text:
The commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories among scholars to explain how come Prajñāpāramitā sutra have existed so early as about 75 CE?

In 2012, Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima published a damaged and partial Kharoṣṭhī manuscript of the Mahāyāna Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It is carbon dated to ca. 75 CE, making it one of the oldest Buddhist texts in existence.
Wikipedia: Gandhāran Buddhist texts - The "Split" Collection

Here's a copy of that paper by Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima: A first-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra
Question (1): What are the commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories among Buddhist-studies scholars in order to explain how come Prajñāpāramitā sutra (which belongs to the so-called 'Mahayana') have existed since so early (no later than 75 CE)?
Question (2): Is it sensible to hypothesize/theorize (or even accept) that, Prajñāpāramitā thoughts, in fact, have developed early parallel with thoughts in Āgama and Nikāya (which belongs to the so-called 'Hinayana')?

I see you deleted a previous version of this question -- I don't know why -- and reposted it here. Instead of delete-and-repost it's usually preferable to edit the existing question. Sorry but I'm not sure how to answer it though.

I quote all of these from the book "A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana" (1990) by Hirakawa Akira (professor and widely respected academic authority in Buddhist Studies), and translated by Paul Groner. The whole book in PDF format can be downloaded here and here.
Firstly, the lifetime of the Buddha:

One of the most widely accepted theories is based on the Sri Lankan
historical chronicles, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa. On the basis
of these sources, Wilhelm Geiger calculated that the Buddha died in
483 B.C.E. and consequently had been born in 563 B.C.E. Hermann
Jacobi, using the same method and sources, maintained that the Buddha
died in 484 B.C.E. The Japanese scholar Kanakura Ensho has arrived
at the same date. The "dotted record" transmitted along with the
Chinese translation of the Theravada commentary on the Vinaya, the
Samantapasadika (T 1462), also indicates a similar date.

So, the period called Early Buddhism started on 484 B.C.E. after the death of the historical Buddha.
What are the other periods?

Indian Buddhism may be divided into the following five periods: (1)
Early Buddhism, (2) Nikaya or Sectarian (often called Hinayana)
Buddhism, (3) early Mahayana Buddhism, (4) later Mahayana Buddhism, and
(5) Esoteric Buddhism. Although the five periods are arranged in the
chronological order in which the traditions arose, they are also based
on a categorization of types of Buddhism as much as historical
criteria.

When did Nikaya or Sectarian Buddhism start? According to the statement below, it started around 384 B.C.E. i.e. one century after the Buddha's death.

Approximately one century after the Buddha's death, the early order
split into the Mahasanghika and Sthaviravada schools. Later, further
schisms occurred, resulting in a number of additional schools. The
second period of Buddhist history is concerned with the development
of Sectarian (Nikaya) Buddhism. ....
The term "Nikaya Buddhism" refers to monastic Buddhism after the
initial schism into the Mahasanghika and Sthavira schools had occurred.

Mahasanghika was basically a liberal school and Sthaviravada was a conservative school. And this first schism was more related to the monastic rules (vinaya) rather than doctrines. Doctrinal differences developed later. This split begins the period of Nikaya or Sectarian Buddhism.

The schism, often called the basic schism ...,
resulted in the formation of two schools: the Mahasanghika, whose
monks refused to accept the conservative ruling of the committee of
eight monks, and the Sthaviravada (P. Theravada), whose monks agreed
with the conservative ruling. ....
At this time, the controversy over the ten points of vinaya arose, and
the elders met in Vaisali to deliberate over the disputes and resolve
them. Many monks did not submit to the council's decision, however,
and the dispute later became a cause for the schism that resulted in
the Sthavira and Mahasanghika schools.

It must be made clear that Mahayana is not Mahasanghika.

On the basis of such evidence, some scholars have argued that Mahayana
Buddhism might have developed out of the Mahasanghika School. In
fact, some connection seems to have existed between the two forms of
Buddhism. However, since the doctrines of the Mahasanghika School
and the schools that split off from it (such as the Purvasaila,
Uttarasaila, and Caitika) are not clearly known, the similarities
between Mahayana Buddhism and the schools in the Mahasanghika lineage
cannot be determined with precision.

When did early Mahayana Buddhism begin? It began when the first Mahayana texts started appearing.
Mahayana texts originated 500 years after the Buddha's death, and therefore, 400 years after the beginning of Nikaya or Sectarian Buddhism. This was around first century B.C.E.

The thousand years following the Buddha's death are often divided into
two five-hundred-year periods in Buddhist texts. Statements about the
decline of the true teaching during the latter five hundred years
occur frequently in Mahayana texts. The phrase "latter five hundred
years" is contrasted with the "former five hundred years," the first
five hundred years after the Buddha's death. ....
Mahayana texts stress that the true teaching had to be carefully
guarded and maintained during the latter five hundred years .. The
presence of such words in Mahayana texts suggests that these texts
were composed sometime later than five hundred years after the
Buddha's death.
Early Mahayana texts date from the first century B.C.E. If the Buddha
died in 484 B.C.E., then "the former five hundred years" would have
elapsed in the first century C.E. ... These dates must be reconciled
with the evidence suggesting that Mahayana texts began appearing in
the first century B.C.E.

What is the source of the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism? It basically derived from multiple schools of Nikaya or Sectarian Buddhism. And again, Mahayana is not Mahasanghika.

Many
modern scholars have maintained the view that Mahayana Buddhism
developed out of the Mahasanghika School. But since the Mahasanghika
School continued to exist long after Mahayana Buddhism arose, the rise
of Mahayana cannot be explained simply as the transformation of the
Mahasanghika into Mahayanists. While it is true that the many
similarities between Mahasanghika and Mahayana doctrines prove that the
Mahasanghika School did influence Mahayana Buddhism, teachings from
the Sarvastivadin, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravada schools
were also incorporated into Mahayana Buddhism. The doctrines of the
Sarvastivada School in particular were often mentioned in Mahayana
texts, and Sammatiya teachings also were influential. The relation
between Nikaya Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism clearly is not a simple
one.

However, Mahayana concepts have a strong connection to Mahasanghika.

According to the Samaya, Mahasanghika doctrine included certain views
on the bodies of the Buddha and the concept of the bodhsattva that
might have drawn opposition from more conservative monks. However,
these doctrines were probably developed by later Mahasanghika monks
and do not represent Mahasanghika doctrine at the time of the basic
schism. ....
In one of the sections of his work, Vasumitra grouped together the
doctrines of four schools (the Mahasanghika, Lokottaravadin,
Ekavyavaharika, and Kaukutika) of Mahasanghika lineage and noted
that the four taught that "the Buddhas; the World-honored Ones, are
all supermundane. All the Tathagatas are without impure (sasrava)
dharmas" (T49:15b). This position differs from that of the
Sarvastivadin School, but is close to Mahayana teachings.
These teachings are close to Mahayana ideas about the sambhogakaya
(body of bliss) of the Buddha and are evidence of the close
relationship of these schools to Mahayana Buddhism.

When did the first Mahayana text appear?
Apparently it was called Satparamita (six perfections), but it is no longer extant. And it appeared before the earliest extant Mahayana texts, which is the perfection of wisdom sutras, the Mahaprajnaparamitasutra. Satparamita was most probably compiled in the first century B.C.E.

The very earliest Mahayana scriptures such as the Satparamita are no
longer extant. Consequently, the date of their composition cannot be
determined from the texts themselves. However, approximate dates can
be determined indirectly. Early versions of texts such as the Kasyapa-
parivarta ... were probably compiled in the first century of the
common era. Since the Satparamita was quoted in these texts, the
Satparamita and the other earliest Mahayana texts were probably
compiled in the first century B.C.E. .... Perfection of wisdom sutras
probably first appeared after the Satparamita was compiled.

Now let's look at the perfection of wisdom sutras, which is dated to earliest first century C.E.

The largest perfection of wisdom text is the Tcr. pan-jo po-lo-mi-to
ching (T 220, Mahaprajnaparamitasutra) translated into Chinese by
Hsuan-tsang. It is six hundred fascicles long and divided into sixteen
assemblies (or parts). Perfection of wisdom sutras were not always
such large works. At first a number of separate texts circulated
independently. Later they were collected together to make larger works
such as the one mentioned above.
The oldest sutra in this group is the Tao-hsing pan-jo ching (T 224)
translated by Lokaksema. Since the translation was completed around
179, the original text probably dates back to the first century
C.E.

Now for the OP's questions:

OP: Question (1): What are the commonly acceptable hypotheses/theories
among Buddhist-studies scholars in order to explain how come
Prajñāpāramitā sutra (which belongs to the so-called 'Mahayana') have
existed since so early (no later than 75 CE)?

I think it's well explained above and in the book.

OP: Question (2): Is it sensible to hypothesize/theorize
(or even accept)
that, Prajñāpāramitā thoughts, in fact, have developed early parallel
with thoughts in Āgama and Nikāya (which belongs to the so-called
'Hinayana')?

Based on the quoted texts above and further details in the book, Mahayana doctrines definitely derived from multiple schools of Nikaya Buddhism, including Mahasanghika, Sarvastivadin, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka, Theravada and Sammatiya (Pudgalavada). However, there are definitely extra strong links to schools which came out of Mahasanghika.
In conclusion, Mahayana and Prajnaparamita thoughts did not develop in parallel with Nikaya Buddhism, but was rather derived from it, and then developed further.
It's also interesting to note that the OP's dating of the perfection of wisdom sutras manuscript by Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima from 2012, and ChrisW's Stanford Buddhist scholar Paul Harrison's chronology comments from 2018, all match up nicely to Prof. Akira Hirakawa's chronology comments from 1990.

A scholarly overview.

A dated and inaccurate text.

I'm not sure I understand the question.
What are some theories?
There are some theories about the origins of Mahayana introduced here on Wikipedia: Mahayana -- History
so early (no later than 75 CE)?
As for dates, maybe the dating is inline with what scholars expect -- for example Stanford scholar discusses Buddhism and its origins says,

As far as we know, Mahayana Buddhism began to take shape in the first century BCE. This religious movement then rapidly developed in a number of different places in and around what is now India, the birthplace of Buddhism.
Buddhism itself started sometime in the fifth century BCE. We now think that the Buddha, who founded the religion, died sometime toward the year 400 BCE. As Buddhism developed, it spread beyond India. A number of different schools emerged. And out of that already complicated situation, we had the rise of a number of currents, or ways of thinking, which eventually started being labeled as Mahayana.


text:
Did Lord Buddha teach a meditation technique called Shunya to close disciples?
I recently heard from an Indian Guru that Lord Buddha taught a meditation technique called Shoonya to his closest disciples.
Is there any technique like that or resembling it which is mentioned in the Buddhist scripture?
Related question

Edit: What was meant by close disciples was not that there was some kind of secrecy, but as Lord Buddha was a travelling monk, and this meditation technique takes time to teach, he could only teach it to the close disciples who were travelling with him.

Ven. Ananda was the Buddha's attendant and literally very close to him. In MN121, the Buddha teaches:

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

MN121 is a beautiful sutta and very inspiring. MN121 is the Cūḷasuññatasutta, the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness.
MN121 is not secret or hidden, but it can be confusing given that the Buddha teaches about and distinguishes between space, nothingness and emptiness.

MN121:6.7: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.’

MN121:8.7: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.’

Yet this sutta can be read by all who seek peace. MN121 is not only an inspiring read but is also an actual instruction for meditation. And as an instruction to meditation, it refers to many concepts taught in other suttas.
In general, the more suttas we read, the better informed we are about which practice will provide a particular benefit for a particular person or situation.

It is possible that the guru is explaining something called "suññatā cetovimutti" (空心三昧 kōng xīnsānmèi). You can read about it in the Godattasutta (SN 41.7). This sort of meditation is only practiced by the Arhats (i.e. the Buddha's "closest disciples"). From Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, the entry on "cetovimutti:"

'deliverance of mind'. In the highest sense it signifies the fruition
of Arahatship (s. ariya-puggala), and in particular, the concentration
associated with it. It is often linked with the 'deliverance through
wisdom' (paññā-vimutti [...]

Don't you think that the idea of teaching a technique to his closest disciples seems to contradict the statement in DN 16 about The Closed Fist:

I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine: for in respect of the truths, Ānanda, the Tathāgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps some things back.

But "Shunya" or "Shoonya" meditation is presumably "meditation on emptiness" -- the Pali word for emptiness is suññatā -- which is mentioned in MN 121: What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?

What was meant by close disciples was not that there was some kind of secrecy, but as Lord Buddha was a travelling monk, and this meditation technique takes time to teach, he could only teach it to the close disciples who were travelling with him

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I've attained jhana literally once, should I try to pursue it further or just live a decent householder life?
Some background: I was born into a Buddhist family. I've always been intellectually interested in spiritual things like meditation and yoga, but I never really took it seriously until my early 20s, where I started a daily meditation practice.
One day I decided to go for a Vipassana retreat where I accidentally/unintentionally attained first jhana. The experience was very transformative & made me want to learn more and go through all the jhanas. I am aware of the warnings about being attached to jhana.
Since then I haven't been able to get jhana in my daily life, understandably; too short sits, too many distractions
There's a part of me that really wants to become a monk or at least go for a longer retreat so I can reach the next jhana. The reason is that I really just want to figure out & experience for myself what is the next step. It's like reading a book for the first chapter, and then having the book taken away from you. You naturally want to find out what happens in chapter 2, 3, 4 and so on. My parents unsurprisingly don't want me to do this
There's also a part of me that thinks: it's your karma to be a householder, forget the jhana, just be a good person & practice the precepts best you can. Abandon the thought of monkhood & solitary practice.
Any advice? I'm asking on SE because I feel like some of you guys would have had similar experiences

It's understandable to seek higher jhanas but be careful. Sometimes you attain them when you are least expecting them.

Great question. Long ago, the Buddha taught Venerable Mahācunda this about jhana:

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
MN8:4.2: They might think
MN8:4.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:4.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;
MN8:4.5: they’re called ‘blissful meditations in the present life’.

Living a decent life is difficult and worthy.  In fact, it is a prerequisite for right immersion.  That is the heart of the teaching in MN8. Become a decent person in every moment and immersion will seep into your life.
Living a decent life requires a certain distance from sensual pleasures and a certain distance from unskillful qualities. With a decent life firmly established, right immersion can flow into our lives.
The Buddha defines decency in MN8. He defines it quite clearly. For example:

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

So if one covets another's possessions or experiences, then that should be considered...indecent.
Or if one thinks too much of one's skill in whatever, then our guide to decency is:

MN8:12.34: ‘Others will be arrogant, but here we will not be arrogant.’

MN8 is quite useful and is full of additional guidance. May all your immersions be right and peaceful!

If you're really that interested about jhanas, I recommend reading the visudimagga. It gives so many details and instructions on how to attain jhana using many meditation methods. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
I also recommend reading this book. http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/know-see.pdf

it's your karma to be a householder, forget the jhana, just be a good person & practice the precepts best you can. Abandon the thought of monkhood & solitary practice.

There were many princes who renunciated the world and became a monk during the Buddha's time. They didn't give up just because it's their karma to be a prince. If you are really serious about attaining jhana and nibanna, you should renunciate the world and become a monk. It's not easy to practice for jhana as householder.

A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone reborn in some clan.They gain faith in the Realized One, and reflect:
‘Living in a house is cramped and dirty, but the life of one gone forth is wide open. It’s not easy for someone living at home to lead the spiritual life utterly full and pure, like a polished shell. Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’
After some time they give up a large or small fortune, and a large or small family circle. They shave off hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness. (DN 2)
https://suttacentral.net/dn2/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=undefined&script=latin

They also ordained as monks because they want to end suffering.

“Here, bhikkhus, some clansman goes forth out of faith from the home life into homelessness, considering: ‘I am a victim of birth, ageing, and death, of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; I am a victim of suffering, a prey to suffering. Surely an ending of this whole mass of suffering can be known.’ (MN 29)

During the Buddha's time, parents often tell their child to just be a lay person and make merit.

“Dear Raṭṭhapāla, this is your maternal fortune. There’s another paternal fortune, and an ancestral one. You can both enjoy your wealth and make merit. Come, return to a lesser life, enjoy wealth, and make merit!” (MN 82)

I recommend reading MN 82. Reasons for ordaining are mentioned there.
Making merit is always good. The Buddha always praised making merit. However you can't be free from samsara by just making merit alone. You have to realize the four noble truth with direct knowledge and become an arahant to be free from samsara and attain nibanna. Bhikkhs make the most merit because of patimokkha(227 vinaya rules) observance, restraint of sense faculties, of purification of livelihood, and that concerning requisites. Futhermore, they can give the gift of dhamma which is considered the best gift.
At the end of the day, it is your choice to ordain. You should think about it carefully. I recommend reading suttas that praises renunciation and talks about the dangers of sensual pleasures. I also recommend going on more retreats to be really sure if monkhood is what you want.

You don't have to become a monk in order to have a deep meditation practice.  Is it easier if you ordain?  Of course.  But countless people have woken up while living a householder's life.  If you really want to read the next chapter, do it.  Nothing is stopping you other than your own ambivalence and mistaken notion that these states are unavailable to you in lay life.
If I were to offer some concrete advice:

Sit everyday for at least an hour.  Preferably longer and, if you can swing it, do it at least twice a day.  I personally sit about an hour and half in the morning and an hour in the evening.  I've found this to be the sweet spot - not too much where it greatly impacts my lay responsibilities but not so little where progress is cut off.
Join a meditation group or local sangha.  Sitting with others is one of the easiest and available ways to enhance your practice that I know of.  It makes you accountable and there's just something about being around others that makes your own sits deeper.
Go on weeklong retreats as often as you can.  In my Zen sangha, we generally do four a year...one per season.  These are your money maker and remain the single best way to deepen your training.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these are your training.  What happens outside of a retreat is really just practice for the show.  And hey, do four a year and you are a 1/12 monk!

Dukkha (seeing, knowing it, as well knowing a path) is cause of Saddha (surrender world toward liberation), Saddha causes joy, joy cause satisfaction, satisfaction cause stillness, stillness causes heal, heal causes concentration... vimutti, knowledge of release.
So here you are, good householder, now it's all about seeing Dukkha or not, to leave or stay.

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


text:
Where can we find (Lost) ancient Indian text by Buddhist scholars which was Translated in other languages?
Where can we find (Lost) ancient Indian text by Buddhist scholars which was Translated in other languages?
A Lot of Ancient Indian Buddhist text(Which was lost over a period of time with decline of Buddhism in India.) was translated(Probably from Sanskrit and Pali), specially by Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Sri Lankan Scholars. Where can we find these texts(may be translated in English.)

Here are some basic resources for you. Most of these were originally written by Indian scholars and now exist only in Tibetan or Chinese translation, although the BDK America collection also includes texts written by Chinese scholars.
Tibetan texts (translated to English):

https://read.84000.co/section/LOBBY.html
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/

Chinese texts (translated to English)

https://lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka/
https://bdkamerica.org/tripitaka-list/

I assume you are only looking for secondary texts, not Buddha's original discourses, but if you are into alternative versions of these, then Sutta Central has a nice collection of non-Pali versions of suttas, mostly Chinese translations from lost Sanskrit or Gandhari originals (with English translations).

https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/linked/sa
https://suttacentral.net/sa-2
https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/numbered/ea
https://suttacentral.net/ma

I don't think you'll be able to find "lost" texts translated into English. An example of a recently-found text that used to be "lost" is the Gandhari Dhammapada.
This article, https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Buddhist-Texts/C3-Comparative-Dhammapada/Comparative-Dhammapada.pdf, compares several different Dharmapadas. The Gandhari one is one of them. There is also a translation of it published by Timothy Lenz. This is only one example of such a text. There are far too many to list individually.

I find the first sentence isn't clear -- it's contradicted by the rest of the answer. Perhaps it's intended to say that there are so many lost texts translated, that you won't find any single list/repository of them.

It is not contradicted by the rest of the answer. Lost texts are lost. They are not translated. Only recently-found texts that used to be lost can possibly be translated.

I see. I think the OP clarified that it's asking about texts that were lost to India, and which instead survived as translations, in Tibet etc.

If that is what they meant, then the list is too large for any poster here to give. Also, the grammar could be adjusted if that is what they meant. For instance, off the top of my head, the Flower Garland, countless minor Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, the EBTs (the Sanskrit EBTs are all fragmentary to differing degrees) the Golden Light Sūtra, the Humane King Sūtra, the Śūrangamasūtra, the prelude and postlude to the Threefold Lotus Sūtra... the list can go on indefinitely.


text:
Why does "not existing from its own side" make something a "conceptual construction"?
Why does "not existing from its own side" make something a "conceptual construction"?
I believe, from memory, the former phrase in quotes is Tibetan, but that all Buddhists think every empty thing is a "conceptual construction": but am unsure what that last phrase means, so don't know why anyone would believe it. Can you help?

Imagine you're looking at a mountain peak that looks like an eagle's head. This eagle head "does not exist from its own side" - it is you, the observer, that delineates the head from the rest of the mountain range and imputes the features such as the eyes, the feathers, the beak etc. to construct the image of an eagle. That imputation or projection from observer's memory onto external stimuli and resulting delineation, designation, and recognition of a subset of that stimuli as a certain known entity - is what's simply referred to as "a mere conceptual construct".
The same process is behind recognizing images in the morphing clouds, on the starry night sky, in the tree canopies.
The same process is behind production of dreams from the random noise our sense organ circuitry generates during sleep.
It takes only a little more effort to understand that the same exact process is also behind a one year old infant parsing it's sensory input into distinct entities such as "mother", "dog" and "ball". None of these exist as separate distinct immutable entities over long time, but are delineated and designated by the infant brain based on the sensory impressions accumulated during the first year of life.
Even us, adults, live in the subjective world of objects that don't exist from their own sides but are conceptual constructs we were taught to delineate and designate.
Hope this helps.
See this inspired answer for better examples and a clearer connection to the concept of Emptiness.

I quite like that. like looking at some stars as an an archer... it's not that the stars aren't there, it's that the archer isn't

It does as a "conceptual construction" and not taught in such way by the Buddha, good householder. All Phenomenas, aside the deathless, have causes. Would one say that this or tgat arises by oneself or by others, would lead to extreme. Actually touch (of avijja) does the case of phenomenas arise. May good householder be touched.
The prove, toward liberation even, can be made by everyone, right here and now.


text:
Were there any ancient Buddhist Universities, outside of India?
There were at least 22 universities according to this --
Ancient Buddhist
Universities in
India by Dr. Sandesh Wagh, Mumbai University:

In contrast to this with the rise of Buddhism in
India, there arose many center's of learning which
did not exist before.
Buddhist monks could opt for a life of meditation in
the forests, or a life of teaching, preaching,
propagating the Dhamma as a result of these
activities, seats of learning arose.
These seats of monastic learning (Pirivenas)
gradually developed and some of them became fullfledged universities.

22 Major Ancient Buddhist University

These organized institutions in the form of
Monasteries, Viharas and Universities formed the
spinal cord of the country.
Well established regular educational institutions
were founded during Buddhist period.
Gradually big shrines and hermitages began to
function as educational institutions.
With the passage of time these places assumed
the status of institutions imparting primary and
higher education.

Takshila Buddhist University
Nalanda Buddhist University
Vallabhi Buddhist University
Vikramshila Buddhist University
Teleadaka Buddhist University
Odantapuri Buddhist University
Sompura Buddhist University
Jaggadala Buddhist University
Phushpagiri Buddhist University
Nagaarjunakonda Buddhist University
Kashmir or Shardha Buddhist University
Ujjain Buddhist University
Nabadwip Buddhist University
Tawang Buddhist University
Shrangiri Buddhist University
Samye Buddhist University
PanditVihara Buddhist University
Gunshila Buddhist Women University
Kashi Buddhist University
Kanchipuram Buddhist University
Kururshetra Buddhist University
Kanheri Rock-cut Buddhist University

However were there any other universities outside India (the Indian subcontinent as we know it now), especially China, Korea, southeast Asia?
There were lot of Scholars who travelled to and from India, do any of their travelogues mention any of these universities?

That link does not open for me.

its a large file it takes sometime to load, you can google Ancient-Buddhist-University-in-India- mostly should be on first page, at least in India.

@AndreiVolkov I quoted almost all the text in it, it's formatted like a slide-deck (i.e. PowerPoint presentation) and is mostly 80 photographs of the remains of these places.

I am also interested to know what subjects were taught in these universities , the wikipedia article about vikramshila(An Indian University) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramashila mentions subjects like  philosophy, grammar, metaphysics, Indian logic etc were taught  in Vikramshila.

There are folklore regarding a massive University like establishment in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka which was later burned down by the invading armies.
In Sri Lanka the Buddhist education was centralized around establishments named Pirivena. The Sunethradevi Pirivena is believed to be more than 600 years old.


text:
Sutras are in which Tripitaka
I have one query. All the Sutra's ( lotus Sutra, heart Sutra) belongs to which Tripitaka (first second or third)?

The Tripitaka is one and it is divided in  three collections of texts (pitaka) and the first one contains the sutras (sutra pitaka).
The heart sutra and the lotus sutra are not in the Tripitaka though, they are part of the prajnaparamita sutras that is a different collection of sutras, studied in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

According to Wikipedia's Tripiṭaka article,

Tripiṭaka has become a term used for many schools' collections, although their general divisions do not match a strict division into three piṭakas.

The "three baskets" to not correspond to the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma which is I think what the question is suggesting.
At least in the Wikipedia article, the different (versions of the) Tripiṭakas are referred to or named as "Pali", "Chinese", and "Tibetan".
The Lotus Sutra is not in the Pali Tripiṭaka -- apparently it was Indian originally, and translated into Chinese and Tibetan (and other languages).
And the Heart Sutra is apparently originally Chinese.

TL;DR: the Mahayana sutras like Heart Sutra, Lotus Sutra are not part of the Tripitaka.
For the Theravada school, the main scripture is the Pali Canon or the Tipitaka, in the Pali language.
Tipitaka or Tripitaka means the three baskets. The three are the Sutta Pitaka which is the basket on the teachings of the Buddha and his disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which is the basket on the monastic rules, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka which is the basket of philosophical analysis.
Here's one view of it below. You can find it online at AccessToInsight or SuttaCentral.
Other Buddhist scripture for Mahayana Buddhism are either in Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. The Vajrayana school is part of Mahayana.
The Mahayana Agamas are equivalent to the Pali suttas.
However, the Mahayana sutras like Heart Sutra, Lotus Sutra are not part of the Tripitaka.


text:
How closely aligned are Buddhist ethics and Nietzschean values?
How closely aligned are Buddhist ethics and Nietzschean values? I know a little about both, and may even have read a comparative study (some time ago). Was hoping to harmonise them via 'karma': the agent experiences the result. But there seems no linguistic or rational reason which is strong enough to believe in rebirth, so it seems to me that Nietzsche's analysis (only the success of the superman matters) cannot be reconciled with Buddhism. If so, I'll probably side with Buddhist ethics (I think we need art, not individuals, and Buddhism doesn't make only for worthless aesthetics), but it's a blow, because in the process we may have to sacrifice what is - it is sometimes claimed - is the very highest type of well being possible.
This question is just from someone who has read a small bit of Nietzsche studies (I'm not philosopher), but I take claims about morality quite seriously, that's all.

They aren't aligned at all.  Nietzsche's critique of Christianity could just as easily be levied against Buddhism. The only reason I think that he tepidly praised Buddhism is because he only understood it as a philosophy, not the soteriological religion that it undoubtably is.
For instance - "The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit, it is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and self-mutilation."
Buddhism, at its core, is a religion of self sacrifice.  The first paramita is dana.  We give not just alms or service but make a wholehearted offering of our very being.  In Zen, we celebrate dying on the cushion.  In the tantras, you give over everything to your guru.  In the Theravada, there is the model of leaving home and everything behind.  All of these are examples of self subjugation.  Nietzsche's philosophy, on the contrary, is ultimately self serving, even aggrandizing.

There is a big difference in dana paramitha and sacrifice. If you see Dhamma, understand it and as a result of that understanding, practice it, dana paramitha is not a sacrifice for such a practicing Buddhist. It may look like so, for the rest of the world, but it does not feel so, to the practicing Buddhist. For such practicing Buddhist, the dana paramitha is an effect of understanding, its not caused by any teaching. Same goes for leaving home and everything behind in Theravada Tradition. Its an effect of seeing beyond the material world which loses value in the search for truth.

I have to disagree with that. In order to practice, there are obstacles that we have to push through. Sitting is hard at first.  We rather not do it. We sacrifice our comfort to do it. Practicing sila means we can't act like we have in the past. We have to consciously fight our karmic tendencies. It's easier to just go on as we always have.  That too is sacrifice.  Sacrifice is showing loving kindness to our enemies. We much rather give them the gift of our anger. It's a sacrifice to give them the gift of compassion. In Zen, we'd call this walking Kempo's One Road. Every sacrifice is a gate.

The reason that paramitha does not become a sacrifice for a practicing Buddhist is because, when practicing Dhamma, you try to see the reality of the world you have built for yourself. When you see the truth, dana, siila, and meditation will become a natural part of life. Paramitha becomes an effect of your understanding. Practicing Paramitha with effort will definitely help but, practicing Dhamma is not practicing Paramitha with effort, to practice Dhamma is to see your wold through Dhamma,which will lead to Nibbana. Sacrifices will not lead you to Nibbana.

hey @Sampath both. good answer, but I think you're overplaying the attitude to self and underplaying 'morality' - which, for Nietzsche, is a trick: and a highly poisonous one

@again_insane_buddhist: I'm sorry I know nothing about Nietzsche. My comment does not cover Nietzsche. It is simply comparing paramitha and sacrifice in the viewpoint of a Practicing Buddhist (how paramitha feels to a Practicing Buddhist). The term 'Practicing Buddhist' was used just to differentiate them from the different pursuers of Dhamma with different intentions or purposes in mind. I'm not talking about me either. Even though I had the good fortune of meeting a few such wonderful human beings.; I cannot be categorized as a Practicing Buddhist.

I was mostly talking to @000 and just including you to be firendly. sorry for confusion

@again_insane_buddhist: Apologies if I misunderstood your comment. I just wanted to clarify my comment.

Nietzsche's philosophy, on the contrary, is ultimately self serving,
even aggrandizing

I tend to agree.
One thing I notice is that Buddhist licentiousness seems to breed a similar sort of arrogance (nb Buddhists accuse each other of this at times), the same sense that the suffering of others is their obligation to us. We are free to choose our values in both of these philosophies, just as some individuals are better set to do so (even authentic milk is different to authentic butter).
It may be that the Buddha meant that all ethical judgments are in error, and it may be that Nietzsche merely meant that all moral judgments are fictional. But, either way, you should surely take it on a case by case basis, either in the abstract (Nietzsche belittles Mitleid) or in the concrete (the Buddha suggested his followers completely abstain from intoxicants).
So, apples and oranges: at least they're not vegetables.
Most philosophies seek greatness in someone.

Nietsche does agree with the Buddha on some things. They both point out the problem of self:

Nietsche: One must not eye oneself while having an experience; else the eye becomes "an evil eye."
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.’”

However, there is profound disagreement on immersion. Nietsche's "frenzy" corresponds to wrong immersion for Buddhists.

Nietsche: in this state one enriches everything out of one's own fullness: whatever one sees, whatever one wills, is seen swelled, taut, strong, overloaded with strength. A man in this state transforms things until they mirror his power--until they are reflections of his perfection. This having to transform into perfection is--art. Even everything that he is not yet, becomes for him an occasion of joy in himself; in art man enjoys himself as perfection.”

The Buddha declares right immersion as:

AN5.28:2.1: “And how do you develop noble right immersion with five factors?
AN5.28:2.2: Firstly, a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. It has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

I've tried both ways. The Buddha's way leads to less suffering. YMMV.

Not closely aligned at all. Nietzsche believes in "the will to power." The Buddha teaches the path to the relinquishment of "will" and "power," so that the endless march to attain these two things, "what one wants" (will) and "the pursued ability to get what one wants" (power) are utterly pacified. The Arhat is happy even in the nastiest of circumstances. He has no desire to change his material circumstances. Why? He has the secret happiness available to him that all Buddhas have, the ability to dwell in Nirvana, the "highest happiness."

As much as Zen is related in aim and way: not at all, aside of a prove that defilement have endless arguments to hold on wrong at the base, good householder.
Yet even former wanderers under either Zen or Nietsche, hardly ever arrive at the Dhamma and will still relay on wrong view, making "I have a right" to their incapacity's. into a virtue... blessed who never nourished in this sink of dung, to be smelled from far by wise.


text:
What gives the subjective sensation of 'me', 'Awareness' tied to this specific body-mind complex?
What is it that experiences life from this particular body & mind that I have?
i.e. why am I experiencing the world from my body instead of yours?
I feel like an answer could be: because there isn't really any 'separate bodies' or selves & you just don't have the realization (Anatman) yet. Still, what causes the subjective  'self' to appear as a particular body experiencing life from its limited perspective, or is it all one giant reification error for someone who hasn't detached from egotic self yet? & then karma, the 12 links, mindstream identifies with this, attaches to this body, so on and so forth...

The question of why ‘awareness’ has a perspective, why is it not free to roam, so that now it is seeing things from the perspective of your physical body, and now seeing things from the perspective of my physical body, is an explosion of phantasms of conceptual ideas littering your understanding. However, the major oversight is not seeing that your question assumes that non-individuated awareness would be all-perceiving. Why must that be? Isn’t this just the concept of God reemerging, but now called ‘awareness’?
In Buddhist philosophy there is no God. Why then rename God “awareness”?
It is a basic, but profound insight that there is nothing that endures permanently, and thus nothing that has an intrinsic self. Therefore our ‘physical’ bodies are constructions of our mind. This does not mean that there isn’t the appearance of a body, it means that the appearance of a body is conceptually structured. Why then fail to see that we are simply transferring the independent selfhood and permanence of existence of our naïve understanding to ‘awareness’?
But there is another taint in the framing of this question. You are assuming that this ‘awareness’ is basically a ‘seeing’ of what it is aware of. But this is just our naïve understanding put into a new box labeled “awareness.” It’s carrying an important misunderstanding forward in a different guise. Change it slightly and perhaps we can make this misunderstanding more uncomfortable to live with: let’s assume that ‘awareness’ doesn’t see, it hears. This means there is no perspective from your body, and none from mine. Sound pervades all directions, and so as long as we are standing near each other, ‘awareness’ will hear the same thing.  But it won’t know what anything looks like. It will be like a blind man.
Let’s go a step further: the blind man goes deaf. Why, after all, is this ‘awareness’ framed as a perceiving, when what we really need it to be is a knowing. That is why we abstracted it out of ‘our’ experience and made it something separate from what is experienced, after all. But if it is a knowing, rather than a perceiving, how does it know, if it is something other than what is happening?
I leave you with that to ponder.
In my own case, I came to the insight that knowing is not different than appearing, and thus, ‘awareness’ knows by doing, not perceiving. And because of this, ‘my’ ‘awareness’ is locked into my body because that’s what it’s doing. And similarly for ‘your’ ‘awareness’.
Take out the imputed self-identities of ‘me’ and ‘you’, and the conceptual image of an all-perceiving ‘God’, and you’re getting close to the truth.

Your world is a process which you collect stimulus from sensory organs and then interpret them, identify and categorize them using previous memories and behaviors. If you take for an example your eyes. Eye receives a picture, sends it to the brain. brain interprets it based on previous memories, experiences and behaviors. Then a value is assigned in your mind as; this is good or bad.
A very important phenomenon takes place here. The moment you interpret the outside stimuli, the mind which allowed the process (chakku viknknana) and the outside world you perceived are one and the same. But you interpret it as there is an outside world, and 'I' perceived it. In fact with everything we perceive, what we primarily do is to ascertain our-self that there is 'me', perceiving the world. This is the reason we assign a value to the outside stimuli as good or bad (it is good or bad to 'me'). In reality, only the perception process exists, creation of 'one-self' within that process is unawareness (moha) in action, its the deception we fall into. We build the world in our mind to assert the sense of 'me' (sathwa pudgala saknkna).

The confusion lies within mistakenning a 2nd body just as this body.
The 2nd body, or any other bodies, is an image in your sight. Anything more than an image, is fabricated upon it.
Although it is not to declare the other bodies don't exist. It is merely stating in your experience, there is no other body except body images.
Thus in your experience there is only this body sensing everything.

If two people are standing in a cold room, they can both discuss "Why do I feel I am cold" vs. "Why don't I feel that you are cold" until they both freeze to death. That discussion would have a sad ending.
However, one can also avoid the mental chatter and simply put on a jacket when cold. And in this way both people could become warmer and smile at that shared experience without needing any notion of a self.
So there is something quite peculiar about that notion of a self. Let's see what the Buddha says.
In DN1, the Buddha enumerates and dispenses with theories of a self with a very simple statement about contact. Contact is the experience of catching something with our senses. And contacts can precipitate into notions of a self along with endless discussions about notions of a self.

DN1:3.45.1: Now, these things are conditioned by contact. Namely, when those ascetics and brahmins assert that the self and the cosmos are eternal on four grounds
…
DN1:3.46.1: partially eternal on four grounds …
DN1:3.47.1: finite or infinite on four grounds …
(...)

So we can think of the senses as a net that we refine to catch this or catch that. And one of the things that may plop into our net is the notion of a self. But there's a danger here. There is a danger that our view might be very limited.
The Buddha equates chasing notions of self with fishing in a small pond.

DN1:3.72.3: Suppose a deft fisherman or his apprentice were to cast a fine-meshed net over a small pond. They’d think: ‘Any sizable creatures in this pond will be trapped in the net. Wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.’

The Buddha advises us to look beyond that small pond with its notions of identity. He advises us to step beyond notions of "self" and encourages to not get caught up in the net of identity.
Practically speaking, the Buddha shares many techniques for escaping notions of identity. A notable example is:

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.’”


text:
How to deal with anxiety associated with surroundings/environment?
I have moved to a big city from a suburban area recently. I hardly have to go outside home. Because of the current covid restrictions, I do WFH.
I used to go cycling or walking everyday before. But now I am too afraid to go out not just because of covid but also because of the thievery, burglary, snatching incidents that get reported in the area everyday.
I stay in one room all day. And mentally it's affecting me a lot. I understand that maybe I have attachment to my previous place of stay. Now how can I deal with my anxiety?

This isn't really a Buddhism question, per se, but acclimation is key. If you have friends or coworkers, go out with them as a group; If not, ask a family member to come stay with you for a week or two, so you have someone to explore with. You'll quickly learn the local environment, and what to watch out for. Most people in cities can be trusted (if only because they will likely ignore you).

It's a question about suffering, which is a Buddhist concern...

@OyaMist: Set aside the well-known trope that 'suffering' is a poor translation of 'dukkha'... The point is that this kind of question is more a matter of counseling than any effort of achieving liberation. We can answer it from a buddhist perspective, sure, but a Buddhist perspective isn't particularly needed here. Just because you have a hammer, don't assume that everything is a nail...

Good neighborhood, living in areas where wrong view doesn't domain, is actually a prerequisite for good practice (one of the first greatest blessings/protection), good householder, so which attachments keeps him not from seeking to dwell on good, better, place? Once understanding is firm, of course, it wouldn't matter that much any more, still, even Arahats dwell there where it's pleasing to dwell. So one fear needs to win over another. Good situation to find out the cause of inflexibility and feeling bond.

To reside in a suitable location... is the highest blessing
Countries to leave & counties to go
6. Sevanāsuttaṁ-That should be followed after

(ps: don't take the unqualified commentaries of rude and ignorant neighbors here to serious if desiring to resist here...)

Thank you very much for answering. The only attachment to my present address is my living. I have a job here.

Anxiety can arise due to external circumstance.
Ven. Sariputta taught:

DN34:1.5.2: What four things are helpful?
DN34:1.5.3: Four situations:
DN34:1.5.4: living in a suitable region, relying on good people, being rightly resolved in oneself, and past merit.

Living in a bad neighborhood is indeed stressful.  If the neighborhood is a given and you cannot move, find and rely on good people. If good people are not available, live ethically to be worth of the company of good people.
Anxiety can also arise internally:

MN22:18.2: “Sir, can there be anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally?”
MN22:18.3: “There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha.
MN22:18.4: “It’s when someone thinks,
MN22:18.5: ‘Oh, but it used to be mine, and it is mine no more.
MN22:18.6: Oh, but it could be mine, and I will get it no more.’

The remedies for internal anxiety are explained further in MN22:

MN22:19.1: “But can there be no anxiety about what doesn’t exist externally?”
MN22:19.2: “There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha.
MN22:19.3: “It’s when someone doesn’t think,
MN22:19.4: ‘Oh, but it used to be mine, and it is mine no more.
MN22:19.5: Oh, but it could be mine, and I will get it no more.’

MN22 is quite extensive and discusses other such cases, and may therefore be of some help in your situation.
A key point to understand in MN22 is that possessiveness (i.e., "mine") is a trigger for anxiety. For example, if we miss the pleasant neighbors from our old neighborhood, we might grow sad and feel helpless. Therefore, focusing on the loss causes anxiety.
However, if we focus on being a nice neighbor, then our new neighborhood now has a nice neighbor. We become that nice neighbor and bake cookies for our neighbors and say "hello!".
And that is the essence of practicing unlimited love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. We can look inside ourselves and let that light shine forth to brighten the world.
So it is not a matter of denial. It is a matter of affirmation and giving. It is about sensing a lack and giving what is needed.

Thank you very much. I have a question about MN22:19.3. Does that indicate that paying no attention (or less attention) to internal anxiety is recommended?

Thank you for the clarifying. The answer hopefully addresses the issue of how to pay attention.

You say that your anxiety arises from ...

... incidents that get reported in the area everyday.

So one more suggestion is, don't just beware of the incidents but beware of the reports.
I mean, some people for example watch the news on television, or maybe they read social media, and get upset because the news is bad. One of the remedies for that is to stop paying much attention to the news.
Beware that "news reports" is usually bad by definition no matter where you are -- because everything that isn't "an incident" isn't ever "reported" in that way -- and so "the reports" always give a one-sided and sometimes overly-pessimistic view of reality.
To beware of what (sense-inputs) you pay attention to and become passionate about in some way, might be called guarding the sense doors. It's usually used to warn against superficially-attractive objects but I think it's applicable to any sense-input that you might be attached to, including ones which evoke fear.

Thank you very much. Specially, the last paragraph was really helpful.


text:
"abandoning samyojanas" vs "removing saṅkhāras"
When researching stream-entry, I came across this fascinating statement ...

"The stream enterer ... has removed the saṅkhāras that force rebirth
in lower planes".

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Stream-enterer
I find this statement to be fascinating because
the 4 stages of enlightenment are usually described as a function of
"abandoning fetters (samyojanas)"
rather than
"removal of saṅkhāras".
Does this statement have any reference in the suttas?
i.e. Do the suttas actually make this connection between "removing saṅkhāras" and freedom from "rebirth in lower planes"?
If so, do they hint at the nature of the "saṅkhāras" to be removed?

An interesting viewpoint. When sanyojana breaks in your mind (as you see through them) the practice of sankhara will be valueless to you. In that sense, can't we view these two as cause and effect? ergo, use them interchangeably?

Perhaps you'll find these suttas relevant.

AN 6.89 through AN 6.91 list six things that are given up, in order to become accomplished in view -- which include the first three fetters (which are abandoned by a stream-enterer).

Continuing in the same vein, AN 6.93 says,

A person accomplished in view can’t take conditions to be permanent, happiness, or self.

The word which Ven. Sujato translates there as "conditions" is "sankhara".

Or perhaps that doesn't answer the question, because it's not exactly "removing" sankharas.
On the subject of what might be "a sankhara to be removed", I suspect that identity-view is one example of a sankhara -- in the sense that it's "a fabrication" -- see the simile of the chariot.
Also AN 4.10 seems to warns against relishing and attaching to views in general:

And what is the attachment to views?
It’s when you don’t truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.
So greed, relishing, affection, infatuation, thirst, passion, attachment, and craving for views linger on inside.

Perhaps there's some controversy about abandoning views: "Does that mean, all views? What about Right View, surely that's not to be abandoned?" Perhaps that is (ironically) a kind of topic that may lead to differences of view or doctrine between different schools. I suppose that everyone agrees, though, that at least (among all views) "self-views" or "identity view" is to be abandoned by a stream enterer.


text:
Looking for Buddhist videos that explain the Buddhist view on consciousness in a clear succinct way
I am looking for Buddhist videos (by Buddhist monks preferably or lay teachers) that describe briefly (under 10 minutes) how Buddhists view consciousness.
Most I find are either lectures an hour-long, very difficult to understand, or poetic/allegorical.
I'm looking for videos like these. They are by Hindus explaining their view on consciousness briefly. Have you see something like these but Buddhist?
https://youtu.be/aGhm8CVnwck
https://youtu.be/9n6NvDpcwLM

There are certainly multiple videos explaining consciousness, but none of them are short and concise. Try searching for "ajahn consciousness" on YouTube.
I would quote a few texts instead.

“And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of
consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness,
mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
SN 12.2

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.
MN 38

The way I see it, consciousness is the mind-body connection (where mind is "name" and body is "form" according to the definition in SN 12.2 and SN 22.79), and it's supported by:

Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is
the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to
being reborn in one state of existence or another.
AN 6.61

And finally from The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

Awareness is the process of cittas experiencing objects. For a citta
to arise it must have an object (aaramma.na). The object may be a
color, sound, smell, taste, something tangible, or a mental object.
These are the six external objects. Strictly speaking a mental object
can be an internal phenomenon, such as a feeling, a thought, or an
idea, but as forming the objective sphere of experience they are all
classed as external. Corresponding to these external objects there are
six internal sense faculties, called "doors" since they are the
portals through which the objects enter the field of cognition. These
are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Each of the five
physical sense faculties can receive only its appropriate object; the
mind door, however, can receive both its own proper mental objects as
well as the objects of the five physical senses. When a door receives
its object, there arises a corresponding state of consciousness, such
as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. The union of the object,
the door or sense faculty, and the consciousness is called "contact"
(phassa). There can be no awareness without contact. For contact to
occur all three components must be present — object, door, and
consciousness. If one is missing there will be no contact. The process
of the arising of consciousness and the subsequent train of events is
analyzed in detail in the Abhidhamma. A study of this analysis will
show that only "bare phenomena" are taking place and that there is no
"self" involved in this process. This is the no-self characteristic of
existence.


text:
Questions regarding body scan during the contemplation of anatomical parts in Satipatthana
I'm trying to practice Satipatthana meditation according to the book Satipatthana Meditation - A Practice Guide. In the book, Bhikkhu Anālayo teaches the contemplation of anatomical parts by body scan (Chapter 3, p. 53).

The mode of practice I recommend to get started takes the form of body scans. One body scan to become aware of the skin, another to become aware of the flesh, and a third to become aware of the bones.

During each body scan, one scans through major body parts (hair, face, neck, shoulders, arms, and so on, to feet) sequentially. And for each body part, one turns attention to the fact that it's "just skin/flesh/bones" and "impure/dirty/not beautiful/not sexually attractive" (p. 58, 59).

If we already tend to feel frustrated or even depressed because our body does not meet current standards of physical beauty and attractiveness, it would be unwise to employ the evaluation. Instead we might turn attention just to the fact that the body is made up of skin, flesh, and bones, which perform their function independent of what society considers to be good looks.

Based on such an assessment, some of us might feel ready to confront a tendency to sensual obsession in relation to the body. In such a case, it would be appropriate to bring in the element of evaluation. We might decide to use the terminology found in the discourse, “impure” or “dirty”, or else “not sexually attractive”.

There's also a guided meditation recording provided by the book publisher that illustrates the process.
I have following questions:

Am I supposed to verbalize the body scan process in my head? During my practice, I would move my attention to the next body part by mentally naming it (e.g., mentally saying "upper arm", "lower arm", etc.), then examine it by mentally saying "just skin/flesh/bones", "not beautiful", and try to contemplate on that at the same time.

Related to the 1st one, am I supposed to visualize each body part in my mind during body scan? Specifically, am I supposed to visualize the skin/flesh/bones of each body part? During my practice, it became quiet natural for me to imagine each body part's skin/flesh/bones since I needed to mentally say its name & focus on "it's just skin/flesh/bones".

Related to the 2nd one, can I really physically feel every major body part? For example, is it possible to feel skull bones, or bowels, spleen (which is even hard to imagine)? So in practice, I guess I had just imagined my skull or some other body part that is not very perceptible and contemplated based on that mental image rather than actual sensation. Is this the right approach?

Thanks in advance.

It's really not a visualize.  It's not a imagination. But it must first practice intense meditation.  Then it's the power of meditation.  look into  If you meditate until you have a lot of strength. There will be a light of meditation.  And it's that light. Examine the body. To practice scanning the body like this.
How to practice meditation.  You have to choose what is visible on the outside first. There are 5 things to choose from: hairs,hairs, nails, teeths, and skin. All 5 of these are choose one.  Done and relax  because of the strength of meditation . Only need to do one at a time. For example, if you choose hair.  I took the feeling  on the hair only . Think about your hair, what color it is, and what it looks like.  How does it smell  Keep doing this until you have a lot of meditation power.
I'm sorry, I'm not good at English, I use Google Translate.

Thanks for your answer. I guess you are trying to say, cultivate mindfulness by focusing on one body part only, or at least one per session. Then do body scan with this cultivated strong mindfulness as if it's a light.

Mindfulness meditation consists of four phases, proceeding from coarse to fine:

MN10:3.1: What four?
MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.3: They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.4: They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.5: They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Notice that the Buddha simply says "an aspect". The Buddha does not say "every single dang aspect that you and everybody else can possibly discuss or discern". :D
And that's quite a relief!
Elsewhere the Buddha notes:

DN34:1.4.7: Immersion with placing the mind and keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind or keeping it connected.

So if we place our minds on, say, the skin and keep it connected, that's great!  But note that the Buddha doesn't get stuck there. In one teaching, the Buddha passes on to feelings. In another teaching, the Buddha actually lets go of the placing. In all these teachings we can see transitions. In all these teachings we can see equanimity in the face of change.
Suppose a fly lands on our skin as we are meditating on our breath. Should we fight to keep our attention on the breath while the fly tortures us? Well, the Buddha said this:

DN34:1.6.73: ‘This immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression.’

So perhaps if we feel that maddening tickle of a fly on our skin, we can allow that fly to walk on our skin, wishing it well and after a while...the fly departs.
Meditation isn't a rigid thing to be pounded into a perfect form. It's usually better to simply be gently aware and allow meditation to unfold with mindfulness.

I guess you mean I might have overthought about this practice. Maybe it's more important to cultivate receptivity to whatever manifest in the mind and at the sense doors, than to fuss about whether I should visualize/verbalize or not, whether I can examine some eccentric body part. It's really no need to be so rigid to cultivate mindfulness.


text:
What is the sutta where the Buddha says that one breath or one bite of food is the proper timeframe with which to contemplate life/death?
I have heard this sutta referenced in dhamma talks by Ajahn Thanissaro, although I don't have a specific talk to point to. I know I have also read the sutta, but I can't remember when. In the sutta, various monks state that they practice by contemplating something along the lines of "If I live so long as one year... one month... one day... one hour... one breath... the time it takes to chew one bite of food... then I can accomplish a lot in the practice." The Buddha then states that the last two monks who cast their intention across one breath or one bite of food are heedful, while the other monks are not.
Does anyone know which sutta this is?
Thanks!

I found the sutta I was looking for:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.019.than.html
It's AN 6.19.

And also > AN8.73:11.1: But the mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing

AN8.73:11.2: to live as long as it takes to chew and swallow a single mouthful …
AN8.73:11.4: or to live as long as it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe in after breathing out …


text:
Where are the main collections of digitized Buddhist art online?
I have found the himalayanart.org website, which has the kind of art I am looking for, things like religious paintings, mandalas, etc. Where are the most digitized high-res buddhist art records kept online?

Maybe in a category related lesser to Buddhism then to art? At least here?

You can try the U.S. government's Library of Congress.
For e.g. you can download a 16MB JPEG file of the Gandhara Scroll or 2MB sized JPEG of South Korean Buddhist Rock Carvings.


text:
What are those "deck of cards" objects that various sutras are printed on?
I used to go to a Tibetan Buddhist community where they were constantly reading Buddhist scriptures off of little stacks of cards. They were wide aspect ratio, and had the syllables of various mantras written out phonetically on them.
Is there a word for this object? I always wanted to look it up.

In Singhalese they are called Puskola. I think they are known as 'Ola Leafs' or Palm-leaf manuscripts in common English. They are made out of palm leafs.

The process of making them are detailed here in the you tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAIkMkmLFPQ


text:
Where does it say in the Three Baskets that Buddha used to be a prince?
I recall reading suttas wherein the Buddha references his past life, however I do not recall him mentioning that he was a prince. What is the source for this claim?

In the following sutta, the Buddha described the delicate and opulent life that he led in his life as a prince, without actually saying that he was a prince.

“Bhikkhus, I was delicately nurtured, most delicately nurtured,
extremely delicately nurtured. At my father’s residence lotus ponds
were made just for my enjoyment: in one of them blue lotuses bloomed,
in another red lotuses, and in a third white lotuses. I used no
sandalwood unless it came from Kāsi and my headdress, jacket, lower
garment, and upper garment were made of cloth from Kāsi. By day and by
night a white canopy was held over me so that cold and heat, dust,
grass, and dew would not settle on me.
“I had three mansions: one for the winter, one for the summer, and one
for the rainy season. I spent the four months of the rains in the
rainy-season mansion, being entertained by musicians, none of whom
were male, and I did not leave the mansion. While in other people’s
homes slaves, workers, and servants are given broken rice together
with sour gruel for their meals, in my father’s residence they were
given choice hill rice, meat, and boiled rice.
AN 3.39

The following sutta provides a hint about the Buddha's father:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied,
while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I
entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by
applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of
seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’
MN 36

Thanks, yes I meant the three baskets, I have edited the title. I found the quotes interesting. The first gives support to the idea that he was at the very least very well off, but the second just says he was a Sakyan. Are there any other suttas saying he was well off/a prince?

@Jbag1212, the Buddha was born to wealth and privilege that some might perhaps interpret and repeat to others as "princely". Also note that Ruben2020's quote is also in MN100.

MN100:28.2: ‘I recall sitting in the cool shade of the rose-apple tree while my father the Sakyan was off working. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

Wikipedia says in the article on the Shakyas:

He was known in his lifetime as "Siddhartha Gautama" and "Shakyamuni"
(Sage of the Shakyas). He was the son of Śuddhodana, the elected
leader of the Śākya Gaṇarājya.

From the article on Śuddhodana:

"Though frequently depicted and referenced as a king, most recent
scholarship on the matter refutes the notion that Śuddhodana was a
monarch. Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was not
a monarchy but rather an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council of the
warrior and ministerial class that chose its leader or rājā. While the
rājā may have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, he
did not rule autocratically."

So, while clearly being scion of the most elite household, Buddha would not have inherited his father's status, and does not fit the usual understanding of 'prince'. Yet, not much is gained by forcing a more elaborate definition into every mention of Buddha's origins. Except perhaps to note the society of the Shakyas was unusual in the ancient world for being governed remarkably like modern states now (just as Athens was unusual, and produced Socrates..).


text:
Does Mahabrahma create the lives of those that join him in a new world?
Does Mahabrahma create the lives of those that join him in a new world? From wikipedia

During the Vivartakalpa, a deity from Abhassara plane is reborned in
the Mahabrahma plane, as many living beings forget about their past
life, this too happens with the Mahabrahma, and being unaware of the
above planes of existence, he felt alone. He longs for the presence of
others. After some times many other deities from the above planes were
also reborn in those brahma planes, as his ministers and
companions.[7] Seeing this happens, he falsely believes himself to be
their creator and other deities believed the same. This belief, state
the Buddhist texts, is then shared by other deities. Eventually,
however one of the deity dies and is reborn as human, practicing
meditation,he got the power to remember his previous life.[6] He
teaches what he remembers from his previous life in lower heaven, that
Mahabrahma is the Creator. It is this that leads to the human belief
in Creator, according to the Pali Canon.

So, mahabrahamd does not create their sentience (which existed prior to this world cycle): but does he create their presence with him or their life?
I'm asking because I'm unsure whether there is truly no omnipotence in Buddism.

One of the many wrong views in DN1 will explain it, good householder.
There are Brahmas, good householder, like here the 'creater' of this BSE-realm, where good householder now dwells. Like parents, he, good householder, would not have taken birth here, as desired, if there are no Gods at first place, giving the possibilities.
And even this Sasana has it's "creator-god":

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things....

...yet, less are willing to become his child, seeing more benefit in material things.
Got the 'point'?

Reading the text carefully, the First Brahma to be born in the plane thought that all other Brahma's who were born after him, was his creation. It was his belief. Since the First Born Brahma was already present when the others were born, those who were born later, also believed that the First Brahma was their creator. Similar to the humans, when a Brahma was born, the memory of previous life were forgotten.
One of the Brahma died and was born as a human and, as a human he practiced meditation and learned the way to access the memories of previous lives. Usually, those who gain this ability gain it for viewing a limited number of previous lifetimes (i.e. - 1,3,7). So, when the, now-human Brahma viewed his past lives he sees his previous life as a Brahma and learns what he belied as a Brahma (That the First Brahma created him), and taught it to others. Its like me saying that I'm your dad. But will that belief make me your dad? It won't, isn't it?
Maha Brahma did not create anything. The only thing he created was his own perception of his own-world, just like we all do. We perceive the outside and build our own version of the world, and Maha Brahma did the same. And when he did, he was mistaken that he was the creator, and others believed the same when they themselves built their own version of their own-world. After all, everyone lives in their own private version of the world (Moha). And in it, they interpret the existence of themselves and others, there is no creation. Its just interpretation of an input.


text:
What are the original colors of the 7 main chakras?
I've seen variations on some of the last few chakras as white instead of violet or purple, so I'm wondering what are the official/original - from Sanskrit (?) - colors?

Please see Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings? and Are chakra's used in Buddhism?.

These comments are not entirely accurate, unless one chooses to define Buddhism in its most narrow scope. There are indeed many ancient traditions of Buddhism that accept the existence of chakras. The answer, to this question, however would be “ask your teacher” - because different traditions within Buddhism identify different counts, colours, and so in in accordance with the need of the practitioner.  Others: please do not denigrate or reject what you nothing about:- doing so you may end up having rejected the Dharma and your refuge.

To claim that chakras are not found in Buddhism, you would have to believe the Dalai Lama to be a non-Buddhist - and to do that you must come from incredibly strong ground. You would also need to reject many traditions of Nepal, India, China, Japan, and elsewhere.  It’s deeply divisive and dangerous to say ‘this man is Buddhist, this man is not’.

@Konchog I was genuinely unaware that chakras are a part of Tibetan Buddhism / Vajrayana / Tantra Buddhism. This question can be reopened.

Chakras in Buddhism generally stem from different sources than their equivalents in Hindu systems.
Not only do the colours vary, but even the number of chakras and the count of their petals.
Even within Buddhism alone there is no single answer-  it depends upon the specific tradition and lineage that you are following.
Likewise the specific chakra that you would be using depends upon the stability and strength of your meditation practice.
Typically, working with any chakra is strongly discouraged until you are able to sustain a clear, stable, bright visualisation of 64,000 sesame seeds (each one uniquely clear and present) for about four hours. Until then, one should be working on traditional (shared) methods to develop your samatha.
As the sole purpose of chakra work in Buddhism is to further develop concentration, there is no purpose to it without this prior grounding in samatha.
The concentration via chakra developed is unusual in that it cuts off waking consciousness, and leads to dream, deep dream, or death levels: while being extremely dangerous for the unprepared and the untrained (think “defuse a bomb strapped to your mind” type of dangerous), being able to sustain vipassana (insight into the three natures of all phenomena: suffering, impermanent, empty) is particularly efficacious when doing so via a stable subtle consciousness: This is because the mind being used is ‘stripped bare’ of coarse conceptions, and produces an extremely stable and pervasive realisation.
Needless to say, any lack of understanding of the actual object of meditation must be thoroughly eliminated beforehand.
These practices are generally considered secret, because they can lead to irremediable damage, and because the requirements to make use of them are so tough that it doesn’t really make sense to share until you have got to a suitable level.
Despite the traditional secrecy, several well-renowned scholars have published details of these systems; however, if you think to learn of them for purposes of art or ‘colouring in’, I would suggest you look elsewhere.
If you are legitimately interested in the practice then, as said above, the first part of the path is in common with all Buddhist traditions: learn to do good, cease evil, recognise karma, cease wrong view, train in ethics, concentration and insight.
Then, continue your practise as shared with Mahayana: Accept the burden of responsibility for all sentient beings, take the Bodhisattva Vow that marks such an acceptance, and sustain the 18 root and 46 secondary vows of a Bodhisattva in accordance with Asanga and Candragomin.
Once you have turned away from the wheel of suffering, and work tirelessly and joyfully in your practise of meditation, then you should have no difficulty finding someone who is qualified to help you prepare for the completion practises where you may understand the meaning, purpose, and colours of chakras.
That preparation itself requires a continuous thread of concentration, 24 hours a day, of sustaining renunciation, bodhicitta, and insight.  This is a dynamic form of concentration which greatly assists in (but does not replace) your development of Samatha. Your teacher will choose a tradition appropriate to your disposition.
Most people think this path impossible, or nearly impossible.  But it is possible - the primary obstacle is, as ever, wrong view.


text:
Source of Golden Rule quote
Hayy and thank you for being here. I have heard quotes of the Golden Rule, which is the foundation of all religions. The Buddist one I received was "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." I don't know where the person found this... can you help me please? The words I heard the person saying a source for their quote was "Yudana Varga"... this provides NO RESULTS! Thank you for your attention and help. _/_ ZubinNur (The Netherlands)

Maybe it's "Udana vagga" and not "Yudana Varga". This in reference to Udana 5.1. "vagga" means "chapter" and "Udana" means "exclamations".

Or maybe the King

Searching all directions
with your awareness,
you find no one dearer
than yourself.
In the same way, others
are thickly dear to themselves.
So you shouldn't hurt others
if you love yourself.

Lot of instance to be found, good householder.
As for "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.": that's actually a western proverb made into a fake quote of the Buddha. Not all harm perceived by others, one would see as harmful in this way. So there are simply precepts, 'don'ts' to avoid dangers of such justifications. Would good householder feel well if an masochistic person uses such idea when on to hurt? Whould good householder feel lighter if someone hurting says he doesn't think he would be harmed by same?
Simple intended to not hurt, and stay attentive when acting, is surely more protective. (before doing "will it hurt myself or others", while, and later, reflective) Simple stop if hurtful and abound doing, if it was, do on and on if pleasing.

It's 'annoying' to get steady missinterpreted by Gemeindebau and Wohnzimmer-Oberwichtl here. If bored, do some merits, that would be of benefit instead to steady produce unwholesome and turing others into world and trade. How fool must one be to again and again do destructive... if incapable to resist on given, fine. If incapable to regard the Gems and receive, fine. But why pulling other toward this poor man's lane?

Whether believe or not, missinterpreting and putting into wrong light is harmful, not only for oneself but many (consequences are hard to bear, even if thought a better...)

Wikipedia says there's an Udanavarga -- which doesn't exist in the Pali canon, but which it compares with the Dhammapada.
The "rule" you're looking for is I think found in the "Violence" chapter of the Dhammapada, which starts like this:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.

Once I started reading the suttas, I began to question the Golden Rule, which misses the mark on some very critical issues. The Golden Rule can degenerate into co-dependent dysfunctional relationships, and that bothered me. But when I read the suttas, the clarity and detail I found there addressed all my questions. The Golden Rule is, in other words, concise but imprecise.
Similar wisdom exists in the suttas, but with much finer detail. For example, notice that in the following sutta, the Buddha emphasizes benefit as well as reciprocity:

AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
AN4.95:1.2: What four?
AN4.95:1.3: One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others;
AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;
AN4.95:1.5: one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and
AN4.95:1.6: one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.
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.
AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice that the word "benefit" is itself not defined here. And that is because to understand "benefit", we need to understand "right view".
In contrast, the Golden Rule is a bit too loose here with its paraphrase "as you would be treated." It's a bit too loose because the Golden Rule can be corrupted with simple thoughts such as "I am an addict who would like to be treated with drugs."
From a Buddhist perspective, wanting to be treated with drugs is wrong view. So I would look to the suttas for the wisdom that inspired the Golden Rule, and I would study that wisdom very carefully!

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
MN8:12.7: ‘Others will speak divisively, but here we will not speak divisively.’
MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’
MN8:12.11: ‘Others will have ill will, but here we will not have ill will.’
MN8:12.12: ‘Others will have wrong view, but here we will have right view.’
...

The Golden Rule is a great start. With the Golden Rule we consider others. And that is huge.  For parents talking to very young children, the Golden Rule can present a valuable perspective for newly developing personalities. However, the Golden Rule also has dangerous loopholes that need to be avoided.

I agree with you that the so-called "golden rule" that has been pronounced independently in many cultures may be misunderstood if pronounced in the positive way "do to others what you would like others to do to you". Rather, the negative form "avoid to do to others what you don't want that others do to you" may be found as a universal but minimal guidance. The aim of MN8:12 is inciting to go beyond this minimum. (... too long by 15 characters, see below)

I am a Muslim, not educated in your tradition, but I fully agree to this. The Golden Rule in the positive formulation may fail. The Golden Rule in the negative formulation is good but not sufficient.