

When we care about someone we want to share good things with them. If they don't want that gift it can be painful. We must respect their decision to accept or reject the gift.
Part of growing up is to take responsibility for our own life and how we choose to live. Your parents may be scared that you are growing up fast.  They may find it difficult to understand that you have found something important for yourself that is different from the life they had in mind for you.  During growing up this is often a source of tension and arguments between parents and children. Eventually a child's way of life becomes their own responsibility, but along the way, the parents give the best guidance they can (even if they are not always so well-informed).  Arguments about who's way is right are normal and to be expected, even if it is painful to have those arguments.  The arguments are a sign that they care about your life and want the best for you (as they see it).
At times it can be valuable to have another adult to discuss these things with, a teacher or counsellor, an aunt or uncle or just a family friend.

In the past I wondered why Buddhism was a small religion (Theravada). Later I realised that the truth does not need to be told and spread fanatically as the Truth will be slowly emerge to them with Karma.
People are ignorant, therefore they will not like to listen to the Truth. Once you know the Truth, stick to it, live that way. You do not need to teach others as if they have not much good Karma they won't understand the truth as they will live in ignorance.

Consider that some parents take away childern's video games, rigs and or cables because they do no approve. It's very standard thing, if it wasn't Buddhism it would probably be something else.
Just keep doing your thing where there is an opening and develop your understanding and the expression of meaning so that you can later establish effective communication with your parents and straighten them out, this is good for you and that way you can express your gratitude for showing you the world and repay your debt to them.
Also i would advice any parent to keep their children from religious sects even the contemporary Buddhist traditions, i would do so lest i was fairly confident they would be capable of providing adequate training and not confuse the young person. There are many Buddhist monks who hold wrong views, even in the time of the Buddha.
Your parents are just looking out for you imho and you would be well adviced to identify as an Analyst rather than a Buddhist, be one who analyzes, searches for truth, committed to discovery of philosophical principles and elimination of delusional ideas.
If you present yourself in this way to outsiders you avoid all association with any particular religious sect even if you say you study the Pali Canon and approve of that exposition. Buddha said himself he was teaching the doctrine of Analysis so maybe you would be more accurately describing yourself in the forementioned manner.


text:
meditation - How obvious should the touch of the breath be?
When I try to feel the sensations of the breath at the nostrils/upper lip during anapana, it's so faint that after a certain point, I think I may be imagining the touch of the breath.
I may even feel other sensations (pressure/vibrations) on my face but I would still have trouble feeling the touch of my breath at the rims of my nostrils or my upper lip. And my mind is still very much lost in thought so I know it's not because I've become very concentrated or anything.
So how obvious should the touch of the breath be? Should it be as faint/subtle to the point of almost feeling imaginary? Should I stick to this and assume it will approve as does my concentration?

The deeper one gets into absorption the finer and finer the breath will become and there's nothing wrong with that as long as one continues to maintain focus/awareness on the contact point (nostrils/upper lip).

@santa100 Please note that I said that it's not because I'm in absorption as my mind is still lost in thought.

The touch of the breath should be totally obvious and clear.
Anapanasati is not something exactly easy to do. If it was easy to do, all of the posters on this chatsite would be enlightened.
You should stick to it and assume it will improve as does your concentration.
You should experiment with different methods, such as:

Place one finger horizontally under the nostrils and mentally note the thought "out" each time you feel the air touching/striking/warming your finger; and mental note "in" when you feel the air not touching your finger and being sucked back into your nostrils.
Make sure your finger is placed at a distance away from your face where the maximum impact of the breath can be felt. For example, my finger is about 6 millimetres away from my face/upper lip because i have a big nose.

Then continue to do the same but only mentally note "out" and stop mentally noting "in". Instead, let the mind be quiet, open & relaxed on the in breath; but continue to note the out breath.
If your arm gets tired/uncomfortable, change to your other arm & finger.
As your mind familiarizes itself with the sensation of the breath on the finger; then allow the mind to search for & feel the sensation where it is most obvious in the nose/nostril.
Also, as you start to regularly feel the breath in your nostril, then let the eyes & face relax and allow the mind to try to feel the breath in another place, such as in/through the throat. To only watch the breathing around the nostrils is not important.
There are other methods, such as to occasionally deliberately breath a little longer and postpone/extend the end of the breath a little longer (but not too long so it becomes pranayama !!!. We don't want to get dizzy practising Hindu pranayama).

Ultimately, the breath can only be perfectly lucidly experienced by the mind when the mind is very quiet and actually not even try to watch the breath. "Trying" to watch the breath is also another obstacle to clear knowing of the breath. However, if your mind is not quiet and has thoughts, "trying" to watch the breath helps suppress the thoughts.

The real breath must be softer and softer (still breathing but breathe softer lighter calmer).
But the breath comprehension is clearer better cloudless.
It's something like you use fewer tools and fewer raw materials, when you are  more professional on doing something. Your thinking of doing that thing is very very clear because of your experience, but you use very  very fewer tools and fewer raw materials compare to your fist time doing it.
The practitioner is focusing on  these together:

how long is my breath?
how short is my breath?
Am I keep focusing on whole breath measuring?
Am I breathe softer and softer (still breathing but breathe softer lighter calmer)?

Then the breath will appear clearer.
Every practice needs time. Be patient to keep practice go on.