text:
Mind frame rate vs craving
I have some hunch that when rising from the deep meditative states / jhanas, the mind becomes so slow that the world is perceived in frames. Is this true? My guess is that the speed of human brain perception is proportionate to how much craving there is, the lesser the craving the slower the mind due to disenchantment. Experienced ones please shed some light on this.

Can some Noble one calculate how much the brain perception needs to speed up to see the reality frame by frame? I have read plenty of answers that say Buddha's noting speed was super fast. Let's examine scientifically if that kind of lightning fast noting is even possible.

I mean Vipassana is just doing the noting

Yes, that is precisely what happens.  What you’ll begin to notice probably more so than the “frame” experience is that consciousness is only capable of holding one sense object at a time.  You will experience a moment of mind consciousness, eye consciousness, etc, but you’ll notice that each instance is discreet.  You never perceive eye and ear conscious at the same time, for example.
Another thing you may experience is the appearance of space between moments of consciousness.  This is extremely important for it is in these moments of cessation (yes, we’re talking nirodha here - this is different than the meditative state, however) where the potential for deeply liberating insight can occur.
Case 99 of the Book of Serenity
Particle after Particle Samadhi
A monk asked Yunmen, “What is particle after particle samadhi?”
Yunmen said, “Rice in the bowl, water in the pail.”

i'm not sure I understand.  are you saying something like a micro-blackout? or like some kind of buffer between mind moments?

It’s something entirely different.  It’s better described as a kind of gap.  It’s best described by what it’s not - neither mind consciousness, eye consciousness, etc.  It goes without saying that looking for nirodha is an exercise in futility (I.e. “to seek mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes”).  You just kinda run into it following periods of deep meditation.

@000 Thanks for the answer. Perception is a complex thing
inside our brain. Perceptionn of time is dependent upon the observer. I mean without an observer perceiving motion, time doesn't make sense. There are animals which perceive super fast like dragon fly and then there are animals that are damn too slow. I think the way to nibbana is just slowing down the nervous system to find the leap towards cessation. I can't think any other way of cessation of phenomena. Without cessation, nibbana loses most of its value at least to me.

Time is motion. I think Buddha found the hack to change perception of things using breath meditation Anapanasati. And then he leapt into cessation. Just a guess. Otherwise cessation seems impossible.


text:
Does an Arahant or Buddha still like music they liked as a lay person?
Do Arahants or Buddhas still enjoy music they liked as lay people?
Can anyone share their thoughts on why enlightened beings would or would not enjoy the music they used to listen to when they were laypeople?
What if the lyrics contained defiled language but the music was appreciated before the process of enlightenment? What can we learn from the appreciation or lack of appreciation that an enlightened being has for music?
If the lyrics contain defiled language, would an enlightened one wish to consider the impact it may have on their mind, could there be an impact and if so what is that impact?
Can enlightened beings appreciate music without clinging to the music?
What if the music and lyrics were in harmony with the Dhamma?

I believe taste changes as you progress on the path to Enlightenment. As your intelligence increases, you loose taste for worldly music--which is full of ignorance--and develop a more refined taste for higher music. It's hard to understand how can one be completely detached and still enjoy good music. Gautama Buddha was born in Vedic times and he used to listen top musicians and singers perform Vedic music in his royal palace. This is a good question and you should ask an enlightened person to answer it.

Do Arahants or Buddhas still enjoy music they liked as lay people?

No. Enjoying music is sensual becoming (kama bhava), which is not only delusional but lacks the peace of Nibbana.

Can enlightened beings appreciate music without clinging to the music?

No. The word 'delight' ('nandi') is a synonym for attachment (upadana). MN 38 says: "delight in feelings is attachment". Since clinging/attachment is the same as enjoyment/delight, there cannot be enjoyment without clinging.

What if the music and lyrics were in harmony with the Dhamma?

The music would be relatively appreciated as having moral value because it can help worldly people improve their morality & disenchantment, such as this, this, this, this or this.  However, the music is still worldly because, from the viewpoint of Dhamma, such music is unnecessary. For example, music about non-killing & war, such as this, or deadly drug use, is unnecessary for moral & enlightened people who already know killing, war & drugs are bad.

What if the lyrics contained defiled language but the music was
appreciated before the process of enlightenment?

No. Very unlikely. The enlightened can acknowledge certain music may have helped them previously improve their spiritually but music like this or this the enlightened would not appreciate or druggy looking puthujjana unintelligible music such as this (below). The song below is called 'More Of The Same' or 'Rebirth'. A 37 year obsession with 'Rebirth' or 'More Of The Same', never ending 'rebirth' of 'rebirth' spinning the minds of puthujjana in more of the same 'rebirth' delusion.

Isn't sammuti sacca also applicable to the likes and dislikes (or preferences) of a person, or what is sometimes called the conventional self? ? In that case, one might listen to something because it is agreeable, and not necessarily because it flounders the mind into a cycle of woeful habits. Personally, I don't enjoy music like I used to. The silence seems oddly orchestrated, but I can appreciate a song from time to time.

It's fascinating how Dhamma concepts all fit with each other but if you don't know Buddhism, you probably think Buddhism is redundant and crazy.

Siddhartha Gautama was born in luxury and lived in luxury for three decades of life. He then got sick and tired of repeating the same things over and over again and then went for the search of something higher. His suggestion would probably be something like "Enjoy everything until you get disenchanted. After that you'll be sick and tired ."
We must not forget that Buddha enjoyed all his life before he started living the holy life.

The experience of an Arahant or Buddha is beyond my understanding but, in the Buddhist tradition, Arahants and Buddhas have transcended the attachment to sensory pleasures, including music. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would still derive enjoyment from music they liked as laypeople. But on the other hand...
It is a curious question to ponder whether enlightened beings would still derive enjoyment from the music they enjoyed in their layperson days. Great question and you're very good looking.
In my simple layperson, puthajana opinion, enlightened beings may appreciate music without clinging to it. If the music and lyrics were in harmony with the Dhamma, then it would be a wholesome and skillful arising that could potentially uplift and inspire those who listen to it.
I think that it might be worth consideration for the Buddhist community to get together as a band and carry on with the task of putting the core of the Pali cannon to pop music that the kids are into so that the kids may know the Dhamma. What a great purpose in life to help children.

Re: your last paragraph, Rev. Heng Sure  has recorded many Buddhist "folk songs" (folk in the American way, with banjo and guitar). But generally speaking, bhikkhus/bhiksus abstain from music entirely (Heng Sure was instructed to do otherwise by his master Hsuan Hua), see for example MN27 or Vi.KD1. And from what I understand (from my extremely limited viewpoint) your third paragraph seems spot on.

"Great question and you're very good looking." ?

Arahants and Buddhas would experience the pleasantness of music but they would not take a liking to them or enjoy them, because the underlying tendency of greed had been destroyed when they became liberated.
Instead, they would see pleasant feelings as suffering. Of course, as liberated persons, they are free from craving, clinging, greed and suffering.

“There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling.”
“What are these three feelings?”
“Anything felt physically or mentally as pleasant or enjoyable. This
is pleasant feeling. Anything felt physically or mentally as painful
or unpleasant. This is painful feeling. Anything felt physically or
mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful. This is neutral feeling.”
“What is pleasant and what is painful in each of the three feelings?”
“Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
perishes. Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when
it perishes. Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and
painful when there is ignorance.”
“What underlying tendencies underlie each of the three feelings?”
“The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”
“Do these underlying tendencies always underlie these feelings?”
“No, they do not.”
“What should be given up in regard to each of these three feelings?”
“The underlying tendency to greed should be given up when it comes to
pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency to repulsion should be given
up when it comes to painful feeling. The underlying tendency to
ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.”
MN 44

“Mendicants, there are these three feelings. What three?
Pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling.
Pleasant feeling should be seen as suffering. Painful feeling should
be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling should be seen as impermanent.
When a mendicant has seen these three feelings in this way, they’re
called a mendicant who sees rightly, has cut off craving, untied the
fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has made an end of
suffering.
SN 36.5

The translation of sāta as 'enjoyable' is questionable. The dictionary logically says sāta means 'agreeable'.

What about letting happiness be as it is without aversion or clinging to it?

Personally, I don't enjoy music like I used to. The silence seems oddly orchestrated, but I can appreciate a song from time to time.
Music can be a great motivator. When I was memorizing satipatthana, I overlaid the audio teaching with a music track called Love On A Real Train by State Azure.
Being creative, like this monk here who beatboxed the Heart Sutra, can help tremendously on the journey, but I guess it depends upon your temperament. Other traditions might vehemently frown upon such things, choosing instead to renounce these kinds of sensory pleasures.
Music can create unwholesome states, but if you have a robust mindfulness practice, you should be noticing this. I guess that's where I diverge from Theravada, in that I recognize something that's generally termed the outward journey where life is fully embraced with all its nasties, grit, and troubles. Things seem to deepen very quickly that way as nothing is being avoided any more.
No meditation, no practices, no teachings, just life doing its thing. This is referenced in the Heart Sutra:

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

Life is a celebration, including everything from a party popper to a nuclear bomb. Yes, I might run when a nuclear bomb goes off, but i'll also be laughing, too.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Looking for an Interpretation of The Blue Cliff Record
A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure.
Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them.
I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear.
So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?

A monk asked Tonzan, “What is Buddha?”
Tozan replied, “ three pounds of flax.”
-Case 18 from The Gateless Gate

Which is enough flax to make a monks robe. But it's stated as raw material, as before the compounding of fabrication. I think that is worth drawing attention to. I heard this framed as just surrealism, as a refusal of the answer to take the question seriously, that Buddha can be anything, or as saying the question isn't answerable. But that isn't what was happening.
Far from just being gnomic and impenetrable utterances, blank walls to crash the mind against, koans -public cases- often simply assume a deep understanding of Buddhist philosophy that a monk who dedicated their lives to the practice and so hearing and practicing koans would be expected to have. A favourite example of this for me is Dongshan on non-sentient beings expounding the dharma. This isn't simply 'impenetrable to the discriminating mind'. It is deeply engaging with a discontinuity between philosophical strands in Zen.
I strongly recommend Steven Heine's book on the origins of the koan tradition 'Opening A Mountain' (available to download at fhe excellent Zen resources site terebess.hu). This covers the Transmission of the Lamp genre which covered the lineages of teachings through capturing decisive moments and interactions usually of past with future abbots but sometimes confrontations with hermits and Wuist sorcerors. This helps understand how the Zen Golden Age was exactly about asserting this new tradition against other teachings and practices. Then the extraction of decisive interactions as koans. Then capping verses, from the role of these in teaching.
Of course Zen is about 'direct transmission, beyond words and letters'. We should be looking to the moon not the pointing finger - but I think there is a danger of ignoring the form of the finger, and so failing to see where it points!

Three pounds of flax is about the transition between the second and third jhana.

@000: Does Zen do jhanas..?

Not explicitly, but they are states of consciousness you will invariably run into provided you are using correct technique.  This particular koan is a good example of how they’re taught.  Zen is more concerned with conveying phenomenology and guiding people through a particular experience than it is labeling that experience (not that labeling in necessarily bad; it’s just not what zen does).

Shobogenzo is much more didactic than The Blue Cliff Record.  One is a collection of expository essays - talks really - whereas the Blue Cliff Record is a collection of koans.  Not that Dogen isn’t monumental obtuse and hard to follow sometimes but koans are, by their nature, utterly impenetrable to the discriminating mind.  In fact, that’s the whole point.  Thy weren’t intended to be understood that way.  I could explicitly tell you what a particular koan is getting at, but you will still have no idea what I’m talking about until you’ve seen into that koan yourself.  It’s like eating an apple.  I could talk about crispness, acid, and sugar, but until you take that bite yourself, the words are meaningless.
The only way to work with koans is to sit with them.  The only way to sit with them is under the direction of a teacher who has penetrated their mysteries.  You can certainly form an intellectual understanding of them.  Academics have been doing that for centuries now.  But studying that way won’t get you any closer to their meaning.

That's fair. I guess I've 'penetrated' enough Zen concepts already that I'm too lazy to read three or four pages of obscure text to figure out a marginally important point. Some of them I've managed to get just from the title and pointer, but others are just obscure enough that I have trouble putting the work in. I'd hope an interpretation exists that's done the heavy lifting, but I'm doubtful.

The heavy lifting is the whole point.  If you aren’t sweating (and I mean literally sweating in many cases), you aren’t really experiencing what they have to offer.  Zen is a practice, not a philosophy.  It’s somatic, not axiomatic.

I understand. Heavy lifting is a challenge when you've got two small boys in tow. I'll take the didactic nature of the Shobogenzo and call it a day, for now.

Let me give you a specific example.  I think Nansen’s cat is in about the middle of that collection.  The answer to that koan is a visceral kind of release.  In some ways, it’s the experience of dying.  In some ways, it’s you finally coming into being.  A zen teacher might ask where you feel the cat.  He might ask you to show him your pair of slippers.  None of that can be arrived at just by reading and intellectually understand the koan.  The experience is a-intellectual.  It’s also highly personal.

Hah!  Fair.  Don’t forget, they’re koans too!

Despite the other very good answers, I actually did end up finding an English translation / interpretation:
The Secrets of the Blue Cliff Record: Zen Comments by Hakuin and Tenkei. Translated by Thomas Cleary.
It's not a modern interpretation, but an interpretation of all 100 cases nonetheless.
I've now also taken a look at the Sekida translation as mentioned in the comments below, and his version strikes me as being closer to an interpretation than translation (in other words, what I'm looking for). Cleary seems to be trying to accurately represent the original text, where Sekida seems to be trying to portray the text in a clear way. So far I'm finding Sekida's version much clearer and easier to understand.

Check out the Sekida translation.  (https://www.amazon.com/Two-Zen-Classics-Gateless-Records/dp/1590302826) This is the standard English translation used by most  contemporary Rinzai/Obaku lineages in the west these days.  The Cleary translation is OK, but it lack a lot.  Take Case 57 for instance.  The koan has completely different titles in both editions.  This owes directly to the fact that that while Cleary was an excellent translator, he wasn't a practicing student of Zen like Sekida who was a lay priest.  What do I mean by that?  (Con't below)

In Cleary, it's rendered as Josshu's Stupid Oaf.  Sekida calls it "I alone am holy".  I'm not sure where Cleary is getting his title, but for Sekida, "I alone am holy" comes from the turning phrase one uses when working with this koan.  Those four words are the distillation of what that koan is pointing to.  This happens a couple of times when comparing the two translations.

Moreover, Sekida is much more precise when rendering the essence of a koan into English.  Cleary sorta gets there, where Sekida often nails it.  Again, Case 57 is really good example - picking and choosing (C) vs. choice and attachment (S).

Just to be clear - neither Cleary or Sekida discuss what a particular koan is getting at.  Either commentary is on par with a list of ingredients.  The means for combining them, their proportions, and how to cook them remain unsaid - to say nothing of the tasting.  The true essence of koan work is discovered with the application of deep samadhi and oral, individual interviews with a teacher.  There is no other way to understand them.

I understand, but I am finding the ingredients in Sekida's version much less obtuse and easier to piece together. I wouldn't call his descriptions an interpretation of the koans as a whole, but rather an interpretation of the original text into more straight-forward language. So in practice the translation strays far enough from the original that it becomes an interpretation of the text. Where Cleary seems to be aiming for an accurate depiction of the original, a one-to-one translation.
This isn't quite what I was asking for in my question, but it works for me.

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


text:
Did Buddha comment on existence of other contemporary buddhas?
Just wondering, since enlightenment is the cessation of all suffering, were there other people or beings that had achieved that and were contemporary to buddha. One such candidate may be the Jain leader Mahavira - he is said to have achieved not only freedom from suffering but also omniscience after that. This is just one person, there could have been many others who were fully enlightened but not teaching maybe sitting in a cave or something; especially when one thinks that Buddha himself after his liberation was considering that.
So it seems to me a little bit surprising that buddhas have such long waiting period In between them appearing on earth. Did buddha himself resolve this, or comment on anything like this?
On the same theme, where did the prophecy of Maitreya-buddha come from - was it shakyamuni-buddha himself who foresaw that?
Thanks

were there other people or beings that had achieved that and were contemporary to buddha

Cessation: yes, many; the first Council was composed of 500 Arahants, for example. Perfect Buddhahood? No.
Using Pali terms because I'm more familiar with them, but I think the same applies to the Mahayana: an Arahant isn't necessarily a Buddha, and a Paccekabuddha is also fully awakened (or cut off, depending on which terminology you like), but not a Buddha in the Sammasambuddha (perfectly awakened) sense (see these answers).
On Mahavira specifically, see this answer and the links there for more information. I don't have a sutta reference handy but I seem to remember Jains being implicitly grouped among those with wrong views, somewhere.
As for the origin of Maitreya's prediction, dating early texts is inexact, but I believe Metteyya is listed in the Buddhavamsa. He's much more prominent in Mahayana sutras though (and I don't know as much about those).

MN 115 states there can only be one Buddha (sammāsambuddhā) in a world system. Gotama is the only Buddha since the Enlightenment. All other fully enlightened beings are Arahant disciples.

He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that two
Accomplished Ones (arahanto), Fully Enlightened Ones (sammāsambuddhā), could arise
contemporaneously in one world-system - there is no such
possibility.'And he understands: 'It is possible that one Accomplished
One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system - there
is such a possibility.'
MN
115


text:
Answering Zizek's challenge to Buddhism
Slavoj Zizek is a little unusual I think among English-speaking philisophers, in expressing substantial sympathy for Buddhist ideas, but challenging them at a basic level. Eg
The Problems of Buddhism (https://youtu.be/UN1hP_lBtp0)
The Buddhist Ethic & The Spirit of Global Capitalism (https://youtu.be/qkTUQYxEUjs)
Zizek criticising Buddhism (https://youtu.be/IlCkLqz20W8)
Zizek vs Buddhism (https://www.youtube.com/live/9zqm7ZCP9t0)
To summarise, he focuses on Zen At War, and especially Suzuki, using an understanding of Sunyata to better be able to go to war. A key phrase he uses is Kurosawa's interpretation of Shakespeare: (only) "The bad sleep well". That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally, can lead to a situation like in Japan where only a handful of Zen figures opposed imperialist violence, an unsettled mind is sometimes appropriate over non-stop inner peace come-what-may. He also criticises mindfulness practices used in workplaces to allow workers to tolerate intolerable conditions.
How should we answer this? Have people already in the Buddhist world responded? I feel like the answer relates to emptiness not being no selves at all, but rather intersubjectivity: to do violence to others is to do violence to our other self. Is that a mainstream response in Buddhism, and especially in Zen?

The linked videos are nearly 3 hours long. I suspect that people who answer may answer your summary of them, instead of watching the videos and addressing the originals. So, it probably does already, but be sure that your summary in the question includes whatever argument or view you wanted addressed!

While it is true that some Zen figures in Japan supported imperialist violence during certain historical periods, it is crucial to note that many others actively opposed it. Zen Buddhist teachings often emphasize compassion, non-violence, and the interconnectedness of all beings, which can lead practitioners to reject violence and oppression. It looks like Slavoj Zizek had a focus skewed for an unconscious agenda, but I'm not learned in his stuff and don't feel like I would want to be.

@Max: I don't think it is unconscious. The same style of Zen allegedly compatible with murdering people (rooted in 17th C work by Takuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind), Zizek relates to CEOs claiming they are Buddhist while ruthlessly pursuing profit (he claims 80% of CEOs, as per transcript of Capitalism lecture linked above https://zizek.uk/the-buddhist-ethic-and-the-spirit-of-global-capitalism). He is saying the Buddhist community's unwillingness to speak against these, amounts to hypocrisy.

Thanks, but the subject reminds me of a gloryhole: it's made of severed drywall and there's trouble on the other side.

It's also worth noting that the philosophy underpinning Ahimsa permeates pretty much all of Asian thought, and if you ask any two people they'll likely have a different opinion on the topics of violence, self defense, political activism etc. Ultimately, Buddhism is personal to the individual practicing it, so I don't think macro-generalizations about what 'Buddhists' think or do is ever going to be helpful. The same rings true for all other religions.

Practice the Buddha's teaching, Jesus's teaching, the Sufi's teaching.

Intersubjectivity? You mean the separation between me and you is an assumption that is as real as a thought?

@Lowbrow: I mean, yeah, pretty much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity#Philosophy Also: "Hershock  develops  the thesis that
Ch'an enlightenment  is best understood not as the attainment
of an individual state of interior or subjective  perfection,
but   rather   as   an   intersubjective    virtuosity    and
improvisational precedent-less responsiveness, enacted not in
any one putative  being but in the communicative  interstices
between all social persons." http://www.wuys.com/news/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=7555

Pls check if this is of any use

I watched the first (15 minute) video, and I don't think the summary given here quite captures the nuances of Žižek's position. Nor do I think Žižek's position adequately captures Buddhist philosophy... There are lots of overtones of Ken Wilber's Pre/Trans fallacy here, on all sides. It's a bit of a pickle.
Žižek makes two (what I would consider 'rookie') mistakes. First, he uses the colloquial English meaning of the word 'suffering' — as misery, pain, and hardship — when that term is a fairly bad translation of the Pāli word 'dukkha', meaning something closer to discontentment or agitation. While there are undoubtably people who turn to Buddhism because they want to rid themselves of their own personal misery, that is a fairly low-level worldview. Second, he seem to conflate Buddhism with meditation, as though they are the same thing. Meditation is a practice meant to cultivate an inner state; asserting that buddhism is meditation is like asserting that baseball is just a bunch of guys tossing a ball around at training camp. Again, we can easily find buddhists who share this view, but it isn't high-level thinking.
The core principle in Buddhism — put somewhat loosely, for expedience — is that dukkha arises when people focus on the differences between the world-as-it-is and the world-as-one-imagines. We think we should have more of what we want and less of what we don't want, and this creates a sense of discontentment/agitation that spurs us to make changes. This becomes problematic when that discontentment become ego-identified: after ego-identification dukkha no longer merely a matter of addressing an issue, but becomes one of satisfying and defending a self-image. That can lead to frustration and resentment, to brutality and recklessness, to violence on every scale... And worse, that ego-identification is infectious. When one becomes ego-identified with dukkha others become ego-identified in competitive self-defense; when one builds an army, others build armies. That's karma in action.
The Buddhist problematic is how one lives properly in the karmic world without ego-identification in any direction. Or as the Zen Buddhists that Žižek cites at the end of this video suggest (though Žižek seems not to have grasped it), how to immerse oneself fully in the world-as-it-is without succumbing to the world-as-one-imagines. How do we confront an army raised on ego-identification without resorting to ego-identification ourselves?
As I said, it's a pickle.
Zen Buddhism is heavily influenced by daoism, and it is useful to look at the daodejing for insights into Zen thought. Žižek should look at chapters 30 and 31, where it spells out that wise men should find weapons hateful, and see no beauty, pride, or glory in them. One should only pick up a weapon at need, and only with the sober and solemn attitude that one is going to a funeral, because weapons only exist to create funerals. This isn't the passive, inactive, navel-gazing attitude Žižek presumes.

Ironically, Takuan who wrote the most influential work on Zen for Samurais, also had Japan's most famous pickle named after him! It really is, a bit of a pickle..!

nice post, i like the ego-centric dukkha idea...ppl taking advantage of dukkha, etc..

Zizek is not responding to Buddhism proper. His response is based on mis-readings of Buddhist concepts and terminologies. A philosopher of the stature of Zizek would produce some great arguments (for or against Buddhism-that doesnt matter) when and only when he reads and understands Buddhism, at least minimally and correctly. Till then, I do not find it possible to respond- for a lot of his criticism is not directed at Buddhism- it is directed at a mis-readings of Buddhism- something which the western philosophy circles often produce.
These are personal views on responding to Zizek. Please do not spread hate- Zizek is a philosopher worthy of the tile of philosopher.

'spread hate'.. Is that what you see in my post..? As I see it his point is about how Zen is taking root in the West, & whether the Buddhist community, 'proper Buddhists' to use your terms, is challenging that. Which is my question: How do we challenge the view that Buddhists can simply make peace with being violent or greedy? Please enact that, like if you were meeting a sniper who says they use Takuan's Zen, or an oil company executive who says their daily Zen mindfulness practice helps them focus on their job.

Dear @CriglCragl I have not written anywhere that I see hate in your post. I was responding to your question and was taking the opposite side of Zizek. After writing that those are my personal views I wrote "...do not spread hate..". It is clarifying my position that just because I disagree with Zizek for not understanding Buddhism should not be taken as a reason to hate him by anyone.

@CriglCragl- I have also not anywhere used the term "proper Buddhists". I would be personally at a loss to explain what such a term would mean. The term perhaps you are thinking of is "buddhism proper". The very next sentence elucidates what I mean by that.

Buddhism talks about 'right' concentration, 'right' mindfulness etc. It is to separate such cases of right from wrong. A killer concentrating or a victim of abuse just being mindful are not the practice of Buddhism. If Zizek does not understand right mindfulness from mindfulness, he is not responding to Buddhism in anyway. He is perhaps commenting about mindfulness as a product being sold in the world.

I agree that Zizek's responses are useful in the sense that he is responding to the ethical flaws of quite a common and widely disseminated misinterpretation of Buddhism, not just to some confusion of his own devising. This, I think, gives them value. It is unfortunate that they are not clearly framed in that way, though.

I don't want to study his view (nor his Hegel etc.) so I'll just reply to your summary.

To summarise, he focuses on Zen At War
Firstly:

Without throwing Japanese Buddhism under the bus, it is a bit out there (i.e. atypical), both geographically and in other ways. It's the only form where priests can marry. I think it was influenced/altered by the State. But it's  relatively famous in the United States.

Wthout throwing lay Buddhism under the bus, "Buddhism" in general e.g. as taught by the Buddha was more especially addressed to monks, including the Vinaya and so on.

Warfare, conquest, civil war, brigandry, serfdom, social inequality, economic exploitation, have existed in virtually every historical human society. The fact that warriors interpreted, adopted, adapted a religion to their own life is IMO no more an indictment of Buddhism than it is of Christianity, Islam, nor Atheism.
It reminds me of God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule which was written in the aftermath of "9/11":

Humans don’t need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you’ve been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!

Maybe I should say this, if you use the particular (he focuses on "Zen At War") to criticise the general (i.e. "Buddhism" writ large).
But it's a bit of a trivial argument -- it's an example of "No true Scotsman":

cw: Buddhism doesn't teach violence
sz: The Samurai were violent
cw: No "true" Buddhist etc.

I don't know whether he knows other aspects of Buddhism, nor why he "focuses on Zen At War".
That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally
Is he setting himself up as judge? Is he saying, "Your behaviour is immoral, therefore you should have no peace, therefore anything which brings you peace is wrong"?
Because that doesn't sound like well-wishing, "I'm glad you found at least some peace."
And maybe too all-or-nothing, "If it didn't prevent all State violence then it's worse than useless."
Instead, who knows, maybe it was a net benefit morally. Many of the "101 Zen Stories" for example seem to me to be moral, meant to be exemplary.
an unsettled mind is sometimes appropriate over non-stop inner peace come-what-may
That sounds plausible -- but as Confucius once wrote, "For this reason I distrust plausible men."
At least two of the Zen stories look into the causes and consequences of anger:

The Gates of Paradise
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really
a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you
as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin
continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull
to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of
hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline,
sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.

Another is this, which is also about "emptiness":

Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after
another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and
sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena
is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no
mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked
Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come
from?"

I find it difficult to see such doctrine as worthless. I think it's inline with some of the classic Buddhist doctrine

He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.

I feel like the answer relates to emptiness not being no selves at all, but rather intersubjectivity: to do violence to others is to do violence to our other self.
You're not wrong

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

That's not what "emptiness" means to me, though.
I think that "emptiness" is an extension of the non-self doctrine, expanding that to not just "the self" but to "all things".
"Emptiness" means, I mean I use my little understanding of it to say to myself something like, "those stupid reasons you had for acting stupidly are 'empty' and not worth holding onto" -- i.e. that both "conceits" and "views" (e.g. as explained here) are more-or-less fabricated.
I don't think that's meant to be instead of morality, used as an excuse to say that no-one exists and that it's impossible to be harmful, because I think that's explicitly a "wrong view".
There is admittedly also the story called Great Waves -- a bit of an odd one, more about a lay-person than a monk -- which tells of a wrestler becoming more powerful or less "bashful", less inhibited. I don't see that as an example of violence or immorality however -- nor of morality especially -- just professionalism maybe.

Hello King of the Mods. It is interesting how this question over 2000 views.

Thanks for telling me. Yes it became a "hot network questions, appearing on the sidebar of other SE sites, probably because the question was upvoted to +5 and attracted s3everal answers.

We all should accept that there's an incongruence between Buddhist nondiscriminatory/nonjudgemental awareness and ethics. Any attempt at reconciliation between the two is mental gymnastics (like calling the Japanese soldiers not-true-Buddhists or saying that meditation is a process to cultivate a suitable mental state, and so on and so on).
It's my understanding that Siddhartha meant to say that all suffering arises from a dogmatic (logically imprecise) understanding of events (saying that "this is bad" without having a logical basis for it) because the human mind is inclined towards order (one way to arrive at order is through being logically precise). Still, at the same time, he understood the perils of nondogmatic, logically clear, nonjudgemental awareness in the events involving interacting with other people. Because you can't logically prove why everyone should act nicely, you can murder someone and justify yourself by saying, "I was just a nonjudgmental observer of thing-event."
The best you can do is make "being nice" a dogma.
So the solution he proposed (and I'm taking the liberty of putting words in his mouth) is to take the middle path and be nondogmatic by observing things without judgment, except (and this is the dogma) when you find yourself hurting other people. And this is the noble Eightfold path.

Mr. Zizek has many arguments.
The Buddha once scolded some argumentative folk:

MN128:6.1: “When many voices shout at once,
MN128:6.2: no-one thinks that they’re a fool!
MN128:6.3: While the Saṅgha’s being split,
MN128:6.4: none thought another to be better.
MN128:6.5: Dolts pretending to be astute,
MN128:6.6: they talk, their words right out of bounds.
MN128:6.7: They blab at will, their mouths agape,
MN128:6.8: and no-one knows what leads them on.
MN128:6.9: “They abused me, they hit me!
MN128:6.10: They beat me, they robbed me!”
MN128:6.11: For those who bear such a grudge,
MN128:6.12: hatred never ends.
MN128:6.13: “They abused me, they hit me!
MN128:6.14: They beat me, they robbed me!”
MN128:6.15: For those who bear no such grudge,
MN128:6.16: hatred has an end.
MN128:6.17: For never is hatred
MN128:6.18: settled by hate,
MN128:6.19: it’s only settled by love:
MN128:6.20: this is an eternal truth.
MN128:6.21: Others don’t understand
MN128:6.22: that here we need to be restrained.
MN128:6.23: But those who do understand this,
MN128:6.24: being clever, settle their conflicts.
MN128:6.25: Breakers of bones and takers of life,
MN128:6.26: thieves of cattle, horses, wealth,
MN128:6.27: those who plunder the nation:
MN128:6.28: even they can come together,
MN128:6.29: so why on earth can’t you?

He then continued with a simple direction:

MN128:6.30: If you find an alert companion,
MN128:6.31: a wise and virtuous friend,
MN128:6.32: then, overcoming all adversities,
MN128:6.33: wander with them, joyful and mindful.
MN128:6.34: If you find no alert companion,
MN128:6.35: no wise and virtuous friend,
MN128:6.36: then, like a king who flees his conquered realm,
MN128:6.37: wander alone like a tusker in the wilds.
MN128:6.38: It’s better to wander alone,
MN128:6.39: there’s no fellowship with fools.
MN128:6.40: Wander alone and do no wrong,
MN128:6.41: at ease like a tusker in the wilds.”

And having said what he had to say, the Buddha then left the arguments to the arguers...

Your extensive references are impressive. But, I don't think you get at the issue. Japan has a 'warrior monk' tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Japan & it has become influential in Western Buddhism, pitched as not really making moral demands, only finding peace with whatever you think you have to do

@CriglCragl, yes Japan does have a warrior tradition. My Zen teacher was Tanouye Roshi.

He focuses on Zen At War, and especially Suzuki, using an understanding of Sunyata to better be able to go to war.

The Buddha said in many places (e.g Dhp XIII) most people are unenlightened & only a relative few people will attain enlightenment. Those Japanese soldiers who were taught Sunyata obviously did not have any realisation of Sunyata. If there is the realisation of Sunyata, two results occur:

The realisation the world is empty of self (SN 33.85) & the destruction of conceit (AN 6.49).
The destruction of any motive & capability to kill (AN 9.7) because intentional killing can only occur due to self-view.

That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally, can lead to a situation like in Japan where only a handful of Zen figures opposed imperialist violence

The above is again wrong in assuming D. T. Suzuki was enlightened. Again, there are only a relative few enlightened beings. The handful of Zen figures who opposed imperialist violence would have probably represented the extent of people who had some type of genuine realisation. Or otherwise they simply understood basic Buddhist moral principles of non-greed, non-theft, non-violence, non-killing, etc.
As for the other Zen priests, they were probably engaged in political correctness. The matter of political correctness is unrelated to inner peace. Political correctness is a cowardly narcissism where priests & monks think they are protecting the religion. In recent years, we have witnessed first hand Theravada monks & nuns openly supporting actual violent imperialist war-monger USA Presidential Candidates and even publicly lamenting Presidential threats to women's reproductive rights, aka 'abortion'. These monks & nuns probably behave this way to maintain their woke benefactor support base. This cowardly narcissism is unrelated to the Buddha's instruction, where the Buddha taught monks & nuns to be Heirs To Dhamma (MN 3) and not heirs to material things.

He also criticises mindfulness practices used in workplaces to allow workers to tolerate intolerable conditions.

The word 'mindfulness' is simply a generic word meaning 'memory' or 'keeping in mind'. Buddhism teaches Right Mindfulness. Right Mindfulness means to maintain in the mind the ethical principles of Buddhism (refer to MN 117); to remember to do what is 'right' and avoiding doing what is 'wrong'. As falsely taught by American individuals such as Joseph Goldstein & Jeffrey Block (aka 'Bhikkhu Bodhi'), right mindfulness certainly does not mean 'non-judgmental awareness'; the type of amoral mindfulness used in corporate workplaces. Right Mindfulness means to have judgmental awareness/assessment, as taught in the metaphor of the Gatekeeper (SN 35.245) . Thus Buddhism also says non-Buddhists can have wrong mindfulness. Again, in the workplace, the non-Buddhist secular corporate mindfulness also means to be politically correct; to not rock the boat. It is unrelated to Buddhism. Just because war-mongers, corporate gurus & woke globalist white supremacist monks & nuns hijack Buddhist words for their personal nefarious purposes does not mean it is related to real Buddhism. Slavoj Zizek can join  Buddhism StackExchange and become my student. I can instruct Slavoj Zizek on the right view about Buddhism.

My statement is derived from a paper titled "Response to John Cobb".
I'll give Zizek credit, he has a skewed interpretation of śūnyatā.  He perhaps is showing early symptoms of what Zen calls "sunyata disease", or zen sickness.  I'm sick too, we should negate our faults.
And just to say, we procrastinate the first turning of the dhamma wheel, obsess the second turning of the wheel (sunyata as void, an abyss, a nothingness), and exaggerate the power of the third turning.
The second and third turning are our mind games. not living the first turning, our insight is both demonstrative and corrupted.
From the article:

Western scholars of Mahayana Buddhism represent an essentially
academic and intellectual tradition.It is not surprising that they
identified and studied that dimension of Mahayana Buddhism, namely
Madhyamika philosophy and its doctrine of sunyata, that is most
scholarly and the most easily susceptible to academic methods,
particularly as they existed in the earlier part of this century.Not
having paid much attention to the specifically 'religious context' of
the Madhyamika school, these scholars tended themselves to view
Madhymika as an independent Buddhist enterprise, separable from its
religious context. Correspondingly, they tended to view sunyata as a
notion that could be separated from its religious context.And, more or
less enamoured of the Buddhist viewpoint, they naturally wanted to
present Buddhism in the best light to Western audiences, and this
further encouraged the depiction of sunyata as a concept that can be
understood apart from specifically religious concerns and activities


text:
Who said "life is suffering"?
I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth:

"Life is suffering"

Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?

The origin appears quite obvious. There is the word 'jati' in the scriptures, which means 'a class of beings', as follows:

[Due to ordaining as a monk] ‘Ever since I was born in the noble birth, sister, I don’t recall
having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this
truth, may both you and your baby be safe.’
‘yatohaṁ, bhagini, ariyāya jātiyā jāto, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṁ
jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’”ti.
MN 86

And what is birth?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?
The birth, co-conception, emergence, production of beings in this & that class of beings; the manifestation of their aggregates, and [mental] acquisition of their sense objects.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.
SN 12.2

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'? Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'
SN 23.2

There was obviously a time in Buddhism, particular with the concoction of the Jataka Tales, the word 'jati' or 'jata' came to refer to a physical birth or a lifetime. This false view continues today, in false translations such as the following, where the word 'nivāsā' is falsely translated as 'lives' and the word 'jāti' is taken to mean a physical birth rather than a 'self-identity/class lineage':

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified,
bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and
imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past lives
(nivāsā). I recollected many kinds of past lives. That is: one, two,
three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a
thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths (jatiyo); many eons of the world
contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world
contracting and expanding.
MN
4

When 'jati' is regarded as a 'lifetime' rather than as a 'self-view of a class of beings/self-identity' then verses, such as in the following dodgy translations, are misconstrued to mean life is suffering:

Now this is the noble truth of suffering.
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—
Rebirth [life] is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering;
death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering;
separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for
is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ,
appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na
labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
SN 56.11 First Sermon of the Buddha

Transmigrating through countless rebirths [lives],
Anekajātisaṁsāraṁ,
I’ve journeyed without reward,
sandhāvissaṁ anibbisaṁ;
searching for the house-builder;
Gahakāraṁ gavesanto,
painful is birth [life] again and again.
dukkhā jāti punappunaṁ.
Dhammapada

This false view & perversion of the Teachings becomes so obsessive that even Western monks today are now claiming the Pali word 'bhava' ('becoming') refers to a 'lifetime', despite compassionate efforts to dissuade them, such as found here: Bhava doesn’t mean ‘becoming’ by Sunyo Bhikkhu (a self-proclaimed Pali & Vinaya expert).

Thank you for your answer. If I understand it, then, a change over time of the connotation of the word 'jati' caused (mis)interpretation of earlier texts in light of later texts like the Jatakas?
Should 'Jātipi dukkhā' be understood as '[birth/emergence into a class of beings] is dukkha'?

Yes. In short, self-identity is suffering.

Reading your tiny, seven-word comment produced, by some mechanism I'm going to investigate, a strange feeling in me which I've felt a few times before: on retreat listening to a dharma talk, and reading Nietzsche for the first time; I was very suddenly overtaken by what I can only, and very poorly, describe as a kind of energetic calm. I wish I could meditate my way into this state as easily as it seems to randomly occur.

Is Jātipi the only dukkha of that series which should be interpreted/translated in a non-straightforward way? ie are 'old age', 'illness' etc also mistranslated?

I would say it's the first noble truth.  but to end it as stated would be wrong, and misrepresenting Buddha.  The statement requires ellipsis(...) and would continue on as such...

Lifeforms suffer
to get what they want
they get (don’t get) what they want
this is the cycle. keep doing it, or make modifications (eightfold path + dhamma).

Regardless, to answer your question, the atomic idea "life is suffering" might have entered mainstream western thought through Arthur Schopenhauer's work.

“At all grades of its phenomenon, from lowest to the highest, the
will disposes entirely with an ultimate aim and object. It always
strives, because striving is its sole nature, to which no attained
goal can put an end. Such striving is therefore incapable of final
satisfaction.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation

Buddha NEVER said (translated into English, of course) "Life is suffering". He said that "there is suffering". It is important to clarify and highlight this significant difference.
The formulation, as you call it, is found in other philosophical systems of India dating back to 600-700 B.C. It is quite difficult to pinpoint which text "first" proposed it as such.


text:
True versus Correct in uttered speech
In the below passage from MN 58

In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, and which is disliked by others.

The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful and disliked by others.

The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others.

The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be untrue, false, and pointless, but which is liked by others.

The Realized One does not utter speech that he knows to be true and correct, but which is harmful, even if it is liked by others.

The Realized One knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is liked by others. Why is that? Because the Realized One has compassion for sentient beings.

There seem to be some (three?) couplets (and a triplet?): 'true/untrue', 'correct/false', 'beneficial/pointless/harmful', and 'likeable/dislikeable'.
My reason for posting is to ask the difference between 'true' and 'correct', but if anyone has anything more general to say about these guidelines, that would also be appreciated.

Correct might mean not to gossip or preach things unnecessarily even if they are true.

I think "gossip" is the "pointless/beneficial" pair -- not "true/untrue" nor "correct/false".

@Ukh from my further reading, i think 'correct' may mean something related to '(conversationally) socially/customarily appropriate', but that's as far as I've gotten

Based on the PTS dictionary entries for taccha and bhūta:

Taccha: ... true, real, justified, usually in combn w. bhūta. bhūta taccha tatha

If it's usually "in combination" then perhaps it's not a separate meaning but some kind of compound meaning -- like "immensely huge" in English, two words that are similar, adjacent in meaning, and adjacent in the combined phrase

Bhūta seems to mean -- natural, existing (in animate or inanimate nature)

The dictionary entry for taccha says that it's "derived from tathā+ya=tath -- ya" meaning "as it is," Sanskrit "tathya".
The "tathā" root is found elsewhere, for example:

"tathata" (suchness) -- see What is tathata?
tathagata -- see Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?

Used together I guess the two words might translate as, "something which is so, in nature/existence".

The Pali in MN 58 is:

In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that
he knows to be untrue, false and pointless, and which is disliked by others. (Sujato translation)
Evameva kho, rājakumāra, yaṁ tathāgato vācaṁ jānāti abhūtaṁ atacchaṁṁ
anatthasaṁhitaṁ sā ca paresaṁ appiyā amanāpā, na taṁ tathāgato vācaṁ
bhāsati.

The word 'bhūta' is used in many ways in the suttas, such as:

Mendicants, do you see that this has come to be?”
Bhūtamidanti, bhikkhave, passathā”ti?
MN 38

Therefore, a better translation of "abhūtaṁ" in MN 58 would point to matters that "have not come to exist", "do not exist" or are "non-existent", in short, "unfactual/unevidenced/unsustantiated". Alternate translations are:

Even so, Prince, whatever speech the Tathāgata knows to be not fact,
not true, not connected with the goal, and that is not liked by
others, disagreeable to them, that speech the Tathāgata does not utter (I.B. Horner)

So too, Prince, such speech as a Tathāgata knows does not represent what is [does not represent what has come to be], does not accord with reality, and is unconnected with good (Nyanamoli Thera)

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. (Thanissaro)

The other relevant Pali word in MN 58 is taccha. I was going to suggest 'taccha' has a moral quality, such as meaning 'honest', because it is found in Snp 2.9, as follows:

With what morality, what conduct, fostering what deeds, would a person
lay the foundations right and reach the highest goal?
Delighting in the teaching, enjoying the teaching, standing on the
teaching, investigating the teaching, they’d never say anything that
degraded the teaching, but would be guided by genuine words
well-spoken (tacchehi nīyetha subhāsitehi).

However, the dictionary says taccha is derived from tathā + ya. The word 'tathā' appears to mean 'real', such as found in the following context:

Mendicants, these four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, tathāni avitathāni anaññathāni.
What four? ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’ … These four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise.
SN 56.20

The above said, possibly taccha/tathā do have a moral quality, because what is described as 'tathā' in SN 56.20 are verbal statements by the Buddha rather than the mere natural lawful facts of suffering, origin, cessation & path.
In conclusion, without doing anymore research, I would speculate 'bhuta' means 'existent' and 'taccha' is a moral reflection upon what is 'existent' and thus means 'truthful/honest'.

In the same way, prince, the Realized One does not utter speech that
he knows to be unfactual/unevident, dishonest and unbeneficial, and which is disliked by others.
(DD translation)


text:
What is the relationship between signless samadhi, emptiness and cessation of perception & feeling?
As titled,
According to the suttapitaka.
What is the relationship between 'signless samadhi', 'signless property', 'emptiness' and 'the cessation of perception & feeling'?
I want only Theravada oriented and substantiated answers.

You might find this  book by Bhante Analayo helpful. It covers the signless samadhi and emptiness. https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compassionemptiness.pdf

All things in dhamma are elements (dhatu; MN 115). MN 115 summarises all elements into two types: (i) conditioned element (saṅkhatādhātu); and (ii) unconditioned element (asaṅkhatādhātu). The unconditioned element, namely, Nibbana, is permanent (SN 43.14-43). Also, the laws of nature such as anatta/not-self are 'fixed' thus permanent (ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā; AN 3.136), which also includes 'sunnata' (described in SN 35.85).
The signless element (animittāya ca dhātuyā) is found in MN 43 as one of five types of liberation of mind. However MN 43 says, in itself, the signless is not the supreme or unprovoked liberation of mind, which is the mind empty of greed, hate & delusion.
Signless samadhi (animitte cetosamādhimhi) is mentioned in MN 121. Obviously it means concentration on the signless element.
There is no inherent relationship between the 'signless samadhi/signless property' and 'emptiness' & 'the cessation of perception & feeling'.
Based on MN 121, signless samadhi is a way to gradually come to realise emptiness. However, the signless element, itself, is not emptiness. MN 121 says the signless samadhi is mentally formed by intention and subject to impermanence & cesssation (yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti) and realising this about the signless element results in attaining Nibbana via the ending of [signless & all other] becoming & ignorance. Therefore, MN 121 refers to the "supreme emptiness" (paramānuttaraṁ suññataṁ) as when the fermentations (asava) of sensuality, becoming & ignorance are not present. In other words, the signless samadhi can be a type of becoming (bhava), namely, an arupabhava.
The same applies to the cessation of perception & feeling. It is conditioned, impermanent & subject to cessation, therefore it is not emptiness/sunnata or Nibbana, which are permanent.
MN 44 mentions when the mind emerges from the cessation of perception & feeling, it first experiences emptiness & then the signless. However, apart from this, these three phenomena are not the same.
MN 122 contains the vague statement: "The Realized One woke up to this meditation, namely, to enter and remain in emptiness internally by not focusing on any signs." This can only mean the Buddha used the signless to help realize emptiness (of self), as explained in MN 121. It cannot mean the signless & emptiness are the same things because they are not, per the other suttas and per basic Dhamma principles.
In summary, a Buddha or Arahant (for their entire remaining lifetime) permanently has the perception of emptiness (absence of self; refer to SN 35.85) towards all things & experiences. However, the cessation of perception & feeling and the signless can never be a permanent abiding for a Buddha or Arahant. This is why these two conditioned impermanent states are not emptiness.
To add: DN 16 offers an example of the Buddha temporarily entering the signless concentration:

Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the
cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless
immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become
more comfortable.
Yasmiṁ, ānanda, samaye tathāgato sabbanimittānaṁ amanasikārā ekaccānaṁ
vedanānaṁ nirodhā animittaṁ cetosamādhiṁ upasampajja viharati,
phāsutaro, ānanda, tasmiṁ samaye tathāgatassa kāyo hoti.

To add, also a footnote to DN 16 by the translator:

The suttas say little about this meditation state. Its defining characteristic is that consciousness does not “follow after signs” (nimittānusāri viññāṇaṁ, eg. AN 6.13:5.3). This is explained in MN 138:10.2 as not being distracted or affected by the features of sense impressions. The mental unification (ekattaṁ) based on this practice is listed after the form (and formless) jhānas, so it is very advanced. It is nonetheless a conditioned state (MN 121:11.4), so it is possible that a mendicant might fall from it and disrobe (AN 6.60:8.10). However it may also be used to describe the meditation of an arahant (SN 41.7:6.12). It seems that the Buddha [in DN 16] relied on his mastery of this practice to focus attention away from the pain in his body.

i have some notes from the wiki that might help. Note, these are not my experiences.
First, śūnyatā ("emptiness") can be taken three ways: "(1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release."
In regards to the third category - the state just after emerging from the final formless jhana, "cessation of perception and feeling" - this is said:

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of
concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ
only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they
color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been
focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as
signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first
apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of
not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

Thag 1.92 The Verse of Arahant Vijaya corroborates:

All the taints in his life were destroyed. Now he doesn’t have any desire, even for food. His mind now is only focused on the meditation
objects of emptiness, signlessness, and non-establishment. That monk’s
Dhamma path is impossible to find, just as the paths of birds are
impossible to find in the air.

hopefully, this gets you started on the right track

deleted by accident: https://sunyanando.pl/wp-content/uploads/literatura/Peter%20Harvey%20-%20Signless%20Meditations%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism.pdf

According to Theravadin commentaries signless release is an ariyan attainment of samadhi entailing cessation of perception & feeling and all conditioned phenomena (nibbananirodha) as a directing the mind to the Deathless.

When the Tathāgata—not attending to any theme at all, and with the cessation of certain feelings—enters & remains in the theme-less concentration of awareness, that is when his body is more at ease. - Dn16

Comy. explains this term here as referring to the fruition-attainment of arahatship (phalasamapatti), in which the Buddha becomes absorbed in the direct experience of Nibbana and no longer attends to external objects or feels mundane feelings. tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fn-19

Cessation attainment is a pleasure apart from the feelings of pleasure

"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'" - mn59

I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, "This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. - an9.34

This is essentially the same eventuality as here

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’

Not giving attention to all signs is essentially a turning away from all conditioned dhammā because dhammā come into being through attention

They come into being through attention. - an10.58

This is the commentarial Theravada interpretation.
Note that according to the commentaries the Animittacetovimutti is not the same thing as Animittanupassana. This is very important because nowadays many people confuse these two and explain signless samadhi as contemplation of the signless.
Here i quote Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight to present the classical comy interpretation, although here merely in part as i will leave out the path attainments focusing only on fruition.

Contemplation of the signless (animittānupassanā) is actually the same as contemplation of impermanence, as I explained in the summary above.
Nevertheless, this different term should be defined, so I will explain it in brief. “Sign” (nimitta) means the sign of conditioned phenomena or
formations.808
“The sign of conditioned phenomena” (saṅkhāranimitta) refers
to phenomena that seem to be solid [to a nonmeditator] due to the concepts of solidity of mass and so on. But the sign of conditioned phenomena appears [to a meditator] due to the
discernment and separation of their individual functions and
so on. Bodily activities and movements that are conditioned physical phe-
nomena—such as walking, standing, sitting, lying, bending, stretching,
and so on—conditioned mental phenomena—such as seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, and so on—and the objects that
appear at the six sense doors—such as visible form, sound, smell, taste,
touch, and mental objects—do not appear to be mere activities and phe-
nomena, or to be distinct from each other, or to only exist momentarily.
Actually, they appear to have solid forms, to be one single entity, and to be permanent. This concept of solidity is also referred to as “the sign of permanence,” “the sign of stability” (dhuvanimitta), or “the sign of eternity” (sassatanimitta).
Contemplation of impermanence, which sees conditioned phenomena
as impermanent, is called “the signless” because it is opposite to the sign of permanence, the sign of stability, and the sign of eternity. It is called “contemplation” because it observes impermanence. When we compound the
two terms we have “contemplation of the signless,” which means to observe
the opposite of the signs of solidity in conditioned phenomena.
When one constantly observes mental and physical phenomena at the
time of their occurrence, the conditioned phenomena that arise at the six sense doors do not appear to have solid forms, to be one single entity, to be permanent, or to be enduring and stable. Actually they appear to be mere
activities and phenomena, to be different from each other, to only exist momentarily, and to disappear a moment after they have arisen. Because they appear in this way when one attains insight knowledge of dissolution, one sees conditioned phenomena as disappearing, ending, being destroyed, vanishing, or impermanent. When one sees conditioned phenomena this way, they cannot appear as permanent and solid entities, and
the defilements that develop based on seeing things to be permanent and
solid can no longer arise. Because one can abandon the sign of solidity in
conditioned phenomena, the Visuddhimagga says:

Thus it is called the signless, because the sign of permanence,
the sign of stability, and the sign of eternity are abandoned after
breaking through the concept of solidity by means of contem-
plation of impermanence.810

If one uninterruptedly observes the signs of conditioned phenomena,
each of the different functions of these conditioned phenomena will
become apparent. Not only this, but their unique characteristics, their
momentariness, and their objects (in the case of mental conditioned phe-
nomena), will become apparent. For a detailed description of how they
appear see the section dealing with the four types of concept of solidity
under the heading “Contemplation of not-self.”
The way conditioned phenomena appear when one is distinguishing
between their function, characteristic, momentariness, and object is the sign of conditioned phenomena. When one can distinguish them by means of their function, characteristic, momentariness, and object, one sees these signs of conditioned phenomena and takes them as one’s object at the same time. Thus contemplation of impermanence is neither the opposite of the signs of conditioned phenomena nor is it able to be free of them. This is why this contemplation is called contemplation of the signless: because it is the opposite of the signs of solidity (permanence, stability, and eternity) in conditioned phenomena and because its object is free from these signs
of solidity in conditioned phenomena.
When contemplation of the signless, which is contemplation of imper-
manence, is well established, conditioned phenomena only appear by
means of the nature of their dissolution. As a result, one will rightly understand the signs of conditioned phenomena that previously appeared to be solid and lasting entities.

Here as to animittacetovimutti as fruition attainment of cessation (nirodhasamapatti) aka phalasamapatti.

Entering the attainment of fruition
Friend, there are two conditions for the attainment of the sign-
less deliverance of mind698: non-attention to all signs and atten-
tion to the signless element. These are the two conditions for
the attainment of the signless deliverance of mind.699
The procedure for entering the state of attainment of fruition is as follows:
A noble disciple who seeks to attain fruition retreats to a solitary
place and observes conditioned phenomena. Beginning from
knowledge of arising and passing away, one should develop the
various insights until the change-of-lineage that takes a condi-
tioned phenomenon as its object arises. Immediately afterward,
one’s mind will enter the state of cessation [of conditioned phe-
nomena] in the form of the attainment of fruition. In this case,
only the fruition consciousness arises, rather than a new path
consciousness, even if one is still a trainee, [that is, one who has
attained one of the first three stages of enlightenment]. This is
because the mind has previously determined to enter the attain-
ment of fruition.700
Note that the Visuddhimagga here refers to the [peak] insight that takes a conditioned phenomenon as its object as “change-of-lineage.” This is based on the description given in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. However, this
insight is called “insight knowledge of adaptation” in the Paṭṭhāna [and is
referred to by that name in this book].
Based on the above passage, understand that a noble person begins his
or her insight practice from insight knowledge of arising and passing away.
That is, if a noble disciple practices insight, he or she is immediately able to see phenomena arising and passing away. Thus in order to enter the attainment of fruition, one is able to develop the sequence of insight knowledges quite rapidly, quickly moving from insight knowledge of arising and pass-
ing away to insight knowledge of equanimity toward phenomena in due
course. If the noble one has previously made the determination to become absorbed in fruition, and his or her insight knowledge of equanimity
toward phenomena is mature, it is then followed by the insight knowledge
of adaptation that leads directly to the cessation of the conditioned phe-
nomena that she or he has been observing.

As you can see according to the classical commentary tradition the nirodha attainment is the signless samadhi.
Afaik, when spoken of as a cessation-extinguishment attainment it is said that one surmounts the other ayatanas (eg the base of neither perception nor non- perception) whereas when spoken of as the signless release it is said that one ignores the other ayatanas, that is the only difference.

I will analyse two discourses, the maha & cula sunnata suttas
https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato
I will also add some excerpts from udana 9.x, a verse appearing in khajjaniya sutta, and an excerpt from mn43

But there is this dwelling discovered by the Tathagata where, not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in internal emptiness. If, while he is dwelling there by means of this dwelling, he is visited by monks, nuns, lay men, lay women, kings, royal ministers, sectarians & their disciples, then — with his mind bent on seclusion, tending toward seclusion, inclined toward seclusion, aiming at seclusion, relishing renunciation, having destroyed those qualities that are the basis for mental fermentation — he converses with them only as much as is necessary for them to take their leave

As i see it, the meaning here is that by means of not attending to themes [attaining cessation of perception & feeling as a turning the mind to the deathless property aka destruction of taints] Tathagata has entered into & remains in internal emptiness which is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance, iow attained nibbana with residue, arahantship, the foremost unprovoked release.

Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart. Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that signless immersion of the heart. They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of the dimension of nothingness or the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of nothingness. It is empty of the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

Note that Buddha doesn't say "There is only dukkha of the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart". Why is that? Because signless release is a release from all dukkha as it is attained in dependence on the signless truth & reality, namely the unmade and nothing else;

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned."

The escape from that [from the conditioned],
the peaceful, beyond reasoning [ineffable?],
Constant, The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states associated with suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.

Is the signless element the same thing as the signless samadhi? No, signless samadhi refers to entering into & emerging from samadhi in dependence on the signless base, whereas the signless element is that unmade base in dependence on which one is absorbed. If there was no signless truth & reality then there would be no attainment of samadhi based on it.

"And to the monk whose mind is thus released, the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don't know even what
dependent on which
you're absorbed.'"

“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are two conditions, your reverence, for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless: paying no attention to any signs, and paying attention to the signless realm. These, your reverence, are the two conditions for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless.”
“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are three conditions, your reverence, for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless: paying no attention to any signs, and paying attention to the signless realm, and a preceding preparation. These, your reverence, are the three conditions for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless.”
“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for emergence from the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are the two conditions, your reverence, for emerging from the freedom of mind that is signless: paying attention to all signs, and not paying attention to the signless realm. These, your reverence, are the two conditions for emergence from the freedom of mind that is signless.”

This is akin to turning the mind away from form, consciousness  feeling, perception, sankhara and towards the deathless element.

Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart. Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that signless immersion of the heart. They understand: ‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by sankhara and intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by sankhara and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

Note the entering into & emerging from the samadhi & the samadhi faculty are sankhara, these states are fabricated & willed whereas that in dependence on which one enters into & emerges is not sankhara.

Note that it ought not be said that one enters into the unmade because the unmade is the ayatana wherein there is no coming nor going, neither a here nor there, therefore it ought to be said that one enters samadhi.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say * there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising*. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Is the signless samadhi the same thing as 'cessation of perception & feeling"? No, and neither is 'the samadhi based on the cessation of perception & feeling' the same thing as 'the cessation-principle [of perception & feeling]'.

Is the signless property the same thing as the nirodha property in sannavedananirodha? Yes it is the same principle truth & reality by which an escape from the conditioned is discerned.

Is sannavedananirodhasamadhi the same thing as animittosamadhi? Yes, the difference in name emphasises different aspect of the same truth & reality.

Perception is 'perception of something', it is conjoined with feeling born of contact and always has an object which is the sign produced by attention. Cessation of perception is therefore a cessation of contact and is thus signless.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

That's how i understand it.
I am not fully sold on the commentary take on kamabhu sutta, it isn't clear that one doesn't apprehend all three characteristics

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.[3]
[3]Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

As i understand it contact is then at the mind base and the objects of ideation are the signless, emptiness, undirected, but it is not merely the ideas of it that are apprehended, it is the knowledge &  vision of release which is possesed only by those who have attained it.

Your parts have a very Visuddhimagga prose.


text:
Buddhist deities that help transmute bad qualities into good ones
I remember reading many years ago about Buddhist deities who help their devotees transmute their bad qualities into good ones.
In particular, I remember reading that one of the Buddhas (possibly the Amitabha Buddha) helps transform envy into achievement.
Is there any Buddhist literature/practice on these lines?


text:
Different approaches to Metta Meditation
I'm interested in learning more about Metta Meditation, and wondering if there are different approaches to this style of meditation.
I understand that the history of this practice is quite long, and it would be difficult to be comprehensive, but for the sake of brevity an answer could include only broad differences in approach. Or is there generally only one style of practice?

I am not so knowledgeable about answering this question. My impression is, at least the Pali Suttas, do not contain many approaches to metta meditation.
Some basic Pali Sutta passages about metta, in increasing detail, are:

Meditate on love. For when you meditate on love any ill will will be given up.
MN 62

Seeing that the hindrances have been given up in them, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed.They meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
DN 13

Karaniya Metta Sutta

In Theravada Buddhism, Chapter IX (page 291) the Visuddhimagga is a popular manual.

Here's Buddhas instruction on how to be complete in Metta meditation.

"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is
cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis,
given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven
benefits can be expected." -- Metta Sutta

We cultivate good will. The easiest way to cultivate and develop metta is by chanting a mantra. The Karanya Metta Sutta contains a Pali verse which signifies the essence of metta.

sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā
May all beings be happy at heart.

This is the Pali mantra. Best time to chant the mantra is early morning when we are fresh. If you do this you will establish a base consciousness of good will that will be there for the rest of the day (if you don't do actions that go against good will).
The development of metta requires time and energy and a favorable environment. The best is association of bona fide monks who practice metta.


text:
How was oration performed in ancient times?
I've been trying to find some information on oratory practices in ancient times. Strangely, I am not finding much. What technique(s) were used?
It's hard to imagine the Buddha raising his voice to address large crowds, but maybe I'm just projecting. Maybe he could really holler. Did they rely on echo, repeating at intervals, hand gestures, a loud person, etc.?

At one time the Blessed One was living near the city of Gayā, on
Gayāsīse, together with a thousand monks. There the Blessed One asked
the monks:

Translated suttas talk of a "roar" in an assembly -- maybe that's metaphorical but maybe not entirely.
I think of a crowd of 500 as being large. Maybe with that many you choose a suitable venue (unlike other suttas which are dialogs with a just a few people). The acoustics of the place could be important. The Ancient Greek Theatre of Epidaurus has famously good acoustics and seats 14,000 -- so 500 is plausible.
500 seated one per square metre is a semi-circle with a radius of 20 metres. I think that being heard at that distance is just raising your voice, talking loudly, not even shouting.
This paper claims that the number of people who could hear speeches at the forum at Rome would be between 400 and 1400 -- standing -- depending on how noisy the crowd was:

The Acoustics of Contiones, or How Many
Romans Could Have Heard Speakers

I think that (the Roman forum) is bad acoustics, with stone walls echoing. So an open-air speech might be easier than that.


text:
Stress and suffering felt when I touch the right frontal lobe of my forehead
I was wondering if this could be scientific or dhamma proof of the eminence of suffering coming from a physical and mental root. If you touch and rub the front right part of your forehead you can feel the dukkha or suffering from rubbing it. You will even feel a residual paste on your skin that contains stress and suffering.
What is this and do other people experience this? Is this actual physical scientific proof of suffering and Buddhism?

I don't think everyone experiences that. Please consult a medical doctor.

Two months too late.

No, that is your attachment. If you weren't attached to your body you can even self immolate yourself bearing all pain like the monk Thich Quang Duc. The key is to not give a  about anything including the body.

In Buddhism, the word 'dukkha' is used in three different ways, having three different meanings:

Dukkha-vedana; meaning painful, unpleasant or uncomfortable sensations/feelings.
Dukkha-lakkhana; meaning the unsatisfactory/unpleasurable characteristic of impermanent things
Pancupadanakhandha-dukkha; meaning the suffering or stressfulness of egoistic attachment towards the five aggregates

The only 'dukkha' Buddhist enlightenment ends is the 3rd type of dukkha above; which is the dukkha of egoistic attachment.
The residual discomfort of touching the forehead is the unpleasant feeling sensation of the 1st type of dukkha. Eradicating this type of dukkha is not the purpose of Buddhism and not the type of dukkha to be "fully understood", "verified" or "known for certain" ("pariññāta").
When SN 56.11 says dukkha is to be fully understood, this refers to the 3rd type of dukkha:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging [attachment] are
suffering... This noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood
(pariññāta).

if one is no longer attached to worldly things wouldn't the dukkha associated with their impermanent characteristic also end?

No because dukkha here means something cannot bring lasting happiness. Dukkha here is not a state of mind but is an inherent characteristic of all conditioned things, such as a rock or tree. If you are unenlightened, food cannot bring lasting happiness because if you keep eating food you will get bloated & vomit, such as in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_z_mnSSmQg

Therefore when a person is enlightened, everything they experience (except Nibbana) is impermanent, unsatisfactory (dukkha) & non-self. When a person is not enlightened, they cannot see the dukkha in all conditioned things.  They think the most beautiful woman in the world, a luxury home or a luxury can bring them happiness. But when a person is enlightened they see the dukkha in conditioned things. They understand there is nothing in a luxury car than can bring happiness. The dukkha is in the luxury car. It is like a rock. There is nothing in a rock than can supply the nutriments for life.

ok fine. but this super-seeing must be felt to some extent.  so compassion is like small dukkha.  also, are you implying that nirvana is being turned off and on?

The super-seeing results in disenchantment & dispassion, per the suttas (SN 22.59) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html). Nibbana is not a state without vedana (feelings; Iti 44 https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland?reference=none&highlight=false). Nirvana is not being turned on & off. Best to study more. Kind regards

thanks for your input.  not sure, but i think it is wrong to say the arhant experiences 3 marks. they experience nirvana

+1 for your answer, and nice video in example in the comments. Lol. The first two dukkhas come from there being a body. The third dukkha comes from mind (aggregates), however, the perception of physical pain can change, but it's still painful.

@Max dukkha is dukkha.  the maya dukkha is the what buddha is fixing

@blue_ego it is 100% wrong to think it is wrong to say the arhant experiences 3 marks. The suttas say in many places it is experiencing the 3 marks that causes arahantship.


text:
what is the cause for coincidence?
Is the world itself intelligent?  They say everything happens for a reason. Coincidences are prevalent. Is nothing private?  The world seems godless but there are all these hints.  Perhaps the human has created a way for this to occur.  Is it magic? are coincidences a corruption of insight?  what does Buddhism have to say about this?
example of coincidence per request:
two customers in a pizza shop:
the first customer says to the cashier while paying, "get your tips". the next customer in line does tip on his order and although he overhead the previous customer's comment, he did not notice the first customer giving tip. finding it slightly strange, since he was already planning on giving a tip.  a strange feeling overcame the customer and cashier as he leaves the shop.
example 2:
is it not a coincidence that Buddha sculpture made from stone is like the real ones, like very still and stuff?

Seems like you're making more out of things than what they are. There's only seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking and that's it. So whatever you experience is just one of those experiences (except for Nibbana ofc). Seems like what you're doing is extrapolating and proliferating. Just be mindful of such mental activity so you don't get swept away.

Coincidence and noting coincidence is mental proliferation and conceptualization, papanca.
Also, please read "What is papañca?"

“Venerables, dependent on the existence of an eye and a visible
object, eye-consciousness arises. The combination of the three is
sense-contact. Because of sense-contact, there is feeling. What one
feels, one identifies; what one identifies, one thinks about; what one
thinks about, one proliferates about; what one proliferates about,
with that as its source, identification and conceptualization based on
proliferation beset a man in regard to visible objects cognizable by
the eye in the past, present, and future.
MN 18

There are a billion things happening at the same time, but you only notice the things that are important or interesting to you.
Ven. Thanissaro explains that in his footnote to Snp 4.14:

The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of these
classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a set of
distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought;
identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and
physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms
a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine
these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they
are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that
we would be better off to be able to drop them.

related post: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41084/the-meaning-concept-of-ma%C3%B1%C3%B1assav%C4%81-dhatu-vibhanga-sutta-mn-140

Synchronicities are mainly a side effect of practice - no different than getting gas after eating a bowl of beans.  While the practice itself is nourishing, the other stuff that comes up is really just a load of hot air.
When you are practicing effectively, establishing mindfulness, and keeping the mind collected, you are just going to notice more.  This is inevitable.  Unfortunately, the mind naturally tries to construe relationships where none exist.  As more and more data becomes available, the extent of these relational structures and depth of these emergent narratives only grows.  Suddenly we're seeing Jesus in every pancake and Bill Gates' handy work in every jet contrail attempt to sterilize humanity.  Sometimes data is a just data.  The only reason they seem to be related is that we habitually organize them into intelligible structures.
There are also other phenomenon responsible for the experience of coincidence.
Buddhist practice is about breaking down the mind and building it back up.  Solve et coagula.  Jhana and insight. I remember sitting one day after a seven day sesshin and noticing that that my heater was having a conversation with the chainsaw someone was using down the road.  Obviously not true, but in the state of openness that follows a lengthy retreat, normal linear structures begin to break down and we might begin to piece the world back together in ways that don't quite make sense or follow conventional orderings of cause and effect.  It's one of the many dangers of deep meditative states (and psychedelics for that matter).
So, nothing to see here.  But if you happen to figure out how to use the 1973 Chicago phonebook to predict the outcome of professional baseball games, let me know.  I'm SURE there's a way to do it!

i burned the last copy of 1973 phonebook. long live the purity of baseball

In secular ideology, it is called 'probability'.
Buddhism (SN 14.15) says beings of similar dispositions come together and converge because of an element (dhatu).