text:
Find Sutta: eat first before hearing the teaching
Trying to find the Sutta where Buddha says for some person who has come to hear him teaching something like give him to eat first, and then he can hear my teaching. There was some setup I dont remember, where it is mentioned he didnt eat / was hungry. Anyone remember which Sutta this is?

There's the hungry peasant the Buddha walked 48km in one day especially to teach [Dh.A.III.262].
The story is at the bottom of this page: https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/becono5.html

Where is the sutta from? In the link you sent it says "[Dh.A.III.262]". I looked in the Dhammapada verse 262 but it's about something else. So where is this story found in the Sutta pitaka?

@DaydreamCastle It seems to be Dhammapada 203. Also here.

@Ruben2020. Thank you kindly:)

There is an interesting sutta SN1.20 where a spirit advises a monk to eat first (i.e., satisfy sensual pleasures first):

SN1.20:2.3: But you should eat first, then seek alms:
SN1.20:2.3: But you should eat first, then seek alms:
SN1.20:2.4: don’t let the time pass you by.”

The monk protests:

SN1.20:3.1: “I actually don’t know the time;
SN1.20:3.2: it’s hidden and unseen.
SN1.20:3.3: That’s why I seek alms before eating,
SN1.20:3.4: so that the time may not pass me by!”

To settle this issue, the two seek the Buddha for advice and he replies:

SN1.20:25.1: “Judging is given up, conceit rejected;
SN1.20:25.2: craving for name and form is cut off right here.
SN1.20:25.3: They’ve cut the ties, untroubled, with no need for hope.
SN1.20:25.4: Though gods and humans search for them
SN1.20:25.5: in this world and the world beyond,  they never find them,
SN1.20:25.6: not in heaven nor in any abode.
SN1.20:26.1: Tell me if you understand, spirit.”

The spirit finally understands from this that eating first is simply pursuing sensual pleasure, which is painful and pointless.

SN1.20:28.1: You should never do anything bad
SN1.20:28.2: by speech or mind or body in all the world.
SN1.20:28.3: Having given up sensual pleasures,  mindful and aware,
SN1.20:28.4: you shouldn’t keep doing what’s painful and pointless.”

NOTE: The relationship between transient pleasure and pain is explained in another sutta by Ven. Dhammadinnā:

MN44:24.2: “Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it perishes.

Taking these two suttas together, we can understand that chasing pleasures is pointless because it results in pain with the inevitable passing of each craved pleasure. We are, however, sustained by food, so there is no point in starving, either.

SN46.2:7.1: This body is sustained by food. It depends on food to continue, and without food it doesn’t continue.


text:
Sutta request: One should be fed before being able to listen to a Dhamma talk
The following quote can be found at this link:

On the farmer's arrival the Buddha ordered that some food should be given him, and when the man was comforted and his mind was ready the Buddha preached a sermon, at the end of which the man became a Sotāpanna (DhA.iii.262-3).

I'm interested in finding out what "DhA.iii.262-3" means. I looked up the Dhammapada Verse 262-263 and they are about something else entirely. Screenshot of these verses are attached.
So where is the above story found in the Sutta Pitaka?

The next line says,

On another occasion the Buddha came all the way from Jetavana to ālavī for the sake of a weaver's daughter. (For the story see DhA.iii.170f).

The story of the Weaver's daughter is on Access to Insight on a page titled:

Buddhist Stories from the Dhammapada Commentary
Part II
translated from the Pali by
E.W. Burlingame

So the "DhA" may be that, i.e. not the Dhammapada but rather Buddhaghosa's commentary.
"DhA.iii" is presumably Part 3 of 4 -- but different publishers or translators have different ways to number volumes, but anyway, I assume it's from that commentary:

In the fifth century the great Pali scholar-monk Buddhaghosa wrote an extensive commentary to the much-beloved Dhammapada. His commentary provides background stories that set the stage for each brief verse, giving them an expansive context that greatly enriches their meaning. The present booklet is the second in a four-part anthology.

This comment indicates it's the story to accompany verse 203.

Thank you so much.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Looking for Dhammapada in Ebook format
I'm looking for a collection of the entire Dhammapada in Ebook format (not PDF-format) that can be read in the Kindle App. Free or paid.
I've been looking myself without finding anything. Maybe someone else has better luck than me. The book has to contain all Dhammapada verses.
Thanks.

Try these ones, mate!

Related: Freely available translations of the Dhammapada

Thank you guys:)

Here are three different free ebook with quality translations. Two are offered with English-Pali in addition to just English.

Dhammapada: The Buddha’s Path of Wisdom, Translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita, Kindle, Epub, PDF, MP3

Dhammapada: Translated by Ven. Narada, PDF, Kindle, Epub

Ebook Translations by Bhikkhu Sujato in Epub, Kindle, PDF

Thank you so much.

Here are three more:

Anandajoti Bhikkhu's translation of Dhammapada - epub, MOBI and PDF, includes Pali text
Buddhist Legends, translated by E. W. Burlingame - in epub, MOBI - complete stories of the Dhammapada
Dhammapada translated by Max Müller, MOBI and epub

Thank you so much.

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


text:
The invariant law of nature which forms the basis of Buddha's Dharma and existence of universe itself
I am rereading this answer and I am confused by the quote:

when this exists - that exists. Arising of this leads to arising of that. When this doesn't exist - that doesn't exist. Cessation of this leads to cessation of that.

Let's suppose this is true, and let's consider an event X. By the statement, we should be able to find an event Y which caused X. Similarly for Y till ad infinitum. I think it is reasonable to assume that if we have a set of events in the present X_1,X_2,X_3..., when we repeat this process , all of their "root events" will start to become the same because things happen in context of each other.
For example, I give my friend 5 dollars, then I also lose 5 dollars, now going back a step would go into the event of how the thought of me giving my friend 5 dollars came into our mind or my mind.
Now, we apply extrapolate this idea through all events in the present, then it would be that they're all rooted at a very small set of events. And if one is to yet to apply the claim again, it maybe that all these events are caused by the same event.
So, what would be these fundamental events which led the universe into motion according to buddhism?

"we should be able to" ... "I think it is reasonable to assume"  Preferences are activities / actions: be careful, be heedful. Arising of this leads to arising of that. Cessation of this leads to cessation of that.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=beginning+not+evident

After doing a long research, the independent scholar Jayarava, concludes that motivation behind Dependent Origination would not be to explain everything (including the physical and the mental world), but to give an account on how mental processes arise and cease. Here you can find his paper on it here (whether you agree with it or not is up to you): http://www.jayarava.org/writing/paticca-samuppada-theory-of-everything.pdf

As the Buddha explained many times, it's not 'Y => X', it's '(A,B,C,D..Q) => X'.
In other words, every individual phenomenon that we can call out and delineate in a spatiotemporal continuum of phenomena is a samskara (~bundle, assembly) of many, many, Many factors and conditions coming together at that time and in that place, them together forming or constituting that emergent phenomenon.
Removing or modifying just one of those factors affects the phenomenon in some way, and removing some of the necessary factors makes the phenomenon lose its shape entirely, to a point when we say the phenomenon no longer exists.
Of course, an individual phenomenon is a simplification, there are no boundaries drawn in space or in time, marking the phenomena for us. We draw these boundaries in our minds, based on our observations, generalizations, and conceptualizations.
In any case, your assumption that all phenomena must converge to a single God Phenomenon that started the spawning of all the other ones is just that, an assumption. If you take the '(A,B,C,D..Q) => X' model it's not at all evident that phenomena converge backwards to a fewer number of predecessors. In fact I'd say it's almost kinda clear they don't. Especially if you remember that phenomena are delineated by an observer and their delineation (and therefore their number!) depends on the scale and mode of observation.
Anyway, that statement about causality that Buddha made was not meant to explain the cosmology of the material universe. It was meant to be put to practice for improving one's karma, removing the causes of clashes and discords that we experience as sufferings, and attaining peace.
One part of that practice is accepting the inevitability of all assembled (conditioned) phenomena X eventually ceasing to be themselves when their constituent factors '(A,B,C,D..Q)' morph beyond their present arrangement.
Another famous application of the same principle is the Second Noble Truth which declares that suffering, just like all phenomena, emerges as a bundle of causes and conditions coming together and therefore (Third Noble Truth) can be made to disband by removing one or more of its necessary conditions.
Good question, thank you. And I really liked the song you linked in your profile. Check out this one: https://youtu.be/MTIzsTv1ENY

Thank you for the explanation :)

The Buddha taught that a first cause/an origin to the universe cannot be found so the question is not valid.

Wouldn't that be in contradicton with the invariant law theN?

No because it turns into pure speculation. The Buddha also taught that such questions are not possible to answer and will only agitate the mind. Please see this link on the teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya#Four_imponderables .

@TrystwithFreedom This answer is right. Please see AN 4.77 and SN 15.3.

There are no contradictions here; it is quite simple! As @Daydream Castle's simple answer illustrates!
The cause or origin of the universe cannot be found. It doesn't mean that the cause of form was nothing, nor does it mean the cause of form was something. At the level of concepts, it's not possible to 'work that out'.
What was the cause of your belly button fluff? Was it the clothes you wore? Or was it the shop from where you bought the clothes? Perhaps the cause of your belly button fluff was the makers of the clothes? Or the plant that grew the cotton from which the clothes were made? Maybe it was photosynthesis - the sun working in combination with the earth to help grow the cotton plant? What about the solar system and the intricate elliptical trajectories of the planets and the sun?
Everything is intimately connected in a way that cannot be encompassed by the mere vocabulary. There isn't an assembly of words that can reconcile with how everything 'seems' dependent on everything else.
So, the next time you pull out some belly button fluff, inspect it carefully and understand that it occurred in the most fascinating, intimate and all-encompassing way!

Ha ha, reducing cosmologic mysteries to a belly button fluff, absolutely love it. Wait no, it's not reducing cosmology, it's actually empowering a piece of fluff by saying that you could ask as many questions about its origin than anything else, big or small. Ho well, still love the analogy.


text:
Buddha saying he doesn't have to follow all the rules?
In which sutta does the Buddha state that he does not have to follow all the monastic rules and austerities closely because he is already liberated and free, as an arahant?
I remember reading this recently but I couldn't easily find it again.

It is not because he is liberated, but because there is no rule laid down for the Buddha by the Buddha.

In which sutta does the Buddha state that he does not have to follow all the monastic rules

I found it in Khuddakanikāya » Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā » Buddhavagga » Buddhaapadānavaṇṇanā.

and austerities

No mention about austerities.

because he is already liberated and free, as an arahant?

It is not because he has liberated, but because he is the Budhha. Therein the Buddha states that the Buddha is the commander of Bhikkhus and rules are only for the disciples.
Having known the Buddha has prohibited monks from showing supernatural powers, the Titthiyas spread the news that they are ready o show supernatural powers. Then the king Bimbisara took this message to the Buddha. Then the Buddha replied "I too, great king, will show the supernatural powers".
Then the king asked back "Hasn't a rule laid down by he Buddha prohibiting it?". Then the Buddha questioned him "When you lay down fines for the people who eat mangoes from your park, do you lay down fines for yourself too? The king replied "No bhante". "Likewise, great king, there is no rules laid down for me", the Buddha replied.
Since there is no any English translation available with me, I would quote the Pali passage.

Apadāna-aṭṭhakathā » Buddhaapadānavaṇṇanā
Tato titthiyā “Samaṇena kira gotamena sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ,
te jīvitahetupi taṃ nātikkamanti, mayaṃ iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ karissāmā”ti
tattha tattha rāsibhūtā kolāhalamakaṃsu. Atha rājā bimbisāro taṃ sutvā
bhagavato santikaṃ gantvā vanditvā ekamantaṃ nisinno
bhagavantamevamāha – “Titthiyā, bhante, ‘Iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ
karissāmā’ti ugghosentī”ti. “Ahampi, mahārāja, karissāmī”ti. “Nanu,
bhante, bhagavatā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññatta”nti. “tameva,
mahārāja, pucchissāmi, tavuyyāne ambaphalādīni khādantānaṃ ‘Ettako
daṇḍo’ti daṇḍaṃ ṭhapento tavāpi ekato katvā ṭhapesī”ti. “Na mayhaṃ,
bhante, daṇḍo”ti. “Evaṃ, mahārāja, na mayhaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ
atthī”ti. “Kattha, bhante, pāṭihāriyaṃ bhavissatī”ti? “Sāvatthiyā
samīpe kaṇḍambarukkhamūle, mahārājā”ti. “Sādhu, bhante, taṃ
passissāmā”ti. Tato titthiyā “Kaṇḍambarukkhamūle kira pāṭihāriyaṃ
bhavissatī”ti sutvā nagarassa sāmantā ambarukkhe chedāpesuṃ, nāgarā
mahāaṅgaṇaṭṭhāne mañcātimañcaṃ aṭṭādayo bandhiṃsu,
sakalajambudīpavāsino rāsibhūtā puratthimadisāyameva dvādasayojanāni
pharitvā aṭṭhaṃsu. Sesadisāsupi tadanurūpenākārena sannipatiṃsu.

It's in KN.Dh. commentary Devorohanavatthu (No translation but you can see this link). It's only  just for allowing the Budhha doing the Supernatural Power to laymen before teaching them to enlighten.
Normally, the Buddha is in rule like his monks according to DN1, DN2, etc., which is memorized by his long term follower, ven. Ananda. Ven. Ananda must say the other note in the commentary like in Devorohanavatthu if the Buddha play out off the rule. But is there is nothing like that. The only one is allowing the Buddha to the Supernatural Power to the public, which can help people to enlighten follow the Buddha teaching in some situation.

The buddha has said there is no rule laid down for the Buddha himself, in the Apadāna commentary.

@Blake It's like when you said "I have no rule of eating everyday" while you are eating everyday automatically. It's because the Buddha can live follow the rule naturally.

It might have been a misreading. It's right that Arahats have no more requirement to go after the training itself, yet they are of course "bound" to the rules. Nevertheless the Sublime urged them also to dwell "heedful" (within the eightfold path) as else would be burdensome for them.
There are also plenty teachings that Arahats do not abandon virtues, even if no more obligations at all.

The buddha has said there is no rule laid down for the Buddha himself, in the Apadāna commentary, but not just because he is free from defilements.

Sure. It was lesser objected toward the question then the underlying intention for gaining reasoning of thinking wrong. And what does he thinks was the motivation of commenting? He wouldn't see through the net...


text:
Ven. Ajahn Chah's Teachings on Meditation practice as a westerner
For a long time I have wanted to ordain and I might be able to do it in 2-3 years from now. I read that as a westerner one can ordain in the Ven. Ajahn Chah tradition in Thailand. He went to great extends to create a monastery where especially westerners, non-thai speakers could ordain and learn the Dhamma.
My question is what kind of Meditation practice is being taught?

It appears that some teachers and traditions are more focused on samatha and jhana like Pa Auk Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Chah's disciple, Ajahn Brahm.
And then there are other teachers and traditions that are more focused on vipassana like Mahasi Sayadaw, Ledi Sayadaw, Sayagyi U Ba Khin and his student S.N. Goenka, Ajahn Tong Sirimangalo and his disciple, Ajahn Yuttadhammo.
Samatha is cultivation of serenity, and vipassana is cultivation of insight.
Ultimately both are needed.
From a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah entitled "Unshakeable Peace":

Meditation is like a single stick of wood. Insight (vipassanā) is one
end of the stick and serenity (samatha) the other. If we pick it up,
does only one end come up or do both? When anyone picks up a stick
both ends rise together. Which part then is vipassanā, and which is
samatha? Where does one end and the other begin? They are both the
mind.

Thank you so much for this! Really appreciate it.


text:
Need help with ordination questions
I'm a westerner, non-thai speaker, age 37. I want to ordain in Asia (not in the West) and then stay there for 5 years with a preceptor and then either continue to stay there or move back to Europe and live as monk but the problem is that not many placese in Europe have monks living. Also where should one ordain in Sri Lanka or Thailand? I read about Ven. Ajahn Chah who made monasteries for westerners to ordain but where should one stay afterwards?
Can one live alone after the 5 years or more and how would a lonely monk survive in Europe?
Thank you.

First thing to look for is the observance of Descipline(sila) and View(ditthi), since they are the first factors in the Threefold-training and Noble-eghtfold-path respectively. They are the most important criteria while seeking a place to ordain.
One can look for other qualities next, such as austerity, meditation  etc.
There are places that supports meditation, ordination and forest-practice with renowned masters, yet many of them either weak in Vinaya or View, as described in the texts.
Investigating beforehand about the View-alignment and Vinaya-alignment of the teacher and monastery is a wise way to make a decision.
There are some links that I could find addressing these issues but there can be more on the internet if one is willing to investigate.

Where to Ordain? Vinaya Comparison of Monasteries
Where to Ordain? Philosophy Matching
Hard to find Classical-Vinaya Protecting Monasteries in Thailand

Thank you very much Blake.

This is the best place whole over the world for you to take maximum out of your time as you wish.  Go to this site and go to contact page. "Nissarna Wanaya - Rev. Uduiriyagama Dhammajiwa"
You may come with full of bags but after completing your period you may go like free bird with empty hand. You let go all carryings with you. Remove ego completely and be happy forever. This is in Sri Lanka.  Also you can find western people practising Vipassana Meditation. May triple Gem Bless you.

Dear Sanath, again dear friend, thank you so much for your reply. I will check out the link you sent. May you be well and happy and reach Nibbana soon. This place looks wonderful and incredibly wholesome and secluded.

My Pleasure and you are most welcome. Yes this is very good place for the people searching freedom of life.  Me too recently find this community and I felt I can share my knowledge of dhamma for the sake of other people those who seeking help to find the reality of this illusion.  May you be able to find freedom of your life soon.  May triple Gem Bless you!!!

Also, If you are coming to Sri lanka let me know I can guide you to the place until you meet Rev. Uduiriyagama Dhammajiwa Theru. Tehre is no problem about your food and logging they all are provided by the people to the temples in Sri Lanka.

Thank you so much for your kindness - I will definitely contact you if I come to SL. I just found this website with many books by Ven. Dhammajiva. I'm downloading them as we speak and have read in several of them. He speaks fluent English, Sinhala and Burmese and has translated for Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw and he's highly trained in both Samatha and Burmese Vipassana meditation techniques. What an amazingly accomplished being.

Here it is: https://www.vipassana.org/meditation/dhammajiva/index.html.

Yes exactly, that is why I recommend rather than wasting time for different aspects a person who is searching for the ultimate realities the for noble truths as far as I know this is the exact place. I have to emphasise one thing Master can do only 25% by directing you to the correct path rest 75% in our hand.  Everyday they have sessions for clear your questions and occurrences explaining that you faced while you are meditating which is very important.  We Called that "Kamatahan Shuddhiya".  Also,  it helps you to discuss your achievements and further improvements.  this guidance is important

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

"Can one live alone after the 5 years or more and how would a lonely monk survive in Europe?"
One worry about life and making a living isn't fit to leave dependency.
And leaving home requires to do so, not seeking another, or not willing to abound "western". And certain strange if thinking on returning, or?

Thank you Bhante.


text:
Becoming a monk and having to give up electronic devices
When becoming a monk one has to give up most worldly stuff. I have saved hundreds of Buddhist PDF files and on my Kindle app I have bought all of Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhis books (translations on the Pali canon) so I can use those when becoming a monk and having to learn and study the Dhamma. What if I purchase myself an iPad before becoming a monk - can I then use that iPad with my books after I become a monk? If not, then how should one get access to the Dhamma?

Evidently some monks have access to the internet, for example. But (I don't know) perhaps they don't own those devices as their own personal property.

Thanks ChrisW. Since there are still some years before I'm able to ordain I will just study the Tipitaka until then so I'm less reliant on this issue.

Lord Buddha's preachings have no time period. Those teachings can apply past present and future. Buddhism is a philosophy that needs to deal with consciousness. It has nothing to do with physical items.
Using Ipad or Phone or Laptop is totally a deal that you make with your consciousness. If you use them to learn Dhamma with the permission of your teacher there is no wrong.  But you get the permission from the teacher to learn buddhism and you start watching movies or songs or gossips then you are breaking rules.
Being honest to "Sila" and to your heart consciousness you can use them in a valuable way to the society. You use them for the purpose and keep them aside physically. Mentally totally give up the ownership that makes ego which is very harmful for your future activities.  so mentally let it go. its just another collection of Ultimate realities just like you me tables trees. It has Chitta - 01[89 or 121 in activities], Chaithisika - 52, and Matters - 28, which comprises 5 aggregates [ Rupa Updana Skandha, Vedana Upadana Skanda, Sagna Updana Skanda, Sankara Upadana Skanda, Vinnana Upadana Skanda ].
They are not permanent. keep on changing and decaying. As a translator of buddhist books i feel you understand what I mentioned here. In Sri Lanka monks can use those with the permission of the Master Teacher.
May Triple Gem Blessed You.

Dear Sanath, thank you so much for this answer. That is exactly what I needed. I will only use the ipad to study the Pitakas that I've bought on it and have in my Kindle app. Thank you for telling me about the permission from the head monk or preceptor. That is the info I was looking for. I hope I can ordain in 2-3 years from now. May you be well and happy.

Actually I forget to tell you one thing this is the rule if you are ordain under Theravada Buddhism Temple and this is practising in Sri Lanka.  Because I know few of my friends ordain and staying remotely in meditation Centers ["Yogashrama"] while learning Thripitaka.  Their Teachers allow them to use those after classes.  Because this is a real deal with our heart consciousness. To gain a profit for us not to anybody.  So as we need to be honest to ourselves not to anybody.  May Triple Gem Blessed You!!!

If your primary interest is in reading books, particularly electronically, then just stay a lay person.
If you want to become a monk, choose a monastery where you know the resources exist to learn the Dhamma. If they don't have those resources (either through the people there or through a library), then you should find a different place.

Whether gross physical or electronic, one going forth neither takes from households with him on the path, the more abstains taking and using from what's not personal given to him.
Good to abound the traded and also thieved Dhamma and receive Dhamma in proper ways by one's preceptor and ancestors of this tradition, and proper given, rightly obtained, good householder.

Is a monk allowed to take what someone offers them, for example a mobile phone? Or is such a thing perhaps given to a monastery and so available for monks there to use, but not possessed by any monk?

The iPad is gifted to myself by myself. So I can use it when I become a monk. Is that okay?

Good householder Chris, although one might be able to receive such, one should be clear not having easy possibilities to maintain, burden to carry and carry a broad desired danger (as others might like to get such) with one. Sure better to place such into a community possession and never carry such along.

Is it ok if one leaves home to take such with one as one going forth, householder Daydream? My person would give someone much space, who left for higher and took refuge and a preceptor, yet not willing to let go of his house and all the dirt in and around it. But certain common under just common, seeking to build their next home with the noble traditions shelter. If having ipad and traded Dhamma as refuge, why burden those with faith into the Gems, and the Gems?

Keys, contracts, debts, relations, faults, stores, maintaining connection to the world... (hardly ever get it clean and proper obtained) all such are signs of householder.

@user24130. Okay I understand. Thank you very much for the answers.

Thank you, Venerable, for answering.

Not at all. I lived in India as a Vedic monk and we had a dozen of most advanced computers and electronic devices for studying and distributing Dharma. We didn't feel the burden of having advanced electronic devices because the were properly utilized. Monks can benefit from technology and use it to advance in spiritual life.

Thank you very much for your answer dear friend.


text:
How to apply Eight-fold path[Aaryashtangika marga] to each virtue action as a Vipassana Meditation?
How to apply eight fold path to the wholesome act as meditation of three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa) of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), non-self (anattā) and unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha)?

Please make the scope smaller, as written this question covers (almost) all of Buddhism.

@Sanath  You might enjoy this essay by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu entitled "First Things First". It provides a good understanding of how the three marks of existence were originally intended to be understood and applied in dhamma practice.  https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/FirstThingsFirst/Section0007.html

Thank you Deane it also helpful one to learn first thing first.  I really wanted to know to achieve this understanding we need to follow the eightfold path. It should be practice in daily da today life activities.  I wanted to know how to apply eight fold path in meditaion and other activities.

THe question isnt asking what is the Noble eightfold path. It is asking "how to apply" and that also in the context of Vipassana Meditation. Thus, there are 2 differences and therefore not a du0plicate question.


text:
How can I become a monk in India?
I am a lay person and I am from India. I wish to become a monk.
Other option before me is to go in search of Truth and reinvent the wheel and find enlightenment myself. But there is no place to go. There are no forests which are not under government control. People are materialistic and they hardly give any value to me becoming a monk or to the state of affairs of the world. That leaves me with only one choice and that is to become a monk.
How can I become a monk?

Better to investigate Vinaya and Philosophy the monastery follows, beforehand.

This page provides an easy-to-read high level overview information on the Ordination Procedure in the Theravada Tradition.
For details regarding the ordination, including eligibility etc., please see the Theravada Vinaya section on Ordination, translated by Ven. Thanissaro.
Please contact the Maha Bodhi Society for more information on how to become ordained in the Theravada tradition in India. They have many branches in India - please see the diagram below.
You can also try the All India Bhikkhu Sangha.
There are also many Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in India, like Namdroling Monastery in Mysuru etc.

It is generally believed by the Vinaya monks that ordaining in India is not good. I think it is because the Vast Majority of Indian Monasteries doesn't follow Vinaya or of invented traditions that follow a different Dhamma.
In Buddhism, Re-inventing any new ideas (as truths) either by ordaining as a solitary Hermit or ordaining in an Invented Tradition considered faulty, since the Omniscient One has already revealed the Truths. There is nothing to be revealed by others. The Disciples are only needed to follow the guidance that the Buddha has laid down.
Anyway, you can find some advice on Where to Ordain in following links, if you are looking for other options in other countries.

Vinaya Comparison of Monasteries

Where to Ordain -American Buddhist Monk: Bhante Subhūti

Where to Ordain --philosophy matching - Dhamma Wheel

You must search for an enlightened person and take initiation from him. Then you follow and execute your guru's instructions for advancement in spiritual life. That's what monks do.

Which guru ? Any specifics ?

@DheerajVerma, go and search for your teacher. They are preaching online.

No need to say that finding enlightened person (if any) is at least very difficult. It is considered that they can be accurately identified only by the Omniscient Buddha.


text:
Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism?
Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism or is avoiding so called "heresies" enough to make sure you are not distorting, undermining etc., the dharma?
Take the idea of an afterlife.

Religious and spiritual traditions throughout history have explained that death is not the end of life but that some part of us, perhaps all of us, somehow carries on.

Buddhism is no exception to this. It is undeniable that the historical Buddha accepted the idea of rebirth. He spoke of rebirth and frequently described, sometimes in considerable detail, how actions committed in this life determine the form of existence in a future world. He also spoke of enlightenment in terms of how many times one must be reborn before one will be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Although there are instances in his discourses (the Kalamasutta, for example) where he says that the practice of dharma is meaningful, whether you believe in a hereafter or not, the overwhelming mass of evidence does not suggest that he held an agnostic position himself.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/rebirth-case-buddhist-agnosticism/
I personally believe that we do experience the karmic result of this life, and that the next life is impermanent, illusory, but for whatever reason (mostly that accounts of past lives don't convince me) I don't think anyone experiences full rebirth as a new life. This is not traditional Buddhism. But as far as I know it is still a form of Buddhism and not a heresy. This is not Ucchedavada or the Senika heresy, I think, despite seeming possibly like either.
To an extent, it doesn't matter at all if you're not part of a church or pushing your idiosyncratic beliefs down anyone's throat, but is it dangerous, for you or anyone else?

It is extremely unclear what you mean by "traditional" Buddhism. It is certainly very clear that Buddha himself spoke of past lifes and rebirths as next lives.

I'm confused hy what you mean, and think you are being overly rhetorical ("extremely unclear" to you?) and that's why. The Buddha talked about "future lives" which translates exactly as "next life". It is not the same life, but them the end of a piece of string or storm is not the same as its start @HomagetoManjushri

I mean that your use of the word "tradition" is very wide, in its scope and thus remains unclear what is that which you are referring to as 'traditional'

that kinda makes sense @HomagetoManjushri thanks for the reply. i'd hope there's enough conventional common sense on the site for me to understood by enough people to make sense to most. cheers

Understanding is always useful. However, we need to recognize that understanding is not permanent. Change is inevitable; growth is preferred. What we are so self-assured about now we will inevitable come to look at with a rueful smile. Or if we don't, we will have missed something crucial.
Traditional understanding is valuable because it gives us a scaffold on which true understanding can be built. Nothing can give us the dharma — we have to find it on our own — but traditional understanding sets the stage for it (as it were).
Traditional understanding is problematic because it leads us too easily into dogma. The dharma is a way of living, not a mere collection of teachings, but people (sad to say) want to be told what to do. It's a trap for the ego...
I'm secular: I don't hold to much of what Buddhist tradition says. But I also don't reject it, because I see a value in it (if not the value that traditionalists see). We have this moment in which to manifest enlightenment. There's no sense worrying about tomorrow, or next month, or next year, or next lifetime; that will all take care of itself, according to things beyond our reach and understanding. Try not to undermine the dharma now, and everything else will align itself.

We take refuge in the teachings, so it is important to know what they say:

MN117:5.1: And what is wrong view?
MN117:5.2: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Asserting "there's no afterlife." is simply wrong view. We put that wrong view aside and ask about right view.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?
MN117:6.2: Right view is twofold, I say.
MN117:6.3: There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:6.4: And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:7.1: And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:7.2: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

If the phrase "there is an afterlife" is uncomfortable to accept, simply consider that genes touch and join us all from generation to generation, from past to present.  Genes do very much influence our lives. So genes are a form of past life. Genes provide a form of afterlife in the literal sense "after this life". That fact alone aligns with Buddhist teaching and allows us to avoid worrying about other views traditional or not.
To take refuge in the teachings we have to study them and learn what they actually say.


text:
Plato's understanding of passion
What would Buddhists say in response to the statement by Plato in The Republic Book IV:

And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a
man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself,
and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle,
which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit is on
the side of his reason;

You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to be a
kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary; for in the
conflict of the soul, spirit (passion) is arrayed on the side of the
rational principle (reason).

I have some ideas but I would like some other opinions.  I'm primarily interested in the second paragraph, and not so much regarding the concept of soul.  Just to clear up my assumption, I equate reason to be the same as Buddhist concept of intellect.
It seems true, but is it just morality? Even morality is reason no?

While both speak of reason and intellect and wisdom and knowledge (and a host of other topics) they are all conceptualised very differently.
For Plato, reasoning is the highest and best and that which makes humans unique.
While reasoning is also held to be of importance by Buddhists, it is conceptualised not in terms of essential logic of is and is-not nor ontologically, which for Plato is a realm of forms (and this form is so very different from the forms used in Buddhist context) but rather as a relative and conventional form of thinking.
WHat are the consequences of having these differences? A very prominent difference is the following- Plato never goes onto explicitly talk about what is desire or what is wisdom except passing comments. And his dialogical reasoning is what one may call Platonic dialect. He certainly does not speak of compassion. This is not only about Republic, but in general about any of the other Platonic texts. Buddhists on the other hand, make compassion a core and have important distinctions in reasoning and wisdom, interms of characteristics and gradations of development.

isn't justice the highest and best for Plato?

Yes @blue_hefe. Justice is highest for Plato, when he is speaking about Society and how it is to be governed. For one, the way to get to justice is through reason. For another, when i said that I meant, not in the sphere of society, but in what makes humans unique and special. But also highest in regards of being over and above base instincts.


text:
Posture for meditation
Is cross-legged sitting better than chair sitting for meditation. If yes why ?
What is the reason to keep ur back straight during meditation?

Is cross-legged sitting better than chair sitting for meditation. If yes why ?

For a beginner, more important to be relaxed and comfortable, and chair is fine.
For more advanced, the energy flows better, jhana battery charges faster, if you can sit comfortably in cross leg posture.

What is the reason to keep ur back straight during meditation?

better energy flow and jhana battery charging.
If you stick with long term with meditation, you'll be able to verify for yourself.

what is jhana battery?

https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/index.html

what happens if you don't eat, don't sleep? If you don't charge your jhana battery, meditation is going to be like that. no energy, no force, no power.

Is cross-legged sitting better than chair sitting for meditation. If yes why ?
What is the reason to keep ur back straight during meditation?

No, if the leg lies on each other, but Yes, if each leg is on the floor.
The point is the weight and muscular.
The best balance of entire body weight is on laying-on-the-floor-legs sitting with straight back bones sitting (easier by the buttocks support, pillow, etc.)
It's good in both short and long term.
I've record this to explain what it looks like. I try to find the English version of this but it's not found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFVwYgk5E4Y

Keep your back straight so you realize you are too fat! Obviously it’s not the case for ppl with back problems but generally speaking a straight back is a straight line to heaven


text:
How Lord Buddha did sermon for the people who was long distance
If my memory is correct, Lord Buddha did a sermon for the long-distance people. It is mentioned that Lord Budha can do a sermon even for someone in another solar system. How is it possible? Because to travel sound to long-distance takes time(possibly years). Can someone give me an answer with references from Tripitaka?

I believe the Buddha is often said to have visitors, either celestial bodhisattvas or gods. either could be construed as visionary experiences, rather than aliens i mean. can't recall him ever leaving India, though it's sometimes said his buddha body manifests in other worlds.

No.
3 points:

Lord Buddha did not give any long-distance sermons.

Not all stories are to be taken literally.

I cannot give you any reference for something that did not happen.


text:
Can someone help me find where these suttas are from in the Tipitaka?
First text screenshot says MLD. 131. Where is that from?

Second text screenshot says M. 19. Where is that from?

Screenshots are taken from Ven. Dhammajivas book called Mahasi Insight Meditation.

The First one is from: BhaddekaRatta Sutta
The Second one is from: Maha Parinibbana Sutta
I have given you the links But you cannot find the Pali text in English.  I converted into sinhala and search with sinhala words and find the related English text for you.
Those two sutta's are little bit longer one's but worthwhile reading the whole context rather than the specific place to get the full idea. Also these links may helpful for you to understand many Buddhist text in English because it has Thripitaka converted to english.
May Triple Gem bless you.

Thank you very much dear Sanath. I really appreciate it.

You are most welcome my dear this is buddhism helping each other until achieve Nibbana.  My Triple Gem Bless you until you achieve your goals!!!


text:
Is it ok to become a monk?
I called All India Bhikkhu Sangha to know whether I can be trained as a monk… ? The person I called said that world has progressed a lot and it is not a wise thing to leave family behind. He said give up laziness and do your household chores. It is a sin to leave helpless family…
This has created a doubt in my mind whether I should strive to follow Buddha’s path or should I give up the path and lead a layman’s life ?
Is it ok become a monk ?

You'll get the answer easily, if you read the Story of Sudinna, in Parajikapali under the 1st Parajika. It describes how he got faith to ordain after listenning to a Dhamma sermon.

He probably wants you to be absolutely certain that becoming a monk is what you really want, without any room for alternative options.
Otherwise, you would simply end up wasting precious time without achieving neither the goals of the monastic life nor the goals of the householder life.

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.
Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.
Dhp 155-156

... so by such a simile do I speak about this person: he has missed out on
the enjoyments of a householder, yet he does not fulfil the purpose of
recluseship.
Iti 91

I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the
pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the
ascetic life.
SN 22.80

If you haven't read it already, the book "Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika would help you to avoid romanticizing life in Theravada monasteries, especially in Asia. However, at the same time, you should not let it discourage you, as there are bound to be a mix of good and bad experiences when it comes to monasteries and life in monasteries.

Ven. S. Dhammika was caught in guilty of destroying faith of people on Theravada, by presenting incorrect information in his book Broken Buddha. Apart from the many partial criticisms directed towards the Theravada by him, S. Dhammika says, "even venerable Buddhaghosa did not believed in his own work", by showing the "aspiration" mentioned in the Visuddhimagga-colophon. Later it was revealed that the Colophon was not written by venerable Buddhaghosa himself.  See: https://classicaltheravada.org/t/colophons-of-visuddhimagga-not-by-buddhaghosa-thera/97

Doubt is the greatest hindrance towards doing skillful things, and it's wise not to leave any room for doubt, either inwardly or outwardly.
Nothing helps oneself and others more than to go after the holy life and seek freedom and release from suffering, good householder.
Don't waste your time.

Actually you can still follow Buddha's path in your layman condition. I suggest you practice a weekend Vipassana or 10 day Vipassana. After that, apply what you learn in that retreat in everyday activities.

You can become sottapanna in a household life.
The main point here in what this person said to you will refer to what type of family you have. If you have an elderly and unwell parent or have a wife/husband and/or children then becoming an ordained member of the sangha is inappropriate.


text:
Source for bodhisattva transforming hell?
I vaguely remember reading how some bodhisattva out of compassion went to some hell and then transformed it into a pure land. Does anyone know that story? About which bodhisattva it is? And what's the source for it...

It's part of general conventional sense of 'bodhisattva' that they can choose to be reborn in hell, but I'm not sure about the "pure land" bit. Just don't know. Incidentally, I asked a Tendai priest, recently, if bodhisattvas suffer in hell. The answer is "no"

Found it, it's a story about Guanyin, the Chinese version of Avalokitesvara. The story says that she was a woman named Miaoshan, and when she died she went to hell (depending on the version either bc of some magic tiger, or because she took the bad karma of her executioner on herself), and there by her music or simply her presence she transformed it into a heaven. And then Yama kicked her out of the hell plane so that she doesn't totally destroy (/transform) it. It's mentioned on the wikipedia page from Guanyin.

If you are just talking about a bodhisattva which goes to hell and help sentient beings, that would be Bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha. I haven’t heard of a bodhisattva who transformed a hell into a pure land yet.


text:
Does it matter if there is rebirth?
And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years.  Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit.  These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives.  That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell.  The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted.  Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now?  If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush?  This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal.  And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives.  Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people.  “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices.  Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation.  Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.”   In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers.   Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism.  Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better.  Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin.  Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India.  Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life.  I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life.    However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question.  Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something?

It gave me immense joy to read that you are reading the suttras, the direct words of Buddha. As a suggestion from someone less than half your age, I suggest you check out Nalanda Diploma course offered by Tibet house, Delhi. It is a comprehensive course that introduces the buddhist philosophy very systematically. It may help you to reflect on such questions. It will most definitely help in your understanding of reading suttras.

Thank you!  I will check out the Nalanda Diploma course.

Am I missing something?
Maybe not.
When I first encountered this site I asked a question fairly similar to yours, about rebirth -- Is rebirth a delusional belief?
The POV of your question is that maybe the Buddha wasn't into the notion; mine was, that maybe Westerners don't understand it, or perhaps that Buddhists understand it to be "a parable for simple village folks" (you might like to read the answers there).
One of the suttas that I think of as characterizing the Buddha's attitude is, Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60). The Translator's Introduction there says,

If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife.

I've seen people on this site warn that a consequence of NOT believing in rebirth is that you/people might misbehave, thinking there's no consequence in the hereafter.
My personal view is that it's wrong or unsafe to deny Buddhist doctrine. Given that some people -- translators who have studied the suttas more thoroughly than I have -- say that it's undeniable that the Buddha taught rebirth, so I wouldn't want to say, "I disbelieve". I think that "disbelief" would be adopting a specific "view" -- which, may itself be a mistake given that there are warnings against grasping views, especially incorrectly.
Still I've seen various interpretations of it, e.g. that "rebirth" happens moment-to-moment; or that it refers to the arising of self-view.
I guess I don't think about it (i.e. the doctrine of rebirth) often; and when I do it seems to have the colour taken out of it when you consider what it means in the light of there being no self-view.
I agree it might have sometimes palliative appeal: which doesn't necessarily even make it factually wrong, e.g. when someone dying says "I will be reborn", meaning as someone/something different -- or referring to a dearly-departed loved one, "he or she will be reborn" -- then I'm not going to say they're wrong (only that the "I" seems to be slippery, situational, or not necessarily personal).
I agree it seems to have social consequences in Hinduism; and its telling Arjuna to kill is something I consider anathema, from a Buddhist context. There may be a "positive" side to that same coin though, for example I've heard a Brahmin say that as a Brahmin it's her duty to be educated -- she worked as a chemist or a doctor or something -- and to understand things like history and so on.
I'm not sure of your saying, incidentally, that the godless Buddhists were exterminated by the caliphs. I posted a different theory here (on another site), saying that Buddhism 'died out' more gradually and for economic reasons i.e. that they were no longer being supported by the laity.
Without wanting to be dismissive of it (the doctrine of rebirth) I agree it doesn't seem to be to be among the first or core teaching, e.g. from among the first three suttas (i.e. the wheel-turning, fire, and not-self suttas). I suspect people asked the Bhagavā about everything and every belief under the sun, including rebirth, let's just assume he had an enlightened view of that topic. And I think he wasn't entirely dismissive of it. So far as I know it remains a feature of mainstream Theravada, implicit in terms like "once-returner".

One more thing: I get the impression from the suttas that the fact of rebirth is meant to be seen (or was seen), not as "palliative" i.e. a comfort, but more like some threat or curse -- e.g. "birth is suffering, death is suffering" from the First Noble Truth. And therefore, escaping samsara (or "the round of rebirth") is a meant to be a powerful motive for practice.
However this (i.e. that rebirth is undesirable) might not be the commonly-held view of the common worldling or uneducated person.
Still I think that's canonically another reason why rebirth (and believing in rebirth) matters -- i.e. the recollection of death (and rebirth) should occasion some sense of urgency instead of complacency (is that known as "hair on fire" in Zen?) or Saṃvega in Pali; and dispassion or disenchantment (Pali nibbidā as mentioned in the Assusutta: Tears (SN 15.3).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  Your reasoning is pleasingly similar to my own.  Thank you for the references.  I address some other comments later.  Are you aware of the writing of Jorge Luis Borges, in particular his essays that address, Buddhism?  He also made a try a rewriting the Lords Prayer from a more contemporary perspective.

No? I only read Labyrinths, and that 45 years ago.

I am not at home right now & so I do not have access to an essay I was thinking of.  Here though is a link to an article on ResearchGate,  Borges, Buddhism and Cognitive Science, that may be of interest:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283855986_Borges_Buddhism_and_Cognitive_Science

If we want to eradicate or remove something first we should know and aware about the thing that we wanted to eradicate.
Similarly, Lord buddha taught us to remove or eradicate Sorrow, sadness, stress, whatever the things bring uncomfort bad feelings and keep us happy forever. For that we need to know what are the things that brings us unhappiness or sorrowfulness or mental and physical stress.  In Buddhism we called them in One word "Dukkha".
Not only that he understood through his Omniscience wisdom that people have continuous travelling all over the 31 levels [4 Hells, 6 Heavens, Earth, 20 Brahma lokas]  due to their own actions called "karma".  This journey is called "Samsara". Also, he told us most of the time we were in hells due to bad actions and very rare that we spend our samsara journey as human or Deve or Brahma. This is the kind of Dukka we called "Jathi". Rebirth happening but we did not know of those feelings in this life. Because of that again and again we are doing bad karma which creates our next birth most probably in hell.
That is why he just wanted to stop traveling of this journey and be free forever.
In Buddhism what we experiencing now as "Dukka" little differ than the dukkha we know normally.  This is the real explanation of Dukkha.

Birth is dukkha,
Aging is dukkha,
Death is dukkha;
Sorrow,
Lamentation,
Pain,
Grief,
Despair are dukkhas
Association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
Separation from the loved is dukkha
Not getting what is wanted is dukkha.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Buddha taught us to how can we overcome this agony and free for ever from this Dukkha.

For that he recommend us Four Noble truth with Eight fold Path.
Four Noble Truths are:

The Noble Truth of Suffering
The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering

If we take an example:
We can experience these truths, which lie at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings, through direct experience. They can be viewed as:

Diagnosis of an illness

Prognosis

Recovery

Medicine to cure the disease.
The first 2 truths deal with the way things are; the last 2 point the way to freedom from suffering.

The Noble Truth of Suffering

Besides “suffering,” other translations of the Pali word dukkha include unsatisfactoriness, dis-ease, and instability. All these words point to the fact that no conditioned phenomenon can provide true (lasting) happiness in our lives. The first step in a spiritual life is to look very closely and honestly at our experience of life and see that there is suffering. We tend to overlook or ignore or just blindly react to the unpleasant, so it continually haunts us. Yet although physical suffering is a natural aspect of our lives, we can learn to transcend mental suffering.

The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering

Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering.

The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering

The mind can be purified of all the mental defilements that cause suffering. Nibbana, the ultimate peace, has been compared to the extinction of a three-fold fire of lust, ill-will, and delusion. One who has realised cessation has great purity of heart, ocean-like compassion, and penetrating wisdom.

The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering

The Way leading to cessation contains a thorough and profound training of body, speech, and mind. Traditionally it’s outlined as the Noble Eightfold Path:

Right Understanding;
Right Intention;
Right Speech;
Right Action;
Right Livelihood;
Right Effort;
Right Mindfulness; and
Right Concentration.

On the level of morality (sila), the Path entails restraint and care in speech, action, and livelihood.
The concentration (samadhi) level requires constant effort to abandon the unwholesome and develop the wholesome, to increase mindfulness and clear comprehension of the mind-body process, and to develop mental calm and stability.
The wisdom (panna) level entails the abandonment of thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and cruelty; ultimately it penetrates the true nature of phenomena to see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality.
When all 8 factors of the Path come together in harmony to the point of maturity, suffering is transcended. In summary, the Four Noble Truths can be thought of as that which is to be (1) comprehended, (2) abandoned, (3) realized, and (4) developed.
This is the clear precise way to Nibbana.  All other context in Buddhism within this and explaining various ways to attain Nibbana. In other words for practising eight fold path Lord buddha taught us 40 activities we called them 4 meditation principles called :Sama Sathalis Karmasthana".  All Suttra's were the one's Buddha preached different People, Deva[Gods], Brahma[Supreme Gods], Bhikku[Monks] and etc.to achieved Nibbana.
You can refer these below links to learn more:

A path to Freedom
A theravada Library
The Great Higher Buddhism - Abhidhamma
The Forty Classic Meditation Objects
May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!!
May Triple Gem Bless you!!!

If we want freedom from suffering (nirvana) and infinite happiness (buddhahood),
then certainly it matters if there is rebirth or not.
In another sense, I can do something much more efficiently if I have comprehensive knowledge. Thus, it is relevant whether there is rebirth or not.
These are (just) 2 reasons why it the question of rebirth matters.
There is a collection of buddhavacanna (words of Buddha) titled "Jataka Tales". They are stories of BUddha's past lives.
Then one of the most important concepts in Buddhism is dependent origination (the 12 links). The way it is presented by Madhyamika school is that a single wheel (wheel of life a.k.a 12 links of dependent origination) require a minimum of 2 lives to be explained properly.
Then Acharya Dharmakirti presents an argument establishing the logical validity of past lives.
I have mentioned 3 facts which should serve to make you reconsider your statement that the Buddha says there is no past life or that it is a way [I am merely paraphrasing of course] of taking about living, as a survival thing.
My penultimate point will be about the problem of karma, as you have mentioned, in its 'psychological flaw'. I only mention here that while we are using the same word (a label, a referent) what AND how Buddhists and non-buddhists understand is quite different. (Not to of course ignore the similarities or much more importantly besmirch a great tradition such as it is).
The final point is with respect to the icocnic phrase of Marx "opiod of the masses". With all due respect to the briliant intellectual, and pragmatic, Marx (whom I admire as a thinker, irrespective of what ideas I agree or disagree with); his understanding of Buddhism is incorrect. 2 reasons should suffice to bring home the point. First, the end goal of Buddhism is liberation. Liberation from what? One of the answers to this what is bondage, freedom from illusion like world. Opiods do, very generally speaking, just the opposite. Second, the way Marx uses religion is much more in line with Abrahamic religions. Coneptually, buddhist does not fit into a categorization of a different conceptual scheme.
I hope this clarifies something.

what is Dharmakirti's argument for past lives? I am not familiar with it

@ You may find it very useful to refer to Dharmakiti's Pramanavarttika (Commentary on Valid Cognition), chapter 2 pramanasiddhi [Valid Knowledge] for its presentation.

If there's an EL translation, I likely already have and was unimpressed. But thanks

If you find Dharmakirti's arguments unimpressive, I do not have any better source. I only mentioned it because you mentioned you arent familiar with it.

i found a contemporary EL commentary on this https://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/rebirth.pdf which seems to be a refutation of materialism rather than proof of rebirth

The reference you have given is not a commentary on this. It is a scholarly article which ,ay/may not have been published. Commentaries are not just any articles "commenting" about a text. Further, the text by Hayes is Hayes' reading. Hayes is a good and reputable scholar. Bu this reference is his reading and not Dharmakirti's or Buddhists. As I mentioned, if you are interested in proof or rebirth, read Dharmakirti's proof in chapter 2 of Pramanavarttika along with a commentary (by Devendrabuddhi etc.)

I didn't use the sanskrit word, please don't be pedantic about it

I used the title of the book by Dharmakirti. Even if I were to use a Sanskrit word, that does not make it pedantic. I am merely mentioning the name of the book I am referencing as per your question.

ah ok sorry i misread what you said!

Its perfectly alright. Happens to me also. I hope you get access to Dharmakirti's argument supplemented with a commentary by either Devendrabudhi or Sakyabuddhi. I sincerely hope you find it useful.

Karma (by its nature) is cyclic and repetitive. Think of it like waves: the momentum of a crest creates a fall and produces a trough; the momentum of a trough creates a rise and produces a crest. Is it the same crest?
Hmph.
The eponymous self is a collection of forms — physical forms, emotional forms, mental forms — and these forms all have their own momentum. At any given moment they might seem like something solid and immutable, but that's just a trick of the thinking mind, the way we see a wave roll across the ocean without considering that the water barely moves at all. So if all the forms of this eponymous self fall apart and come together again, what is that? A body breathes in and a body breathes out; is it the same body? A self goes to sleep at night and a self wakes in the morning; is it the same self?
Again, hmph.
We think too much about existences and not enough about momentums. What cycles are producing us? What are we setting in motion? What will be reproduced in our wake? Liberation is all about momentum: about seeing it and guiding it and stilling it.

TL;DR
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see this answer.
Long answer
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father,
no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
wrong view.
MN 117

Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
MN 117

Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor (Iti 100) who treats the illness which is suffering (dukkha). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
.....
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN 117

How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in MN 38 and SN 22.85.
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.

“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”
MN 38

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
SN 22.85

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
Ud 1.10

I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth.

On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his Handful of Leaves teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove).

The following is a response to this answer which contains major mistakes with the interpretation of MN 117.
Denying everything is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.

“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and  the other world.’ This is wrong view.
MN 117

Then there is right view affected by the taints.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
MN 117
Finally, there is right view:

And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
MN 117

The major fault of right view affected by the taints is that one so affected believes that all of these are real and actual:

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is really and actually what is given and really and actually what is offered and really and actually what is sacrificed; there is really and actually fruit and really and actually the result of good and bad actions; there is really and actually this world and really and actually the other world; there is really and actually mother and father; there are really and actually beings who are reborn spontaneously; there really and actually are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and really and actually declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.

The key to understanding 'right view without effluents' is to understand it is situated in the middle between 'wrong view' that denies everything and 'right view affected by the taints.' That is why it is so subtle and hard to see.
'Right view without effluents' understands with wisdom that none of the things listed in 'right view affected by the taints' is real and actual yet nevertheless does not deny them altogether like 'wrong view' does.
The wisdom understanding 'right view without effluents' is illustrated by Bhikkhuni Vajira:
“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

It is a major fault to deny the conventional existence of this world, of the next world, of no fruit or result of good and bad actions, of no mother and father, of no beings who are reborn spontaneously, of no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.
If you deny the conventional existence of these things you fall back to wrong view as conventional existence is what separates right view from wrong view.

Related: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49569/to-what-extent-does-right-view-deny-mother-and-father


text:
If that which is aware of fear is not fearful then isn't that which is aware of happiness not happy?
It seems clear to me that that which is aware of sadness, anger, or anxiety is not sad, angry, or anxious. But shouldn't this work the other way as well? Wouldn't this mean that that which is aware of happiness or joy is not happy or joyful? It feels like by this logic that mindfulness, when applied to positive states, nullifies them or diminishes them and that one wouldn't want to do this. If mindfulness diminishes the power of negative emotions wouldn't it diminish the power of positive ones as well? I'm not sure how this is desirable. What exactly am I missing?

The comment associated with the comment helps to clarify what the author was trying to say, i.e. -- Changed "if one is aware" to "that which is aware" to emphasize the idea that it isn't the content of consciousness, the sadness or fear which disappears, but the awareness itself which is undisturbed by the content.

You are correct in one part and making a faulty assumption in another.
You are correct that observing mental/emotional states with a kind of scientific detachment puts the subjective point of view in a position where pain gets less painful and exaltation gets less exalted. Buddha mentions this method in the suttas.
At the same time you make a faulty assumption that your idea of happiness is an obviously desirable state. This is perfectly expected as most people have never really thought about and don't have a clear definition of what it means to be happy.
Buddhism differentiates between a worldly kind of happy states - joy, comfort, pride etc. coming from achieving success, wealth, fame, etc. on one hand - and "spiritual" happy states (jhanas and their more casual precursors) on the other.
Now, what are these "spiritual" happy states? In Buddhist definition they are all approximations of Nirvana. "Approximations" in the sense that they are of the same essence as Nirvana, just not as complete and refined.
I don't want to get too philosophical with the subject of Nirvana here. Let's just say for the purposes of this discussion Nirvana is like an infinitely refined and perfect Peace. The technical term for this groundless boundless super-peace is "suchness" (tathata). Which clarifies the "spiritual" happy states as various approximations of the super-peace.
Now we have all the concepts we need to answer your question. If you contemplate your mental states with detachment, resulting in the worldly states fading out and ceasing to be, whether they are unhappy states or happy states, the remaining residual will be some kind of partially-peaceful state gradually approaching the super-peace of Nirvana.
To a worldly-oriented person this probably sounds scary or sad: "oh my god, I'm giving up happy states". But for a practitioner of dharma this is perfectly rational and logical: by definition all states except Nirvana have an element of "this thing over here is not perfect, i wish it were different" in them, and certainly worldly happy states are full of such bitter elements, especially after the first wave of exaltation is over. So why wouldn't I want to contemplate my worldly happiness (and even an intermediate "spiritual" happy state!) with a detached mind, knowing that the resulting state will be more satisfactory due to having fewer inner contradictions in it!
To put it simply, why would I cherish a turbulent, fleeting, partially imperfect instance of worldly happiness that won't last anyway -- if, exactly by giving that up, I can open myself to the perfect non-fleeting super-peace.

To answer your heading question:
"that which is aware ..." Here, (1) 'that' which is aware is awareness, awareness of mental states. (2) 'What' it is aware of are mental states (for example, fear). Awareness of fear is neither the same as, awareness in general, nor the mental state of fear.
Awareness is not what negates or nullifies the anger or anxiety or any other negative mental state. It is required of course. But some thing other than mere awareness is required to nullify a negativity- That is the analytic side. That is only possible when awareness is established. (In the analytical reaosning, seeing phenomenon as empty of self does this diminishing and in the analytical meditation (vipassana) the establishing of equanimity over vedana does this).
When negative mental states are thus analysed in meditation, then by the very nature of them they get nullified. But the nature of positive mental states isnt the same. (Hence also why they are categorised as positive or negative). The removal of negative defilements also increases the positive states.
Being aware of this does not diminish happiness or joy because one, awareness does not diminish them, and two, it is not in the nature of happiness or joy to be either diminished by the mere awareness. Then the analytic meditation also does not diminish them. It in fact enhances them even further.


text:
How do we know 'Buddha says?'
I think I correctly assume this Buddhism site is (appropriately)  open to many, if not all,  forms of Buddhism(?)  However, when folks say things like “Buddha said” I often wonder what to make of this.  Are there recommended well-researched references materials (hopefully, with relatively little ax-to-grind) to help with appreciating the validity of such statements?

Yes on this site any school that self-identifies as Buddhist is on-topic. If you want to limit the replies to a question, you can use a tag e.g. [tag:zen] -- which implies that you only want answers from within the view of that school, and other answers (based only on the teachings of other schools) would be off-topic for that question. Normally people don't tag their questions that way and may get answers from more one than one school. Historically on this site a majaority of answers have been based on the Pali canon.

They're probably referring to (but not necessarily quoting from) buddha-vacana.
On this site that tends to mean the Tipiṭaka, more specifically (or most usually) the suttapiṭaka.
As for recommended references -- English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
I can't tell you about references to Mahayana literature.

They're lengthy -- people also edit anthologies, and write introductions and summaries.

Please read the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" (hard copy can purchased here) by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
The abstract states:

This work articulates and defends a single thesis: that the Early
Buddhist Texts originated in the lifetime of the Buddha or a little
later, because they were, in the main, spoken by the Buddha and his
contemporary disciples. This is the most simple, natural, and
reasonable explanation for the evidence.
Our argument covers two main areas:

The grounds for distinguishing the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) from later Buddhist literature;
The evidence that the EBTs stem from close to the Buddha’s lifetime, and that they were generally spoken by the historical
Buddha.

Most academic scholars of Early Buddhism cautiously affirm that it is
possible that the EBTs contain some authentic sayings of the Buddha.
We contend that this drastically understates the evidence. A
sympathetic assessment of relevant evidence shows that it is very
likely that the bulk of the sayings in the EBTs that are attributed to
the Buddha were actually spoken by him. It is very unlikely that most
of these sayings are inauthentic.

Please also see this answer.

The truth is real arising and real vanishing relative suffering, trillion times per second. Another only left truth is Nibbana.
What can let people get in those both is "Buddha say" no matter from whoever.
However, normally people who can get in and keep "Buddha say" is the Jhana Mastery who memorize entire Tipitaka an other pali canon in Pali form.
The other else is individual which hard to prove their skill especially by the ordinary.
For me as an ordinary person who memorize some Sutta in pali, I normally advice either beginner or the older to go to meditate with Jhana Mastery who memorize entire Tipitaka instead of randomly reading by themselves.
It's because after I got in Tipitaka, I realized It's impossible for no-Jhana-person to read them all without confuse and misunderstood. Even I try to describe people by quoting the Sutta Pali directly whether how these all cannons are not conflict each other, they still quote them all to conflict each other instead because many reader has no Jhana, so they have no eyes to see what is really arising and what is only imagination.
Even a little misunderstood in Tipitaka could make the reader waste this entire special life to practice follow the Buddha. Why? Ariyuppavada and Cetokhila (Blaming the noble one and wrong decision of the noble one who Memorized Pali cannon through 2600 years).


text:
Which is more important - right of individual or the greater good?
The topic is really the question.  In Buddhism, which is regarded as more important, the right of an individual or the greater good?  Perhaps there is no distinction made, I don't know.
Or does it depend on the circumstances?

Don't all religions teach more about "responsibilities" than about "rights"? I think that "rights" is maybe more of a political or legal concept.

that's a good comment @ChrisW thanks

Neither. All are equal. Mahākarunā.

If there is no self, how can there be separate individuals? If there are no separate individuals, how can there be a collectivity of such?
The concept of individual rights has always been a grievance more than an ideal (all the way back to the 16th century, that). It's an assertion to the effect that 'This stuff is mine'; a complaint that other people want to take it from me; a rationale for the idea that others shouldn't do that. The idea of collectivity has always been an expression of fear (all the way back before the beginnings of history). It asserts that 'These are my people (people like me), and those people are not'.
When we give up clinging to possession — that this is mine and we are ours — then we start to lose the distinctions between the individual and the collective. We obviate the question of whose rights and interests are more important, and gravitate to a sort of compassionate realism in which we want to satisfy needs rather than capitalize on them. Before we achieve that we are faced with a constant struggle to balance the needs and rights of one against the needs and rights of another. There's no answer to this question; there's only the ongoing struggle with the issue or the ultimate realization that the issue is so much smoke and mirrors.

May be he asked this question just because of he did not know about the Ultimate Realities and the difference between illusion world and the ultimate reality world. please go through this link and try to understand each concept through your wisdom.  Those are untouchable need to feel by thinking and meditating.  Reading may help you to take the guide and have the fair knowledge about ultimate reality world.  Here is the Link: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#intro

I think the question was asked in a "conventional" sense. Ultimately reality doesn't admit to concepts such as a person, a being etc.

In some circumstances Buddhism recommends "a middle way" which means, "avoiding (the two) extremes".
Maybe in this context, "my rights or the greater good" is a false dichotomy.
There's doctrine which says that the best is practice which benefits "both self and others" -- better than one or the other, or neither.
There are some ethical precepts -- no killing, no stealing, no lying -- which (it says) benefit everyone.

Let us try to understand this through simple example:
Hypothetically, Take a Table. Why we called it table? In general we have a state of mind or confirmation in the society if one item has four or few legs and it has a top which we can keep things without fallen on that top it is called table. Isn't it?
Now take that table and break into parts. Legs, support bars, glass top, underneath wooden top, nails, joints etc. After keeping all these one by one aside can we call it table any more? No we can't.  Because that convention of the table was not there anymore and it has already broken into parts. Now we have given each part separate name. Those words also conventions given by the society. Right?
Now we take a leg and break into parts. A small pieces of wooden. So that we cannot call them as a table leg any more........ Right?
Similarly, we keep on breaking them into parts until we find the part that cannot break into parts any more. Science is not that much advanced to find that particle but Lord Buddha found it 2560 years before and it is called Pur Octad[Shuddashtaka].
Learn further: Pure Octad
Likewise Lord Buddha found 81 Ultimate realities in this universe. Those are called

Consciousness[Chitta] - 01 but it's actions it is named as 81 or 121
Mental Factors[Chethasika] - 52
Material Factors[Rupa] - 28
Nibbana - Which is Ultimate Freedom of the life.
Learn further:Ultimate Realities`
First three items gives you 81 factors which are actually prevails in this world.

Similarly, When we break our body and mind into parts or any other tree or vehicle or house or Mother, Father or anything we can find only these factors but nothing else. Actually, there is no I, Mine, Me, My Mother, My Son, My Vehicle .......etc.
Once you realize this theory and put them into practise without knowing you, your longing to this world your desires, your future targets to achieve will be vanishing. Because now you know those are manmade illusions which are not prevails actually.  Not only that this illusions brings you suffering all the time by changing them decaying them will not prevails them with their stability as it is.
You will find the difference between right and the great good.
May Triple Gem Bless You !!!


text:
What is difference between anapanasati and kāyagatā Sati?
I am seeing a pattern between MN118 and MN119.. That says something about kayagat sati..

If you closely compare MN119 with MN118… you will find a pattern…

You will see that a paragraphs from Anapansati is taken and then it is followed by saying , while doing that when you achieve a state of unification(ekodi), and get settled (samadhi) then your mindfulness is considered as immersed into body.

Whatever is the object of attention(breath, body posture, body activity) but be peripherally aware of whole body and feelings. thats sati. and when it gets settled its called  kayagat sati.
To further elaborate, lets say you got settled while doing breath meditation then here anapansati gone kayagat. You may get immersed in body by many other way, walk, eat, observing dhatu, parts of body etc etc.

Kayagatha sathi mainly focus on body organs like hair,nails, teeth,skin, lungus, heart etc. 32 organs separating to heart,water,Air and Fire that related to Four main Material Factors called "maha bhutha".
Where as
Anapanasathi focus on inhale and exhale.  You can read and understand the difference well using below two links

Kayagathasathi
Anapanasathi

May Triple Gem Bless You!!!

Anapanasati: Mindfulness on Breath
Kayagatasati: Loathsomeness of Body

(Kayanupassana is different and it includes multiple topics)


text:
Did any East Asian scholars do any work on Buddhist logic and epistemology?
Did any Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese Buddhists write about Buddhist logic in the tradition of Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti? What were their contributions to logic and epistemology?


text:
Selling and use Dhamma as advertising
It's very common in South East Asia today that business people try to socialize with potential customers by appearing or pretending as Dhamma-teacher or Dhamma-friend.
Most meetings around the Gems are mainly for such a purpose and is very usual.
How does the Sublime Buddha and knowledgeable Elders regard such ways? What fruits are to be expected from such actions?

A true Dhamma teacher would know and act according to:

DN2:45.15: They refrain from running errands and messages;
DN2:45.16: buying and selling;
DN2:45.17: falsifying weights, metals, or measures;
DN2:45.18: bribery, fraud, cheating, and duplicity;

This is not a problem found solely in Buddhism.
How people represent themselves, when they are not sincere practitioners, tends to be mistaken behaviour, with mistaken views, and mistaken motives.  Buddhism is clear about this.  The three lower realms are the inevitable fruit of such actions.
Of course the damage is not just in accordance with throwing karma (the type of future rebirth), but also affects the future quality of life, longevity, and many other environmental factors.
Exploiting other's interest and commitment to Dharma in order to achieve wealth will make it very hard for such a person to:

Find a reliable teacher
Find reliable teachings
Trust teachings when they are made available
Understand teachings when they are given
Mistake the motives of teachers
Find learning a miserable, rather than a joyful, activity
... and so on.

Being led by the nose by the eight worldly dharmas comes 'naturally' to us - we have so many lifetimes of experience with these activities.  It is rare to find a single person who is free from the lure of them.
So, it's wrong to criticise, or castigate, or feel fury towards such people - they are, like all of us, caught in the alluring web of samsara like flies  helplessly caught in a great spider web.  The sad truth, though, is that it is our own blindness towards the four noble truths that traps us. Our own mistaken actions, arising from mistaken views and mistaken understanding, are the deadly spider.
I sincerely recommend you learn how the twelve links of interdependence work – they reveal just how we are bound to samsara, and therefore also reveal what paths are available to us to be free from it.

Certain, even if "just" for political or other agendas, praise and fame, bring mass fakes, thieves and lures into the circle and top donate button where giving out of what isn't his. Running messages for them as well.

One    should not make an effort everywhere,
should not be another's hireling,
should not live dependent on another,
should not go about
as a trader in the Dhamma.
Ud 6.2

Difficult to figure out if they even wear robes. The badly discerning common folk can never be immune, since much to easy to catch, being very greedy, lazy and prefer wearing joggers, ease...