text:
What do you wish you knew when you started down the path of buddhism?
This stack exchange actually lead me towards the path of finding a lama and becoming a Buddhist. Thank You!
This got me thinking, what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism? Is there something you wish you knew when you started down it? Conversely is there something that could've been better explained now that you have been pursuing the path?
EDIT:  Given the great responses thus far I want to open this up to all forms of Buddhism. Not just Tibetan, I think there are valuable learnings in all approaches.

that it's OK to ask for a chair

what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism?

Be sceptical towards a strangers advice on the internet.

Well played. ^_^

I am a Tibetan Buddhist, and have been for about 50 years.
I don't really know if I can help with that question - but maybe so.
Here are some things that might of use to a beginner.

Learn to develop loving-kindness towards everything and everyone in the past, present and future, without exception.

Recognise that Karma is action - the cause – (NOT the effect), and that it represents most of our practice. When someone says "she's got good karma", from a Buddhist perspective that would mean "she's a good practitioner" - not because of her previous lives, but because of what she is doing in this life.

Karma means: every action has consequences - even the slightest mental action. Because actions have consequences, we must vigilantly exercise responsibility and take ownership of our behaviour.

Emptiness: Do not waste your time reading many different books, or learning Sanskrit words, or philosophy, for this.  Likewise, do not try to understand it from sutra, or root texts. Everyone writes about it, but most authors have their own point of view, which misses the point. For instance, if you are Gelug, then you can get all you need from a single text: The insight chapter of the Lam Rim Chenmo. But in the end, emptiness is any view that:

negates phenomena as a basis of craving and

does not conflict with karma (see above).
That is all.  When, while meditating on karma, your understanding of emptiness is improved; and, while meditating on emptiness, your understanding of karma is improved – then you are probably getting it right.
From a strict standpoint, you cannot really engage in Buddhist compassion until you understand emptiness: This is because, until you recognise the truth of all-pervasive suffering (the consequence of craving (tṛ́ṣṇā / སྲེད་པ), via self-grasping) and how it is rooted in ignorance, you will not be able to recognise the most insidious and corrupting suffering that lies at the base of all sentient beings. So it is important to get guidance from your teacher on this subject at some point.

Tibetan Buddhism is inclusive Mahayana. Be vigilant against criticising other schools, other traditions (such as the Theravada), other religions, or their practitioners.

At some point, you will be thinking of taking initiation.  It is really important that your bodhicitta and insight are well established before you enter the path of mantra: There is no hurry. Until you are able to perceive everything and everyone without exception as completely pure, in the nature of Buddha, it's probably better to wait.

Remember that every buddhist text is advice, not doctrine. Even with the writings of your own teacher, you should feel empowered to disagree - but be ready to argue your point with clarity and insight.

Make sure you spend some time every day meditating - and especially developing calm-abiding / shi-né. Even if it's a token minute for the sake of continuity.

Do not feel that you have to accept all the actions of your teacher as pure.  This is a common mistake which leads to great difficulty later on.  You will find that many talk about their teacher as being a Buddha - but this is to do with tantra, where everything in the universe - even dogshit - is Buddha, and has nothing specific to do with your teacher.

Always work to be honest with yourself, and with others: Learning to be a beginner is really important.

The only time you have to practice is right now.  Every single moment is a one-time-only opportunity to practice.  Whenever you are being introduced to a belief or idea, ask yourself – how does this inform me in my practice? What I mean is "how does it make me a better practitioner, or a better person?"  For instance, does it really inform us to know whether there are blue flowers in Tushita?

We take responsibility - we don't externalise to gods, or buddhas, or parents, or governments.

One way to test if your practice is working for you is to do with empowerment. If you feel you are less empowered by your practice, you need to change your practice, or your relationship with your practice.

Oh, and you don't need to wear different clothes, or hang a mala around your neck, or get a MANI tattoo, or change your diet (other than alcohol); don't mistake the external trappings that you will see many of your fellow Buddhists adorned with: Being a buddhist is in the mind, not in the cloth.

Great question.
There are many things but if i could only choose only one thing; i would advice to be more friendly, polite, tolerant and to avoid confrontational speech whilst learning in general. I wish i had enough wisdom to be more tactful, restrained & diplomatic.
The controversies, theory and practical aspects of the teaching one can figure out but one can't take back the things one regrets saying.
I think it's more important to be right than getting along with people but they are not mutually exclusive. One's peers in the Sangha are here for the long term and are not going anywhere, so by being friendly one will save oneself and others from a lot of frustration.
As a close second i would advice to be more respectful of my own practice by being jealously protective of what has been won.

On a similar subject one of my first managers told me, "It's not enough to be right" (in the workplace that was, where it's important to work with others). Also I read a sign once on a bus, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

Exactly, unfortunately this lesson has probably cost me more than i will ever comprehend.

Read and learn with virtue as your guide. The vast literature and branches of Buddhism are not easy to swim through it can sink an inquisitive mind.

Nothing, the Path is to be walked - not skipped forward.

I started out later in life with Buddhism, originally coming from a different religious background.
However, I know people who were born into Buddhist families, and understand their kind of exposure to Buddhism.
They had Buddha idols in their homes, to which they may offer water, flowers, fruits, incense etc. and they chanted the standard hymns. They treated the Buddha as a deity to pray to - their version of God.
They had little knowledge of the original teachings of the Buddha, and only thought that they needed to do good things and stay away from the bad, in order to have a good rebirth. The good things of course, included donations to temples and food offering to monks.
When they think of rebirth, they have the idea in mind that the exact same consciousness wanders throughout one's life, experiencing things, and then continues in another body, which is false, according to the Buddha.
They also had superstitions like going to a Thai Buddhist temple on Vesak Day and putting their car keys and home keys into a tray to be chanted upon by the monk for blessings, and have holy water sprinkled onto them using a small broom.
I know you are interested in Tibetan Buddhism. This is ok for me, but I find certain practices there superstitious too, like trances where the Dharma protectors occupy mediums to give blessings and discourses.
When you understand at least a significant part of the original teachings of the Buddha based on the Early Buddhist Texts - the practices above do not make sense.
The Buddha in his own time, criticized the people around him for having superstitions like bathing in a river to cleanse oneself of sins, or thinking that funeral rites will cause the soul to go to heaven. He also explicitly forbade his monks from practising astrology, palmistry, divination, fortune telling etc. - which he called "animal arts". Ironically, millennia later, people professing religion in the name of the Buddha have similar superstitions.
So, on behalf of them, I wish people would study and understand the original teachings of the Buddha, rather than being held back by superstitions and ignorance of the teachings.

-1 because this seems to be an answer about what you wish they knew. :-)

-1 because you are talking about what you are not. Do you not think it would be more helpful to talk from a position of what is shared, rather than your personal notions of what is different?  In general, we should be talking in the language of the audience - finding a way of helping them in the path that they choose: To make a judgement against their path implies that you have access to greater insight which, frankly, is arrogant. Even Gautama Buddha used the language, thoughts, and ideas of his audience.

@Konchog I don't understand you. I'm not against any Buddhist tradition. I'm only commenting against superstitious practices which has crept into all Buddhist traditions, the likes of which was criticized by Gautama Buddha himself 2500 years ago. These practices were probably imported from religious traditions outside of Buddhism. I have a deep respect for Tibetan Buddhism and have nothing against it. Some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism like Dzogchen are very advanced. In a way, this topic is personally related to me too, as my previous religious background was troubled with superstitions too.

@ruben2020, I understand that you don't understand - and I would like to go through it with you but it is recommended not to use comments for a discussion. But in brief, paragraphs 7,8 and 9 only indicate your own misunderstanding of the Himalayan traditions.  The differences between Buddhist mantra practice and the EBT are almost entirely on emphasis. For instance, with the tisikkhā the emphasis in the HT is placed on anattā rather than all the tilakkhaṇa when practicing adhipaññā-sikkhā. (Of course the tilakkhaṇa are accepted - but within adhipaññā-sikkhā the emphasis is anattā).

@ruben2020, there are various reasons for the emphasis: For instance, many non-Buddhist samaṇa traditions accept both dukkha and anicca - but only Buddhists assert anattā. It is said that, in the end, it is the recognition of anattā that actually cuts the root to samsara; that the recognition of dukkha/anicca follow from anattā but anattā does not follow from dukkha/anicca. If you see my answer above, you will see that the HT does not differ from the EBT regarding the strong relationship between anattā and karma.

@Konchog Oh really? I thought the emphasis of Tibetan Buddhism (HT?) is on Madhyamika shunyata rather than anatta (which is the Theravada shunyata).

@ruben2020, maybe you should talk to Ven. Prof. M. Dhammajothi Thero.  According to him, and many others - including myself, Madhyamika suññatā  and the anattā of the EBT are not different in any way whatsoever.  Ven. Thero finds plenty of evidence to show that the identity of paṭiccasamuppāda with anattā is not novel to Nāgārjuna,  Nalanda or the Himalayan Buddhist Traditions (HT). If you look at my answer above, you can see that this is the case. The fourth noble truth - the tisikkhā - is all about cutting the ignorance that gives rise to taṇhā.

@Konchog Yes. I'm aware of this. I analyzed this in this question.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Reciting and memorizing everyday is required for the enlightenment in 7 years.
Concentration meditation everyday is required for the enlightenment in 7 years.
Most important! Tipitaka Memorizer who enlightened Nibbāna and attained Jhāna is required for the enlightenment in 7 years.

Reciting and memorizing
I was born in a child-center study-tradition. Everybody around me taught me to understand first, don't recite and memorize.
Anti-memorizing tradition confuse me when I start learning Tipitaka because many words lost from my memory in reading. Reading and translation broke the sequence of Tipitaka.
The sequence follow to the Pali is important. Nowadays, people already forget it because we were not born in reciting tradition like Buddha was.
We learned Dhamma in our own way and Dhamma is hard, so we act like we are Einstein who can enlighten e=mc^2 by ourselves.
I compare Tipitaka to e=mc^2 because Tipitaka is perfect and complex like that.
When the time gone by, we, who neither memorize any Nikāya nor even a small book like KhuddakaPatha with understanding in before&after words, say "Tipitaka is not unity. Commentary is wrong. We should cut some part off. We know whole Tipitaka." While most Tipitaka Memorizers say "Tipitaka is unity by this way. Commentary view can keep Tipitaka's structure to be unity. No need to cut any part off Tipitaka if we memorize and understand before and after words enough because the conflicts will be decoded then we will know how Tipitaka and Commentary can be unity together.
Concentration meditation everyday
I've written "I compare Tipitaka to e=mc^2 because Tipitaka is perfect and complex like that", so you can't understand through insight meditation and tipitaka, if you have not strong enough wholesome-mind.
My meditation teacher began insight meditation 10+ years after me. He already won the prize now, while I still be the concentration meditation beginner.
So if I can tell myself in the past, I will shout out "Do the concentration meditation everyday every breath, man!"
The best teacher is Tipitaka Memorizer who enlightened Nibbāna and attained Jhāna
Your teacher define how long you have to do the meditation, fast or slow. And you can die every moment  before enlightenment, so open your mind to the Tipitaka Memorizer who enlightened Nibbāna and attained Jhāna. He can use his experience and knowledge to let you enlighten in 7 years.

I have many evidence from the Pali Canons to prove what I've written above.

That the end is the beginning. In 2 senses:

The end is the beginning of everything else

but more what I had in mind

When you reach somewhere, you realise you always were there. There is no movement. There is only belief in movement. All the journey teaches, is to shed what you need not carry, and realise that what you are on that day, is also what you are now, before beginning.

This answer to same op question, was cut and paste from my blog article where html formatting makes it much more readable:
broken telephone: why Buddhists should study EBT (early buddhist teachings), memorize and recite passages daily
from wikipedia:

Chinese whispers (Commonwealth English) or the telephone game (American English) [1] is an internationally popular children's game [2] in which players form a line, and the first player comes up with a message and whispers it to the ear of the second person in the line. The second player repeats the message to the third player, and so on. When the last player is reached, they announce the message they heard to the entire group. The first person then compares the original message with the final version. Although the objective is to pass around the message without it becoming garbled along the way, part of the enjoyment is that, regardless, this usually ends up happening. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly from that of the first player, usually with amusing or humorous effect. Reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, the difficult-to-understand mechanism of whispering, and that some players may deliberately alter what is being said to guarantee a changed message by the end of the line.
The game is often played by children as a party game or on the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[1] or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection or even oral traditions.

AN 2.20

“Dveme, bhikkhave, dhammā saddhammassa sammosāya antaradhānāya saṃvattanti.
“These two things, monks, lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
Katame dve?
What two?
Dunnikkhittañca padabyañjanaṃ attho ca dunnīto.
The words and phrases are misplaced, and the meaning is misinterpreted.
Dunnikkhittassa, bhikkhave, padabyañjanassa atthopi dunnayo hoti.
When the words and phrases are misplaced, the meaning is misinterpreted.
Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve dhammā saddhammassa sammosāya antaradhānāya  saṃvattantī”ti.
These two things lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
“Dveme, bhikkhave, dhammā saddhammassa ṭhitiyā asammosāya anantaradhānāya saṃvattanti.
These two things lead to the continuation, persistence, and enduring of the true teaching.
Katame dve?
What two?
Sunikkhittañca padabyañjanaṃ attho ca sunīto.
The words and phrases are well organized, and the meaning is correctly interpreted.
Sunikkhittassa, bhikkhave, padabyañjanassa atthopi sunayo hoti.
When the words and phrases are well organized, the meaning is correctly interpreted.
Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve dhammā saddhammassa ṭhitiyā asammosāya anantaradhānāya saṃvattantī”ti.
These two things lead to the continuation, persistence, and enduring of the true teaching.”

I wish I had understood that enlightenment is not a destination, or an event, but that the training itself is enlightenment.


text:
Buddhism and the Diet Practices view from other religion
Since ever i have the half vegetarian diet practices, i have problem below with the society especially with the close friends.
Ques: How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic. Well, Buddhism is base on logic right?

Plants also has consciousness, and then why do you eat it? -> Hope someone has strong biological knowledge background also able to answer this? Does plant has consciousness? If really yes, how do we handle it?

Some other religions follower may disagree/dis-comfort/against when i avoid meat and we cant enjoy the common meal or so call "good food". Feedback from them is diet should be balance or simply the Bible or Quran written so they allow to eat it? I felt i am against their God's will. The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food. I just can't do it to pray together especially when eating those meat like Sushi with a lot of eggs on top, it has a lot lives inside.

Sometime when i try to explain those animal or fish killed alive is very crude too. i.e. Lobster and it will scream when we boiled it alive. Lobster is best to be boiled alive to serve as food. And then, i will like start losing a friend because when they know the truth and most of the time truth doesn't bring happiness. I know my mistake is the choice of words when explaining about diet. Any guide for this specific topic?

To answer your first question:
Plants have form, feeling and perception but not mental formations or consciousness. As such, they are not sentient beings. From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). Plants neither possess nor require consciousness. Trends in Plant Science, 24(8), 677-687.
The first precept of not taking a life, therefore does not apply to plants.
To answer your second question:
According to most schools of Buddhism, it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.
Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's  ok.
To answer your third question:
If you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.
As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.
To summarize:

It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient
It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.
Note: Some Mahayana texts like the Lankavatara Sutra discourage eating meat.

According to most schools of Buddhism Mahayana too? I thought that was one of the differences.

@ChrisW You can read this interview with the Dalai Lama. He says the Mahayana Vinaya does not prohibit meat eating, but has the same restrictions as the Theravada Vinaya. On the other hand, some Mahayana texts like Lankavatara Sutra discourage meat eating. He himself was originally a meat eater due to the food availability in Tibet. Then he attempted vegetarianism in India, but health issues caused him to return to eating meat.

Whether plants have consciouness or to what extent doesn't obviate the fact that persons need sustenance to grow etc. There can be moderation in consumption however, & nonwaste of foodstuffs, lumber etc, which too is efficient from resource utilisation standpoints. Plants do react to light & water & wind etc, yet typically plants are described as nonconscious by current western science, & don't have neural systems, so, sort of depends on how consciousness & volition are being defined.
Consuming animal flesh is perceived as ok by them, so if sharing dinner etc with them such menu items would be reasonably expected. They are being friendly & generous in their way, & it's nice of them to share their time & their resources. If persons select to notconsume animal flesh for whatever reason, good friends might make allowance for that and have some nice things to eat other than animal flesh: bread, potatoes, beans, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. So maybe good to appreciatively consume those items & forego discussions re what the hosts are consuming. They will observe the example of someone notconsuming the animal flesh. And consuming some lobster from a can & which would otherwise be discarded is different from participation of obtaining/ demise of live lobsters. And they may offer thanks for having food & ok health etc, which seems reasonable to observe, and less so thanking for factory farms etc. And to some extent nutritional considerations may be valid. Moderation & nonwaste, & noncontribution(even indirectly) to demise of living things is generally good. To gently show is different from causing sadness or distress to them by comments that they don't understand, and activies which on their part were kindly intentioned. Maybe sidestep such situations is generally good, and each situation may vary.
Nonparticpation in the demise of things, and of such venues, shows by example: and if specifically asked, perhaps could offer a brief explanation, & if presented nicely, might have more good result than more emphatic responses. Good friends would generally be respectful of views differing from their own, so maybe try and use gentle words if commenting on such things, or if replying to a sincere request for information. And perhaps even gentler & briefer if such topic might arise during lunch or at dinner etc.

The Buddha did not forbid eating meat. However, what the Buddha DID say is this:

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

And if one is pressed for more detail, we can quote the Buddha about the why of not killing:

MN8:13.1: Cunda, I say that even giving rise to the thought of skillful qualities is very helpful, let alone following that path in body and speech. That’s why you should give rise to the following thoughts. ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’ ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’ …

And if one is pressed for more detail, we can quote the Buddha about the skillful:

AN3.69:9.1: There are these three skillful roots. What three?
AN3.69:9.3: Contentment, love, and understanding.
Contentment is a root of the skillful.  When a contented person chooses to act by way of body, speech, or mind, that too is skillful. When a contented person, not overcome by greed, doesn’t cause another to suffer under a false pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or condemnation or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’, that too is skillful. And so these many skillful things are produced in them, born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by contentment.  Love is a root of the skillful.  When a loving person chooses to act by way of body, speech, or mind, that too is skillful.  When a loving person, not overcome by hate, doesn’t cause another to suffer under a false pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or condemnation or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’, that too is skillful.

Because of this, many Buddhists simply find it more skillful to be vegetarian, but will consent to eat meat prepared and offered kindly. Lastly, although road-kill pot roast would be fine doctrinally, most vegetarians would find such a dish unappetizing simply because a body used to eating vegetables is unaccustomed to the heaviness of meat.

What other people eat doesn't bother me much if at all any more, perhaps it used to -- it's not my business. And I know that some animals are carnivores, etc. Even being vegetarian isn't harmless, people point out that worms and mice and so on are killed when a field is used for agriculture.
Some people try to be fruitarian because of concerns like that -- I think of that (semi-extreme food discipline) as being more like what Jains do than Buddhists.
Since you're interested, the Christians have doctrine on the subject -- Matthew 15 which Christians read as exempting them from Judaic dietary laws:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; These are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man.

I don't know an equivalent doctrine in Buddhism but so far as I know it's similar or identical.
How to handle the scenario below or how to answer them to make them comfort/understand base on Buddhism or logic.
If someone asks me "why?", I just say, "Oh, lots of reasons."
If someone asks again I might, "Well I reckon it can be good for your health, good for the planet, I find the treatment of farm animals horrific, and so on."
But I'm not trying to push my view.
It can be inconvenient for the cook though.
Note that I think Buddhist monks aren't always able to be vegetarian I think the vinaya requires them to be "easy to support" (not to be picky/demanding eaters).
The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food.
Maybe they can be thankful for their food, whether or not it's also your food.
Don't forget, they are all civilised, very civilised.
Any guide for this specific topic?
Two bits.

I've heard or had the lobster argument. I imagine other people have too, though if they're young perhaps there's always a first time. I don't know that this kind of argument is ever effective/beneficial/persuasive though I guess it is sometimes.
After the lobster is chosen and cooked might not be the most effective time to discuss it, a better time might be when you're shopping or planning a meal.
To some extent this is samsara (birth and death), to which apparently the proper attitude is nibbida.
See also SN 7.2 which is ostensibly about food but more particularly about not participating in someone else's argument.

My parents had a not very-well-trained dog when I was small, I learned not to get between him and his food especially -- at meal-time I'd fill and drop his food bowl for him and get my hand out of the way, to avoid being growled and snapped at.
Likewise what I remember of people's reactions or facial expression, if I tried to disparage, argue against or take away their food at the table, was that it wasn't really very welcome!

The tough part is when my partner is inviting me to Christ, they will pray for thankfulness for the food.  --> just put it this way, the fish is killed alive and served as steam fish? I just explained it's common sense and nothing to do with religion to kill it alive and eat it

I don't understand your comment, anything killed is "killed alive", that's the definition of "killing". In nature animals might be eaten alive! Part of my reason for being vegetarian is so that I don't feel personally involved in or responsible for this kind of violence. I'm not sure I can prevent other people though, i.e. successfully tell the tiger to do this or that, or if so possibly only by proving by an example that shows that another way of life is feasible. See also verses 5 and 6 of the Dhammapada.

"killed alive" ==> if the fish is swimming in the aquarium at the restaurant, then we choose it, killed and eat it. or this one youtube.com/watch?v=tn2qDphoGrk.. My teacher always taught me not to do it, try choose food those already long dead or more vege as a practice to be Vegan.

I used to be a regular crab eater as it's really tasty because it best to be cooked alive.. i think it's been 4 years i didnt eat any crab.

I can remember the tastes of meat, it was so long ago now that I have no craving or aversion, it hardly disturbs me to smell or to see it on someone else's plate -- not my business.

I advise my students to avoid eating mammals unless they have health issues. This means they should avoid pork, beef, lamb, etc., that is, anything belonging to the mammal class. These mammals are closest to us in awareness than other animals. Although they can’t achieve enlightenment, these mammals have a minimal capacity to reason. That is the reason we should not kill them. Buying frozen meat is condoning the killing of mammals. It’s supply and demand. Stop buying it and it will not be supplied. It doesn’t matter that someone else killed it. If you eat it, then you agree with them and condone the action (karma).

Not that I disagree but I don't see that this answers any of the OP's questions.

I was directing this answer to question 3. Sorry for not pointing that out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Correlation between vedanta and Dhamma
Is there a correlation between vedanta (non-dualism) and Dhamma? Are there references in the Pali-canon to vedanta?

What was before the Buddha? The Vedas and the earliest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya) came before the Buddha.
A few other Upanishads (Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki) and the Nyaya school of logic may have developed around the same time as the Buddha.
If you look at the scholarly dates given in Wikipedia, all Vedanta schools, Samkhya, Yogasutras of Patanjali, Purva Mimamsa school, the rest of the Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita all came after the Buddha's time.
If you read the Vedanta page on Wikipedia, you will find this info:

Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu
philosophy.
Some of the better known sub-traditions of Vedanta include:

Advaita Darshan - established by Adi Shankara (788–820 CE)
Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE)
Dvaita Darshan - established by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya (c. 7th century CE)
Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE)
Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE)

On the other hand, if you read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha:

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians
in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while
at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those
who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side
of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies,
however, have not been accepted by all historians.

So, Vedanta (as a school) came after the Buddha. So you will not find references to Vedanta in the Pali Canon. The only reference is to the three Vedas in the Canki Sutta (MN 95) and Tevijja Sutta (DN 13). The composers of the Vedas are also mentioned in these suttas by name.
I imagined that Advaita Vedanta influenced Indian Mahayana schools, but it turns out that it may be the other way round. Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school, lived around 150 - 250 CE. Asanga and Vasubandhu, the founders of the Yogacara school, lived around 3rd to 4th century CE. This predates all schools of Vedanta.
The best correlation between Buddhism and Vedanta that I can find is from  "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" (1995) by Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp:

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
(true substance)," or similarly.

And another one from "Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm Shift)" (1994-95) by Acarya Dharmavajra:

To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an
ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as
something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate
truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing
or ultimate reality.

Certainly, the Vedanta philosophy expounded by Adi-Shankara and even his teacher Gauḍapāda are all centuries after the Pali-Canon or even Nagarguna, but to say that the philosophy of non-dualism is a Buddhist influence on the Indian thought as @ruben2020 implied above is a stretch out of proportion. Ashtavakra Gita predate Buddhism by 400-600 yrs'.
Some may argue that the Gita is not an Advaita Vedanta scripture, but no one would deny that it is non-dual teaching.
The Ashtavakra Gita (Sanskrit in Devanagari: अष्टावक्रगीता; IAST: aṣṭāvakragītā) or the Song of Ashtavakra is a classical Advaita Vedanta scripture. Based on the language structure, this Vedic scripture is also known as Ashtavakra Samhita, and it is dated to be around 1100 BCE to 800 BCE based on the composition style of the Samhita period. The Ashtavakra Samhita documents a dialogue between the Perfect Master Ashtavakra and Janaka, one of the Janaka king of Mithila.

If you look at the dates given in Wikipedia, Ashtavakra Gita is dated after the Buddha and even after the Bhagavad Gita but before Adi Shankara and Gaudapada. According to another, it comes after Adi Shankara.

The Pali-Canon is pre Vedanta, I think it is fare to say that, thus there is no reference to Vedanta in it.
That said, it is apparent that both Vedanta and Buddhism borrow a lot of ideas from the ancient Vedic and pre-vedic thoughts so it's not a clear cut.
Alara Kalama the teacher of Buddha was a Sramana and taught a Samkhya philosophy which @ruben claim as a post Buddhist philosophy.

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


text:
About the authencity of modern meditation methods
I've been reading a few sources, books, essays and teachings that discuss the idea that the current orthodoxy of Theravada and its modern meditation methods show great differences with what the suttas tell us (especially the ones characterized as being part of the early doctrinal strata) about meditation, jhana and its importance in the buddhist soteriology (i.e. the path towards "salvation" from dukkha and the cycle of rebirth).
For instance, some investigations conclude that methods such as Vipassana are not "methods" in the suttas, but qualities to be developed (along with samatha) with the practice of Jhana. And so, all the foundations of modern vipassana meditation would come from later sources, and not from the Buddha himself. The same could be said about concepts such as kasina, access concentration, nimitta (as lights seen during meditation), etc.
How well accepted is this idea between bhikkhu/nis, scholars, and lay practitioners? And what consequences does this have for our practice? Should we look for methods of meditation that could go back to the ones described in the suttas, putting aside other sources, such as Abhidhamma or Visuddhimagga?
Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that modern methods are wrong or that they contradict the path laid by the Buddha. I'm just asking if those methods are recognized as not authentic (if we define "authenticity" as the quality of something conforming in form and content with what the Buddha supposedly taught, if we have any way of knowing that with more or less degree of certainty), although useful, inside buddhist circles in general.

You're absolutely right.
Here, I quote from a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah entitled "Unshakeable Peace".

Concerning this issue of samatha and vipassanā, the important thing is
to develop these states in our own hearts. Only when we genuinely
cultivate them ourselves will we know what they actually are.

He describes samatha and vipassana as states above, and not methods.

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

He says above that it does not make sense to separate vipassana and samatha.

As the mind becomes peaceful, initially the peace will arise from the
serenity of samatha. We focus and unify the mind in states of
meditative peace (samādhi). However, if the peace and stillness of
samādhi fades away, suffering arises in its place. Why is that?
Because the peace afforded by samatha meditation alone is still based
on attachment. This attachment can then be a cause of suffering.
Serenity is not the end of the path. The Buddha saw from his own
experience that such peace of mind was not the ultimate. The causes
underlying the process of existence (bhava) had not yet been brought
to cessation (nirodha). The conditions for rebirth still existed. His
spiritual work had not yet attained perfection. Why? Because there was
still suffering. So based on that serenity of samatha he proceeded to
contemplate, investigate, and analyze the conditioned nature of
reality until he was free of all attachments, even the attachment to
serenity. Serenity is still part of the world of conditioned existence
and conventional reality. Clinging to this type of peace is clinging
to conventional reality, and as long as we cling, we will be mired in
existence and rebirth. Delighting in the peace of samatha still leads
to further existence and rebirth. Once the mind's restlessness and
agitation calms down, one clings to the resultant peace.

See above: The natural way is to start by calming the mind to experience meditative peace (samadhi) arising from  the state or quality of serenity (samatha). But then this does not free one from suffering. There is still clinging.
Then the Buddha's investigation proceeded to examining the working of the mind and how it relates to suffering. This then leads to the state or quality of vipassana.

So the Buddha examined the causes and conditions underlying existence
and rebirth. As long as he had not yet fully penetrated the matter and
understood the truth, he continued to probe deeper and deeper with a
peaceful mind, reflecting on how all things, peaceful or not, come
into existence. His investigation forged ahead until it was clear to
him that everything that comes into existence is like a lump of
red-hot iron. The five categories of a being's experience (khandhas)
are all a lump of red-hot iron. When a lump of iron is glowing
red-hot, is there anywhere it can be touched without getting burnt? Is
there anywhere at all that is cool? Try touching it on the top, the
sides, or underneath. Is there a single spot that can be found that's
cool? Impossible. This searing lump of iron is entirely red-hot. We
can't even attach to serenity. If we identify with that peace,
assuming that there is someone who is calm and serene, this reinforces
the sense that there is an independent self or soul. This sense of
self is part of conventional reality. Thinking, "I'm peaceful", "I'm
agitated", "I'm good", "I'm bad", "I'm happy", or "I'm unhappy", we
are caught in more existence and birth. It's more suffering. If our
happiness vanishes, then we're unhappy instead. When our sorrow
vanishes, then we're happy again. Caught in this endless cycle, we
revolve repeatedly through heaven and hell.
Before his enlightenment, the Buddha recognized this pattern in his
own heart. He knew that the conditions for existence and rebirth had
not yet ceased. His work was not yet finished. Focusing on life's
conditionality, he contemplated in accordance with nature: ''Due to
this cause there is birth, due to birth there is death, and all this
movement of coming and going.'' So the Buddha took up these themes for
contemplation in order to understand the truth about the five
khandhas. Everything mental and physical, everything conceived and
thought about, without exception, is conditioned. Once he knew this,
he taught us to set it down. Once he knew this, he taught to abandon
it all. He encouraged others to understand in accordance with this
truth. If we don't, we'll suffer. We won't be able to let go of these
things. However, once we do see the truth of the matter, we'll
recognize how these things delude us. As the Buddha taught, ''The mind
has no substance, it's not any thing.''
The mind isn't born belonging to anyone. It doesn't die as anyone's.
This mind is free, brilliantly radiant, and unentangled with any
problems or issues. The reason problems arise is because the mind is
deluded by conditioned things, deluded by this misperception of self.
So the Buddha taught to observe this mind. In the beginning what is
there? There is truly nothing there. It doesn't arise with conditioned
things, and it doesn't die with them. When the mind encounters
something good, it doesn't change to become good. When the mind
encounters something bad, it doesn't become bad as well. That's how it
is when there is clear insight into one's nature. There is
understanding that this is essentially a substanceless state of
affairs.
The Buddha's insight saw it all as impermanent, unsatisfactory and
not-self. He wants us to fully comprehend in the same way. The knowing
then knows in accordance with truth. When it knows happiness or
sorrow, it remains unmoved. The emotion of happiness is a form of
birth. The tendency to become sad is a form of death. When there's
death there is birth, and what is born has to die. That which arises
and passes away is caught in this unremitting cycle of becoming. Once
the meditator's mind comes to this state of understanding, no doubt
remains about whether there is further becoming and rebirth. There's
no need to ask anyone else.
The Buddha comprehensively investigated conditioned phenomena and so
was able to let it all go. The five khandhas were let go of, and the
knowing carried on merely as an impartial observer of the process. If
he experienced something positive, he didn't become positive along
with it. He simply observed and remained aware. If he experienced
something negative, he didn't become negative. And why was that?
Because his mind had been cut free from such causes and conditions.
He'd penetrated the Truth. The conditions leading to rebirth no longer
existed. This is the knowing that is certain and reliable. This is a
mind that is truly at peace. This is what is not born, doesn't age,
doesn't get sick, and doesn't die. This is neither cause nor effect,
nor dependent on cause and effect. It is independent of the process of
causal conditioning. The causes then cease with no conditioning
remaining. This mind is above and beyond birth and death, above and
beyond happiness and sorrow, above and beyond both good and evil. What
can you say? It's beyond the limitations of language to describe it.
All supporting conditions have ceased and any attempt to describe it
will merely lead to attachment. The words used then become the theory
of the mind.
Theoretical descriptions of the mind and its workings are accurate,
but the Buddha realized that this type of knowledge was relatively
useless. We understand something intellectually and then believe it,
but it's of no real benefit. It doesn't lead to peace of mind. The
knowing of the Buddha leads to letting go. It results in abandoning
and renunciation. Because it's precisely this mind that leads us to
get involved with both what's right and what's wrong. If we're smart
we get involved with those things that are right. If we're stupid we
get involved with those things that are wrong. Such a mind is the
world, and the Blessed One took the things of this world to examine
this very world. Having come to know the world as it actually was, he
was then known as the ''One who clearly comprehends the world''.

Furthermore, without attainment of serenity, the five hindrances would obstruct any attainment of insight. So below, he teaches to calm the mind first.

Allow the breathing to flow easily at just the right pace, neither
too short nor too long. Don't try to make it into anything special.
Let the body relax, comfortable and at ease. Then keep doing it. Your
mind will ask you, ''How late are we going to meditate tonight? What
time are we going to quit?'' It incessantly nags, so you have to
bellow out a reprimand, ''Listen buddy, just leave me alone.'' This
busybody questioner needs to be regularly subdued, because it's
nothing other than defilement coming to annoy you. Don't pay it any
mind whatsoever. You have to be tough with it. ''Whether I call it
quits early or have a late night, it's none of your damn business! If
I want to sit all night, it doesn't make any difference to anyone, so
why do you come and stick your nose into my meditation?'' You have to
cut the nosy fellow off like that. You can then carry on meditating
for as long as you wish, according to what feels right.
As you allow the mind to relax and be at ease, it becomes peaceful.
Experiencing this, you'll recognize and appreciate the power of
clinging. When you can sit on and on, for a very long time, going past
midnight, comfortable and relaxed, you'll know you're getting the hang
of meditation. You'll understand how attachment and clinging really do
defile the mind.
When some people sit down to meditate they light a stick of incense in
front of them and vow, ''I won't get up until this stick of incense
has burned down.'' Then they sit. After what seems like an hour they
open their eyes and realize only five minutes have gone by. They stare
at the incense, disappointed at how exceedingly long the stick still
is. They close their eyes again and continue. Soon their eyes are open
once more to check that stick of incense. These people don't get
anywhere in meditation. Don't do it like that. Just sitting and
dreaming about that stick of incense, ''I wonder if it's almost
finished burning,'' the meditation gets nowhere. Don't give importance
to such things. The mind doesn't have to do anything special.
If we are going to undertake the task of developing the mind in
meditation, don't let the defilement of craving know the ground rules
or the goal. ''How will you meditate, Venerable?'', it inquires. ''How
much will you do? How late are you thinking of going?'' Craving keeps
pestering until we submit to an agreement. Once we declare we're going
to sit until midnight, it immediately begins to hassle us. Before even
an hour has passed we're feeling so restless and impatient that we
can't continue. Then more hindrances attack as we berate ourselves,
''Hopeless! What, is sitting going to kill you? You said you were
going to make your mind unshakeable in samādhi, but it's still
unreliable and all over the place. You made a vow and you didn't keep
it.'' Thoughts of self-depreciation and dejection assail our minds,
and we sink into self-hatred. There's no one else to blame or get
angry at, and that makes it all the worse. Once we make a vow we have
to keep it. We either fulfill it or die in the process. If we do vow
to sit for a certain length of time, then we shouldn't break that vow
and stop. In the meantime however, just gradually practise and
develop. There's no need for making dramatic vows. Try to steadily and
persistently train the mind. Occasionally, the meditation will be
peaceful, and all the aches and discomfort in the body will vanish.
The pain in the ankles and knees will cease by itself.

Thanks for your wonderful answer! Since you quoted Ajahn Chah, what do you think about quotes like the following ones, considering how important jhana seems to be for the Buddha in the suttas:

Question: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice? Answer: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don't hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children verses grown men. (Kornfield, 1996:42)

We must use Upacara Samadhi. Here, we enter calm and then, when the mind is sufficiently calm, we come out and look at outer activity. Looking at the outside with a calm mind gives rise to wisdom. (Chah, 1995:23)

That which can be most harmful to the meditator is Absorption Samadhi (JHANA), the samadhi with deep, sustained calm. This samadhi brings great peace. Where there is peace, there is happiness. When there is happiness, attachment and clinging to that happiness arise. The meditator doesn't want to contemplate anything else, he just wants to indulge in that pleasant feeling. When we have been practicing for a long time we may become adept at entering this samadhi very quickly... (continued in the next answer)

As soon as we start to note our meditation object, the mind enters calm, and we don't want to come out to investigate anything. We just get stuck on that happiness. This is a danger to one who is practicing meditation. (Chah, 1995:23) This one seem especially weird to me, because the Buddha seems to say that it was a good thing to put our efforts in the practice of Jhana.

In my personal opinion as a non-expert, we don't need anything more than the first jhana. Perhaps even Upacara Samadhi is sufficient. But then again, the five hindrances are only truly subdued in the first jhana.

But according to what I wrote in the OP, should we pay attention to the concept of upacara samadhi, considering it doesn't seem to be part of the Sutta Nikaya (at least according to sites like this one ?

Of course, going by the Buddha's words alone, you need both samatha and vipassana together - from this sutta -  "The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana)."

Thanks for your kind help!


text:
Buddhist ethics & hydroponics: ethical issues?
AFAIK, in Theravada, ordained monastics are prohibited from growing their own food. Even hydroponics would likely be prohibited by vināya due to probability of harming small unseen life (algae, etc) in maintaining a hydroponic system.
Are there any ethical concerns for Buddhist laity, including those moving towards but not yet fully ordained, especially from a Theravada perspective?
As a side issue do ordained monastics maintain houseplants or gardens, or outsource this work to laity?

See also Planting without soil & harm ideas: giving inspiration, motivation

A topic on it, giving some aspects: ដាំដោយគ្មានដី ការចិញ្ចឹមជីវិតត្រឹមត្រូវ Planting without soil & harm Hydroponics

There is no prohibition for laypeople to involve farming activities. There are some wrong livelihoods for a layperson, but farming is not one of them.
Theravada monks are prohibited from involving in any farming activity.

What about the use of pesticide in farming? Does that break the precept of not killing?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sri+lanka+pesticide+registration says they're used (especially for cash crops), and more or less regulated, and harmful to humans (deadly and/or mutagenic). Apart from the precept against "killing" I wonder about its being "business in poison". Some pesticides are used for anti-malarial purposes too; and (as in e.g. India) they've been a means of suicide.

As a lay person, I grow food both hydroponically and in the garden. I also study the suttas and have found nothing contrary to these practices. Indeed, I have found quite the opposite. The following quote from the Buddha resonates totally with "No-Dig" in permaculture

MN81:18.12: He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands.

The Buddha was quite familiar with agricultural practice:

SN22.54:1.2: “Mendicants, there are five kinds of plants propagated from seeds.  What five?  Plants propagated from roots, stems, cuttings, or joints; and those from regular seeds are the fifth.

In that very sutta, the Buddha continues with the agricultural metaphor, and almost addresses hydroponics with its lack of reliance on soil:

SN22.54:1.5: Suppose these five kinds of plants propagated from seeds were intact, unspoiled, not weather-damaged, fertile, and well-kept. But there’s no soil or water. Then would these five kinds of plants propagated from seeds reach growth, increase, and maturity?”
SN22.54:1.7: “No, sir.”

Notably, in my own hydroponics, I actually do use soil with great benefit, but that's a separate discussion.
The suttas are rich with agricultural metaphor and farming certainly is not included in the lists of wrong livelihoods given in DN1. That list, for example, does include accounting(!), but does not include farming.

DN1:1.24.4: Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One. ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong livelihood. This includes predicting whether there will be plenty of rain or drought; plenty to eat or famine; an abundant harvest or a bad harvest; security or peril; sickness or health. It also includes such occupations as computing, accounting, calculating, poetry, and cosmology.

Even if a lay person aspires to become a monk, experience with farming itself provides a valuable introduction to the terminology of the suttas. In today's consumer world of newness arriving at our doorstep, we've lost the reality of our connection with the earth. In contrast, farmers know quite well the impermanence of all things and the role that a single seed can have as it puts forth roots and matures. Teachings such as the following are imbued with real meaning born out of that very personal experience with farming:

SN42.11:3.6: For desire is the root of suffering.’


text:
According to Tendai, is karma an illusion and all there is
I think the conventional, mundane, truth in Tendai is the claim that karma is an illusion, for a number of reasons, such as the identity of the perfect mundane truth with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth. Zhiyi  -- importantly -- quotes Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise:

All things that arise through causes and conditions, I explain as
emptiness, Again, this is a conventional designation. Again, this is
the meaning of the Middle Way.

I believe that in Tendai the conventional truth is just a different means of asserting the ultimate truth, that each of the three truths are both one truth, and different

although three [phrases], they are one [in meaning]; although one,
this is three; [they are] not mutually exclusive.

means of verbally falsifying reality

The three types are all empty because they are beyond verbalization
and conceptualization. The three types are all conventional because
they merely exist as [provisional] verbal [con- structs]. The three
types are all the Middle, because they are identical to the true
aspects [of reality]

So I wondered if the Buddhist law of cause and effect all there is to Buddhism -- and Buddhahood and reality -- according to Tendai, yet also an illusion.

Things are neither merely nominal, nor merely real

Ziporyn, 2012, 60
Inescapable, but unreal.

any feedback on the downvote? it's not a tricky inference

"This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear"? Why are you asking? Why do you think Tendai's "middle way claim" is about karma? Maybe add some quote of what you're asking about? Or don't bother -- I think I've understood now what your "inference" was but it isn't especially obvious at first reading.

i've already said haven't i? cos the equate causation with the ultimate truth @ChrisW

I read this recently -- usually I might upvote a question (from a new user) just for being on-topic -- but I thought, "maybe we could start to ask that more experienced users could ask questions well".

right so i need references? @ChrisW ? i guess i'm too lazy, sorry

Something like references might make the question more interesting and/or easier to answer.

ok i'll get back to it later, cheers @ChrisW

Thanks for the edit. Is the title right too, a good summary of the question? If I tried to summarise the text I might try, "Does Tendai's Middle Way merely assert causation, without assuming its reality or non-reality?". Is that the same as the current title, which asks about "karma" and whether that "is" and "all there is"? And (apart from the title) do you want to mention why you're asking the question, or do you reckon that's obvious or unimportant?

it's unimportant. cheers @ChrisW i'll add another edit

i appreciate the help with the question. an answer may have made it more readable @ChrisW

i'll get back to this


text:
Choosing advantages of one tradition over another
Like all religions, there are different branches, traditions, whatever you want to call them.  Why would you choose one over the others?  Do you think one is right and the others are wrong?  Does one fit with your lifestyle?  I can see being born into one you might not have a choice.  If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences?  What if you choose the wrong one?

OyaMist's answer suggests to me that the people able to answer this question from their personal experience are those who experienced the advantages of several (instead of having chosen only one over another).

@ChrisW that implies they tried one and found it lacking.  Then they tried another.

The Buddha taught all, but such an attainment is rare. Even in the Buddha's time, Ānanda asked about the difference in practice.

MN64:16.1: “Sir, if this is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters, how come some mendicants here are released in heart while others are released by wisdom?”
MN64:16.2: “In that case, I say it is the diversity of their faculties.”

Buddhist practice actually consists of three practices. Different teachers may be adept at one or more of these and appeal to different students:

AN3.89:1.1: “Mendicants, these are the three trainings.  What three? The training in the higher ethics, the higher mind, and the higher wisdom.

The three practices support each other. If one cannot find a teacher for all three, one can certainly choose a teacher who teaches what one lacks.
Different traditions emphasize different practices. I first trained in Zen for mind/immersion, but later studied the suttas themselves for ethics and wisdom.

Participating re a particular organisation or group wouldn't necessarily imply rejection of other organisations; there are typically relatively few monasteries /temples /ji /otera/ within walking distance etc, often may meet less than once per day, some places may benefit from some help with things, or maybe only meet in early morning etc. Its re The Teachings of The Buddha, and Sangha, so sharing with many is good. May have friends at different places.
Or some may use different conversational languages from others, or different outfits, but thats ok. Or have acquaintances who are at different places. Nice places can be different but nice places can be the same. Nice people.
Different Branches have tended to develop in different places & regional contexts & regions over centuries & millenia.

The Six qualities of the Dhamma:

Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom),
Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practise and known by direct experience,
Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

(from Anguttara Nikaya 11.12)

In essence, the Dhamma:

is not a speculative philosophy (which is unactionable and cannot be put to practice) and
gives tangible and verifiable, empirical and experiential results

OP: Why would you choose one over the others?

You should choose a system which

de-emphasises speculative philosophies which are unactionable or cannot be put into practice and
has well laid-out a practice or training system which gives quantifiable and tangible empirical and experiential results fast

OP: Do you think one is right and the others are wrong?

The onus is on oneself to figure out through validating the practice and experiences. If you do not get quantifiable and tangible empirical and experiential results, then this might not be the right system.
Buddhism is like medical treatment but where the treatment is is for maladies of the mind. Say there are different courses of treatment administered to different groups. If one group is getting results as anticipated then this is the right system to achieve the anticipated goal. Similarly one should choose a system which produces the best results, which would be the right system to achieve the Buddhist goal.

OP: Does one fit with your lifestyle?

One should fit the lifestyle to the practice than the other way around.
The practice starts with Sila — Moral principles and is the foundation upon the next strategies are built. If one's lifestyle lacks:

Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
one will not be able to get tangible results

I can see being born into one you might not have a choice.

Though on is born into one system one may get attached to it but one can always choose something else.

OP: If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences?

I think these have arisen since people have created, modified, added and subtracted from techniques they have learned, mostly in good faith. These modifications can have an impact on results and effectiveness, which one can verify by trying it out and figuring out what is the best.
Also, some techniques are better suited for some people. This is something one has to figure out through trial and error.
In terms of meditation subjects, there are ones which are suitable based on personality.

OP: What if you choose the wrong one?

You would not get the desired results, which will make it evident that one has chosen the wrong technique or practised the technique the wrong way, perhaps due to misunderstanding or missing out some of the instructions. If one is practising the wrong way one can correct it. If the techniques are not giving results one can choose another, which one can put to practice and verify if it gives the desired results.
Essentially the take away is to do what works and actionable.

According to the earliest texts The Buddha said that his teaching would eventually be counterfeited.
He said that his true Dhamma would last 500 years and that it wouldn't disappear all at once but as gold disappears when counterfeit gold gets into circulation so the true Dhamma would start to disappear with the arising of the fake Dhamma.
There have been schisms and schools have different canons, thus some of the schools consider others to be based on the counterfeit Dhamma with counterfeit texts and counterfeit doctrines.
I can't say much more due to site rules but there is a good reason for choosing carefully and at least doing basic research.
The schools are definitely not the same, alike or equal.


text:
Why emphasise the EBT when anyone who has achieved Arhathood can teach from direct experience?
This question concerns some Theravada-based practices, with which I am not familiar.
It is not a dig but a genuine query that puzzles me. Yet I'm not sure that I have asked this question well. I have strong respect for the Theravada tradition.
I recognise the distinctions between a Buddha and an Arahant, (such as the former not having had a teacher, the paramitas, etc.) but these distinctions don't seem to be valid criteria for differentiating the teachings of a Buddha from the teachings of an Arahant, especially in the modern world. Buddha being able to teach in accordance with his audience isn't really relevant to us nowadays - all of his audience died over 2,300 years ago.
Even within the EBT (as I understand it), the Early Buddhist Texts, Buddha repeatedly de-emphasises the importance of himself, and instead emphasises the importance of the Dharma - which is to also to be understood experientially.
Once we have tasted liberation, and we have a direct experience of it - such that every experience we have demonstrates the deep underlying truth of the four noble truths and the paṭiccasamuppāda, why then would we need to teach from a selection of texts from 2,500 years ago?
Again, why is it that the discourses of Buddha, (and some select disciples of his) are 'sutta' but the teachings of any Arahant who has lived in the last few centuries are not 'sutta'? After all, surely it’s the quality of liberated mind that determines the ability to author truth - and certainly not the personality, right?

Are you asking, "Why would a student study the texts instead of a living arahant?" -- or "Why would a living teacher teach the texts instead from direct experience?" It appears to be the latter ("why then would we need to teach etc."). Are you saying teachers don't teach except by reciting suttas (because I don't think that's so, e.g. they give dhamma talks).

@ChrisW you are right to ask! I am not clear as to my question!  This is probably because it conflates more than one query.

Without psychic powers, it's actually quite difficult to determine who is an arahant. Fortunately, the Buddha gave some guidelines in MN47 about how to assess a potential teacher:

MN47:4.1: “Mendicants, a mendicant who is an inquirer, unable to comprehend another’s mind, should scrutinize the Realized One for two things—things that can be seen and heard:
MN47:4.2: ‘Can anything corrupt be seen or heard in the Realized One or not?’ etc...

However, it's much easier to verify the validity of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs). Many scholars have compared these ancient scriptures as they were translated and written down in many different countries. The EBTs are remarkably consistent in doctrine. Having faith in the EBTs doesn't require psychic powers.
This principle of faith based on inquiry and evidence is fundamental in Buddhism:

MN47:16.1: When someone’s faith is settled, rooted, and planted in the Realized One in this manner, with these words and phrases, it’s said to be grounded faith that’s based on evidence.

Arahants do teach. Sariputta taught, as did Moggallāna. They had different styles. Sariputta was more into textual analysis and Moggallāna more into psychic powers. And both of their teachings were rooted in the Buddha's own teachings. However, without a Buddha to verify their arahantship, we need to rely on the methods of MN47 to establish a trust in contemporary teachers.
Lastly, the EBTs are continuously translated into contemporary languages and are therefore just as relevant today as 2500 years ago.  Samsara goes on as it does while the wisdom in the EBTs remains directly relevant to this day and beyond.

The Buddha and his immediate followers whom he declares has seen the unborn are sure Arahant, but how is one to assert a few century-old teachers as Arahant? I think that is why the written / oral transmission directly from the Buddha time is very important.
That doesn't mean that the living teacher is to be distrusted, teachers like Ajahn Chah are a living Dharma, but its's said that "The blessed buddhas are like never-setting suns intent on making the host of lotuses that are the disciples’  minds bloom with the extensive sunbeams that are their great compassion, methods and awareness" so their teaching should be seen a checkrein.

To add to OyaMist's good answer.
In the sutta below, we see that even one arahant (with no psychic powers) is unable to recognize another arahant.
Ven. Sariputta, the arahant and excellent teacher, could not recognize that Ven. Bhaddiya is an arahant, and tried to teach him. The Buddha saw this and was amused, because the Buddha himself is able to recognize who is an arahant and who isn't.
If one arahant cannot recognize another, then what hope is there for the unenlightened folk to try to do the same?
From Udana 7.2:

Then at that time
venerable Sāriputta, thinking that venerable Bhaddiya the dwarf was
still a trainee, was instructing, rousing, enthusing, and cheering him
in abundant and countless ways with a Dhamma talk. The Gracious One
saw venerable Sāriputta, who was thinking that venerable Bhaddiya the
dwarf was still a trainee, instructing, rousing, enthusing, and
cheering him in abundant and countless ways with a Dhamma talk.
Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on
that occasion uttered this exalted utterance:

“He has cut off the cycle, gone to the desireless,
Dried up, the stream no longer flows,
Cut off, the cycle no longer rolls on,
Just this is the end of suffering.”

On the other hand, the Buddha left us his teachings (Dhamma) and told us to use this as our refuge, with no other refuge (apart from our own self-effort, of course).
From DN 16:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

So, would you rely on an uncertain arahant who you cannot verify, or the original teachings of the Buddha in the EBTs?

The Buddha's Dhamma is:

Svakkhato: well taught and complete
Akaliko: transcends time

Since this was not taught targeting a particular audience in a particular era and also since it is complete it is relevant today as well.

As well as the certain authenticity of the EBT -- how these close to his words -- and are his teachings -- you might wonder if an arahant and a -- dead -- Buddha, might have different audiences: different receptions within the same fundamental truths.


text:
Why Buddhists generally uses OM?
In wikipedia i read:

The Chandogya Upanishad is ... one of the oldest Upanishads of Hinduism.

[It] opens with the recommendation that "let a man meditate on Om". It calls the syllable Om as udgitha (उद्गीथ, song, chant), and asserts that the significance of the syllable is thus: the essence of all beings is earth, the essence of earth is water, the essence of water are the plants, the essence of plants is man, the essence of man is speech, the essence of speech is the Rig Veda, the essence of the Rig Veda is the Sama Veda, and the essence of Sama Veda is the udgitha (song, Om).

Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" i.e. at least 100 years before Gautama.
Now "Om" is also used in Buddhism.
Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as described in the Vedanta?
Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text whose date is from before Gautama?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

i downvoted cos it' a bit of a daft question... why do buddhists use language?

Since the Chandogya Upanishad was written a few hundred years before Gautama Buddha, there's no doubt that OM is older than the Buddha. It doesn't matter whether it's a hundred years older or a thousand years older.
As far as I know, OM does not appear anywhere in the Pali suttas or the other Early Buddhist Texts. Also, Gautama Buddha himself had never used or mentioned OM, to the best of my knowledge.
In the Theravada tradition, phrases of homage to the Buddha like "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" do not start with OM.
So, where is OM used in Buddhism?
It appears to be used mainly in Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism - the most famous one being "OM Mani Padme Hum". There are others like "OM Tare Tuttare Ture Soha".
So, where does "OM Mani Padme Hum" come from?
The wikipedia page on "Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra" states:

The Karandavyuha Sutra is a Mantrayāna sutra that was compiled at the
end of the 4th century or beginning of the 5th century CE. According
to the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra, the sun and moon are said to be born from
Avalokiteśvara's eyes, Shiva from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders,
Narayana from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his
mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.
The sutra introduces the Buddhist mantra, Om Manipadme Hum, which it
states can lead to liberation (moksha) and eventual Buddhahood. A.
Studholme sees this famous mantra as being a declarative aspiration,
possibly meaning 'I in the jewel-lotus', with the jewel-lotus being a
reference to birth in the lotus made of jewels in the Buddhist
Paradise, Sukhavati, of Buddha Amitabha. The mantra is the very heart
of Avalokitesvara (the supreme Buddha of Compassion) and can usher in
Awakening.

So, "OM Mani Padme Hum" appeared in Buddhism, through the Karandavyuha Sutra, which was compiled almost a thousand years after the passing of Gautama Buddha.
And, it's a mantra for the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, from whom emanates the sun, the moon, Shiva, Brahma, Narayana, Sarasvati, winds, earth and sky.
Now, let's just make it clear that the Early Buddhist Texts and Gautama Buddha himself have never mentioned Avalokiteśvara, OM, Shiva, Narayana or Sarasvati. This is to the best of my knowledge.
What does OM mean in Buddhism?
The 14th Dalai Lama gave a lecture on the meaning of: OM MANI PADME HUM. He said:

It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you
are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning
of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of
three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's
impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted
body, speech and mind of a Buddha.

The OP asked:

OP: Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as
described in the Vedanta?

So, the answer is that OM in Buddhism has nothing to do with Super Consciousness or Vedanta. Rather, this is what it means in (Vajrayana or Tibetan) Buddhism: "These symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha."

OP: Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text
whose date is from before Gautama?

Mmm... not really. The Dalai Lama has explained the philosophical basis above.

Nice “political” answer. It’s curious that when talking about OM everybody seems to drop Vajrayana and Mahayana traditions as almost “non Buddhist” when it’s time to face some history. This creates dramatic fractures in the Buddhist logic, if provoked. So if someone born let’s say ...in the 1200 BC had no chances to exit Samsara. Oh no wait, probably he had the OM. But that’s was not enough. So i should create a new question : How was possible to exit from Samsara before Gautama? Make sense?

Dhammasangani-Book3-Part1

1004] What is 'perplexity'?
To doubt, to be perplexed about,
(1) the Master, to doubt, to be perplexed about,
(2) the Doctrine, to doubt, to be perplexed about,
(3) the Order, about
(4) the Discipline, about
(5) the past, the future, about both the past and the future,
(6) as to whether there be an assignable cause[35] of states causally determined

— it is this kind of doubt,
this working of doubt,
this dubiety, puzzlement, perplexity, distraction, standing at cross-roads;
collapse, uncertainty of grasp;
evasion, hesitation,
incapacity of grasping thoroughly,
stiffness of mind, mental scarifying,
that is called perplexity.[36]

1006]
These three Fetters, and the Corruptions united with them,[39] and the four skandhas associated with them, as well as the action, bodily, vocal and mental, springing from them — these are the states which are to be put away by insight.

1009] Which are the states the causes of which are to be put away by insight?[42]
The three Fetters, to wit, theory of individuality, perplexity, contagion of mere rule and rituals

@DoubtfulMonk How to exit Samsara before Gautama? - is a good question you can ask on Buddhism.SE.

ॐ is from संस्कृतम् Sanskrit, which was likely written in some form from c.1500BC & earlier; it was used, or whats sometimes called a preVedic form, before The Mahabharata & RigVeda, c. 800BC or so. There were & are various styles of it and its the basis in more & lesser part for many languages in the world. Some scholars would consider some languages to be Varieties of Sanskrit cf entirely separate languages. Sanskrit has lots of verb forms etc & is very excellent for reading Buddhist literature, in part because thats how much of the literature was originally spoken & written(or Sanskrit 'Variants' etc), and texts have various meters & sounds, & there are terms very excellent for nuances of existential meanings and a few characters fairly specific for Buddhism Texts.
The sounds are very significant aspects of spoken Sanskrit Language:
ॐ is The Universal Sound. This concept predates The Vedas as well as the time of Buddha Gautama! There are hundreds of Branches of Hinduisms & Branches of Buddhisms, and there are various Doctrines etc. Some, eg, say The Sound while in contemplation.
ॐ

Thank You again! someone corrected my answer while i was saying that OM was used THOUSAND of years before Gautama. What’s wrong with that? (now i will correct again). So seems like people that took a Bodhisattva’s vote don’t like some historical facts or getting deeper in discussions. This js so, sad. I remember the good old times of Kashmir when at Sharada Peeth Buddhists and Saivites were meeting to discover the Truth using knowledge, even at Ellora were probably doing the same. This dogmatism is something that is really killing the Buddhism.

Hi! Do you have any evidence to support this claim: "There were & are various styles of it and its the basis in more & lesser part for many languages in the world.". Are you saying that we can find traces of the roots of OM in many languages?

@DoubtfulMonk When I wrote Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" I was quoting Wikipedia's dating of the Upanishad. The Rigveda is older (as MH has written in this answer) but it was the Chandogya Upanishad that you were quoting. I didn't think that's important, the important point being that it's previous to Gautama.

Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" i.e. at least 100 years before Gautama.

Now "Om" is also used in Buddhism.

Is its use the same as in Hinduism?

No, we use this context for Catudhatu insight meditation.

If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as described in the Vedanta?

In Tipitaka, we realize there still be Sekkha (Stream-Enterer, etc) who still rebirth maximum at 7 times. And AnagamiBrahma in SuddhavasaArupabrahma is included in these 3 sekkha, too.
In  LakkhanaSutta's commentary wrote that there are some AnnagamiBrahma from KassapaSambuddha time still alive. This Brahma tell Isi in Arayanta country about 32 characteristics of the Buddha to let Isi can notice when they meet the Buddha. So Isi from this country call themselves Brahmana (Brahma's son). And that's why the Buddha taught about AriyaSacca (the truth teaching by Ariya) in DhammajakkappavattanaSutta.
However, the commentary also commented that what brahma learned from AnagamiBrahma  was already blurred when the time gone by to the Buddha time.
Another, we trust in truth (origins&effects) and there are some supernatural can be truth as well.

I am not sure about the use of OM in Buddhism, but it's usage in Buddism seems to present as early as 1st and 2nd Century CE with currently available evidence.
Here is extract from the book "Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts, Vol. 1" by Hajime Nakamura. Page 51.

The more than forty terra-cotta seals found in the ruins of the
monas¬tery on the east side of the stupa, however, do reveal some
historical facts. The seals were not discovered in one spot but in
various places, at depths between 1.05 and 1.55 meters beneath the
surface at the monastery ruins. All are unsymmetrically round, about
three centimeters in diame¬ter. Some were found, just as they had been
placed, in a feretory in a bhikkhu's (monk's) quarters. The seals
read, in three- to four-line inscrip¬tions in Brahmi characters dating
from the first or second century, "Om! [Possession of] the Bhiksu
Sangha of the Devaputra Monastery at Kapila¬vastu" and "[Possession
of] the Bhiksu Sangha of Maha-Kapilavastu." Om is a sacred syllable
used by the Indians; its use here reveals the influence of the
Sanskrit revival, particularly remarkable after the second century.
Devaputra means "son of the deity" or "son of heaven"; it is a title
used in inscriptions by the Kusana kings (such as King Kaniska).

I wish there are more scholars like Hajime Nakamura who would study Buddhism & Hinduism with giving the due respect they deserved and also be open about the influence of each on other.

Not Om, but Mu is used in most derivative forms of Rinzai zen.  One simply says the word "mu", holding the vowel sound, for the duration of the breath.  The resultant phenomenology is virtually identical.  The only real difference is how the resultant state is viewed and leveraged for the purposes of further practice.  Was it inspired by Vedic practice?  Who knows.  But there are only so many good ideas in the world.  Eventually you're going to have some duplication.


text:
Milarepa and Avalokiteshvara practice
In the Vajrayana tradition, where did Milarepa state that it was possible to use the practice of Chenrézik (Avalokiteshvara) instead of the one of Hevajra?

There is a qualitative difference between a practice which uses Avalokitasvara (Chenrezig) for visualizations, etc., and the practice that was used by Avalokitasvara to reach enlightenment. They are not the same.
The Mahayana/Vajrayna Surangama Sutra is of immeasurable value in this regard. It describes this path, which was taken by Buddha and Manjusri, as well as Avalokitasvara, and all Buddhas. See Manjushri’s Summation from the Surangama Sutra: https://bit.ly/ManjushriSummation
Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö’s “The Light That Makes Things Clear: A Prophecy of Things to Come,” (“ma 'ongs lung bstan gsal byed sgron me zhes bya ba bzhugs so”) indicates this meditation method is the one most useful for beings such as we, in the Dharma ending time. See: http://bit.ly/TheLightThatMakesThingsClear
Using this method with the support of inner spontaneous sounds* results in the accomplishment of Great Responsiveness (Mahakaruna) and the supreme siddhi.
There is a universal understanding of this path. See: http://bit.ly/PathToEnlightenment
The Tibetan Nyingma teacher, Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche, is teaching the Surangama Sutra at the Larung Gar center, in Sêrtar County of Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, in Sichuan, China, also known as Kham, which he is the head of, since late 2019.
The english translations of those teachings are on Youtube. This is the webpage announcing his teachings: http://khenposodargye.org/teachings/khenpos-classical-teachings/surangama-sutra/
Note: many traditions use inner spontaneous sounds to different purposes and with different interpretations. Here are a list of keywords to search with: Abstract Sound, Astral Sound, Anāhata Nāda, Dharma Sound of the Diamond Samadhi, Chönyid kyi rangdra (Chos Nyid Kyi Rang Sgra), Dharmata Swayambhu Nada, Divine Tremoring, Eternal Sound, Holy Stream of Sound, Inner sacred sound, Inner Sound, Music of the Spheres, Nada-Brahman, Omkara Dhvarni, Primordial Sound, Resonance of Emptiness, Sawt-e-sarmad, Sacred Sound, Shabda, Shabda Brahman, Sound of Creation, Sound of Silence, Soundless Sound, Thunder of Silence, Transcendental Sound, Unborn Sound, Unstruck Sound, Word of God.

Thank yo for the asnwer , but it doesn not answer to it. I edited the question to be more clear on the topic.

Thank you for the clarification. I edited your question so it is clearer.

That sounds like a more human English :D

Taking good care of oneself is such a practice; Gotama practiced such a thing with the simple smile asana as taking good care of others seen and unseen. The concept of Metta or loving/kindness there is a Germanic influence in the word "Kindness" as it means the kindred of home and hearth; feng shui is a connection to that philosophy as well.
Lots of stuff to study and yet simply doing; minding the flow of energy without becoming too big a rock in the rakes path.
That's a suggested course; here's as requested link wise https://www.samyeling.org/buddhism-and-meditation/teaching-archive-2/dharmacharya-ken-holmes/chenrezik-bodhisattva-of-compassion/
http://www.lamakathy.net/resources/pdf/chenrezig_shortB4.pdf
The simple smile btw alerts one to the various bhavas or realms of becoming one is passing through; when the divine ear hears insult about the smile? It is either a masters praise like a twinkle in the eye or outright rebuke from jealousy etc. anyways just keep smiling... Best to try to catch that monkey smile when it arises on it's own and yoke it then; you'll be riding that Ox home.


text:
Are absences empty / conceptual constructions, according to all Buddhists?
Are absences empty / conceptual constructions, according to all Buddhists? Or is it -- perhaps -- a fact independent of language that there is no elephant in this room? Does anyone know?

A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative
facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the
world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are
devoid of causal powers.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/

Is this question different from https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31223/is-this-an-ok-understanding-of-dharmakirtis-vin%C4%81%C5%9Bitv%C4%81num%C4%81na ?

yes, cos i'm asking about all buddhism, not just Dharmakirti thanks for reminding me tho @Erik

Are absences empty / conceptual constructions
I thought this answer implied that an absence is unconstructed:

So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing, not having been constructed (sankharaed)-- it was the result of not-doing, is not itself subject to ending and is a small taste of Nibbana.

is it -- perhaps -- a fact independent of language that there is no elephant in this room?
I don't know -- sense-contact with the room gives rise to various perceptions, but none which I would label "elephant".
they are devoid of causal powers
You're saying that as if that's a bad thing. :-)

too meta for me, sorry

Just the the last sentence, or all of it?

i just mean your referring to an answer in your answer ha

Almost all my answers have a reference. This reference was to an answer written by Mike Olds, who's the author/editor of http://obo.genaud.net/ -- I think that answers your questions about whether "according to all Buddhists" absences are constructions -- i.e. there's a straightforward sense in which an absence is unconstructed.

it's a nice site, but who is he? it sounds enormously heterodox

It is nice, isn't it. That's all I know of him, except what he posts on this site occasionally. If his nickname is "ol'begga ols", perhaps he is or was a monk.

Ākiṃcanyāyatana आकिंचन्यायतना or Ākiñcaññāyatana आकिञ्चञ्ञायतन (Tib:
ci yang med; Chinese: 无所有处/無所有處; Jpn: 無所有処 mu sho u sho; Burmese:
အာကိဉ္စညာယတန; Thai: อากิญฺจญฺญายตน or อากิํจนฺยายตน; Devanagari: /)
"Sphere of Nothingness" (literally "lacking anything"). In this sphere
formless beings dwell contemplating upon the thought that "there is no
thing". This is considered a form of perception, though a very subtle
one. This was the sphere reached by Ārāḍa Kālāma (Pāli: Āḷāra Kālāma),
the first of the Buddha's original teachers; he considered it to be
equivalent to enlightenment. Total life span on this realm in human
years – 60,000 Maha Kalpa.

Taken literally, it implies nothingness and absences are empty.


text:
Do Beings go into total unconsciousness before attaining Buddhahood?
I am asking the Vajrayana/Mahayana view as I already know the theravada view.I heard that Buddhas only have jnana and not vijnana wich means they are inert like rocks but 'act' based on past merit and deeds ,

there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states:

"Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?"
"Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or
consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not
differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata
arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation."
"Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free
from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors
arise without the action of formations?"
"Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom.
Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past
formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the
concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only
through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors
of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the
tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of
method and wisdom."
"Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?"
"Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless,
because minds are neither independent nor dependent."

so they're like robots.How true is this?and if it is true,isn't suffering but existing for all intents and purposes better than not existing and not suffering?.

There's a nice paper on the topic, called "Why the Buddha Never Uttered a Word" by Mario D’Amato - you can find it on Academia website.
You'd do best to read it all, although you may certainly prefer to skip to a section titled "Mindful Buddha versus Mindless Buddha".
There Mario cites some other work that says:

... Dunne goes on to specify that according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased”. Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind”.
…
Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharmakāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha... [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active”. Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

Mario then goes on to argue that, in his understanding,

... it is only metaphorically the case that buddhas do not use language. On the model of the awarenesses of a buddha considered here, a buddha possesses both a nonconceptual and a conceptual awareness, and it is a buddha’s possession of some form of conceptual awareness that allows for the use of words and language. However, through the attainment of nonconceptual awareness—through directly apprehending
thusness, the fundamental, ineffable nature of things—a buddha’s relation to conceptualization and language has been radically altered. In any occurrence of language use, a buddha would remain aware that putative linguistic referents do not actually exist. A buddha would employ language without falling
under the spell of words and objects—employing concepts and language in perfect accordance with conventional usage, while remaining aware that ultimately there are no referential objects. We might describe a buddha’s mindful awareness in terms of what some contemporary philosophers have referred to as fictionalism.
Stanley states: “On a fictionalist view, engaging in discourse
that involves apparent reference to a realm of problematic entities is best viewed as engaging in a pretense. Although in reality, the problematic entities do not exist, according to the pretense we engage in when using the discourse, they do exist”. According to such a fictionalist view, one might engage in conventional discourse without positing that the entities referred to in such discourse ultimately exist, for example, through adding an operator “in fiction F” (or “according to the conventional domain”) to any truth claim. Hence, on a mindful buddha account, a buddha may be said to use language “under erasure,” employing words while remaining mindful that words do not actually refer in the way they purport to—mindfully aware that referents are nothing more than fictions.

I, for one, agree and approve of this explanation.

i'm unclear if you mean that Mario is arguing against Dunne? your use of quotes suggests "yes" but the quoted material is not unambiguous out of context. a good answer -- thanks -- please don't feel like i'm being pedantic or dogmatic

Yeah Mario is gently arguing against Dunne and I agree with Mario.

i upvoted because you clarified your point. in all honesty, i'm not sure i agree that you are right about mario -- because it's his job to interpret buddhists -- and it still seems to me that Candrakīrti -- unlike we may find in contemporary zen -- is saying that buddhas have "no mind", but we have no means to be sure...

why do you agree with mario over dunne?

Mostly because consciousness is an illusion, so when Buddha breaks through that illusion it's not like anything really changes, consciousness was never real to begin with, but now the Buddha is not fooled into thinking he has consciousness while unenlightened people are still fooled.

In mahayana I believe that at least some practitioners have claimed that -- like the Buddha himself -- one attains enlightenment after the formless meditations. That means you don't perceive what you see, taste, smell etc., though I'm not sure if that means you lose consciousness of them.
The fomrless realms / meditations are pretty crazy and very unusual. I mean the 8th is called "neither perception nor non-perception", but not because it is enlightenment.
You could be asking about nirodah samapatti, but few claim to have attained it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism#Nirodha-sam%C4%81patti
Is it death?