text:
For contact, can eye, sights, and eye-consciousness arise but NOT meet?
From MN 148
Bhante Sujato

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact.

Bhikkhu Bodhi

Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact.

Pali

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso;

Can you have the internal base, the external base, and consciousness but they do not meet? If so, what is an example?

The confusion arise in you because of mis interpretation of

tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso;

It should not mean 'contact of three'. Because arising of consciousness itself is connecting the two. it is  connector.

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ

Actual meaning of sangati is  going together. sam+gati.
so as long as the eye is there and object is there and consciousness is there, there exist phassa. It can happen that the arised consciousness may drop before the phassa. due to lake of interest. or the object itself drop due to  fast movement. or the eye moves away. in all such case there shall not be phasso which can generate vedana.

generally speaking, as i understand it, the meeting of the internal-external-consciousness creates contact named eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc.  i don't particularly understand the idea of 'gives rise to' or arises, as if the contact was moving up like smoke or vapor, but whatever that's another topic.
but your question:
Can you have the internal base, the external base, and consciousness but they do not meet? If so, what is an example?
it's not a clear question to me, but as I understand it, contact is only for 1 of 6 senses at any given time.  so yes, 5 of 6 senses are contactless ie do not meet.
then it seems 6 of 6 also not meeting in higher jhana according to AN 9.37:

The eye itself is actually present, and so are those sights. Yet one
will not experience that sense-field. The ear itself is actually
present, and so are those sounds. Yet one will not experience that
sense-field. The nose itself is actually present, and so are those
smells. Yet one will not experience that sense-field. The tongue
itself is actually present, and so are those tastes. Yet one will not
experience that sense-field. The body itself is actually present, and
so are those touches. Yet one will not experience that sense-field.”

That sutta doesn't explicitly mention contact. It could be that eye, forms, and eye-consciousness are not meeting to make contact OR there is eye and forms but no eye-consciousness.

from my understanding, there is only one consciousness.  eye-, ear-, etc. is contact, ie 6 types of contact.

the sutta seems to imply a consciousness not within the body, but i'm not sure

There are six classes of consciousness https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

yes, you are right. but i don't believe it. what good is tongue-consciousness without a tongue? i believe in one consciousness and six types of contact

if i say, machine-white is representing time and you say, no, it's representing white, are you saying it's two distinct consciousnesses at play?  i am willing to listen but I think it is not that way..

No. Eye-consciousness can only arise when the eye & the form meet. MN 38 says:

Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of
consciousness.
Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.


text:
Anger and harsh speech: in need of models and examples of serenity and compassionate speech
Thanks for the hospitality of this forum.
I have recently started investigating  Buddhism with some seriousness,  seeking for answers to my spiritual thirst  and looking for a practical path to address my problem with anger and harsh speech.
I discovered Buddha in a 10 days Vipassana retirement. Every night,after long hours of meditation,  we listened to a lecture by SN Goenka.   Even though they are very introductory,   these speeches have the huge merit of bringing a glimpse of the Eightfold Path and Buddha's life and wisdom  to the  absolute newbie, such as I was at that time.
l was shocked by the stories of Kisa Gotami and Angulimala,  and marvelled at the way Buddha dealt with all sorts of challenging situations,  his wise and compassionate teaching style, adapted to people of the most diverse backgrounds and levels of understanding.
Those stories made me seek for more information about Buddha: I wanted to hear he most remote echoes of his voice, the  records of his teachings closest to the historical  time he lived and taught.
That's how I discovered the Pali Canon, which I am trying to compile from the translations of various Bikkhus from Thai and Sri Lankan traditions (I am Spanish and unfortunately I cannot understand Pali, so I am relying on English translations of the suttas  from SuttaCentral, Dhammatalks, Bikkhu Analayo, etc)...
I am seriously considering taking refuge in the Three Jewels, but as i stated above, I have a problem with anger and harsh speech, as I am a bit hot tempered and lack of patience with some people. Even though I acknowledge the harm i do to others and to myself,  I LACK MODELS and EXAMPLES of alternative ways of reacting and communicating...  examples of right speech IN PRACTiCE, in a range of different real life situations...
How do you deal wisely with people that do not want to help with domestic chores? How do you talk to people that dismiss your ideas and way of living? How do you talk  wisely in any sort of inter-personal or social conflict?
I would be most grateful if you could give examples of right speech in action, drawn from the stories of the Buddha and some of his wise disciples (such as Sariputta, etc), anecdotes of  Buddhist men and women showing a wise way to respond to practical situations involving conflict with others.
I am most grateful for your help, as I am scared of dying with this anger and harshness,   without being able to become wiser... This is a huge hindrance for my spiritual progress that I do not know yet how to overcome.
Thanks to all from my heart.

Today, particularly in the West, we live in a very complex, divided & disordered world.
For example, I recall when I lived in Thailand, how polite the social norms were in regards to speech. Its funny, recently, each morning, I see an older Thai lady who has moved to where I live (in Australia). Each morning we cross paths when doing our morning walks and we have a light chit-chat Thai style. It is so polite. It is so different to the Western world.
Also, where I live, we currently have an influx of young Spanish backpacker workers. For some reason, suddenly there a many young Spanish everywhere. it is noticeable their cultural norms & speech are fairly abrupt.
My impression is Buddhist monks & nuns, as well as advanced Buddhist practitioners, generally limit their social interactions & social environments. This helps them control their speech.
Once speech is under control, a Buddhist practitioner examines & accepts the harsh realities of the world around them, to subdue anger. Buddhist practice is to give up longing (desire) & disappointment towards the world. This is what the Buddha taught in his definition of mindfulness.
For general scripture teachings about Right Speech, a compilation is at this link: Right Speech From His Own Lips.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is meant by Guru?
I often hear this word and I think I have some doubts because in Hinduism Jupiter is called Guru.
So maybe I could be misunderstanding.
What do lamas mean when they say guru?
Could Shree Ganesha be my Guru?
Thanks

Guru in Sanskrit or Garu in Pali, means teacher.
But in the context of your question, Guru is a spiritual teacher who confers blessings on his disciple, and whose disciple has devotion towards the spiritual teacher. The disciple trusts that the spiritual teacher will lead him to liberation. The disciple treats the Guru as a Buddha or a deity. The Guru has a direct spiritual link or spiritual connection with the disciple. The Guru is also called the Vajra Guru. The Guru may perform ritual empowerment or initiation upon the disciple. This is found only in Tibetan Buddhism/ Vajrayana.
Ganesha as a deity and Guru, is also found only in Tibetan Buddhism/ Vajrayana, not as the Hindu God, but rather as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara.
In Theravada Buddhism, the only true spiritual teacher is the Buddha, to whom all take refuge in. Refuge in the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) and the collective Sangha is also taken, but not refuge in any individual teacher. The ordinary teacher, say venerables like Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Yuttadhammo, do not have spiritual or supernatural links to their students. What the students have, is admirable friendship (kalyanamittata) with their ordinary teacher, based on SN 45.2 and AN 8.54. The student does not have devotion towards their ordinary teacher but they may have trust in him. The ordinary teacher does not confer supernatural blessings upon the student. The student does not value the words of the ordinary teacher as being equal to the words of the Buddha.

So I can consider Ganesh as my Guru?!

@CaneRandagio It's best to consult Tibetan Buddhism teachers.

Short answer: no, not really, but if you want more confirmation you should find a local respected teacher from a Tibetan, Nepalese, or Mongolian lineage and consult with them. Most likely your best bet would be to find a living guru.
Long answer:
I'm mostly familiar with Chan (Mahayana) and Theravada. In the Theravada the idea of a guru is almost nonexistent, and in Mahayana (including Chan/Zen), a specific master is important but not held at the same level that a guru is in Tibetan Buddhism/Vajrayana. Gurus are essential in the Vajrayana because some of the teachings are esoteric, not to be carelessly revealed to anyone because they require guidance and preparation. Usually "guru" in Buddhism refers to your immediate teacher, but can also refer to anyone in their direct lineage (your teacher's teacher, their teacher, etc., back to Padmasambhava, Virupa, Tsongkhapa, etc., and further back to the historical Buddha, Vairocana, or some other Buddha. In casual usage, this is less common and guru usually means your primary teacher, the one you're loyal to and show devotion towards in this lifetime, in person.
Could Ganesha be your guru? Well, Buddhists don't exactly believe in Ganesha in the same way that Hindus do. Vajrayana has Vinayaka and sometimes Heramba, who is essentially Ganesha, who is a deva (or demon, in at least one form), but deity yoga (in Vajrayana) is different from Guru yoga, and outside of Vajrayana as far as I know it doesn't exist at all (though we do revere other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which are a similar concept but not exactly the same).

Guru is not exactly non existent in theravada, its just simply not seen in the same way. A guru is essentially a teacher and the Buddha advised to seek virtuous friends, with of course a teacher being just that. It is not seen as such that a teacher is superior and the student lesser. Honorific titles for X amount of rain seasons/years ordained is the only veneration in theravada. The Guru idea is hindu, that is why it has crept into vajrayana/tibetan buddhism as some sort of necessity. The actual fact is the Buddha is the guru, his teachings is the point which one can read themselves.

Guru is a word (Hindi and Sanskrit) that literally means teacher. Connotatively it comes to mean master, spiritual guide, etc. Rinpoche is Tibetan for Guru (amongst one meanings). All gods and goddesses can be guru [M.] (gurudain [F.]). Jupiter is also considered as a Guru. Ganesh is also a guru.
Guru-shishya (teacher-disciple) relation is very specific to Ancient Indian subcontinent, where oral transmission has been a form of teaching (at times the only). Within Tibetan Buddhism, this teacher-student relation is very important as the answer by @Zac Anger emphasizes.
In contemporary India, people still call their spiritual teachers as guru.

Guru this word is very pregnant! it carries multiple meanings depending on context used.
You see how I used guru to address you in sentence ' Guru this word is very pregnant! ', saying guru (just as we use 'guys' in english) is common way of addressing a person in friendly way in hindi slang.
Guru as a noun the word means the imparter of dnyana (knowledge).As an adjective, it means 'heavy,' or 'weighty,' eg; gravity is called gurutvakarshan in most Indian languages.The word has its roots in the Sanskrit gri (to invoke, or to praise).

गुशब्दस्त्वन्धकारः स्यात् रुशब्दस्तन्निरोधकः ।
अन्धकारनिरोधित्वात् गुरुरित्यभिधीयते ॥ १६॥
The syllable gu means darkness, the syllable ru, he who dispels them,
Because of the power to dispel darkness, the guru is thus named.
— Advayataraka Upanishad, Verse 16

In India even the elementary school teacher is referred as Guru! The conman figures (who are mostly found criminals hiding behind the cult) are also called Guru. In a way Guru is used by atheists and revolutionary thinkers in negative way to reffer a person exploiting others in name of spirituality or knowledge.
Planet Jupiter is called guru in Hindu mythology because he was Teacher of Gods, more or less like Chiron in Greek mythology; that's why the Jupiter is also called guru.
Ganesha is not a Guru, he is diety. He is often used as symbol for vidya along with godess Saraswati.They are like qualities personified. For a simile, Ganesha is fragrance while a Guru is flower. So you can't accept Ganesha as Guru.

You know, if we understand one question rightly, all questions are answered. But we don't know how to ask the right question. To ask the right question demands a great deal of intelligence and sensitivity. Here is a question, a fundamental question: is life a torture? It is, as it is; and man has lived in this torture centuries upon centuries, from ancient history to the present day, in agony, in despair, in sorrow; and he doesn't find a way out of it. Therefore he invents gods, churches, all the rituals, and all that nonsense, or he escapes in different ways. What we are trying to do, during all these discussions and talks here, is to see if we cannot radically bring about a transformation of the mind, not accept things as they are, nor revolt against them. Revolt doesn't answer a thing. You must understand it, go into it, examine it, give your heart and your mind, with everything that you have, to find out a way of living differently. That depends on you, and not on someone else, because in this there is no teacher, no pupil; there is no leader; there is no guru; there is no Master, no Saviour. You yourself are the teacher and the pupil; you are the Master; you are the guru; you are the leader; you are everything. And to understand is to transform what is.
I think that will be enough, won't it?
J. Krishnamurti

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


text:
“Working” meditation?
Is there a type of meditation which involves actively working or doing some task? Beyond just doing it mindfully, a type of meditation that requires you to be actively involved in some activity, and is not considered secondary to sitting? Working meditation.

Any work can become meditation if it’s done wholeheartedly.  In Zen, we call this kanshin.  It loosely translates to “a mind without remainder”.  In other words, there’s nothing left over in your mind because all of your mental resources are committed to what you are doing.  This is unquestionably a powerful form of meditation, but it will always be secondary to sitting meditation.  The fact of the matter is that you simply cannot reach the depth of concentration off the cushion as you can when you are on it.  The mind is the body and the body is the mind.  Even the insignificant act of moving a toe is like a bomb going off in a mind that is thoroughly concentrated.  Working quickly dissipates these states.
Look at working mediation as a break from sitting.  Look at it as an opportunity to integrate what you learn there with the world at large.  But just know that sitting will always have primacy.

Buddhist meditation actually has its primary focus upon watching the mind.
Therefore, in Buddhism, practicing meditation when working is simply watching the mind to ensure the mind is free from greed, hatred, delusion & other unwholesome inappropriate states of mind while working.
When I lived for some years (as layman) in a forest monastery in Thailand, we did lots of days of hard physical work in the tropical hot sun. The goal of this was to work with a mind empty of self. Just doing; just working; no worker; no doer.


text:
the supreme protector
thig 13.3:

“Now please convey my respects to the supreme protector of the world.
Circling him to your right, dedicate my religious donation.”

In what sense is buddha the supreme protector of the world?  which world is being referred to?  the earthly world? the heavenly world?  all worlds? i don't feel protected.  protecting dhamma?  only good people?

Read it from the author's perspective -- she has taken "refuge" in the Buddha, the Sangha, the Dhamma.
See also SN 6.2 which says that monks must "dwell in dependence on" someone, more consummate than themselves (in this case the Buddha).

Lastly note the concise dictionary:

a protector, patron, lord; a husband; a prop, support; ~ especially the lord, the Buddha

Their dialog is about marriage (the wife being under the husband's control, the man being "trapped", their having "followers").
Now think of the "support" (and "husband") meanings -- the Buddha has social authority, creates the Sangha, defines the rules they live by, told people to allow the bhikkhuni order to exist and to not harass the nuns, etc.

The term used in Thig 13.3 is lokanātha.
According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on "nātha":

Nātha Nātha [Ved. nātha, nāth, to which Goth. nipan (to support), Ohg.
gināda (grace)] protector, refuge, help A v.23, 89; Dh 160 (attā hi
attano n.), 380; Sn 1131 (Nd2 has nāga); DhA iv.117; PvA 1. lokanātha
Saviour of the world (Ep. of the Buddha) Sn 995; PvA 42. — anātha
helpless, unprotected, poor J i.6 (nāthânāthā rich & poor); PvA 3
(˚sālā poor house) 65. Cp. nādhati.

Nātha means saviour, protector. Anātha, the opposite of nātha, means helpless, unprotected, poor.
lokanātha means "saviour of the world".
The Buddha is saviour of the world in the sense that he brings teachings to the world to liberate the helpless from suffering i.e.
"supreme guide for those who wish to train".

‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished
in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for
those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened,
blessed.’ He has realized with his own insight this world—with its
gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and
brahmins, gods and humans—and he makes it known to others. He
proclaims a teaching that is good in the beginning, good in the
middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing. He
reveals an entirely full and pure spiritual life.
MN 41

The central word here is lokanāthaṁ, which a dictionary says means the lord of the world.
If we search for this & similar terms (here, here & here), they appear found in later texts, including Sanskrit & early Mahayana texts.
Notably, the suffix nātha is found in the Dhammapada, where Sujato translates nātho here different to as he translates nātho in Thig 13.3.

Self is indeed the lord of self,
Attā hi attano nātho,
for who else would be one’s lord?
ko hi nātho paro siyā;
When one’s self is well-tamed,
Attanā hi sudantena,
one gains a lord that’s rare indeed.
nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.
Attavagga, Dhammapada

In the suttas, it seems, the most common word translated as protector is rakkha

Dhamma surely protects one who practices Dhamma;
Dhammo have rakkhati dhammacāriṁ
Thag 4.10

Looking after yourself, you look after others; and looking after others, you look after yourself.
Attānaṁ, bhikkhave, rakkhanto paraṁ rakkhati, paraṁ rakkhanto attānaṁ rakkhati.
SN 47.19

And how does a mendicant protect?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu rakkhitā hoti?
When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up
in the features and details.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṁ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti
nānubyañjanaggāhī.
AN 5.140

All of the above said, there are two suttas AN 10.17 & AN 10.18 using the term 'nātha' found in Thig 13.3.

Mendicants, you should live with a protector, not without one.
Sanāthā, bhikkhave, viharatha, mā anāthā.
Living without a protector is suffering.
Dukkhaṁ, bhikkhave, anātho viharati.
There are ten qualities that serve as protector.
Dasayime, bhikkhave, nāthakaraṇā dhammā.
What ten?
Katame dasa?
Firstly, a mendicant is ethical, restrained in the monastic code,
conducting themselves well and seeking alms in suitable places. Seeing
danger in the slightest fault, they keep the rules they’ve undertaken.

New Concise Pali English Dictionary
nātha
masculine
a protector,patron, lord; a husband; a prop, support; ~ especially the lord, the Buddha

PTS Pali English Dictionary
nātha protector, refuge, help
AN.v.23, AN.v.89; Dhp.160 (attā hi attano n.), Dhp.380; Snp verse 1131
(Nd ii.has nāga) Dhp-a.iv.117; Pv-a.1. lokanātha Saviour of the world
(Ep. of the Buddha) Snp verse 995; Pv-a.42 ■ anātha helpless,
unprotected, poor Ja.i.6 (nāthânāthā rich poor); Pv-a.3 (˚sālā poor
house) Pv-a.65 Cp. nādhati.
Ved. nātha, nāth, to which Goth. nipan (to support), Ohg. gināda
(grace)

Personally, I am inclined towards the translation of 'Lord of the World', which means the Buddha is unaffected by or governs the world around him via governance of mindfulness & wisdom. However, as originally said, Thig 13.3 appears to be a later text using early Mahayana language therefore 'Protector or Saviour of the World' may be more accurate in this context.
Also, the term 'lokanāthaṁ' is found in the later Manorathapūraṇī commentary attributed to Buddhaghosa, here.

duve saccāni akkhāsi sambuddho vadataṃ varo sammutiṃ paramatthañca tatiyaṃ nupalabbhati
The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.
tattha: saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ lokasammutikāraṇaṃ paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what
is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they
really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa lokanāthassa satthuno sammutiṃ voharantassa musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to
conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)


text:
Why did Buddha continue jhāna after enlightenment?
Can you tell me why Buddha used to go in different levels of absorption/ jhāna/musing even after nirvana for reference Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta  (DN 16) and An 3.63 venaga sutta?

Sounds like a good question. Welcome.

Why not? For the enlightened noble ones, attaining the jhana state in meditation is easy. There's nothing wrong with having a good time when it hurts nobody.

All states of consciousness are impermanent, i.e. they arise , change and vanish. It is possible to come out of cessation of feelings and perceptions and re-enter it through meditation. Buddha deferred his final extinguishment so that he could teach his disciples and establish sangha. Nibbana is nirodh meaning prevention of ignorance, cravings , hatred or delusions. A fully extinguishedk being doesn’t give rise to body , feelings , perceptions, choices or consciousness because all the cravings are gone.

source for the part "he deferred his final extinguishment.." ?

The Buddhas can enter the jhanas whenever they want.
There is no specific reason why they must or must not do it.
They don't do it to run away from pain, because that would imply that they experience aversion to pain. Aversion and repulsion is no longer found in the  liberated.
This applied to Gautama Buddha and also the Arahant disciple Kassapa, according to the sutta below.

“Mendicants, whenever I want, quite secluded from sensual pleasures,
secluded from unskillful qualities, I enter and remain in the first
absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while
placing the mind and keeping it connected. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected
are stilled, I enter and remain in the second absorption, which has
the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and
mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. And so
does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, with the fading away of rapture, I enter and remain
in the third absorption, where I meditate with equanimity, mindful and
aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones
declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ And so does
Kassapa.
Whenever I want, with the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the
ending of former happiness and sadness, I enter and remain in the
fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and
mindfulness. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the
ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of
diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, I enter and remain in the
dimension of infinite space. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space,
aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, I enter and remain in the
dimension of infinite consciousness. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite
consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, I enter and
remain in the dimension of nothingness. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, I
enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception. And so does Kassapa.
Whenever I want, going totally beyond the dimension of neither
perception nor non-perception, I enter and remain in the cessation of
perception and feeling. And so does Kassapa.
SN 16.9

@Ruben2020 are you sure Kassapa refers to a Buddha? Or does Kassapa refer to an Arahant disciple?

@DhammaDhatu You're right. SN 16 is about the arahant disciple Kassapa.

A Buddha has fully developed & is endowed with the Noble Eightfold Path, including jhana (right concentration). MN 117 says:

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

Jhana has become the natural meditation of a Buddha. Whenever the physical body of a Buddha stops exerting itself, the mind quickly returns to jhana.
A Buddha does not go into jhana. The opposite occurs. A Buddha emerges from jhana to perform his worldly duties, such as eating, washing, walking & teaching.

Dhyanas is about concentration of the mind.
1)
Buddha used these to change normal people's perspective towards Buddha by showing them what they consider as magic, special abilities.
2)
Buddha used these abilities to look at past, future, tell stories of different times,look at nature, universe, talk to Gods, Bahamas, and show them, how below they and their abilities are(compered to Buddha).

One of my favorite suttas is MN121

MN121:3.3: ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’

The Buddha moved regularly about his world as a teacher engaging with villages and people, spreading the Dhamma out of compassion. It is therefore significant that MN121 starts the meditation on emptiness with this consideration:

MN121:4.6: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village or the perception of people.
MN121:4.7: There is only this modicum of stress, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’

From this we may reason that the Buddha found such meditation on emptiness to be a necessary and healing counterpoint to the stress of the teaching journey through villages and with people. As the meditation on emptiness proceeds, stress fades away into emptiness.
Regarding other specific meditations, it simply seems reasonable for any good teacher to regularly practice what they teach. Indeed, during his last day on earth, the Buddha did just that.
Yet the Buddha did emphasize the meditation on emptiness in particular.

MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.
MN121:13.4: So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’
MN121:13.5: That’s how you should train.”

Notably, the Buddha also arose each day and proceeded through the world, unattached to emptiness, accepting the stress of villages and people.

Stress of villages and people? Was the Buddha taking any part in that stress? I would reason that since the Buddha had no craving an aversion, no trace of stress would arise in him..for stress is due to craving.

Lifting a weight takes effort, this is muscular stress. Likewise, villages and people are stressful in that they take effort.  Stress is different than distress.  The Buddha got sore from effort (DN33) like any other human.  Villages and people are tiring. That is the meaning of "stress" here.

So physical stress, but no distress. That would mean it’s all the same to him if he sits in jhana or if he acts in the world?


text:
Without discoverable beginning "it is enough to be liberated from them" What is "them"?
In Bhikku Bodhi's translations, "without discoverable beginning" suttas end with:

This Samsara is without discoverable beginning. It is enough to be liberated from them.

Liberated from what, in this context?

I think you're seeing that in a translation of SN 15.4

Good, good, bhikkhus! It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in such a way. The mother's milk that you have drunk as you roamed and wandered through this long course-this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning .... It is enough to be liberated from them.

The ellipsis is because this sutta repeats a phrase or forumula from a previous sutta, which is elided in this sutta.
This is so in Ven. Sujato's translation also:

Why is that?
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Transmigration has no known beginning. …
Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro …pe…
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”
alaṁ vimuccitun”ti.

To understand it, to see what was elided, refer to a previous sutta i.e. SN 15.2

Why is that?
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Transmigration has no known beginning.
Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro.
No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded  by ignorance and fettered by craving.
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ sandhāvataṁ saṁsarataṁ.
For such a long time you have undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
Evaṁ dīgharattaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ paccanubhūtaṁ tibbaṁ paccanubhūtaṁ byasanaṁ paccanubhūtaṁ, kaṭasī vaḍḍhitā.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”
Yāvañcidaṁ, bhikkhave, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindituṁ, alaṁ virajjituṁ, alaṁ vimuccitun”ti.

So I think the answer is, "freed regarding all conditions" (i.e. sabbasaṅkhāresu -- sabb + saṅkhār)

Missing the elided part was indeed my problem.

Yāvañcidaṁ, bhikkhave, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindituṁ alaṁ
virajjituṁ alaṁ vimuccitun”ti
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned towards all formations, dispassionate towards them and freed from them.

The word compound sabbasaṅkhāresu ends in 'esu', which in grammar is called 'locative case'. Based on the translation, this appears to mean the sabbe sankhara (all formations) is the location or place of the disillusionment, dispassion & freedom from. Therefore, 'them' refers to 'all formations'.
Sujato translates the sentence in a similar manner, as:

This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.

Thanissaro translates the sentence differently to Bodhi & Sujato as:

Enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to
become dispassionate, enough to be released

What are "formations" are concepts such has "beings", "my mother", "grandmothers", etc. Suttas such as SN 23.2, SN 5.10 & MN 98 clearly says the idea of "beings" is a convention or view. The word "beings" here does not refer to physical organisms.
SN 12.2 makes this very clear when it says 'jati' is the birth of [conventions of] various "beings" in this & that "class of beings". "Mother", "grandmothers", etc, are classes of beings.
"Samsara' itself means 'continuously grasping the five aggregates as self or selves'. SN 22.99 makes this clear.

I chose the other answer because it addressed my mistake directly, but the rigor here is deeply appreciated. Comparing translations really opens up the meaning. This was my first question on this stack, and wow, I'm glad I joined.

Thank you. You are welcome.


text:
Pali Canon: Did the Buddha ever offer teachings without being asked to?
Are there instances in the Pali Canon of the Buddha offering teaching without being asked to?
I know he often decided the topic of his discourses himself, and also often seems to have started the discourses spontaneously. These seem to have been cases where the audience (Buddhist monks) can be seen to have been more or less expecting a teaching from him at some point, after all they had chosen to become monks and remained in his presence. I think this also goes for his first discourse with the group he used to practice asceticism with, since he knew very well that they were desperately looking for the kind of thing that he had discovered.
Instead, I'm asking for examples of him basically seeing or hearing of a person who isn't a monk, or at least a Buddhist monk, and deciding to offer them teaching. Or even more specifically, I'm interested in whether or not that ever seems to have happened, and how common it seems to have been compared to the usual pattern of people coming to him asking questions.

In SN 7.21, Ven. Ananda requested the Buddha to visit the home of the lay brahmin Sangarava and teach him, to debunk his belief in water purification rituals. The Buddha consented. The brahmin neither asked to be taught, nor approached the Buddha for any other reason.
In SN 7.22, the Buddha approached the council hall of Khomadussa where householders and brahmins were having a meeting. They saw the Buddha coming from a distance and mocked him as being a fake ascetic, to which he responded by giving them a teaching.

Very good examples.

I think the question might need reframing. The Buddha's Dhamma is of two types (MN 117):

mundane/pertaining to merit & morality
supramundane/transcendent

For me, the question is: "Did the Buddha ever offer supramundane teachings without being asked to?"
The account of the First Sermon in the Vinaya gives the impression the Buddha was pushy & offered to teach without being asked at a time when the five monks were not yet the Buddha's Sangha:

The Buddha said to the group of five monks, “Monks, don’t address the Buddha by name or as ‘friend’. Listen, I’m perfected and fully awakened. I have discovered the deathless. I will instruct you and teach you the Truth. When you practice as instructed, in this very life you will soon realize with your own insight the supreme goal of the spiritual life for which gentlemen rightly go forth into homelessness.
The Buddha was able to persuade the group of five monks. They then
listened to the Buddha, paid careful attention, and applied their
minds to understand.

In MN 49, the Buddha went to a Brahma-world to harass Baka the Brahmā, who did not attain any enlightenment from the Buddha's harassment. (However, my personal view is MN 49 is a late fake sutta).
As for mundane teachings, I expect a Buddha would provide these in the general course of meeting others socially.

Saying that the teaching of the Buddha is of two types is a false, harmul and relativistic statement. There is no mundane vs supramundane suffering, no mundane vs supramundane universal cause of suffering, no mundane vs supramundane extinction of suffering and no mundane vs supramundane method for the extinction of suffering. Thus, there is no mundane vs supramundane teaching, the Awakened One did not preach relativism. The Buddha Dhamma is one and the same for all.

The Suttas were quoted. Please desist from commenting on my posts when my answers have already been substantiated. Thank you

Maybe the distinction that @DhammaAnatta is trying to make is that, in MN 117, the Buddha says that each of the path-factors -- e.g. right view, right resolve, etc. -- are of two sorts. And the Buddha explains them both, to one audience -- which is not quite the same as saying that the Dharma is of two sorts.

thank you @ChrisW. so in order to clarify, did the Buddha teach the truth about suffering in a relativistic or a universal manner?

The Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) might be an example, perhaps a rare example.
In it, the brahman wasn't explicitly asking for a teaching -- though he did go and initiate the conversation.
It's interesting (or skilful) how the Buddha does it -- perhaps the brahman wasn't inclined at that moment to quietly listen to a discourse, instead the Buddha engages him in dialog using a rhetorical question.
He does give discourses to laypeople, villagers -- maybe often, the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) is one example -- I think the usual scenario in that case is that they respect him as a teacher.
See for example the story of The Weaver's Daughter for an account of how he might often talk with laypeople.

Putting the Pali qualifier to one side, without discrimination - if we ask ourselves what it means to teach?
Just by being - demonstrating the fact of the possibility of liberation - was one of Lord Buddha's greatest and most significant teachings.  Providing an example of how to speak, how to teach, how to sit, how to walk - all of these were direct and immediate teachings.
The best way to teach a child is through example, not through words, right?
Did he talk without being asked to? Yes, often. Were some of those talks teachings? I would argue all of them were: Every moment of experience with a Buddha is going to be a very powerful learning experience.  Every moment with a significantly realised teacher is a learning experience.
Did he give formal talks without being asked? I do not know.


text:
Jhana for rest and relaxation
Which sutra does it say that someone like Buddha would "rest in jhana" or "go often resting" - some combination of jhana (not sure which stage) and rest. i saw it recently but I can't find it.  I don't recall if the translation was from suttacentral.net or dhammatalk.org...

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now? There is the
case where a monk—quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from
unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture &
pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought &
evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he
enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of
composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought &
evaluation—internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains
equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He
enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare,
‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ With the abandoning
of pleasure & pain—as with the earlier disappearance of elation &
distress—he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity
& mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the development of
concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant
abiding in the here & now.
AN 4.41

It may be, Cunda, that some monk, detached from sense-objects,
detached from unsalutary ideas, enters into the first absorption that
is born of detachment, accompanied by thought-conception and
discursive thinking, and filled with rapture and joy, and he then
might think: 'I am abiding in effacement.' But in the Noble One's
discipline it is not these [attainments] that are called 'effacement';
in the Noble One's discipline they are called 'abidings in ease here
and now.'
...It may be that after the stilling of thought conception and discursive
thinking, he gains the inner tranquillity and harmony of the second
absorption...  in the Noble One's discipline they are called 'abidings
in ease here and now.'
...Happily lives he who dwells in equanimity and is mindful!' — that
third absorption he wins... in the Noble One's discipline they are
called 'abidings in ease here and now.'
...he enters upon and abides in the fourth absorption...
...enters upon and abides in the sphere of infinite space...
...enters and abides in the sphere of infinite consciousness...
... enters and abides in the sphere of nothingness...
... enters and abides in the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and he then might think: 'I am
abiding in effacement.' But in the Noble One's discipline it is not
these [attainments] that are called 'effacement'; in the Noble one's
discipline they are called 'peaceful abidings'.
MN 8

this seems closer...thx

DN 16 (Ven. Sujato's translation):

I’m now old, elderly and senior. I’m advanced in years and have reached the final stage of life. I’m currently eighty years old. Just as a decrepit old cart keeps going by relying on straps,in the same way, the Realized One’s body keeps going as if it were relying on straps. Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable.

Author's note:

The suttas say little about this meditation state. Its defining characteristic is that consciousness does not “follow after signs” (nimittānusāri viññāṇaṁ, eg. AN 6.13:5.3). This is explained in MN 138:10.2 as not being distracted or affected by the features of sense impressions. The mental unification (ekattaṁ) based on this practice is listed after the form (and formless) jhānas, so it is very advanced. It is nonetheless a conditioned state (MN 121:11.4), so it is possible that a mendicant might fall from it and disrobe (AN 6.60:8.10). However it may also be used to describe the meditation of an arahant (SN 41.7:6.12). It seems that the Buddha relied on his mastery of this practice to focus attention away from the pain in his body.

thanks but this is not the one.   the word 'rest' is surely appearing...

I don't know what you read, was it a sutra not a sutta? e.g. the book Vivid Awareness uses the word "rest" frequently in the context of meditation -- chapter 11 begins with the question, "What is the main point of the resting meditation of the kusulu?" -- I presume that's a translation of a Tibetan word. Its Chapter 10, talking about meditation, started with the body and then "methods for resting the mind".

sure i really don't care anymore...

this quote from DN 16 is not about jhana

If one needs the word "rest" in the answer, note that there are many references to "restless" throughout the suttas, in the absence of which one would presumably be well rested. Restlessness and Jhana are incompatible.

MN43:20.3: When a mendicant has entered the first absorption, sensual desire, ill will, dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt are given up.


text:
What are the boundaries of existence and non-existence in Buddhism?
We find plenty of similar discussions in the Theravada tradition, cf. (for example) kv6.1 or kv5.5
kv5.5 https://suttacentral.net/kv5.5/en/aung-rhysdavids?lang=en
In my answer to the following question What is the meaning of 'compounded' & 'uncompounded'? I mention in passing that (fantasy) hobbits are non-existents.  Why? Because they are not subject to cause and effect, because they do not momentarily disintegrate, and because they leave no trace on the world. 'Unreal' and 'non-existent', to me, are synonyms.
This leads onto a thread of comments discussing the putative existence of hobbits, hypotheticals, and whether or not one can distinguish the existence of hobbits from, for example, chairs.
My grounding in this is presentation of the divisions of the selfless in as found in volume three of Jam-yang-shay-pa’s (1648-1721) "Great Exposition of Tenets" (there is a commentary on this in Chapter 1 of Hopkins "Meditation on Emptiness"). While the text itself is a Mahayana text rooted in Madhyamaka, volume three enumerates some important aspects of Buddhist reality, primarily following Abhidharma stemming from the Sarvāstivāda.
What do we find?  The first is the division into that which is (skt: sat), and that which is not (skt: asat).  The word that describes this dichotomy is 'reality' or 'truth', or 'existence' (skt: satya, pali: sacca) - but 'existence' here is not to be confused with 'bhava' - because permanents (Pali: nicca) are sat, while nicca are not bhava (Bhava are things - compounded, while nicca are absences, and are uncompounded. Both nicca (as absences) and things can be found, therefore they are 'sat'). If we deny nicca, then we deny cessations - if we deny cessations, we have denied the third noble truth.
Classical examples of non-existents are a hare's horn, turtle hair, clothing made from turtle hair. Things like a reflection's laugh. Also, inherently existing phenomena, or a self-created god, or an omnipotent being, or permanent products, or souls.
So, the questions are:  Are fictional hobbits 'sat' or 'asat'?
Are hypotheticals 'sat' or 'asat'?  How about a chair, or an elephant?  What about the constant, π (pi)?
I might be wrong - and am happy to be corrected, but I would consider hypotheticals, hobbits, constants, abstract objects (platonic abstracts) to be asat. Why? Because they are fabrications, narratives, stories - the stories they belong to are sat, and the stories themselves can instruct and inform us, but the objects in those stories are asat : they do not exist, they are not true, they are not real.
If we allow for hobbits to exist, and if our rationale for such allowance similarly pervades all non-existents then we must also allow for omnipotent, self-created gods to exist, and souls. If we do that, then we cannot differentiate between what is a noble truth and what is not, and Dharma no longer holds truth, but is merely another story.
Non-existent things, being unreal, they are both selfless, and are uncompounded. Being uncompounded they are neither able to create causes nor suffer them: They are not dependent arisings (as they are not subject to cause and effect) but they are dependent designations.
Am I wrong?  How so?
Addendum -
My question is concerned with conventional truths. I'm not attempting to establish or discuss objective/intrinisc truths.

If we allow for (fantasy) hobbits and  if such rationale similarly pervades all non-existents, then we must allow for souls (because our reasons for how hobbits can exist do not exclude how souls can exist).

If we have allowed for souls, we do not have
the three marks of existence. Because: anatta

If we do not have the three marks, we
do not have insight into anattā / anātman

If we do not have insight
then we do not have the three higher trainings (tisikkhā/triśikṣā).

Without the three
higher trainings there is no noble truth of the path.

Without the
truth of the path there is no Buddha dharma.

Without Buddha dharma
there is no refuge, nor is there the awakening of enlightenment.

(amended in light of a good point made by Yeshe Tenley below)

@blue_ego, please put your views in as an answer, rather than a comment. I do not understand a single sentence: I am happy to understand, but I believe you need to expand on your position to provide clarity: Pls explain the distinctions between sacca, nicca, bhava.

is the question Buddhism? are sat & asat found in Buddhism, including in Mahayana? Or is sat & asat from the Brahmanism Veda?

Satta/Satya is indeed found in Buddhism - both Theravada and Mahayana. How centrally? Well, the (four) noble truths are a good example: Aryasatya in Sanskrit - ariyasatta in Pali.  Sat / asat is truth and non-truth. How could such things not be found - unless you consider Buddhism cannot distinguish between truth and falsity.

There's an issue here over the distinction between 'existence' and 'the knowledge of existence': i.e., objects vs mental objects. I mean, assume there's a cow standing in a field under the sky. Does the cow know that it's a cow, or that this is a field, or that that's the sky? Does the cow have mental objects? And if not, to what extent do these 'real' objects exist (as opposed to being, say, a singular cow-field-sky experiential thing)?
Hobbits, unicorns, turtle hair, etc., all exist as mental objects. As mental objects they are dependent arisings, and they are both causes and effects. They may not have a 'real' reference (whatever you decide that means), but they are talked about, speculated on, argued over, worked into feature films, and all that. Doubtless there are people for whom hobbits are more 'real' than actual living people from other countries...
The work here isn't to figure out which mental objects are 'real' and which aren't. The work is to recognize that no mental objects are 'real', and that we should be compassionate and circumspect about our attachments to them.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here.

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is based upon a duality: existence and non-existence.
...
'Everything exists': Kaccayana, this is one extreme. ‘Nothing exists’: this is the second extreme. Kaccayana, without approaching either of these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches Dhamma by the middle.
(SN 12.15)

The way I understand this is, the categories such as existence and non-existence are abstractions, and as such they try to describe and categorize the world in broad terms.
As with all abstractions though, when you zoom in, you see a bunch of extra details that don't fit simplistic categorization.
So when it comes to hobbits and other fantasies, and even natural phenomena such as e.g. "the horizon" or "a rainbow" - they satisfy some definitions of existence but not others — illusions exist as phenomena but "not in the way they appear" (a fairly standard Mahayana assertion, see e.g. Vasubandhu's commentary on Madhyantavibhaga), hobbits exist as representations in our minds while we're discussing them, and so on. This is to say that existence and non-existence are leaking abstractions. As with all abstractions, this may be a useful analytical tool when used appropriately, or it may be a source of dukkha if we get too hung up on it.
I am familiar with a standard Mahayana line of reasoning that differentiates between types of non-existence such as e.g. non-substantial-existence of rainbows and selves vs. "stronger" non-existence of turtle hair scarfs. The point is to highlight the difference between Emptiness and mere absence.
Then there is the "pragmatic" camp of Karma Kagyu that says, in the words of late Thrangu Rinpoche , that it's not as important whether this chair really exists or not, but our attitude towards the chair. Are we attached to this chair? Do we hate this chair? Do we think we are the chair? Are we free from this chair? That's what really matters in practice, not whether it exists or not - they say in Karma Kagyu, and I don't disagree.
And yet for me it goes still deeper than that. In my view, the arguments about semantics and hair-splitting definitions of various types of existence and non-existence of selves, rainbows, hobbits etc., make this a perfect case-study of Emptiness of phenomena at large. The issue is not with exhaustively identifying all types of existence and non-existence and giving them precise definitions. The issue is with phenomena themselves. They are not delineated ontologically, their delineation is part of the process of perception. Reality is an interpretation we make and delineating phenomena is a part of interpretation. Existence and non-existence (and everything in-between) are secondary to delineation.
When we say phenomena are empty (of svabhava aka intrinsic existence), we mean phenomena are perspective-dependent. When we clearly see that phenomena (including the mental phenomena such as the concepts!) are perspective-dependent, how can we seriously argue about existence and non-existence!

The "world" in SN 12.15 is related to this question: What is world (loka) in SN 12.44? Why is it called "world"?

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here.

you said:  illusions exist as phenomena but "not in the way they appear". isn't it the opposite? only in the way they appear?

That's a standard phrase from the Mahayana texts, it means their actual  existence does not match their appearance. Whether I said it correctly or not (but I think I did?) that's what it means.

I see what you are saying but what the texts mean is that rainbow's ontological nature (the drops of water hanging in the air, illuminated by the sun at certain angle to the observer) is not at all in sync with its appearance. There's no arc in the sky at all, it only looks like that to an observer.

Similarly, the ontological nature of a self is the accumulated impressions and cyclic causal loops, giving rise to memory, recognition, categorization, impulsive reaction, and step by step behavior. There's no central agent there sitting inside the head seeing everything and making all decisions, but it does certainly seem so to an observer, just like with the rainbow.

It's not as superficial as "rainbows are bad", it's just an example of how illusions work. The point is, most or all phenomena are illusions to some degree, they look a certain way superficially but actually they are not like that. So it's not that rainbows and selves are bad, everything is bad when you assume your superficial impression is reality.

it is not a matter of boundaries, but a question of true or false. sabbe sankhara anicca means all conditioned things are transient, everchanging, impermanent, so from an ontological point of view illusory or non-existent. so only Nibbana, the Unconditioned, Asankhata is constant, always the same and eternal, meaning ontologically real and existent.

so you are saying existence is dependent on permanence (nirvana)?

ontologically speaking, existence is independent. if you meant  whether existence has the same meaning as permanence , the answer is yes, it does.

if the purpose of your approach is relativistic intellectual entertainment, it should stop. it is neither in accordance with the buddhist doctrine nor is it useful. if you are interested in understanding the terminology, please read the answer again carefully since it is self-explanatory. to also clarify the questions, yes, nibbana is eternal and no, there is no I or self that exists

no, it's not like that. i just think your answer is subjective

@john-doe, while I agree with the sentiment, you have not clarified the unconditioned. have you considered cessations, or even mere absences?  Also you do not seem to distinguish between tathata (natural state) vs nibbana (cessation of suffering).

... and let us be clear - none of this is purposed by intellectual entertainment. If Lord Buddha says something, it's good to understand it.  When you tell me "all conditioned things .." then you have split things into those which are conditioned vs. those which are not.  Do you consider, for a moment, that such a division is for the purpose of intellectual entertainment?  So please do not suggest that of me.  If you say only Nibbana is the latter, then I ask you - explain to me the other cessations - how are they conditioned? How is a mere absence impermanent or absence even a product?

So, the questions are: Are fictional hobbits 'sat' or 'asat'?
I don't know what the Mahayana canon might say.
I think that according to the philosophy of modern science, a theory or statement is "true" if it is useful, a description of observations, and perhaps predictive -- including for example "Darwin's theory of evolution", "Newton's law of gravitation", "Einstein's relativity"; and "germ theory" in medicine, etc.
I find the Four Noble Truths to be excellent in this way -- useful and predictive and a good description of what I observe.
Following from this, I question, what is the "usefulness" of "a hobbit"? I think its use is to act as the narrative perspective:

Narrative perspective is the vantage point from which events of a story are filtered and then relayed to the audience.

The story begins with the Shire which is a place and society not very unlike England at the time, perhaps the reader would find it familiar and relate to that. The hobbits -- and therefore the reader -- gradually meet other characters and plot points, e.g. the wizard and other adventures.
So I guess that hobbits are true and useful within the context of the story.
The fact that that is only in a certain context (i.e. "within the story") isn't wholly bad -- e.g. Newton's laws too for example are only useful in a certain context, i.e. when you care to be solving that kind of problem, and even then not at "relativistic" speeds or "quantum" sizes.
Maybe whether it's useful (or true) isn't an inherent property of the thing.
Part of the genius of Buddhism is its formulation of a value system, i.e. that what's valuable is to reduce or end the suffering of sentient beings (and so to encourage good qualities and not bad).
Are hypotheticals 'sat' or 'asat'?
Perhaps "it depends" on how useful they are -- or how moral.
Consider "Russel's teapot" for example -- it's a hypothetical teapot but not IMO very useful, at best it's used to explain "falsifiability" which I find a dry subject (but I've never been taught philosophy).
Conversely consider a hypothetical crime or misdeed, or good deed -- and whether it would be for better or for worse if it were put into practice -- those may be a relatively useful hypotheticals, doctrine, guidelines, if it informs every-day morality and skilfulness. Or is that not so?
But maybe what's "true" in the latter case -- by analogy with the scientific "laws" or "theories" listed earlier -- is the moral law or law of consequences.

Again, If we allow for hobbits then we must allow for souls (because your reasons for how hobbit exist do not exclude how souls can exist) - if we have not excluded souls, we do not have the three marks of existence. If we do not have the three marks, we do not have insight into the three marks. If we do not have insight then we do not have the three higher trainings. Without the three higher trainings there is no noble truth of the path. Without the truth of the path there is no Buddha dharma. Without Buddha dharma there is no refuge, nor is there the awakening of enlightenment.

Because I'm saying that hobbits exist as a narrative device and within a work of fiction?

I point out above that fictional narratives are existents, but the contents of such narratives are non-existents.  Are you saying that "non-existents exist as non-existents?" - is this a synonym for "non-existents are non-existents", or do you imagine that non-existents have an existent ontological status? Remember, we are talking about the referent of our perception.  Again, if you establish the existence of such hobbits, then a book that talks about souls and creator gods - even in fiction - establishes the existence of souls and creator gods.

Needless to say, and I say above, narratives with fictions can inform us. Through myth, metaphor, analogy, analogue - we can be informed or inspired.  But it isn't the objects themselves (eg, Bilbo Baggins) who is informing and inspiring us!

Again, 'narrative device' doesn't determine the existence of Bilbo Baggins, and certainly doesn't define him.  He is a hobbit who lives in the shire.  He doesn't say to himself 'I am a narrative device'.  The nature of being a narrative device belongs to the narrative, not to the fictional entity.

Also - and I do apologise for banging on about this – but I believe you do recognise that Bilbo Baggins isn't real. For instance, if someone offered to sell you (at an exorbitant price) a letter handwritten by Bilbo himself - you would suspect a con.  Within Buddhism, I believe this absence of being (conventionally) real is all that is meant by 'non-existent'.

Using conventional English I'd say that a hobbit "doesn't really exist" -- I understand the word "really" to mean, etymologically, "in a thing-like or tangible way" (though I believe the Latin word "re" was also used for money).

also what does being real have to do with reality in-and-of-itself? https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/47194/what-is-the-difference-between-to-exist-vs-to-be-real

And, all I am saying is that, conventionally, and using normal English I'd say that if X "doesn't really exist"  then it is a non-existent.  If that is not the case, then we have to introduce specialised terminology which, I believe misses the point of the experiential nature of our practice.

@blue_ego Are you talking about a fictional character "taking on a life of their own" in the mind of the author, maybe like in a dream? A character's saying (i.e. an author writing) such a thing would be "breaking the  fourth wall". Or Wikipedia mentions "post-modern" literature and "metafiction", which I've never read. The LotR and The Hobbit are famous and popular, I suppose they'd be less so (less widely read) if the author had written them other than as he did.

But seriously @Konchog is right...a real forest is not going to ooze out of a hobbit forest, even I know that. Let’s get with what is real before it’s already too late

"If we allow for hobbits to exist, then we must also allow for omnipotent, self-created gods to exist, and souls."
I think this assertion is wrong in the context you assert in your addendum: conventional truth.
Your quote at the start of this answer is analogous to saying that if people mistakenly believe hobbits to exist conventionally, then they have to accept that souls truly exist or something. I don't think that is the case at all.
If someone mistakes a rope (conventionally existent thing) to be a snake on a moonlit night (conventionally non-existent thing eg a snake doesn't actually exist at all in that place where the rope is... much in the way a hobbit doesn't exist), that doesn't obligate them to accept that souls truly exist. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
UPDATE:
Your new claim still seems faulty:
“ If we allow for (fantasy) hobbits and if such rationale similarly pervades all non-existents, then we must allow for souls (because our reasons for how hobbits can exist do not exclude how souls can exist).”
I am guessing you wish to claim that a person believing that hobbits exist (from mistaken evidence… ie, they saw a small person with big feet and assumed they were looking at a hobbit) would be forced to conclude that souls exist. But this does not follow. Someone could mistakenly believe hobbits to exist, but still disbelieve that souls exist. The opposite is also possible: believing souls exist, but not hobbits.

Okay - as far as it goes. However, imagine (as below) that someone says that the means of non-existence is only perception, then it follows that souls and hobbits are as possible as each other.  Hobbits are not real - neither are souls. This is true of them both conventionally and ultimately. But I can imagine that hobbits could exist whereas souls cannot. So we must explain how one cannot exist whereas the other might.

Reading your response more closely, it must be understood that a hobbit is similar to the horn of a hare. It is something that does not exist.  As you are clearly familiar with my background, replace ‘hobbit’ with ‘horn of a hare’.: If we accept that a horn of a hare exists in any way, then we must allow for souls.  In madhyamaka neither are real (or exist) in conventionally or ultimately.

You are confusing. First you say an  important point is that hobbits could exist, but then say actually they are like the son of a barren woman: an impossible mode of existence. I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

I agree that I might be confusing - but I do not intend it.   I ask that we think for ourselves - based on that which guides us.  The classic "son of a barren woman" is an impossible, and a non-existent.  But a hare could have evolved to have horns but did not, so is non-existent.  The distinction is that one (the hare) could arise out of the appropriate causes and conditions whereas the other (the son) could not. Both are non-existents - but one is non-existent through reason, and the other is non-existent from evidence. Insight depends upon reason, not evidence.

So, in this way I agree.  However, if the mode of non-existence (as might be claimed in some buddhist schools) does not recognise the distinction (non-existent through reason vs non-existent from evidence) then they might imagine that the self exists, but just has not been found.  Secondly, if they believe that a hobbit exists due to being a narrative (see other answers here), then a soul must likewise exist (as there are plenty of narratives which include souls) despite it being impossible through reason.

The argument must be seen in the context of the opponents claim.  If someone reasons that the snake of the mistaken rope exists as a narrative device (thereby establishing the snake), then they must admit that the objects of any narrative likewise exist (as this is the reasoning for the snake's existence) and that includes the impossible, such as a soul.

The 1st criterion for conventional existence: "if it is known to a conventional consciousness"  is a statement of evidence.
The 3rd criterion for conventional existence: "if reason that accurately analyses reality (that is whether something inherently exists) does not contradict it".  is a statement of reason.

In the comment starting "So, in this way..", we could argue the conclusion does not follow the premise when I say: ...does not recognise the distinction (reason vs evidence) then they might imagine that the self exists, but just has not been found.  ,  - but what I was trying to say here is that if one does not distinguish between reason and evidence, then one might suppose evidence is enough to establish insight, and this is not correct. Why? Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Any reasoning that cannot distinguish the non-existence of the hare from the non-existence of the son will, as a consequence, not be able to distinguish the non-existence of a hare from the non-existence of a soul.  If the reasoning for the non-existence of the soul follows the same reasoning as for the non-existence of the son; and if one subsequently reasons that the son might exist in some manner then it follows (due to same reasoning) that the reasoning for the non-existence of the soul has been similarly damaged, and therefore the soul is now similarly allowable.

But I definitely agree that I was not explicit in my question.  I have accordingly adjusted it, in a less convoluted way "If we allow for hobbits to exist, and if our rationale for such allowance similarly pervades all non-existents then we must also allow for omnipotent, self-created gods to exist, and souls"

what do u have against the son?  ppl like u make a second coming necessary...no phun intented

reason requires evidence...no a priori...i just explained u...all things spring out of non-existence. non-existence does not exist. it is unreal. the boundary is up against the imaginary

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

(my further responses are moved to the chat opened by @blue_ego)

In Pali, there is the word 'atthi', which means 'exists'. At times, 'atthi', such as in 'atthita' in SN 12.15, refers to a wrong view. At other times, 'atthi' refers to absolutely existing things, such as:

Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṁ... Esevanto dukkhassā.
There exists, monks, that dimension... the end of suffering

Ud 8.1
“Well, is there no such thing as suffering?”
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, natthi dukkhan’ti?
“It’s not that there’s no such thing as suffering.
‘Na kho, kassapa, natthi dukkhaṁ.
Suffering exists.”
Atthi kho, kassapa, dukkhan’ti.
SN 12.17

This is useful.

To my understanding, the Buddha discouraged such philosophical speculation on the nature, origin etc. of the physical world. He preferred to focus on the goal, which is the ending of suffering.

There the Buddha addressed the mendicants:
“Once upon a time, mendicants, a certain person left Rājagaha,
thinking ‘I’ll speculate about the world.’ They went to the Sumāgadhā
lotus pond and sat down on the bank speculating about the world. Then
that person saw an army of four divisions enter a lotus stalk. When he
saw this he thought, ‘I’ve gone mad, really, I’ve lost my mind! I’m
seeing things that don’t exist in the world.’
Then that person entered the city and informed a large crowd, ‘I’ve
gone mad, really, I’ve lost my mind! I’m seeing things that don’t
exist in the world.’
‘But how is it that you’re mad? How have you lost your mind? And what
have you seen that doesn’t exist in the world?’
‘Sirs, I left Rājagaha, thinking “I’ll speculate about the world.” I
went to the Sumāgadhā lotus pond and sat down on the bank speculating
about the world. Then I saw an army of four divisions enter a lotus
stalk. That’s why I’m mad, that’s why I’ve lost my mind. And that’s
what I’ve seen that doesn’t exist in the world.’
‘Well, mister, you’re definitely mad, you’ve definitely lost your
mind. And you’re seeing things that don’t exist in the world.’
But what that person saw was in fact real, not unreal. Once upon a
time, a battle was fought between the gods and the demons. In that
battle the gods won and the demons lost. The defeated and terrified
demons entered the citadel of the demons through the lotus stalk only
to confuse the gods.
So mendicants, don’t speculate about the world. For example: the
cosmos is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul
and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after
death, a Realized One still exists, or no longer exists, or both still
exists and no longer exists, or neither still exists nor no longer
exists. Why is that? Because those thoughts aren’t beneficial or
relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to
disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and
extinguishment.
When you think something up, you should think: ‘This is suffering’ …
‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of
suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of
suffering’. Why is that? Because those thoughts are beneficial and
relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They lead to
disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and
extinguishment.
That’s why you should practice meditation …”
SN 56.41

I agree with the sentiment - but consider it inapplicable to the context: Buddha taught against being false: He recognised false view: ergo we can differentiate between false and true. Buddha talked of cessations - ergo we can talk of cessations. I’m not involved in determining an ontology or even metaphysics - but when Buddha says ‘it is uncompunded’ we need to understand what that means. Right view involves determination of right and wrong.  The context is not the world but the Dharma.

kv5.5 Andhaka: You admit that there is such a thing as spiritual or supramundane discernment; is that not analytic?
Theravādin: That I do not deny

The middle ground on which buddha rest is in paticca samuppada. which itself is in between existence and phenomena.
Most people wrongly interpret 'anatta' to sanskrit anatman. and this is historical mistake. but I never find any words uttered by buddha to deny existence or to be specific deny soul.
If you closely study buddhas teaching. Soul is referred every where.
But its called dukkha.
Whole teaching of buddha is revolving around dukkha. And in fact dukkha means soul. Nothing else.
Ok if you skeptical. There is other name.its called 5 aggregates. And buddha frequently says 5 grasping aggregate is dukkha.
In other traditions(hindu/Christian/islam) soul is called source of knowledge. Thats exactly 5 grasping aggregates..
Or in simple word its memory that participate in building perception/saññā
Memory = soul = dukkha.
And soul exist until you are arhat/ buddha.
we all exist. we all stay connected to soul(5 grasping aggregates) until we reach arhat stage.
Only arhat is free from soul/dukkha/grasping-aggregates. so no more rebirth.
---- NOTE ----
Thanks all for all your concern. I know this seems bit away from buddhas teaching . but trust me its not.  I request all not to , downvote this answer( let it be at -3) and let it be here as some food for thought for every one.

I find your claims surprising and unlikely.  You say "in other traditions" but do not define your own.  Not only that, but you do not show any text that backs your claim. In Buddhism, the term anattā  (Pali) and it's Sanskrit cognate anātman refers to the truth of "non-self" or selflessness – the complete lack of any intrinsic nature or essence of any phenomenon, the absence of which is obscured by ignorance, the effect of which is that we are bound to suffering and it's causes.

Equating soul to dukkha is something new. Do you have a reference? Note: the 5 aggregates (or khandhas) in and of themselves are not dukkha, its the clinging part that causes dukkha. Clinging to the khandhas (i.e. attraction) is the burden and the goal is to put this burden down, (Bhara Sutta, SN 22.22). Attraction to forms (bodies), feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness can be observed, recognized and perhaps measured.

Attraction to soul can this be observed, recognized and measured? Show pictures of young faces versus old haggard faces, people prefer the youthful pictures (forms). Show a sad face, people can usually tells it apart from a happy face (feelings). People knows when they are sleep deprived (dull consciousness) vs when they are fresh and energetic and definitely prefer the latter to the former state.

Attraction to memory is questionable, good memories perhaps but bad memories? I strongly suggest not injecting new elements until the existing framework is well understood.

@enraiser, The sutta Anatta-lakkhana-sutta SN 22.59 is a very early discourse on anatta.  In the first few lines he says that the five aggregates is not self. "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. [...] Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self [...] Bhikkhus, perception is not-self [...] Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self [...]  Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self."

Thanks all for all your concern. I know this seems bit away from buddhas teaching . but its not. trust me.  I reqest all not to , downvote this answer and let it be here as some food for thought for every one.

@enRaiser, As I see it, in Buddhism, that there is very little 'trust' involved:  In order to gain faith, it requires us to know it for ourselves.  Buddha says: Kalama Sutta AN 3.65 "Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions,[...]. Know for yourselves..."
You do not provide sources. You do not provide reasons. You do not try to persuade. You just say 'this is such-and-such. trust me'.  But where is the basis for your trust?  You are just another a stranger saying strange things.


text:
Basic abridged suttas in English and only English for chanting along with TTS
I can't find concise suttas in English anywhere. I found them before Google and Bing changed so that you can't find anything.
By basic I mean all the suttas that you would hear at a meditation retreat or an extended retreat of 3 years. They don't have to be abridged. I just find short suttas more chantable. I like to understand them. I think maybe uderstanding the suttas as you chant them is just crazy enough to work.
Just the English unless...
Well, playing each Pali sentence with the English just throws me off unless the English is aligned with the Pali in such a way as to sound grammatically incorrect but understandable. That for me helps me understand the Pali because the English words are flowing in the same order as the Pali words.
Any help would be much appreciated, thank you.

Please refer to "A Chanting Guide" by The Dhammayut Order in the USA.
I think it has everything that you asked for, including Pali and English translation.
Some of it has been made more concise.
For e.g. the Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection.
You can play the audio (using the  button on the left of the title). The audio includes chanting in both Pali and English.
The page includes Pali and English translation.
This is the concise version of AN 5.57.

That's the best one so far. I think it has its own tts with the Pali but the English words don't appear to align word for word with the Pali. Not that an alignment like that could be perfectly aligned all the time. I didn't mean aligned by sentence but by each word that might be sometimes impossible but this is pretty good. Maybe there is a way to format if you want to hear the Pali or the English first or last or at all and just leave one or the other language. Thanks

Yeah maybe the word for word thing was too much to hope for. It looks like it does do some different formatting. Thank you


text:
Ajahn Tong has deviated from the main point of Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation technique?
I have heard the claim that Ajahn Tong deviated from the main point of Mahasi Sayadaw's meditation technique and he taught it as a concentration technique. I don't understand how that could be. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu isn't teaching concentration meditation and he is Ajahn Tong's student. Does anyone know why anyone would make this claim? As I understand, Ajahn Tong was pretty strict about not practicing just concentration meditation.

" Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu isn't teaching concentration meditation" I Think you have this wrong, Yuttadhammo does not teach SAMATHA, tranquil meditation. His technique is solely focused on satipathana/vipassana.

I know that. But that is the claim. Can you believe it? Some people are going around thinking Ajahn Tong is teaching concentration. It blows my mind how anyone could think that.

He IS teaching concentration meditation, sattipathanna and vipassana. Satipathanna is concentration, vipassana insight/wisdom.

I agree with you but the claim is or the implication is that Ajahn Tong deviated from Satipathanna to teach concentration only, he didn't teach enough Satipathana  or something like that. I don't really know exactly what they mean, that is why I am asking. I saw someone in a Vipassana forum state this but that forum is closed. Then I saw the same critique elsewhere too. I was blown away that people could think that. How could they possibly come to that conclusion? That is the opposite of reality.

@Remyla Perhaps you meant Samatha? Satipathana is not a concentration meditation, the term is often used interchangeably with Vipassana. Satipatthana Sutta was the foundation of all Burmese "Vipassana" teachers, including Mahasi Sayadaw.
By the way he style that Mahasi was teaching also developed concentration to an extent, because his main meditation object was rising and falling of abdomen, which naturally leads to concentration. Hence Vipassana Jhanas that eg U Pandita (another Mahasi student) was talking about.


text:
Practical question - Meal prepping and Diet ideas for a lay buddhist
I have been thinking to simplify my diet. The reasons are two-fold, first off, one, that I don't have to think about food, which automatically avoids getting entangled in cravings and aversions towards taste. The second being that it will be healthier for me and probably also cheaper. So I was thinking of some possible recipes for meal prepping which are both Healthy and easy to prep. I would like to eat that on a regular basis, and hopefully be done with this ever-present hassle of being concerned about food and focus on meditation/study instead. Needless to say, taste doesn't matter much but not extremely bland would be preferred.
As of now I jsut came up with these options : 1) Brown rice+ frozen vegetables+nuts 2) sweet potatoes and rice-beans. 3) Tofu- vegetables-beans ( I am a noob when it comes to cooking ).
So I was wondering if you guys have any great ideas on easy meal prepping or on eating/food in general for lay buddhists.

I'm considering whether this question is off-topic. How is this related to Buddhist philosophy, teaching and practice?

definitely practical tips on diet are very helpful for practice. Unless the volume on this forum is so high, I wouldn't get so nitpicky on what is acceptable for topics.

some easy quick dishes I make here:
https://lucid24.org/misc/qigor/recipes/index.html
my main staple, is I get a bunch of fresh organic veggies, rotating some veggies in and out according to season and for nutritional diversification, something like this:
carrots, cabbage, onions, garlic, tempeh or tofu, beets.
I use a food processor, completely grind them all up mixed together with some spices, salt, apple cider vinegar.
Then I freeze it.
I make about one to two weeks worth at a time, stored in a freezer.
ONe meal portion I put in the refrigerator 1 to 2 days before I plan to eat it.
In a pressure cooker, it takes just 10 minutes to cook. (plus another 3-5 minutes with stove turned off let pressure cooker heat it up some more).
I'll usually throw in one or two uncooked eggs in the pressure cooker.
I keep a separate batch of already cooked brown rice, or qinoa in the refrigerator.
Or, I can throw in whole wheat spaghetti to the pressure cooker.
I don't think it's possible to spend any less time to prepare, eat, and wash dishes for this very nutritionally diverse meal.

this is helpful, thanks!

I eat in a similar way.

Every few days, I cook a pot of brown rice (3 measuring cups of raw uncooked rice). Add some salt & rice bran oil or olive oil. Once the brown rice cools from cooking, I put it in the fridge. Each meal, morning & lunch, includes one measured cup of cooked brown rice. I just eat the rice cold, even though for lunch I often warm it up by adding it to the fry pan, although this is not really necessary.

To each of these meals is added lots of vegetable. I have a gas stove and I simply use a streamer. Each day, I simply steam my cut or whole vegetables. Sweet potatoes or zucchini or carrots are steamed whole. Cabbage or silver beet must be cut.

When Covid happened, often vegetables became expensive or unavailable, therefore for the first time, I purchased frozen vegetables. I became particularly impressed with frozen string beans & frozen brussels sprouts; also frozen broad beans. I am not such a fan of frozen broccoli & frozen cauliflower however will purchase them if desperate. Fresh carrots are always cheap & long lasting. Yes, frozen vegetables are inexpensive & very easy to prepare in the streamer (broad beans or frozen peas must be boiled).

In the mornings, I will either include 100% tinned beans (black beans, adzuki beans or chick peas; no salt; no sugar; can buy cheap organic brand) or eggs (either boiled in the vegetable steamer or fried). Again, eggs boiled in the water that is steaming the vegetables is simple & easy. When eating beans, I add either some cashews or almonds, plus brazil nuts (x 4) and unhulled tahini. No need to eat too many nuts, just a handful, even though they are tempting.

While some Buddhists disapprove, for lunch I fry either fish or kangaroo meat. Previously, for around 30 years, I ate mostly vegetarian, particularly tofu, however two years ago my blood tests became low in iron & other red blood cell counts. In Australia, millions of kangaroos must be culled each year, regardless of whether or not the meat is used for animal or human consumption. Basically, the kangaroos are pests to agriculture.

Very rarely, I will buy some cheese if it is on special. Cheese has become ridiculously expensive plus I am not sure how good it is for you. About five years ago, I cut cheese & many fruits out of my diet to lose weight. As you reach my age (50s), you can start to put on weight easily.

For fruit I eat avocado & papaya, guava if I can find it, because they have no fructose. Rock melon is low in fructose. Also strawberries are low in fructose but strawberries I read can accumulate pesticides. Lemons & limes also have no fructose but too many of these can rot your teeth. I also buy 3 bananas every 12 days, even though they have fructose. I was surprised to learn five years ago that most fruit contain lots of fructose and if you do not burn off the fructose via exercise it turns into fat.

For oils, I use coconut oil & rice bran oil for frying and olive oil & hemp oil to sprinkle onto food. Coconut oil is subject to debate but many naturopaths say it has a 'contra effect' in that it causes the body to burn up bad fats. Five years ago I had excessive bad cholesterol, low good cholesterol & high triglycerides. After including coconut oil and modifying my diet to remove cheese & most fruits plus reducing my brown rice (carbs) to one measured cup per meal, the triglycerides were destroyed & the good & bad cholesterol came into balance (the bad stays at the high limit) as a naturopath on YouTube said it would.

For spices, I have a pair of kitchen scissors. I just rough cut garlic, chili or green shallots and add it to the food bowl. Unless I am frying at lunch & add garlic & pepper to the fish, plus himalaya salt to the kangaroo, the garlic just goes into the food bowl raw. Its fine. My breath does not stink (even though the Vinaya prohibits monks from eating raw garlic).

For drinks, I only drink packaged coconut water & package purified water in non-plastic casks. No fruit juice, anymore. Never have drunk coffer or tea, unless someone makes me tea (but never coffee).

Thanks a lot for this answer. This is mostly what I am looking for

I wouldn't worry too much about diet being different from a Buddhist perspective. A healthy balanced diet like one would eat for purposes of keeping healthy is perfectly fine.
Though for mediation, it is quite important to not eat foods that are strong and pungent, as well as not to over eat. Stuff that will be a obstacle in meditation. Say for example a strong hot curry will be a distraction in meditation as your mouth and stomach will be burning and/or the spices flavours and smells will linger.
If you follow the guidelines of a sattvic diet staying away from Rajasic food, i.e "black" foods (not the colour black, but foods that are strong in lingering flavour, onions, spices etc) you can't really go wrong.
I think the adequate amount of food is about a point where your stomach is full say 60% with food, 30% water. This you can also decrease over time by shrinking your stomach, though there is no need to do this unless you intend to become ordained and take the only 1 meal before noon vow.
As for meat, well vegetarianism is not actually needed though I guess eating meat in moderation is a good idea. Morality wise, as long as the animal is not killed for you, you are ethically OK to eat the meat.

thanks, itd be good to keep in mind the 60-30 rule.

I find stir frys easy and fast to cook. Add some oil, add some onions and turn on the heat. When the onions are cooked, add the most fibrous vegetables and cook them. Continue to add vegetables that are less fibrous and cook those until you've cooked everything. Season and sauce how you like. Cut the vegetables of course.
There are also meal prep services where meals are shipped to you and all you need to do is cook.
And there are meal replacements like Soylent or Huel. I wouldn't do more than 1 to 2 meals of them a day.
Lastly, you may find a cookbook by Mark Bittman helpful. I don't have his ones on fast cooking, but the ones I do have are high quality.

Yes, actually chatgpt suggested that too, and I am gonna go with stir frys i think, with brown rice on the side.


text:
Misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words on karma
I have often seen the Anguttara Nikaya 4.77 being quoted as in this post against pondering on the precise workings of karma. My question: is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions.
My understanding on the Buddha’s caution on karma (in AN 4.77) is that we should not try to figure out its exact/precise/detailed workings if 1) we don’t have the tools (i.e. divine eye faculty or recollection of past lives) and 2) we don’t have the discernment or wisdom to see anicca and anatta in the process. The danger is that we may draw the wrong conclusion as was the case with certain mentioned recluse in Brahmajala sutta. But the Buddha did not prevent anyone from having a deep understanding of paticca-samuppada (dependent-arising or conditionality) which is the basis of karma. And through the insights on conditionality, have a deeper understanding of karma; why it works in general.
I believe a deeper understanding of karma is within our abilities as ordinary humans as we have the ability to observe, recall and analyse conditions and events in our lives. For example, if I am staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m. in the morning, unable to sleep and I tried to recall what I did to cause this, I may then remember giving in to temptation and drinking a nice cup of coffee after dinner. So, there was an unskillful craving involving certain pleasure and a bad consequence. This is observing karma-in-action and anyone can do it. Incidentally, I have friends who claimed to be able to drink coffee or tea just before hitting the bed and still sleep like a log. One common theme is that they don’t experience the caffeine-high like I do. Although I always find it strange why people drink coffee if they don’t get any pleasures from it.
Whether we talk about karma or the other four niyamas, conditionality is their foundation. Millions of scientists, researchers and engineers all over the world are working hard daily, trying to tease out the conditioned causes that govern the phenomena of the world we lived in, from climate change to superconductivity. They are trying to harness their understanding to improve the lot of humanity. We should also deepen our understanding of karma for our own long-lasting well-being and happiness. If one is not in samsara, they need not bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice do we have? Surely, the Buddha understand this and would want us to have a better grasp of karma to improve our own lives.
Addendum:
Suppose we assume the Buddha intended for us to investigate the workings of karma through proper verification by keen observation, analysis and even experimenting on ourselves and not by mere speculation. Furthermore, if we assume this is possible because not all karmic fruits are from our or others’ past lives, many are the results of this life. Would we be doing an injustice to the Buddha by quoting him out-of-context with AN 4.77? Also, wouldn’t discouraging investigations into the workings of karma be totally inconsistent with the entire teachings of the Buddha?
If we postulate the above is correct, how can we quote AN 4.77 in the right context without giving the wrong impression that the Buddha discouraged investigating and understanding the workings of karma?

is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions Is this asking, "what is your understanding of these words and his intentions"?

@ChrisW Kind of. As I noticed answers quoting AN 4.77 use it as an argument not to ponder into the workings of karma. I am puzzled why would the Buddha discourage anyone from gaining a deeper understanding of karma when karma is so central to our well-being and happiness. Could this be a misunderstanding? Do you think we should or should not investigate into the workings of karma? What's the Buddha's intentions in AN 4.77 on karma?

It appears AN 4.77 is saying true understanding of the scope of Buddhas, the scope of jhana, the results of kamma &  the nature of the world is arrived at by direct realization and not arrived at by thinking/speculation (cintā). It appears the key word in AN 4.77 is 'cintā'. SN 56.41 is a detailed sutta explaining to not engage in 'cintā' about the world. SN 56.41 appears to conclusively explain what AN 4.77 is about.
Generally, on the internet, posts mentioning four suttas are best ignored, namely, AN 4.77, SN 12.15, SN 35.23 & SN 44.10. Here, generally, no one knows what they are posting/cintā about.

Thanks for the clarification, yes, thinking and speculating will not help in uncovering the truth. Some kind of verification is still needed similar to the approach of the scientific method.

cintā is worry.  not speculation. of course, when one worries, one speculates...

When AN 4.77 is read together with SN 36.21 (quoted below), it becomes clearer why one shouldn't speculate on the precise workings of the results of kamma.
The reason for this is that not everything that happens to us is caused by kamma.

“Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a
doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it
be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is
caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say
about this?”
“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders:
that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can
know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now
when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as
this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or
painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what
was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and
they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I
say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.
“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
… caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot
what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this
is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins. .....
Bile, phlegm, and also wind, Imbalance and climate too, Carelessness
and assault, With kamma result as the eighth.
SN 36.21

sorry your karma sucks but you cannot fix it b/c of america and and the like.
https://youtu.be/-nSMi0whFEA

Thanks for the video, I agree that it is hard to fathom the Buddha's mind. Traditionally, one gets closer to understanding the Buddha by understanding his teaching.
On another matter, is your account being hacked? Or perhaps, this is an attempt to transcend the ego by achieving negative reputation scores. Do let us know if it works.


text:
Justifications for why there are no mentions of Nirodha Samapatti in the earliest stratum of the Pali canon?
As the title states, there are no explicit references to Nirodha Samapatti in what is widely considered to be the earliest stratum of the Pali canon (which includes texts such as the Sutta Nipata, Atthakavagga, Parayanavagga, Itivuttaka, Udana). I'm interested to hear from those who consider Nirodha Samapatti to be a canonical teaching of the Buddha - why do you think there are no references to this attainment in the aforementioned texts?

There is no evidence the Sutta Nipata, Atthakavagga, Parayanavagga, Itivuttaka, Udana are earlier texts.
The Itivuttaka, Udana & many Sutta Nipata suttas (such as the Metta Sutta and Maha-Mangala Sutta) appear to be later texts.
The Atthakavagga & Parayanavagga of the Sutta Nipata were spoken to disciples of a Brahmin and contain very general simple teachings. Therefore, there was no need to mention nirodhi samapatti to these Brahmin students.
The older language used in the Sutta Nipata is similar to deciding to write poetry in Old English. The older language of the Atthakavagga & Parayanavagga is suitable for writing in verse (poetic style). Sujato has explained this many times.

I understand. So the main justification is that there is no evidence that these texts are earlier than the others. Thank you