text:
Tibetan Four Immeasurables: what is the meaning of "happiness that knows no suffering"?
In Tibetan Buddhism, there are the Four Immeasurables, as follows:

The Four Immeasurables as a Traditional Tibetan Buddhist Prayer
May all beings have happiness and the cause of happiness.
May they be free of suffering and the cause of suffering.
May they never be disassociated from the supreme happiness which is without suffering.
May they remain in the boundless equanimity, free from both attachment to close ones and rejection of others.
https://www.padmasambhava.org/sermon/four-immesurables/

What is the meaning above of "the supreme happiness which is without suffering"?
Does it refer to Nirvana?
Or does it refer to any type of wholesome happiness?
If possible, please offer Tibetan or Sanskrit linguistic support for the answer.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there is no single fixed form of The Four Immeasurables Aspirational Prayer. There are countless variations that interpret and expand the basic list of four items. They are not even always listed in the same order.
In your passage above the order is: Loving-Kindness, Compassion, Joy, Equanimity. So the phrase you're asking about corresponds to Joy.
Other variations give different interpretations of Joy. For example this one:

How wonderful it would be if all sentient beings were never parted from upper rebirth and liberation’s excellent bliss. May they never be parted. I shall cause them never to be parted. Guru Chenrezig, please inspire me to be able to do so.

As you can see here instead of "the supreme happiness which is without suffering" they speak about "upper rebirth and liberation’s excellent bliss". In both cases the emphasis  is on "never be parted" or "never be dissociated".
I've seen other variations that speak along the same lines. The basic idea is clear: the Immeasurable Joy is what we cultivate towards those who already have some measure of happiness, either the worldly happiness, or the spiritual happiness of encountering the true Dharma, or the pure happiness of Supreme Enlightenment.
The emphasis is definitely on whatever happiness they have, regardless of how much or how "refined" it is. These beings may be somewhat healthy, live in somewhat comfortable conditions, somewhat not poor, somewhat without a conflict, somewhat educated, somewhat familiar with Dharma etc. - whatever happiness they may have we are happy on their behalf and wish them to never lose that happiness and ideally even increase it, up until "liberation’s excellent bliss".

If this answer is true & correct, then the verse is merely about standard mudita. We discussed this in a zoom this morning.

The Four Immeasurables (Sanskrit: apramāṇa, Pāli: appamaññā) or four infinite minds (Chinese: 四無量), also called Brahmavihara

Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) is active good will towards all -> have and be the cause of happiness;
Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā) results from metta, it is identifying the suffering of others as one's own -> free from (the cause of) suffering;
Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: muditā): is the feeling of joy because others are happy, even if one did not contribute to it, it is a form of sympathetic joy -> feeling the joy of others = supreme happiness;
Equanimity (Pāli: upekkhā, Sanskrit: upekṣā): is even-mindedness and serenity, treating everyone impartially -> stated pretty much the same way in your quote.


text:
Advise for comment to my friend's social media which have meat

Today is a holiday, my friend post the dinner on the social media, I want to comment to celebrate their happy life.
But I see the fish and beef in the pictures, I don't know how to comment, because in Buddhism there is banned to eat meat. They are not Buddhist scholars. They are not Buddhist at all.

Meat is banned in Buddhism, what’s the source ?

Voting to close this question as it is based on a faulty premise and there are already plenty of questions on this site which deal with meat and Buddhism

This question has been closed as a duplicate of existing questions. There are many questions on this site for the topic of vegetarianism and meat-eating. Please see if any of the linked questions answer your question. You can also search the site for many more questions on this topic. Your question is not detailed and focused enough to be different and unique from existing questions on this topic.

I don't understand the question. You "wanted to comment to celebrate" so why don't you? Did you know they eat meat or did you just discover that from their Facebook post? You say "they're not Buddhist scholars" ... are they Buddhist at all, do you think they want to know (or to be told) about Buddhist doctrine?

what holiday is it?

@Letsbuddhism I'd guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth

Are the Buddhist themselves? And if they are, are they one of the traditions which ban eating of meat for lay people (of which there are a few)? If you yourself don’t eat meat, then when you comment, simply don’t mention the food and rather focus on them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How should Buddhism be introduced to a country?
What has historical precedent to teach and what is your opinion?

Good householder,
By generosity, respect and goodwill toward the Gems, through the carrier (or vehicle) which is the Sangha of Monks, this Dhamma-Vinaya would have foundation to get introduced and maybe established within the country.
The teachings of the Buddha, and its spreading deeper into a certain community in the world, would always have to be introduced by the Sublime Buddha's disciples, the Sangha.
Establishing of the (Re-)legion requires foremost the Sangha of Bhikkhus and could take place when invited by the reigning King of the country, or leader of a certain community. Such would mean: There is Dhamma-Vinaya present in this country or community.
As for the current situation, there are for the most part, no more Kings, leader, really in charge and as far as I'm aware, while having or doing die off in old countries, Dhamma-Vinaya hasn't been established anywhere else in the world.
And as far as I'm aware, there is only one country left where a dhammic King still reigns, where most laws are still in harmony with the Dhamma-Vinaya and no disputes over its sublimeness have yet arisen. However, it might also end after this generation.
Soon, if negative tendencies continue, there will be no more Sangha present, no more Dhamma-Vinaya, but just a worldly attempt at an inferior copy: Buddhism.
One, seeing still an opportunity, should, if wise, go to join the holy life within an institution that will soon decay and one will less likely be able to go forth without such support.
Hurry up, whenever an opportunity is found. Those heading for liberation shouldn't wait.

which country is that ?

@Letsbuddhism I can only guess Bhutan is the country where, at least until quite recently, the monarchy was absolute.

One doesn't introduce Buddhism to a country. One introduces Buddhism to people, and people carry it with them where they go.
Spreading Buddhism is like spilling water; it goes where it will, without much regard for borders, and nourishes those it touches.

cheeky, i like it

The Vinaya says:

Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of
the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the
good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way.
Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in
its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its
purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter. There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are ruined because of not hearing the Teaching. There will be those who understand.
Mahākhandhaka

To avoid ambiguity about the above, suttas such as MN 95 say:

Here, Bhāradvāja, a bhikkhu may be living in dependence on some
village or town. Then a householder or a householder’s son goes to him
and investigates him in regard to three kinds of states: in regard to
states based on greed, in regard to states based on hate, and in
regard to states based on delusion.
As he investigates him he comes to know: ‘There are no such states in
this venerable one. The bodily behaviour and the verbal behaviour of
this venerable one are not those of one affected. And the Dhamma that
this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and hard to
understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning,
subtle, to be experienced by the wise. This Dhamma cannot easily be
taught by one affected by greed, hate & delusion.’

In summary, if our facial complexion looks as though we are depressed, not pure and not joyful, we cannot spread the Dhamma effectively to gods & men.

Also, about the phrase: "There are beings with little dust in their eyes...", MN 26 says:

I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in
their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties, with good
qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach, and
some who dwelt seeing fear and blame in the other world.

For example, those on the internet who watch porn and endorse sex with prostitutes dwell not seeing fear and blame in the other world. They have dust in their eyes.

Such concerns have obliviously resulted in the degeneration of Buddhism over the past 2,600 years.
Simply teach the Dhamma; starting with DN 31 as mundane and SN 56.11 as supramundane.
The scripture say the Dhamma is taught primarily to people who are gods & humans rather than to people dwelling in the hungry ghost, animal & hell realms.

And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that a being not liable to delusion has arisen in the world for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare and happiness of gods and humans, it’s of me that this should be said.
MN 4

Being unaware of these three fires, This generation delights
in personal existence. Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, Existence in the animal realm, Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts. Iti 93
This generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.' MN 26

The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are
established within the person teaching. Which five?
[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
step-by-step.'
[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of
compassion.'
[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
for the purpose of material reward.'
[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
without hurting myself or others.'
AN 5.159

It’s when in different localities the same thing is known as a ‘plate’, a ‘bowl’, a ‘cup’, a ‘dish’, a ‘basin’, a ‘tureen’, or a ‘porringer’. And however it is known in those various localities, you speak accordingly, thinking: ‘It seems that the venerables are referring to this.’ That’s how you don’t insist on local terminology and don’t override normal usage. - mn 139.

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


text:
Not wanting to meditate = bad karma?
I know that as long as someone isn't enlightened, thoughts will continue to arise in one's mind, including bad thoughts. And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through meditation. So does "not wanting to meditate" counted as bad karma? Because there's an intention to not want to meditate (meanwhile meditation is the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising). So not wanting to meditate = letting bad thoughts to arise = bad karma(?)
Can someone clear this for me? Thank you.

It is one of many obstacles to overcome and is typically known as aversion. more here

The Pali suttas say bad thoughts arise from the three wrong actions rather than from not meditating. Therefore, it is probably best to work on right view about morality.

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said:
the three kinds of misconduct.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an10.61

what would be acting to prevent one from meditating are things like habits, naivety, laziness,  misperception of low things being meaningful things,  etcetc
these are the things that actually perform functions to prevent intending to meditate,  as opposed to the simple fact of the absence of someone meditating which isnt an action therefore not producing karma

thoughts will continue to arise in one's mind, including bad thoughts.
And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through
meditation

These thoughts coming into play is one end, the result that these thoughts produce is another end and that which produces is in the middle.
When you recognize that there are thoughts and that these are bad, these are two different occasions on which the mind is not obsessed by these thoughts and on this occasion there is "meditation" whether this meditation is going to produce fruition depends on whether or not you take note of theme of the thoughts and make adjustments.
Adjustment will generally be giving of attention to the danger of unwholesome thoughts or redirecting the mind to a wholesome theme so that it becomes the inclination of the mind due to frequent giving of attention.

Buddhism is about causes and effects (hethu pala). So, find out the cause for not wanting to meditate. Then you can get an idea about the effects which can be caused by it.
Note: Buddhism is the explanation of nature. It's not a man invented-thing, it's a man who discovered how this nature works is called the Buddha. So don't think meditation is a rule.
Further below quote from your question is not exactly true (partially ok)

And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through
meditation.

The above quote is equivalent to, the only way to prevent from drowning (in water) is learning to swim, Yes you can survive in the waters by learning how to swim (That's the partially ok part). But can you guarantee the behaviour of the water? (Can you guarantee the behaviour of your mind).
Instead of learning how to swim, how about uprooting the need of going into the waters? Initially learning to swim would help, but that's not the goal.
Real Buddhism is about uprooting the need by understanding the reality of the needs/desires, and how useless/worthless the needs/desires are. When you realise it you understand not going to the waters is the one and only path to enlightenment.
So come back to the shore from the waters (because we are already in it), of course, you need to learn how to swim (meditate). But the goal is to understand the reason why we need to go to the shore (enlightenment), what's the problem with the sea (life, desires, needs etc.). Otherwise, we'll keep swimming in the sea but not to the shore.
You may attain nibbana


text:
How is Nirvana possible if everything is conditioned?
Through reading books on Buddhism I get the idea that existence is conditioned. The faculties (mind, consciousness, etc.) through which we try to attain Nirvana are also conditioned. So, how is it possible to attain the Unconditioned through conditioned faculties?

Nirvana is a non-affirming negation. Uncompounded space is a great example of something that exists (ie., it can be known) and is also a non-affirming negation and is a helpful illustration.
There are two different concepts that are often labeled by the word "space" and get confused together:

Compounded space is the vacuum between material things. Take two material objects (made of matter) that are space-like separated. This means not only that they don't occupy the same space, but that they have a vacuity between them. Imagine they are placed in the void of deep space with a meter of distance between them. In this meter of distance between them, there is no air, there are no molecules, no matter. There is only void. A meter's worth of void in fact. This is what is meant by compounded space.

Uncompounded space is the complete absence of obstructive contact. It is not the same as the void above, but rather the absence of obstructive contact that the void sits in if you will. It is the space (the utter lack of obstructive contact) that remains whether something is occupying it or not. As was described in another answer (a great analogy!) imagine a building that is scheduled to be demolished. The space that it is sitting in while it exists and still remains after it is destroyed - that is what is meant by uncompounded space. It is a mere lack of obstructive contact.

Can you visualize and understand what is meant by the above two descriptions? Can you see how they are not the same thing? The latter definition is not describing a conditioned thing. Rather, it is a non-affirming negation. Nirvana is also an existent (ie., it can be known) that is a non-affirming negation and thus said to be "unconditioned."

Here is a link to a text that explains this by a Tibetan Buddhist Gelug master:

it may be useful if some references were included with the answer above so to at least show the ideas above have some connection to some sectarian Buddhist principles rather are only your personal creations. thanks

See update. This has been taught in the Sanskrit Buddhist traditions for centuries as far as I'm aware. I think you had the concept with your building analogy, but the uncompounded space is what remains irregardless whether the building is complete or detonated.

The suttas also say (eg. MN 44) the Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned (fabricated).
Imagine Nibbana is like space and you want to create space by removing a building. The building is conditioned and the demolition explosives are conditioned. But the space that remains after the building is demolished by explosives is unconditioned because the space has always been there.
(Note: In Buddhism, space is not unconditioned. The above is merely a close analogy).
Similarly, the peace of Nibbana is always there, forever. It is unconditioned. But the conditioned Path is required to remove the conditioned defilements that block the experience of the peace of Nibbana.

What is space as you described it conditioned by? What does it mean to say "in Buddhism"... you mean like as a dogma?

Please do not spam my answers and confuse others. Space is conditioned because if the space is filled the space ceases to be. For example, if the space in my drawer is filled with books then there is no more space. My answer used space merely as an analogy.

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

Q: Does that mean that the Unconditioned is within the Conditioned Being (Existence)?.................................... .A: The Unconditioned is experienced by the conditioned mind (being). The conditioned mind is impermanent & ends when life ends. But the Unconditioned Element exists forever.

Great answer. In the Shurangama Sutta, the Buddha uses the same space analogy for Ananda and some other monks. I think it's chapter 2 or 3. There's an excellent audio version somewhere on YouTube. ;-)

I think that most traditions would say that Nirvana (or Nibbana in Pali) is not created. People wouldn't say, "I'm doing Nirvana" either. It can't be defined by words in the sense that you can give the words to someone else and they can make Nirvana by following or understanding the words. Some would even object to saying it is "realized".
My favorite description of it has to do with release:

Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.  link

In this statement, "there is knowledge" is the way it is described. Knowledge of how stress is created, how it is released, how to see the world without clinging/stress/dukkha.
Just like knowledge isn't created, Nirvana isn't created. But there is a path to knowledge. And all traditions have a path. For some, it is the Eightfold Noble Path. For others it may be Zazen. Or Tantric practices.
Different traditions have somewhat different characterizations. (The wikipedia article on Nirvana is not bad). But, I think all traditions will characterize greed, aversion/anger, and self-identity as things that dissolve with Nirvana.
It is confusing to read about Nirvana in different traditions, because traditions have conflicts in the details. So, if you mix and match, you'll get confused quickly trying to make them make sense. I'm in the Theravada tradition and this book is a single tradition take on it.
https://amaravati.org/dhamma-books/the-island/
(even within one tradition, you'll still have disagreements.)

In Buddhism, Conditional and Unconditional are discussed in context of dukkha vs peace. Dukkha is a painful feeling of wrongness, arising whenever there's a clash between your expectation and your actual experience. Peace is experienced when there's no such clash.
Now, when you cling, you cling to Conditional, therefore your peace gets conditional. When the condition you cling to is satisfied, there's no clash, so you have peace. You only have peace if your condition is satisfied.
When you cling to judgments, concepts, categories, philosophical views, ideas of how things should be, comfort, fairness, spirituality, your sense of identity (both personal and group identity), all kinds of abstractions, not to mention clinging to the state of material things in your life wishing it to never change - in all these examples you setup dependency on a condition.
Even when you cling to a peaceful state of mind, right there is a dependency on condition.
When you don't cling, you don't depend on Conditional, therefore your peace is Unconditional. Whatever happens, you are at peace. You are at peace because there's no clash, because you don't cling to any fixed idea how things are supposed to be.
So when you lose a fixed shape, stop grasping at a certain identity made of concepts, when your position cannot be pinpointed, when you don't cling to either the material nor to the mental states - then there's no longer anything rigid that would be a subject to conditions.
Then that's a different kind of peace, not the regular peace conditioned on e.g. silence, but the unconditional Super-Peace. Whether you are sitting in meditation or your house is full of crying babies that you have to console, this Super-Peace is not lost. What could death do to it if there's no grasping to anything that dies?
That's the Unconditional. As we say in Mahayana, in a sense you had it even before you started looking for it and indeed before you were born, but it does take some work to rediscover. When you "attain" it, you don't really attain anything at all. This is why it's called Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi - unexcelled most perfect enlightenment.

Faculties (mind, consciousness, etc.) through which we try to attain Nirvana are conditioned. How is it possible to attain the Unconditional through Conditional faculties?

Now you can understand this answer: we don't "attain the Unconditional through Conditional faculties". If we keep on clinging to faculties, to any form of mind, consciousness etc., we keep remaining subject to conditions.

How is Nirvana possible if everything is conditioned?

It is possible because the conditions in and of themselves are not the cause of dukkha. The cause of dukkha is a mismatch between expectations and experience. So even though the experience is conditioned, if you don't cling to expectations there will be no dukkha. That dukkha-less Super-Peace is what we refer to as the Deathless, the Unconditional, Nirvana.

The burning of a fire produces flames, it is dependent on fuel & supportive conditions, burning is conditioned. The extinguishment of flames depends on the exhaustion of fuel and requisite conditions for burning. We can say that the cessation is conditioned by the process of burning and exhaustion of fuel.
However extinguishment is not a thing among things there; it is not the fuel, it is not the flame, it isn't the perception of burning, it is not the heat.
It is like the end of a story, there are events leading up to it but the end in and of itself is not part of the narrative, it is not something that is experienced by a character in the story, it is not an event occuring for this or that personage and  like extinguishment is not a thing among the things that are extinguished or said to end.
Therefore when we talk about the principal extinguishment of the conditioned, the extinguishment principal is then by definition unconditioned because it is not a thing among the conditioned things that are there extinguished.
The cessation of a flame is a truth to be observed & known as the non-occurence of burning. The cessation of the conditioned is a truth to be observed & known as the non-occurence of the conditioned or that which changes as it persists.
Just like the extinguishment of a flame is not a thing among the things that are said to be extinguished, so is the extinguishment principle of the conditioned is not among the conditioned things.
The name of a person is neither his mind nor his body, here analogically the semantics of our understanding are such that name of a thing is not found among the things that are named.

When you say the extinguishment is not a thing are you saying that it is not a dhamma? Are you saying that nibbana is not a dhamma? Also, it seems to me the extinguishment of a flame is conditioned upon the prior existence of the flame, no? If the flame never existed, then it would be impossible to know its extinguishment... I think what you are describing is an affirming negation.

I said it isn't a thing among the things that are said to cease or remain. It is not meaningless, the word's semantic target is something in a general system of semantics & understanding, it is an integral part of the knowledge that is held in mind. When there is a perception of a flame going out. That perception is merely a sign internal to the nervous system, the sign is grasped with intellect and interpreted according to the operant system of general semantics.

Meaning of a symbol is real but it isn't real like the symbol, it isn't less or more real, they just don't share the contextual premises. Same with what is explicit & what is to be inferred, both are real but the inferable isn't expressed and isn't real in that sense but it is still a truth & reality to be seen with intellect.

Sorry i don't know how else to explain it, it is very awkward to wrap one's head around

Whether it is a dhamma or not is besides the point because it requires analysis of the word dhamma but in short the word nibbana, the word and it's meaning that knowledge and word is conditioned but it's referent is the truth of the cessation of the conditioned that is something unconditioned, it must be held in mind as something not-made and through development of dispassion with the made, the made fades away, is stilled, does not come into play due to the not giving of attention to signs on account of dispassion, there about comes cessation grasped as signless release.

That cessation is linguistically analogical to the perceived cessation of a fire, the difference is that the cessation of a fire is a designation for a change in the conditioned which persists as it changes, whereas the cessation of the conditioned is associated with cessation of perception itself. It is as if one stops collapsing the wave function and the entire world disappears in dependence on something not made.

Analogically to telling a story, if there was nobody to tell a story, then it is not given attention, nothing of it is conceived and it couldn't end because it isn't being told but if it is told and it comes to an end then nothing comes out of it but it ends in dependence of something that isn't a fictional story.

Likewise a person's perceived reality comes into being through the giving of attention, the persistence of that which changes is sustained by giving of attention and it doesn't come into play when the mind is directed to nibbananirodha principle through dispassion. Nothing pertaining to nature goes beyond the cessation of the conception & perception of nature in nature.

whoever is seen to be absorbed in dependence on the cessation principle is basically not percipient of what can be described in terms of a collapsed wave function but comes to know & see the unmade state. In terms of special relativity, that person's frame of reference is entirely without a conception of a world and perception of things doesn't arise but there is a seeing & knowing of the truth of cessation as the unmade element in dependence on which the conditioned is stilled.

The word & thought about nibbana are conditioned like the extinguishment of fire is conditioned but the referent is thought about as not part taking in the conditioned allness of the all. It is a cessation that occurs in dependence on the unmade, the unmade does not occur, it is discerned when conditions are exhausted and it is possible to exhaust those because there is an unmade, if there was no unmade then no escape from the made could be discerned.

Being a cessation of perception, there is no conception of the world or even space, there are no beings, no nervous system and nothing external to it and yet the truth of the cessation persists, truly, like the conditioned persists albeit without change as it can't even be described in terms of static observation of nothing changing because it is not observed as something external to an internal nervous system or an observer's frame of reference, nor can it be described as something dynamic because that assumes change in persistence.

It is impossible to explain it in conditioned terms, like color or taste and it is analogical to trying to describe sound in terms of taste but it is said that the release has the taste of freedom which is obviously also said in analogical terms because freedome is not something one perceives on account of the tongue. The cessation principle is to be seen with intellect, it is said that The Dhamma Eye sees the cessation and it is one of three types of vision a being can attain, the other two being the fleshy eye and divine eye by which one can see heaven & hell.

AN 4.159 below explains this very topic and it's quite self-explanatory.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a
prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This
body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying
on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying
on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying
on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual
intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the
Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by
relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a
monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for
intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but
simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its
afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will
I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from
overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'
Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body,
sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on
food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference
to this was it said.
"'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying
on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in
reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk
hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of
the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free
awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them
for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope
that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter &
remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release &
discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the
here & now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on
craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by
relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said.
And in reference to this was it said.
"'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying
on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in
reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk
hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of
the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free
awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them
for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk
named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the
fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free
awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them
for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually
abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into
being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that
conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to
this was it said.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual
intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the
Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge."
AN 4.159

subtle impermanence is the absence of a moment of a thing being able to endure into the next moment thru its own volition.  in other words death is unproduced/unconditioned as its already a feature of a moments birth/production.
similarly nirvana is the absence of mental affliction enduring as the nature of awareness.  complete freedom of the mind is uncaused since its already a feature of mind capable of recognition.

the Pali suttas say death is conditioned, as follows: Death is impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease. maraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/sujato

yep this is a technical difference in the schools.  modern theravadins would love sautrantika explanations,  its just hard to find lucid expounders of it.  soon i think

I think it's to do with absence.
For example -- a simple though perhaps not very deep analogy -- you might as well equally ask, "How is it possible to hear silence, when ears hear noise or sound, and silence is an absence of sound?"
The Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) suggests it's a case of, "Having arrived, the corresponding desire/energy/idea is faded away."
A way in which one arrives is described in SN 41.5:

Greed, hate, and delusion are bonds. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. That’s why a mendicant who has ended the defilements is called ‘unbound’ ('abandhana').

Training yourself not to get angry and so on, to do away with the habits and thought processes and attitudes from which anger arises (see also What is effluent?) -- that seems to me do-able even if not everybody does it, I don't see why it should be theoretically or logically impossible -- and see plenty of people, especially adults, perhaps it's even the norm, that people appear to be at least partially successful.
One more thing, consider doing something wrong as the result of certain conditions. Conversely if you don't do something wrong, then that (non-existent) action isn't conditioned, its non-existence isn't impermanent.

The unconditioned is the cessation of lust, anger & delusion. Many who give the impression of ending anger are merely people consumed by lust & political correctness, thus the impression of a lack of anger is what buddha called equanimity of the household life, where the danger of sensuality & worldliness are not discerned.

I struggled to understand how this answer answered the question.

This is off-topic to the OP, but are you suggesting that "merely people" are superficially polite because that's "politically correct", but are consumed with lust and anger inside? Is that your view of people? And even, that's it's better not to be polite?

It seems to me that anger is unpleasant and unskillful -- "political correctness" isn't the only reason to want to end it, to avoid its arising. And what does "political correctness" even mean -- does it mean, "being on good terms with other people"? Why is it a motive, and if it is a motive why is it a bad one?


text:
Are mosquito nets "cheating"?
I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest? Might as well just stay indoors imo. Did the ancient monks use nets? what do you think? I think it is kind of silly and is an attempt to have a pleasant experience.

Or maybe it's an attempt to avoid disease, since mosquitos do carry and spread diseases with their bites. It seems to me wise to take good care of oneself so we don't, through illness, become a burden on others.

incredible wisdom above. sounds like Right View, ftw

@LindaBlanchard I was going to post a question regarding mosquitoes, but I'm afraid moderators would find some reason to close it, so I'll just post it here since it's semi-related to your comment.
If an area was plagued by a malaria outbreak and a mosquito landed on the arm of a child, would it be justifiable for a monk to kill it? If not, the child could contract malaria and die and the monk knows this. Being born human is more valuable and rare than a mosquito. Presumably, a human life is worth more. Killing the mosquito should = less bad karma than allowing the child to potentially die.

There would be a massive waste of time struggling uselessly.  Once you have perfect single-pointedness, nothing can impinge on you.  Prior to that, there are endless ways to delay or outright obstruct you

thank you for this very wise answer. it certainly appears to be Right View

What is the purpose of meditation. Quoting from What is the meditation and what is its purpose?

Meditation is when the mind comes back home. When the mind comes back home it can sit by the fire and enjoy its own warmth. It can stop being busy with all kinds of "doing". Meditation is the ultimate "not-doing". Just sit in presence and let the nature of things take care of itself.

One may sit in a forest. It provides a good environment for not-doing.  Being bitten is not a useful part of that experience, moreover mosquitos also carry disease. Buddhists want to work to try to stop suffering. A net allows for one to sit in nature without creating suffering for the self and for others.

Very sensible answer and sounds like Right View.

Good householder,
If having to large holes, one might say what a cheat to call such mosquito net. Actually forest's mosquitos, some kinds, have an ease with low land's nets, "cheat".
Although comfortable if dwelling on one place, burdensome if required to carry in addition. There is no explicit allowance of such nets, yet clear that two of the four paccayas, robes and dwelling have the use to protect from mosquitos. If looking at the Sabbaasava Sutta, that's way to get ride of fermentation by "use", while on the other side, "bearing" bites of mosquitos is further way to cut off fermentations.
So actually "yes", the use of nets can easy cheat one, so ones fermentations easily last, avoiding the right action of use and bear. Doubt whether allowed or not can be also an obstacle. For one in training, eager after magga, phalla, better not something one should feel depending on it.

The suttas take the middle way on this topic.
On one hand, protection from mosquito bites is a function of robes and lodging, and by extension, a mosquito net.

“And how does a lodging possess five factors?
(8) “There is little contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, the burning
sun, and serpents.
AN 10.11

And what are the defilements that should be given up by using? Take a
mendicant who, reflecting properly, makes use of robes: ‘Only for the
sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies,
mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; and for covering up the private
parts.’
Reflecting properly, they make use of lodgings: ‘Only for the sake of
warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies,
mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; to shelter from harsh weather and
to enjoy retreat.’
MN 2

On the other hand, a monk is expected to not be choosy or fussy about robes, lodging and mosquito nets, and endure mosquito bites if it is unavoidable. In other words, mosquito nets can be used but it is not an entitlement.

So you should train like this: ‘We will not have many wishes or be
frustrated. We will be content with any kind of robes, alms-food,
lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. We won’t focus our
corrupt wishes on being looked up to, and on getting material
possessions, honor, and popularity. We won’t try hard, strive, and
make an effort to get these things. We will endure cold, heat, hunger,
and thirst. We will endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun,
and reptiles. We will endure rude and unwelcome criticism. We will put
up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable,
and life-threatening.’ That’s how you should train.”
AN 4.157

And how does a mendicant endure? It’s when a mendicant endures cold,
heat, hunger, and thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun,
and reptiles; rude and unwelcome criticism; and they put up with
physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and
life-threatening. That’s how a mendicant endures.
AN 4.114

the suttas above appear to say "endure the touch of mosquitoes" when necessary rather than voluntary engage in self-mortification of on-slaught of mosquitoes

I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest?

If the monks are using nets to avoid becoming sick so as to not become a burden to the laity and/or other monastics and Temple resources then I see no problem with it.
If the monks use nets due to aversion towards mosquitos then it could be considered unwholesome.


text:
Unwholesome thoughts at the time of death

Say one reflects on the beauty of one's children, the beauty of one's husband or wife, the beauty of one's house or garden, or the beauty of a flower, and other such things: that is rooted in greed and delusion. It is a perverted perception (sañña-vipallāsa), based on unwise attention. If one has habitually looked upon such objects with such unwise attention, it will be very difficult at death suddenly to reflect upon them with wise attention. ...If one dies with such consciousness (rooted in greed and delusion,...) one cannot avoid being reborn in a woeful state.

Quoted from the book "The Workings of Kamma" by The Most Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw.
My question: so should we not reflect on the beauty of something? It's not a bad karma, right? So I thought it will just create attachment (that bounds us to samsara), but I didn't think it would lead to a rebirth in the lower realms?
P.S it's not that I have doubts about this book, I'm just a little confused and need some explanation.

Pa Auk Sayadaw's quoted statement does not appear to align with what is in the Pali suttas.
If we read the Pali suttas, which are supposed to be the teachings of the Lord Buddha, we will not read the Buddha always teaching laypeople if they think of their loved ones at the time of death they will be reborn in hell. In fact, the suttas teach people who are alive should make offerings to their departed loved ones, as follows:

I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives
Sigalovada Sutta

The Buddha taught higher teachings for monks & wise people and lower moral teachings for laypeople. The Buddha said in the Samajivina Sutta a husband & wife who share the Dhamma will remain united with each other in both the present & the future. Therefore, obviously the Buddha never taught proper moral love for a husband or wife leads to hell. Obviously if during dying a person thinks with a heart of metta (virtuous love), their mind will be born into a heavenly state.

I think @Dhammadhatu has given an answer that seems to be useful. The one who has voted against it must give his/her reasons as to why he/she has done it. Otherwise, we fail to learn from these different points of view and the negative vote appears to be rather a casual, thoughtless work of restless fingers.

@SushilFotedar I didn't downvote but I don't see how it answers the question -- which I read as being about reflecting on beauty, and assuming that creates attachment, and doubting whether that is bad karma. This answer claims to contradict what the Venerable Pa-Auk Sayadaw is quoted as saying, but instead of saying the opposite and answering the question, it appears to be talking about something different (i.e. saying that metta is virtuous). And I believe it was an earlier version of the answer that was downvoted.

some here "don't see how " but many here have extreme views about theoretical states never attained. When the mind is pure, it discerns the chasm between puthujjana and the wise. The Buddha taught different teachings for puthujjana, who will freak out of self dissolves  in their mind

the key word is 'habitually looked' meaning one develops a strong habit.  these stain the mind almost as though taking possession or control of it.  prior to that is the unskillful perception arising from greed and delusions.  prior to that is normal observation of beauty which is fine here but can easily become deluded.  that is the way most of us practice,  we jump into deluded activity and if we are intelligent we quickly see what should be taken up and what should be given up.  whatever faulty activity we engage in we must always strive never to lose the protection of loving kindness and compassion or else all our efforts will amount to nothing

This is a good answer :)

Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw explains here that clinging leads to suffering, and in this case, this includes clinging to family members, clinging to their beauty, clinging to the beauty of possessions etc.
Being worried or concerned or obsessed about one's family members or their health, wealth, looks, possessions, career, future etc. are different expressions of clinging. The beauty of possessions is also impermanent.
This can be seen in SN 55.54 below.
The idea is to accept that one's own health and life, and one's family members and their health, wealth, possessions, looks, career, future etc. are all impermanent.
How is this related to karma? Well, clinging and craving leads to the three poisons of greed, aversion and delusion. The three poisons will lead to committing bad karma.
For e.g. I like the beauty of my plants, but my neighbour damages it, leading to my hurting or insulting him. I would have aversive emotions towards my neighbour because he disrupted my greedy emotions towards the beauty of my plants. These aversive emotions are suffering. Then this leads to the delusional mental state of rage and anger, leading to the bad karma of somehow taking revenge on my neighbour. Bad karma of harming my neighbour will somehow cause me further suffering in future.
So starting from craving and clinging, this will eventually lead to suffering.

Mahānāma the Sakyan heard about this. Then he went up to the Buddha,
bowed, sat down to one side, and told him that he had heard that the
Buddha was leaving. He added, “Sir, I haven’t heard and learned it in
the presence of the Buddha how a wise lay follower should advise
another wise lay follower who is sick, suffering, gravely ill.”
“Mahānāma, a wise lay follower should put at ease another wise lay
follower who is sick, suffering, gravely ill with four consolations.
‘Be at ease, sir. You have experiential confidence in the Buddha … the
teaching … the Saṅgha … And you have the ethical conduct loved by the
noble ones … leading to immersion.’
When a wise lay follower has put at ease another wise lay follower who
is sick, suffering, gravely ill with these four consolations, they
should say: ‘Are you concerned for your mother and father?’ If they
reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your nature to die.
Whether or not you are concerned for your mother and father, you will
die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for your mother and
father.’
If they reply, ‘I have given up concern for my mother and father,’
they should say: ‘But are you concerned for your partners and
children?’ If they reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your
nature to die. Whether or not you are concerned for your partners and
children, you will die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for
your partners and children.’
If they reply, ‘I have given up concern for my partners and children,’
they should say: ‘But are you concerned for the five kinds of human
sensual stimulation?’ If they reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘Good
sir, heavenly sensual pleasures are better than human sensual
pleasures. It would be good to turn your mind away from human sensual
pleasures and fix it on the gods of the Four Great Kings.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the gods
of the Thirty-Three are better than the gods of the Four Great Kings …
Good sir, the gods of Yama … the Joyful Gods … the Gods Who Love to
Create … the Gods Who Control the Creations of Others … the Gods of
the Brahmā realm are better than the Gods Who Control the Creations of
Others. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Gods Who
Control the Creations of Others and fix it on the Gods of the Brahmā
realm.’ If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir,
the Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”
SN 55.54

This is not PaAuk Sayadaw's opinion, but it is used in almost entire Pali canon series. The Buddha always mentioned about 3 vijja, 8 vijja. Many canons confirmed that the buddha meditated 3 vijja at the enlightening night. And the 3 vijja included past life recollection skill and birth & death analysis skill. It is weird if we say "it's one's opinion" when it comes from many canons.

@Bonn Yes. You're right.

There are two topics in your question.
One is what is considered as bad kamma in Buddhism. Another is how kamma influence where you would be reborn in Buddhism doctrine.
For the first part, to the non-monk people, if you follow the "path of the ten good actions" (daśa-kuśala-kammapatha), it is considered as good kamma in Buddhism. The opposite actions would be considered as bad kamma in Buddhism.
So the question would be to reflect on the beauty of something violates the "path of the ten good actions"?
You can see the introduction of the "path of the ten good actions" here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics#Ten_wholesome_actions
The relative part is the first mental actions, "It’s when someone is content. They don’t covet the wealth and belongings of others".
So only if you covet the beauty of others, and want to possess it, it would be considered as bad kamma in Buddhism.
For the second part, it involves what and how "kamma factors" influence where you would be reborn.
There are four kinds of such "kamma factors":

weighty kamma (garu-kamma)
habitual kamma (bahula/acinnaka kamma)
death proximate kamma (asanna kamma)
stored up kamma (katatta kamma)

You can see the introduction here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1it0qr/the_mind_at_the_time_of_death/
Generally, "habitual kamma" should be the more important factor than "death proximate kamma". Because your habitual actions in everyday life would infect your thoughts of the mind when you near death (or other difficult occasions).
Although, it seems to me that in Theravada Buddhism, it is more popular or common to stress "death proximate kamma".
By the way, I would be caution to interpret or regard "the words of  someone's translated works" word by word.
Pa Auk Sayadaw's works are Burmese originally. Beside, there might be cultural factors to play a role on the expressions used by different countries/cultural communities.

The quote in the OP seems to be about "beauty" and "unwise attention", and the question is about "reflecting on the beauty of something".
Whereas, for example, the Blessed One in the sutta Dhammadhatu quoted (AN 4.55) was talking about their being "in tune, in conviction, virtue, generosity, and discernment" -- I think that's not the same as superficial attractiveness, isn't that so?
The one bit of advice I've read about "wholesome thought at time of death is quoted here:

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4 contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his thoughts on the best object possible.

And so for example, quoting from AN 4.55 again, this seems to me an example of "reflecting on an attainment", and not only "reflecting on the beauty":

Lord, ever since Nakula's mother as a young girl was brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come.

It's perhaps an example of skillful virtue -- of evil action (being unfaithful) that wasn't done.
I see no contradiction -- one is saying that recollection of virtue  is associated with "the world of the Devas", and the other that a habit of unwise attention on beauty makes wise attention at death more difficult.

So for example, if someone is dying, and he recalls a memory about a beautiful place he visited, and he continues to think about the beauty of that place while he's dying. Is that called unwise attention and will that lead to a rebirth in the lower realms?

The ability to "knowing others' karmic destinations" is called "the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu)" and I don't want to claim to have it -- so my answer is based on quoting. I can read the Venerable's logic (which you quoted), at least -- "if one dies with consciousness rooted in greed and delusion etc." -- see also the topic, Last thought before death?

My personal experience has been that unwise attention when remembering a beautiful place I visited in the past can occasion unhappiness.

So, when dying, we should just think of our good deeds? No thinking about happy memories or people or anything else?

And when it's said "if one dies with consciousness rooted in greed and delusion etc.", view of self is delusion right? Aren't all unenlightened beings still caught in the view of self?

@iyilau "That was my beautiful home, which I must lose" might be an example of a self-view and a cause of suffering. Is there another, wiser wiser way to recollect "beauty"? According to Theravada it's possible to be semi-enlightened -- i.e. without "the view"  of self, though not fully enlightened yet -- see for example, Four stages of awakening, and, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

And there's the quote -- "The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the body, you should be heedful in your attention." I think that recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha is an antidote to or "refuge"  from "loss" -- and that the Venerable you quoted is saying that, unless that's already habitual, it's difficult to suddenly reflect in that way.

OP: My question: so should we not reflect on the beauty of something? It's
not a bad karma, right? So I thought it will just create attachment
(that bounds us to samsara), but I didn't think it would lead to a
rebirth in the lower realms?

Reflecting on the beauty of something is fine. It does not generate any bad karma. The problem arises when we generate covetousness or craving for this beautiful thing due to our own ignorance. That will generate non-virtuous karma that can lead to an unfortunate rebirth.
Here is an example of the Buddha reflecting on beauty in a completely faultless way:

“This bhikkhu shines with sublime beauty,
Having a mind utterly straight.
Detached is he, free from fetters,
Attained to Nibbāna by nonclinging.
He carries about his final body,
Having conquered Mara and his mount.”
SN 21.5

This is often hard to understand for newcomers to Buddhism. They can misunderstand thinking that the Buddha basically said we should no longer love people or that we should no longer appreciate beauty in the world. This isn't the case. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
It is only through giving up covetousness and craving that we can truly love others. Our craving and greed is actually the enemy of being able to see and appreciate the beauty in this world. Craving and greed create bias and reduce our ability to see the world and people for what is actual. Instead, craving and greed and bias act as filters that harm us from being able to truly love and truly see.
The Buddha taught in the four immeasurables that instead we are to train our minds to perfect the ability to love all sentient beings with absolutely no craving. We are taught to train our minds to love without bias and to generate immeasurable joy at the happiness of others.

I can't think of a sutta that supports "Reflecting on the beauty of something is fine"; it seems to me the suttas are more like, Sn 2.11 "Avoid the sign of the beautiful connected with passion; by meditating on the foul cultivate a mind that is concentrated and collected.", similarly SN 8.4. I mean it agrees with you that what's wrong about it is that it's "connected with passion" but it may imply that the theme of beauty is inherently related to that.

How is it possible that beauty as a theme must always be connected with passion when the Buddha said, "This bhikkhu shines with sublime beauty, Having a mind utterly straight..." in SN 21.5 (https://suttacentral.net/sn21.5/en/bodhi) ?

Not saying you're wrong but it might be easy for "newcomers to Buddhism" to get a contrary impression from the suttas. Really I wonder if my understanding of the suttas is wrong, or whether your statement is based on something different from the suttas.

I've updated the answer with the example from SN 21.5... does it erase your doubts?

More suttas where the Buddha faultlessly remarks and reflects on beauty include AN 3.98, AN 4.58, and numerous, numerous Mahayana sutra's which speak of the sublime beauty of the Dharma for instance.

Yes the Buddha himself was said to be excellent in appearance, yes? Perhaps so people will listen to him. The physical beauty of Sujata seems irrelevant to me -- the Buddha also points out monks who are ugly e.g. Ud 7.5 and SN 21.6 -- and there's plenty in the Dhammapada about how it's not their appearance that makes a person holy.

What's more you can reflect upon your own life... isn't it true that there are times in your life when you've reflected upon something beautiful with relatively less craving? isn't it true that there are times in your life when you've reflected upon something beautiful with relatively more craving? If craving were inherent to reflecting on beauty then wouldn't it be the case that you'd always have the same amount of craving when reflecting on something beautiful?

Why do you think that the beauty of Sudata that the Buddha spoke of was a physical beauty? Who implied this?

"Beauty of the Dhamma" sure, it's easy to believe that's praised and recommended as a theme worth remembering -- like virtue rather than appearance. I mean I think that Buddhist cultures do have a sense of beauty, famously cherry blossoms for example, not to even mention art -- I'm not familiar with the Mahayana literature and I wonder if, if your statement is supported by reference, it's more from Mahayana texts than from suttas (because it hasn't been the impression I get from suttas).

No, I think it is equally true in the Theravada and Pali canon. There is nothing inherently wrong with regarding something as beautiful. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

"What's more you can reflect upon your own life" -- oh yes. There's was some blog post on stack exchange, recommended that answers be based on something -- personal experience, or references. If your post is based on personal experience, that's fine...

Well, it is based on sutta, sutra, the accounts of my teachers, and personal experience alike :)

@ChrisW - There are some suttas where to Buddha speaks of various vistas with the use of pleasing language. ;-)

@NeuroMax That's true: I think there's one where the Buddha said something like, "Let's go to such-and-such a place, which will be pleasant for the day's abiding" -- which I thought was remarkable. In DN 16 perhaps.

I wonder why you find this remarkable…

@YesheTenley Well it's difficult to get reliable insight into how the Buddha thought -- perceptions and so on. Answers like this seem to me to imply that having a preference, acting on a preference (to avoid the unpleasant, or to seek the pleasant or beautiful) might be considered "unwholesome" and an example of a desire for sense-experience -- please see here for example.

Some questions (some people) on this site even question whether the Buddha "perceives" or is able to discriminate at all. I assume the fact he converses and so proves awareness at least! But "desire" such as it is is usually a desire to teach, teaching morality, teaching not just seclusion but dispassion, a focus on ethics to the exclusion of aesthetics, and if anything teaching that foulness rather than beauty is a suitable theme for meditation. So a statement implying "Yes that's a nice place", and, "so let's go there" seemed novel: if not "out of character" perhaps unexpected.

The third liberation is indeed focused on beauty:

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty.
AN8.66:3.2: This is the third liberation.

However, the trap here is identification:

beauty of one's children

The Buddha himself spoke to his own son by name, not as "My son":

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

Seeing beauty in "mine" is covetousness.

MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

Letting go of covetousness, we find beauty everywhere. Seeing beauty everywhere is to let go of "mine". Seeing beauty everywhere leads to rejoicing.

AN8.66:4.1: Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of
diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space.
AN8.66:4.2: This is the fourth liberation.


text:
Sitting suggestions for a tall and inflexible meditator
I've done regular meditation for over a year using a chair and later tried to switch to more traditional meditation postures. I am rather tall at 6′4/194cm and very inflexible - can barely touch bottom of my knees. I've had some success in sitting seiza using a couple of blankets but my shins go numb after 20min or so. I've been doing regular stretches for the last month or so and hope to be able to stretch enough to do Burmese sitting in the future.
Any advice on whether it's worthwhile to try to reach Burmese or should I rather focus on getting better at seiza? Any equipment you can recommend? I'm pretty sure the stack of blankets I need to comfortably sustain seiza is a lot taller than the 6 inches most zafu cushions are advertised as.
Thank you very much!

I had the same issue when I began in 2017. Being tall and heavily built makes for a difficult sitting posture. I sat in a chair for the first year, then moved to the floor, then bought a fishing chair and modified the feet so that I could cross my legs on the floor.

Lots of articles here on dynamic stretching exercises helpful for softening body:
https://lucid24.org/misc/qigor/eight-pieces/e3/index.html (disclosure: this is my site)
The suttas don't say this, but collective experience of meditators over the history of man shows that if your body is stiff, meditation is not going to feel good. When your body is soft and pliable, then energy flows smoothly and it is then possible to access the states of bliss which make long sitting comfortable.
While you're in the process of softening the body to be able to sit, don't hesitate to adopt whatever posture as needed when needed to meditate comfortably. Standing, sitting in a chair, walking, even lying down (but I would use a timer with alarm as backup in case falling asleep).
Sitting posture only becomes important for deeper states of samadhi. At the earlier stages of meditation, any posture is fine, more important to keep body comfortable so the mind can be at ease.

I would advise sitting up against a wall and otherwise just change posture a lot as you sit.
There isn't anything inherently unwholesome to mindfully changing one's posture.
In general i would use the wall or sit on a chair but i would also sit a lot on the floor to see if i wouldn't get used to it.
It always takes a while to strengthen the supportive musculature necessary for comfortable sitting and the joints can generally be worked even into splits.

Btw if you do the seiza be careful of pinching the nerves that run from the toes up. One can do a lot of damage without it hurting much and pinching these can take months to recover from.


text:
How does one practice mindfulness during thinking? (for example, thinking about how to solve a problem)
This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities.
But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all.
The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study?
New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness.
Thanks in advance.


text:
Lokuttara Paṭicca-samuppāda and the Spiral Path
The doctrine of paṭicca-samuppāda, or dependent arising, forms one of the core teachings of the Buddha. The Theravāda commentarial text Nettipakaraṇa divides the applications of this doctrine into two major categories. The first category, ‘lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda’ is very well known, representing  ‘worldly’ conditionality as a sequence of twelve nidānas. The second category, called ‘lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda’, creates a model of the process of liberation from the same lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda at the point of ‘jarā- maraṇa’, a term that is curiously replaced by ‘dukkha’, suffering. Applications of the second category are also referred to as the ‘Spiral Path’ after the coinage of Sangharakshita, the pre-eminent modern exponent of this aspect of Buddhist doctrine.
I have some queries regarding this:
The Upanisā Sutta that deals with lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda in detail, traces the chain of this transcendental conditionality step-by- step in a retrograde fashion from the ‘Destruction of the Cankers’ to ‘Faith’ and it is easy to understand how each such nidāna becomes the supporting condition of the next. However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?
The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita?
Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

OP: why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term
dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

Suffering (stress) is a more general term while disease and death are specific forms of suffering.
This sutta uses the general form of dukkha, because that's the basis for connecting the lokiya paticcasamuppada to the lokuttara paticcasamuppada

Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
clinging-aggregates are stress.
AN 6.63

OP: However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the
supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?

One learns of the Dhamma and grows to have faith in it, but only because he seeks an end to suffering. That's the connection of suffering to faith.
In the paper "The Spiral Path or Lokuttara Paṭicca-samuppāda" by Jayarava Attwood, he explains:

In  particular,  the Upanisā  Sutta begins  the sequence  with  faith
arising  from  suffering  as  a  precondition. Suffering  is  the
culmination of the nidānas, and replaces jarā-maraṇa in the usual
nidāna sequence. This requires some exegesis, and some assumptions
must be made about how saddhā arises out of dukkha. ...
He seems to be saying that as a result of our experience of dukkha we
develop faith in the possibility of liberation. However, it is
not clear that saddhā does develop directly from the experience of
dukkha, or Buddhism  would spontaneously  break out everywhere. In
his 1966 and 1967 lectures, however, Sangharakshita  filled  in  the
gaps a  little:  awareness of dukkha gives  rise  to  “restlessness”,
which sets us “searching for something  higher”, and once we contact
something higher then faith arises. Sangharakshita, in effect,
introduces three intermediate steps: restlessness, searching, and
contact with something higher.

OP: why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by > Bikśu Sangharakshita?

From the same paper, we see the suggestion that Sangharakshita called the lokuttara paticcasammupada the spiral path, to denote that it's a progressive path, as opposed to the lokiya paticcasammupada, which is the cyclic path, meaning repeating:

Dr  Beni  Barua  took  up  the  theme  in  his  lecture Buddhism  as
Personal  Religion,  published  in  the Mahabodhi  Society  Journal in
1944. It appears to be Barua who first used the terminology ‘cyclic’ and  ‘progressive’ of the two forms of conditionality;
a terminology popularised by Sangharakshita in his writing.
Barua presents a progressive sequence of steps, but attempts
to locate this precise sequence in the Canon have not found it, and
it seems Barua may have used poetic licence with canonical lists. ....
Sangharakshita also highlights the singular nature of the Upanisā
Sutta (SN  12.23)  in  combining  the  two  categories of
paṭicca-samuppāda (p.136). It  was  Sangharakshita  who  coined the
term  ‘Spiral  Path’ for this  sequence, to contrast it with the
cyclic nidānas. 40
40 Sangharakshita has always taught the traditional
‘three lifetimes’ interpretation of the twelve nidānas, and often
makes use of the bhavacakka

Thanks @ruben2020.

However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?

People trust in paṭicca-samuppāda and the  PaṭiccaSamuppāda-Blessed One because they feel suffering and want to get out of suffering. If they never been effected by the suffering, they will laugh without any trust when they hear even only a word "paṭicca-samuppāda".
You can see the explanation in upanissasutta's commentary too.

Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

I think it is because it is not supporting the context. The context is about the origin. The last origin is Jati. It is very long and make confuse, if the Buddha taught "'Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates' cause Saddha".

while agree with the above answer about the  Upanisā Sutta, the second part of the answer about "aging & death" sounds like unsubstantiated personal or cult speculation

It is opinion because it is about the context. Pali can have tons of meaning. But I sill think same because Jati shouldn't be included in UpanissaSutta too if Jara Marana are self-view as what you've mentioned.

The  Upanisā Sutta refers to suffering as the condition for faith because the Buddha has taught suffering experienced can be ended, for example, as follows from MN 38:

He [the person discussed above], hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction (faith)
in the Tathāgata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty
path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living at home,
to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a polished
shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the
ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life into
homelessness?

Keep in mind the 1st noble truth (SN 56.11) also says birth (jati; identity) is suffering. Since you (Sushil Fotedar) are Indian, you show know the word "jati" means "identity" (rather than physical birth from a mother's womb).
As for aging & death, SN 12.66 explains they are types of suffering, as follows:

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
aging-and-death does not come to be.

Aging & death do not refer to physical aging & death but refer to self-identification with physical aging & death, which is why SN 12.2 refers to the birth, aging & death of "beings in a category of beings". SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define "a being" as a "self-view".
If we read the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma, birth, aging & death are defined therein as the birth, aging & death of "things" ("dhammas"). Here we see the beginnings of the corruption & destruction of the Buddha's Teachings; which continues today in the world by the heretical self-proclaimed "Theravada" or "Elders".

In SN Nidanavagga VibhanghaSutta, self-view is the 4th Clinging (Upadana Paticcasamuppada). In DN Mahavagga MahasatipatthanaSutta DukkhasaccaNiddesa, Jati-Jara-Marana are in DukkhaSaccaNiddesa, not SamudayaSacca, as ""And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging."

SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define "a being" as a "self-view".

It is clearly that SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define "a being"  as "thing (5 aggregates)" and define "diṭṭhigataṃ/(bhava&vibhava-)taṇhā" as   "self-view (attavada-upadana[4th clinging])". https://84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=15&A=3842&h=diṭṭhigataṃ,suddhasaṅkhārapuñjo

yo  chando yo   rāgo   yā   nandi   yā   taṇhā  tatra  satto  tatra  visatto tasmā sattoti vuccati. https://84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=17&A=4729&h=y%C4%81%20%20%20ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81

The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita?

Possible because once one has hear the good Dhamma, and as Dukkha is for sure (at least in ones death bed) to be perceiced, there is no way to get out of this "Dhamma-Wheel.
Maybe good to add that it's the wheel of Ariya (right view gained) in regard of samma-vimutti. Actually this wheel works also similar for miccha paths. Everybody may know it. And good also to understand that Saddhā comes for Saddha, meaning sacrifice, let off.
If a piece iron, hot gets you hurt, good householder would let go of it. Observe it.

Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

Because this wheels turn isn't interrupted by another birth and ends with vimutti.It's the wheel toward the deathless, good householder.
Nevertheless, althought possible insured in this wheel, it's not smart to wait the heavy cause approach. So may good householder put effort into the task and stop avoiding Dukkha by running away from it.