text:
For an "advanced practitioner" (sorry), how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly? How to practice?
Sorry but I will talk about attainments and mention some stuff that are sometimes considered hard to get to, you are free to not read. I will probably abandon this account after this post.
Well... I'm post stream-entry, I don't really have doubts about that.
I have 2 "addictions", that is 2 things that even if I decide not to do them, I end up doing them eventually. For example, sometimes, if I decide to only eat once a day and lower my weight then I can actually do it for weeks or even months, but eventually I end up going back to my old habits and gaining weight. Sometimes I decide to stop them and I can't, that's also true. Both "addictions" are quite mild and don't have any significant consequences.
I know general Buddhist instructions for dealing with them. Specially from Yuttadhammo videos online.
Other than that, my conduct is quite clean. Both my actions and words seem clean to me. My thoughts are almost all about Buddhism or actual meditation. I would say that they are either wholesome or they show a little restlessness, with only occasional thoughts that are worse than that.
But it's also true that I'm mostly okay with all of this. I don't really suffer the desire of the "addictions". I rarely notice it, and when I do notice, it doesn't feel disgusting. It doesn't feel mine, it doesn't feel like it is a bad thing that needs improvement. Same with thoughts, I don't have any reasons to consider them worse or better than other kinds of thoughts.
This is a conflict I have. Between being confident in considering the "addictions" and thoughts as not-mine, perfect, without any need to judge me for them, and on the other hand considering this not cool and trying to reduce them.
So, how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly?
Also, I don't really know how to practice right now. I'm inclined for practices during the day (instead of sitting on the cushion only meditating).
I don't think jhana will help. I can get to deep jhana in seconds, I don't really see much room for improvement. Sorry if that comment bothers anyone, I wouldn't even mind not being able to practice jhana.
So, how do you recommend me to practice based on my situation?
Thanks for reading, sorry if any of it bothered you or gave you expectations of how things should be.

Question seems just fine, and perhaps the question could also be about the actual process: consuming food for the useful practical purpose of sustenance; re The Middle Way; it could be natural and physically beneficial to attempt to have some adjustment in nutritional regimen depending on what may be available & specific situation; so, maybe also consider enquiry & question in that context, and if could include specific information regarding that, that could be helpful for reply to question of eating in the context of nonattachment. OM

As a non-buddhist who is influenced by buddhism, I notice your propensity to apologise.  Is this perhaps one of your addictions? Do you consider the  power of your words to be so great that others will be negatively affected by them? Are you worried that others will judge you for them?

@chasly-reinstateMonica For context, the OP's saying, "I'm post stream-entry", is literally a claim to being semi- (or at least a quarter) "enlightened". I've read that that kind of claim  happens a lot on some internet sites -- and might be disparaged (perhaps because it might be and might occasion pride and self-delusion, attempting to "argue from authority", etc.). It's also sometimes considered taboo/wrong to describe "enlightened" states of mind, on the understanding that others (other students) shouldn't form preconceptions/expectations from hearing (hearsay) about that.

@ChrisW - Thank you, that is useful context.  I'm wondering who the apology is for however. It seems to be directed at the knowledgeable people on this site - not towards the students who may be misdirected. For them, a simple warning would suffice. P.S. My questions in the previous comment were genuine questions - they weren't rhetorical. Only the OP knows the true answers to them.

@chasly-reinstateMonica fyi I assumed the "apology" was meant for people (students of Buddhism) on this site, i.e., "I know I'm not supposed to be making claims of attainment, but forgive me, I do so here because I think it's important to this question."

@chasly-reinstateMonica and Chris, I agree with both of you. I expected talking about enlightenment and jhana to be taboo (it seems it's not that way). And I also expected some people to form expectations based on what I wrote (it has happened with me and some friends). I didn't really differentiate between students and experienced in my head. By the way I tended to be somewhat apologetic, but long ago. Thank you for your comments, it's really helpful and pleasant.

Hello @Sora, could you clarify what you mean by “I’m inclined for practices during the day (instead of sitting on the cushion only meditating).”

Hi @StillJustJames Sure. I prefer to meditate informally, off-the-cushion, doing other things like study, walk, eat. Instead of meditating formally, on-the-cushion, only meditating. My personal reason is simply that nowadays when I meditate on-the-cushion I don't see progress. The meditation session doesn't change significantly in it's qualities with time, and it doesn't impact the rest of the day significantly either. Or at least I haven't noticed.

If you're post stream-entry you should understand that "I" is not a thing, therefore your eating habits or weight problems are not your decision, they are part of your overall life style, your environment, and the patterns of your life. If you really want to change them, change your situation drastically, move to another place etc. Either that or make a firm decision to stop worrying. The worst you can do is to keep perpetuating the inner conflict without fixing either by changing or by letting be.
What you need to meditate on, is why exactly this still bothers you. Why do you even think this is important? I'm guessing you still have some notion of "better" bothering you. If that's the case, that's what you need to focus your meditation on, the concept of "better". Why do you still crave "better", you want to be perfect or what?

Good householder,
first of all mudita with his gains and second: sadhu for telling "faults" and seek for advise.
Kāmacchanda (sensual desire), at least, can only be overcome be a replacement "drug" and this is given with Jhana. As for the kind of paths that means completing Sila-perfection and gain of Samadhi. To reach the state active effort in denourishing has to be maintained: giving thought toward it no intention, and with nourishment toward regined food. The final abounding arises only when the next fruit after path is reached, but first one needs to but into the path.
That the path arises right view needs to be straighten (listen to talk on the suffering behind sensual pleasure, doing satipatthana). Only when there is Dukkha (clear seen), Saddha arised, pāmojja, pītī...path, liberation, knowledge of liberation. Right view is also the case of right resolve of which one is to turn away from sensuality. Right resolve is the cause of real/right Sila and keeping not eating outwardly is a matter of Sila.
Active giving into is sometimes hard and therefore the near association with admirable friends is required, providing with one of the three governing principles, which hold bad thought to go after in chess.
May good householder seek and find good association and nourish deep relation to it, to the Sangha of the Buddha.
The next step requires more renouncing the world and more leaving home, otherwise, ever touched by thieves, one will not be able to overcome a drug addiction. Withdraw from old associations and circumstances is the first needed, avoid touch and of course the best support is adoption of Tudonga practice where ever possible. More and more just taking of what is given and wander on to avoid attachments to certain food, relations providing such. The keeping of Uposatha-Silas is minimum requirement to possible gain next path, fruit, possible turn to Non-Returner (usually minimum Anagarika, Homeless, non-trader,non-trade-means-holder)
Eating, over all, isn't done for lose or increase weight, health, beauty.. but simply to cross the river, remembering "The flesh of the Son".
[Note that this isn't given for nourishing stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades but to get disenchanted of it and gain release from this wheel]

If those "addictions" are very mild and do not have any significant consequences, then just let it go when you transgress your rules, but try to stick to them the next time. They should not cause you remorse and mental anguish.
After all, if you're post stream-entry, then you're free of the fetter of attachment or clinging to mere rules and ritual (silabbata-paramasa), in the way mentioned in Andrei's answer. Being a stickler to following minor rules to the letter, is an expression of this fetter, in my opinion.
Your question also appear to hint at perfectionism - but this I think is part of the higher fetter of conceit (māna). Having desire for good food sometimes is also part of the fetter of sensual desire (kāmacchanda). Both of these fetters are beyond the level of stream entry.
Apart from Ven. Yuttadhammo's videos on addiction, you can also watch Ven. Ajahn Brahm's YouTube videos "you're good enough" and "am I good enough?".
On the other hand, if you're trying to eliminate all ten fetters, then changing your environment to the monastic training and its rules, is a possible solution. The monastic training was designed for that purpose.

You seem very much agitated by your failure to control your “bad” habits. For example you wish to control how much you eat but you fail after months of austerity.... Austerity is not the solution and neither is gluttony. You should eat as much as you can to keep yourself healthy and strong. Any weakness will not help you meditate. If you over eat then also you will not be able to meditate.
Do not let your achievements get into your head. Do not develop the conceit of I did this , I did that. If your are not a member of any Sangha I will recommend you to stay on this forum because association with good people will keep you alert and aware of Dhamma.

Let me start by observing that you seem to be caught up on measurement: on critically assessing where, what, and who you are. That much is evident from some of the twists and turns of your question: your statement that you'll likely abandon this account, your unwillingness to talk about your second addiction, the various pushes and pulls of self-image I can see threaded through your writing. Buddhism often uses the metaphor of 'walking the path', which is a fine metaphor in its way, but it's a metaphor that lends itself to the illusion of measurement. I often hear practitioners say things like "I've passed this mark" or "I've strayed from the path," but that can be an unhealthy mindset. I prefer the metaphor of sailing across an ocean to that of walking a path, and I recommend you reflect on it. On the ocean there are no landmarks, and no real sense or meaning in asking how far one has come or how far one has to go. There's just the ocean, and the ongoing effort to keep the ship (more or less) upright and the prow pointed (more or less) in the right direction. Progress on the sea is measured by mastery of the winds and the waves, not by external achievements.
I mean, Ok... So, you're a stream-enterer; you've mastered jhana. That's all good, but 'good' is all it is. All that means is that you've learned about the rudder and the boom, and you have the tools to get and keep the ship going (more or less) in the right direction, instead of leaving it to the mercy of the currents to carry you as they will (which is what most people do). But the fact you don't think jhana will help means you haven't really grasped the art of sailing the sea yet.
If you can drop into deep jhana in seconds, excellent. The next time you find yourself drawn into addiction, drop into jhana. Addiction is just a conflict-bound mental state: you reflexively want to do something that you intellectually don't want to do. When you drop into jhana it attenuates both the reflex and the intellect, and thus removes the conflict. After the addictive moment has passed, you can choose (or more likely just know) what's right to do, whatever that might be. On an off day you might find yourself stopping every few minutes to drop into jhana, just as if you're sailing into a storm and have to focus to keep the ship stable. That's fine. Each time you drop into jhana you're teaching the mind that neither the reflex nor the intellect is intrinsically right, and you're letting some deeper sense sort things out between them. Over time that deeper sense will start to take over, even if you don't drop into jhana. Then you're bringing the fruits of practice into life.
If you want smooth sailing you'll have to go into a monastic setting. Monasteries are designed to shield monks from most of the winds and waves of human life, so that they can progress that much more rapidly. If you don't want to put your life into the practice, though, you have to find some way to draw the practice into your life. Sitting in meditation is good, but there's only so far meditation will take you if you hold it as something special, separate from your daily activities.

So I see two issues: your question: “So, how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly?” and your revelation: “I don't really know how to practice right now.”
To answer your question, it is not a matter of knowing how to view addictions, it is a matter of attaining the direct meditative experience of “not self,” which you have already. Since this is the case, it is no longer necessary to ask how one should view addictions, but since you do, you are obviously doubting the direct meditative experience of “not self.” This may only be a “nagging doubt” that comes and goes, but however present it is, when you notice this doubt you must look into the causes for it: what notion do you hold that calls into question the accomplishment of that direct meditative experience?
Since you are past stream-entry, normally you would be confident in the path, so something is once again creating a doubt undermining your progress, or lacking a teacher, you haven’t determined the path forward yet.
Jnana, Wisdom Mind, is free from all conceptual contrivance, and thus one cannot identify it in the way one can identify a tree. Instead, the luminous, self aware, non-conceptual mind that is the Wisdom Mind is realized by the supreme wisdom (prajna) and there is no seeing and seen aspect (i.e. no “consciousness”), and thus, no realizing and realized aspect to the realization. This is called the Transcendence of Supreme Wisdom (Prajnaparamita). When you say: “I can get to deep jhana in seconds” I suspect that a “leading” may have inserted itself in your mind, and you may not, in fact, have yet directly attained Jnana. This is not a criticism of you or your practice, but only a pointing out of a potential “gotcha” that is keeping you stuck in place. As you indicated yourself, such a “leading” has been experienced by you and your friends already. My sincere suggestion here is to use doubt to attempt to undermine that self-assured attainment that you have, looking into the subtle structure of what happens when you attain “Jnana” and see if in fact there is a “realizing and realized”  structure in play, no matter how subtle. I also suggest that the “nagging doubt” about the direct meditative experience of “not self” that I mentioned in my reply to your question above may be—ultimately—behind this inability to move forward.
The latter point in the last paragraph is the only reason—that I can imagine—for why you would prefer the mindfulness practices off-cushion, that you mentioned in reply to my request for clarification, to your main insight meditation practice. Having attained Jnana there is great “motivation” to continue on the path. And it changes everything ☺

Addiction = attachment to suffering.
Refrain from that thought and from that search for pleasure => less suffering.
Thinking it will make you feel good is an illusion. It might. A bit. But wanting to feel good never ends. Pleasure is momentary, inner peace lasts longer. If necessary, You might even inflate your pride (Ego) to help you kill your inner monsters... Be proud to be a better person than you were 2minutes ago... The future is now and what you do now matters.
Hang in there.
Good luck
:)


text:
The meaning of silabbata-paramasa and freedom from this fetter?
Since often very curious ideas and means of excuses appear around the arguing with the means of "that's a fetter", my person thought it would be good if someone would have the skills and goodness toward fellows and behind followers to explain the meaning and whether a  perception of it is used for the training or not so that it would not misinterpret the Sublime Buddha (meaning own ideas are nice but not really 'asked' for)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange and other ways of silabbata-paramasa but for release]

Is the abhidhamma tag (with the reference-request tag) meant to mean that any answers should mostly or entirely, only, relevant reference to the Abhidhamma -- quotes from the Abhidhamma?

Maybe question could be made into two questions: about specifically stated ignorance of being about ritual rather than content; and, if instructors mention meaning as they teach, rather than only presenting ritual

Sila on the path alwas requires Abhidhamma, good householder Chris.

From AN 3.78:

“Take the case of someone who cultivates precepts and observances, a
lifestyle, and a spiritual path, taking this as the essence. If
unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline, that’s not
fruitful. However, if unskillful qualities decline while skillful
qualities grow, that is fruitful.”

From MN 24:

“Is the spiritual life lived under the Buddha for the sake of
purification of ethics?”
“Certainly not.”  ....
“In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the
sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the
sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the
sake of purification through overcoming doubt. Purification through
overcoming doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and
vision of the variety of paths. Purification of knowledge and vision
of the variety of paths is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and
vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for
the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is
lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not
grasping.”

From DN 16:

If it wishes, after my passing the Saṅgha may abolish the lesser and
minor training rules.

The purpose of the purification of ethics is only for the purification of the mind.
But being too attached to minor rules and rituals to the point that breaking them causes remorse and mental anguish, is unskillful and pollutes the mind.
It is enough to practise purification of ethics with the understanding that it is for the purification of the mind, and not be too attached to following minor rules and rituals to the letter.

That does not answer the question but seeks for excuse promotion. What's the meaning of? And own ideas are not requested, good householder.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Nature of Enlightenment
How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong.
Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

Actually when asked point-blank if there is or is not a self, the Buddha refused to answer, on the ground that either yes or no would lead to extremes of wrong views not conducive to the progress on the Path, or in worst cases, completely block the path to awakening:

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." ~~ SN 12.15 ~~

Also see Ven. Thanissaro's great essay "Questions of Skill"

I think this completely answers my question. So we don't we have to prove which one is right or which one is wrong just follow the middle path and everything becomes clear.

The Buddha was more of a pragmatist than an ontologist. Or as that common saying goes: "doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice".

You're absolutely right that they are only superficially appearing similar, but when you dive deep, they are completely different.
This has been discussed in numerous answers, which I will not repeat here - this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer.
The original teachings of the Buddha are systematic (the four noble truths), empirical (the three marks of existence), soteriological (the Noble Eightfold Path) and avoids intellectual gymnastics and obscure mysticism (Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Acintita Sutta, Sabba Sutta), while Advaita is metaphysical and based on logic, philosophy and intellectual gymnastics.
For e.g. the Eternal Self as the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness that is standalone, indivisible, eternal and witnesses through all living beings is a very elegant idea in Advaita Vedanta.
But the Buddha's empirical observation and realization is that consciousness is dependently originated on the six sensory media, and it is conditioned and impermanent (see MN 38). Even the mental idea of the self is also dependently originated, conditioned and impermanent. This can be realized generally through the Noble Eightfold Path, and specifically through vipassana.
So, which is true? If you dive deeper, you can see for yourself which is true. One is a very elegant intellectual model, while the other is empirically verifiable.

I understand what you say but with this background how do you explain the Jhana state of 'infinity of consciousness'? If there is a plain of infinite consciousness, it might as well have an independent existence.

@TheWhiteCloud Actually, that is a very good question to ask on Buddhism.SE. Is the plane of infinite consciousness a natural state of mind, or is it a supernatural state?

@TheWhiteCloud I will ask this.

Thanks. I will look forward to reading the answers.

@ruben2020 but isn't "empirically verifiable" subjective, making the reality different for different seeker.

+1 for "Advaita is metaphysical and based on logic, philosophy and intellectual gymnastics."

@dark_prince Yes. That's true. Some people think that when they experience some bliss in meditation, they are already enlightened.

There are different types of enlightenment. All are conditional except the one attained by Buddha. One may spend eons under bliss thinking it is nibbana but it is not unless sabbe Dhamma Anatta is realised. Philosophy of Anatta is at the core of Buddhism and realisation of it is called Nirvana... any thing else no matter how blissful wont last forever. For example one may realise I am earth and enjoy the nature of earth but it won’t last forever because it is conditional and one day earth will be all covered up by water... I do not know the nature of Adi Sankaraharyas ‘enlightenment’ but if it is not based on the idea of Anatta, it won’t last forever...suffering will return.

so even Nagarjuna didn't attain enlightenment and if he did certainly he knows more than the Buddha. Philosophy evolves. There are differences in Buddhism schools also, which led to Theravada and Mahayana. I'm specifically talking about these differences. Followers of both the school can attain enlightenment but is it not the case that one of the school is wrong in certain aspects.

Numerous (uncountable) beings attained Nibbana... the way it is attained might differ depending upon the nature of cravings but one underlying Truth remains same Sabbe Dhamma Anatta...

I was considering it to be a natural phenomenon like why do objects fall on earth the answer is gravity there is no other way to explain it. It's not like some numerical problem which you can solve through different approaches to arrive at the same result. There is only one approach to explain natural phenomenon and that's how i linked enlightenment to it . There is only one approach. Am i missing something here? I do not believe that different approaches will give you the same enlightenment either Theravada or Mahayana.

Is mind not a natural thing ? Have you found any insect virus or animal without mind ? Earth and consciousness are related. I will not go into the details but there is framework bigger than gravity... you are mistaken to think that all beings gravitate towards nibbana “naturally”. It takes life to understand nature of life ...that life must develop deep compassion to develop a mind capable of understanding the Truth. It is a rare privilege to be a Buddha..As you can see people are actually running away from nibbana... is that natural or unnatural ?

thanks! I think i am able to understand it a little bit more.

I find this answer to be comprehensive:
“5 Reasons why sabbe dhamma anatta does not apply to Nirvana or the Buddha
Here are 5 reasons why sabbe dhamma anatta does not apply to the Buddha or his enlightenment – because the Buddha himself said that:

The Buddha Transcends all phenomena (Sabbābhibhū – Majjhima Nikaya 26)
The Buddha is Unsullied among all things (Sabbesu dhammesu
anūpalitto – Majjhima Nikaya 26)
The Buddha is NOT IN all phenomena (Majjhima Nikaya 49)
The Buddha is NOT all phenomena (Majjhima Nikaya 49)
The Buddha has crossed over all things (Pāraguṃ sabbadhammānaṃ – Sutta Nipata 5.14 and 5.15 – this phrase appears in quite a lot of other passages)

So All “things” are not self because they are “things” and are not you. All things means “all of the phenomena that you perceive through your senses” – are perceptions and are not the perceiver – all your perceptions are not you.”
( From: https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/sabbe-dhamma-anatta-did-the-buddha-really-teach-that-there-is-no-self/ )

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


text:
How does an ordinary person adopt Right View concerning the the hardships of the Buddha's earthly life?
As we know, the Eightfold Path begins with Right View, and then from Right View follows Right Intention.  Right View - belief in suffering, the relief from suffering and the Triple Gem; from this follows Right Intention - the "desire" or resolve to follow the Buddha Way.
(This is of course closer to the Theravada belief; the Mahayana belief is too esoteric to describe in words, or to have any logical progression, but is a sudden overwhelming experience of "feeling" one is totally Buddhist.  Correct?  I'd like both Theravada and Mahayana perspectives on this question.)
Here is the problem: we know that the Buddha suffered hardship in this world, including sickness and requiring a physician at times.  We know that he had enemies who wished him harm.  How then is it possible to believe that the Buddha was the happiest or most fortunate person ever to exist?  Surely, out of all of history, with billions of people, there must have been somebody with fewer sicknesses and fewer enemies!
How does one believe, WHY does one believe, that he was totally free from misery or mental anguish?  Does one believe this merely because it is taught as doctrine?
How is it possible to believe that he was "happy" or "the happiest" as we, being mere humans, would understand the term?  How is it possible to believe that he was "most fortunate" or "most blessed" as we would understand it?
If he was not "the happiest", "the most fortunate", or other similar expressions, as -we- would understand them, then how does a mere mortal with real-world human struggles form the resolve to follow the dharma unconditionally?
Should one believe that Buddhism can bring earthly blessings, or not?  And if not, then how can a human being who suffers from a desire for/lack of earthly blessings form the motivation to follow the dharma whole-heartedly?
In the simplest terms, why would an ordinary human being with ordinary struggles want to live the life of the Buddha?  Is it even possible for an ordinary human being with a difficult life to want to be like the Buddha?

OP: Here is the problem: we know that the Buddha suffered hardship in this world, including sickness and requiring a physician at times.
We know that he had enemies who wished him harm. How then is it
possible to believe that the Buddha was the happiest or most fortunate
person ever to exist? Surely, out of all of history, with billions of
people, there must have been somebody with fewer sicknesses and fewer
enemies!

This is exactly the point!
Freedom from suffering is really freedom from mental suffering.
The body can suffer from disease, family members can die, friends can forsake you, wealth can dwindle, things you desire can be taken away from you or denied from you, but in all cases, you have a choice whether to suffer or not, because suffering is of the mind.
The Buddha endured his physical pains but he did not suffer from them.
The Buddha taught that all conditioned things are impermanent and suffering, and so we should not peg our happiness to them.
From SN 36.6:

“Bhikkhus, when the uninstructed worldling is being contacted by a
painful feeling, he sorrows, grieves, and laments; he weeps beating
his breast and becomes distraught. He feels two feelings—a bodily one
and a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, and
then they would strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart,
so that the man would feel a feeling caused by two darts. So too, when
the uninstructed worldling is being contacted by a painful feeling …
he feels two feelings—a bodily one and a mental one. ...
“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not
weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a
bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a
dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a
second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart
only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

In the essay "To Suffer Is an Active Verb", Ven. Thanissaro wrote:

When we say that we suffer, we usually think that we’re on the passive
receiving end of the suffering. It’s something imposed on us,
something to which we have to submit. In some of our more mature
moments, we realize that there are times when we’re adding to our own
suffering, but we tend to see this more clearly in other people than
we see it in ourselves. This is one of the reasons why, when we come
to the four noble truths, the Buddha’s analysis of suffering, we have
to take them on faith—because, in his analysis, to suffer is an active
verb. It’s something we’re doing actively. It’s a choice we make. It’s
a choice we make badly, out of ignorance. The suffering is in the
activity of clinging.

WHY does one believe, that he was totally free from misery or mental anguish?
Perhaps you can see the "Noble Truths" in your own life -- suffering, cause of suffering, cessation of suffering.
Given those are true, based on your own personal experience, perhaps it's not too hard, perhaps it's plausible, to imagine that someone (the Buddha) who trained himself full-time -- admittedly someone extraordinary -- could realise those truths "completely" (and then teach them well).
Should one believe that Buddhism can bring earthly blessings, or not?
It depends on your definition of "blessing".
If you believe that happiness and sorrow follow from the mind, then a "tamed" mind is a blessing.
That's a primary message of the Dhammapada, in chapter 3 and the opening of chapter 1:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

And there's a Mangala Sutta which lists various "blessings".
Buddhism isn't magic though, causing blessings to appear -- see for example SN 42.6 -- but it points towards what's achievable ...

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
visible here and now, immediate,
inviting to come and see, effective,
to be individually ascertained by the wise.

... and towards what's "right" to value (or to view), what's right to intend, what's right to practice, etc.
And if not, then how can a human being who suffers from a desire for/lack of earthly blessings form the motivation to follow the dharma whole-heartedly?
A motivation might be to gain liberation from suffering -- and an understanding of the path which leads to the end of suffering -- and "faith" (or personal experience) that the path is effective.
In the simplest terms, why would an ordinary human being with ordinary struggles want to live the life of the Buddha?
Yes and no.

The life of the Buddha included renunciation, living as a monk. In my experience (I'm living in a non-Buddhist society) that's far from what most ordinary humans tend to aspire to as an ambition or even an option.
The life of the Buddha was also kind in various ways, moderate, wise, a good friend, harmless moral and generous. That might be within the scope of ordinary human ambition -- perhaps what children of "good families" learn as values from their parents or other teachers, and any good friends they might have met.

Is it even possible for an ordinary human being with a difficult life to want to be like the Buddha?
I'm not sure where or how the path starts.
Some of the fundamentals, the bases, include:

Hearing the Dhamma (to form an understanding of what the Buddha is like, what it might mean to "be like" the Buddha)
Wanting to not "suffer", to end suffering, to not cause further suffering (to oneself or others)
Morality and generosity

Great answer!! I would like to add that Buddha offered freedom from the prison of life. If you value freedom then Buddha is the path to follow.

Well first putthujjanas won't know anything about the dhamma until they become at least sotapanna. Until this, all puthujjanas have is believes and doubt. It's completely normal.
All the puthujjanas can do is cultivate what the buddha recommend to be cultivated, that is the 8 fold path. This is pretty hard for anybody. It's worse when there is no buddha.
Since the big claim of the buddha was that craving causes dukkha, you test this and can keep a diary for a few weeks where

you note when you notice a craving
you note the object of your craving
you note when you do not crave some objects and in this case if you suffer from not-craving those objects
you note when you suffer
you note if you think that you suffering can be linked to some craving for something (ideas or just sense objects) and if you see them as part your self
you note what happens if you try to force to view as not-self all the stuff you so far view as self


text:
Are the higher arupa jhanas supernatural states expanding beyond the physical body?
The higher arupa jhanas are:

fifth jhāna: infinite space (Pāḷi ākāsānañcāyatanaa),
sixth jhāna: infinite consciousness (Pāḷi viññāṇañcāyatana),
seventh jhāna: infinite nothingness (Pāḷi ākiñcaññāyatana),
eighth jhāna: neither perception nor non-perception (Pāḷi nevasaññānāsaññāyatana)

Are these supernatural states?
Does the plane of infinite consciousness of the sixth jhana refer to the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness of Advaita Vedanta?
Do the fifth, sixth and seventh jhana takes the meditator beyond his physical body and into infinite space, infinite consciousness and infinite nothingness?
Can the meditator now observe things in other galaxies by entering these states? Can they see what is happening in the deva or brahma worlds by entering these states? Can they sense through the senses of other living beings? Are they supernatural states of being?
Or are they simply different states of mind? That is, not supernatural.
I have also heard that they are related to compassion, loving kindness and other Brahmaviharas - how is this the case? Is there a clear connection?
Why are they described as formless (arupa)?
I would appreciate it, if canonical references (from the Pali Canon) are available to support this. Commentaries or secondary sources (e.g. Visuddhimagga, traditional commentaries, modern commentaries from scholar monks etc.) are also welcomed, in addition.

Looks like the only way to know for sure is by getting there.

Studying SN46.54, one is introduced to the apex of the Brahmaviharas.
With limitless love, one finds beauty everywhere. One might see the lotus in the swamp:

SN46.54:12.8: 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.

With limitless compassion, one might see the infinite space of possibility and realizes the futility of resentment.

SN46.54:13.6: The apex of the heart’s release by compassion is the dimension of infinite space, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

With limitless rejoicing, one becomes conscious of connections. One might see that the lotus and the swamp are inseparably connected.

SN46.54:14.6: The apex of the heart’s release by rejoicing is the dimension of infinite consciousness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

With limitless equanimity, one might see the pointlessness of wishes:

SN46.54:15.9: The apex of the heart’s release by equanimity is the dimension of nothingness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.”

Beyond these lies the dimension of perception or non-perception. Like water spilled on the ground, in this dimension, one is aware of perception but cannot swim in it or drink it (apologies, but I could not find the quote).

The canon does not mention them as Jhana but formless states, good householder Ruben, to mention that.
Are these supernatural states?
Yes, since based on the 4 Jhanas. Detail discussion on Parajika 4 on supernatural states in BMC might be useful.
Does the plane of infinite consciousness of the sixth jhana refer to the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness of Advaita Vedanta?
Any answer here would be speculation for the most unless one would have attained also knowledge of what is thought of it in the Advaita Vedanta and Awakened to beyond as well. There is of course much reasonableness behind to compare it.
Do the fifth, sixth and seventh jhana takes the meditator beyond his physical body and into infinite space, infinite consciousness and infinite nothingness?
Yes: formless states
Can the meditator now observe things in other galaxies by entering these states? Can they see what is happening in the deva or brahma worlds by entering these states? Can they sense through the senses of other living beings?
Form, objects of the senses, are absent, so not very reasonable. Not forgetting that Dhamma can't be received as well here.
Or are they simply different states of mind?
The question doesn't make sense in regard of 'or'. Of course they are different states of mind.
I have also heard that they are related to compassion, loving kindness and other Brahmaviharas - how is this the case?
Best sample on it has been already given by Upasaka Karl.
General good advices and explainings on concentration, at least in regard of the aim of the practice *räusper*, can be found in Right Concentration in "Wings of Awakening", generously by Bhante Thanissaro.
[Note that this has not been given for stackes, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for release from this wheel.]

Are these supernatural states?

I don’t think it will be right to call them supernatural because these are stations on the journey to Nirvana. You and me can experience it but we will not be able to move forward on the journey because of attachments. We relapse but enlightened beings know sabbe Dhamma Anatta...

Does the plane of infinite consciousness of the sixth jhana refer to
the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness of Advaita
Vedanta?

May be.I am not sure. Hindu Brahmins of the past matched the meditation of Buddha to a great extent but failed to attain Nirvana...because they didn’t believe in sabbe Dhamma Anatta..

Do the fifth, sixth and seventh jhana takes the meditator beyond his
physical body and into infinite space, infinite consciousness and
infinite nothingness?

Meditator doesn’t think about his physical body.He is absorbed in what is there namely infinite space , infinite consciousness, neither perception nor non perception etc... You give up your senses at some stage. That includes body identification...

Can the meditator now observe things in other galaxies by entering
these states?

What is observed is already explained by Buddha. may be infinite space is filled with galaxies... I have not experienced it.

Can they see what is happening in the deva or brahma worlds by
entering these states?

Of course. But a Buddhist knows a better Truth and knows how to meditate without getting distracted.


text:
How is Nirvana illustrated
Anyone has pictures or videos link illustrate as subject refers

@Wayne97 Nirvana looks like Tathagata.

@sacrificialEquation I m sorry that english is not my first language,  tell me what are the grammar issue..

U r referring to this question or ? How horrible ? Intention of this ques is I m able to answer in case someone ask me verbally

Just click a vote down n put your reason here but be specific my friend else I dont know how to improve next time

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

A picture is a composition of things.
Now a "composition" of things is what I'd call a sankhara -- and all sankharas are observed to be impermanent -- which more or less the opposite of nibbana.
So for a "picture of nibbana" you'd have to take away the composition ... and maybe those "things" as well, unless you're trying to depict the "nibbana is samsara" kind of point of view.
In the Zen tradition a way to portray it might be the Ensō.
You also get people saying that describing enlightenment is like "pointing at the moon" (where "the moon" represents enlightenment), the problem being that the audience is only aware of "the finger" (doing the pointing), not the moon.
Another famous metaphor about nibbana's not being constructed is Dhp 154:

O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving.

Another quote seems to be relevant too -- a "picture" is light which lands on something and provides a place for consciousness (e.g. site-consciousness) to dwell. Conversely SN 12.64 uses this metaphor:

Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows
on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray
has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of
physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness,
where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not
land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase,
there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of
name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no
growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in
the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the
future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you,
has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.

Nibbana is not a place. For a living Arahant, the Nibbana is a mental state until Parinibbana. This a question unanswered as it can not be defined using conditioned reality.

There is a very interesting Zen story here from the Mumonkan about this (shit stick)
In other words, nibbana looks exactly like everyday in all its aspects. But the craving, aversion and delusion are gone. And you can't take a video of the absence of wishes.
The importance of the shit stick story is that it challenges us to accept the unrepulsive in the repulsive. It provides balance.

SN46.54:12.3: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.

SN46.54:12.4: If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive,’ that’s what they do.

any particular meaning that u are using stick and not others to describe Nibbana as related to daily aspect?

Yes. It is a critical factor. I've added comment above with sutta quotes. Thank you.

Great.. to be balanced . Thanks @OyaMist

Be Water by Bruce Lee - definitely I will not follow his footage and overtrain myself as I am a Shaolin Martial Arts practitioner too. Be Balance --》I have some common interest too like u in gardening. Let me play some ferderlizer(shit) in Gardening to give me a pause n holiday on seeking on higher wisdom in Religion Study. Let me know if I have interpreted your message correctly

May you find peace and equanimity.

Thank You @OyaMist

Exactly like the image of liberation or a movie on peace, good householder. Already seen?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from it]

There is a way by which Nirvana can be represented. Imagine water falling on colocasia leaves. Water does not cling to the leaves. That is how Nibbana looks like.
Here is a video for your help :
colocasia leaves

nice white noise effect video. Base on what for this answer? I still have a horrible question  for ya in the chat roon my friend

Based on knowledge. Not clinging to the five aggregates is Nirvana...


text:
Dharma Name in tibetan tradition
I took refugee and got a dharma name.

Why do I get a dharma name?
How does a Lama usually choose the name?
Do I make use of this name in Dharma related context? (Like for example writing a letter to a Lama or maybe even introduce myself)
Best and thank you for answering.

Like you, when I took refuge, I received a dharma name—and so did the other twenty, or so, people who took refuge at the same time. We all received the same dharma name. I can’t answer your questions 1 and 2, but I do have a first-person account of a teaching related to dharma names in Tibetan Buddhism.
I once attended a weekend course on meditation in New York City given by a well-known Tibetan lama, and at one point, he digressed to tell a story about what are called “Buddhist names” and a time that he tried to teach a student that his desire for such a name was an attachment that was holding him back.
He related that this student had come to him to ask the lama to bestow a Buddhist name on him, pointing out that he had been a good and earnest student for many years. The lama asked the student what his given name was, and the man replied, “John.” The lama said: “Ok, your Buddhist name is John.” The student, as the lama recounted, stood there bewildered. So the lama, after a sufficient pause, explained to the man that his idea of a Buddhist name was an attachment.
I found the story the lama related very useful myself, especially given the predilection of many people to become attached to symbols and traditions, rather than the underlying wisdom that they stand for. I don’t know what the purpose of a Buddhist name is, but I believe it may be more a way to fulfill a ‘Western’ need, than a substantive accomplishment.
It’s different, of course, if you have a more direct relation with your teacher, and he gives you a Buddhist name. In that case, it is a direct recognition of your efforts along your path.

During one Refuge ceremony, I remember Dza Kilung Rinpoche telling his students:

Some people obsess with their Dharma names, try to find everything about it - who had that name, what it means and so on. Do not research your Dharma name too much. Who knows, maybe it will research you ;)

Your relationship with your Dharma name is a mysterious relationship. Let it do its thing, do not research the magic away.


text:
Am I following Buddhism as a sort of Escapism?
Some body close to me said to me, "you failed in the real world and so now you are chasing Nirvana and running away". It hurt me a little but set me thinking if he is right?
The story is, I come from a Hindu background and long story short I got into terrible life situation. By some miracle I got stumbled on Ajahn Brahm's talk on youtube four years back. I started digging deep and now calling myself a Buddhist, I sitting on my cushion aiming Jhanas and Nirvana.
But could he be right, imparting status quo worldly wisdom of 'I should fight, I should work harder, I should not give up on my worldly goals'
I have given up my job and no relationship. I spend all my time meditating and listening and reading Buddhism. But have I taken this path as sort of run away from responsibilities. Did I even had a choice to begin with in doing what I am doing. Have I chosen this path or I am just blindly riding what has came to my way with no say of mine.

Consider the opposite: maybe your close one failed the path to Nirvana, and is now chasing the real world?

We can't answer this for you as this stands. Firstly asking if you should turn away from Buddhism on a Buddhist forum is more likely, as I'm sure you're aware, to return plenty of people telling you not to change (that is the easy path). Secondly we cannot know why you turned to Buddhism but it sounds like you aren't too sure either (else you wouldn't need to ask us). I've met people who have successful jobs and relationships but are more compassionate, wise and mindful of their actions than some who devote their life to Buddhism. Study, no matter how hard, doesn't change behaviour on its own.

In a way one has to suffer some kind of setback or loss to turn to the Dhamma in the first place. It could be a loss of someone or something that makes you realize that everything is impermanent. No matter what made you turn towards the Dhamma, you have chosen the right path, therefore have no doubts about it.

This is a profound question.  Somebody may want to delve into spirituality because he is a "loser" and isn't prospering in life.  This is not a new concept.  In fact, the Ratthapala Sutta addresses this very point.  You should go to the link and study the sutta in full.
In Majjhima Nikaya 82, we are introduced to the ascetic Ratthapala, who took up the life of the holy man even though he was from a privileged background, and wealthy, athletic, successful, in the prime of his youth.  We are led to believe that, in the secular life, he had countless opportunities at his disposal.
In the Sutta, the king asks the ascetic Ratthapala, in effect, Why are you joining the spiritual life with the other ascetics, when they are not rich or strong and successful, and you are?

King Koravya sat down on a seat made ready and said: "Master
Raṭṭhapāla, there are four kinds of loss. Because they have
undergone these four kinds of loss, some people here shave off their
hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth[.]  What are
the four? They are loss through ageing, loss through sickness, loss of
wealth, and loss of relatives.
And what is loss through ageing? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last
stage. He considers thus: ‘I am old, aged, burdened with years,
advanced in life, come to the last stage. It is no longer easy for
me to acquire unacquired wealth or to augment wealth already
acquired....
And what is loss through sickness? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. He considers thus: ‘I am
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. It is no longer easy for me
to acquire unacquired wealth....  This is called loss through
sickness.  But Master Raṭṭhapāla now is free from illness....
And what is loss of wealth? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is rich,
of great wealth, of great possessions. Gradually his wealth dwindles
away. He considers thus: Formerly I was rich, of great wealth....
But Master Raṭṭhapāla is the son of the leading clan in this same
Thullakoṭṭhita. Master Raṭṭhapāla has not undergone any loss of
wealth.
And what is loss of relatives? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone has
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives. Gradually those
relatives of his dwindle away. He considers thus: ‘Formerly I had
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives....'

Answering the king, Ratthapala more or less responds that worldly success and prosperity is overrated, and not worth chasing.  It doesn't bring peace.

“Great king, there are four summaries of the Dhamma that have been
taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully
enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from
the home life into homelessness. What are the four?
“‘Life in any world is unstable, it is swept away’: this is the
first summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and
hearing this, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.
“‘Life in any world has no shelter and no protector’: this is the
second summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees…
“‘Life in any world has nothing of its own; one has to leave all and
pass on’: this is the third summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…
“‘Life in any world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of
craving’: this is the fourth summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…"

Personally, I see nothing wrong with somebody taking up the spiritual life simply because he is a "loser" in the "real world".  Don't feel self-critical; don't feel lonely.  There are a lot of "losers" in the "real world", almost all of whom cope with severely dysfunctional forms of escape (alcohol, drugs and whatnot).  It is better to have "escapism" with something that is actually an escape, and more importantly, develop the ability to help others to truly escape, losers and successful people alike.
Remember that losers and unsuccessful people, suffering people, full of confusion and despondent from lack -- are the very reason that the Tathagata appeared into the world.
Don't let anybody, especially non-Buddhist, criticize you for following Buddhism for the wrong reason; they don't know any better.  Grow yourself.  Decide for yourself whether you "need" more material prosperity than you currently have, but don't be stressed or distraught about it.  Practice skepticism towards ideas that aren't life-sustaining, and that weren't developed with your interest at heart.  Choose good role models, people who actually have empathy and inner peace of mind -- not just the the temporary trappings of what passes for status or success.  Learn what is beneficial for this life, and the hereafter, and follow that.

A beautifully wise and compassionate response.

A teacher I once practised with tended to remark that having immense attachment to spiritual goals is often seen as hypocrisy by those who have few. But what is missed by those others is that such attachments are self-limiting. They take us a certain way down the path, they do their work, and the very work that they motivate us to perform ends in their extinction. Or, as others put it much more simply: there is practice, and there is awakening.
No need to confuse the two.

Worldly successes may be overrated, but can one truly convince oneself of that assertion before having actually experienced such successes to at least some degree? In that sense, it seems to me that such worldly detours may—at least for some people—be necessary waypoints on their path toward enlightenment—if we assume such a thing exists.

Just ask yourself if you would abandon the pursuit if your circumstances changed.  There is your answer.

This is the best answer imo, what matters most is asking yourself why you are doing something. Answer honestly and find out who you really are. What anyone else has to say about you doesn't matter. It's their "narrative", perhaps it's their own way of justifying their existence by insulting you.

If you feel freedom following Buddhism, it is the right path.
The Buddha abandoned the world.

I use to think that people which state this kind of ideas (the criticism made to you) do it under the implicit assumption of life having a clearly objective way to follow, while any other path being a deviation from it. This tends to happen when people is too attached to their own traditions and cultures, and maybe it's because they don't know people from other backgrounds and places, which could have completely different lifestyles, worldviews and goals.
In the west (me being from a western country), this is really common, and there's the impression that of something is not following our contemporary practices, that thing is objectively bad, unhealthy, inmoral or ugly. If we westeners are following the obviously objective best way to live, every other kind of action needs to be justified.
The life under the Dhamma is your chosen path, because there are certain kind of values and ideas that resonate with you. Should there be any more justification than this?
We all do things to achieve satisfaction and well-being, and to avoid dissatisfaction and disconfort. It just happens that the Dhamma offers some views about how to achieve those general goals (and how to not do it), while giving us reasons and the chance to put such reasons to test. I think all of this is way more that what most people tend to do with their paths; paths which most of the time are not chosen with a well-informed mind.
If this path is what helps you to achieve those general goals above described, I think that's what should matter the most.
Kind regards!

It's praiseworthy, good householder, if one reflec5s serious on critic and investigates it first to gain right release from doubt and use this critic as a well-meant gift, yet to prove.
The Uposatha of the fox as well as corrupt escapetism, both are very common this days, not of shine and glory, and righteous success is seldom to trace.
And there is next to twofold social-misuse of many modern Buddhists also what is called "Spiritual bypassing".
There are of course duties, good householder, one needs to fullfil in regard of relations one uses and in regard of livelihood. As such is hard to combine with lay-life, for the most (seldom would one have a supporter). It would be of course a negative escapetism if one tries to neglect ones duties, say for example still enjoying sensual pleasures while living on alms. So in regard of livelihood and duties in a relation, if after a Contemplative Life, if one is after righteous and most praisworthy escapetism, then one should go after it with the highest blessing from all wise and good people and seek for ways which are made for it, the monastic order or look after alternative.
While it is natural, gain, lose, when caught in the world, the way of abounding both may appear for the unattentive as lose as he could hardly trace the only win which lasts, that of real freedom.
It's good to go after thing fully, of which requires giving up, only less are capable, but one should be sure that this path can be walked, inwardly, starting outwardly and means are given.
This days there are a lot of those wishing to enjoy both, world and unbound and for the most they increase hindrances for prosperty in both and develop wrong views and act on them. Next that it is rightly criticized, it most harmful for oneself if using thing otherwise as thought by the giver.
May good householder have the strength and effort to go after the most holly escaping, the holly live, and may one be sure that the Devas open up the doors for one who goes after highest, wishing to leave both, enjoyment and duties in this world.
That one actually walks a righteous way first of all one needs to leave association with corrupt, traders, and seek for actually given means for ones aim.
Don't one follow the real ugly, as there are many "Buddhist", lay but also monastic, of this sort around, failing in regard of doing duties in regard of the Sangha and in regard of worldily sociaty going after the lose of all their merits, consume and incapable even outwardly to give. It's good for one to be kicked to work and be clear about ones ways not to live a useless live: in the youth not gained wealth, even in the old still not renounce as so many here around...
Prove all well and then, seen right way clear, go for it! (Here just burning a poor woman - who couldn't go after any gain, caught by the roots of suffering strongly - having died yesterday in the early morning hours in the near village) Don't one waste time and forget or neglect the paths of merits!
[note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and for households, but as means to work one fast possibel out]

I should fight, I should work harder

If you are really following the path, believe me, you will have to do that and more.  Much more.  But ask yourself truly, are you running toward the dharma or running away from samsara?  Which of the two more accurately describes your intent?  If it's the former, have at it.  If there is even a shred of the latter,  stop.  That is your practice first and foremost.  Those causes, those obstacles aren't going to go away.  In fact, you will find yourself dealing with them again and again on the cushion.  You might as well disentangle them now.  Determine their nature.  What is it about you that are causing those feelings to arise?  When you get to the root of things, I can promise you that you will have a different perspective both of the dharma and how you manifest your practice.  You won't have to ask what is dharma and what is samsara, what is Buddha and what is not.
My advice to you would be to stop reading.  Stop thinking.  As Dogen writes, to practice the way "is to study the self; to study the self is to forget the self."  Remain in the world, support yourself, but begin embarking on a long forgetting.  And for the love of Pete, find someone to guide you along on the process.

The story is, I come from a Hindu background and long story short I got into terrible life situation. By some miracle I got stumbled on Ajahn Brahm's talk on youtube four years back. I started digging deep and now calling myself a Buddhist, I sitting on my cushion aiming Jhanas and Nirvana.

Sometimes failure in life IS a blessing, while worldly success is a curse in disguise. This explains why the Buddha said being born humans allows the most conducive environment to cultivate the Path. The devas had too much worldly merits, they don't know what suffering is, hence they don't see any need for training until it's too late. Even right here on earth, if one's born with a silver spoon in one's mouth, then grew up to become some successful businessman who has it all: wealth, health, fame, good-look, the most beautiful wife and kids, etc.. then odds are good that s/he will not pay attention to the Teaching, let alone practicing the Teaching. Only until old age, sickness, and death come crashing into his face would he realizes the urgency to cultivate, but it'd all be too late by then! By the way, the task of seriously cultivating the Dhamma is no easy task, and it's certainly not for the faint of heart or the lazy. So, bottom line is, only you would be able to tell deep down in your heart whether you use the Dhamma as your crutch, or as your new noble way of life. If it's the former, then your close friend did speak the truth, hence no reason to feel upset. If it's the latter, then have compassion for your friend and simply invite him to join you with the practice for a month to really see it for himself whether it's an escapist life or not!

I think no one can give you a satisfying answer on this. You'll know. But in the future, when looking back. But maybe you are afraid about the consequences you have to face. (Concerning job and private life) But this "fear" is part of samsara.
I admire your courage. Because you are walking a path leading you out of this. But maybe not. Who can say now? Maybe you get totally new opportunities/perspectives. Important is, that you took a decision. I wish you all the best.

Indeed it is an escape. Escape from suffering. Someone told you that you are a failure and that is why you are running away from world, and you lost your faith. This does not suit a follower of Buddha. Having no doubt about the nature of the world is one the primary requirements for the spiritual growth. Don’t be so shaky. Test the knowledge of Dhamma yourself and then believe it.

Footsteps taken at the start of a journey do not control the footsteps taken at the end.
The feet that return to their first footsteps are different feet.
Let your journey do it's work and soon where you are will be less important than who you are.

There have always been, and currently, many successful people who followed a path of Buddhism Dharma. Prince Gautama, for example, relinquished worldly materials to awaken as the Buddha.
What success means in worldly concepts and wisdom concepts, are obviously different.

There's plenty of people in the West that - according to Western psychology - pursue escapism through hedonism, movies, sex and even work.
If Buddhism works for you - and you say that it does - then it's not escapism. It's Buddhism.
edit
@Lio Elbammaf: I'm answering from a Buddhist perspective and what's wrong with that on a site devoted to Buddhism? It seems to me that the OP isn't critiquing the 'critique' and merely accepting it.

The question is really "Why does this person follow buddhism?" If they follow it because it makes them feel morally superior to people who measure success in other ways then they're no different, really, than those who choose the other pass times you suggested. They're merely stroking their own ego (and not truly following Buddhism).

Me too faced a lot of mistakes and failures but i never give up or being escapism of issues. Nobody with me most of the time except some online Youtube Buddhism talk that simulating somebody with me when i was in pain too. I did a lot online research for improvement and solution too before i have a chance to learn Buddhism.
I do understand your pain. I had so many things i did (To "Divert" your attention/attachment) and i loved when i was single and not attach to a job. i.e. doing charity job, explore some natural jungle, join some sport contest n i won a championship because i wanna proof to my friend that 6 pax is emptiness and useless to claim no.1 in sport contest :D, etc. Hope some Chemicals hacks help you. You might miss some of it but dont forget you many others goodies waiting for you. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MgyQ2qYVMOaqdqbbJasDDVJj_WCJZFdk/view?usp=sharing
My personal answer for those always ask me what is emptiness as normally they will think Buddhist is all empty typically in term of financial, marital, material world stuff. Then i will answer that's for Buddha's level and i am way far from it. I just wish to create a best version of myself and share this link below as my life objective and be balance. If i share Buddhism quote, they won't understand a single and i think 4Q explanation below pretty compatible to my Buddhism study. When i further study of 4Q below then i slowly understand the hidden Gem meaning of the Sutta.
As conclusion, be best version yourself and step by step my friend.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141116173602-54252615-sq-eq-iq-pq-success/

It seems to me that you are asking multiple questions.
Question 1 is about your motivation. For this question, I like the answer, "Just ask yourself if you would abandon the pursuit if your circumstances changed." If you can be honest with yourself in asking this question, you will know the answer.
Question 2 is about responsibility for your decisions. You are responsible for the decision to choose your current pursuit and to abandon all other pursuits. I am a Christian, not a Buddhist, so I can't encourage you in your current pursuit as it does not lead to life as I understand it. In Christianity, that requires a close relationship with Jesus. What I can encourage you to do is to take responsibility for this decision. If you are certain that it is correct, then you must continue. If you are not certain that it is correct, then you must consider the other options carefully and choose the one that seems best to you.


text:
Is dependent co-arising an "IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B" relation?
"IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B" means if you get B you get A, if you get A you get B, if you don't get B you don't get A, and if you don't get A you don't get B.
Does dependent co-arising have the same relation I've mentioned above?

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form..."

"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..."

If the answer is "yes" to the above question, as we know an Arahant has ceased the craving without remainder. Then do consciousness, name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and feeling not  present in an Arahant? If these present as effects of past birth's causes, how one can escape from this cycle?
If the answer is "no" to my first question, then is there another dependent co-arising which applies to Arahants? (I suppose there's no such)
I know that dependent co-arising is very complex and hard to understand. But, I've got totally confused here. Please someone help me.

i've asked similar question//s dunno how phrased tho

OP: Does dependent co-arising have the same relation I've mentioned above?

Yes.

OP: If the answer is "yes" to the above question, as we know an Arahant has ceased the craving without remainder. Then do
consciousness, name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and feeling not
present in an Arahant?

Please see the quote from SN 22.48 below on the five (non-clinging) aggregates and the five clinging aggregates.
In an Arahant, ignorance ceases, hence the five clinging aggregates also cease, thus collapsing dependent origination nidanas. This means that the nidanas of consciousness, name-and-form, six sense media, contact and feeling  that are tainted with clinging, cease in an Arahant.
However, the five (non-clinging) aggregates remain and continue functioning. This is also implied by Nibbana element with fuel remaining in Iti 44. This is also supported by Ven. Thanissaro's commentary quoted below.
When the Arahant passes away, the five (non-clinging) aggregates cease. This is also implied by Nibbana element without fuel remaining in Iti 44.

OP: If these present as effects of past birth's causes, how one can escape from this cycle?

I don't quite understand this question. From my understanding, the way to escape suffering is by uprooting ignorance through cultivating wisdom through the Noble Eightfold Path.
From SN 22.48 (trans. Ven. Bodhi):

“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.
“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
… that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
aggregates subject to clinging.”

From Iti 44 (trans. Ven. Thanissaro):

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
no fuel remaining."

Commentary on Iti 44 by Ven. Thanissaro:

With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
(anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is
still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
here or anywhere else.

From comments:

OP: Five non-clinging aggregates are also conditioned. What is the cause for five non-clinging aggregates? Does that cause lie within the
dependent co-arising?

The origin of the five (non-clinging) aggregates can be found in SN 35.145:

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body,
with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

If the next question is "whose old kamma is it?", the answer comes from SN 12.17.

Thank you for your answer. Five non-clinging aggregates are also conditioned. What is the cause for five non-clinging aggregates? Does that cause lie within the dependent co-arising?

@Damith The answer for that is from SN 35.145: "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma."

Very good answer. Sadhu

Part of the reason for (purpose of) explaining "Dependent Origination" is to explain how it happens and (more usefully or practically) how to stop it.
Because it can be stopped (interrupted), it is not, "B WILL ALWAYS CERTAINLY HAPPENS IF A HAPPENS, AND ONLY IF A". Instead, it is, "B POSSIBLY (or USUALLY) HAPPENS IF A HAPPENS, AND ONLY IF A"
Correct me if I wrong but I think that the "link" which people can break is between "feeling" and "craving". The training includes to not "delight" in "pleasant feelings" -- see for example SN 36.6 and SN 22.53.
I guess that means that when "craving" is stopped then all the subsequent nidanas are stopped too -- i.e. attachment, becoming, birth, and death -- and maybe ignorance too.
I imagine that the other nidanas would or must remain -- they correspond to the five skandhas -- but no longer as objects of attachment (nor of delusion) ... they remain until parinibbāna.

delight is attachment - MN 38 - "delight in feelings is attachment" - Yā
vedanāsu nandī tadupādānaṃ

"IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B"

yes

means if you get B you get A

yes. if you get B you have A

if you get A you get B

not necessarily. the cycle of dependent origination can be cut/stopped at various places, such as at nama-rupa (MN 19) or at feeling (MN 38; SN 12.44) or even at craving so there is no attachment (MN 148).

if you don't get B you don't get A

not necessarily. A can arise without B arising

and if you don't get A you don't get B.

yes

Then do consciousness, name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and
feeling not present in an Arahant?

the above are present in an arahant however there are not these phenomena when arising, affected or polluted by ignorance
refer to SN 22.48 & other suttas in another answer

May I ask, it's not required but if I you would be so kind us to post a reference, I'd like to read more about "the cycle of dependent origination can be cut/stopped at various places, such as at nama-rupa or at feeling or even at attachment"? What would you recommend as a reference or explanation of that?

This will explain only the first part.
This is called Noble Theory.

When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises. When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases. Dasabala Sutta SN 12.21

Because of A (existence of A),         B is(B exist).
If A arises(formally A is not there),  B will arise.
If A doesn't exist,                    B is not (exist).
Cessation of A (currently exist)       B ceases.

This is the basis of every link of cause effect theory. All the things happening in this world is due to this theory.
It is not "if you get A you get B". It is because of A, you get B.
For example: Suppose, we have a solar panel in our roof and a motor connected to it inside the house. Because if sunlight, motor works. If no sunlight (at night) motor is not working. When sunlight appears (in the morning) formally stopped motor starts working, At evening (due to cease of sunlight) working motor get stop working.
"Cessation of A, B ceases." This is why one can get rid of suffering.

"IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B" means if you get B you get A, if you get A
you get B, if you don't get B you don't get A, and if you don't get A
you don't get B.
Does dependent co-arising have the same relation I've mentioned above?

Let us understand it by taking an example: We say with birth as a condition aging and death comes to be.
You say if you get B you get A which is not the right way to state it. Because the right statement would be :IF  aging and death then birth must have occurred.
You say  if you get A you get B. Right way to put it : IF Birth has occurred then aging and death comes to be...
You say if you don't get B you don't get A. Right way to put it: IF there is a cessation of aging and death then there must have been cessation of Birth.
You say if you don't get A you don't get B. Right way to put it : IF there is cessation of birth then there is cessation of aging and death.
The main flaw in your statement is the usage of you get and you dont get.
Dependent origination only discusses conditionality and doesn't discuss who gets it or doesn't get it.
If this arises then that arises. If this does not arise then that does not arise.

If the answer is "yes" to the above question, as we know an Arahant
has ceased the craving without remainder. Then do consciousness,
name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and feeling not present in an
Arahant? If these present as effects of past birth's causes, how one
can escape from this cycle?

As I said dependent origination only discusses conditionality of the whole mass of suffering... it does not discuss who (whether Arahant or somebody else) suffers.

In simple dependent origination is origination of individuality or birth. So, from my perspective, 'Dependent Cessation' is cesession  of every trace of individuality, with final knowledge as 'i am not', 'not mine'. So, origination and cessation are dependent of 'Universal Base', the uncreate, sublime.
For simple understanding like this; A man on further side of lake watches his own mirage on water, thinks as 'my image, lost in thinking'. But when his interest ceases, he let go of mirage and know, 'This is only mirage, not me, I am not in water'. So, released. The one who ignorantly comes as me and mine, the same one goes and released. (Tathagata).
Tath+agat= The one who comes and thinks as mine and Tatha+gat= the one who wakes up and released by right knowledge, both are the same.

Fool thinks the mirage of moon caste out on water as real moon itself. But, when his ignorance ceases, he see the real moon and his ignorance ceased to exists. He knows, nobody was actually bound nor released. Thou was bound by Ignorance alone. So, by knowledge he got freed. Knowledge is Samma Ditthi. Giving up what is not ours.

It's like two sides of same coin. One side is origination and other one cessation.

Buddhist don't agree with me, but, the Buddha coined the word for released as Tathagata have similarity in other religious texts. Many misunderstood it. It's like this. 1) Tathagata (Thus come and thus go) 2) Tat Tvam Assi (Thou {the one comes} are that {the one released} 3) Brahman (ocean in drop{the one who comes} and drop in ocean {the one who goes}. Pardon me I am using other religious texts. But one can't cling to any particular religion as Truth is ever triumph.

No.
The 'iff and only iff' is redundant.
This leaves 'if A then B'
This is nonsense when it comes to dependent arising. It's not simple-minded (and flawed logic) but a complex description of the phenomenal world.

Yes, I agree. It's beyond our formal thinking. Actually I'm seeking answers for two questions here. One question is hidden, which is "Why this Dhamma called 'atakkāvacara'?". Thank you for your answer!

You have asked a good question, but why ask about the Arahant mind that is not the right direction for your question. I think it's better to ask how your mind operates within the framework of pratītyasamutpāda... because the Arahat knows and because of his knowledge he is librated, So if A is knowledge -> then B which is libration.
But your mind is ignorant, so with what condition can it acquire knowledge of libration when its condition is ignorance. If pratītyasamutpāda as you put it applies to everything then you will never be liberated. But it is not so, your volution / Karma is free to follow another path.
Please read my questions in the link below. The answers provided by @Saptha Visuddhi from Theravada perspective and the bold responses by @Mishu 米殊 should be sufficient to clear your confusion.
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20792/how-does-human-will-fit-with-pratītyasamutpāda


text:
The Noble Eightfold Path for monks and for lay disciples?
Namo Buddhaya
Being well aware of the different posts about this topics, I wished to know how it came to be that the Noble eightfold path presented by Bhikkhu Bodhi would specify that Right action is to refrain only from sexual misconduct :

(3) Abstaining from sexual misconduct (kamesu miccha-cara veramani)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html
While in the Magga-vibhanga Sutta it is refraining from unchastity, as stated here :

"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life,
abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is
called right action.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
I have also stumbled upon this sutta where the translations between Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi and Venerable Ajahn Sujato differ from "refraining from sexual misconduct" to "refraining from sexual activity", while the pali version does state "abrahmacarya" which does suggest chastity as right action within the noble eightfold path, which seems like an undeniably substantial difference.
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8
Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in translation?
May you all be well.

OP: Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold
path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in
translation?

Yes, it is true that there is indeed a separation of the path for lay followers and for monks. The former is the version with defilements, and the latter is the noble version without defilements i.e. the full-fledged Noble Eightfold Path for monks (and nuns) only.
The path of the lay follower who practises Right Action, Right Speech, Right Thought and Right Livelihood as applicable to lay persons, is a valid path in Buddhism, even if it is not THE noble path that leads to the complete end of suffering. I speculate that the lay follower path may not go beyond stream entry, due to lack of renunciation.
From MN 117 (translated by Ven. Sujato) regarding Right Action:

And what is wrong action? Killing living creatures, stealing, and
sexual misconduct. This is wrong action.
And what is right action? Right action is twofold, I say. There is
right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of
good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right action that
is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? Refraining from
killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct
(kāmesu micchācārā). This is
right action that is accompanied by defilements.
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and
refraining from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble
mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the
noble path. This is right action that is noble.

The word "abrahmacariya" is not used above.
This sutta contains similar dual versions for Right Speech and Right Livelihood. Interestingly, there's also Right Thought (with two versions).

After writing the above answer, I found that a wise lay follower can become an Arahant on his death bed in SN 55.54:

If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the
Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”

Ven. Thanissaro's commentary to SN 55.54 indicates that a wise or discerning lay follower in this sutta, actually refers to a lay follower who has at least achieved stream entry.

The former version is not "noble", as MN 117 says. Regards

@Dhammadhatu Yes. You're right. I've corrected my answer.

Lay followers engaging in the sexual act are not practising the Noble Path because they are not practising intention of renunciation of the 2nd factor, not practising celibacy of the 4th factor and not practising abandoning of lust, covetousness & sensual hindrance of the 6th, 7th & 8th factors.
The reason for such a distinction in translation is Bhikkhu Bodhi is simply totally wrong; like both he and Sujato are totally wrong about many things (although Sujato is not wrong on this occasion).

Nobel Eight Fold Path is for the entire humanity. If you sincerely walk upon it you will become a monk and eventually you will attain Nirvana.

It's not possible to follow the path outside the Brahmacaria, good householder. Practice for beyond starts with the Uposatha-observance.
And yes, this Ariya-magga, isn't one of on-house (stand)-holder, holder of the world, seekers of refuge in the senses, and requires to leave home to develop.
In regard of how deep "sex" actually goes to fit really into Brahmacaria, one may investigate and reflect the Methuna Sutta: The Discourse on Coupling (May one be aware that Upasaka Piya Tan couldn't let go of first and so the exolainings related to him are corrupt while else if fine, first version was actually better, before his total going back...)
And one cut's oneself totally off if revil the Tathagate, downvotes the truth of Dhamma and has no regard toward recluses... so it's total not the path for ordinary householder, consumer, used to wish, demand and go after the low first.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from it]

Why was this answer downvoted? The first discourse makes it clear that lay people having sex are not following noble eightfold path.

@SriramGoutamP I downvoted because the answer disparages the Tipitaka scholar Piya Tan for being an ex-monk.

@ruben2020 OK I didn't know about Piya Tan, thanks.

@SriramGoutamP You can read the wikipedia page on Piya Tan, his YouTube Channel and website.

Piya Tan is an ex-monk and trader in Dhamma, prefering sex and used to re-write his works so that they fit to his ways... liking or not is something different to praise and dispraise and has it's effects... aside of being a matter of emotional intelligence. If prefering to regard such before the Gems... well, maybe an identification issue. Not to speak about a "practitioner" using votes, even down...