text:
Meditation question
When I meditate after maybe 30 minutes I notice a shift and the meditation feels like suddenly not as much or no effort is required. It’s a nice calm feeling. Thoughts are almost non existent. Usually I just continue to sit and note whatever comes to my attention. Sometimes it’s boredom so I also note that. Is there something else I need to do to deepen the meditation further or should I just keep noticing and letting go?

perfect. Keep going.

Just keep noticing and letting go. The only primary task in Buddhist meditation is giving up craving, i.e., letting go.

Just to build on Dhamma Dhatu's answer - what he's describing is absolutely correct.  Practically speaking, however, such simplicity is an advanced technique which you might not be able to implement fully until you've been practicing for a few years.  For now, certainly continue to let go.  But I'd be especially mindful of instability in both body and mind.  For example, you shouldn't move at all for your entire session.   Likewise, you are going to find that your mind is pulled all over the place.  It may be helpful to anchor your attention on an object be it the breath or what have you.  You will still be letting go, but think of it in terms of letting go of anything that isn't your chosen object.  You aren't so much "concentrating" as you are keeping your mind in one place.  Mental stability, not laser point focus, is what you're after.
Another thing I'd advise is that after 20 or so minutes into your sit, really let your awareness fill your entire body.  This will probably result in feelings of tension or other strange sensations such as your body twisting, becoming larger, etc.  Just let those things happen.  Don't shift positions or try to fight them.  Over time, they will start to dissolve on their own.  You can also speed up the process a bit by relaxing into them or letting them wash over you.  Whatever you do, don't try to fight these sensations.
Lastly, if you really want to make progress, increase your sitting time.  30 minutes is just about how long it takes to "warm up" with samatha practice.  Your best "gains" come after about an hour and start to peak right about the 90 minute mark.

Thanks for the reply. I’ve had a very solid practice for over ten years now and been on half a dozen silent retreats. Currently I meditate minimum 3 hours a day. My question may have seemed like I’m a beginner and I guess in a way I do still feel that way.  I feel I’m understanding it a bit more than I used to though. My mind usually isn’t pulled around much at all now while sitting.  I tend to catch the thinking early before it proliferates. I’ll keep your advice in mind and try out what youve suggested.  With metta

In that case, one thing I will add is that just because thoughts have stopped proliferating, it does not necessarily mean that the mind has settled.  Gross, verbal thought we can say is suspended in the early stages of meditation.  After that, the mind (perhaps better described here as "attention") can still slip around.  It can also give rise to very ephemeral and wispy forms of thought.   There's two things going on here.  First, watch for these subtle shifts of attention.  I'll bet that there is still some movement.  Second, if you are still experiencing...

...wispy thoughts, that is also an indication that the entirety of the mind hasn't been subdued and "gathered together" (i.e. in samadhi).  Both instances can be brought under control by increasing your commitment to your object.  In Zen, we'd call this "particle after particle samadhi".  There should be not a single speck of your mind that is not committed to your object.  Think of attention like a string of beads.  Each and every mind moment should be seen clearly.  I think you'll find that by committing yourself to this, the resolution of your attention will increase and sits deepen.

Just sharing as I am also just a practitioner trying to improve my meditation.
I think the mindfulness quality is very important in our meditation practice. If you notice a shift to more stillness after 30 minutes, perhaps you can try to note the qualities/conditions of the mind that allow this stillness to settle in. Then try to get the mind into this state by actively giving rise to these qualities/conditions as early as possible in the meditation (if possible right from the start). Consider it an improvement if you can shift your mind into a state of stillness sooner in subsequent meditation session.
Mindfulness acts like an observer, it is an automatic quality that remembers our experience. We can use it to play back our meditation session. A mental nudge I rely on is to ask a question, “Is there something else that I can improve on in my meditation?”. We can do this before (to prepare the mind to settle down) and after the meditation (to review the areas for improvement). During the meditation, just give it our all to execute our plan of action.
I think this active process of reviewing is something that is also mentioned in the suttas e.g. MN111.

Known to him they arose, known to him they became established, known to him they subsided. He discerned, ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with unrestricted awareness. He discerned that ‘There is a further escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There is.’

Letting go requires us to know what qualities in the mind to abandon, merely abandoning without discerning what is good or bad would not, I think, be helpful in our meditation. We should let go of those qualities that give rise to stress and hinders the mind from entering into deeper concentration but keep those qualities that allows the mind to settle into deep concentration quickly. With Metta.

I think you should do little Samatha meditation before you start your normal meditation(type of Vipassana meditation).
That way you will have more deep Vipassana meditation.


text:
Are the meanings of conditions and combination the same?
Anything which is a result of combination can be called conditional.
But is the opposite also true ?
That is anything which is conditional must be a result of combination.
For example - If there is a feeling then there must be a craving. This is a condition with no combination. However if you look closely feeling alone can not result in craving unless you are aware of the path leading to fulfilment of the feeling again. Therefore feeling with path awareness leads to cravings. Cravings result from combination of feelings and path awareness.
Another example would be - If the weather is cloudy , it will rain. Cloud itself can not bring rain unless it reaches a specific density. Therefore cloud and density of cloud are a must for a rain.

For feeling & craving to occur in combination, there must also be the condition of ignorance. For example, when craving seeks fulfillment of a feeling, it is ignorance conditioning the craving. Or when feeling conditions craving, there must be ignorance acting with that feeling. For example, SN 22.81 says:

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is
felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication
is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated,
dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact...
That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?
I read the following in this answer:

Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation
context is rūpa-kāya by default.
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html

Snp 5.7 says, per Sujato translation:

“As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,”
“Accī yathā vātavegena khittā,
replied the Buddha,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
“comes to an end beyond reckoning;
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ;
so too, a sage freed from mental phenomena
Evaṁ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
comes to an end beyond reckoning.”
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”.
I ask the Sakyan about knowledge for them;
Ñāṇaṁ sakkānupucchāmi,
how should one like that be guided?”
kathaṁ neyyo tathāvidho”.

Snp 5.15 says, per Sujato translation:

said Venerable Posāla [to the Buddha],
(iccāyasmā posālo)
Consider one who perceives the disappearance of form,
Vibhūtarūpasaññissa,
who has entirely given up the body,
sabbakāyappahāyino;
and who sees nothing at all
Ajjhattañca bahiddhā ca,
internally and externally.
natthi kiñcīti passato;
.........
“Viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo sabbā,
said the Buddha,
(posālāti bhagavā)
“all the planes of consciousness.
Abhijānaṁ tathāgato;
And he knows this one who remains,
Tiṭṭhantamenaṁ jānāti,
committed to that as their final goal.
Vimuttaṁ tapparāyaṇaṁ.
Understanding that desire for rebirth [coming to be]
Ākiñcaññasambhavaṁ ñatvā,
in the dimension of nothingness is a fetter,
Nandī saṁyojanaṁ iti;

Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?

Kaya is also a Sanskrit word. It means Body.

explained right here clearly in the ref. you quoted in OP
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html
There's also the standard satipaṭṭhāna formula, with 4 frames.
First frame is kāya (physical body).
third frame is citta (mind).
If kāya is a joker wildcard where it can mean either physical body, or mind, or both collection of physical and mental, then there's no coherent unambiguous contrast with third frame citta.
The LBT (later buddhist teachings) redefined kāya to be either collection of mental factors, or physical body, according to their agenda to redefine 4 jhānas as a frozen disembodied stupor.
In EBT (early buddhist teachings),  the Buddha speaks plainly and unambiguously.
MN 125 alone clears up most jhāna controversies.
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn125/index.html#125.3.10.3
The Buddha explicitly equates satipatthana with first jhāna here.
This means kāya must be a physical body in first jhāna, and kāya anupassana of satipatṭhāna must be a physical body, because everyone agrees you can do kāya anupassana (body contemplation) in all 4 postures.
If you can hear sounds and think in satipatthāna with a physical body,
then you can hear sounds and think (with vitakka and vicāra) in first jhāna because MN 125 explicitly equates satipaṭṭhāna and first jhāna.
This is unequivocal, incontrovertible, and simple to see, for those who are not blinded by dogma and delusion.

edit, addition to comment that attainment of nothingness only has
perception of 'nothingness', and no other perception:

Try reading MN 111, AN 9.36. All 7 perception attainments (4 jhanas + first 3 formless) can realize nrivana WHILE in those attainments. But let me guess, you're either going to use faulty logic, or you're going to claim MN 111 and AN 9.36 are fake suttas. You know what's fake? Anyone who has an incoherent interpretation of Dhamma becuase they throw out half of the suttas that don't agree with their wrong views on Dhamma.

Thank you, I flagged this as "not an answer". I cannot discern how this relates to the question. The question is about Snp 5.7 & 15.

what is your problem? why do you just spam sutta passages with faulty analaysis, without even reading and understanding other interpretations?  I flag you as a Dhamma spammer who should be permanently banned. Half of your stuff is reasonable, the other half is blind dogmatism.

@DhammaDhatu The referenced (hyperlinked) page is about Snp 5.7 etc. and seems to contain an answer to the question you asked.

I tried to  read the blog. The blog said: "The quoted and highlighted Snp 5.15 passage is describing one entering the nothingness attainment, where the mind is separating from the body, but the mind is still percipient, aware of itself and its objects." This comment in the blog sounds wrong. In the sphere of nothingness there is only one  perception & experience, namely, "there is nothing".

Try reading MN 111, AN 9.36. All 7 perception attainments (4 jhanas + first 3 formless) can realize nrivana WHILE in those attainments. But let me guess, you're either going to use faulty logic, or you're going to claim MN 111 and AN 9.36 are fake suttas. You know what's fake? Anyone who has an incoherent interpretation of Dhamma becuase they throw out half of the suttas that don't agree with their wrong views on Dhamma.

I will offer a personal opinion about this however first provide a disclaimer: I do not regard the Pārāyanavagga as authoritative in Buddhism. The Pārāyanavagga are brief teachings or answers spoken to questions of non-Buddhist students of a certain Brahmin Guru.
In SN 5.7, the term 'nama-kaya' is found in the following exchange:

“He who is passionless regarding all sense pleasures, Upasīva,” said
the Gracious One, “who is depending on nothingness, having given up
all else, intent on the highest freedom which still has perception— he
will remain there without going away.”
“If he remains there without going away for a great number of years,
All-Seeing Visionary, will he become cool and free right there, or
will the consciousness of such a one fall away?”
“As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind, Upasīva,” said the
Gracious One, “goes to rest and can no longer be discerned, just so
the Sage free from the mental body goes to rest and can no longer be
discerned.”
“There is no measure (pamāṇamatthi) of the one who has come to rest, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One, “there is nothing by which they can speak of him, when everything has been completely removed, all the pathways for speech are also completely removed.”
Ānandajoti

The above verse is clearly about mental reckoning/mental description (pamāṇamatthi). This appears what 'nama-kaya' refers to.

pamāṇa    -   m   -   atthi    c
pamāṇa: measure; size; amount. (nt.)
atthi: to be; to exist. (as + a + ti)

SN 5.15 refers to kaya below in respect to nothingness. Note: the words 'rupa' & 'kaya' below are not spoken by the Buddha but, instead, spoken by the Brahmin student Posāla.

Consider one who perceives the disappearance of form (rupa), who has
entirely given up (pahāyin; pajahati) the body (kaya), and who sees
nothing at all

Now, to reach the sphere of nothingness (which the Buddha later mentions in his reply), we know many mental states must be given up, such as sensual desire, rapture, happiness, infinite consciousness & the like. Therefore, it seems 'rupa' above refers to physicality and 'kaya' above refers to the whole 'collection' of the aggregates, particularly the mental aggregates. Thus when "all kaya" is given up, all that remains is the perception of 'there is nothing'.
In summary, it seems Snp 5.7 & 15 do not prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default. Snp 5.7 & 15 are just brief verbal ramblings between some Brahmin students and the Buddha.

see my other anwers on this thread, which have been edited to address Dhamma Dhatu's wrong understanding of the formless attainments

SN 47.42 Body dependent on food, 4 satipaṭṭhāna context, showing that kāya is physical body in contrast to citta.
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2023/11/sn-4742-body-dependent-on-food-4.html
edit, addition:
  MN 10ma 0.10 - kāya rūpa is physical body
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn010/ma/index.html#0.10
Theravada root commentary to MN 10 satipatthana sutta, states the body in satipatthana context is referring to a physical body, of anatomical parts like hair.
Non-physical (mental) nutriments are obviously not going to sustain hair, heart, liver, etc.
Some of you other users are going to need to step up and start upvoting my answers. Otherwise I'm just going to stop wasting my time partcipating on this platform, when Dhamma Dhatu just downvotes every one of my carefully research and correct answers, and then either gets his friends or uses his numerous fake accounts to upvote his wrong answers.

There are four types of 'food' in the Buddha's teaching: physical, intention, contact & consciousness. Also, SN 47.42 is a fake teaching, similar to  MN 10 because it uses terminology improperly. Thanissaro makes a footnote about SN 47.42.

How many "real" suttas are in your incoherent Dhamma? How can you expect to have any common understanding of Buddhism when you arbitrarily pick suttas that support your wrong interpretation of Dhamma and throw out all the others? And why would you expect all other Buddhists to agree wit your set of fake and real suttas?

Some of you other users are going to need to step up and start upvoting my answers. Otherwise I'm just going to stop wasting my time partcipating on this platform, when Dhamma Dhatu just downvotes every one of my carefully research and correct answers, and then either gets his friends or uses his numerous fake accounts to upvote his wrong answers.

I've been reluctant to upvote answers like this one, not because they're wrong, but because I haven't studied this as much as you have, and so I don't "know for myself" whether they're good answers. I suppose the same is true for other expert-level answers on this site -- i.e. that they don't get many upvotes, because there aren't many experts on the site who are able to confirm (or correct) them. I do find it interesting to read the answers though, they expose me to aspects of Buddhist doctrine which I didn't even know existed.

I think it's true that DD often downvotes answers for reasons of his own. Whenever I see a downvote I read it as, "DhammaDhatu didn't like this!" Perhaps you can comfortably ignore any single downvote.

Fair point, on witholding upvoting things we're not sure about.

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


text:
Is it true that no phenomena can be ubiquitous?
Sabbe Sankhara Anicca means all conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
However , I was thinking whether any phenomena can be present everywhere even for a short span of time ?
In other words I think , no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous because it will give a sense of temporary Self.
One ubiquitous phenomena which comes to my mind is the presence of atom. Everything is made up of atoms except dark matter. Another ubiquitous phenomena is gravity. It seems to present everywhere.This is true for everything and everywhere.
Is it true that no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous?
And what will be the Pali or Sanskrit translation for “No conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous.”?
PS : I think Buddha didn’t say anything about it. However your thoughts are welcome. One reason I asked this question was because an ubiquitous phenomena gives at least a sense of temporary Self.

How about "space"? Because perhaps that's ubiquitous by definition.
But maybe that is, in some way, beyond the limit of consciousness -- see this answer

He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, etc.

An English dictionary definition of "phenomenon" is "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen" -- if you cannot be conscious of it all at once, that could imply that the observation (and therefore, what's "phenomenal") is in that sense never "ubiquitous".

The internet says:

ubiquitous
/juːˈbɪkwɪtəs/
adjective
present, appearing, or found everywhere.
"his ubiquitous influence was felt by all the family"

Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and
everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious
context as an attribute of a deity or supreme being, while the term
ubiquity is generally used to describe something "existing or being
everywhere at the same time, constantly encountered, widespread,
common". Ubiquitous is also used synonymously with other words,
including: worldwide, universal, global, pervasive, and all over the
place.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In SN 22.59, when referring to impermanent phenomena which are also not-self, the Buddha said:

bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or
present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct
wisdom thus

Something being ubiquitous, such  as atoms, or what the Buddha called 'the elements', does not change the fact of impermanence. There will come a time the Planet Earth ends. Therefore the atoms making up the Earth will end or change their form/structure.

My hypothesis is that nothing can be omnipresent or ubiquitous. Can you translate “no phenomena can be ubiquitous .”  in Pali ?


text:
What is meant by giving up the teachings?
Buddha says

So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a
joke.’ Tasmātiha te, rāhula, ‘hassāpi na musā bhaṇissāmī’ti

Dhamma as taught by Buddha is not a lie therefore one should not say things which contradict Buddha.
However Buddha in MN 22 asks to give up Dhamma.

By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the
teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo
pahātabbā pageva adhammā.

What is meant by giving up the teachings ? For example- How do you give up the teaching that Sabbbe Dhamma Anatta? or Sabbe Sankhara Anicca? or Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha?

Possible duplicate of Why did Buddha use the 'Raft Simile'?

However Buddha in MN 22 asks to give up Dhamma
Not "dhamma" but "dhammas". You quoted:

By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo pahātabbā pageva adhammā.

And Ven. Sujato's comment for that line says,

Dhammā in the plural refers back to “those teachings” (tesaṁ dhammānaṁ) of the nine categories. Accordingly, when this simile is invoked at MN 38:14.1, it is in reference to views. The pair dhamma and adhamma usually means “the teaching” and “against the teaching” (eg. AN 2.104). The negative form has a stronger sense than simply “not the teaching”; it implies there is something unnatural, in conflict with the way the world is.

Dhammā in that sentence is plural -- it ends with a long ā, see for example this reference:

Declension of masculine nouns in -a

Ven. Sujato translates that as "the teachings".
The Buddha-Dhamma as a whole is normally singular -- see for example here (where the Pali says dhammo i.e. singular):

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/anussati.html#anussati-2

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo

Ven. Sujato says that "teachings" (plural) here is a reference to this earlier paragraph (which he says in another comment was an early i.e. before the First Council way to organize the texts):

Take a foolish person who memorizes the teaching—
statements, mixed prose & verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and elaborations.
But they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom,
and so don’t come to a considered acceptance of them.
They memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized them.
Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering.
Why is that?
Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

So in context, "giving up the teachings" could mean "giving up arguing over who said what" -- or, "don't only memorize the words but 'examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom'".

In contrast to the above there are other translators who don't translate "dhammas" there as "teachings". Remember from the Definitions for dhamma that it has several meanings, one of which is "mental state".
In this translation for example it's translated as "dhammas" not "teachings".

Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.

Immediately after that there are sections inclduing

Six View-Positions
Agitation & Non-Agitation

Perhaps these are the "dhammas and adhammas" which we are to abandon.
Or maybe it means more generally, "good things and bad things", "good and bad mental states".
Piya Tan says here that,

Buddhaghosa, in his Commentary, interprets the reference to going beyond “good things” more specifically as a warning regarding the danger of being attached to meditative experience:

21 “You must let go of even good things …” Here “good things” (dhammā) means calm and
insight (samatha,vipassanā). The Blessed One says that desire-or-lust (chanda,rāga) is to be abandoned by both (pi) calm and insight. How does he do this with regards to calm?
“Thus indeed, Udāyi, do I speak of the abandoning of the sphere of neither-perception-nornon-perception. Do you, Udāyi, see any fetter (saṁyojana),
tiny or great, whose abandonment
I do not speak of?” [M 66,34/1:456]. Here, desire-or-lust is to be abandoned through calm.
“Bhikshus, no matter how pure, how clear, this view may be, if you do not stick to it, do not
prize it, are not acquisitive about it, do not treat it as a possession…” [M 38,14/1:260 f]. Here,
desire-or-lust is to be abandoned through insight.
But here, in reference to abandoning both, he says, “You should abandon even the dharmas,
how much more so that which are not dharmas!”
22 This is the gist: “Bhikshus, speak of the abandoning of desire-or-lust even in such things
that are profoundly calm (santa,paṇītesu). How much more then in respect to this wickedness,
vulgarity, baseness, crudeness, that which requires ablution, wherein this foolish one, Ariṭṭha,
perceiving no fault, says: “There is no obstruction in having desire-or-lust in the 5 cords of sensepleasure.”
“Do not, like Ariṭṭha, throw mud or rubbish on my teaching!” Thus the Blessed One rebuked
Ariṭṭha with this admonition. (MA 2:109)

From Anuruddha
Master of the Divine Eye by
Hellmuth Hecker:

When Anuruddha had perfected himself more and more in
the jhānas and in those refined meditative perceptions, he
one day went to see the venerable Sāriputta and said:
“Brother Sāriputta, with the divine eye, which is clarified
and supernormal, I am able to perceive a thousandfold
world system. My energy is strong and inflexible; my
mindfulness is alert and unconfused; my body is calmed
and unexcited; my mind is collected and unified. Yet my
mind is still not freed, without clinging, from the defiling
taints (āsava).”
Thereupon Sāriputta replied: “When you think, brother
Anuruddha, that with your divine eye you can perceive a
thousandfold world system, that is self-conceit in you.
When you think of your strenuous energy, your alert
mindfulness, your calmed body and your concentrated
mind, that is agitation in you. When you think that your
mind is still not liberated from the cankers, that makes for
scruples in you. It will be good if the revered Anuruddha
would discard these three things, would not pay attention
to them and would instead direct his mind towards the
Deathless-element (Nibbāna).
Having heard Sāriputta s advice, Anuruddha again resorted to solitude and earnestly applied himself to the removal of
those three obstructions within his mind (AN 3:128).

Anuruddha was carrying the raft with him. Sāriputta suggested to abandon the raft. Having abandoned the raft, Anuruddha implemented the teaching, instead of just thinking or talking about it.

Please see the post by @DhammaDhatu in  answer to question as suggested by @ChrisW, quoted here:in part

'Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft.

So the above teaching does not say to destroy the raft. Nor does it say to carry the raft on your back as a burden (via arguments or trying to convert the unconvertible). It simply says to set it adrift or haul it onto dry land (for others to use).


text:
Urge to open eyes
When I meditate after about 45 minutes I start to get this strong urge to finish and open my eyes. I use a timer and after a while I start to feel time dragging and wishing the bell would hurry up. I'm struggling to stay mindful when this happens as the feeling is so strong that it overwhelms and I end up finishing the sit. Any advise anyone can offer please?  Ive tried not using a timer which helps but that's difficult as I cannot just sit indefinitely most of the time.

It sounds like the experience is that of the hindrance of restlessness.
You can try to 'note' or 'acknowledge' the experience, such as thinking: 'restlessness/tension' is now occurring.
Otherwise, you can break the meditation. To sit for 45 minutes is a reasonable amount of time.

Ah K yes that sounds right. I'll try to note it. Thanks


text:
Can equanimity overcome physical pain?
I saw this scientific article -- Learning to Accept Discomfort Could Help You Thrive -- on overcoming pain, discomfort and negative emotions. There is one part in the article which seems incredible:

painful exposed nerve in his tooth.....the dentist touched the tooth, my colleague felt bubbles of joy

While I understand the notion of using equanimity to overcome difficulties in life, I am rather curious about its ability to overcome physical pain.
Perhaps anyone who had practised equanimity in their meditation can share their experiences? Otherwise, any insights or theories on how this might work is equally appreciated, thanks!

@ChrisW thanks for the edit, need to improve on the link reference.

I do that in case the hyperlink address changes: having the title-text of the article makes it findable.

answer from same post: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34828/19249

@blue_ego yes, the 2nd link is somewhat helpful. Thank you!

There is no solution to pain and disgust other than Nibbana. No matter how equanimous one is , pain seeps through in. Whether it is physical pain or mental pain , it doesn’t matter.
Buddha suffered at the death bed. What is interesting is you can change the pain and disgust tolerance through meditation and application of Dhamma.
By realising form or it’s parts are not you , yours or yourself , feelings are not you , yours or yourself , perceptions are not you , yours or yourself, choices are not you , yours or yourself, consciousness is not you or yours or yourself , you are already mitigating the pain.
Suppose you don’t consider your money to be you , yours or yourself then will you regret it’s loss if it’s gone ? No. Why ? Because you are mentally prepared for that.
This largely reduces the mental trauma and pain gets diminished if you practice Anatta always. However little bit may still be felt otherwise everyone would have been recommending Anatta instead of painkillers. Painkillers are not the solution because painkillers stop working if one relies on it too often.Nibbana or the extinguishment is the only true solution to the pain and disgust.

but sir this is about upeksha not nibbana

@blue_ego As I said practising equanimity mitigates the pain. Nibbana is the solution. Equanimity is not Nibbana. Nibbana is not equanimity.

Agree that pain should seep through regardless, what the article mentioned seems too good to be true. Yes, the perception of anatta should help in mitigating physical pain. Hopefully, someone has further insights to share, thanks!


text:
Why is a world with less negative (unwholesome) qualities better?
Buddhism encourages people to get rid of certain negative qualities like anger, hatred, jealousy, selfishness.
But, considering an evolutionary perspective we couldn't completely tell what role they might be playing at a deeper level for the advancement of species as a whole even if they do appear bad on the first look.
So how can we be sure that a world without those negative qualities would be a better one.

Isn't "getting rid of certain negative qualities" the same thing as "advancement of species", both "as a whole" and as individuals? Both "on the first look" and "from first-person experience"?

I would not characterize them as "negative" as in arithmetic or electrics. Rather, they are conducive to suffering (by definition, i.e. being conducive to suffering is how these qualities are identified).
Suffering in Buddhism is an axiom, so it doesn't really have a definition — it's described by examples — but it is understood very broadly as anything that is phenomenologicaly experienced as not how one wants it to be, so the buddhist idea of suffering is not as much the physical pain as any psychological discontent whatsoever.
Whatever is conducive to suffering is considered unwholesome in Buddhism because — hey! — Buddhism is all about liberation from suffering. I admit it's a bit tautological or axiomatic.
So here's your answer, Buddhism encourages people to get rid of whatever qualities that are conducive to suffering, because it postulates that the world with less suffering is a better world. This assumes you agree that suffering is undesirable. If you think the world needs more suffering, well, I guess then go ahead and be angry, selfish etc., it's up to you. (There's no concept of sin in Buddhism, you are free to do what you like but there'll be consequences.)
Another doubt you may have, how does Buddhism determine which qualities are conducive to suffering, indeed, what if they're not. What if the Buddha was mistaken. Well, for one, Buddhism being a religion, we kind of tend to accept as the axiom that the Buddha was not mistaken, that he was in fact Enlightened.
A deeper truth, is that certain qualities are conducive to suffering because they set in motion certain kinds of causal latencies that create predisposition for a future experience of suffering. It's the good old "what you sow is what you reap" principle, nothing supernatural.
For example, being angry not only creates direct unpleasant experience for the one you are angry at, it also tends to upset people and results in them holding a grudge, which may backfire when you need their help. It can also create a bad reputation, restricting your future options. Additionally, anger is what's known in Buddhism as a "blinding affect" because it temporarily takes away one's ability to be rational, shaping the perfect conditions for violence, misjudgement, and other causes of future suffering. I hope I don't need to spell it out, at this point it should be clear: these causal chains and latencies constitute what Buddhism calls karma.
Now, is there something fundamental in the fabric of life that makes these qualities conducive to suffering? Is there some kind of natural law, or is it just some mysterious insight by the Buddha? Turns out, there's a law.
These qualities are conducive to suffering because the fundamental nature of suffering is contradiction between experience and expectation; and since 1) all experience is mediated by mind, 2) the nature of mind is representation, and 3) representation is not good at handling contradictions, it follows that unresolvable contradictions tend to generate the experience of suffering. To summarize, all activity that creates propensity for representational contradiction is conducive to suffering. What you sow is what you reap.
Now you can understand the Buddhist approach to liberation from suffering. It consists in methodically identifying and removing all behavior that creates propensity for future conflict, discord, contradiction - and therefore is conducive to suffering - starting from the coarser types and then refining, until no more suffering is left and one's experience is the perfect harmony.
I hope this answers your question in general. The Buddhist ethics and soteriology is more nuanced than what I can fit in one casual answer and does get more interesting as you "get in the weeds" so to speak, but this is the 40000 feet view.
To get back to your question, the way you framed the aggressive and egoistic traits as supporting the evolution with its survival of the fittest, may be a valid observation in the biological context, however I must remind you that Buddhism does not concern itself with evolution of species, its focus is the subjective experience of the sentient beings, namely cessation of current suffering and prevention of new suffering. From that perspective the evolutionary race, with its aggressive competition, dying out of losers, and procreation of winners, is exactly the cycle of samsara that keeps the sentient beings trapped and suffering.

Thanks. Yes axiomatic! But maybe a better-than-random choice of axioms, it's said to be based on premises which you "know for yourself" to be true. Um, a question, "contradiction" -- is there a logical connection between "anger" (or the kleshas more generally) and "contradiction"? It's pivotal to the answer, and perhaps I can think of examples of what it might mean from experience. I see a previous topic on this subject here and here.

I guess the "contradiction" in "stealing" could be, "This was mine and yet you took it!" I'm not sure what the logical connection is, though, between anger and contradiction. :-) Maybe examples of anger are all similar, a "contradiction" between "the way I want it to be or think it ought to be" and "the way I'm seeing it currently". Ha.

The way I see it, anger is a direct expression of contradiction, you are angry that something or someone is not how you think it should be, and you are expressing that contradiction outwardly: "this is wrong!", "you are wrong!" etc. Now if the other person played a role in whatever it is you are angry at, they get a dose of that contradiction in their subjective experience as "I thought I did the right thing but this person here is angrily claiming I'm wrong. How can this be?" - now the contradiction has propagated from you to another person.

This is somewhat difficult to describe precisely because there are so many different scenarios in real life, but roughly this is how I understand it to be working. Anger is a direct and forceful expression of your own contradiction and as such it carries that contradiction forward in the most blatant and violent way.

Thank you yes. Being told "You're wrong!" per your comment would be literally a "contradiction". Maybe the seeds of all angers are like that somehow (even for example accidentally bumping into some inanimate object).

"Maybe the seeds of all angers are like that" — why, of course they are! Anger is one's reaction to dukkha which is a contradiction between experience and expectation.

From the evolutionary angle, cooperative behaviour is not without its rewards and benefits to an individual of a species as some scientific articles such as – Cooperation, Conflict, and the Evolution of Complex Animal Societies – indicated.
As effective cooperation in a society emerges, qualities such as altruism, empathy, conciliation and sociality become more evident. This, in turn, leads to complex social structure and interactions. Often, we see qualities that makes an individual’s evolutionary fitness high (i.e. more successful in spreading one’s genes) such as promiscuity tends to be less prevalent in cooperative societies.
This would suggest that getting rid of negative qualities would be good for society and the world. However, research had pointed out that cooperative behaviour can have an adverse effect on individuals. Similarly, we can see such adverse effects in human societies when individuals subject themselves to great self-sacrifices for the larger good. In companies with toxic cultures e.g. 996 work culture, such altruistic behaviour had resulted in health problems sometimes even deaths.
Likewise, qualities such as sociality has a dark side when they lead to collusions such as nepotism, cronyism and corruption. Such behaviours have detrimental effects on large segments of the society, creating social friction and even unrest.
So, what is the correct way forward? Negative and positive qualities appear to have their utilities depending on the context. Anger discourages wrongful behaviour by others. Hatred against harmful habits is a good thing. A bit of jealousy might spice up a relationship or push one to work harder. While selfishness can serve as a protective shield against unreasonable demands. Similarly, too much altruism may be harmful to an individual and encourage harmful qualities like dependency in the recipients.
The Buddha’s approach w.r.t what is better for ourselves and others (or the world) is to teach us to judge our actions using a simple yardstick. He advised that we ask ourselves the question before, while and after taking an action: Will this action leads to our long-lasting happiness and wellbeing?
When I first came across this teaching, it appears so simple. But over the years, I realized how difficult it actually is to implement. Firstly, it requires a lot of analysing, thinking and reflecting about the various factors, interactions within these factors and the likely consequences. The hardest part is that we live in a world that worships quick decision-making and fast executions. Time is money and speed is a competitive edge. If a person or a company take too long to deliberate on a course of action, they will lose the initiative and the first-mover advantage.
Our society just doesn’t afford anyone the time to think deeply into issues. The problems that we face today such as climate change, global warming and pollution in the air, land and sea are, in my opinion, the results of a culture that emphasizes getting whatever looks good out into the open ASAP. Even if there is a time machine to go back and change things. I doubt if we could convince countries/companies/individuals not to burn fossil fuels.
Just look at what’s trending in social media such as TikTok. I am sure some of these acts will look silly, if not stupid, decades from now. But if it catches attention and $$$, I am sure someone will start the trend. Similarly, in my IT career, this rush to push out projects in double quick time had come back to bite so many times that I had given up trying to make sense. In short, I think the ONE quality that is needed for a better world is that individuals, companies and societies take their time to think about important issues before acting.

FYI I worked in software startups, now I'm  with an older company writing software for regulated medical devices -- where I find there is no "Who cares, just ship it", and no "get rich quick" promises.

The highly regulated medical device industry is a good example of prioritizing human lives and health first. Elsewhere it's about one-upmanship, bragging rights and outdoing others...it is a toxic culture.

It's pleasant in two ways. One is that the company's official process, and the actual messages and expectation which we receive from managers, are about doing the job well. Another is that, it's staffed by people who choose to prefer that industry instead of get-rich-quick ambitions, so colleagues's values aren't hyper-competitive and are cooperative or friendly. So perhaps I could recommend it, because I don't regret it.

The images of destruction due to violence in war-torn regions around the world are not very pretty.

In dependence upon craving there is pursuit; in dependence upon
pursuit there is gain; in dependence upon gain there is
decision-making; in dependence upon decision-making there is desire
and lust; in dependence upon desire and lust there is attachment; in
dependence upon attachment there is possessiveness; in dependence upon
possessiveness there is stinginess; in dependence upon stinginess
there is safeguarding; and because of safeguarding, various evil
unwholesome phenomena originate—the taking up of clubs and weapons,
conflicts, quarrels, and disputes, insulting speech, slander, and
falsehoods.
DN 15

Negative qualities like greed , lust , aversion , hatred , delusion are a result of craving. Craving results in clinging. Clinging results in attachments, attachments results in becoming, becoming results in birth , ageing and death , sorrow , lamentation, pain , distress, anxiety , diseases and the whole mass of suffering.
World without lust , hatred and delusion would be a great place as it will be free from suffering. But that is not how the world exactly functions. There is ignorance and ignorance spreads even more ignorance leading to volitional formations which lead to consciousness which leads six senses which leads to contact , which leads to feeling which leads to craving.
And as I have said craving leads to suffering.


text:
Difference between rahat and maha rahat
This is more directed to someone who understands Sinhalese.
Is there difference between Rahath and Maha rahath? Is it interchangeable?
In the texts some places it says rahath and in some places it refers as maha rahath.

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.

Rahat=Arhat
"Arhat" (or "Arahant" in Pali) refers to an enlightened being who has attained liberation from the cycle of birth and death (samsara). The term "Maha Arhat" or "Maha Arahant" is not a distinct category; rather, it is a way of emphasizing the greatness or excellence of an Arhat.
Both "Arhat" and "Maha Arhat" essentially refer to the same state of enlightenment, with the latter being a form of honorific or qualifier to highlight the advanced spiritual attainment of a particular individual.
So, in essence, they are not two different types of beings but rather terms used to emphasize the degree of spiritual accomplishment. The prefix "Maha" means "great" or "supreme," indicating an especially elevated level of realization.


text:
How to get rid of Ignorance?
According to dependent origination , ignorance is at the root of suffering.
What are the various ways in which we can get rid of ignorance?

Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the reality of phenomenon. Ignorance of the fact that how things appear are not the way they are. What is ignorance? Opposite of knowledge, opposite of wisdom. How to counter ignorance? With the right knowledge- wisdom.

Study/read the Teachings.
Thoroughly examine & rationalize (yoniso manasikara) the Teachings, so they make sense.
Verify the subject of the Teachings in meditation with direct insight.

Cessation of Ignorance is Nibbana … I haven’t met anyone who has achieved Nibbana… Ignorance is deeply rooted.

DN 16 says when the noble eightfold path is practice correctly, the world will not be devoid of arahants.

Excellent point of view. Thanks.


text:
In which sutta does Buddha say roughly '..and that would bring me sorrow[sad]?
I recall regarding a sutta awhile back of an encounter between Buddha and some wandering ascetic (not Bahiya). in that, the ascetic might have been too old or whatever, and buddha discourages him and explains his grief if things didn't work out.
note: i don't recall if it was an ascetic or old, just that it was an encounter with non-sangha person.
any arhat saying something similar would suffice.


text:
Does Early Buddhism affirm mainstream orthodox ideologies?
I read the following on the internet by an independent (Australian) bhikkhu:

Oppositional framing is cringe
You know it when you see it. “Everyone else says that … but I say this”.
Which is invariably meant to be expanded to, “All those mindless sheep incanting orthodoxy say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.”
It’s the fundamental framing of every conspiracy theory, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “do the research”. But it’s
also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for
purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to
define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they
are for.
And you also see it all the little Buddhist cultettes, which establish
an in-group defined by the rejection of “the mainstream”. By
definition, if you don’t agree with their stunning new breakthroughs
in understanding you’re just a sheep trapped in tradition. Dear god in
heaven, it’s so very cringe. It’s the rhetorical maturity of someone
forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, Metallica posters
duly blu-tacked to the walls.
A man of wit and wisdom—namely Twitter’s Sonny Bunch—once said 5 that
it’s better to like something everyone hates than it is to hate
something everyone likes. He’s right. Why not try liking things? It’s
fun!

Are there Pali Suttas that affirm or oppose the above viewpoint? If so, which ones?

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Based on the title, are you asking, Does early Buddhism contradict or affirm "mainstream establishment" (i.e. modern) "ideologies" (i.e. views about Buddhism)? IOW Are the modern mainstream views of Buddhism right or wrong, contradicted or affirmed by the Early Buddhist Texts? Because that (i.e. "Buddhist cultettes") is some of the context of Ven. Sujato's post.

The question  is about "orthodoxy". Do the suttas support the idea of an omniscient orthodoxy?

Ah so then I guess you're asking, What's wrong with opposing the mainstream/orthodoxy -- do the suttas say that the mainstream is always right?

something like that. Its often difficult for an Early Buddhist to clearly explain fad trendy alien worldly words from a "cult-ette".

I don't know the context of  what he's saying, but IMO what he's saying is to say what you believe, to say what you "like" -- instead of rhetorically opposing the "mainstream"? For example I like bicycling, but I'm not "fifteen" now and I don't say that as, "cars are wrong, drivers are wicked". Or to pick a Buddhist example, if I can put words into your mouth: you like it that the core doctrine is coherent without its even mentioning rebirth. That's fine, and good even -- no need to "oppose" the mainstream by saying that "they are wrong" (or even more cringe, that they are "sheep").

who knows? when a 57yo buddhist monk talks using new vogue vernacular of a 19 year old western uni student who can understand the words? maybe i misunderstood?

The title doesn't match the question.
The "above viewpoint" seems to be against "oppositional framing" such as, "I am against [this thing] which the mainstream is pro" -- because what he says is better is, "I am pro what everyone else is against".
Yes the EBT have a lot of that.
An outstanding example IMO may be the Bhikkhus' rejection of the pursuit of wealth etc. -- which ("rejection") sounds "oppositional", but I think it's not -- it's that everyone else says, "I am afraid of poverty and being homeless", and the monks say, "no it's fine, in fact it's better".
Or, "I hate doing nothing" -- "No it's good".
Or, "Corpses, I can't even bear to consider it" -- "Really? Sometimes I go to the charnel grounds."
Or the Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- even without going so far as to "like" being "insulted & cursed with rude, harsh words", it's the opposite of or at least an absence of "oppositional framing", don't you agree?

Another way people interpret "the above viewpoint" is as being against people who say, "I've done my own research and the mainstream is wrong" and argue for "conspiracy theories".
Um, yes and no, I suppose the Buddha himself "did his own research" and encouraged others to. There are some "mainstream ideologies" which he rejected e.g. brahmanism -- like rituals, sacrifices, and hereditary caste. But a lot of the Vinaya is to co-exist with the mainstream -- like be law-abiding, and require parents' approval.
The Sigalovada Sutta for example seems to me very conservative, orthodox -- except perhaps its emphasis on not harming living beings -- and pro-social.

The last statement was that "it's fun!" to like things. I don't know an example of that from the EBT, perhaps because the register is so different that I find the language is unrecognisable.
But it might follow from dukkha being some "opposition" to what is (like wanting to have what you don't have, and wanting to keep what you can't keep, etc.).
In the facial expressions in the illustration in this topic, maybe "reunciation equanimity" looks like more my idea of "fun", than "household joy" does.

What's wrong with opposing the mainstream/orthodoxy -- do the suttas say that the mainstream is always right?
The quote doesn't say that the mainstream is always right.
It says that, when you say something, then say what you "like" instead of what you're opposed to. It's about the "framing" of your message, the "rhetoric".
Here are some (my) examples to illustrate what I guess he's saying:

"I felt hurt, I'm alright now but I hope that won't happen again"
Oppositional framing: "You hurt me, etc."

Or:

"I like using a bicycle"
Oppositional framing: "Motor vehicles are vile, drivers must be stupid or wicked"

Or:

"I like it that the core doctrine is coherent without even any mention of rebirth at all"
Oppositional framing: "The mainstream view, of literal rebirth, is wrong"

The reasons he gives are:

It's endless and tedious
It's an academic cliche or imperative
It creates small "cults" or "in-groups" i.e. by being exclusive
It's conceited
It's immature

The last sentence i.e. "It's fun!" might be meant to be attractive rather than repulsive? Anyway my opinion is that "oppositional" framing might be unskilful, assuming that your rhetoric is meant to be persuasive -- it might tend to alienate the mainstream, incline them to dismiss your message -- because its "framed" as contrary to, in opposition to, and not as an alternative or addition to -- their current belief-system.
scholarship
You tagged this topic with scholarship. I'm not an academic but re. this part of the quote:

But it’s also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they are for.

... I guess that may be because academics feel the need to:

Show they're familiar with previous books and papers on the subject
Reference them (explicitly)
Show that theirs is a "stunning new breakthrough", an improvement in the state-of-the-art

IMO none of these reasons are applicable outside academia. We might read "academic" papers but we needn't "feel the need" to mimic "oppositional framing" in our own discourse.
when a 57yo buddhist monk talks using new vogue vernacular of a 19 year old western uni student who can understand the words?
I assume he learned Pali as an adult, so perhaps the venerable is (unusually for an adult) a sponge for new vocabulary.
Here's a 'principle':

be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others

If you're intolerant of messages which use e.g. newer or optional features of the language, then the (network) communication disconnects instead of being "robust".
I knew the word "cringe" though I don't remember where from. Perhaps, who knows, the venerable was "kidding", or trying to address a juvenile audience, or using self-parody to illustrate the message.
Final thoughts
A while ago, I wasn't "fifteen" but about 22. It was my first job, the start of my first development project. I lectured my new team-leader on how to design the thing, because I had a design in my head. After that meeting, our manager (who'd been present and listening) told me privately, "It isn't enough to be right" -- implying that what I'd said was technically correct, but spoken unskilfully.
So even when you think it's right to oppose the mainstream, being "right" isn't enough -- as you can see from the definition of what's "right speech".
Also, the parable of the blind men and the elephant: I guess the blind men weren't "wrong" to say what they said, they each had some good reason -- where they went wrong was when they started to "oppose" each other.

OK. Possibly i now understand. The independent Australian monk was verbalizing cringe oppositional framing towards cringe oppositional framing.

Yes I think so: that it's "ha ha only serious" (from the hacker jargon). There's a very similar message here from 20 years ago, again from the hacker culture -- “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful.

There are several places in the Suttas like this one where Buddha asks to be gaurded against lust , aversion and delusion :

At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Dhamma, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the Dhamma. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

Mind should seek joy in Dhamma. For everything else which assumes expression of passion , aversion and delusion, we should indeed do the opposite. When lust or passion arises we should restrain and remind ourselves that it is not-self. It will not last forever. Even if it is an religious orthodoxy. On the other hand if we experience aversion then we should love it because otherwise you will not be able to fill in the vacuum left by abandonment of aversion. We should not be deluded into believing that there is anything which will last forever.
Love , hate are impermanent. No establishment is permanent even if it is democracy.

Does aversion leave a vacuum to be filled?

@blue_ego Good question. Suppose someone rushes to cut off your limbs then you should not have any aversion. You should not have any bad thoughts for the person. You should be happy for the bad situation. This is how you should fill the vacuum.

@blue_ego I read somewhere (probably in doctrine related to the three poisons) that ordinary (i.e. unenlightened) people are attracted to what's desirable, averse to what's unpleasant -- and confused, non-plussed, ignorant about what's neither.

The first sermon (SN 56.11) says:

In regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.

I claimed to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this [unawakened] world with its devas, Mara, and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans.

The Lokavagga 174 says:

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

MN 95 says:

Suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. So too, Bhāradvāja, in regard to their statement the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. What do you think, Bhāradvāja, that being so, does not the faith of the brahmins turn out to be groundless? The brahmins honour this not only out of faith, Master Gotama. They also honour it as oral tradition.

AN 10.61 says:

Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention [doing the research]...

AN 3.33 says:

Sāriputta, I can teach the Dhamma briefly; I can teach the Dhamma in detail; I can teach the Dhamma both briefly and in detail. It is those who can understand that are rare.

AN 5.143 says:

It is rare in the world a person who explains the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One.

MN 38 (in reference to dependent origination) reiterates the only Dhamma Refuge found in the suttas:

Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves? — “Yes, venerable sir.” Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’

AN 2.47 says:

There are, mendicants, these two assemblies. What two? An assembly educated in fancy talk, not in questioning, and an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk. The better of these two assemblies is the assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk

AN 20.7 says about future Buddhists:

In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

Therefore, it appears Early Buddhism contains no scope; not even a foothold; for the quote in the OP,  which says:

Oppositional framing is cringe... “Everyone else says that … but I say this”. “All those mindless sheep incanting orthodoxy say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.”

It’s the fundamental framing of every conspiracy theory, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “do the research”.

little Buddhist cultettes.... the rejection of “the mainstream”.... Dear god in heaven... it’s so very cringe... rhetorical maturity of someone forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, Metallica posters duly blu-tacked to the walls.... Twitter’s Sonny Bunch

So now, according to the view of the mainstream Australian monk (well learned in & devoted to worldly jargon), Buddhists who follow the instructions of the Buddha, to engage in yoniso manasikara (own research), to be well educated in questioning, to verify the Dhamma and to only speak what they have realized for themselves are now "conspiracy theorists"? Will these faithful Buddhists soon be prosecuted for "disinformation"?


text:
How do we hear the sound of our thoughts?
Quick question. How do we hear the sound of our own thought? I assume ear-consciousness but without the contact of internal-external bases? Is this right?

I think that Dhamma Dhatu's answer is right, in the context of the Pali suttas -- i.e. that's how the phenomenon may be categorised in the suttas.

Perhaps off-topic from Buddhism, modern science has more to say on that kind of subject, involving different parts of the brain and so on -- e.g. there are long, long articles on Wikipedia, e.g. Subvocalization and Intrapersonal communication "(also known as autocommunication or inner speech)".

If you mean literally "hearing" that may be a "hallucination" -- I remember one hallucination in my life, hearing my name aloud when I was alone in an empty room, reading late and very tired -- I knew someone else who often "heard a voice", a symptom of psychosis.

Well you said "thoughts". I think Buddhism talks about 6 senses with the mind being the sixth -- so for example there is "ear sense, sound object (noise), and auditory-consciousness" ... conversely "mind-sense, mind object (thought), etc.".

People "see", visualize or remember sights -- I can "picture" (remember sights at) places I've been to or plan to revisit -- I assume that "seeing" too is (categorized as) an example of 'mind'.

Thoughts are known/heard with the mind sense organ (mano) & mind consciousness (mano-vinnana).

All sounds internal or external , all speeches internal or external occur due to combination and separation. Ear consciousness (or voice consciousness), ear and sound result in sound perception. Voice consciousness, vibrations and sound result in speech perception. Understanding part of voice is called voice consciousness.
When we think in our minds , there is a combination of formless vibrations,formless ear and ear consciousness (or voice consciousness) . Internal sound can be loud or faint(loud thinker or silent thinker).
Internal sound or thoughts  are impermanent. It arises , changes or vanishes. Internal voice or thoughts are dependent on our understanding of language. It is learned. It has a beginning. That which has a beginning must have an end because it is result of combination and separation.


text:
Do we indulge in ignorance?
This question arises from this previous post. The questioner seems perplexed that a person should suffer for not knowing or possessing certain knowledge i.e. simply for being unaware. While there is an active component in desire (us wanting or craving) and aversion (us disliking or hating). However, ignorance is not something we can control or actively avoid.
So, my question is there an active component in ignorance i.e. do we intentionally ignore and/or indulge in ignorance? Perhaps, by understanding this process better, we can also answer this question on how to get rid of it.

AN 10.61 says the food/nutriment of ignorance is the five hindrances and the food/nutriment of the five hindrances is the three unskillful actions (of body, speech & mind).

Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not
seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
came into being.’ Still, ignorance is seen to have a specific
condition. I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not
without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should
be said: the five hindrances. The five hindrances, too, I say, have a
nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment
for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of
misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a
nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment
for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said: non-restraint of
the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, too, I say,
has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the
nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It should be said:
lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and
clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without
nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness and clear
comprehension? It should be said: careless attention. Careless
attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said:
lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not
without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It
should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good
Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And
what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be
said: not associating with good persons.

The word 'nutriment' ('ahara') above does not mean 'cause' ('hetu') because ending the five hindrances does not necessarily cause ignorance to end. The word 'ahara' ('nutriment') is used  because the five hindrances feed/maintain the inherent ignorance (rather than create it). For example, the suttas about the 'nutriments' say nutriment (ahara) maintains the delusion of the view of 'beings/self':

Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness.
SN 12.63

If we remain in doubt/ignorant (due to not associating with good persons), SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 literally explain "beings" are attachments & views rather than conscious organisms (i.e., 'sentient beings').
In summary, we (i.e. the mind) indulge in ignorance when  there is the mental volition to indulge in  the five hindrances and the three unskillful actions. In the teaching of Dependent Origination, this mental volition to indulge in the  five hindrances & unskillful thoughts or, otherwise, reject the five hindrances & the unskillful thoughts [refer to MN 19], occurs at the nama-rupa condition.

And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
SN 12.2

Note: again, the term 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination does not mean 'choices' or 'volitional formations', which again are mainstream Abhidhammic & Visuddhimagga translations by untrue persons (asappurisasa). 'Sankhara' in Dependent Origination refers to the breathing (kayasankharo), thoughts (vacisankharo) and perceptions & feelings (citta) stirred up by ignorance &/or the five hindrances.

Active indulgence in ignorance is found. Ignorance takes birth because there is attachment to food, fame , money, father, mother, children, knowledge, house, clothes, internet, etc. As long as there is attachment there is becoming, as long as there is becoming there will be birth, ageing, death of sorrow, lamentation, pain, disgust, sadness and the whole mass of suffering. Attachment runs deep. Very deep.
Why is there attachment? Because there is clinging. Why is there clinging? Because there is craving. Why is there craving? Because there is feeling. Why is there feeling? Because there is contact. Why is there contact? Because there is combination of six senses. Why is there a combination of six senses? Because there is name and form. Why is there name and form? Because there is consciousness. Why is there consciousness? Because there is volitional or mental formations. Why is there volitional formations? Because there is ignorance.
Ignorance is at the root of attachment and attachment is at the root of ignorance. Get rid of attachments, ignorance will vanish. Renunciation of phenomena recognising it as impermanent results in cessation of ignorance. For example - By giving up house, family, kids, wealth, internet, etc, slowly but surely, ignorance can be removed. Ignorance can not only be avoided but removed.
We should restrict our attachment to Dhamma talks but as Buddha said after achieving Nibbana even teachings should also be given up (just like after crossing the river, raft is abandoned as in the Raft Simile).

Yes we do, and not just not knowing, but also not wanting to know. and here is why:
AN4.5 - with the stream

It’s a person who doesn’t take part in sensual pleasures or do bad
deeds. They live the full and pure spiritual life in pain and sadness,
weeping, with tearful faces.

The following is about whether we always indulge when we take an action based on ignorance or if there are some situations where indulgence is not a part.

You walk into your kitchen from a scorching hot day and see a tall
glass full of a clear liquid. Thinking your mom must have left it out
on the counter for you - as she is known to do in the past - you drink
the liquid quickly to satisfy your thirst. After you do so you notice
an ill-taste and you turn the glass around in your hand only to
discover a large poison sticker.
Your mom was preparing to clean her kitchen and the glass full of
liquid was not intended for you. You drank it out of sheer ignorance
without even the slightest intent to poison yourself.

Is this an example of not indulging in ignorance, but an action taken based on ignorance nonetheless?

In the example, depending upon ignorance of the glass as poison, the accident occurred

ignorance is "a lack of knowledge" -> https://tinyurl.com/bdeyr879

Like most situations, there was uncertainty in the person involved. Why didn't the person clarify their doubts instead of plunging ahead? There is a certain recklessness and heedlessness. It is indulging in ignorance in the sense that the person just assumed they knew what is going on. The truth is we know nuts about reality. That should be the default mode of assumption. Sadly, this is NOT the case for most people.

Actually, it's not just the person but their mother too is rather recklessness by putting poisonous liquid in the open assuming all will be fine. Although, the example is a bit contrived...my point is that there appears to be a default mode of thinking that is very prevalent i.e. that we know with certainty when we don't.


text:
What is the Sanskrit root word for “ viññāṇa”?
In dependent origination , the word “ viññāṇa” arises and it is translated as consciousness. I am not satisfied and I guess some other members of this site are also not satisfied because then the dependent origination becomes: given volitional formations, consciousness arises. Isn’t volitional formation and ignorance itself due to consciousness?
Therefore in order to understand “viññāṇa” I need to understand what is the Sanskrit root for the Pali word “ viññāṇa”?
I looked up online Sanskrit dictionary, there is a word “vinn” which means “understanding “.
Do you think “vinn” is the root word for “ viññāṇa” ?

The Pali dictionary says viññāṇa is from vi + jñā; cp. Vedic vijñāna cognition. A Sanskrit dictionary provides many definitions & references for vijñāna.
There is a contentious common theory the Sanskrit word vijnana is formed from the root jna, which means "to know" and the prefix vi- indicates separation or division. However, this attempt to impute an unwholesome 'duality' upon 'vijnana' has no relevance in the Teachings of the Buddha because (in the Teachings of the Buddha) viññāṇa continues to arise for the Fully Enlightened, for example, as follows:

And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless
cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of
clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes
the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the
cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death,
sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the
cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the
ending of the world.
SN 12.44

The suttas are clear in many places viññāṇa cannot arise alone; that there can be no viññāṇa without an object or other aggregates.

Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness.... Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.
MN 38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.
SN 22.53

The teaching of Dependent Origination refers to the arising of an ignorant consciousness dependent upon ignorance & sankhara. That is all. Dependent origination is not about the arising of all consciousness, as previously demonstrated/quoted from  SN 12.44. For example, in respect to Dependent Origination sense contact, for which consciousness is one of three contributory factors, SN 22.81 says:

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is
felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.

Therefore, the consciousness referred to in Dependent Origination is consciousness with ignorance, i.e.,  an ignorant consciousness.
The word 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination (SN 12.2) is plural & defined as kayasankharo (in & out breathing), vacisankharo (initial & sustained thought) & cittasankharo (perception & feeling), which Thanissaro has properly explained in
his PDF titled 'Shape of Suffering'. 'Sankhara', here, does not mean 'volitional formations'. 'Sankhara' meaning 'volitional formations' is found in suttas, such as SN 22.56 & AN 3.23, which are not about Dependent Origination. The word 'volitional' or 'cetanā' is first found in Dependent Origination at the nama-rupa condition. The wrong view 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination refers to 'volitional formations' comes from the Abhidhamma Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅga and was perpetuated in the mass-market mainstream commentary called the Visuddhimagga. The contemporary translator Bhikkhu Bodhi, as shown in his many sutta footnotes, often interprets Sutta from the perspective of Abhidhamma because Abhidhamma is popular in Sri Lanka, where Bhikkhu Bodhi was trained. Another translator, the independent Australian monk named Sujato, abandoned his Thai roots and the explanations of Ajahn Chah and has reverted to the Abhidhamma & Visuddhimagga mass-market mainstream populist translation of 'choices', which is also wrong.
As previously explained, consciousness (viññāṇa) in the Teaching of the Buddha cannot arise without a sense object. Therefore, there can be no disembodied consciousness floating around in space searching for new parents & a new physical host to reincarnate into. What Dependent Origination explains is:

There is the underlying tendency of ignorance. (AN 7.11).

Ignorance stirs up sankhara (thoughts based on perceptions & feelings with agitated breathing)

Consciousness arises to know/become aware of these thoughts.

At nama-rupa, volition/intention arises to give inappropriate attention to the ignorant thoughts the mind has become consciousness of.

In summary, as explained above, formations (sankhara) and ignorance are not due to consciousness. It is the opposite. In the Teachings  Of The Buddha, consciousness arises due to ignorance & formations because consciousness cannot arise without a sense object.

Great answer. When consciousness doesn’t arise, where is it?

I suppose this question is similar to asking when a log fire goes out after the log is completely burned & consumed, where does  the fire go?

@DhammaDhatu vijāna is a separate word in Pali dictionary. It can not be vinnana.

you seem right here. there is no empty consciousness slot for volition - it depends on the persistence of consciousness

"Another important thing to notice about dependent co-arising is that it starts
with ignorance. Ignorance is defined as not seeing things in terms of the four
noble truths, because you’re basically seeing things in terms of your identity in a
world. If you look in terms of the four noble truths, there’s no mention of
identities or worlds at all, just what the suffering is, what’s causing it, and whether its cessation is possible. The Buddha’s approach is that you attack the cause and, because the cause is conditioned, it can change. It can cease. There’s also a path that attacks that cause and leads to the cessation."
Dependent Co-arising Right Now by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Hi. The four noble truths mention the  words 'attachment', 'becoming' & 'jati', which  are aspects of identity. In his PDF called 'Shape Of Suffering', Thanissaro says jati means identity. Therefore, the 1st Noble Truth says 'birth/jati/identity' is suffering.


text:
Is it ever said in the Pali Canon that Nirvana cannot be attained?
Is there any sutta in the Pali Canon which describes the supramundane view that Nibbana cannot be attained?
I'm looking for a verse or quote from the Pali Canon which describes Nibbana as unattainable or unrelinquished based on the fact that is unconditioned. Ie, not from the ordinary conventional sense of attaining a possession or attainment of a goal, but rather from the supramundane where Nibbana is unconditioned.
Does such a sutta, passage, or verse exist?

Related: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39194/is-it-even-possible-to-attain-nirvana

i swear i read something in the pali canon that made it seem like the answer to your question is yes, but I won't be able to find it. also the idea i recall was more like a realization rather than unattainable

The closest I've seen in the Pali canon to what you're describing is in the Mulapariyaya sutta. I am not sure if it constitutes the idea of "cannot be attained," but the Buddha here describes Unbinding as this:

A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

My limited understanding of this is that an Arahant may be aware that they have come to an end of suffering, but nevertheless they do not have a positive (or any) feeling towards being an Arahant, and they also do not feel ownership over this quality. It might depend on what "supramundane" refers to, but these seem to at least be unconventional aspects of an attainment listed in the sutta above.

Nibbana is attained (ajjhagā, ajjhagamaṁ, adhigacchati).

Visaṅkhāragataṁ cittaṁ,
My mind has reached the Unconditioned
taṇhānaṁ khayamajjhagā.
Attained the destruction of craving.
Dhp 154

Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Nibbana, I reached [attained; ajjhagamaṁ] the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana.
MN 26

I think the question is asking, "Nibbana can be obtained or taained in the mundane sense of the word -- but is there anywhere which says to the contrary in a supramundane sense.?" So I think this doesn't address what the question is asking.


text:
How can feelings describe name and form if feelings come after name and form
In dependent origination name and form is described as follows :

“And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition,
contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and
the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.

The name and form arises due to vinnana or consciousness. After name and form six senses arise. After six senses , contact arises. After contact , feelings arise.
However in the definition of name and form , name involves contact and feelings as shown in the above quote.
How can feeling and contact describe name and form when feeling and contact occur after name and form?

Dependent origination is ignorance > sankhara > consciousness > nama-rupa > sense bases > contact > feeling > craving > attachment > becoming > birth > death > sorrow/grief.
Nama-rupa feels & has contact with the internal sankhara, which is only two sense objects & two contacts:

breathing (kayasankharo), which is body-contact
feeling, perception (cittasankharo) & thought (vacisankharo), which is mind contact

Then if nama-rupa gives inappropriate attention to the internal sankhara, it will pursue the subject of the sankhara outwardly/externally, which again gives rise to contact & feeling.
For example:

You are meditating quietly and the thought arises: "I feel like chocolate". This thought is a sankhara comprised of feeling/perception (cittasankharo) and thought (vacisankharo), which  also simultaneously causes the breathing (kayasankharo) to becoming animated/agitated. This is the 1st arising of feeling at the sankhara condition.

Then, via consciousness, nama-rupa feels, perceives, has contact with & gives attention to this internal thought/sankhara about 'chocolate' and, under the power of ignorance, decides/intends to pursue chocolate outwardly/externally. This is the 2nd arising of feeling at the nama-rupa condition.

Then nama-rupa emerges from meditation, walks to the pantry, opens the pantry door and makes sense contact with chocolate. This is the 3rd arising of feeling at the feeling condition.

Then nama-rupa (via craving & attachment) engages in the becoming/bhava/kamma of tasting/eating the chocolate. This will involve another round of sense contact & feeling. This is the 4th arising of feeling, at the becoming condition, when becoming starts the cycle of dependent origination again.

Therefore, per the theory, feeling is mentioned three times in Dependent Origination:

At the sankhara condition, as cittasankharo.

At the nama-rupa condition, as vedana.

At the feeling condition, as vedana.

Feeling will also persist in all of the conditions. For example, craving cannot arise without being underlaid with feeling. Similarly, sensual attachment cannot arise without being underlaid with feeling. Similarly, aging & death cannot occur without being underlaid with feeling, such as having feeling & love towards 'the beings' subject to aging & death. If there is no pleasant feelings towards certain 'beings', there will be no aging & death leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. The suttas (AN 10.58) says all dhammas converge on feelings. That is why the principle practice of Buddha-Dhamma is having mindfulness & wisdom at feelings (MN 37, MN 38; MN 140, MN 148, etc) so feelings (cittasankharo) does not cause/condition the citta/mind to generate greed, hatred & delusion.
Bhikkhu Thanissaro gives a number of examples of the above processes starting at page 3 of his PDF called The Shape Of Suffering. I am aware of only Bhikkhu Thanissaro who has explained Dependent Origination the same as Dhamma Dhatu.


text:
Is cessation of feeling same as having no feeling?
In dependent origination , feelings arise due to contact. Craving results from feelings. Cessation of feeling is cessation of suffering.
Suppose consciousness is devoid of feelings , that is ,no feelings arise, then , can we say cessation of feeling has been achieved?

There cannot be consciousness without feeling in the Buddha's teaching. MN 43 says consciousness, feeling & perception are conjoined; they cannot occur without each other. Iti 44 describes Nibbana as including feelings.
The word 'nirodha' does not generally/always mean 'cessation'. The translations of 'nirodha' are probably the largest problem/mistranslation in Buddhism.
Thai bhikkhus Buddhadasa & Payutto sought to address this, such as Payutto's comment: A problem with the word "nirodha".
The word "nirodha" is used in similar contexts to the word "atthaṅgama". The words "origin" ("samudaya") and "passing away"("atthaṅgama") appear defined in SN 22.5, as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of form? What is the origin of
feeling? What is the origin of perception? What is the origin of
volitional formations? What is the origin of consciousness? Here,
bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding. And
what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to what
does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it, and
remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises.
Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition,
existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth
as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
suffering.
And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of form? What is the passing
away of feeling? What is the passing away of perception? What is the
passing away of volitional formations? What is the passing away of
consciousness? Here, bhikkhus, one does not seek delight, one does not
welcome, one does not remain holding. And what is it that one does not
seek delight in? What doesn’t one welcome? To what doesn’t one remain
holding? One does not seek delight in form, does not welcome it, does
not remain holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight in form
ceases. With the cessation of delight comes cessation of clinging;
with cessation of clinging, cessation of existence…. Such is the
cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

About 'nirodha', the Visuddhimagga says:

Nirodha (cessation): the word ni denotes absence, and the word rodha, a
prison. Now, the third truth is void of all destinies and so there is no
constraint (rodha) of suffering here reckoned as the prison of the round of rebirths;
or when that cessation has been arrived at, there is no more constraint of suffering
reckoned as the prison of the round of rebirths. And being the opposite of that
prison, it is called dukkha-nirodha (cessation of suffering). Or alternatively, it is
called “cessation of suffering” because it is a condition for the cessation of
suffering consisting in non-arising.

In summary, when the Dependent Origination teachings refer to the cessation of feeling, this appears to simply refer to the cessation of ignorance in respect to/affecting feeling.

As I understand and as DD points out, consciousness arises together with feeling and perception, so if you think devoid of feeling that is most likely neutral feeling. At the same time, when there is no contact consciousness doesn't arise, so in that way you could said it's a cessation of feeling - although I think the saying, 'cessation of feeling', is idiomatic to the 8th stage of jhana.

the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling &
perception


text:
Is fire-making allowed?
Fire ceremonies are likely categorized as ‘rites and rituals’, but is/was the basic usage of fire for warmth prohibited by monastic rules?

I haven’t read of any such rule.

See pages 564 and 565 of The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu

Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, seeking to warm
himself, kindle a fire or have one kindled—unless there is
a suitable reason—it is to be confessed.

The explanation includes,

There is no offense if one lights a fire or has one lit for purposes other
than warming oneself.

and

In addition, there is no offense in warming oneself at raked-out coals
or at a fire lit by someone else (not at one’s request).

and

The purpose of this rule is suggested by AN 5:219, which lists the
five disadvantages of sitting around a fire: It is bad for one’s eyes, bad for
one’s skin, bad for one’s strength, and (most importantly, in this context)
groups tend to form (that can turn into factions), and they spend their
time in animal talk.
Summary: Lighting a fire to warm oneself—or having it lit—when one
does not need the warmth for one’s health is a pācittiya offense

You're also not allowed to light a fire on soil -- because that's counted as (and covered by the rule against) digging soil.