text:
Is nonduality a philosophical claim or a mindset?
In the meditation community it is often claimed that "everything is one", that "we are all the same Spirit", that "there is no separation". (Among other things, the book The End of Your World by Zen practitioner Adyashanti makes this claim many times.)
What is that supposed to mean?
Sure, sure, it's ineffable and beyond language and all that jazz. But what I mean is: What are the implications? What are the ramifications? Does it have any?
My impression so far is that nonduality is not actually a philosophical position. It is not a claim that can be true or false. It does not have pragmatic ramifications. Rather, as far as I can tell, nonduality is a mindset or perspective. It is a way of viewing the world, and this way of viewing has ramifications for one's subjective experience - it can lead to the reduction or end of suffering and to states of bliss.
(This is conjecture. Personally I have not been able to experience nonduality as anything other than a confusing thought.)
Is this correctly understood? Or is nonduality an actual philosophical position? If the latter, what does it imply?

The question, "Is it a 'philosophical' claim?" might be better answered on Philosophy.SE. I don't understand the question.

"My impression so far is that nonduality is not actually a philosophical position. It is not a claim that can be true or false. It does not have pragmatic ramifications."
This is a very wrong impression.The whole issue is explained by Nagarjuna.
If you study philosophy, you will discover that all positive or extreme metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This is what all  philosophers discover, and what Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. This is the reason why all metaphysical questions are undecidable. They are not so in a mathematical sense, but in the sense that both their extreme (yes/no, this/that) answers do not make sense and give rise to contradictions.
The trick is to see that the claim 'All is One' does NOT imply it is a numerical One. Rather, it implies Unity or Unicity. It is on this point that so many philosophers  founder. It  is significant that the term advaita means 'not-two', thus carefully and explicitly avoiding the implication it is a numerical one.
This is the exact reason why mainstream Western metaphysics has made no progress since the days of Plato.
Nagarjuna's doctrine, expressed philosophically, is a neutral metaphysical position. It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and they are! It would, therefore, be impossible to understand philosophy correctly without understanding Nagarjuna. in particular it is the idea of unity, emptiness and non-duality that must be grasped, at least to some extent.
I short, if we don't understand non-duality we don't understand philosophy, or not as any more than a large collection of intractable problems.
You will never understand non0duality until it has become for you a real phenomenon. However, it is possible to make sense of it in philosophy and employ it pragmatically as a solution for all its problems.
Non-duality, therefore, is definitely a philosophical position and, as Nagarjuna shows, is demonstrably right or wrong. It has vast pragmatic implications that extend into all areas of life and death. Not just this, but these ramifications may be calculated as a matter of logic even by a non-practitioner.

First, let me point out that any philosophical claim is an introduction or induction to a mindset. The point of philosophy is to bring the reader into a different, deeper, and ostensibly better way of understanding and interacting with the world. The objective/subjective distinction this question seems to be making is philosophically underdeveloped. That will (perhaps) become clearer a bit later in this post.
The essence of nondualism is that we perceive the world through the lens of mental categories that are intrinsically dualistic in the 'this'/'not-this' sense. Categories might be opposed pairs (left/right, up/down, hot/cold) or focal points (human/non-human, tree/non-tree, etc), but the point is that our mind picks out some feature of the world and latches onto it — interpreting it as unique, isolated, separate, and self-contained — while brushing all other features of the world into the collective background. That's useful. It's nice to be able to distinguish between a tree, a pedestrian, and a paved road when we're driving, and to have some sense about how each thing is going to behave (e.g. that the tree won't jump in front of us, but the pedestrian might). But ultimately these categories are purely mental objects, with a tenuous relationship to the 'objective' world. This isn't to say that there aren't 'things' in the world, but that the world is much more holistic and integrated than our categorical structures allow. The example I like to use is an ant colony: we see it as a bunch of individual ants scurrying around to serve the queen, but an alien might look at it an see the entire colony as an individual organism, with separable parts organized by chemical transmissions. Either way of looking at it is credible, which merely demonstrates that neither way of looking at it is precisely right.
The idea that all categories are superficial mental dualisms leads to some philosophical self-reflection. How much of ourselves ('I' or 'we') are superficial and dualistic categories that we've placed ourselves in? When I say I have a career, a gender, a race, a position in society, a house, a spouse, a pet mouse, that's just me saying that I have 'this' and 'not that'. What's left of 'us' when we look past all of those superficial dualisms? What is our essential beingness? Whatever it is it's common to all of us, but it isn't really necessary to see what it is. All we need to do is keep an eye on what it's not.
When we start to look into that it (necessarily) changes our attitude toward the world, the same way that letting the air out of a ballon (necessarily) changes its shape. In Eastern philosophy all disordered thought and conduct comes because we've latched onto categories and forgotten the intrinsic beingness that's common to all of us. If we (say) feel jealousy it's because in our minds we 'have' a person categorized as 'significant other', but don't see the beingness of that person (his/her capacity to feel affection towards us). That person becomes an object we must struggle to retain. When we see the person under the category, that jealousy disappears. There may be actions to be taken (e.g., if we see that our affection isn't returned), but there's no need to struggle against the world to maintain a category that was only ever superficial.

I was hoping PeterJs answer would include a bit more on Nagarjuna's doctrine of emptiness as I think that is fundamental to what you're asking here.  It's not that there's anything incorrect with that answer; I just think the emphasis is in the wrong place.
Let me start by saying that the doctrine of emptiness isn't really a doctrine at all.  Emptiness is an experience that is subsequently leveraged for the purposes of insight.  You can't be convinced that emptiness is true or false.  It's not an ontology that one can subscribe to based evidentiary claims.  Emptiness is apprehended only through meditative practice.  You see emptiness as fruit of what you're doing on the cushion.  Emptiness belays a fundamental shift in consciousness away from the stream of conventional thought and rumination toward a psychology that is marked by spaciousness, openness, and less preoccupation with the self.  It is not a mindset or an opinion.  It is a radical shift in consciousness.
But emptiness is not the whole story.  This is what uniquely distinguishes Buddhism from Hinduism (or, at least, the historical Buddha's first teachers) and really just about every other religion or spiritual practice that places its highest value in the apprehension of the numinous.  Once we are able to deeply and consistently enter into emptiness, the Buddha then asks us to take that experience and explore its implications in the conventional world.  This is the collapsing of the world of form and emptiness as celebrated in the Heart Sutra.  Through this ongoing process of entering into emptiness and coming back into form, we begin to see how form is really emptiness and emptiness is also form.  This is the process of insight - the deepest definition of vipassana.
There are countless avenues that one can explore as a part of this process of integration (I mean, the final 1/3 of the Visudhimagga is dedicated to objects of insight, there's also the hundreds of Zen koans that seek to do the same, etc.)  These can include things as varied as the nature of sensory perception, our own personal psychology, the nature of mind, the nature of reality, and so forth.  Each of these propositions are vehicles - prompts if you will - for insights that are available to us in a mind marked by emptiness.
All that being said, nonduality is just one of hundreds of different avenues we can explore once we've got a good handle on entering emptiness.  It's not that nonduality cannot be spoken of in conventional language.  It can and has been pretty much ad nauseum in the Sanskrit canon.  But everything written there is really just an exploration and a deepening of that initial insight where emptiness is brought to bear on the proposition of nonduality.  To make all of this a bit more concrete, I can tell you a hundred different ways that that nonduality is the collapsing of subject and object, but until you hear a bird song that you know beyond reason originated within you, the concept of nonduality will remain meaningless.  Until you've heard the person on the cushion next to you cough and you swallow in sympathy, nonduality is just a fancy idea.  All of the canonical developments concerning nonduality that follow will lack the necessary antecedent without the the mind first actualizing the experience of emptiness.  Even the richest texts become Aquinas' "handful of straw" without meditative accomplishment.

When we talk about anything, we hold on to some context to make things clear. In our QA, the context of the theme non-duality is awareness property of the mind.
The mind cannot exist without it's contents. And what are the contents? Any sort of ordering viz perceptions, feeling, volition, consciousness, etc.
When one's mind is absolutely still, the mind becomes absorbed with the outside environment and any activities in the outside world will feel like it's happening within itself. For example, the sounds become the mind, or we might as well say the mind becomes the sound.
These are not some extra ordinary experiences because these things are happening all the time by default when we are awake. However, in non-dual state, the mind is in some sort of samadhi where the awareness becomes the object of absorption.
The non-dual state also reveals the emptiness of phenomena. What we call our mind is conjoined with the contents which we then take as a self.
A human being is really empty in itself just like a mirror. A mirror is empty in itself, whatever we see as the image is just the reflection of outside world.
Our mind is just like a mirror.

A view can arise I am awareness, awareness is mine , awareness is myself. This is called non duality(Advait tradition in Hinduism). Consider another view , I am body , body is mine , body is myself. The view I am body seems to be self evident. You don’t need to develop the view I am body but there was a time when this view came into existence. This view became obvious. It became part of your consciousness. Similarly, the view I am awareness comes into existence. It becomes self evident or quite obvious. It becomes part of your consciousness(which includes mentality). However, as over a period of time, it is realised that I am not body , we realise that I am not awareness also holds true. This happens because all Dhamma are not self. Awareness, just like the body , is a Dhamma.
The non duality starts as a view then it gets realised but finally the view is abandoned because it is impermanent.

Last line is very important. The view that gets realised. it becomes nibbana.

@enRaiser That is not Nibbana because non duality is impermanent.

exactly. thats what non duality teacher says... now you decide which view you want to cling. Mahayan buddhism is very close to non duality. and according to it , true mind, nibbana,bodhi, tathta,tathagata , infinite consciousness all means same https://zenawakened.com/chinul-true-mind/

@enRaiser Nibbana means extinguishment. It is unborn , uncreated, unbecoming.

Extinguise into infinite awareness.

@enRaiser No. Awareness is not Self.

Exactly here non duality and buddha. Differs. The point of silence. Beyond this they both  can not discuss. Agree to disagree


text:
How is a lay person supposed to ever attain Nibbana?
The Buddha said in an indirect way that if one practices consistently for 7 days, enlightenment is guaranteed. My question is if there are thousands of monks who live in monasteries and practice all day everyday who aren't enlightened, how on earth is an ordinary lay person supposed to attain it?

"So are you saying we are all stuck here forever?". That's the problem. (we are all stuck here forever) Buddha teaches us how to be free from it forever.

practices consistently for 7 days? Only if [ you have normal level intellect(or higher) ] + [ will to give your 100% in all 7 days(which a lot of people lack) ] + [ learn what to do in that 7 days correctly before starting(also a lot of people don't get) ] + [ enough good karma(Not have done very bad karma in this or old(near past) lives) ]

I presumed that you are referring to the Buddha’s words in Satipatthana Sutta.

Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four establishings of mindfulness in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or—if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.

The reality is very few of us is totally sincere in wanting to do the practice as diligently or consistently as requested by the Buddha. In the Sedaka Sutta, the Buddha give an analogy of what it will be like for someone who truly practise in earnest. In the sutra, an executioner with a raised sword follows a convict as they make their way through a crowded marketplace. The convict is holding a bowl of oil filled to the brim. The instructions to the executioner were should the convict spilled even a drop of oil; the executioner will chop off the convict’s head. Meanwhile, a beauty queen is singing and dancing in the crowded marketplace. Will the convict be distracted?
Similarly, a practitioner is expected to fill their mind to the brim with mindfulness (like the bowl of oil). They are not to lower even a drop of their mindfulness throughout each waking moment. Imagine as we are practising, Taylor Swift is performing besides us. She calls out our name....where is our mind now?
Perhaps, we may feel that the Buddha’s demands are unrealistic and unachievable. Honestly, I can’t answer if it is reasonable to expect an ordinary lay person to attain Enlightenment. Reason is because I haven’t truly, honestly and sincerely even attempted to do the practice as requested by the Buddha....maybe we should at least try once?

she is everywhere like god it seems

The first step is to understand you are inside a giant game. A game that'll last at least half a dozen decades for an average human. Normally, a computer game could be turned on and off at will. But this game cannot be paused. We are forced to play it whether we like it or not. If the game provided easy choices, either play it or not your choice, it would make things much more easier. But, we're forced to deal with samsara to extract energy out of it for our survival. We have to deal with humans because we have no other choice. Even those esteemed monks and their monasteries are built upon the backs of people in samasara.
Nibbana shows up on the horizon when the game of life has reached its ceiling. You understand deeply what the game of life has to offer. Enjoyment in food, movies, games, beautiful scenery, beautiful faces, etc for a couple dozen of starting years and then it's groundhog day all days after.
As with any game, whether we reach nibbana or not depends on how long we keep enjoying the game, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, maybe never. Well, blessed are those who find enjoyment day in day out until death. However, for those of us unlucky ones, we seek freedom from the bondage that is the game of life. We are disenchanted with the forms, feeling, wearied of consciousness. We want to reach a place we can just pause the game.
Let's be patient. It may seem far but it isn't. Things will start to unravel itself if we keep on surviving. Just like river flows downstream, the mind will understand the game more and more, find the limits and seek something beyond.

how on earth is an ordinary lay person supposed to attain it?
By not grasping.

MN24:10.9: “The purpose of leading the spiritual life under the Buddha is extinguishment by not grasping.”

Grasping at Nibbana won't get us anywhere simply because grasping is NOT the point of the Noble Eightfold Path. Grasping at Nibbana would be Wrong View.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?
MN117:6.2: Right view is twofold, I say.
MN117:6.3: There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:6.4: And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

Right view is the start of the path. Start walking and let go of "are we there yet?"

The Pali canon is full of examples where a lay follower has attained Nirvana.
Based on actions your past lives it will be decided how many lives you will take to attain Nirvana or how far or near you are to attain Nirvana. We all are at different levels when it comes to attaining. We are all on our own journey to Nirvana. E.g. in your past life, you might have reached the state of once-returner so you might attain in this very life. As opposed to some monks in monasteries who have reached just stream entry. So don't think that just because you are a lay follower and not some monk you cannot attain Nirvana in this very life.
Further to this practise mindfulness as far as possible throughout the day. Associate yourself with some sangha, with friends who are into meditation. Practice witnessing awareness.
Read about the books on meditation and mindfulness. I will suggest you the book 'Mindfulness Bliss and beyond' by Ajahn Brahm, for a detailed look into how to practice mindfulness and other meditative states.
Try to attain 'Silent present moment awareness' which is mindfulness of the present moment.
Also, keep in touch with all those who have attained Nirvana and are teaching on YouTube like Eckhart Tolle. Sometimes their insights help along with the Buddha's insights to progress along the path.
You never know maybe you are closer to attaining Nirvana than all of us on this site.
Also, diligently practice making good karma.
You can also go to a 10 days Vipassana retreat to get a feel of monks life.

1) practices consistently for 7 days?
Only if

[ you have normal level intellect(or higher) ] +
[ will to give your 100% in all 7 days(which a lot of people lack) ] +
[ learn what to do in that 7 days correctly before starting(also a lot of people don't get) ] +
[ enough good karma(Not have done very bad karma in this or old(near past) lives) ]

.
2) there are thousands of monks who live in monasteries and practice all day everyday who aren't enlightened?
There are some enlightened. (like 0.1% of all monks/my guess)
But every other monk lacks one or many of the above 4 variables. (like 75%/my guess)
Some monks don't wish to be enlightened in this life also. (like 25%/my guess)
You may ask why? That's because they want to become Buddha himself, Pasebudu or special position of a future Buddha's followers.
3) "So are you saying we are all stuck here forever?".
That's the problem. (we are all stuck here forever)
Buddha teaches us how to be free from it forever.
4) How on earth is an ordinary lay person supposed to attain it?
Are you saying, you want to eat the mango but you don't want to touch it?
Stop being "an ordinary lay person"(as you said) and learn and do it yourself.
How would you expect to go somewhere(in normal life) without fulfilling the below procedure?

You/anyone needs some intellect to find the road(look at map, read the map, ask people, decide directions)

Some will to go until you find the destination you wanted (even your feet heart, go against stopping)

Learn how to read maps, find directions, and language to speak to people on the way to ask directions

See. The above steps are essential.
Don't take this personally. That's just the truth for everyone.
There's correct(Theravada) Buddha's teaching still existing in countries like Sri Lankan/Ceylon.
Thanks . Any questions are welcome. ☸.

I mean, what is wrong with this answer? Are there any issue? Just ask about it in comments. Not down vote.

Don't take it personally. I believe there is a habitual down-voter in this forum who is also a disbeliever in karma. They don't understand their habits are a result of their karma and lack the wisdom and virtues to break free of their karmic prison. I think this answer is truthful and relevant.

From my own understanding one does not need to be ordained to reach nibbana, I mean the Buddha was not ordained before he found it. Though as far as I know in the scriptures, only one non ordained (lay) person reached nibbana in Buddhas life time. I cannot remember the source but he was a naked ascetic.
It's as if one was seeking and able to reach nibbana, one would naturally find the dharma and to encompass oneself in the dharma and make the right conditions to practice earnestly, one would find the sangha, become ordained and lead a homeless life.
Like a natural progression.
Essentially the only difference between a lay and an ordained person is the vows that lead to strict conduct and going forth into the homeless life. Meaning they have the time and external conditions to be able to support the practice.
As we are not ready for it, we are still clinging to samsara, are still seeking pleasure etc so we are still lay people, still doing mundane things rather than spending our entire time on the path.

Not an ordained Buddhist monk, but the Buddha wasn't a lay-person -- already a homeless wanderer, a former student of others, a recluse, meditating full-time, etc.

He was a homeless ascetic, a mendicant, there was no such thing as an ordained person (in Buddhism) at the time as he hadn't even created such a status, but in contrast to what is now Buddhism as a religion, there are only 3 distinctions, well maybe 4, a lay person, an angrika, a postulate (novice) and a fully ordained member of the sangha. Buddha was a lay person, though we could argue that he was an angrika.

The Pali Suttas appear to contain no examples of laypeople attaining Arahantship. It appears the highest attainment in the Pali Suttas for a layperson is non-return. Refer to this link: The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas: Bhikkhu Bodhi.
The Satipatthana Sutta refers to attaining Arahantship in a week (seven days) however the Satipatthana Sutta (for various overt reasons) appears to be a fake composition and never spoken by the Buddha.

I didn't realize Satipatthana Sutta was dubiously credible. It's the most popular Theravada Sutta (I think), which makes that pretty shocking to me. I'm curious as to what those overt reasons for fraudulence are, so that I can attempt to discern the authenticity of that sutta.

A post about this matter is at this link: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/39180/8157

In Theravada, there are four stages of liberation: stream entry, once-returner, never-returner and arahant (the perfected one).
For a lay person, it is unlikely that he or she can achieve anything beyond stream entry. Even stream entry is difficult to reach.
AN 10.92 lists out the criteria for stream entry:

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

And also:

“Sāriputta, they speak of a ‘factor of stream-entry’. What is a factor
of stream-entry?”
“Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people,
listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in
line with the teaching.”
SN 55.5

The best that a lay person can hope to do is try to practise and fulfill the above, especially the five precepts and the four factors of stream entry.

At one time the Buddha was staying near Varanasi, in the deer park at
Isipatana. Then the lay follower Dhammadinna, together with five
hundred lay followers, went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one
side, and said to him:
“May the Buddha please advise and instruct us. It will be for our
lasting welfare and happiness.”
“So, Dhammadinna, you should train like this: ‘From time to time we
will undertake and dwell upon the discourses spoken by the Realized
One that are deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness.’
That’s how you should train yourselves.”
“Sir, we live at home with our children, using sandalwood imported
from Kāsi, wearing garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and accepting gold
and money. It’s not easy for us to undertake and dwell from time to
time upon the discourses spoken by the Realized One that are deep,
profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness. Since we are
established in the five training rules, please teach us further.”
“So, Dhammadinna, you should train like this: ‘We will have
experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha …
And we will have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading
to immersion.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.”
“Sir, these four factors of stream-entry that were taught by the
Buddha are found in us, and we embody them. For we have experiential
confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha … And we have the
ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion.”
“You’re fortunate, Dhammadinna, so very fortunate! You have all
declared the fruit of stream-entry.”
SN 55.53

So are you saying we are all stuck here forever?

@Saddhā It's like a man who has his spectacles placed on top of his head but he looks for it everywhere. You cannot say for sure how long he has to look for it, but one day, if he is lucky, he will find it on top of his head. If he is not lucky, he will never find it. In the suttas, some people just listen attentively to one discourse of the Buddha, and instantly attain stream entry at the end of it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there such a thing as Excessive Concentration?
Is there such a thing ? My guess is things like OCD etc. are extremes of concentration. Yuttadhammo Bhikku, for example, alludes to this excess concentration in some of his videos (I couldn't find specific mentions at the moment, I will cite the next time I find one).
What are your insights on what is it? what are the pros/cons of it and what a person afflicted with it must do to overcome it?
Thanks

There is a term named "'access' concentration" -- e.g. Monk Radio: Nimitta, Access Concentration, Kasina -- so perhaps you might reword this question to be more specific -- i.e. are you asking about access or excess or both or what?

Hi @ChrisW, thanks. Well tbh I am not sure because I heard it without subs ,and both those words sound similar. However the 'excess concentration' or too much concentration is something I am experientially familiar with. I was assuming that's what yuttadhammo meant, but now I think it was prolly the other one. Anyhow, I just wanted to know more about it, given that I am more or less certain that phenomena like OCD (and of course milder, more "normal" versions of it) are caused by something related to excessive concentration. I'm gonna watch the link and modify accordingly

@ChrisW I checked out the video and yuttadhammo seemed to be barely intererested in the concept of "access concentration", which leads me to believe he was talking about having excessive concentration previously. Even ignoring him, I believe the topic deserves some discussion - there isn't even one question on it on stack exchange. It would be good to know others' insights on it and good as a resource for other people to read later. I hope you can open the question for discussion.

There are 5 topics on this site where Ven. Yuttadhammo described "access": https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A18+access

Don't know whether this fits, with the focus at "excess". In my diploma in 1985, when there has been a certain hype on programming and "hacking" in the psychology, I collected some articles on "super-programmers": people which could phenomenomally concentrate on their programmer problem and sometimes reported themselves to mentally "be in the program" just like the electronical processor would be. Either very long sessions with this "concentration" or deep and/or direct insight into the solution, without written notes and so on. I had also done two/three interviews - (cntd...)

(... cntd) but later on this thread fell apart from common discussion. Maybe there is something in it which meets your experience. Btw. what about the so-called "savants"? (written correctly?) There have been a similar hype on them in the 80ies and 90ies if I recall correctly.

The Pali Suttas (e.g. MN 117) refer to wrong concentration & Right Concentration.
The term "wrong concentration" is not a moral judgement but simply refers to any type of concentration that does not lead to Nibbana. For example, the ethical & loving concentration used by a mother to take care of her baby/child is "wrong concentration" because it does not lead to Nibbana; even though this motherly concentration is life affirming.
Some Buddhist commentators have referred to "excessive concentration" however this simply appears to refer wrong concentration, namely, any type of concentration not based in the abandoning of craving, per the instructions of the Noble Truths/Path.

One thing must be noticed, however: the intensity of concentration that comes about naturally is usually sufficient and appropriate for introspection and insight, whereas the concentration resulting from organized training is usually excessive, more than can be made use of.
INSlGHT, BY THE NATURE METHOD by Buddhadasa

Therefore OCD would be a type of non-Nibbana concentration.

Thanks, great answer! The quoted para says that we don't need to develop concentration/samadhi since the natural one that we have is sufficient for insight? Or am I misunderstanding ?

Thank you. This essay by Buddhadasa has always been vague to most. I think/guess what Buddhadasa was saying is it is a natural concentration (without any premeditated effort & ambition) that serves as the basis for samadhi development .

MN 128 has some candidates for what you might mean 'excessive concentration'
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn128/index.html#128
of the 11 kinds of hindrances to good samādhi described,

MN 128.3.0 - (11 hindrances instead of usual 5)
MN 128.3.1 – (uk1: vicikicchā: doubt, same as 5niv#5)
MN 128.3.2 – (uk2: a-manasi-kāro: lack of attention, loss of focus)
MN 128.3.3 – (uk3: thina-middhaṃ: sloth & torpor, same as 5niv#3)
MN 128.3.4 – (uk4: chambhitattaṃ: terror ↔ simile travel on highway, robbers jump you)
MN 128.3.5 – (uk5: uppilaṃ: excitement ↔ simile like finding 5 treasures)
MN 128.3.6 – (uk6: duṭṭhullaṃ: discomfort/heaviness)
MN 128.3.7 – (uk7: acc-āraddha-vīriyaṃ: excessively aroused vigor ↔ simile of gripping quail too tightly it dies)
MN 128.3.8 – (uk8: ati-līna-vīriyaṃ: excessively lax vigor ↔ simile of gripping quail too softly it escapes)
MN 128.3.9 – (uk9: abhijappā: longing)
MN 128.3.10 – (uk10: nānatta-saññā: diversity of perceptions [that arise through 6 sense doors] )
MN 128.3.11 – (uk11: ati-nij-jhāyitattaṃ: excessive jhāna focus)

number #5, #7, #11 are candidates

Thank you. Do you know what #11 means?

the suttas talk about two kinds of nijjhāna. The more rare exalted kind, dhamma-nijjhāna, has to to with direct realizing and experiencing awakening and Dharmic insghts. The other kind, involves thinking and pondering views, which is what this sutta must be  referring to, echoing MN 19 which says that too much vitakka and vicāra (verbal thought) makes the body tired, which prevents bodily pacification and  four jhānas.

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


text:
hard breath supression
I have been practicing vipassana and noticed I was always controling my breath to some degree and this allowed me to achieve near perfectly continuous awareness. The problem is that this isnt right practice because of the suppressesion and it holds back mindlfullness from developing.
I am trying my best to never control my breath at all, short breath then short long then long, hard is hard, etc... however I reached a place where my breath just remains hard is if I am automatically controlling it, when I try to focus on the sensations every in and out breath is so present that it overtakes my awareness and causes me to lose focus. This creates anxiety in the mind because i am unable to focus on the sensations and i am not even doing anything, almost feels like punishment or torture.
I have continue to stay equanimous and remember that sensation or no sensation does not matter, its about accepting the reality as it is. I hope to find some insight sooner or later about this. As of now I feel a bit stuck in anapana, i wonder if someone went throughsomwthing like this? Will my breath settle?

In case anyone needs help with this. I have found that going back to step 1 is very helpful. Going back to just breath, nothing else. In and out as it is. Long lobg, hard hard, short dhort, and also easy easy...
I found that as i was expecting, unconsciously i was craving something, and i wasnt aligned with the goal of being with reality as it is...equanimity.. happy practice.

No self answers buddy.

How to be at present?
Buddha teaches how to be in the present all over the Damma. (Buddha's teachings.)
It's about concentration. It's about knowing what's going on in you, around you. (Not dreaming about the past and future.)
You can practice Samatha meditation to get absolute concentration.
(This is not the true purpose of Buddha's teaching.)
Now, One should use this concentration/ability to be in the present to understand the Four Noble Truths(Nirvana).
Which is vipassana meditation (The process of using concentration to understand the Four Noble Truths).
Which is the main goal of Buddhism.
Thanks . Any questions are welcome. ☸.

Remember this golden understanding that

where ever your attention goes your defilement flows there.

so when you are not focusing on breath its natural. but now its not natural because you are focusing on it. and this goes with any meditation object. It always feels like this meditation object is not good for me. but  believe me its not object its subjective.
but still this understanding is not sufficient to practice mindfulness of breathing. you need some tricks and tips.

Try observing breath at different place, necck, chest,belly, palvic and then come back. or keep exploring.
Try forcefully breathing  fast, (pranayam). or try forcefully stopping the breathing. for few seconds.
observer and stay in gaps between in.out and between out.in. and wait or dont hurry .
dont observer breath as object. but inside nose observe sensation at different place. or places near to nose like upper lips. or teeth or facial muscles. or eyes, back of eyes.temporal. etc. this  will reduces the hardness of breathing.
hardness of breath can also relate to hardness in muscles of neck, chest, abdomin, palvic region. so better to scan all of then and chekc any hardness.

I am not sure what you are replying to, or how you received 3 upvotes, rest assured I am not practicing mindfulness of breath, pranayama, and I am not sure what observer of breath as object means. As I wrote I practice vipassana, I appreciate your effort but it was a bizarre read.

Ven Thanissaro's book on breath meditation is excellent - beginner, advanced, comprehensive
https://lucid24.org/tped/s/samadhi/book/than-breath/index.html

I guess I'll just read a book about it. Thanks for taking the time to advice and think of this detailed response.

are you being sarcastic? If you read the book, you'll find it answers all of your concerns.  Or would you prefer random internet people give you all kinds of unqualified and dubious advice which will just make you more confused?


text:
What is the recommended mobile apps that assist in meditation?
I have been meditating for a few years now. I love the ones that deal with breathe control. I have use Headspace, calm, and balanced. All help a little but I have done trials of all three and don’t know which is better. Please help

This is a type of question that would be considered off-topic on other SE sites -- because it's a "product recommendation?" question. It doesn't even specify what you mean by "better" i.e. what you are looking for.

The Buddha provided instructions on meditation. Those instructions are the original "app". You can use your phone to read such instruction:

DN22:1.7: “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to discover the system, and to realize extinguishment.

On your phone, you can also listen to the same thing:

https://www.sc-voice.net/#/sutta/dn22/en/sujato

Listening is quite important. All meditation apps focus on listening. Why is that?
The suttas were originally spoken and heard as is, in the moment. In this age of fast looking and grabbing, the art of listening mindfully has sadly slipped into disuse. You may notice that modern meditation apps have an emphasis on sound. Listening mindfully is quite important. The ears must hear what happens in the moment. Eyes tend to grab what glitters. So we tend to use our phones as eyes onto the world, grabbing whatever catches our fancy, leaving us unsatisfied. Meditation apps turn away from the grasping of sight and allow you to explore listening. And if you're going to explore listening, well, try listening to Buddhist suttas, especially the ones on meditation itself.

MN143:5.1: “That’s why, householder, you should train like this:
MN143:5.2: ‘I shall not grasp the eye, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the eye.’


text:
Would total annihilation of Humanity cause Nirvana for everyone?
If nirvana is to escape the cycle of Samsara, wouldn't all of humanity being dead meaning Samsara would end? Say there was a total nuclear war and everyone ends up dead.

No,in my opinion annihilation of 'human-ness' will.

Vladimir, is it you? Bad joke aside, see the answer of Desmon.

Yes, @Desmon is correct.

The human realm is only one of the thirty one planes of existence mentioned in Buddhist sutras. If all of humanity is wiped out, we will likely end up in the other realms. Even when a world cycle ends i.e. the end of the universe, there are some realms that are not affected by the subsequent destruction and rebirth of the universe. So, the cycle of samsara never ends or stops temporarily.

No, the total annihilation of humanity is not considered a path to Nirvana in traditional spiritual teachings. Nirvana is seen as an individual, spiritual achievement, and promoting harm or destruction conflicts with ethical principles in many belief systems.


text:
Does Buddhism only reviewing the past and looking for the future? So, where is the "present"?
To me, the “present” holds greater significance than both the past and the future. Why? Because the present is the canvas upon which I can actively wield influence. It’s where my actions ripple outward, shaping what awaits me in the days to come. And when this present moment eventually slips into the folds of history, it leaves behind valuable lessons—etched into memory—as I learn and grow from its tapestry of experiences.

Buddhism's main theme is, being in the present. Which gives the ability / enough concentration to see the truth. (see/understand four noble truths.)
Buddha only speaks of the past, to let people know how other people walked the path to Nirvana.
Budda has only spoken about the future very little because it is less meaningful. (Only normal(us) misguided people think the future is the most important.)
Buddha only encourages us to be in the present, which is the only path to Nirvana.
How to be at present?
Buddha teaches how to be in the present all over the Damma. (Buddha's teachings.)
It's about concentration. It's about knowing what's going on in you, around you. (Not dreaming about the past and future.)
You can practice Samatha meditation to get absolute concentration.
(This is not the true purpose of Buddha's teaching.)
Now, One should use this concentration/ability to be in the present to understand the Four Noble Truths(Nirvana).
Which is vipassana meditation (The process of using concentration to understand the Four Noble Truths).
Which is the main goal of Buddhism.

Buddha teaches us to stay in the present.
"What is past is left behind.
The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there."

Buddha
From the Bhaddekaratta Sutta


text:
Where can I practice phowa online?
As a lay person, I’d like to find resources online to practice phowa because of a lack of masters I can meet in person where I live. Are there any good resources on the internet to achieve phowa? And has anyone here done the phowa practice?

Do you mean phowa as transferring your consciousness to another body? one of the 6 yogas of naropa?
This is not something written about, afaik only the karma kaguya practice this, 1 tibetan sect that is deeply rooted in oral transmission from master to student and such a practice would only be taught to monastics and people who are adept as it is an impediment to liberation, its a tangent. Something you would essentially have to dedicate your entire life towards.
If you mean phowa as in the prayers for the dead ceremony to help a dead persons consciousness travel well, well there are probably many books about the practice, it is essentially a colloquial Tibetan funerary rite based upon the Tibetan book of the dead.
I know kelsang gyatso living meaningfully, dying joyfully book explains the latter practice (I have read it, its useless for me)


text:
Which category from the Kalama Sutta does "relying on common sense" fall under
I was reflecting on a craving I had for something addictive tonight while going to bed, and realized, "My notion of having 'just a little bit' of this addiction is just my relying on common sense... but common sense is no more common than horseradish is full of horses. Just because most people think, 'just a little' is always OK doesn't necessarily mean it's truly a sober, beneficial, or wise thing to do."
In any case, this reminded me of the Kalama Sutta, and I wondered what my version of relying falsely on common sense would be:

"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.

My guess is that common sense is a tempting thing to automatically defer to because it can combine every one of the unhelpful methods of inquiry into one. So then if people rely solely on common sense they basically just do whatever they want. Yet, it can sometimes also be the correct way of inquiry listed at the end of the Sutta. Am I correct?

I wondered what my version of relying falsely on common sense would be
I don't think I have enough clues about what "your version" is.
The only clue you gave was that it was related to "just a little" -- and related to that, one thing about addiction is that maybe experience isn't common/universal -- for example, some people can and do drink alcohol "just a little" and some people cannot. I've seen someone say, "I'm an alcoholic. That means, I can choose whether to have the first drink, but if I do it's the drink that decides to have the second." Someone who isn't an addict might not understand that, so "conventional wisdom" might not apply in that case.
My guess is that common sense is a tempting thing to automatically defer to because it can combine every one of the unhelpful methods of inquiry into one.
There's also the possibility that if something else is "tempting" -- e.g. the addictive experience -- then you might take any excuse to do that.
So then people basically just do whatever they want.
I see the sutta as recommending several criteria:

But when you know for yourselves: “These things are skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to welfare and happiness”, then you should acquire them and keep them.’ AN 3.65

What you know for yourselves
Skillful
Blameless
Praised by the wise
Leading to welfare and sukha

The subtitle of the version you quoted -- "The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry" -- could perhaps be misinterpreted as "basically just do whatever they want".
But "praised by the wise" ... I suppose that common sense isn't common to different populations, for example for a group of addicts their "common sense" might be to continue/pursue their substance abuse.
Asking yourself also, "Is this praised by the wise?", presupposes that you know what "the wise" is or who some of them are -- which may be begging the question! -- but even so, "developing wisdom", and maybe "counting on the input from wise (spiritual) friends", is fairly integral to Buddhism, and so maybe don't be too surprised to find it here too.

Good answer, though I should clarify my argument that I wasn't saying that the Buddha's version of proper inquiry was doing whatever you want, but rather, if "common sense" is vaguely applied as a "panacea" as someone else's answer recommended against, one may end up just picking whatever behavior it is that they feel like doing in the moment.

Edited my question according to my last comment. As far as more clues to how I define common sense, "common sense" I have seen as a pithy statement to shorten the vows and precepts, much like Christ's, "Love they neighbor" shortened the commandments, but common senses definition also changes according to what's convenient in trying times. "This isn't a serious drug..." "It helps me sleep to engage in this..." "Pleasure is normal. Enjoy life." So it can be either healthy conscience or in it's nefarious form, a deeply flawed rationalization.

I found that if I'm addicted to something, if I allow any reason to tell myself that "one is okay", then the same reason holds again shortly afterwards for "another is okay -- one is okay, two is just another one", and so on. So to free of it I have to be "not one, not ever".

Now that you mention it, I actually took the pithy statement out of context anyway. It wasn't just, "use common sense," but rather, "common sense and respect." Those two notions in tandem actually do sound a lot like Buddha's tenets of inquiry. Respecting oneself could be construed as not engaging in what you know will perpetuate problems for everyone. But also, specifically, those slogans about recovery do help.

Human beings are makers and users of tools. Being creatures of habits, we will always use those tools we are more familiar, comfortable and experienced in. Common sense would be one of them; so are repeated hearing, tradition, rumours, relying on scriptures, surmise, axioms, specious or logical or illogical (i.e. superstitious) reasonings, biasness, deferring to others’ knowledge, authorities and so on. All these are merely tools.
But as a Buddhist, I think we do not believe that any tool is a panacea. That would be like a solution searching for a problem. Instead, I believe the first thing a Buddhist employ to any situation is awareness. Awareness if there is a problem and what is its nature whether obvious or hidden, internal or external, benign or insidious and so forth. Heightened awareness helps us to know a problem’s origins and its root causes and seeing what others tend to overlook.
The best example of this approach is the way the Buddha went about being aware of the problems with his life and those of others i.e. old age, illness and death. This is an approach for solving really stubborn issues that failed to yield to numerous attempts in the past until everyone more or less accept the situation as status quo. An example would be an awareness that the way to solve America’s traffic congestion is not to build more roads and highways but to commit to developing the infrastructure necessary for high speed rails. Another example would be an awareness that there is something psychologically comforting about our addictions i.e. they help us to bear with the unbearable. This will not end our addictions but point us towards acknowledging, accepting and dealing with that which is unbearable in our lives...perhaps, eventually an end to our addictions.
There is an appropriate time and place for any tool. If used in the wrong context, with the wrong target(s) or at the wrong time, it becomes a problem in itself. Similarly, awareness is a tool that needs to be utilized appropriately. Being constantly aware of the wrongs that another did to us in the past only create animosity and hatred within. Being aware of unskillful actions by others that are creating problems but not being able to correct them will only cause frustrations and anger. At such times, it might be more appropriate to be aware of the equanimous quality within our minds.
I believe failure to utilize our awareness appropriately can backfire on ourselves. One such situation is when we deliberately dial down our awareness i.e. ignore what is happening or indulge ourselves in order to distract and forget. This dulls our mind and gives rise to a state of ignorance.
Thus, I believe that mindfulness should be used to guide our awareness. A desire not to repeat past mistakes should drive our mindfulness. Finally, the desire not to suffer....for ourselves and our loved ones should be the motivation why we don't want to repeat our mistakes.

My guess is that common sense is a tempting thing to automatically defer to because it can combine every one of the unhelpful methods of inquiry into one.
From the Kalama Sutta we have the Buddha asking the Kalamas in common:

AN3.65:5.1: What do you think, Kālāmas?
AN3.65:5.2: Does greed come up in a person for their welfare or harm?”

And they answer in common:

AN3.65:6.1: “Harm, sir.”

Not all that is spoken in common makes sense. What the Buddha does here is teach skillful common sense:

AN3.65:17.1: “What do you think, Kālāmas, are these things skillful or unskillful?”

In this way "just a little" can be understood as "just a little skillful" or "just a little unskillful". The inquiry here is therefore an inquiry about alignment with what the Buddha teaches as skillful. Some common things are skillful, and some are not. Does that make common sense?

True, common sense can be skillful or unskillful. Similarly, greed can be skillful or unskillful. Indeed, the Buddha credit this ability to discern qualities into either skillful or unskillful (MN19) for helping him on the right path.


text:
A geometric analogy for understanding emptiness. Is it a valid one?
Segments in a straight line have non-zero lengths but all of them have zero area i.e. they are "empty" when viewed as embedded in 2-dimensional plane. Similarly, all 2-dimensional shapes viewed as embedded in 3 dimensions appear as zero-volume entities, although in their own plane of 2 dimensions they do have intrinsic substance (area).
So my first question is: is this a valid analogy for the buddhist concept of "emptiness"?
Naturally, the analogy can be continued to infinity: at each step, objects are "substantial" within their own plane but "empty" as regards the higher planes. This urges us to think that in infinite dimensions we have finally arrived at perfect substantiality, as no higher plane can exist to destroy it.
But we can move further on, to spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions, where "orders of infinity" can indeed provide new dimensions to our enquiry,
to a point where our human thinking begins to be at a loss as to what is going on...
So my second question is: has this extension to infinite dimensions caught the attention of buddhist philosophers?

Your question is posed in a mathematical way. See Volume or Determinant for a mathematical understanding. I'm new to Buddhism, so I can only guess "emptiness" should be translated to "absence".

I think this takes the analogy in the wrong direction. If we look at a circle drawn on paper, we actually have a line (a substantial form) that separates inner and outer spaces that are themselves empty. This is the nature of mind: every thought and mental object is a sketched-out, semi-arbitrary delimiter we use to sort the world into manageable clumps. But we don't seek to contract that circle into nothingness; it's more that we expand the circle until we no longer see the form of it, so that all we have is the emptiness.
I've always liked the metaphor they use in the daodejing (chapter 11). We make a cup out of clay, but the clay isn't the important part of the cup. The empty space the clay defines is the important part. Form defines empty space, empty space makes form useful. The trick (for a Buddhist or a Daoist) is to recognize those forms as mere forms, so that we can recover that space in its unconstrained form.

As for recovering space in its unconstrained form, I also sometimes think that as my body is a closed form dividing the whole of space into an interior and an exterior, I  choose to name "me" the interior of that form, but why not make an inversion to suddenly become the infinite exterior?

Or, on a more modest level, to read a book by concentrating on the empty space between the letters.
Now such playful emptiness is good for providing a relaxed & amusing perspective for working with forms and putting them in order, in beautiful collections of any kind...
But another perspective also appears: to see emptiness as the field of potentiality for the infinite varieties of forms...
Evidently, I do have a hard time grasping the value of emptiness per se!

Emptiness in Buddhism is a complex topic with different ways of viewing it. As a Buddhist, what is important is how these perceptions of emptiness affect our thinkings, decisions and behaviours. Buddhism is known for its pragmatism and practical approaches. I believe the geometric example of emptiness given in the OP is valid. However, I struggled to see its practical applications. Below, are some practical applications of emptiness.
Emptiness as a meditative dwelling. If we have a chance to go to a quiet park or a place where there is little human activities, we get a chance to experiment and experience this. Or if we happened to live in a place where there is winter, go to a large, open space after a heavy blizzard. Empty our thoughts and listen intently to the surroundings. We will notice the quietness in the air. Slowly, as we willingly stay with this quietness, we’ll notice our mind becoming very still. And the strange thing is the mind actually enjoys being in that state of stillness. No inner chattering, discourse and arguments about the past or future. Just being present and enjoying it. Honestly, this is one reason why I (and I believe many people) enjoy going to the parks and being surrounded by greeneries. I strongly believe if we can maintain this state of mind throughout the day, it will do wonders for our mental wellbeing.
Emptiness as an attribute of objects. If we are obsessed with wealth, material possessions, physical appearance and reputation, seeing the lack of self in these things (even in ourselves) helps to weaken this strong attachment. Who is going to inherit our wealth, possessions or remember our youthful and good looks after we are gone? Does it matter? Being around people who are constantly obsessing over money, power and appearances and also people who are nonchalant about these things; do you ever wonder why there are such huge differences both in attitude and behaviour over wealth, reputation and gain? When trying to understand the psychological make-up of these two groups of people (whom I know intimately) and I realized that fundamentally they have very different valuations of things. If we see possessions as intrinsically devoid of real value (i.e. emptiness) other than for sustaining our existence; would we become hysterical if we lose these possessions? Yes, I may envy the former group but the most enjoyable times were spent with the latter group.
Emptiness as a type of awareness-release. Personally, I don’t have concrete experience with this. But I believe this is a central theme in Mahayana tradition and must, therefore, been a source or an inspiration for liberation for many practitioners over the ages.
So, if there are practical applications in a geometrical definition of emptiness, it would be more relevant. With Metta.

I like "Emptiness as an attribute of objects". And of mind too.
But this assertion is valid only for someone living in the fullness of a plane that contains & extends, enriches above emptiness that which he refers to.
In this way we can explain "paradoxical" statements like "emptiness is form, form is emptiness".
Emptiness in an embedded plane is indeed form in a container-plane.
Form in an embedded plane is indeed emptiness in a container-plane.
Just like 2D figures are part of 3D, but flat, although still existing (fully in their own plane, "emptily" in the container-planes).

Now a second way to go is to forget about embedded planes and see only one "space" that includes everything, but has the ability to become denser or thinner here and there, resulting in the appearance of "forms in a void". But ultimately form and void are of the same "etheric" substance.
Perhaps this view is compatible with the first, but I can't say right now.

enriches above emptiness that which he refers to. I think it can be either way. Sometimes, seeing emptiness enriches the mind. Other times, a mind at peace, fulfilled and gladdened, happens to notice the lack of substance in external phenomenon.

Perhaps the fulfilment and gladness you mention is a kind of 'entrance gate' to the richer container. Inhabiting a richer container permits the restriction of attention to any  of its 'empty' sub-worlds, for amusement, rest or additional creativity.

And perhaps the 'sound of  one hand' of the famous koan could be linked to that of a hand tapping its reflection in a mirror, where there is one hand in two different planes.

Your analogy does not demonstrate emptiness. Emptiness is the emptiness of phenomena. All conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are empty of Self.
Do you imagine line or area or volume or infinite dimensions as Self ? No , you don’t. First you need to understand the phenomena which is under question. The language of line , area or volume was learned by you. You were not born with it. It is a mental phenomena. If you stick to mental phenomena then I should remind you that mental phenomena are also empty of Self. Mathematics is not me , mine or myself because understanding and cravings for mathematical knowledge is impermanent. You may have to call line is an area if you insist mathematics is the Dhamma.

The geometric example was meant only as a quantitative analogy to a qualitative reality. Mineral seems embedded in plant, plant in animal, animal in human.
It seems that at each level, something crucial is added that makes the previous one seem rather "flat" or "empty". And we have reached only number 4... Isn't that wonderful?
Perhaps that sequence is already a part of the Infinite Self!
Sure there is thirst for the absolute, there is loneliness, loss and sadness at the human level. What are these feelings if not sure signs of their own overcoming?

Evidently, I do have a hard time grasping the value of emptiness per se!
The doctrine of emptiness seems to me a generalization of the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
Its "value" is several:

To keep the men from disputing ("I am right!" -- "No, I am right!")
To keep each man from being distressed by their own view, whatever it is ("I am right, and I don't like it!")

There's probably more that I'm not grasping but even this is a useful beginning, isn't it?

Yes, emptiness and fullness, humility and self-assertion, seriousness & playfulness in a kind of "golden balance".


text:
How can I practise listening?
I find myself building mental associations while someone is speaking to me.  I might ask them a question and while they are talking, I’ve already left to form some mental map (prapanca I suppose) i.e. I don’t listen much (I think I am more visually-oriented).
Is this really bad or just my imagination? It does appeared socially impolite and I do it often, so maybe there is a functional reason (like too much information to process). It would be rude to interrupt or not look and pay attention. So, the conversation might end up awkward or repetitive.
Perhaps, it is a sign I don't really care about their response which is terrible especially since I asked the question. But the conversation can be lost in a split-second as a result of a visual que, a background sound or any distraction. What do you think? How can I progress to be a better listener?

Have you tried transcendental meditation?

A way to deal with this issue is to invoke curiosity. Wonder what the next words will be; wonder what the person is trying to convey to you beyond the words; look at their expression and gestures and wonder whether those match the words they are using. The thinking mind wants to make assumptions and jumps to conclusions, because its purpose is to answer questions. An overactive mind will use those assumptions to project itself into the future — anticipating and dealing with coming events — and miss what's going on in the moment itself. Pushing the mind into a questioning state short circuits that anticipatory urge.
Note that what you're doing isn't precisely 'rudeness' or a lack of listening. Your mind has decided that the person you're talking to is a known quantity, and so it charges off looking for something it doesn't know, because not-knowing is its fear. Convince your mind that it doesn't know people half as well as it thinks, and your mind will naturally focus on them.
As you go deeper in practice that urge to assume and anticipate will soften, and you'll be able to track the present moment without any special effort. Dedicated curiosity is a stop-gap measure, but it can be effective.

In the suttas, the mind is counted as one of the senses,

MN38:30.6: That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
MN38:30.7: When they hear a sound with their ears …
MN38:30.8: When they smell an odor with their nose …
MN38:30.9: When they taste a flavor with their tongue …
MN38:30.10: When they feel a touch with their body …
MN38:30.11: When they know an idea with their mind, if it’s pleasant they desire it, but if it’s unpleasant they dislike it. They live with mindfulness of the body unestablished and their heart restricted.

Listening to others involves mindfulness and situational awareness:

AN10.61:2.13: I say that lack of mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
AN10.61:2.14: And what is the fuel for lack of mindfulness and situational awareness?
AN10.61:2.15: You should say: ‘Irrational application of mind.’

Now consider two cases. First considering listening to a Dhamma talk--a wandering mind is of no use here. Second, consider listening to someone talking about themselves endlessly--perhaps you both have better things to do. In other words, apply your rational mind to what should be attended rightly.

Came across this article, it might help. I am not an expert so it might be better to consult one.
There are some coping strategies recommended in this article that maybe relevant.

to look at people’s lips, move to a quieter room, or use high-fidelity ear plugs.

With Metta.


text:
Is Buddhism Effective?
I am sure of my ignorance and apologize.
Is Buddhism effective? There are only 28 Buddha since the beginning of perception, right? What hope is there of ever awakening? I am very discouraged. Though depression is a big thing in my current incarnation. I will likely screw things up anyway.

See also "Good in the begining" etc. in this answer.

Note that mentioned in wiki, the current aeon had 4 Buddhas i.e. Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa and Gautama. Maitreya is prophesied to be the last Buddha of this aeon. The 21 additional Buddhas came from Buddhavamsa which is believed to be written during 1st and 2nd century BCE, a later addition....but not to worry as this doesn't affect the effectiveness of Buddhism. ;-)

Buddhism is extremely effective: if you create causes of the experience of suffering - there's experience of suffering, if you don't - there's no experience of suffering. Works like magic, as long as you take it seriously.
And what causes experience of suffering? A mismatch between expectation and reality. And what causes the mismatch? Either the wrong expectation or the wrong reality.
What is a wrong expectation? It is an unrealistic expectation. An expectation based on incorrect, incomplete, outdated information.
And what is wrong reality? It's a reality you create by performing unskilful acts that generate disharmony, such as violence, theft, lying, verbal abuse, sowing discord etc.
How to prevent the experience of suffering? Externally, by not creating disharmony. Internally, by staying in sync with reality, accepting reality, reconciling with reality.
What is false happiness? False happiness is a static situation that depends on a particular combination of conditions. Why is it false? Because all combinations of conditions are temporary.
What does the absence of suffering feel like? It feels like intrinsic peace inherent to any situation. Why is it called unconditional non-abiding Nirvana? Because it does not depend on abiding in any fixed situation either externally or internally. It has only one condition: letting go of attachment to non-reality.
What is awakening? Awakening is realizing that all our experience, positive and negative, is generated by the mind, is dependant on our conceptualization, and consequently going beyond said conceptualization. How is awakening attained? It is attained by letting go of the attachment to our conceptualization habits and opening to the reality beyond preconception.
Do you have to be a Buddha to understand and practice the above? No, as long as you get the principles you can start implementing them in your life, and even partial implementation will lead to reduction of the experience of suffering, and incremental awakening and peace.

Thank you!

Buddhism is effective for everyone.
It's not just for the Sammasambuddhas, Pacceka Buddhas, Arahants, never-returners, once-returners and stream enterers. It's also useful for the monks, lay people and those of other religions. Please see the sutta quote below.
Let me give you an analogy. If you learn to cook, you can cook a meal for yourself. But you don't have to become a world-renowned Michelin star chef like Gordon Ramsay.
Just because there are only a handful of people in the world like Gordon Ramsay, it doesn't mean that cooking is not effective. It's effective for everyone, in various degrees according to their needs.

“Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
answer as you like. What do you think? Suppose a farmer has three
fields: one’s good, one’s average, and one’s poor—bad ground of sand
and salt. What do you think? When that farmer wants to plant seeds,
where would he plant them first: the good field, the average one, or
the poor one?”
“Sir, he’d plant them first in the good field, then the average, then
he may or may not plant seed in the poor field. Why is that? Because
at least it can be fodder for the cattle.”
“To me, the monks and nuns are like the good field. I teach them the
Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Because they live
with me as their island, protection, shelter, and refuge.
To me, the laymen and laywomen are like the average field. I also
teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the
middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal
a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that?
Because they live with me as their island, protection, shelter, and
refuge.
To me, the ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers of other religions are
like the poor field, the bad ground of sand and salt. I also teach
them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and
good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Hopefully they
might understand even a single sentence, which would be for their
lasting welfare and happiness.
Suppose a person had three water jars: one that’s uncracked and
nonporous; one that’s uncracked but porous; and one that’s cracked and
porous. What do you think? When that person wants to store water,
where would they store it first: in the jar that’s uncracked and
nonporous, the one that’s uncracked but porous, or the one that’s
cracked and porous?”
“Sir, they’d store water first in the jar that’s uncracked and
nonporous, then the one that’s uncracked but porous, then they may or
may not store water in the one that’s cracked and porous. Why is that?
Because at least it can be used for washing the dishes.”
“To me, the monks and nuns are like the water jar that’s uncracked and
nonporous. I teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good
in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I
reveal a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is
that? Because they live with me as their island, protection, shelter,
and refuge.
To me, the laymen and laywomen are like the water jar that’s uncracked
but porous. I teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good
in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I
reveal a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is
that? Because they live with me as their island, protection, shelter,
and refuge.
To me, the ascetics, brahmins, and wanderers of other religions are
like the water jar that’s cracked and porous. I also teach them the
Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in
the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual
practice that’s entirely full and pure. Why is that? Hopefully they
might understand even a single sentence, which would be for their
lasting welfare and happiness.”
SN 42.7

Thank you!

There is vastly more that 28 Buddhas that have come into existence. The 28 is the history of 28 Sammāsambuddhas of this aeon (not specifically from the beginning of perception) The Buddha himself gave a massive list of like 500 pratyeka Buddhas.
To explain simply. A sammasam Buddha is what is known as a "great Buddha" they are ones who attain liberation on their own and teach others the path to walk so that they can attain it for themselves. They only arise in a time when there is no dharma in the world (taught from the last sammasam Buddha)
Then there are countless pratyeka Buddhas or "solitary conquerors" these are Buddhas who like the great Buddhas find the path on their own, but do not lead a sangha and teach the path for others. They can teach to others but do not lead to a great, well religion like the last Buddha, Buddha shakyamuni.
The main thing that is shared between both of these Buddhas is that they only arise when there is no dharma in the world. Anyone else seeking liberation when there is dharma in the world will find the last sammasam Buddhas teachings and if practised and realized will reach liberation as an arhant as a "hearer" reaching a hearers enlightenment.
Ultimately the liberation that the 3 types of people find is the same, for conventional sake they are all arhants, just 1 reached liberation by listening to a Buddhas teachings (arhant) the others found it on their own, one did not teach to a vast amount of others (pratyekabuddha) the other taught to others and created a lineage of teachings (Sammāsambuddha)
The real thing you can take from this is that liberation is not reliant upon others to experience, while now we are fortunate to have had others tread the path and teach us the way, there are others (Buddhas) who have tread the path and found it themselves without help from others. Meaning we (in the future, or in different realms or worlds) can ourselves do the same, can ourselves become a Buddha...if one chose to follow a more bodhisatvva path.

Thank you!

Anyone - even you can become enlightened. There are many individuals beyond the said number of Buddhas that attained nirvana! These realized beings are called arahants. There are a few steps down from arahants who are promised nibbana in x number of lifetimes namely the 'stream-enterer,' 'one-returner' and 'no-returner.' It's actually much more hopeful! :)
You can read up about the Four Stages of Enlightenment in Wikipedia - .
Even if you don't get into any of these stages of enlightenment in this lifetime, Buddhism is very helpful for handling the vicissitudes of life. I joined a meditation course recently and it has changed me as a person and how I deal with problems. I see things from a bigger perspective (naturally) and I am much more calm, balanced and non-reactive. Buddha has said that Dhamma (the truths of existence / teachings taught by Buddha) is beneficial in the beginning, in the middle and in the end. I hope this encourages and helps you! :)

Thank you!

Actually, there has been an infinite number of Buddhas in the past. And there will be in the future. The only problem is Buddha only appears after a vast amount of time has passed from another Buddha. There are many reasons for that.
Like,
1)
it's very very hard to be a Buddha.
One/Normal person has to pass like 1.2*10^6 (1200,000) another Buddha while he is fulfilling requirements to be a Buddha.
2)
There's no need to be a new Buddha in the world if the world has past Buddha's teachings left.
(which is now)
Etc...
28 Buddha.
In the time scale used in Buddhism, there are only 28 Buddhas in the time period that we are in now. That's why people say there are only 28 Buddhas.
Other Buddhas are very far away from us. Far away like normal people can't grasp the amount of time. So it's less meaningful to explain them to normal people.
Even for the given 28 Buddhas, only 27 have been. And we are in the 27th Buddha's time. The 28th Buddha will be in the future.
What hope do we have?
1)
There's still Damma from the 27th Buddha's teaching left. Which is enough for someone to attain Nirvana.
2)
There will be another last Desana from Buddha himself 5000 years after his physical death. (which is in the future).
3)
It's not necessary to see the Buddha himself physically to attain Nirvana. Because Damma is still present in the world.
It's not about seeing Buddha physically with someone's eyes. It's about what Buddha teaches.
Thanks . Any questions are welcome. ☸.

Thank you!


text:
Buddhist attitude towards divination and magic
The Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN2) had often been quoted as the Buddha’s objections towards relying on “animal” arts for a livelihood. If one is learned in Mathematics, one can be a Math teacher. If one is experienced in cooking, one can work as a cook. If one is skilled in the “animal” arts, is a shaman even considered a legal occupation?
Reading a paper: On Buddhism, Divination and the Worldly Arts..., however, got me thinking deeply on the reasons and contexts of this position. Is there more to it than the grounds of wrong livelihood? Could there be other dangers? Conversely, are there really no benefits whatsoever? What if one used divination and was able to avoid a misfortune...perhaps, even physical harm?
Going to a Thai monastery, I have often wondered when devotees bring amulets to the monks to get them blessed. If you worn a white thread after visiting, you will be familiar with the practice of “sai sin”. Similarly, I have known of some devotees who approached monks for divination on matters that falls under serious or mundane. Also, in the paper mentioned above, the Buddha himself, had been approached to divine the subsequent rebirths of devotees on many occasions.
I could be wrong but does this mean as long as one adheres to some underlying restrictions, clauses or conditions with regards to the occult arts then one might not ended up on the “dark” side after all? If this is so, what are those conditions? If not, what are the dangers other than wrong livelihood?

The relevant passage is likely this one:

DN2:59.3: They refrain from such low lore, such wrong livelihood.
DN2:59.4: This pertains to their ethics.
DN2:60.1: There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.
DN2:60.2: This includes predicting whether there will be plenty of rain or drought; plenty to eat or famine; an abundant harvest or a bad harvest; security or peril; sickness or health. It also includes such occupations as arithmetic, accounting, calculating, poetry, and cosmology.

To understand how "arithmetic" and "shamanism/cosmology" may be seen as wrong livelihood, consider that both can and have been used to gain advantage over others. For example, the Black-Scholes equation is instrumental in creating wealth based on stock option trading. Option trading is adversarial--to win, others must lose.  In the hierarchy of benefit, the win-lose strategy is mentioned, but it is not the highest strategy. What the Buddha teaches is:

AN4.95:2.1: Suppose there was a firebrand for lighting a funeral pyre, burning at both ends, and smeared with dung in the middle. It couldn’t be used as timber either in the village or the wilderness.
AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.
AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.
AN4.95:4.2: In the same way, the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

In contrast, notice that a carpenter uses math to build a strong house for one and all. Carpenters benefit themselves and others.
Which do you think is more ethical? Would you feed the options trader or the carpenter?

Curiously when Augustine criticises "mathematicos" in Latin I'm pretty sure that's better translated as "divination" or "augury" -- i.e. not calculus as we might know it -- although stock-speculators too may be trying to predict the future.

Also FYI when I watched a documentary about Black-Scholes recently it was presented as a way to calculate the fair price for an option -- so possibly not adversarial? -- just the fair price for someone to pay for an option e.g. if they want to hedge their risk. But anyway, yes, I do see what you're saying. I note though the text criticizes "ascetics and brahmans" wrong livelihood? I'm not sure that Buddhism is especially averse to trade and even wealthy traders.

@ChrisW, when options trading is "fair" you lose money half the time--it's basically gambling. The Black-Sholes equation is so good it offers an advantage to those with the resources to use it effectively. In this way, this is similar to casinos who have an advantage.  And you're right, the Buddha does not oppose wealth, but he does point out that wealth is often associated with attachment that causes suffering.

it's basically gambling Originally perhaps it was insurance against unexpected loss ("hedging"). Otherwise a lot of trading might be called gambling, e.g. "I bet that if I transport my cargo on this ship then it won't sink" -- more like a subset of "accounting". People who buy insurance are willing buyers, even if they make a (small) loss on average, the reduction in risk is worth that to them (so perhaps the trade is mutually beneficial). Anyway ... sorry to interrupt you. I do suppose "arithmetic" meant something a bit different in context i.e. at the time that the Buddha spoke against it.

The Buddha generally frowned upon magical practice specifically divination. The gist of it is that he didn't want the sangha coming across as a bunch of charlatans telling fortunes that never came true.  The Buddha also saw divination as a "worldly" end - no different than holding a job as a rice farmer.  In other words, while divination could bring shame to the image of the sangha, it was even more detrimental because it impinged upon a samanas commitment to a truly homeless life.
That's the idealized version, anyway.  In practice, absolutely none of that is true. Magic has always been a huge component of the Buddhist sangha even from the earliest days.  There have been more than a few books published of late (most notably the aptly titled Buddhist Magic) that explores the magical practices that monks and lay practitioners have been using for everything from protection, to love magic, to healing, to divination...to even smiting your enemies.  When Buddhism began to intersect with native shamanic traditions, the use of magic only accelerated.  Tibetan Buddhism is full of sorcerers like Padmasambhava and Milarepa.  When Buddhism met the indigenous practices of Japan, it also started churning out siddhas like Saicho and Kukai.  (When Buddhism met the more shamanic forms of Taoism, it also produced similar results though I am unaware of any specific personalities.)
I think it's also important to clarify just what constitutes magic.  The modern day image of some wizard in a pointy hat hurling fireballs from the top of his mage tower is somewhat lacking.  At best, it represents thaumaturgy or wondering workings like making it rain, blessing a harvest, or killing your neighbor's yak because he stole your barley basket.  There's also another strain of magic knows as theurgy.  This type of magic is marked by ritualized action designed to produce changes in consciousness and increase ones connection to the divine.  This is almost quite literally what tantra and esoteric forms of Buddhism like Shingon and Tendai seek to do.  In fact, you can make a strong argument that 19th century Western theurgists borrowed heavily from Vedic and Buddhist tantras when formulating their practices.
I'm not aware of any restrictions on the type of magic a Buddhist might do.  I  mean, all of it is technically verboten.  Were I to surmise, obviously they would best be aligned with the precepts, but again, in practice that wasn't always the case.  When you're dealing with a religion that's over 2,500 year old and has crossed multiple continents, things are going to get messy and interesting in equal measure.

Agreed that the occult arts could potentially sullied the image of the Sangha. Usually, when a persistent gap appears between theoretical principles and realities, additional explanations and new theories are required to narrow the gap. In the case of Buddhism, I believe if the Buddha was alive, he would have established new rules even standards. E.g. a rule may be set that the monks need to state a disclaimer when handing out blessed items.

Or else he could have seen them as a form of upaya (which is generally my position) and allowed them to continue. Either way!

A disclaimer like "Please take these blessed items as a reminder to practise the Dharma diligently." can be upaya. Only following the Dharma closely offers true protection. So, in an indirect way, these talismans do confer some blessings (by reminding the devotees to practise) yet satisfied the desires of devotees for holy protection without the fear of the practice being seen as animal arts.

As I understand it, according to Buddhism, there's no magic in the world. Only cause and effect. We (normal people) call something magic when we can't see the workings behind something (i.e. cause and effect).
There's only wrongdoing (originate in mind-by thinking) that accounts for hurtful karma.
Only correct doing account for good/happy karma.
There's no exception for anyone. That's the law of the universe.
Buddha teaches us to be free forever from everything. Not for just this life, not from just suffering in this life, but from all the suffering, for all eternity (by ending the cycle of life and death). Which no other teacher teaches in the world. The Buddha has clearly taught how to end the cycle of life and death. Similarly, he has taught us various ways to achieve this liberation (often with the same underlying principle but with customized practices for different types of people). That's why the Dhamma is a large and complex body of knowledge. It's for everyone, who has a different intellect, different mindset, different background, etc.
Meaning of wearing white thread?
(Beware this is my interpretation.)
Now, imagine you do some bad stuff. After that you get sad and you think about it again and again.
As doing the bad stuff is bad(generate bad karma) , sadness about it is also bad(generate bad karma). Also thinking about this again and again, disrupt your normal life.
So, it happen like below.

bad doing
disappointment (generate more bad karma)
remembering again and again (generate more bad karma)

So, when you start wearing white thread, your mind get the idea that you are protected.(falsely)
which stops,

disappointment
remembering again and again

And stops growth of the bad karma.
There's no one that can erase what you have already done. It's about not doing more bad stuff. (stop growth of bad karma)
Not some stupid stuff people do. It something developed in 1000+ years journey.
I can go on for 1000+ more words if anyone is interested.
Thanks.

Feel free to ask anything .

DN 2 uses the word "tiracchāna" ("animal") in many present reality ways, which shows the word "tiracchāna" does not not literally mean "animal". Etymologically, the word "tiracchāna" means to "move sideways", i.e., to not evolve beyond instinctual worldly motivations.  "Animal" behavior includes blindly joining a gang or cult with other "animals" or with an "animal herder".
As for the "animal arts" listed in DN 2, these appear to have no inherent connection to morality and improving the skilful behaviour of people. This is why they are called "animal arts". They do not lead to people advancing/progressing on a higher human or godly path but, instead, keep the minds of the people stuck in animalistic superstition.
There is no word in Pali that literally means "rebirth". The Venerable Yuttadhammo explained this on this site. In the suttas, when the Buddha himself had been approached to reveal the subsequent attainments of devotees on many occasions, this was for the purpose of promoting morality & skillfulness. This was not a form of "magic" but, instead, the "miracle of instruction" (referred to in DN 11). MN 68 literally says the purpose of the Buddha declaring the attainments (upapanno) of deceased disciples, as follows:

In this case, Anuruddha, a laywoman follower hears, ‘The laywoman
follower so and so has passed away; it is declared of her by the Lord
that by the utter destruction of the three fetters, she is a
stream-attainer, not liable to the Downfall, assured, bound for
enlightenment.’ If that sister has herself seen or has heard by
hearsay that the sister was of such moral habit and that the sister
was of such mentality and that the sister was of such wisdom and that
the sister was such an abider and that the sister was freed thus, she,
while recollecting her faith and moral habit and learning and giving
up and wisdom, focusses her mind on suchness [on such a state]. It is thus, Anuruddha,
that there is abiding in comfort for a laywoman follower.
The Tathāgata, Anuruddha, does not have the purpose of defrauding
people nor the purpose of cajoling people nor the purpose of gains,
honour, fame and material advantages, nor the thought: ‘Let people
know me thus’ when he explains the uprising (upapattīsu) in which are disciples who
have deceased and passed away, saying: ‘Such and such a one has
uprisen (upapanno) in one, such a one has uprisen (upapanno) in another.’ But there are,
Anuruddha, young men of family who have faith and are of great
enthusiasm, of great joyousness, and who, having heard this, focus
their minds on suchness [on such a state of attainment]. Anuruddha, this will be for their weal and
happiness for a long time,”

We should be very careful to accuse the Buddha of engaging in "divination & magic". This is bad kamma leading to lower realms. Instead, we should read the suttas such as DN 2 very carefully rather than use 'Buddhist' chatsites like a ChatGPT.

This is bad kamma leading to lower realms. Does this mean that the learned and knowledgeable DD finally believes in karma and rebirth?

Lower realms are in the here  & now. DN 2 literally explains the "animal" arts are arts of superstitious people. Therefore, when the Dhamma is not understood, it is like being an "animal" in the here & now.  DN 2 literally says these "animal" mental states are the mental states of people. Please try to study properly.

Pardon my mistake. I thought that the learned DD finally accepted karma and its effects on rebirths. But it was only a figment of my imagination.


text:
Difference between Hindu Yoga and Buddhist meditation
What are difference between the Yoga practiced in Hinduism and Meditation practiced by Buddhism? Does they differ by principles and practice, or they are same?

We may all be travelling on roads (and cross each other’s paths) but our goals determine where we will end up eventually. I believe it is the same for meditation practices whether it is Hindu, Taoist, Native American Indian, Catholic, Shinto or Buddhist.
So, what is the goal of Yoga practice? Is it Kaivalya or Moksha? Are they the same? Even Moksha seems to have slightly different meanings in various schools of Hinduism. Is it union with Brahman? Liberation from life and death i.e. rebirth? A state of perfection?
I am not a Hindu so I am not familiar with the concept of Moksha other than what I had read on the Internet. For Buddhists, the goal of meditation can be answered by following the Buddha’s own struggles and experiences in meditation. He started by learning meditation from Alara Kalama then Uddaka Rāmaputta but left both teachers because he could not find what he was searching for. Eventually, he came upon the meditation practice that would allow him to attain liberation from suffering i.e. Nirvana.

I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then—quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities—I entered & remained in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to awakening?

So, if your goal as a yogi is the same as the Buddha, then the meditation principle and practice would be the same.

We could try to find a new road that leads to the same place where the Buddha discovered. Alternatively, we could simply follow the path taken by the Buddha. ;-)

There are many kinds of Hindu meditation methods and many kinds of Buddhist meditations too.
Tibetan Buddhism has tantric meditation with a lot of similarity to Hindu Yoga meditation, and perhaps it even borrowed from it.
So, let me restrict myself to meditation in the Theravada tradition, based on the Pali Canon.
There are two main types of techniques. One is samatha or tranquility meditation. The other is vipassana or insight. Of course, there are also other minor meditation techniques like metta bhavana and body scanning.
For samatha, it's either based on breath or kasinas. The objective is to develop deep concentration and reach jhana levels. This would be quite similar to techniques found in Hinduism. Hindu yogis have achieved this.
For vipassana, this is said to be the unique method discovered by the Buddha for understanding the relationship between mind and body, as well as understanding the nature of the mind, without the need for atman. The four noble truths and dependent origination can be realized this way. This is not in Hinduism, as far as I know.
Both samatha and vipassana are required to achieve the Buddhist liberation of Nirvana.
If you want to look at distant planets and stars, you need to adjust the telescope settings and parameters, and point it at the right direction in the sky. Samatha is like the adjustment of the telescope settings, to calibrate its zoom, focus and to make it steady. Vipassana is like the pointing of the telescope to the right subject of observation. Both are needed.
On the other hand, Hindu yoga meditation has more tantric elements like meditation on the chakras and kundalini awakening. These are not found in Theravada, but it may be found in Tibetan Buddhism/ Vajrayana.
That said, you should keep in mind that liberation in Hinduism and Buddhism mean different things.

I am surprised to your answer. You have given a clear insight to others. It's cool to see answers like this. Thanks. As a theravada buddhist, I think this should be the accepted answer.