text:
The illusions and delusions of the world
How do we as Buddhists deal with a world that creates and embraces illusions and fabrications? For example, government is an idea and a fabrication, it is not a person or a thing, it just a group of individuals. A lot of people believe in this idea and accept it as something real; they believe it so much they follow without thinking. Next, covid. WOW! talk about following non-truth. This something that has never been proven to have been isolated, therefore it does not exist, yet people follow the the other illusion's advice (government). Why do people follow an illusion of an illusion? As a Buddhist who has learned to strip away many of these illusions, I still find it difficult to fathom. Particularly when others illusions start to directly affect me and my safety. Even other Buddhists have bought into this covid illusion, why?
How do we stay on the path, when our actions of not following these illusions makes a target, by not wearing masks, taking vaccines and not following government illusions?

Is this question related to Buddhism? We don't want Buddhism.SE to be used to spread misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines.

Related: What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy?, Conventional versus Ultimate

A Buddhist is as real as Covid, they r both consepts made up by human beings but within  conseptual reality, consepts have to work with other concepts in order to be good concepts that don't lead to suffering. . "Buddhist" is a consept that is in tune with other concepts & it is a doorway beyond concepts. The governments controlled by dictators who claim they r noble defenders of the oppressed  have manufactured  ideas around Covid. These concepts r in tune with concepts that lead us to suffering. .

The Buddha did not oppose the social distinction of the four castes, namely, priest, rulers/warriors, merchants & workers. The Buddha said the warrior/ruling class is the supreme among the castes and there is even a scripture (DN 26) about the importance of a Righteous Monarch that protects society.
It follows it is a form of "dhamma" ("maintainer of well-being") for society to have right government. For example, without right government, there would not be rule of law and the various universal social infrastructures, such as roads, hospitals, police, schools, water supply, social welfare, etc.
In summary, in teaching his Noble Eightfold Path, the Buddha distinguished between right (samma) and wrong (miccha).
For some onlookers, our current world has the dilemma of wrong corrupt corporate government or plutocracy. Buddhists buy into this because most religions have faith-followers who have not yet reached the level of clear moral discernment. For example, they may believe 88 million suspected Americans, plus 17 million infected Americans, causing 300,000 deaths, with an average of 2.7 comorbidities and average age of death of 75 years old, is an "pandemic emergency".
Covid-19 at times appears similar to when a war falls upon a nation. Try to imagine living in England, France, Germany, Russia, etc, during WW2 or living today in Iraq, Libya, Syria or Yemen. As a Buddhist practitioner, we can only have great patience and prepare for the worst via relinquishment.
In respect to Covid-19, it appears the same unopposed government officials that brought hell to the above mentioned nations of peoples are bringing a similar thing to Western nations. This is the collective kamma from the majority of Western people who turned a blind eye to their lawless governments or, even worse, supported the so-called "humanitarian interventionist wars". Enough Western Buddhist monks & nuns were even guilty of this and these same support the Covid & Climate Emergency hysteria.

This is sad to ponder.There are few that see these things. Following the path may become more difficult in the future, especially in public. 22:94 “Monks, just as a blue, red, or white lotus—born in the water, grown up in the water—stands having risen above the water, unsmeared by the water; in the same way, the Tathāgata—born in the world, grown up in the world—dwells having conquered the world, unsmeared by the world.”

The Theravada tradition has the concept of conventional truth and ultimate truth. You can read about it in this excellent answer.
It does not say that the universe is unreal. Rather, it differentiates what we sense from the six sense media, from the concepts that we create in our mind through reification (papanca).
Although the Buddha himself was fully enlightened and saw things exactly as they are, and did not cling to concocted concepts, yet he made use of concepts as far as they were useful. He did not cling to them but saw them as mere conventions. After all, are not the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha all mere concepts?
The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice, if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood.

For example, government is an idea and a fabrication, it is not a person or a thing, it just a group of individuals. A lot of people believe in this idea and accept it as something real

I heard a nice analogy once. If you have a dog and tell it to "come", then it either comes or it ignores you: but if it ignores you, at least it can hear you, and you're being ignored by "the whole dog".
Compare that to a bureaucracy -- if you tell a bureaucrat or functionary something and then nothing happens, that doesn't even mean that the "whole bureaucracy" has necessarily "heard" you.
So in that sense it's true that the government isn't a "thing" -- in the sense that you can't touch it, you can't talk to (all of) it on the phone. That doesn't mean that the government "doesn't exist" though: I tend to equate "non-existent government" with "failed state" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state for example Somalia -- if hopefully you're living in a society that's better organised and less violent than that, perhaps that's evidence of some at least partially-effective government.

they believe it so much they follow without thinking

Maybe you should follow it sometimes, but with thinking.
Following government orders without thinking is a characteristic of Totalitarianism, and historical problems including genocide etc.
But mask-wearing for example is recommended by government and by health professionals for a purpose -- which is that it's to avoid harming (infecting) other people. And that seems to be a worthwhile motive, which is inline with Buddhist ethics.
And it's not only the motive (i.e. being harmless) but also the mechanism (wearing masks) that seems to me sensible -- believable -- surgeons for example wear surgical masks, to avoid infecting their patients. Wearing masks, using vaccines, fits with everything I've ever learned (at school and afterwards) about the history of medicine and science and epidemiology and so on.

How do we stay on the path, when our actions of not following these illusions makes a target, by not wearing masks, taking vaccines and not following government illusions?

I think it's a matter of doing things "wisely".
If "the government" (or anyone else) tells you to do things which harm others, perhaps that's advice which you should happily ignore.
If it's advice on how to protect others from harm, perhaps that's advice which you should happily hear.
Your argument seems to be ... "1) This advice comes from the government. 2) The government doesn't exist. 3) Therefore I should ignore the advice." -- which doesn't seem to me a sensible argument.
I gather from the suttas that an argument like, "Nothing exists" is a kind of wrong view, an extreme.
And I think that even the Vinaya implies some obedience to, living with, the national laws (or "king's laws"), and performing bodily actions which protect others from harm (and even which protect yourself from ill-repute).

In any situation like you describe, the often best thing to do (as a Buddhist or anyone) is to focus and develop your own personal and familial situation towards peace and concord.
Like you said, government is more of an idea not so much a tangible thing, made up of individuals. The way of change towards large groups is the way of change in the individual. If you can find some peace and happiness in your own life, then you can begin to spread it to others; and who knows how far those effects reach.
If you find you are obsessing over others and their actions, might be better to focus on making peace with those obsessions first; That is something tangible you can do about it.


text:
Types of Concentration?
My field of perception is very wide. It often becomes so wide that it loops back onto itself in some odd kaleidoscopic fashion.
This has rendered my previous methods of concentration unhelpful. Previously concentration was very deliberate and contrived and my surroundings would phase off into obscurity in favour of a pin-point focus on my chosen object. It opened up some interesting doors.
The application of attention on a particular event such as breathing is very different. It is different because it is inclusive of all other phenomena, like the universe is doing the concentration from which no personal claims can be made. I find this to be a distraction but there is a part of me that wants to embrace this inclusiveness. This leaves me with some dissonance between the previous method - in particular my attachment to the results incurred from that method. Moreover, when I try to apply myself in the previous way, I suffer - I guess I've just answered my own question in some ways.
Is this change in concentration to be expected?
Can you share any resources from either Theravada, Mahayana or Zen that would help me further my understanding of this matter?
Best wishes

Have you considered your Mahabhuta alignment in correlation to the affinity of the techniques you practice? Some practices are more suitable for some while less suitable for others. While our Dharma are equal, we are unique and so therefore is our Dharma.

@Beau - if I understand you correctly, that Mahabhuta refers to the elements, then the elements are a fundamental part of my satipatthana practice. Kind regards ;-)

yes, the elements ;D you know how some people say they're water people and some tend to always hold expressions like a wildfire? Some meditations were designed for the water-like individuals, and so on, because of this affinity - martial arts as well. Anyone can practice any technique, that would be Compassion's influence on cultivation, but constitution and countenance can be a major influence on how an individual performs each meditation.

I guess some people are drawn to a particular element in the way you describe. I tend not to form that kind of association with any of the elements, choosing instead to see that no personal claims can be made from their external/internal transitory nature. Kind regards.

It might be difficult for readers to understand exactly what you're experiencing in your meditation. You learn techniques of meditation to get you started on a path, but eventually that path must be understood by you, personally. You become like a scientist experimenting with what works and what doesn't work. For that you have to know what "working" even means... as you develop your path, this is an essential aspect to understand. What am I trying to achieve here when I sit down to meditate?
The path the Buddha described made Tranquility and Insight the markers of progress. If what you are experimenting with, within your own mind and body framework, moment to moment, is (over time) leading you to more and more calmness of mind, calmness of body, then you might be able to consider whatever methods you were employing successful.
Similarly, if whatever you are experimenting with, within your own mind and body framework, moment to moment, is (over time) leading you to deeper and deeper understanding of the nature of reality (three marks of existence), causing you to see more finely these qualities, subtler and subtler in your experience, then you might be able to consider whatever methods you were employing successful.
Both these two developments, Tranquility and Insight, should lead to letting go, fading away, cessation of your experience, in a gradual way.
AN 4:170
Mindfulness of the breath is a common practice that can develop both of these to their fruition.
SN 54:13
As you practice in this way, the Four Establishments of Mindfulness should simultaneously be developed.
MN 10

I hesitate to outline the particulars of what I experience because it is not restricted to meditation sessions. The openness and its 'other qualities' are with me throughout the day and every day. For that reason it was important that I kept the question concise. Thank you for responding. I enjoyed the sutta readings.

Very good! It is good to strive to make your whole waking hours your meditation, your practice.

This exact topic is the central topic of the book I can't recommend enough:
"The relaxed mind. A seven-step method for deepening meditation practice." - by Dza Kilung Rinpoche
I started pulling out quotes for you but had to stop when I realized I'd have to quote half of the book.

When we focus or concentrate, we want to be careful not to do so in a narrow, forced way. In school we were sometimes urged by our teachers to focus and concentrate when studying and taking tests. Usually that meant that we were to furrow our brow, squint our eyes, and close off all distractions from the task at hand. This is very judgmental. In a critical and somewhat aggressive way, we are accepting and rejecting our thoughts. But here we want to do the opposite - we are looking for an opened focus.

Open means open to the whole environment - physical form, energy, everything. Be confident in openness. Then, when you feel yourself starting to relax, it's time to focus. Focus doesn't mean tensed up; it means attention that is loose and calm.

When thoughts appear, you don't really need to disconnect from them or escape from that situation. Rather, you allow the mind to be wide open, and using this wide-angle lens, you experience a more clear and spacious view of reality of the mind and its nature. [...] Another aspect of openness, touched on earlier, is to be without any judgement when our meditation environment includes things such as the sound of birds, a telephone ringing, a baby crying, and so forth. We may experience phenomena coming from our six senses. Be wide open to all of them and just let them be - no judging of "good" or "bad". Their empty nature will be naturally revealed.

-- and then starting from page 82 I would have to copy most of the rest of the book, because most of it is exactly about cultivating this openness.

Good quotes!  I'd up vote if I had an account!

This seems like an interesting read, and it relates to satipatthana - "'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,'. I will try to locate the book. Thank you.

@Andrei Volkov - Thanks, I got hold of an audiobook version. The dynamism of this book is very appealing to me.

What you are experiencing isn't concentration.  Concentration is marked by ekagata or one pointedness.  If the universe, dinosaurs, and the Maltese falcon are all dancing on the head of your breath, what you are experiencing isn't the breath, it's the breath and all that other stuff together.  Concentration will ultimately lead you to a place of openess, but that field of openess has no content save for increasingy subtle feelings of joy and excitement.  If there anything in addition to that, you're missing your target.
Stay on the breath.  Don't move a muscle.  Sit for at least an hour but preferably an hour and a half.  If you're consistent in your practuce, eventually your breath will wash all that other stuff away.

From what tradition do you base this on? So this openess is a distraction leading me away from concentration? Can you offer any resources that varify this?

Openess appears out of one pointedness.  The more you engage with the object of concentration, the more you and all mental content (eg "the universe is doing the concentration", etc.) falls away.  If you are being pulled from stability, you are being pulled from being pulled from samadhi.  At this stage in the game, I'd strongly encourage you to steer clear of any concerns over the result of your practice.  Focus on learning good technique.  Keep your practice so close that no air can escape.

Most importantly, meditation isn't about having profound experiences on the cushion.  It is a tool for helping you to develop insight.  Worrying about the universe or what have you is going to undermine your ability to really see the mundane subtleties that are the real meat and potatoes of practice.

Right now, it seems to me that you're all over the place.  Meditation is simple.  The technique is simple.  In fact, it's that simplicity that makes it so hard.  People keep trying to introduce things that just end up driving them into confusion.  Pick a spot, rest (don't press) your mind there.  Keep your body upright and relaxed.  Don't move.  That's all there is to it.  What arises in the mind is ancillary.  The method is the result.

"Like the universe is doing the concentration from which no personal claims can be made"
That would be a distraction if you were going for highly concentrated Samatha states. If you are practicing insight vipassana type meditation then Anatta (or transcending the personal) is what is supposed to be happening as  momentary concentration is used  to widen perception.
The way I practice is to anchor my attention to my breath and then move my attention to distractions from the breath when they arise and when they fall go back to the breath.

I used the word 'like' in its conjunctive meaning and not as its preposition. It was a way of giving language to describe something that is ordinarily difficult to describe. I'm actually beginning to question these highly concentrated states. I'm not sure they lead to anything that I would call 'significant' unless you can call the same old insights 'significant'. Furthermore, I think it is healthy to venture elsewhere.

I get so bored with insight meditation where the concentration is on multiple experiential phenomena(momentary concentration) that I never get into a highly concentrated state anymore.I want the meditation to be significant and substantial too but I know intellectually at least, that that is clinging. Maybe I just got to kinda embrace what I don't like, kinda embrace the boredom to counter the aversion. This is very challenging and if I get anywhere , I can't even brag about it because then I'm cultivating more ego. LOL.

I see ego as scaffolding that may motivate me in the early stages but at some point I must transcend it. Idk.

Yes, it often 'feels' like there is something there that needs to be removed. In my current understanding, it is right in there; right in that thing we think needs to be removed or transcended. The story of 'removal' is another aversion tactic.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did Nāgārjuna describe features of the Fourier transform?
The Fourier transform describes how to transform between cyclic and non cyclic. Did Nāgārjuna describe this already several centuries before Fourier as described in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20?
A full translation to western terms is

25:19–20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ
There is nothing whatsoever of the cyclic distinguishing (it) from the non cyclic.
ननिर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19
There is nothing whatsoever of the non cyclic distinguishing it from the cyclic.
निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of the non cyclic and the limit of the cyclic;
न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.

Nāgārjuna was not a mathematician; he was an eminent buddhist philosopher. That is certainly enough, don't you think?
There is an interesting parallel here, perhaps — maybe even a useful analogy, though one that would only be meaningful to people who understand Fourier transforms — but that's all. The claim inside the question asked is mere puffery (great word, puffery), but if we puff Nāgārjuna up with undeserved praise we deflate that which he actually deserves praise for.
A thousand people can all look at the same thing and describe it in a thousand different ways. Laozi described it centuries before Nāgārjuna, but we wouldn't give Laozi credit for Nāgārjuna's vision, and we shouldn't give Nāgārjuna credit for Fourier's vision.

Did Lao Tzu discover the spectral theorem maybe? But you have a point. I should refrase the question but not sure to what. Is "Did Nāgārjuna discover features of the Fourier transform?" better? This is not primarilly about credit, but in regard to credits it seems like Nāgārjuna should have some of Fouriers credits. A complete merit field would contain more than those names and also have vacancies, since some questions regarding the transform are unanswered.

@DavidJonsson: I'm not sure what the deeper question here is, either. All I can really do is point at Newton's famous phrase:  "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Knowledge is cumulative, and everyone builds on the intuitions of those who came before them, sometimes knowingly, mostly not. We can trace so much of the modern world back to some unnamed caveman who first put an axle in a wheel, but you know... c'mon.

Origination counts. That quote about shoulders of giants actually comes from the 12th century Bernard of Chartres:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

@DavidJonsson: Understanding counts. Attribution is an aspect of ego.

To our knowledge, Nāgārjuna never shared a precise formula for calculating the Fourier transform precisely, so we have no way of gauging his understanding of that particular equation.
The remarkable thing about Fourier transforms is that a "local" phenomenon such as a singleton wave can be equivalently represented by the sum of infinite waves of different frequencies. In essence, Fourier provides a simple mathematical proof that something that looks like an individual isn't really an individual.  Fourier transforms take us from the local to the infinite with relative ease.
So if we say that samsara is the convention that a self exists, then nibbana might be understood as the insight that the self is an illusion arising out of infinite conditions in the quote:

There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.

The nice thing about Buddhism is that calculus is not required as it is for Fourier. Also note that wisdom is not required to calculate Fourier transforms.

Is it necessary to provide a precise formula or can it be deduced from what has been mentioned? One might say that Nāgārjuna is more general since there are other cyclicities to transform back and form from, as @arthur mentioned.

@DavidJonsson Fourier provides a mathematical basis for an initial understanding of some Buddhist concepts. For example, the cyclicity of rebirth is reminiscent of the periodicity of sine waves. However, the depth of Buddhism goes well beyond Fourier. Fourier doesn't address suffering. Buddhism does.

Buddhism does not prevent quantisation of suffering. Most reactions of this page seems to be about quantisation.

Buddhism introduces quantisation in the concept of "contact". Understanding that suffering is quantized actually helps deal with suffering. There's no suffering between contacts because feelings arise from contact. But that's probably for a separate topic.

Well, Fourier Transform makes an assumption that the function of life is a smooth enough object. It must be at least continuous, and is a lot better if it is differentiable a couple of times or more. In case of none smooth points (like transitions taking place in case of death or birth for example), it makes a lot more sense to use some other bases, like Haar wavelets or smth. In this case you'll notice not only the oscillating parts but constant parts as well.

This answer is not related to Buddhism

@ruben2020 The question is not if it is related to Buddhism or not. As a philosophy Buddhism applies to anything. The question is if Buddhism can be applied to that which the Fourier transforms are applicable to and if there is a difference in such applications.

Smoothness or continuity is not a necessity since the Fourier transform exists in a discrete form, the discrete Fourier transform.

@DavidJonsson, thanks for the support. I tried to do best out of the question and provide as useful answer as possible. Surely, there's a discrete form, thought for me it is the other way around: we do discrete transform to have things fast on a PC

What this question does is commit the logical fallacy of false equivalence, which is colloquially known as "comparing apples and oranges".
The OP changed saṁsāra into "cyclic" and nirvāṇa into "non-cyclic", when these Sanskrit terms are never used in the mathematical or physical context of cycles or waves.
Suppose I change saṁsāra into "existence of matter" and nirvāṇa into "non-existence of matter".
Now the verse becomes:

There is nothing whatsoever of the existence of matter distinguishing
(it) from non-existence of matter.
There is nothing whatsoever of non-existence of matter distinguishing it
from the existence of matter.
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of non-existence of matter and the
limit of the existence of matter;
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them

And voilà! Now Nāgārjuna discovered the phenomena of quantum fluctuation in quantum physics.
This is another example of false equivalence.
3D visualization of quantum fluctuation from Wikipedia:

There is no support for you translation. Matter is sometimes described as cyclic and appears as such on smaller scales. "Features of" can not be understood as equivalence.

Are you with this post saying that saṁsāra doesn't mean cyclic and nirvāṇa meaning cyclic? Cyclic and non cyclic is not only limited to mathematics or physics.

@DavidJonsson Yes. I'm saying that you are stretching the meaning of these terms to fit your narrative.

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


text:
Do the enlightened not experience the results of their past karma?
Can buddha attain Nibbana without Devadatta's throwing a rock and hurting Buddha's foot?
I read somewhere that buddha redeem his past karma by getting hit from that stone hence my question
I am sorry for my bad english
Metta
UPDATED:
But there were present karmas that even buddha needs to undergo do you assert that the enlighten one don't need to undergo present karma at all?

I think it would encourage more people to take an interest if there were more details in the body of the question; perhaps the source from whence the question arose.

The Buddha was injured by Devadatta AFTER he became enlightened. So, how is it logical to ask if without that event, could the Buddha have become enlightened?

But there were present karmas that even buddha needs to undergo
do you assert that the enlighten one don't need to undergo present karma at all ?


text:
The Intention to Strive
Yesterday, I was eating some vegetable sausages and I noticed that there was just a set of teeth rhythmically opening and closing like a lonely metronome with no meaningful sensory instrumentals. It reminded me of one those animations in a Pink Floyd video where unidentified mechanical machinery rocks back and forth which then took me on various excursions through the woeful realms.
Afterwards, the thought occurred to me although with some slight linguistic embellishments here: "isn't it marvelous, isn't it astounding, isn't it stupendous that, amongst the processed and compressed remnants of soy beans shaped into a sausage, one can be brought to the very edges of the cosmos and back again but not actually traverse one single cubic meter of space."
Even going down to the shops in the car to purchase various types of cruciferous vegetables, movement is sometimes stillness.
In the Diamond Sutra, which I very carefully studied for four years, (I don't mean 'study' in the conventional or academic sense) the Buddha eludes to this by saying, "Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is merely an expression, a figure of speech.”
At this juncture and with the notion and fallacy of time and space falling away, intention and striving seem somewhat superfluous. Striving perhaps takes a new manifestation; one that shimmers ever so slightly rather than presenting as various forms of vigour. In fact, in the Buddhist sense, striving seems counter-intuitive to its original dictionary definition and certainly debunks the overly enhanced ideas derived from the noise that motivates a materialistic-ridden society.
The strange thing about the latter is that there is something ever so right about mundane human striving even in the face of its ensuing sufferings; that this rightness is the product of its own realising tendancies but through various infantile spasms - not infantile in the pejorative sense, but an infancy that is embodied by innocence and love. This is too subtle for me to embrace just now but I see it teetering on the very edges of my awareness prancing alongside some odd luminosity and unmitigated terror.
In the above context what is the meaning of striving to awaken?
Does the initial intention behind striving suggest a network of flimsy ideas indoctrinated by ones chosen context as a form of pacifying the mind from worldly distractions and that these spirituality fabricated artefacts must be later seen to be a hindrance?
Currently, my intention seems to be informed by the way my mind has been previously exposed to the practice which is to say: raw personal experience, but I question the flickering baubles we call spirituality, Buddhism, Theravada, Zen, Mahayana. Is this suitable?
NOTE: I understand it might sound like I'm all over the place but please be assured that this is not the case. I would rather not have a flurry of misdirected aims in this manner. The theme here is striving and intention and how they might be perceived - in the fullest range of perception - by different people and their traditions.
Thanks.

In my experience, it's a kind of phase. First, you don't really strive, but you're intrigued by Dharma enough to keep learning hodgepodge and practicing once in a while.
Then your perception of samsara becomes negative enough that finding the way out becomes an urgent matter. This is the phase when you strive. Some people are more extreme than others and so get pretty unhinged while others are lukewarm, and everything in between.
Then you break through enough barriers or otherwise get enough insight into what's possible and what's fiction that your attitude to striving transforms. You realize that what you thought was striving was actually a neurosis fueled by samsaric confusion and what you thought was non-striving is actually the right striving. You begin to get the true meaning of the word "cessation" and in general the first three Noble Truths become your everyday reality rather than something abstract.
And then slowly but steadily you get more honest with yourself, until you get so honest that you can admit that you are not perfect. Far from it, you admit that occasionally you still get carried away by emotions and make mistakes. And if you think about it very carefully, you realize that being perfect is kind of impossible exactly because of anatta. And so, since you are not and can never be perfect, some amount of striving - not necessarily striving for something extraordinary but simply striving to not be a jerk - will stay relevant for as long as you live and probably even longer.

My lukwarming is epic :) .

Very helpful. Thank you.

My understanding of the reference to "arahants," or liberated beings, within the sutras is that these are "perfect" ones. In other words, there is no legitimate basis on which to criticize or blame anyone of these beings for anything. In that way, they should be seen as "perfect." Even Jesus exhorted his followers to "be perfect in the way that your Father up in Heaven is perfect." I have full faith that the Budha's Eightfold path will turn anyone into a "perfect" being if they "strive" with vigor, wisdom, patience and diligence. In falling short of the goal, we will not give up.

Dear @KilayaCiriello, I understand that's what you read in suttas, but the reality seen with insight is different. When you understand the nature of the mind and the meaning of anatta you see that being mathematically absolutely perfect requires absolute control and absolute knowledge which are impossible. That said, of course we can and should strive to walk the Path to its end, but I must tell you that its end is called "Liberation of Mind By Wisdom" and not airtight perfection.

@KilayaCiriello, These beings may be considered perfect in the sense that they are without craving, not in the sense that the output of their being and actions would not cause anyone else to criticize them or see them as doing wrong. There are too many people in the world with too many perspectives on what right/wrong is for that to happen. I think it as close to "perfect" as "perfect" can get.

In this sense I always think about absolutes like clean and dirty and the play on words they create. How can anything ever be clean. If you take all grease from a machine moving parts won't work anymore. Machines get cleaned but will never be clean. Therefore I suppose enlightened beings to be perfected. In this world perfect does not exist but one can be perfected through going the eightfold path and using the middle path.

That's a good way to put it. Perfectly beyond :)

Well, striving (to awaken) to me is the opposite of laziness. If one is hit by negativeness (depression, exhaustion, confusion), one may sit down and do nothing for decades. In this case it is a lot better (reduces suffering) to actively say, I'll not let this affect longer that it needs to (similar to not craving on positive emotions, and living in ignorance in neither positive nor negative emotions) as in MN 148:

When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in
it, welcome it, and remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency
to lust does not lie within one. When one is touched by a painful
feeling, if one does not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep
beating one’s breast and become distraught, then the underlying
tendency to aversion does not lie within one. When one is touched by a
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one understands as it
actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
tendency to ignorance does not lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one
shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the
underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, by abolishing the
underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, by
extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning ignorance and
arousing true knowledge—this is possible.

NOTE: I understand it might sound like I'm all over the place but please be assured that this is not the case. I would rather not have a flurry of misdirected aims in this manner. The theme here is striving and intention and how they might be perceived - in the fullest range of perception - by different people and their traditions.

Over the place or not, there is a cause behind the colorful and fantastical language you are using, it would be good to observe why. Remember, all things change and therefore normalize in the mind. Whatever you are experiencing recently or now, will seem as normal as the blue sky in some time.

In the above context what is the meaning of striving to awaken?
...
Currently, my intention seems to be informed by the way my mind has been previously exposed to the practice which is to say: raw personal experience, but I question the flickering baubles we call spirituality, Buddhism, Theravada, Zen, Mahayana. Is this suitable?

As your path develops, the previous spiritual interests and school based or technique based interest will fall away, what becomes of interest is your own personal path you have discovered, which shares the same aims as the Buddha and (most) practitioners.
You are discovering your own reasons to strive instead of just following the post signs your previous knowledge led you to. You are striving towards the results that your practice has given rise to.
Striving (toward results, Nibbana) is an important aspect of practice. Without striving, how could you arrive anywhere?
SN 51.15

"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see
fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll
go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence
allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent
allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go
to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."

When what you are striving for (Nibbana) is realized, the striving for that will be the last to drop away.

The thing about “mechanical machinery” that rocks back and forth is that there is something else moving it. But in your noticing the “set of teeth rhythmically opening and closing like a lonely metronome” what is it that is moving the teeth?
The salient aspect of what you notice seems to me to be that there isn’t ‘anyone’ chewing. If there isn’t anyone chewing, why do you take it to be like a mechanism, a “lonely metronome”? (love the poetic metaphor, btw ☺) Doesn’t that erase what it is that you were noticing? Isn’t that processed experience? Not raw experience? Aren’t you squeezing your immediate impressions through a sausage maker (the discerning mind) trying to make sense out of a moment of clarity that just doesn’t fit our current sausage making ideas?

The Lord Buddha was much pleased with this reply and said: Subhuti, although terrestrial human beings have always grasped after the arbitrary conception of matter and great universes, the conception has no true basis—it is an illusion of mortal mind. Even when it is referred to as ‘cosmic unity’ it is something inscrutable.

The Lord Buddha continued: If any disciple were to say that the Tathagata, in his teachings, has constantly referred to himself, other selves, living beings, an Universal Self, what think you Subhuti? Would that disciple have understood the meaning of what I have been teaching?

Subhuti replied: No, Blessed Lord. That disciple would not have understood the meaning of the Lord’s teachings. For when the Lord has referred to them, he has never referred to their actual existence; he has only used the words as figures and symbols. It is only in that sense that they can be used, for conceptions, and ideas, and limited truths, and Dharmas have no more reality than have matter and phenomena.

The the Lord made this more emphatic by saying: Subhuti, when disciples begin their practice of seeking to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, they ought thus to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all Dharmas are no-things, and therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatever.

That randomly opened page in the Diamond Sutra that I just quoted, was opened with the heartfelt intent to point you to a certain insight about what you are doing with your mind when, discriminating a lack of a motivator in your experience of chewing, you conceive a clockwork mechanism. That’s not a raw experience. Or it is, but you’ve quickly buried it under flavorful sauces to make it more palatable. That I opened to the page in the Diamond Sutra section quoted above, could mean there are many applicable words to guide you in the Diamond Sutra, or it could be a kind of responsiveness to my striving to help you. It’s true that God doesn’t roll dice—no “God,” no dice, no rolling—but hey, look what turned up!
Strive to resist the temptation to precook your raw experiences. That might bring you somewhere very interesting.

Excellent! Yes, words can give solidity to an experience. I can't really say much about where or what it all points to other than it seems all-knowing, all-present, all-encompassing but dimensionless, shapeless and edgeless. It's absolutely mind-shattering but plain & ordinary at the very same time. Thank you for your lovely reply.

In the above context what is the meaning of striving to awaken?
The question -- of striving (desire, energy), and cessation -- reminds me of the Brahamana sutta, SN 51.15.
I'm not sure about striving "to awaken". The definition of right intention seems to me to be intentions towards harmlessness, non-grasping, kindness, and "skilful ways of thought" (which I guess might be a.k.a. wisdom).
As for "perfection" I think that, in the suttas, the word "perfect" (or what's translated as "perfect") literally implies finished or accomplished, done, having been done -- i.e. it's what's implied by the perfect tense grammatically. It appears in SN 56.11 as for example,

suffering ... should be understood ... and has been completely understood
origin of suffering ... should be given up ... and has been given up
cessation ... should be realised ... and has been realised
this is the practice ... which should be developed ... and has been developed

See also Sn 22.110 and the definition of vusita.

More about "striving to awaken":

Perhaps "awake" or "awakening" is a characteristic of the doctrine of other (later?) schools like Zen.

Perhaps "awake" is a natural/undefiled (original?) state, not the future goal (for which you strive).

It might be more informative to read about the Way (e.g. as it's spelled out in the suttas, above), rather than about a Goal.
I find that people talk about the latter (the Goal) as a superlative, metaphysical, often with self-contradictory language (like Huineng's poem) -- including "not self", "not this", and "this but not this" kind of idioms -- or just adjectives without a noun.

See also this answer for an example/description of the "previously accomplished" sense of perfect/perfected.

The word 'awaken' can be quite a loaded term for many. It can be seen to be a final attainment above all else - a goal as you put it. I was referring to this term from my own direct experience in which has occurred a series of 'higher understandings' that cannot be reversed or undone. It seems plausible that these higher understandings are the culmination of how the mind has been previously developed through practice, and that they continue to bear fruit within the context of that practice.

In the grand scheme of things it seems progressive, but in the confines of my current awareness it's acceptable to refer to potential  'higher understandings' as an awakening of sorts. You sort of get the feel for it, that something profound is on the horizon. Great answer. Thank you.

I had some time to fully digest your reply. I found it very informative.

This is my answer for the newly modified post
It all depends. Does the context you are brining into question aid you in your current striving in your practice? If it is aiding, then no it would not be a hindrance; And if it's not aiding, then yes it would be a hindrance.
Your practice constantly develops and something that was previously an aid could become a hindrance, and vice versa.
It is up to you to examine whatever contexts arise and determine if it is an aid or a hindrance to your practice. If you have a more specific question about any of these contexts, you could ask, and peoples insights might guide you, but again, you should make your own sense of it and not blindly follow their answers, otherwise that would possibly be a hindrance for your practice.

Ryan, I'm trying to have this question removed at the moment. Apologies and thank you for giving your time and energy.

Not a problem NeuroMax, hopefully this process was still helpful in some way

Yes, it was very helpful. In fact your first reply helped me. Thanks for your understanding.

Ryan, my apologies again. It seems the moderator, Chris, did not want to uphold my request to remove the question. In that case, I will consider what I can learn from these answers.


text:
Why is meat prohibited in Buddhism?
Yesterday I was a guest at the home of my Buddhist friend, he cooked vegetables for me and some other drinks were there on table. I am fond of meat but there was no meat available. So, I asked him why he didn't cook meat, and he explained that he is Buddhist and that meat is prohibited in Buddhism. So, I want to know the reason behind this!

Buddhism does not explicitly prohibit ordinary people (lay people) eating meat although it prohibits monks accepting offerings of meat when it is known or suspected an animal was specifically killed to feed the monks.
The above said, Buddhism does including a training rule for Buddhist lay people to refrain from killing breathing lifeforms therefore a practising lay Buddhist should do their best to prevent unnecessary killing, which includes of animals.
For lay people, sometimes the killing of animals for food may be necessary, dependent upon the circumstances. This is probably why we cannot find any explicit teachings in the original scriptures prohibiting laypeople from eating meat or killing animals for food. Instead, there is merely the general precept of non-killing in Buddhism as a training rule, guided by intention.
In summary, many lay Buddhists choose to not eat meat because they practise loving-kindness & compassion towards animals. Buddhism teaches practicing loving-kindness & compassion leads to great bliss or the heavenly realms.

They show best form of humanity

As to the specific teachings found within Buddhism, I find the Buddha’s own words to be authoritative:

In explaining to you the rules of the Vinaya, I have frequently emphasized three good lessons, namely, (1) the only way to keep the Precepts is first to be able to concentrate the mind; (2) by keeping the Precepts you will be able to attain Samadhi; (3) by means of Samadhi one develops intelligence and wisdom. Having learned these three good lessons, one has gained freedom from the intoxicants and hindrances.

Ananda, why is concentration of mind necessary before one can keep the Precepts? And why is it necessary to keep the Precepts before one can rightly practice dhyana and attain Samadhi? And why is the attainment of Samadhi necessary before one may attain true intelligence and wisdom? Let me explain this to you. All sentient beings in all the six realms of existence are susceptible to temptations and allurements. As they yield to these temptations and allurements, they fall into and become fast bound to the recurring cycles of deaths and rebirths.

Regarding Violence to Animals:

The next important hindrance and allurement is the tendency of all sentient beings of all the six realms of existence to gratify their pride of egoism. To gain this one is prone to be unkind, to be unjust and cruel, to other sentient beings. This tendency lures them into the bondage of deaths and rebirth, but if this tendency can be controlled they will no longer be lured into this bondage for right control of mind will enable them to keep the Precept of kindness to all animate life. The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally, no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts dwell.

There are three ranks of these ghosts: the highest are the mighty ghosts, the next are the Yaksha ghosts who fly in the air, and the lowest are the Raksha ghosts that live under the earth. Each of these ghosts has his double that disguises itself as having attained enlightenment. After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the flesh?

You of this great assembly ought to appreciate that those human beings who might become enlightened and attain Samadhi, because of eating meat, can only hope to attain the rank of a great Raksha and until the end of their enjoyment of it must sink into the never ceasing round of deaths and rebirths. They are not true disciples of Buddha. If they kill sentient beings and eat the flesh, they will not be able to escape from this triple world. Therefore, Ananda, next to teaching the people of the last kalpa to put away all sexual lust, you must teach them to put an end to all killing and brutal cruelty.

If one is trying to practice dhyana and is still eating meat, he would be like a man closing his ears and shouting loudly and then asserting that he heard nothing. The more one conceals things, the more apparent they become. Pure and earnest bhikshus and Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, when walking a narrow path, will never so much as tread on the growing grass beside the path. How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?

Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. This is the second admonition of the Lord Buddha as to the keeping of the Precepts.

(Taken from Surangama Sutra, Chapter Two, Importance of Keeping the Precepts, found at: https://medium.com/p/e84c1abb029b )
Other Quotes:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion. (Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Dhammapada:

One is not a great one because one defeats or harms other living beings. One is so called because one refrains from defeating or harming other living beings.

Lankavatara Sutra:

For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is compassion, is not to eat any meat.

For fear of causing terror to living beings, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh.

Meat is not agreeable to the wise: it has a nauseating odor, it causes a bad reputation, it is food for the carnivorous; I say this, Mahamati, it is not to be eaten.

From eating meat arrogance is born, from arrogance erroneous imaginations issue, and from imagination is born greed; and for this reason refrain from eating meat.

Meat-eating is condemned by the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Sravakas; if one devours meat out of shamelessness he will always be devoid of sense.

Therefore, do not eat meat which will cause terror among people, because it hinders the truth of emancipation; not to eat meat? this is the mark of the wise.

And just a final, personal note: I find the argument that it is ok to eat animal flesh so long as you have no involvement in the killing of the animal to be a feint-hearted attempt to escape one’s culpability in providing a market for such murdered flesh. Without a willing buyer, there would be no killing. It doesn’t matter who put the words in Buddha’s mouth. Eating flesh is incoherent with being Buddhist.

Thanks man! for sharing this information.

It is not the demand that kills, but the killer that kills.
"Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians. The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them."

@Krizalid_Nest, Yes, it’s good that you bring up the problem of opposing doctrines being attributed to the Buddha by those who, centuries later, wrote down his teachings. As the Buddha taught, people see what they want, so deluded are they by their own egoistic concerns, and the taste for flesh is overpowering for some. But in this case, the doctrine most in tune with the Buddha’s message of compassion toward all sentient beings, and the end of suffering that was his heartfelt intent, is not to eat the flesh of murdered animals. (continued)

It’s true what you say, that eating the flesh of an animal does not kill the animal, who has already been rendered into meat by a butcher. But by this logic, guns don’t kill people, missiles don’t kill people, chemical weapons don’t kill people, nor do biological weapons... it’s only the person who uses these weapons with the intent to kill people that is guilty of the crime...

But as a Buddhist one should adhere to the doctrine of causes and conditions, and realize that eating the flesh of animals creates the possibility for a profitable demand for animal flesh in those of weak minds who are unconcerned about profiting off the suffering of others for their own benefit.

By eating animal flesh, you may sincerely feel that you are not directly responsible for the animal’s death, but by creating the condition for someone of weak mind and strongly selfish desires to cause harm to others, you are responsible for leading them astray. One may try to abdicate their responsibility to protect the weak and voiceless, but one cannot escape responsibility for their own actions that harm others,  that lead them, through their weakness, to the hell realms.

This is a great inconsistency for Buddhists, and in Buddhism.

Point taken and yes - there are some inconsistencies, but it is due to the evolving Buddhism society. Back in the Buddha's days, there were no "Buddhists", only Laymen or Sangha (i.e. Monks), and different precepts were followed by Laymen (5 or 8 precepts), and Monks (227 precepts).  From all known texts, I believe at Buddha's time there was never a precept for laymen or Monks to be a 'Vegetarian'.  We must understand why this was the case, and analyze the meaning of being a 'vegetarian' vs following the precepts as a Laymen in modern days.

I should also clarify that, what I brought up was not "opposing doctrines attributed by the Buddha", they were simply teachings that were written closest to Buddha's era.  What is opposing, in fact, is later 'Buddhists' different interpretation of Buddha's teachings.  E.g. desire for the taste of meat dishes VS wisdom to discern the desire from the five aggregates.

I disagree with your formulation that we must analyze the meaning of being ‘Vegetarian’ vs following the precepts as a Layman in modern days. It’s not about being anything but being compassionate. Labels are a trick of the mind that creates an illusion that can be battered about in abstract philosophical conversation. It loses its relevance to the suffering of others.

Also, just to clarify your rephrasing of my statement, I said "opposing doctrines attributed TO the Buddha." There are no written teachings by Buddha, because he was born into oral culture. There are only texts written down later, well after the last direct student of the Buddha had died. This is not a criticism of any scriptural texts in any branch of Buddhism, it is a recognition of the power of his efforts to end suffering. But there is a difference between his precept to not kill, and the later interpretations of memorizers who created enumerations to help with remembering his words.

The Buddha's great insight into the nature of suffering has its own invincible logic. Later enumerations of what he meant are subject to the frailty of the less enlightened minds. We can differ on this subject. To my mind, "do not kill" and "it's ok to eat the flesh of other sentient beings as long as someone else kills it without your knowledge" are discordant. That is what I meant by the phrase "opposing doctrines."

Most probably because it is connected with killing and stealing (as both are related to unnecessary suffering) DHP 129 145:

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

It is not as categorical as one may think. Buddha, for example, said the following MN 55:

In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or
suspected [with a purpose to be slaughtered for the bhikkhu.] These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.

So in case you are cooking your carrots and unaware kill a thousand of bacteria, you are excused so to say, sorry for making a bit of fuzz out of it.

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".
According to the Theravada school of Buddhism (and possibly also other schools), it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.
Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's  ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.
As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.
To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.

Buddhist teachings say,
If someone intentionally takes a life, that individual commits a breach of the precept.
      Because no one wishes for death, just like you and me.

Also, if someone orders another to take a life, that individual also commits a negative karma.
No living beings wish to get hurt or face death.


text:
How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with?
How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with, specifically be they of content contradicting -- or even just differing slightly from -- previous material and/or for totally new, original material discovered?
Can example(s) be given on how whatever is done, or not done, happens --  especially any instances kept from the public.

Also by "original material discovered" I mean what if someone newly discovers parchment, or stone, or inscriptions on objects, etc. -- dating to a specific time period -- of what someone may claim to be material that needs to be included/added in/to the Pali cannon?

Great, newly rewritten, related article "Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma"
https://puredhamma.net/historical-background/preservation-buddha-dhamma/

The Pali Sutta Pitaka has multiple editions including the Sri Lankan (PTS), Thai and Burmese (Sixth Council) editions.
Here, I list links to footnotes by the translator (Ven. Thanissaro) commenting on the differences between the three editions for various suttas - SN 42.10, Ud 5.9, Ud 8.6, Ud 3.2, Ud 2.7, Ud 4.8, Ud 1.5, Ud 8.7, Ud 6.10. These footnotes will give you some concrete examples.
The Pali Sutta Pitaka corresponds also to Sanskrit Agamas and the Chinese version of Sanskrit Agamas. There are also the alternative version of the Pali suttas in Sanskrit called sutras.
You can find a very good example in this answer comparing the Pali sutta SN 12.67 with the Sanskrit sutra SF 155 and Chinese Agama SA 288. There's also a scholarly commentary in that answer by Ven. Dr. Analayo.
On this university profile page for Ven. Dr. Analayo, you can find links to more of his scholarly writings, which should give you more examples.
I don't think any such differences are kept hidden from the public. In Buddhism, differences in phrasing is not important, as long as the meaning is unchanged, as evidenced by the following quote from MN 103.

‘The venerable ones agree about the meaning but differ about the
phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason
that there is agreement about the meaning but difference about the
phrasing. But the phrasing is a mere trifle. Let the venerable ones
not fall into a dispute over a mere trifle.’

Thanks! Also by "original material discovered" I mean what if someone newly discovers parchment, or stone, or inscriptions on objects, etc., dating to a specific time period, of what someone may claim to be material that needs to be included/added in/to the Pali cannon?

@vimutti I don't think new Pali Canon manuscripts are discovered because they were preserved by the extant Sri Lankan, Thai and Burmese monastic orders. However, the Buddhist Sanskrit manuscripts are discovered from time to time, but they are not part of the Pali Canon and they're usually for Mahayana  for e.g. here and  here - especially from regions where Buddhism became lost like Afghanistan.

The disciples of the Buddha spread the teachings far and wide, touching many different languages and cultures. For example, we have the Pali canon as well as the Chinese canon and many others. Although the correspondence between the different root languages is absolutely amazing, differences do exist. Exploring these differences is an ongoing effort of many scholars.
To catch a glimpse of the discussions that arise, take a look at

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/differences-of-chinese-translations-of-buddhist-texts-from-different-periods/13451

As you can see, the work is ongoing and thought provoking. Many other examples can be found.
You ask about "instances kept from the public." That's somewhat of an odd turn of phrase. In fact, the Buddha clearly states:

DN1:1.28.1: There are other principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. Those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.

"Hard to understand" is not the same as "instances kept from the public." But there are indeed cases for privacy.
The academic process itself requires restraint in publication. In general, new papers are "hidden from public view" prior to publication. That privacy is simply a natural process that ensures that their work will be well-received and trusted.


text:
Impermanence causing depression and anxiety
I’ve learned that all things are impermanence. This is causing depression and anxiety in my life. I’m sad and scared that my relationships will one day come to an end. The fact that all things are impermanence just make me sad. How do I feel better?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/kpjqik/impermanence_causing_depression_and_anxiety/

The answers generally focus on "do this", "let go", etc. What is wrong with sadness and anxiety? Who says that needs to change? Who says that it can be changed (by force of will)? That last question does not have as simple of an answer as one might think.

That which impermanence appears to ,or that which speaks about impermanence. Is that changing ?

Any kind of material form whatever, whether past, future, or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or
near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper
wisdom thus: “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."
Gautama Buddha (MN 22)

Just meditate on these phenomenon and seeing them for what they are you aren't identified.

Not all impermanent relationships cause you sadness, doesn't it? You have clearly noticed joy taking place once a "bad" relationship end (like escaping from the fetters of drugs or alcohol). Can you remember of any of those? This could be a motivator for you to take your relationships fully, i.e., as they start, age, and die. On the positive side, this attention to birth-age-rebirth of very many things you observe will yield wisdom and reduction of suffering.

This is exactly the topic discussed in the River Sutta.
You created this mental concept of relationships with people around you, and you cling to it, assuming these relationships belong to you, i.e. belongs to the self.
But these relationships are impermanent. If you cling to it, it will bring you suffering when these relationships change or end.
The solution is accepting the impermanence and letting go.
Please watch Ajahn Brahm's YouTube talk "Four Ways of Letting Go". Also please read this answer on the South Indian monkey trap.
From River Sutta:

“Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping downwards,
flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on either bank of
the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it would overhang it;
if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would overhang it. If a
man being carried along by the current should grasp the kasa grass, it
would break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster;
if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would break off and he would
thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the
rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he would thereby
meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus
… He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”

The fact that all things are impermanence just make me sad. How do I feel better?

There's nothing to do. That's just how Samsara is. Everything that arises must end at some point. You can't change that. Trying to change anything will just cause more suffering.
What we can/must do is to come to terms with change through meditation practice. Change is one of the suffering parts of conditioned existence.
The correct thing to do from a Dhamma and Meditational perspective is to take that worry and fear as the primary meditation object and cultivate insights from it. If aversion towards the fear arises, then take the aversion as the primary object until it subsides. Being flexible is a key component in the practice.
The mind needs to see the Three Marks of Existence over and over again until it slowly begins to turn away from them. That is when understanding arises which leads to inner peace, happiness and freedom from suffering.
In other words: when fear arises, meditate on that fear. Try to see it clearly and you will become free from it gradually. The same goes for worry, happiness etc.

The Buddha did not teach the perception of impermanence to all people.
Higher Buddhism is not suitable for all people.
Many Buddhists covert to Islam or Christianity.

Seeing the truth of impermanence, one finds it sadly unsatisfying. Letting go of the unsatisfying, embrace the limitless.
Meditate spreading a limitless heart full of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

MN50:14.4: Come, all of you mendicants, meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
Meditate spreading a heart full of compassion …
Meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …
Meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’

And even with just spreading a limitless heart of love, there is beauty:

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Meditating on the heart's release by compassion, rejoicing and equanimity leads on further.
May your sadness be dispelled by limitless love and your efforts lead to freedom.


text:
Does the "Zen Master" from Cyberpunk 2077 accurately represent Buddhism?
In the game Cyberpunk 2077, you can encounter a character labelled only as "Zen Master", who offers your player character the opportunity to engage in meditations with him. However, the content of the meditations he offers doesn't seem to be based off of actual Buddhism from my understanding of it, though I am not a Buddhist or an expert on Buddhist philosophy or practice. Rather, it seems much more like Western New Age philosophy.
Here's a video someone made compiling the player's interactions with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In8etjG6LMQ
Does this character present an accurate representation of Buddhist philosophy and/or practice (especially Zen Buddhism, given his name), or is the portrayal as bad as I think it might be? If it is bad, is it to the point of being offensive?

First time ever I saw Cyberpunk 2077 and Buddhism in the same sentence hehe.

Buddhism does not have meditations on the Spirit of Water, Spirit of Air and Spirit of Fire.
Real Buddhist monks do not accept money for teachings.
The teachings of Cyberpunk 2077's Zen Master appear to be New Age.

Actually, spirits of water, air and fire are common in Korean lore. Primeval entities such as Su-sin (Water Spirit) have blended with Buddhist rituals. See New York: Harper & Row. Gratson, James Huntley 1984 Religious syncretism in the Shilla period: The relationship between esoteric Buddhism and Korean primeval religion.

He is wearing sunglasses and a red robe. It's really funny to me.
The meditations are not buddhist (souls, gods of elements, ...). But the dialogs are similar to buddhism and what awakened people say. It makes sense to me that he is called "zen master" though I would take it as slang, not as a literal zen master.
Let's just hope this character makes people interested in buddhism or yoga or similar stuff.

The thing that stuck out the most, for me, was the meditations talking about a "soul", as a given. Generally, "soul" tends to be roughly synonymous to something that Buddhists refer to as atman, and that they reject (via anatta/anatman, i.e. no-self). Thus, the game makes it seem like the bhikkhu accepts something that Buddhists actually do not. Had the game portrayed a more realistic image of Buddhism, the meditations would have steered you towards the realization of no-self (or no-soul, if you will), rather than ending them with a thank you to the "Spirit of the Sun with our mind, body, and soul".
I'm sure there were other peculiarities as well, but this sticks out like a sore thumb because the concept of no-self is such a central part of actual Buddhism.
I doubt many Buddhists will be offended, though, as that would imply attachment to needless externalities. Still, I'm kind of disappointed. Because the actual no-self idea has so much potential to be properly explored in a Cyberpunk setting – where people put so much emphasis on some imagined "self" even to the point of wanting "it" to be immortalized – yet it remains a missed opportunity. I had high hopes after seeing the bhikkhu in the early game footage, but here we are.

I think it is just a figure of speech. Most people that play the game will have no clear idea about Buddhism. Heck I for a long time thought that Buddhism includes the believe in a soul because of a wrong understanding of rebirth. Teaching people the principle of anatta in 4 clips of only a few minutes is too much. In the end a game is just another form of art.

Yeah, it's not that big of a deal. Still, the figure of speech is one that conveys wrong information about Buddhism – which is unfortunate if players believe otherwise. Had the developers been better informed, they could have done one of two things: either [1] keep the missions largely as they are (ie., episodes of shallow meditation), but just don't mention "soul" at all; or [2] put some more work into a proper questline where ideas like anatta would have been properly explored in the sci-fi setting. Personally, I think the latter would have been very interesting (and perhaps still could be).

This game plays in an alternative war-ridden future. I don't recall the Sutta mentioning it, but if I remember correctly Buddha fortold his teachings to be watered down and eventually fade away before the awakening of the next Buddha. Even in our present many of the things I have seen in Buddhist temples in Japan are mere superstition in my eyes.
I think in a world that for most people seems broken and where the majority of the population surviving by disregarding the principles laid down in the Precepts, like it is portrayed by Cyberpunk 2077, it is fair to assume that not much is left. Therefore I think the Zen Master as shown in the game is just an expression of art. At the end he just disappears like a ghost and so on. Don't take it to seriously.


text:
When one enters and remains in cessation of perception and feeling during death where in 31 planes of existence will he go to?
The question is complete, no additional explanation of the question is needed. I just need the suttas.
For reference:

“And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’
Sāriputta entered & remained in the dimension of nothingness.
Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness—the
perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind,
contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire,
decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention—he
ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to
him they became established, known to him they subsided. He discerned,
‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play.
Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with
regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released,
dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that
‘There is a further escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that
‘There is.’
“And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of
nothingness, Sāriputta entered & remained in the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from
that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he
regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how
these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they
vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those
qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an
awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘There is a further
escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There is.’
“And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception, Sāriputta entered & remained in
the cessation of perception & feeling. And when he saw with
discernment, his effluents were totally ended. He emerged mindfully
from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he
regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how
these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they
vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those
qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an
awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘There is no further
escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There isn’t.’
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN111.html

“And I have also taught the step-by-step cessation of fabrications.
When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has ceased. When one has
attained the second jhāna, directed thought & evaluation have ceased.
When one has attained the third jhāna, rapture has ceased. When one
has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has ceased. When
one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of space, the
perception of forms has ceased. When one has attained the dimension of
the infinitude of consciousness, the perception of the dimension of
the infinitude of space has ceased. When one has attained the
dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness has ceased. When one has attained the
dimension of neither-perception nor non-perception, the perception of
the dimension of nothingness has ceased. When one has attained the
cessation of perception & feeling, perception & feeling have ceased. When a monk’s effluents have ended, passion has ceased,
aversion has ceased, delusion has ceased.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_11.html

“And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the
remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
release, & letting go of that very craving.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_11.html

Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the
cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of
feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of
craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of
clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes
the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the
cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death,
sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the
cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html

Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of
the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There
is nothing,’ enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. That is
its transcending. But that, too, I tell you, isn’t enough. Abandon it,
I tell you. Transcend it, I tell you. And what is its transcending?
“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception. That is its transcending.
But that, too, I tell you, isn’t enough. Abandon it, I tell you.
Transcend it, I tell you. And what is its transcending?
“There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. That is its
transcending.
“Thus, Udāyin, I speak even of the abandoning of the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception. Do you see any fetter, large or
small, of whose abandoning I don’t speak?”
“No, lord.”
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Udāyin delighted in
the Blessed One’s words.
https://www.dharmatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN66.html

Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of
the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There
is nothing,’ enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. If,
as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing
with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, that is an
affliction for him.…
“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception. If, as he remains there,
he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension
of nothingness, that is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed
One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line
of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.
“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters &
remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees
(that) with discernment, effluents are completely ended. So by this
line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html

“Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
feeling. What one feels, one perceives [labels in the mind].
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN18.html

May all beings be happy and  liberated ❤❤
Metta

Both is the top of  31 planes of existence. People there have longest life, however they are arising and vanishing more than trillion times per second as well, and they are going to die as well. They are not going to reborn in hell immediately, however they can reborn in hell the death after that reborn. No where one can be hidden from death.  Sutta Pitaka Vol 6 : Sutta. Ma. U. Saṅkhārūpapattisuttaṃ.

Furthermore, take a mendicant who has faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom. And they’ve heard: ‘The Radiant Gods … the Gods of Limited Radiance … the Gods of Limitless Radiance … the Gods of Streaming Radiance … the Gods of Limited Glory … the Gods of Limitless Glory … the Gods Replete with Glory … the Gods of Abundant Fruit … the Gods of Aviha … the Gods of Atappa … the Gods Fair to See … the Fair Seeing Gods … the Gods of Akaniṭṭha … the gods of the dimension of infinite space … the gods of the dimension of infinite consciousness … the gods of the dimension of nothingness … the gods of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception are long-lived, beautiful, and very happy.’ They think: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception!’ They settle on that thought, stabilize it and develop it. Those choices and meditations of theirs, developed and cultivated like this, lead to rebirth there. This is the path and the practice that leads to rebirth there.

Yes this is the answer


text:
References for the history of Śāntideva's Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Śāntideva's Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra is a renowned Mahayana text and the source of many ideas, prayers and practices, down to today, particularly the Bodhisattva ideal, Bodhicitta, and practices for achieving it.
Śāntideva wrote it in the 8th-century CE (with a miraculous story to go with it), and it was a major source of Atiśa's teachings in India and Tibet in the 11th-century CE. Atiśa learned about it from Dharmakīrtiśrī (Tibetan: Serlingpa), an Indonesian master, particularly the eighth chapter on practices for the development of Bodhicitta, according to commonly accepted history. Since then, it has become a standard part of the Mahayana literature across Asia and the world.
My question: are there any extant references to the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra between those dates -- its origin in the 8th-century and Atiśa's 11th-centuries teachings -- commentaries or other mentions? The Indian Mahayana was at its peak in those years, prior to its decline in the wake of various invasions, so it stands to reason that the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra would have been a significant part of it. Or did Serlingpa and Atiśa resurrect it from a relatively unknown, under-appreciated state?

Addendum 1/6/2021 -- The fact that Atiśa had to go to Indonesia for twelve years to study Bodhicitta and its practices with Serlingpa suggests that the subject was indeed under-appreciated in India prior to Atiśa, even at the great centers such as Nalanda and Vikramaśilā (where Atiśa was abbot upon return from Indonesia).
That all raises the question of ancient Mahayana history in Indonesia, which seems little studied or documented, at least in English.


text:
What is the (middle length) sutta, where Buddha exposes a monk, who has an ignorant view of non-self?
In one sutta a monk was teaching, that there's something that is behind our existence, that is permanent (opposite of non-self). Buddha asked for this explicitely, got confirmed, and corrected the view. Which sutta it is?

@arthur Can you say anything else about which sutta you're looking for? Because a lot of suttas are about anatta.

@ChrisW, thanks for the help! Names of Monks were very useful. I clearly remember reading a sutta recently where Buddha knew (as he always does) that there was a monk who was spreading the idea, that there's a soul that never dies, i.e., is of non-selfness kind. Buddha asked him explicitly if there's anything of non-self kind, got a positive answer, asked whether he was teaching others about it, got positive answer, told monk that this is wrong, and explained the concept again

Possibly MN 38, where the monk held:

At one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in
Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Now at that time a pernicious view like
this had accrued to the monk called Sāti, a fisherman's son: “In so
far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord it is that this [same;
identical; anañña]
consciousness itself runs on, fares on, not another."

Note: I chose the translation of I.B. Horner to avoid the contradictory eternalism of the other translators, who use words such as "transmigration" or add words that do not even exist in the sutta, such as "round of rebirths".

this is exactly what I was looking for. In https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/43770/17887 you posted a reference to https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf that reference has exactly the translation I was reading Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way?.., which points exactly to MN 38. Well done!

Possibly MN 35, however the protagonist is not a bhikkhu but is a Jain:

All the plants and seeds that achieve growth, increase and maturity do
so depending on the earth and grounded on the earth. All the hard work
that gets done depends on the earth and is grounded on the earth.
In the same way, an individual’s self (attāyaṃ purisapuggalo) is form. Grounded on form they
make good and bad choices. An individual’s self is feeling …
perception … choices … consciousness. Grounded on consciousness they
make good and bad choices.
Aggivessana, are you not saying this: ‘Form is my self, feeling is my
self, perception is my self, choices are my self, consciousness is my
self’?
Indeed, Master Gotama, that is what I am saying.


text:
What is the real meaning of 'Knowledge and Vision' in the Pali-texts?
Is there a difference between this two Pali expressions: 'janami passami' and 'nana dassana'?

'Nanadassana' can be 'knowledge & vision' of truth, per SN 56.11, as follows:

As long as my true knowledge and vision about these four noble truths
was not fully purified in these three perspectives and twelve
respects, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world
with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics
and brahmins, its gods and humans.
Yāvakīvañca me, bhikkhave, imesu catūsu ariyasaccesu evaṃ tiparivaṭṭaṃ
dvādasākāraṃ yathābhūtaṃ ñāṇadassanaṃ na suvisuddhaṃ ahosi, neva
tāvāhaṃ, bhikkhave, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake
sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya ‘anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ
abhisambuddho’ti paccaññāsiṃ.

'Nanadassana' can be the psychic power of 'knowing & seeing', per AN 4.41, as follows:

And what is the way of developing concentration that leads to gaining
knowing & seeing?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā
ñāṇadassanappaṭilābhāya saṃvattati?
It’s when a monk focuses on the perception of light, concentrating on
the perception of day,
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ālokasaññaṃ manasi karoti, divāsaññaṃ
adhiṭṭhāti—
regardless of whether it’s night or day.
yathā divā tathā rattiṃ, yathā rattiṃ tathā divā.
And so, with an open and unenveloped heart, they develop a mind that’s
full of radiance.
Iti vivaṭena cetasā apariyonaddhena sappabhāsaṃ cittaṃ bhāveti

'Janami passami' appears to be a synonym for the 1st type of nanadassana, as follows:

I know and see the scope of convictions, the scope of grounds for
views, fixation on views, obsession with views, the origin of views,
and the uprooting of views.
Yāvatā, āvuso, diṭṭhi yāvatā diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhiadhiṭṭhānaṃ
diṭṭhipariyuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamuṭṭhānaṃ diṭṭhisamugghāto, tamahaṃ jānāmi
tamahaṃ passāmi.
AN 10.96

It's depending on the context. You should specify your Sutta for let us see the context.
In 4th Patimokkha Rule 'janami passami' means just "(unwholesome) knowing".
In some sutta  "jānāmi" means "ñāṇa".
In some sutta "passami/dassana/ditthi" means "(AriyamaggaSamma)Ditthi".
In some sutta "passami/dassana/ditthi" means "seeing" only.
In some sutta "passami/dassana/ditthi" means "nama/rupa-analysis-ñāṇa".
In some sutta "passami/dassana/ditthi"  are difference, but in some same.
I will collect it for you when I have time.

Knowledge is the counterpart to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.
Vision varies according to the individual:

SN35.245:1.1: Then one mendicant went up to another mendicant and asked, “Reverend, at what point is a mendicant’s vision well purified?” “When a mendicant truly understands the origin and ending of the six sense fields, at that point their vision is well purified.”
SN35.245:2.1: Not content with that answer, that mendicant went up to a series of other mendicants and received the following answers:  “When a mendicant truly understands the origin and ending of the five grasping aggregates, at that point their vision is well purified.”
SN35.245:3.1:   “When a mendicant truly understands the origin and ending of the four primary elements, at that point their vision is well purified.”
SN35.245:4.1:   “When a mendicant truly understands that everything that has a beginning has an end, at that point their vision is well purified.”
SN35.245:5.1: Not content with any of those answers, that mendicant went up to the Buddha and told him what had happened. Then he asked,           “Sir, at what point is a mendicant’s vision well purified?”
SN35.245:6.1: “Mendicant, suppose a person had never seen a parrot tree. They’d go up to someone who had seen a parrot tree and ask them, ‘Mister, what’s a parrot tree like?’ They’d say, ‘A parrot tree is blackish, like a charred stump.’ Now, at that time a parrot tree may well have been just as that person saw it.

(the Buddha continues further with this simile to explain his vision...)