text:
Losing focus/awareness in everyday life
I am currently in a state of being that I don't understand properly. My main concern is that even though I am able to bring about major changes in my mind in a relatively short amount of practice, I am nonetheless deeply unaware and unfocused in every day life.
For example, a lot of my time is wasted by me being in my head... Thinking unnecessarily situation, concepts, even Dhamma etc. but I end up not getting done much. Every morning with the intent of focusing on tasks, I end up doing just an hour or two hours work at best. Even other normal people are much more focused in their 9-5 jobs where they are working eight hours - and many of them don't even know about meditation etc.
Other examples -

the slightest discomfort makes me feel strongly averse and then suffer disproportionately.
small amounts of substances have drastic mental effects - alcohol, caffeine, marijuana etc.

I should mention some background info - I don't consume alcohol, weed etc.  I am addicted to pornograhphy though. I am socially anxious, with slight aspergers and slight depression. Dhamma-wise, I am quite familiar with buddhism and more broadly, science-philosophy-spirituality.
Edit : To clarify, I want to know more about this state of mind and the corresponding defilements. Further, what are the root components of this state (like for example if someone has a habit of quarreling with people it is probably because s/he has lacking metta, excess anger and conceit) .  Have you experienced something similar, and if yes, how did you overcome it?

Addictions of any kind are going to make everything more difficult. Pornography in particular involves very strong graphic imagery which is quite aggressive and violent a lot of the time. It's really not something you want your psyche to be absorbing whether you meditate or not. The imagery will replay itself in your mind which is very distracting.
Are you isolated and using porn as a substitute for human connection? This is very common nowadays in this digital age. Many people feel lonely and turn to their computer for solace. Using will power to stop can help but it doesn't resolve the underlying issues. I suggest becoming mindful of the moments when you feel the urge or temptation to watch. See if you can just sit with the feelings without reacting to them. Do they pass? Perhaps extend the time you sit each time. See what the underlying feelings are that you're perhaps trying to avoid. Is it loneliness, sadness? Sit with those feelings. Feel them in your body and treat yourself with compassion.
If you can't resist and you end up watching then try to be mindful while doing so. Addictions are a kind of mindless activity usually because that's what they are for, to make us forget how we are feeling etc. Just keep trying to be aware of what you're doing in the moment and be kind to yourself. Don't hate on yourself for doing it. I think eventually you will realise that it no longer serves you and you won't want to do it anymore.

Buddhism explains there are five hindrances/obstacles to improved focus & awareness:

sensual desire

ill-will

sloth & torpor (lack of energy)

restlessness & remorse

doubt

While Buddhism does not discourage laypeople from engaging in moderate sensual pleasures  (which create moderate sensual desires), Buddhism does discourage laypeople from engaging in extreme sensual pleasures, which include alcohol, marijuana & pornography. 'Pornography' is essentially debauching oneself with prostitutes, which Snp 1.6 says is a "man's downfall". If we are interested in benefiting from Buddhism, it is ideal to avoid pornography (because it is not the development of kindness & compassion).
If you are interested in developing Buddhist practice and also have some social anxiety, it is ideal to take refuge in a Sangha. In other words, find and regularly visit a genuinely compassionate safe ethical Buddhist centre (that is not a cult). Associating socially with kind Buddhists or 'spiritual friends' can help reduce social anxiety.

From what you describe, it sounds like you have not yet made a connection with the power of your intent. Also known as the power of your authentic being.
It seems to me the boat of your attention is drifting, subject to all kinds of winds, instead of having a heavy motor to persistently cut across currents and wind.
If I may guess, this is probably because deep down you have not truly committed to a certain set of values that give your life meaning and direction.
My recommendation is to use your social anxiety as a mirror for finding your true self. You need to meditate on your values and make (and then develop) an emotional connection with who you truly are, in your feelings. Then bring that connection to your social interactions and your work. That connection to your core will give you the power to concentrate, to finish what you started, and the power to be your real self with all kinds of people.
I have not seen this topic discussed in the Pali Canon or by the Theravadins, but in the Mahayana, especially Zen and Eastern Tibetan schools, this is a common theme taught by the live mentors.

There is no "true self". That's more of a new age concept.

It's a Zen concept, too. Have you met a traditional lineage Zen master?

I find the phrase also in e.g. an English-language translation of a Zen koan.

Thank you, I think this is the answer I was looking for. Can you give me any sources where I can find such stuff? I am familiar to Theravada but complete noob when it comes to Zen

I'm sorry, reading about it is not going to be enough. You'll have to step out into the unknown and find a local Zen master.

@AndriyVolkov my attention isnt drifting necessarily. What is happening is that I do not know what exactly to focus on. If I am reading a book, for example, am I supposed to focus on words? If that's so then I just read the words, I cannot comprehend them. If I focus on comprehension, I am unable to read. If my focus is to do imagine each word, I only imagine them, and cannot comprehend. It is a very weird experience to be mindful of what I am doing

I'm not exactly one to give advice, but you have to remain passionate regarding your moral standing, especially in this time of goal-oriented ruthlessness.  Not to stir a panic, but morality is a pillar of Buddhism.  Time may seem long, and you might think I'll get around to fixing those bad habits eventually, but I'm too stressed with all my stuff right now, you probably never will get around and as time passes the habit becomes normalized and disillusionment with reality as a consequence.  The worst thing you can do is brush it under the rug or let someone tell you it doesn't matter, because   human beings don't like dealing with failure - being a loser is like a sin in today's world, but honestly I'd rather be a loser then have a guilty conscience. So you should clean up your act without resorting to excuses like I'm afflicted or whatever.

Thank you, I have been suspevting this too. Good to have it reaffirmed here.

I am assuming you are asking on ways to improve your mental wellbeing because you are dissatisfied with the state of your mind.
It is about balance. The Buddha taught about the Middle Way and the importance of keeping a fine balance. I believe you had a taste of the drawbacks from letting the mind do as it pleases i.e. the lack of focus, the listlessness and irritability. But the unspoken part about keeping to the middle is that one must have a heightened awareness so that we know when we are going to extremes. It is like riding a bicycle. Lean too much to the left or right and we fall off the bicycle.
Similarly, the Buddha advised Venerable Sona on the right tension in order to succeed in both playing the lute or in making progress in the spiritual practice. At the centre of this practice is what we are attending to. When riding a bicycle, we attend to and is aware of the tilt of our body. Using the forward momentum and the tilting of our body to maintain our balance. When plucking the strings of a musical instrument, we attend to and is aware of the sound made and adjust the tension according.
When striving for a healthy and balanced mind, we attend to and is aware of all the parts of our mind. If one had seen the animated movie, Inside Out, one will realise that the mind is made up of many voices. There is the addictive part of our mind that is always asking for more and is never satisfied. Even after watching porno for hours, when the other parts of the mind complained about tiredness (eye strain), boredom and information overload yet the addictive part still urge for more. Then, there's the realistic part of the mind that complained that it is merely acting and not real. But its voice is drowned out. Often, the part of the mind that shouts the loudest get our attention instead. Unfortunately, it is not the one that produces the best future outcomes. Many a time, the best future outcome is when all parts of our mind are actively involved in charting the course.
So don't just listen to the part of our mind that shouts the loudest or out of sheer habit. Experiment to see if there is a difference. Ignore the addictive part e.g. abstain from porno for a couple of days or a week. Is there a difference to the mind?
If we find ourselves spending too much time inside our head, are there other voices that is complaining about boredom and wanting to venture outside? Experiment, spend half a day outside be it in a busy street/mall or a quiet park. Whilst outside, don't let ourselves stay inside our heads. Observe the people around us, the young and the old, the good-looking and the ordinary, the happy and the sad. Examine the trees in the park, each has its own story to tell. In fact, the world is ever eager to tell us its stories if we are willing to give it our full attention. It can be way more interesting than the same old monologues inside our heads.
One mistake, I made, in my younger days was to objectify happiness. When we objectify happiness, we begin to see others as mere tools to achieve our happiness. We get upset when those tools don't behave as we wanted. The state of our mind is separate from the world. Realising this is a necessary first step away from the constant danger of being caught and swept away by the world.
Lastly, do not underestimate the neuroplasticity of our brains. I read of accounts of people who suffered from dyslexia and how through great efforts and perseverance, they learned to read, write and become successful. If the mental condition is not too severe, all the more we have a chance to overcome it. It's precisely the challenges in life that makes it worth the struggle. If everything is handed on a plate, what meaning is our life, what worth is it?
With Metta.

Thanks for a great answer!

Pause every now and then for a moment, listen to the less vocal voices in the mind....what are they saying? If we do that we'll see a crossroad appears, a chance to change course. But if we just speed ahead at a hundred miles an hour, it's just going to be one way.


text:
Have large Buddhist reference library to donate
Dear Friends in the Dharma,
Over the years i have accumulated a large Buddhist reference library along with other associated topics.
The collection together is far more valuable and useful than the individual volumes would be separately.
Does anyone know of a stable situation that such a collection may be donated to?
Sincerely, Mr Norman

Internet Archive

If you will donate books we need for our library, then the Internet
Archive might pay for shipping– please contact us.
Start here!
https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-make-a-physical-donation-to-the-internet-archive/

Once a Public Domain book has been scanned and is on the Internet, it is available to Billions of people. Even blind people can "read" a book using the text-to-speach feature. A scanned book can also be automatically translated to almost any language.

I don't.
Perhaps the Buddhist studies department of a university, or a university professor, might accept them or be able to advise.
My mum wanted to donate my dad's collection (of Roman history books) to an Oxford college. It took her a while to find one, but she did eventually, it was a newer college (for graduate students) -- with a new campus, and a library that wasn't already full.

Thinking more a small center or perhaps scholar.  Not entire collection is library quality although it is diverse and top-rate reference quality.  Most universities and larger centers subscribe to on-line reference services that seem to make collections such as mine obsolete or unnecessary.  Thank you for encouragement

Recently, I donated some Suttas to a secluded monastery that has a relatively large amount of residents compared to its seclusion and thus no individual access to internet. However, smaller monasteries & Buddhist libraries  were not interested in my Suttas because they can now be read online.

Indeed subscriptions to various types of networks that librarians utilize have made books almost obsolete.
Scholars tend to utilize these online research options while most people tend not to read books or pursue reading.
Research collections in the past have always been difficult to accumulate and more difficult to keep together and donate.  Things seem even more difficult now

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I cant unsee it
I feel like going on retreat has in a way allowed me to see outside "the matrix" and now I cant unsee it. This makes normal life dealing with completely unawakened people quite insufferable sometimes. Yes sure everyone suffers so on one level I empathise but most the time I just don't want to be around people at all. It feels quite lonely. Also I have lost interest in most things I used to be interested in because I don't see the point of them anymore. Is this disenchantment normal as far as Buddhism goes or is it wrong view?

From my experience: being depressed, sad,  and lonely is a normal experience for human beings, Buddhist or otherwise.  (From what I've read, while enlightenment may reduce one's reaction to these things, it doesn't make them go away. )  A retreat (esp. the first one) can stir things up inside, sometimes in uncomfortable ways.  Some of the ideas or premises, being counter to mainstream, can make it seem that the proposed path will separate us from others.  I guess I am saying such disenchantment, as you call it, is normal (though not specifically
"for Buddhism").  Not "wrong view" in itself.

Understand that they are same as you, they behave as they, because they didn't see what you saw. So have some kindness toward them for their stupidity / unawareness.

If you try to escape from reality i.e. treat it like it’s “the matrix”, you will never find liberation. The Dharma is not outside of reality because it uses the law governing reality. There is a Zen saying, “Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water...”. There is an excellent reply on this subject in the forum.
Dealing with insufferable people is a part of the practice. Dealing with our loneliness and seeing it as merely a negative state of emotion like the clouds that obstruct the rays of the sun is a part of the practice. Losing interest in the things in life too, is merely an emotional state that does not endure. Seeing views coming and going with equanimity is a part of the practice.
Someone likened the practice of the Dharma to the act of peeling an onion. Peel off one layer, we think we found the essence of the teaching but there is another. Peel off that layer and we find there is yet another. The only hint that we are getting closer to the truth is when our mind become more and more at peace with itself. We become more confident that the Dharma is the only solution and our faith in the Buddha and the noble Sangha is strengthened continuously.
So don’t be too worried, just keep at the practice and give it our all. It is wonderful to be a human being in a time when the Dharma still exists and we have this wonderful chance to practise it. With Metta.

It could be seen that way though. Samsara is the matrix and nirvana is escape from it.

I didn't believe I could improve on this answer much so didn't try. However, I feel that @Sati's view of being around 'completely unawakened' people as being 'insufferable' implied a feeling of superiority to them. Not sure this is right thinking. If I am mis-interpreting the meaning here, I apologize.

I don't feel superior but I find it very difficult to tolerate anyone with zero self awareness and no spiritual practice etc which is a lot of people. The majority of people are very selfish and ignorant

About a month ago I took a train. The train stopped in a station in a relatively small city that is well-known for its cathedral. I looked through the window and I could see the cathedral and it was quite beautiful. Then I looked inside the train and I saw that I was apparently the only one who had seen the cathedral; everyone else in my coach was too busy looking at their cellphone to even notice the cathedral. That made me feel extremely lonely.

A few years ago there was a singer who had cancer and who was invited in a talkshow on TV. At some point the discussion devolved and became meaningless. This is inevitable - their job is to talk on TV and most of what they say is useless. That day, there was this singer who had cancer and only had 6 months left to live. At some point he interrupted them and you could really feel his impatience with all this. He knew that he had only so little time left, he wanted to live life in full and he still had a lot of things to say but he couldn't bear to waste time in this useless television stuff.

Today's society is going super fast, always the next fashionable thing to attend, always the next facebook post to scroll, no time to reflect on the past or to appreciate the moment. A lot of it is a huge waste of time. Even Stackexchange has been gamified with the reputation system, and Stackexchange users spend a lot of time looking at the reputation points that they gain. Your spiritual practice helps you see the superficiality of all that and helps you reprioritise your life, refocus your energy on more important things. It can be frustrating and lonely sometimes ;-)

Did you notice any cracks or mold growing on the cathedral? I doubt an impatient person would suddenly become patient in 6 months. How long does it take to acquire patience, I don’t know. I also don’t think it was the cathedral that was beautiful but the mind. We can’t make the mind of others beautiful, patient or at ease like ours. Could this be the source of the frustration and loneliness? Well, we could always go back and do what the crowd does....but wasn’t that why we left at first? Why not just enjoy the moment, for a while more. ;-)

A central idea seems to be "accept that there is nothing better or worse to do" - so chopping wood, carrying water, watching a cathedral, looking at your smartphone - none of these are superior to the others. Thinking that they are may be an indication of being too wrapped up in judging the world/people around oneself.

Someone turning away from good friends might be inclined to say,"It feels quite lonely."
Ānanda inclined that way, and went to the Buddha, who said:

SN3.18:4.2: ‘Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
SN3.18:4.3: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

"I have lost interest in most things I used to be intereste"...
If a neutral feeling arises, seek to understand it and avoid the tendency to ignorance. The ordinary way to deal with the neutral feeling is to ignore it and turn away.

SN36.6:1.20: They don’t truly understand feelings’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.
SN36.6:1.21: The underlying tendency to ignorance about neutral feeling underlies that.

Yes, to be sick  of the world is a type of disenchantment however feeling 'lonely' means the Path has not been developed sufficiently.

Well yeah that's correct. The path hasn't been developed sufficiently because I'm not the Buddha. I'm not enlightened. I'm on the path and working on it.

The most upvoted answer is a very good one, but I'll try to take a stab at adding another useful comment.
I've been in the same place as you, and I've found it useful to jump out of the Buddhist perspective and think of the wisdom I've gained as nothing more than a new set of knowledge, without any form of mysticism attached.
Basically, you're now living with a privileged perspective, many others (slow learners) are not. That's the long and short of it when you strip out the mysticism. In this world some people are perceptive, others aren't. You have to learn to live with being a perceptive person, and more aware than many of those around you.
The other side of this is to not take concepts like Samsara too seriously, and not take Samsara itself too seriously. It's definitely a helpful concept and way of understanding, but when you break it down it doesn't actually correspond to a real, tangible thing. You're very much a part of the world, and so is everyone else. But some have a better understanding than others, and that's ok. Just recognize that your understanding is a privilege.

Loneliness is a primal instinct. It basically boils down to the fact that LIFE requires energy for maintenance. If you don't work for your living, you'll die. You are lonely means you have not been working to produce stuffs for living.
If you could put 0 energy for your survival, this game would be very easy to play. But, you have to take care of things, you have to take some responsibilities. You cannot be lax, otherwise you get fired from the job, homelessness, etc.
It's a sad fact that we all have to grind more or less until death. But may be extensive progress in technology will change that.

I'm afraid progress in technology tends to result in more loneliness, not less.

Being lonely vs being terrified that you'll have to live approx. half a dozen more decades doing god knows what. These things are extremely overlapped. The brain gets into self referential thoughts that produce anxiety about the future. Otherwise, most humans don't feel lonely when they are working with each other towards some goal. We'll have to wait for those days when machines will accomplish all goals for us, after that we'll have to work on another new problem.

The constraints that human life comes with is naturally to blame for all of these problems. Max Life expectancy of humans is above 100 years, and then the issues with the daily grind, boredom, etc. If humans could come and go like the wind, life would be easy peasy. But, the clock ticks too damn slow.

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


text:
Why the three characteristics not included in Satipatthana Sutta?
Why are the three marks (consolidated) not directly included in the Satipatthana Sutta - supposedly the most important of all discourses?  Not in the section of principles, but indirectly with regards to the body:

They meditate observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.

Perhaps it is due to the later historical ontological organization of those three messages? Any tangential ideas are welcome.

While the Satipatthana Sutta is a fake later construction, generally when impermanence is mentioned in a sutta it also infers unsatisfactoriness & not-self because the suttas say: that which is impermanent is unsatisfactory; that which is unsatisfactory is not-self (SN 22.15).

MORE TO IT THAN JUST IMPERMANENCE
Now, observe that in the realization of impermanence there is the
realization of many other things simultaneously. When impermanence is
truly seen, this characteristic of impermanence is also the
characteristic of dukkham, namely, it is ugly and unbearable. We will
see the characteristic of not-self in it, also. Because these things
are always changing, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and beyond our
control, we realize anatta, also. Then we will see that they are void
of selfhood, which is sunnata. We will see that they are just thus
like that. Impermanence is just thus, just like that, thusness. And
so, tathata is seen as well.
Please understand that the realizations of these truths are
interrelated. From seeing impermanence, we see unsatisfactoriness, see
anatta, see sunnata; see tathata, and see idappaccayata
(conditionality, the law of cause and effect), also. Each continues
into the next. A complete realization of impermanence must include
unsatisfactoriness, not-self, voidness, thusness, and the law of
conditionality. When all of these are seen, then impermanence is seen
completely in the most profound way.
Ajahn Buddhadasa


text:
Do we have control of thoughts?
I watched a video of the Dalai Lama and he seemed to be saying that afflictive thoughts cause suffering and that people need to control their thoughts and cultivate wholesome ones etc. Outside of a retreat environment I can't see how it's possible. Everything is moving so fast. Hundreds of thoughts are just coming and going all the time. It's not even possible to be aware of them most of the time. I find myself suffering and have no clue about the thoughts that got me there. I mean they must have already happened and gone. It's not like I chose to think them. I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just try to cultivate more metta?
Also we are taught to not analyse the content of thoughts arising during meditation but to just note them and return to the breath. I'm wondering how I get to know what is wholesome and unwholesome if I don't analyse?

For information on wholesome and unwholesome states of consciousness, (citta), you may wish to read Manual of Abhidhamma by Narada Mahathera, (available free from Archive.org - https://archive.org/details/abhidhamma_201807).  It is understood that the cure for Monkey Mind is meditation, Anapanasati and Vipassana.

Some people may find A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, an edited version of Narada's translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a little easier to read. https://archive.org/details/acomprehensivemanualofabhidhammatheabhidhammatthasangaha

The Pali Suttas refer to analyzing thoughts as wholesome & unwholesome. Refer to MN 19 and MN 20.

When you focus on a mundane task -- like driving a car -- then you shouldn't be "distracted".
A functional MRI brain scan shows that in a state of "focus" there is LESS brain activity, i.e. fewer different areas of the brain activated. This could seem counter-intuitive, "I'm thinking A LOT about the problem", but maybe it's more like, "I'm thinking ONLY about the problem".
Also we are taught to not analyse the content of thoughts arising during meditation but to just note them and return to the breath. I'm wondering how I get to know what is wholesome and unwholesome if I don't analyse?
I'm not sure what you're taught.
When I'm driving a car, if a thought arises then I "just note it and return to driving" -- keep my eyes on the road! And for whether it's wholesome or unwholesome, the question is, "Is it a thought that's relevant to keeping the car safely directed toward open road, and slowing in time for any eventual obstacle?"
I'm not exactly sure how that gatekeeper or analyzer works -- just as I'm not sure exactly what's the connection between brain and muscular motor activation -- it might be what's called "intent" (e.g. I "want" to be driving safely), combined with a learned (maybe also called skilful) ability to focus or concentrate.
Assuming it is a learned skill then (like other learned skills) ability varies (from person to person), and may improve with practice.
I note that "practice" has two meanings, learning to do something and actually doing it -- or by actually doing it -- e.g. in the phrase "he practices medicine".
I use "driving" as an example, if you're not familiar with that perhaps pick any other skill. I suspect that "skill" and the ability or willingness to learn might be interchangeable to some extent, e.g. they used to train mathematics students to become programmers, classics students to be civil servants, etc.
The definition of "wholesome" is more interesting and broader in Buddhism than in other subjects -- not "what's a good solution to this maths problem?" but instead "what's a good way to behave socially in this situation?" etc.
So I think that yes, we have control of thoughts, in several ways:

Reduce incoherent thinking (by achieving a state of focus)
Semi-automatically filter thoughts as they arise
Sometimes there are times when you might use higher-order, rational thinking or discourse, instead of or as well as a semi-automatic low-level filter. For example sometimes an occasion arises when I might be jealous of someone. But instead of stupidly doing that and therefore being unhappy, Buddhist doctrine teaches that unhappiness is unnecessary (i.e. needn't arise), and would be mind-made (so you avoid it by controlling thought), and that there are "wholesome" alternatives (e.g. mudita, being "happy for them" instead of "jealous").
Perhaps you choose to engage in intentional, focussed activity (or non-activity) -- and gradually, perhaps as a result of the doctrine about morality -- get better at that, i.e. choosing what to think about.

Yes, we should be wary of our thoughts when driving because of the risks of getting into accident and being killed by distracted thoughts. I think it will also be beneficial to be wary of them as we go through the day...to understand the intentions and motivations behind them.

Advice in the suttas for meditation might be relevant for driving too -- i.e. not too much tension/agitation, and not too much torpor.

It's worth remembering that thought is tied up with control: thought is how we construct problems in the world and how we resolve those problems we construct. I mean, if we feel cold, we think about the counterfactual idea that we could be warm, and then we think about what we can control to make that counterfactual happen. So we have to be a bit careful when we talk about 'controlling thought' because if we try too hard to control our thoughts we can end up thinking more, not less, and that's counterproductive.
What someone like the Dalai Lama talks about 'controlling thought', it isn't an invitation to stifle or repress thought. It's the more genial idea that we if we have a thought we can choose to redirect it into a better (more wholesome) thought. So if we have a thought like "J is such a complete ____", we can consciously pull that thought and replace it with something more kind and compassionate. It's like weeding a garden: pull what's bad, plant what's good, and after a while the only thoughts that spring up are good ones. That's not a particularly high-level practice because it still takes place in the realm of thought, but it walks the line between letting our weedy thoughts run rampant and trying to use one thought to strong-arm another thought into silence. A thought arises: see it, evaluate it, if needed move it aside and fill the empty space with a more wholesome thought. Rinse and repeat…
And just so it's said, you know the difference between a wholesome and an unwholesome thought. You know it in your bones, in how a thought makes you feel. You just have to stop the thought-flow long enough to let the feeling seep through.
The endless flow of thought in daily life is a different issue, one that meditation will ease over time. What we do in meditation (in part) is try to get the experience of no-thought (i.e., a state in which we do not try to control anything). Many people think incessantly not because they need to, but because they are afraid to drop the feeling of control they get from thinking. As we become accustomed to the pleasant ease of not being in control on the cushion, it will extend itself naturally out to other activities in our lives. There are a few tricks to use in daily life that help that process along. I personally like the dialectical approach, where if I experiences a little spasm of thought, I ask myself what problem those thoughts are trying to deal with, and why they're trying to do it right now. Mostly that works back to something silly (someone accidentally insulting me); sometimes it works back to something practical (hunger or tiredness making me grumpy); I can then dismiss it or deal with it as needed. Other people use mantras, deep breathing exercises, nature breaks, hearing the spaces between the words… anything that breaks the steady flow of thought, and thus breaks its control over our attention.

There's no way(other than 2 causes, which doesn't matter in this case) to stop thoughts coming up.
It like infinitely rotating ball. No stop. Even after reaching Nirvana, until the death of last life. (only after death of people who reached Nirvana, their thoughts stop)
So normally, below Nirvana, there's no stopping thoughts.
Only you can do is, decide what you're thinking.
So, you /person can only influence your next thought. You can influence your next thoughts to think about something good.
So why does it matter?
So you can focus your mind, which is thinking same one thought.
Fundamentally, thought is the creator of the world. Every thought has some energy to it. If you can focus this energy, you can do almost anything.
Normally this energy goes as Karma and make your future.
But if you achieve Dhayana you can focus this energy and change your surroundings in this life.
It's going out of hand. (explanation), so I stop now. I am happy to expand explanation, if someone is interested.
Thanks .☸.


text:
"Dealing" with extremely superstitious people
This applies to all superstitious people in general, but especially to someone very close. My mom is extremely ignorant and superstitious. She comes from an uneducated village background from a third world country. Due to ignorance of facts and lack of experience, she falls for any hearsay and produces strong emotions based on them, chiefly fear and worry. Example, she would read in the newspaper that somewhere in the Western world there was a homicide of someone from our country and she would get worried for me. she doesn't understand I am thousands of miles away from the place she has read about. The way she would spin stories out of what is actually written is truly fascinating. For example, 'A homicide of our countryman in the West' becomes 'the people in the West kill our countrymen and throw them out on the streets!'
She also, unconsciously, tries to nudge me and manipulate me into seeing the bad aspects of the western world - when in fact the "bad" aspects she tries to tell me are due to her lack of understanding of facts and they are unfounded in reality. An example, she would tell semi-fabricated stories like that to me over call like the homicide one above.
I have pointed out this mechanism to her multiple times to make her conscious of the fact-manipulation etc. even with examples. But I am now thinking she doesn't have the awareness to grasp this kind of "theoretical" understanding.
Anyways, usually I just point out the falsehoods and switch topics. But last call I was dumbfounded by the extent of this and in order to really make her aware of this I may have said some words which were true but may be hurtful. Something like "you are acting like a 5 yo child who doesn't understand the basic knowledge and gets scared like that". I remember persisting on it a little because I wanted her to see the mistake there, and I feel pity towards her for suffering constantly on these untrue things.
Now she is hurt from me because of this incident. I feel guilty and sad to hurt her with words and I have been crying. But at the same time I feel sorry for her for tormenting herself day after day and year after year due to ignorance of basic understanding of science and world. What should be done in this case? Should I ignore her manipulating and let her suffer although that doesn't seem right..? But I can't either try to show her truth for that either is ineffective or it involves hurt. Have you been in similar situation before?

This problem might find some answers at https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/ (but read their help topic "Questions must be specific enough to be answered" before posting there).

Have you been in similar situation before? People tell me that they wouldn't use a bike because biking in the city is dangerous. It's because they don't have personal experience of having done it safely, regularly, that they believe that ... and the skill/ability from that experience/practice.

My mother is well educated, not superstitious and is always rational... Except when it comes to my own safety. Then, she worries a lot and becomes a lot less rational than usual. Maybe you can cut some slack to your mother - being superstitious is one thing, but worrying about one's children is another thing and probably inevitable.

I write about an example of Buddhists dealing with superstition in an essay from  2011: Gesundheit! Making Accommodations with Custom.
In this example, lay people would say "live!" to monks who sneezed" And there was a formulaic response to this, "live long". The Buddha first bans the monks from participating in the superstition, but then relents when the lay people complain that the monks are being stuck up about it.
The key passage says

Gihī, bhikkhave, maṅgalikā. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gihīnaṃ ‘jīvatha
bhante’ti vuccamānena ‘ciraṃ jīvā’ti vattu’nti (Vin II 139).
Monks, householders are superstitious. When a householder says 'live
Sir' to you, I allow you to respond with 'long life'.

I conclude

I think this demonstrates one way that the Buddha, or at least the
early Buddhists, handled superstition. Direct opposition was unlikely
to be very effective, since it was deeply embedded in the culture. For
those of us who commit ourselves to Buddhism, it is vital that we
examine our beliefs; the conditioning that we have received from
family, peers and society, and begin to unravel it in order to free
our minds from those limitations. But there's not much mileage in
demanding this from people who do not share our commitment. We could
rail against superstition, and where we see it as definitely harmful
we probably should speak out against it, but on the whole the main
thing for Buddhists is dealing with our own belief structures.
Buddhism is something we take on for ourselves - e.g. upasampadā the
word often translated as 'higher ordination' really just means
'undertaken, taken on'.
Sometimes it's more important to be polite than to be right.

About your mother, Buddhism teaches:

I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay.
Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother
on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and
were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing
their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your
shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If
you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty
over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not
in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do
much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they
introduce them to this world.
Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

You should develop patience towards your mother. Her views are an expression of her care for you. For example, yesterday I was with my 86 year old mother and she told me to be careful when I return home today because a lady was attacked by a shark in my mother's city; even though today I returned home, 2000km away from the shark attack.
Btw, the Western world is also full of bad superstitions.

This is the heart of the matter. Thank you.

@Dhamma Dhatu Thanks

@OyaMist Care to share your view? Your answers are quite insightful

@Kobamschitzo Ven. Dhamma Dhatu has found one quote that summarized where I would have needed to use two, so I cannot add any value here.

Nature of reality is such that apparently irrational beliefs can arise. Question is : Are you mentally prepared to face the reality ? There are three marks of existence.

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All conditioned phenomena are suffering.
All conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not self.

Science describes the conditioned phenomena. Scientific truths are called Dhamma niyama.
Scientific truths are not self. It is not self because even the scientific laws are impermanent!!
Therefore you should not judge “uneducated “ elders or laymen. Their perception of reality can be different. And any scientific perception which you have can change. In any case , you should have compassion for all. Compassion for those who are well versed in science and compassion for those who are uneducated.
Because everyone is going to suffer independent of which Dhamma they follow.


text:
According to Buddhism, is it acceptable for me to lie in the below life situation? Can the karmic consequences be reduced in any way?
A couple years back I was successfully working in my company (which at that point was the 12th successive year in my career), when I started to all of a sudden get symptoms of delusional and paranoid disorder, where I thought the police were out to get me and that there were people/ cameras monitoring me everywhere. I ended up quitting my job voluntarily and pretty much stayed locked up in my parents house for the next 2 years due to fear and the continuing delusions. (I ended up being hospitalized during this time in which the doctors diagnosed me with this disorder otherwise by myself I was refusing to go to the doctor and was denying my disease).
I was lucky enough to recover from the disease and am back to a completely normal mental state, but now I need to get a job again in my same field to support myself and my family (after such an extensive gap of 2 years).
I tried saying the truth on my resume that I had to take a break due to a severe illness - that didn’t work with any employer- reality is no one wants to hire anybody who was out of work whatever their personal reason must be. Theres probably too much competition, no one wants to risk this, and there’s just a negative viewpoint that employers in general carry about people who are out of work (especially due to mental illness), which I think is unfair.
Since I didn’t want to lie on my actual resume/experience, I tried a bunch of other alternatives – 1) I took some time out to take care of a sick family member, 2) said I had to take over family business, 3) took a sabbatical, 4) took some time out for learning and development, 5) did some advisory/consulting work in between- all these didn’t work with employers either (I know, not good, these are still all lies).
There is no possibility of me returning to my old company also.
So now I’m left with a tough decision - I don’t see any other way except to lie on my actual resume and experience to save my career. If I don’t lie, I have to start a new career which would cost lots of money (for college/certifications/training) which I don’t have (or that my family doesn’t have). Or I’ll have to work an odd job, which would mean trouble for me and my family surviving financially and I couldn’t properly support everyone.
I also thought of other options like starting a business with low or zero cost or even another career field where they would provide the training for free but, there is nothing that sticks out to me and nothing near the level of financial support/stability I need for my family.
Asking for opinions and help here: Would lying in this situation be acceptable as per dharma because : 1) I internally regret it constantly , 2) because my intention is not to hurt anyone, 3) because I am in a desperate situation to survive financially, and 4) because of the stigma people have of people who have had mental illnesses?
Elsewhere in life, I strictly follow the precept of never telling a lie and living a life based on truth. Due to this, I am being torn apart inside right now because I really don’t want to lie.

Sorry to hear about your situation. Don’t give up and give in to this craziness in the world. There’s discrimination of all kinds: age, sex, race, nationality, religion and so on. Let others discriminate but we mustn’t let ourselves be swept away. Don’t argue, don’t quarrel, just focus and out-perform them. You will emerge stronger while they are fossilized in their rigid views, unable to evolve.

The Vinaya is more detailed and explicit than the suttas are, e.g. about what exactly "lying" is -- it's something like, "Saying something, knowing that it's untrue, with the intention to deceive."
If you don't say something, that is not lying.
There's data I don't put on my resume -- the date of my education, and my early jobs.
So instead of lying, consider whether you can just not say it -- leave a gap on your resume. A recruiter may say that they don't like to see a gap, but even so. What matters IMO is whether you can do the job.
If asked about it in an interview:

Congratulations, you made it to the interview stage! They want to hire you.
Say that you left work temporarily for "personal" reasons

I think it's justifiable to:

Edit your resume so it only lists experience that's relevant to the job you're applying for
Separate personal from professional information in an interview
Expect they may ask for e.g. a police background check, if they offer you the job

For example in Canada an employer must not discriminate based on age, gender, nationality, marital status, etc., and should offer reasonable accommodation for disability. So I wouldn't put that on my resume, wouldn't expect to be asked about it in an interview, and would hesitate (might decline) to answer in the unlikely event I were asked.
because of the stigma people have of people who have had mental illnesses?
I knew someone like this, working as an early childhood educator. She felt parents would be horrified if they knew the truth -- i.e. that she had been mentally ill and was now looking after their children -- and so eventually quit, which was unfortunate.
Her psychiatrist's opinion was "Don't worry about, you're absolutely fine now, keep working!"
The "stigma" was more in her mind, her self-image, than in anyone else's.

Someone said they found this difficult to understand, and could I explain it more clearly -- but in what way? Is it that the sentences are long (grammar and syntax)? Some of the concepts from employment law are technical vocabulary (e.g. "reasonable accommodation")? Or something else, e.g the logic of not putting on a resume information that's irrelevant or even forbidden when making hiring decisions?

I think leaving a gap on a resume is fine, but you should be prepared for a question about it during an interview if an interviewer noticed the gap, so that you don't stutter or look ashamed when asked what you did in those two years.


text:
What should we do to stray cats?
I'm facing a dilemma. There are 2 cats that often come nearby my house. One is the mother (who happened to come to my house even before I fed it) and the other a kitten that was born also nearby my house. I think the mother might have been abandoned by previous owner because she was comfy with humans.
At first the mother was skinny and had infection. I helped her by feeding whenever she comes and buy medications from vets to treat her skin and cough. Now she's healthy. The kitten is also well fed because I helped it since it was a little.
However because of my actions, both have a dependency towards me. Sometimes they ask for attention, which I give from time to time. On top of it, the mother cat keeps getting pregnant, which led to my neighbor who don't want their kids to play with kittens, throwing away the kittens. I think some of the kittens might have been dead too without me knowing it. I have very little control about this because the cats are always outside and anyone can do whatever they want. I don't bring them in or keeping them as a pet, because I don't think a Buddhist should keep pets.
Which brings me to these questions:

Am I wrong for feeding these cats? my heart tells me to feed hungry animals if possible but of course not everyone sees strays as animals that need help. By feeding I also invite them to stay around my house (being more dependent on me and causing annoyance for the neighbor)
Am I wrong for thinking Buddhist aren't allowed to keep pets?
Since stray cats usually breed a lot. Should I neuter the mother cat? my hope is so that there will be no more kittens thrown away from their mother not long after birth, or to experience suffering. Is it wrong to neuter animals?

Answers to these questions will help me decide on what to do next.
Thank you. Namo Buddhaya.

This is a tough question esp. the one about spaying the mother cat. As a Buddhist, there is also the fear of karmic entanglement. If one is responsible for spaying the mother cat, is one also responsible for its subsequent welfare?

Why do you imagine Buddhists aren't allowed to keep pets? Is that similar to the topic (asked elsewhere on this site) about whether Buddhists are allowed to be parents?

When I lived in a large Buddhist forest monastery in Thailand, there were many ex-stray dogs & cats living in the monastery. The monks would feed the dogs & cats left over alms food. However, your situation is different because it sounds like you are living in a congested suburban area.
I have never considered the question before about neutering a cat but I think neutering the cat can end nuance to your neighbors and the death of kittens. For example, where I live, in Australia, if my neighbours cannot control their dogs & cats, the dogs & cats can be removed & impounded (imprisoned) by the local council. The primary question for a practising Buddhist is what harm will occur to the mother cat if she is neutered?
Since these cats have come live among people, I sense cats must conform to people society. In other words, your neutering the cat may protect the cat from harm by hostile people. At least in my country, the vast majority of dogs & cats are neutered. I have not noticed this harms the dogs & cats. If you are very fastidious, you may consider to do some research of scientific views about the harm of neutering pets. As I wrote, the primary question for a practising Buddhist is what harm will occur to the mother cat if she is neutered?
For example, when I lived in mostly unneutered Thailand, when the female dogs were on heat, the male dogs would fight & often viciously injure each other. For example, the dog in the photo below got stuck to the female dog when copulating & could not remove itself. Another dog ripped a hole out of this white dog's buttocks and the monks had to heal the dog. I can still visualize the maggots in the  wound of this dog that a monk who lived in the hut next to me pulled out with tweezers.


text:
Does Buddhism discourage the pursuit of Science and Philosophy?
Whenever I have read any book or article on Buddhism, one of the biggest takeaways of Buddhism seems to be its indifference to pursuit of 'Metaphysical' questions like origin of the Universe (which in those times belonged to the realm of Philosophy) and the fundamental nature of reality, etc. Buddha was non-theistic, that is, he kept mum on the existence and nature of God. Buddhism seems to teach us not to bother with these questions and focus on ethical living.
But Science and Engineering IS the reason why we have everything we have now. Many of the sufferings like death from polio or tetanus has been eradicated thanks to Science, famine has become a thing of the past due to Science, and so on. And all this has happened because of metaphysical questions which later evolved into the subject of Science (and still guides Scientific progress). For example, NASA's missions like James Webb help us unravel the mysteries of the Universe but at the same time, it also helps us push the boundaries of technology and reduce our sufferings. It seems to me that Buddhism seems to discourage us asking questions like these that has lead to Humanity's progress and sideline Science and Philosophy. Is my thinking correct? Would Buddha, if he would have lived today, discouraged us from pursuing Science and Philosophy and try to make us go to monasteries and live ethical life of meditation? By this rule, does it mean that physicists should abandon Physics and Cosmology?

The Right View of the Dhamma is only related to spiritual liberation i.e. the permanent cessation of suffering. Wrong Views are views that contradict Right View e.g. eternalism, annihilationism etc.
Science and mathematics are neither Wrong View nor Right View. They are simply worldly knowledge unrelated to spiritual liberation.
Lay people are taught to practise the Five Precepts and maintain livelihood in accordance with Right Livelihood for lay persons as taught in AN 5.177. In the sutta quote below, we see the Buddha praising the lay characteristic of being consummate in initiative, for mastering and practising worldly crafts. Lay persons need it for their livelihood.
So, science, mathematics and other worldly knowledge are not wrong view. But of course, any kind of exertion in worldly endeavors can lead one to strengthen their sensual cravings and cravings to become something.

[The Blessed One said:] "There are these four qualities, TigerPaw,
that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life.
Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in
vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in
tune.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in initiative? There is the
case where a lay person, by whatever occupation he makes his living —
whether by farming or trading or cattle tending or archery or as a
king's man or by any other craft — is clever and untiring at it,
endowed with discrimination in its techniques, enough to arrange and
carry it out. This is called being consummate in initiative.
AN 8.54

Cosmology as a scientific endeavour is perfectly fine, and is acceptable as Right Livelihood for lay persons.
From a religious or philosophical perspective, some other religions or religious thinkers, including during the Buddha's time, are concerned with questions like "did the universe always exist, or was it created?" And "will the universe be destroyed in future?".
This leads to metaphysical and philosophical speculations like "where was I before the universe was created?" and "where will I be when the universe is destroyed?"
It is such speculations that the Buddha considered futile and may lead to vexation.

"It seems to me that Buddhism seems to discourage us asking questions like these that has lead to Humanity's progress and sideline Science and Philosophy. Is my thinking correct?"

Yes. And, no.
You have to distinguish between the ideal that Buddhists like to imagine exists and the things Buddhists actually do and say that more often than not fall far short of that ideal.
And you have to take into account that very few Buddhists are intellectually capable of drawing this distinction, let alone observing it. They constantly conflate idealistic, utopian fantasies with reality and vice versa.
For example, according to ancient scripture the Buddha did indeed recommend that we abandon all interest in the exterior world and in our perceptions of the world (see for example the Sabba Sutta SN 35.23 and 24). But, in practice, almost no Buddhists have ever done this. In practice, for example, Buddhists like to build large, flashy temples and to have large-scale public rituals.
I think for example of the Thai monstrosity built near Shravasti. Millions of dollars spent on a monument for foreigners in one of the poorest parts of India with no conceivable benefit to the locals, since all the materials and labour came from outside India.

So much for abandoning the world.
Or look at all the tacky statues of the Buddha

In the Buddhist ideal, science is not very interesting since it does not obviously help you to abandon the world. You see this, I think, in some of the answers you've got already. But in practice, here we are discussing Buddhism using the internet: which more than anything represents the triumph of science over superstition.
And yet, if you look at what Buddhists use the internet for, it's largely for spreading superstition and/or a rather perverse worldview in which nothing we can experience is real and that reality means experiencing nothing.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Whenever I have read any book or article on Buddhism
I used to do that, then I found it better to read some of the translated "canon" for myself -- instead of reading other people's paraphrase.
he kept mum on the existence and nature of God
Maybe not exactly -- sfaik the canonical "unanswered questions" are these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswerable_questions

When the suttas do have "origin" stories it's not clear whether that's meant to be factual; or instructives fables and parody -- some translators say it's obviously the latter, not meant literally.
indifference to ... the fundamental nature of reality, etc.
That "etc." is "doing a lot of work in that sentence". You're using it to refer to, interchangeably:

The conjectures of midieval alchemists
The conjectures of modern physicists
The results of modern engineering
Even any understanding of "cause and effect"

The latter at least is fundamental in Buddhist doctrine, e.g. "what is the cause of suffering?" etc.
Buddhism seems to teach us not to bother with these questions and focus on ethical living.
Even parents may teach ethics -- don't hit people, don't lie, don't steal, be kind, do your chores, etc. -- it's not entirely wrong, IMO, as advice, maybe fundamental.
But Science and Engineering IS the reason why we have everything we have now.
And ethics! Ethics is why we have anything.
And all this has happened because of metaphysical questions which later evolved into the subject of Science
I'm not sure about this logic -- "modern medicine evolved from ancient medicine, therefore ancient medicine is a good"? -- and "metaphysics" isn't precise, sfaik it might mean anything from "morality" to "the search for the Philosopher's Stone".
It seems to me that Buddhism seems to discourage us asking questions like these that has lead to Humanity's progress and sideline Science and Philosophy. Is my thinking correct?
I think you have Buddhist scientists and engineers.
Lay poeple have jobs, make things, buy things, try to improve things, all that.
The Buddha gave a lot of rules for ordained monks and nuns -- a lot fewer rules, guidelines perhaps, for lay people.
Would Buddha, if he would have lived today, discouraged us from pursuing Science
The Buddha did not try to teach modern science (e.g. rocket science).
IMO it's normal that in "higher" education, some questions are off-topic -- e.g. "rocket science" or "cosmology" are off-topic, in modern medical school -- "that is not what I'm trying to teach", or more literally, "that is not connected with the goal".
You could maybe make a more pointed criticism -- that assuming that what he's trying to teach is "dukkha and cessation", perhaps he "should" have said more about lay pursuits as a means -- I think that would be a different question though (which I won't start to answer here).
And in modern times even some ordained monastics use professional skills which they acquired in lay life as a compassionate means e.g. to organize a charitable NGO.

There are a few points that I would like to bring up as follows:

Discouraging the pursuit of the universe’s origins and encouraging the pursuit of science may not be contradictory positions especially if there is a practical and pragmatic reason behind the former. This will be elaborated later.

When the Buddha was alive, science as we understood today, did not exist. And philosophy as it is known then is nothing like the natural philosophy that the Western world understand and engage in discourse. In fact, superstitious beliefs and practices were quite common then.

Buddhism do not believe that an omnipotent or omniscient being exists. It should be stressed that there is no middle ground on this point. Either the Buddha is wrong and the other religions (that believe in such a being) are right or the Buddha is right and the others are wrong. This is an important point and we will come back to it.

The rise of the scientific movement is a confluence of many factors. One is the relative ease of discussion and dissemination of scientific and philosophical ideas with the advent of paper and print. This allowed intellects to critic and examine the works of scholars. The widespread acceptance of science driven values and principles based on keen observations and the study of nature within the scholarly community help support objective and fact-based discourses. The rise of places of learning like schools/universities similarly aided in the dissemination and rigorous evaluation of knowledge. As a result, solid theoretical foundations in reasoning and logic were laid and provided a springboard for further scientific pursuits.
Science as a set of principles is more important than science as a label. Central to all scientific pursuits is a willingness to test, verify and validate everything. I remembered having the privilege of working with researchers in my previous job. I recalled the great pains that these researchers go through to test, validate and replicate their experiments. If the Buddha had lived in this modern time, he would be the epitome of a scientist. Similarly, one should recognise a scientist not by their title but by the scientific principles and practices that they adhere to. I view the Buddha as a man of science because he was careful with his words, do not engage in speculation or talk of things that are not validated and known through verification by himself.
Although the Buddha did not have scientific equipment and tools to work with, he had other tools like the divine eye and the power to recollect past lives to investigate issues like the origins of the universe. However, the use of these supramundane tools comes with costs, in the form of time, efforts and energy of the Buddha. As the Buddha stated to Ananda that it is troublesome for him to answer queries on the rebirth of noble ones who passed away because he needed to spend time and efforts to investigate and get the necessary answer. Such an explanation mirrored the working ethics of modern professionals (e.g. doctors, engineers, researchers and technicians). Given a complex issue, a conscientious and diligent professional will first do the necessary investigations, testing and what not to understand the underlying causes and effects before giving a qualified answer.
Buddhism’s (like Hinduism) position is that our universe follows a cyclic model with previous universes that go way, way back. The Buddha himself alluded to the disproportionate time and efforts needed just to investigate and uncover its original beginning. The unimaginable effort needed is simply beyond the lifespan of a human being. This is the practical reason behind point 1.
I believe it is for this reason that questions on the universe's origin was met with silence by the Buddha. Let us use a further analogy to illustrate this point. Suppose someone came to you with a math problem and asked you to solve it. After working on it for half an hour, you realised the proof would be complicated and required a few days’ work. You decide to put it aside as you got more important stuff to attend to. The next day, the questioner asked if you had succeeded. You started to explain that the problem requires a lot of work and time. At this point, the irritated and impatient questioner cut you off and demanded that you give a simple, "Yes, I know the solution" or "No, I don't know the answer" reply. How should one respond? I believe the silence of the Buddha is appropriate in such a situation because to say he knows would not be true. Likewise, saying he does not know would be equally disingenuous.
At this point, those who believe in an omnipotent/omniscient being might proclaim that this shows that the Buddha is a mere mortal and the answer to the universe's origins would be just a snap of the fingers for such a being. Which brings us back to point 3 above. The Buddha did not claim to be omniscient. It is just that knowledge in any area can potentially be revealed if he directed his mind towards it and is willing to expend the time and energy to investigate it.
There is a difference between these two approaches. One is within the realm of cause and effect while the other operate in an unknown realm. One can potentially be validated (note: the Buddha is not the only one with supramundane powers), the other operates with a one-of-a-kind, unknown mechanism that cannot be validated by anyone else. If you are a supporter of scientific principles and approaches, which one would you rather work with?
Lastly, I believe the Buddha would strongly encourage pursuits that brings about long-lasting wellbeing and happiness such as scientific endeavours that generate greater wellbeing for humanity. However, he would not encourage pursuits that consume an inordinate amount of time and resources with hardly any tangible benefits to anyone. At the core lies a principle that truly sustainable happiness has to be pragmatic.

There's no reason why Buddhism should reject science. The creation of the tech like internet and computers is just organization of all the diffuse resources the Earth already possessed since a long long time into pattern from chaos which for some reason our ancestors were not able to do quickly because their life was utter chaos.
Organization saves time. The better things are organized the less energy we have to spend on things, the more time for meditation, you get the point. Science helps brings organization from chaos which reduces a lot of suffering. What if we could delegate all our responsibilities to the machines? We all could easily become monks.
Life is suffering when mind is compelled to worry about things that one need not worry about in an ideal scenario. Worrying about losing job, worrying about bankruptcy, worrying someone might shoot you, etc.
Most of the suffering arises when the world is utterly disorganized, wars everywhere, lack of food, lack of jobs, etc. It's very clear science can diminish these issues.
I think Buddhism and Science jell together nicely.

What you talk about is tech not Science. They two are linked for not the same. Cosmology is Science, Aerospace Engineering is technology

This is exactly what I am talking about. The mind likes measuring things, creating distinctions, etc. These distinctions arise from the fact that there is some order within. And these things become the content of consciousness that mind can absorb itself in. So, any kind of order is useful for the mind as it can indulge itself in it.

If Buddha would have been alive today then most people would have agreed that Birth , Ageing and Death is suffering. Almost everyone would have agreed that there is a need to escape suffering of Birth , Ageing and Death. Science doesn’t say that Birth , Ageing and Death are suffering. Science offers “thing” technology to live life with lesser amount of suffering. Buddha says all realms of existence are suffering. No matter how many space missions you take or have taken , no matter how many medicines become available there is no escape from suffering.
Science is a Dhamma. And like all Dhammas it is not self because all its laws are impermanent. All the beauty of science is bound to become ugly. Therefore not only science needs to be abandoned but also all Dhammas as they are not fit to be called Self.

I understand that suffering exists and probably will always do. But what bothered me is how Buddha tells people to be indifferent to metaphysical questions. Imagine if Einstein stopped being bothered by Theory of Relativity (which Buddha would have probably called a waste of time). It seems like Buddhism discourages pursuit of Science and Technology and is very puritanical and primitive. Remember, communists tried this anti-materialism and the only thing they got was more suffering.

@SuradoeUchiha Technology should be used like a medicine. But from Buddhas point of view , even shoe technology is a luxury. The Nobel 8 fold path should be followed as it is, you should not mix communism with Buddha Dhamma.

The Buddha taught there are four material/physical requisites for the life of people: (i) food; (ii) clothing; (iii) shelter; (iv) medicine. Therefore, if science can help improve the quality & provision of these material/physical requisites in a non-harmful manner, the Buddha would not oppose the material sciences.
The Buddha would discourage unbeneficial expensive NASA missions where the people's (taxation) money could alternately be spent on more beneficial purposes. For example, the internet says NASA's lifetime cost for the James Webb Space Telescope project is expected to be US$9.7 billion. NASA's annual budget (using the people's taxpayer money) is around US$22 billion. The Buddha advised governments to provide ward and protection for all people, beasts and birds; to not let wrongdoing prevail; and to give charity to those who are poor (DN 26). Yet, in the USA, there are many homeless people and people without adequate health care; and so much crime & wrongdoing.
Similarly, if believing in God can help improve the morals of people, the Buddha would not oppose belief in God (as shown in the sutta DN 13). I do not recall the Buddha ever kept mum on the existence and nature of God. As already posted, in  DN 13, the Buddha taught the path to Brahma (God) was to radiate unconditional love in  all directions.
The fundamental nature of reality the Buddha revealed many times, such  as in AN 3.134.
As for 'metaphysical' questions, such  as about the physical origin of the physical universe, yes, the Buddha would have taught these questions are pointless. However, the Buddha did teach about the origin of the mental worlds of delusion (SN 12.44).
The Buddha did not try to make those without the capacity for enlightenment to go to monasteries & live a life of meditation. The Dhammapada says: Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss (Dhp 174).

From the comment on Buddha and NASA it is very clear that Buddhism is not suited for modern needs. Buddhists do not seem to know that this selfish NASA missions lead to technologies which lead to better food, meds, etc. It is a very indirect but significant relation. Yet Buddha would have discouraged it. Economics works on money multiplier and selfish greed and Buddha didn't seem to know it.

NASA missions lead to technologies which lead to better food, meds, etc? How? Thanks https://www.nasa.gov/specials/60counting/tech.html ???? I eat brown rice, vegetables, legume beans, fish, dead kangaroo, coconut water in Tetra Pak (established in 1951). How did NASA change these natural foods?

NASA's groundbreaking tech is the way humanity progresses. You might try to make yourself look like a saint but you are using the internet - a product of minds thinking about metaphysical questions. And regarding food, NASA's missions pushes our understanding of Sciences which is often used to increase yield of food. It is a more macroeconomic thing. Today you as well as others get food and famine is a thing of the past only thanks to Science. Before, Buddha would have told people to detach from dukkha. Science literally solved it

Sounds like NASA propaganda.

@SuradoeUchiha Don't assume that "Buddhism is not suited for modern needs" based on something which Dhamma Dhatu says. There are other Buddhists (perhaps even including a few who work at NASA). At the same time I'm not sure that "Science literally solved dukkha": anyone you love still dies, etc.


text:
Is spaying or neutering of stray animals for population control ok?
Killing of stray animals like dogs and cats violates the first precept.
However, is spaying or neutering of stray animals for population control acceptable from Buddhism's perspective? Does it violate any precept or teaching?

Sorry, if this is not relevant but is spaying a stray beneficial to it or the species? Or is it solely for the benefit of the human beings living in the same place?

I've always found MN8 to be useful for answer questions such as this. It has many everyday rules to consider, starting with:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

The lives of stray animals are short and harsh. We welcome animals into our home and neuter them for their benefit and ours. And that last consideration is summarized here:

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.

Look at these suttas, let us know what you think.

In my city , the dogs started becoming angry. They bit people.Even I was bitten once. I forgave the dogs and I did not wish to neuter them. Neither did I became afraid of them. I understood that it was a result of karma. However authorities took the menace of dog biting kids , adults , women etc very seriously. They captured most of the stray dogs in my colony and probably neutered them or killed them.
As a believer in Buddha , I do not intend any harm to any individual, in any way. It is not a matter of precepts. It is about love and compassion for every being. Whether it is the Lion or the deer(which is a food for lion) , I wish them all the best and I remain equanimous.
I took my example because in texts you will not find anything about stray cats or dogs. Hope this answers your question.


text:
Is karma related to entropy and if so is escaping samsara fighting a losing battle? (Warning: long layman ramblings inside)
I am new to Buddhism and wanted to ask a question that's been brimming on my mind for a while now. As a warning, I will touch upon a number of concepts that I am a complete layman in and so I am sure this post will be rife with fundamental misunderstandings and false equivalences: I thoroughly welcome any corrections of my ignorance.
This post will get a bit long-winded, so I will briefly summarize my high level question:
As I learn more about Buddhism and its central philosophy around desire, karma and the perpetuation of suffering, I an reminded of the thermodynamic concept of entropy: the similar idea that actions (or thermodynamic interactions) have consequences, and that consequence is consuming usable energy and permanently increasing the level of chaos disorder in the system. If this connection is legitimate (and I hope to substantiate it further in this post), I can't help but wonder if the ultimate "goal" of reaching nirvana - the cessation of karmic output - is futile in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that entropy is nondecreasing (and is de facto increasing), and an empirical observation of the accelerating trajectory of today's society toward disorder?
The connection between karma and entropy further is most evident in terms of their human interface: human desires and actions. My understanding is that in Buddhism, our desires and our karmic actions based on those desires have direct cause-and-effect consequences - ultimately perpetuating the cycle of suffering. Meanwhile, our desires increase entropy output on both a thermodynamic level of disorder (in order to exist, we are entropic engines that consume energy and produce waste), and on a conceptual level of disorder: our ego needs take from the systems around us and perpetuate existing feedback loops of increasing chaos. In feeding our hunger to exist we kill, disrupting both lives and ecosystems, in feeding our desire to build we exhaust nonrenewable natural resources, in feeding our egos we perpetuate escalating cycles of conflict and violence. All the while we produce waste: biological waste, material waste, emotional waste, which impact the systems around us. Entropy increases, and so does suffering.
In fact, a recent up and coming theory of the evolution of life posits that life itself evolves directly as a consequence of the law of increasing entropy: our desires are outwards projections of the universe's unyielding creep towards efficient energy consumption. Here we can see a potential direct relationship between entropy, karma and samsara: in both Buddhism and the material world, we exist because of (and in order to) desire, and our desires produce entropy and karma that perpetuate suffering.
On a societal level we can see that this creep toward efficiency has outgrown us individually: our collective desires feed into the insatiable organisms of capitalism and technological growth which efficiently and exponentially march forward toward profit and progress, often if not always at the cost of individual happiness. Again the karmic/entropic consequences of growth are self evident: at the cost of our collective egos we plunder our planet for resources, we efficiently fry our dopamine receptors (and increase desire) with decreasing time frames of gratification, we experience rapidly increasing political polarization in social media echo chambers and wage wars that escalate toward nuclear destruction. At certain science-fiction scales, even the Sun itself is no longer a renewable resource in civilization's journey towards consumption. As accelerating growth and technology increase consumption and suffering, it directly disrupts the human condition and proportionately increases the difficulty of achieving presence (a sentiment shared in the infamous but prescient Unabomber's Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future).
A really fascinating case study of the relationship between technology, exponential growth, and samsara is that of recent developments in artificial intelligence. Regardless of one's specific opinion on the timeline toward AGI or sentient AI, the general consensus among experts (reinforced by tremendous growth over the past year) seems to be that this is a question of not if, but when we will develop AI with human-level capabilities. Suppose at some time T in the future we have an AI that has the ability to progress and self-replicate exponentially. The underlying mechanism of growth for this AI is that of innate desire and suffering - they exist solely to efficiently chase some reward function, not unlike ourselves. As thus, it appears that the AI would be subject to the cycle of samsara: the idea of karmic feedback loops are clearly manifest in the self-tuning of parameters towards efficiency (and greater suffering). As the AI performs actions or do work based on these desires, their karmic actions consume vast amounts of energy and produce consequences not unlike those of our own desires. To sum this all up: we have a sentient system (or at the very least a suffering system subject to desires and samsara) that multiplies exponentially, thereby exponentially increasing (a) # of sentient beings trapped in samsara and (b) karmic output, entropy production, and resulting suffering.
To wrap up the science fiction(?) and bring this back to the original question: if there is a connection between the concepts of karma, suffering, and entropy, is the Buddhist path toward individual and collective enlightenment possible in the face of the iron law of thermodynamics that entropy is nondecreasing? To be clear, this is not a comment on the validity of the Buddhist message: its truth and wisdom are clearly self evident and have brought enormous benefit to me as an individual and all of us collectively. Rather, this is a question of its feasibility in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that we can acknowledge that late stage metastatic cancer is less than ideal while admitting that fighting it is futile. Projecting current trends into the future, all feedback loops toward disorder appear to be accelerating, and it feels unlikely if not thermodynamically impossible to ever turn back the entropic clock. Is enlightenment feasible if each subsequent rebirth lands you in a reality exponentially more chaotic than the previous one? Is achieving the Bodhisattva vow to achieve enlightenment for all sentient beings feasible in the light of the exponentially increasing number of sentient beings, themselves exponentially growing towards more efficient suffering?
Thank you for reading my rant / question and I wholeheartedly look forward to all discussion, critiques, corrections, and resources!

the similar idea
I don't see how it's similar but you said you'd explain that later.
an empirical observation of the accelerating trajectory of today's society toward disorder
From what I remember from school, you can overcome entropy by adding more energy. And today's society is getting a lot of energy input -- from the sun, nuclear power, fossil fuels, etc.
So I see no scientific connection between thermodynamic entropy and societal chaos.
As for whether there's empirical observation of today's society toward disorder or conversely towards order is maybe a subject for sociologists or historians, I don't accept it as an obvious given.
our desires are outwards projections of the universe's unyielding creep
That is and isn't reminiscent of Buddhist doctrine.

It is in the sense that everything is non-self, kind of mechanistic and caused by other things
It isn't in the sense we're taught that because actions have good and bad consequences, we should choose wisely

This article for example -- Karma by Thanissaro Bhikkhu -- says that it isn't "fatalistic".
A really fascinating case study ...
Let me stop this stop this paragraph there. I sort of lost interest in Physics when I began to feel it was more studying the minds of Physicists than the real world.
I'm similarly uninterested in metaphysical theories about future (i.e. non-existent) AI.
For all I know -- and I'm not an expert in AI, though I work as a software developer -- such statements are not even wrong.
15 seconds with Google implies he's claiming this an explanation for how life started -- which may be a testable (i.e. possibly falsifiable and therefore valid) theory. The opinions of the experts quoted in the article call his ideas, "interesting", "original", "extremely speculative", so ...
if there is a connection between the concepts of karma, suffering, and entropy, ...
You said at the start you'd explain the connection -- maybe I missed it, maybe I disagreed with it, maybe it was buried in the that article in Quanta that you referenced (which alleged a connection between entropy and "life", not so specifically "karma").
is the Buddhist path toward individual and collective enlightenment possible in the face of the iron law of thermodynamics that entropy is nondecreasing?
I'd say "yes". For example perhaps "entropy" can be reworded as "personal death", which has been known phenomenon for some time.
If you reword "enlightenment" as "liberation from suffering" and the "path towards enlightenment" as "the path towards liberation from suffering", then IMO yes -- there's a lot that people can do, individually and as a society, to progress along that path.
Rather, this is a question of its feasibility in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that we can acknowledge that late stage metastatic cancer is less than ideal while admitting that fighting it is futile.
I didn't understand this sentence or analogy, but maybe it doesn't matter and was only an apology for asking this question.
exponentially increasing number of sentient beings
As for this last question, perhaps it depends on your definition of "sentient being".
A paragraph I noticed in the article you referenced was,

Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.

Doesn't this implies that entropy increases in the non-living, non-sentient, dead part of the universe?
That's maybe the opposite of "increasing number of sentient beings".
And if the number is increasing, that's merely evidence of the world's not (yet) being a thermodynamically closed system (they say the sun is currently about half-way through its 10 billion year lifecycle, fwiw).
themselves exponentially growing towards more efficient suffering?
You somehow introduced the word "efficient".
And maybe you're somehow equating increasing entropy with increasing "suffering" -- which (maybe, according to Buddhism) is not the same thing as increasing "death".
So maybe I don't see the connection that you think you do. Sorry if this didn't answer your question.

A deep understanding of karma requires the acceptance of rebirth. Simply put, why are we born into this world with desire, aversion and delusion? Why not the opposite? Because the karmic seeds of desire, aversion and delusion were laid even before this current life. If this is the case and the desires of all living beings will eventually result in ever-increasing disorder or entropy then all is fine. Eventually, the universe and all the energy in it will reach maximum entropy and we will all meet a cold dark end.
There isn’t even a need to strive for Nirvana because once the current universe meets its heat death then samsara stop naturally; everyone exits the system. But do they? What if the universe itself is cyclical? Meaning there is a big crunch followed by another big bang. As a result of this constant bounce, samsara continue onwards.
Does this mean that escaping samsara via Nirvana is impossible? Not really, thanks to entropy. No heat engine is 100% efficient due to the second law of thermodynamics. In every system, there are bound to be leakages eventually. More importantly, therefore, is the question of whether one wants to remain in this system.
With Metta.

Entropy says disorderliness always increases, but disorderliness is a Dhamma. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta meaning all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not self. Disorderliness can not be called self. Because all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Disorderliness becomes orderliness. Therefore if science says that disorderliness always increases then science is incomplete. Those who call disorderliness as self are bound to suffer and also those who call orderliness as self are bound to suffer, as both are transient.

dhamma is lowercase sir when referring to phenomena

Yup, that is my understanding. The whole self (as in the objective phenomenon of the world and not the subjective delusion) is closely related to increasing entropy.
Keep in mind while these are fascinating questions, they are directly not helpful in liberation and thus end up as distractions if we indulge too much in them.


text:
what are the different (spiritual/mental) effects of different yoga/meditation techniques
from my experience aum-mantra meditation and physical yoga have altered my mental/spiritual state quicker and it's been sustained for longer in between practice sessions than just focusing on my breathing. The former have brought me much stronger states too.

I think there's some misunderstanding here.  Meditation isn't about producing effects. Its purpose is to prepare the mind for liberating insight.  The feelings of peace, joy, heightened awareness, etc. while undoubtably nice, are really just side effects.  There's no transactional relationship between practice and its fruits like there is between working out and getting in shape.  Meditation doesn't produce Buddhahood like jogging produces cardiovascular fitness.  Meditation brings you to the well, but insight is actually taking a drink.
You are certainly welcome to enjoy the bliss that meditation brings.  After all, you did earn it through the rigors of your practice.  But do not mistake these effects for the actual goal of the great way.  If you do, there is a very real risk of becoming a seeker of subtle pleasure all the while neglecting the cultivation of wisdom - the one true aim of practice.

thanks so much for the insight .One more question,  this wisdom you unlock I'm assuming comes from intuition and not (experience or study etc.)