text:
Anyone experiences with psychedelics and meditation?
I know that the usage of drugs are a contradiction to the teachings the Buddha gave. But I wonder whether it could be helpful to use LSD or Psylocibin to gain profound insights. I read a lot about studies from the 50s to 70s, which starts again at the 90s, after a time of prohibition, that controlled usage of psychedelics have a profound meaningful impact on many participants of these studies who get an insight into egolesness which remains after the trip. Hmmm, does anyone have experiences with this combination or could recommend a paper / book related to this topic? The "idea": If it is possible due to Tantric practices to gain liberation in this life – maybe it could be even more achievable with the usage of LSD and Co. Thank you.

Searching on your preferred search engine for terms like "academic research psychedelics buddhism" will return many results. Psychiatric use of psychedelics has been proven useful, and some fringe communities like to mix drugs and meditation — but anything gained from taking a tab is not real insight or liberation, it's a brain-chemical experience with lingering effects. And any Shifu/Bhante/Guru from a real tradition would probably shut down that line of questioning pretty fast, both because it conflicts with the precepts and because a clear mind is essential for practice.

I completely disagree with the closure of this question.  Whether these substances can benefit Buddhist practice is akin to asking whether any new modalities can be of benefit.  Modern Mahasi style mindfulness, for instance, is an extremely effective and extremely recent invention.  His practice protocols were quite novel. Had this forum been around in mid 20th century, would we have voted to close a question on his techniques?  Likewise, would tantra have been dismissed when Buddhism took foothold in Tibet?

@xxxx I reckoned that introducing the question with, "I know that the usage of drugs are a contradiction to the teachings the Buddha gave", is acknowledging that the question is off-topic on Buddhism.SE.

Not to nitpick, but the precepts only ban three specific kinds of alcohol - suramerayamajjapamādatthā . You could even argue that whiskey isn’t covered in the original Pāli as corn derived fermented beverages didn’t exist in 500 BCE India.

Plus LSD is illegal almost everywhere, i.e. a "controlled substance". Maybe it's been studied clinically or academically, but that doesn't make it on-topic here.

I've never been one for drinking alcohol, but I drank the odd pint or two of larger going through parts of the ninth fetter. It's recommended in some Zen traditions, and gave me some temporary relief. Also, pretty certain there was a drunkard in the pali canon who realised stream entry. I've never heard anything about LSD in the suttas from any tradition. You might get a more receptive response from dharmaoverground, although there are some interesting answers here.

Legality doesn’t have anything to do with liberative efficacy.

There definitely is a relationship.  Johns Hopkins University very recently conducted a study on the relationship between psychedelic and meditative states.  It was quite interesting how they selected their participants.  You had to be among one of those rare folk who had done intensive meditation practice for at least ten years while also never having taken psychedelics before.  I don’t think they’ve published the results on that yet, but a slew of prepublication interviews have been done notably on the Buddhist Geeks podcast.
My personal two cents as psychonaut and someone who has been sitting two hours a day plus 4 weeks on retreat every year for the last 16 years - be careful.  I wouldn’t even attempt this unless you’ve been practicing diligently for at least a decade.  You really have to be able to set a clear intention to get anything out of a trip - be it with a koan or object of insight.  Until about the ten year mark, you really don’t have a good handle on how the insight process works.  Without that background, you’re just going willynilly into it. You'll bounce around from state to state and never really glean anything useful.
More importantly, meditation is gentle.  While it can lead to some seriously negative shit, it’s usually fairly easy to snap out of.  With psychedelics, you’re strapped in for the duration.  This could be 8, 10, or 12 hours with a drug like LSD.
Less sexily, psychedelics can lead to some really profound, heavenly experiences.  These are among their greatest dangerous.  It can give you the impression that any kind of practice that falls short of such supreme bliss isn’t real practice.  That’s bullshit.  The best practice is where you sweat like a mule grinding its way up the side of a mountain with no hope of ever reaching the top.  Only meditation offers the opportunity for that kind of practice.

Generally speaking the drug will have some somatic effect which in turn modifies perception.  This kind of modification can aid in realizing the awareness or insight (dukkha-anicca-anatta). but like xxxx says you need to have a strong intention, or you might get carried away by paranoia, random ideas, and other desires.  If the intention is not strong you will run away from the three marks (dukkha-anicca-anatta). this indicates you crave sensuality, being, and not-knowing, and prapanca (furthering) is your true intent, not realizing the dhamma.


text:
How much does Buddhism affect most people's lifes in South East Asia?
For most people identifying as Buddhists in very Buddhist countries (Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand), what are the most significant ways in which being a Buddhist affects their lifes?
For instance, how common is

visiting the temple service at least once a month?
saying grace before eating?
intense meditation?

My current image is that unless one's a monk, being a Buddhist is a formality for most people in South East Asia, mostly manifesting in Buddhism classes in schools, weddings and funerals.

Last sentence of the question reminds me of this answer -- "People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk."

Most South East Asian people do not practice meditation. However, historically, up until the recent present, Buddhist culture certainly strongly affected their lives.
Take the example of sexual conduct. In Thailand, in the mainstream society, men & women and husbands & wives did not show physical affection in public. This was simply part of Buddhist modesty. In such a sexually modest society, matters such as homosexuality & lady boys were never a great issue because, for the most part, the whole society engages in modesty. For the most part, homosexuals & ladyboys received the metta of the society.
Similarly, in Thailand, showing negative emotion in public, such as anger, was historically socially unacceptable. Generosity was also a large part of Thai society. There are many historical qualities of Thailand that are linked to Buddhism, such as the gender roles of men & women, which similar to the instruction in DN 31, the women are more assertive and the men more humble.
Overall, because there were/are so many monks performing alms round each morning, the general population sees monks everyday and gain a reminder of practising their social Buddhist principles.
However, in recent decades, Western corporate imperialism has now made large inroads. In fact, there are Western Buddhists that give the impression of celebrating this, for example, giving the impression of believing the current Western White Supremacist Woke Culture is superior to Thai Buddhist Culture. In this example, it seemed only one person saw the forest for the trees:

Well it seems that today "gay marriage" means child indoctrination and
political agenda too, not only sexual preferences. At least in the
West.

On this forum, it seems every time a Western backed government is elected in South East Asia, a Western certain member who lives in South East Asia celebrates and some other members & monks tag along with the Western White Supremist mass-media narratives.
The decline of Buddhism in Thailand, for example, is well documented & discussed, such as here. Most point to Western sensuality-based consumerism as a primary cause. It seems rather ironic how certain independent Western Woke monks undermine Buddhism in South East Asia by pushing Woke ideology, which appears to be the new Christianity used as a weapon of cultural warfare against non-Western people. It is arguable Woke is a divisive political doctrine of sensuality masquerading as 'human rights'. All of these Western White Supremist imperialist things, be it colonialism, Christianity, corporatism, consumerism, Woke-ianity, independent Western monks, etc, have, are & will obviously continue to undermine traditional Buddhist culture in South East Asia.

Buddhism doesn't affect to any one's life unless they understand and practice the Buddhism.

So the alms food a monk receives each day by South East Asian devotees whose primary Buddhist practice is dana does not affect a monk's life?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Origin of the idea that happiness must be nurtured
I came across an excerpt of Thích Nhất Hạnh from his book No Mud, No Lotus, in which he says that happiness must be nurtured in order to sustain (full text is here, the excerpt can also be found here):

Happiness is impermanent, like everything else. In order for happiness to be extended and renewed, you have to learn how to feed your happiness. Nothing can survive without food, including happiness; your happiness can die if you don’t know how to nourish it. If you cut a flower but you don’t put it in some water, the flower will wilt in a few hours. Even if happiness is already manifesting, we have to continue to nourish it.

Earlier in the book (here), he relates this idea to the Buddha:

The Buddha said that nothing can survive without food. This is true, not just for the physical existence of living beings, but also for states of mind.

This surprised me a bit, as I was under the impression that happiness emerges when one frees himself (even momentarily, e.g. during meditation) from suffering - and not that it should be pursued as a goal.
I read (in Wikipedia) that Thích Nhất Hạnh's teaching combines various sources, and I'd like to know if this idea - that happiness must be nurtured - can be traced to a certain Sutra, or just scattered texts, in the canon?

The Buddha discusses two kinds of happiness in AN2.64-76. For example, we have:

AN2.66:1.1: “There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness.
AN2.66:1.2: What two?
AN2.66:1.3: The happiness of attachments, and the happiness of no attachments.
AN2.66:1.4: These are the two kinds of happiness.
AN2.66:1.5: The better of these two kinds of happiness is the happiness of no attachments.”

In other words, to nurture true happiness (i.e., the second happiness), we must nurture non-attachment. That is a long journey taken step by step. It is a journey into gratitude, acceptance and an open heart.

It doesn't have to be long. Taking on that notion, it becomes long and arduous. There was a moment where everything flipped over, and I understood the meaning of Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more of this to come..

Some of us have more dust in our eyes.

Possibly... :-)

I think he might be speaking about worldly happiness, as in making sure you're comfortable, that all your basic needs are fulfilled. So yes, this kind of happiness is helpful and should be nurtured. This is known as sammuti in Buddhist parlance. It's the conditioned world.
There is another kind of happiness, but it doesn't define itself by the absence of sadness. One could say it is all-inclusive of both happiness and sadness, in that it isn't affected by the changing circumstances that happiness and sadness occur within, nor is it affected by the feelings themselves.
This is known as equipoise, or sometimes referred to as phenomena passing through the immovable. I believe Thích Nhất Hạnh calls it the 'safe island of mindfulness'. That's a happiness that surpasses all form. This is known as vimutti in Buddhist parlance. It is complete awareness release from the neurosis of the mind.

You both are right. As you pointed out, ultimate happiness is the freedom - but let me assure you there's no jumping there in one step . Instead, as Thich Nhat Hanh explained, there's an incremental way to freedom that requires nurturing positive mind states. The beginning practitioners often overlook this practical point, hence the master felt it had to be emphasized.
The Buddha alludes to the concept of nurturing in many places in the Canon, usually in context of the mind taking shape of what it habitually dwells on, as well as in a more abstract context of habitual tendencies (samskaras) and clinging/sustenance (upadana) shaping life at large.
In context of Buddhist practice, nurturing the mind comes up in form of The Four Right Efforts, as well as the teaching of Guarding the Gates of Senses and the concept of Wise Attention.
In a more direct way, the Buddha prescribes nurturing of happiness in his teaching on jhanas. Indeed, jhanas can be seen as a progression of nurturing one's happiness with crude food of autosuggestions in the first jhana to incrementally more and more fine subtle food of the second, third, and fourth jhana - and beyond.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu gave a couple of nice lectures on this very topic, one I can find right now is here: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/FirstThingsFirst.html - although I think it's not the one I remembered. Still, here's a relevant quote from it:

This is why being constantly mindful of the truth of impermanence isn’t enough to solve the problem of suffering. To really solve it, we need to change our feeding habits—radically—so that we can strengthen the mind to the point where it no longer needs to feed. This requires a two-pronged strategy: (a) seeing the drawbacks of our ordinary ways of feeding, and (b) providing the mind with better food in the meantime until it has outgrown the need to feed on anything at all.

Ah, look what I just found, something to chew on. At the bottom of this article there's a collection of links to mp3 lectures of Thanissaro, all on the topic of feeding!, and one of them must be the one I remember. If you have a long commute you may enjoy listening to all them, would be a good food for thought:
http://psychreviews.org/emotional-feeding/

Nice read from Thanissaro - Even enjoying the breath when dealing with difficult people is possible.

I love him, he is the most Mahayana of all Theravada teachers :)

Yes - I was always drawn to his sutta translations, because he wrote so clearly and concisely.

i'm not going to be attached to positive mind states b/c attachment is bad..wait, that makes me attached to good/evil...hmm...dwelling in xyz?

That's why there's a progression of positive mind states, from crude to more and more refined, so you don't keep going in circles.

theres nothing wrong with perfecting the circle...all great artists must try

I can see both of your comments and the one you deleted is funnier

yes it is true, happiness emerges from free, but only b/c desire .  have a huge backlog of desire, and you are bound for unhappy, but satisfy the gamut and you have claimed the big prize.  like now, i'm answering this question b/c i want to? my long-run happiness? not to have an over-abundance of desires, and hopefully you get all you wanted. you surely are receiving hints along the way.
there really is no winning with happiness. it is just your ego-mind at its best.  instead you should cultivate desire.  but desire is like a bonzai
one is happy. how else can one live?  angry?  depressed?  one must remain happy.  yes, i guess cultivate that.  nurture that.  but how can I nurture what I don't know?  what, be mindful of happiness?  shrug.  then i will be desireful for sure.  take away x,y,z and now what?  i guess there is a baseline. avoid desire and remain happy.  of course, if you are lucky, skillful, then enjoy the fulfillment of desire.  remain skillful i suppose.  only the good die young.  anyway buddha might nurture as such...
happiness is not true enlightenment.  why does buddha continue his way, long after enlightenment?  is buddha both enlightenment and not enlightenment and in between?  this is nurturing happiness?  the profound is meant to be experienced, not clinging to happiness (faux pas).
from MN 36:

“I recall having taught the Dhamma to an assembly of many hundreds,
and yet each one of them assumes of me, ‘Gotama the contemplative is
teaching the Dhamma attacking just me,’ but it shouldn’t be seen in
that way. The Tathāgata rightly teaches them the Dhamma simply for the
purpose of giving knowledge. At the end of that very talk I steady
the mind inwardly, settle it, concentrate it, and unify it in the same
theme of concentration as before, in which I almost constantly
dwell.”

i think this is what Max said not to do...aka other

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


text:
Is there any web site to read teeka (tipitaka sub commentaries) in english
Can you give a link to read teeka or sub commentaries..

https://archive.org/details/PaliCommentariesCollection (Though most effective way is to learn Pali)

@Blake that's a great resource! For future readers, most in that link are Aṭṭhakathā; the seven Ṭīkā volumes included are marked with a "B" after the number.

There is no single link you can go to to read subcommentaries. Unlike the Tipiṭaka, Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā aren't standardized across traditions (otherwise they'd be another basket!) and haven't been widely translated. You could find individual translations depending on what you're interested in, and the Sutta Central folks have a long thread on availability of commentaries, including sub-commentaries:

Please, help - “Live” List of Pali Commentaries’ English Translations

but there is no single comprehensive source for translations of subcommentaries into English.


text:
The sutta that describes how little suffering there is
I remember reading a sutta where the Buddha compares how much suffering there is, or grief or pain or whatever, as if it were a grain of sand, or a bit of dirt on the ground, compared to all the grains of sand in the ganges river or all the mud or something kind of quantitative imagery like that.
I think his point was a bit like that of the metaphor of the Second Arrow; that there might well be some kind of pain, but then all the rest of the torment is fabricated by the deluded mind through reactivity-obsession or passion-obsession and whatnot. This sutta didn't quote that one, but it had the same tenor: 'you won't believe how little there is to worry about.'
I've tried googling for this sutta but I can't find it.

These are the suttas under SN 13.
They talk about how little suffering is left for a stream enterer.

Then the Buddha, picking up a little bit of dirt under his fingernail,
addressed the mendicants: “What do you think, mendicants? Which is
more: the little bit of dirt under my fingernail, or this great
earth?”
“Sir, the great earth is far more. The little bit of dirt under your
fingernail is tiny. Compared to the great earth, it’s not nearly a
hundredth, a thousandth, or a hundred thousandth part.”
“In the same way, for a noble disciple accomplished in view, a person
with comprehension, the suffering that’s over and done with is more,
what’s left is tiny. Compared to the mass of suffering in the past
that’s over and done with, it’s not nearly a hundredth, a thousandth,
or a hundred thousandth part, since there are at most seven more
lives. That’s how very beneficial it is to comprehend the teaching and
gain the vision of the teaching.”.
SN 13.1

That's the one! Thanks :)

Out of interest how did you find this so quickly? From memory or smart searching?

@yellow-saint Please see the rest of the suttas under SN 13. They are all very similar. I remembered the fingernail analogy, so I googled "fingernail sutta".

Where does the Pali for this sutta include a Pali equivalent for the translation "lives"?

It might be this Mahayana text called the Diamond Sutra. It's an absolute gem of a Sutra to study!

Diamond Sutra: Chapter 11
“Subhuti, if there were as many Ganges rivers as the
number of grains of sand in the Ganges, would you say that the number
of grains of sand in all those Ganges rivers would be very many?”
Subhuti answered, “Very many indeed, Most Honored One. If the number
of Ganges rivers were that large, how much more so would be the number
of grains of sand in all those Ganges rivers.”
“Subhuti, I will declare a truth to you. If a good man or a good woman
filled over ten thousand galaxies of worlds with the seven treasures
for each grain of sand in all those Ganges rivers, and gave it all
away for the purpose of compassion, charity and giving alms, would
this man or woman not gain great merit and spread much happiness?”
Subhuti replied, “Very much so, Most Honored One.”
“Subhuti, if after studying and observing even a single stanza of this
Sutra, another person were to explain it to others, the happiness and
merit that would result from this virtuous act would be far greater.”

Not the one, but upvoting because I was looking through the Diamond Sutra looking for my specific search query to no avail, but really appreciated the revisit nonetheless and can't recommend it enough.


text:
What are the name and content of this Zen Buddhist koan?
I remember reading offhand on a website a Zen Buddhist Koan that had not worrying as its theme, and one of the lines was "if you're about to go to Hell, don't worry". That's all I can remember of it.
If anyone of you knows what I'm talking about, please share the name and text of this Koan. Thank you in advance.

What you are describing isn't a koan, it's a parable or saying.  The latter can be appreciated and rationalized by the discriminating mind.  Koans, on the other hand, are something entirely different.  In order to apprehend what koans are pointing at, discriminating thought must be abandoned.  Parables have meaning that can be conveyed.  Koans are objects that can be observed.  Parables are a recipe for rice pudding.  Koans are the taste of that rice pudding.
But to answer your question, that phrase doesn't appear in any of the major koan collections.  But here's something similar.  This koan doesn't tell you not to worry.  If you dive deeply into it, it will show you how not to worry:
Mumonkan - Case 5: Kyogen's "Man Up a Tree"
The Case:
Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branch with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb. Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from the West?' If he does not answer, he fails to respond to the question. If he does answer, he will lose his life. What would you do in such a situation?"
Mumon's Comment:
Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail. Though you can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no use. If you solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has been dead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up to now. Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him.
Mumon's Verse:
Kyõgen is truly thoughtless;
His vice and poison are endless.
He stops up the mouths of the monks,
And devil's eyes sprout from their bodies.


text:
What are the established rules set for a person to Become a Buddha other than, that, he should have lived as a King?
Long time ago , I was reading some text related to Buddha online and saw that there were many pre-conditions already set for a person to become a complete Buddha. I remember very clearly , the first condition was that the person should have lived as King in the past. While googling again to see the other conditions, I am unable to find the original article. Is anyone aware of such conditions ? Can someone help . Thanks

Theravada perspective: this paper claims (page 7) that the origin of the idea of a relationship between being a ruler in a previous life and becoming a Bodhisatta is from the Vessantara Jātaka, was expanded on and embraced by Mauryan rulers, and eventually more-or-less canonicalized due to the influence of various South and South East Asian rulers (see also the Mahāvaṃsa and Jinakālamālī). I don't have a full English Buddhavaṃsa available to check, but the Madhuratthavilāsinī (the commentary) doesn't mention that all of the preceding Buddhas were kings/rulers. However the Theravada does not emphasize broad Buddhahood for everyone, and the primary factors for the next Buddha are a prediction and the complete decline of the current Buddha's teachings.
Mahayana perspective: according to the Lotus Sutra, everyone is predicted to become a bodhisattva, and therefore a Buddha (or already is, depending on the interpretation), and no Sutra that I know of insists on a specific past-birth path that includes kingship.

To my understanding, it's not about becoming a king, but it's about cultivating the perfections (parami or paramita) that makes one qualified to become a Sammasambuddha.
Kingship is not likely to be the criteria to become a Buddha. Rather, becoming a king could be a byproduct of cultivating perfections.
There are 10 perfections from the Theravada tradition, from the link above:

Dāna pāramī: generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla pāramī: virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma pāramī: renunciation
Paññā pāramī: wisdom, discernment
Viriya pāramī: energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti pāramī: patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca pāramī: truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna pāramī: determination, resolution
Mettā pāramī: goodwill, friendliness, loving-kindness
Upekkhā pāramī: equanimity, serenity

Ven. Bodhi stated in the introduction to A Treatise on the Paramis from the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka:

It should be noted that in established Theravaada tradition the
paaramiis are not regarded as a discipline peculiar to candidates for
Buddhahood alone but as practices which must be fulfilled by all
aspirants to enlightenment and deliverance, whether as Buddhas,
paccekabuddhas, or disciples. What distinguishes the supreme
bodhisattva from aspirants in the other two vehicles is the degree to
which the paaramiis must be cultivated and the length of time they
must be pursued. But the qualities themselves are universal requisites
for deliverance, which all must fulfill to at least a minimal degree
to merit the fruits of the liberating path.

This answer has a hint in the suttas with regards to the degree to which the perfections must be cultivated on the path to Buddhahood.

To a person unblemished,
constantly searching for purity,
a hair-tip's worth of evil
seems as large
as a cloud.
SN 9.14

It could be the Buddhavaṃsa -- there's a partial a copy of it here:

Chronicle of Twenty-four Buddhas

The chapters I see -- i.e. 1, 22, 23, 24 -- all have the same format: starting with "Royal household life", then "Renunciation", and "Attainment of Buddhahood".


text:
at a Vesak today at a temple with mixed lineages,. We had to wait to eat until the monks finished. Is this the norm in Buddhist cultures?
I felt this was unfair and somewhat misleading, too,  because there were many very elderly laypeople, plus some of the Bhikkhus might not be part of the Aryan (enlightened) Sangha and some of the Lay people might be part of the Enlightened Sangha. I believe it is proper to serve monks first, but at another mixed lineage temple in Oxnard, we never waited, but the Bhikkhus sat first and took food first, but we all sat down and ate together. Are there strict Vinaya rules for this laid down by the Buddha?
Thank you for any and all perspectives on this.

For starters, mixed lineage temples aren't exactly the norm (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, it's just unusual), and Vesak was roughly 10 days ago, or 20 days from now, depending on tradition (looks like IBMC chose this weekend though?). As for whether there's anything in the Vinaya, there's nothing in the Pāṭimokkha, but I can't speak for other traditions. Depending on the time of day, the bhikkhus may have eaten first to get their meal done with before noon. From a quick search, that seems to be the custom in southeast Asian traditions, except possibly in Burma.

I think I remember Samana Johann criticizing other monks for eating with laypeople, though I'm not sure why.

I doubt there is a rule because, when I lived as a layperson in a very small Theravada monastery with a few monks, we all ate at the same time.
In other larger formal group offerings at an associated larger monastery, the monks were served & ate first. Then lay people eat afterwards. However, although my memory is not clear, I do not recall the laypeople waiting for the monks to finish eating before the laypeople started eating. The logical reason for this is because the monks would have to wait for the laypeople to finish eating before they finalize the formalities. It would be very time consuming if both monks & laypeople had to finish eating before the formalities were closed with the monks' blessing.
I can recall when I once went to a isolated plantation village with some monks for an offering. The monks were served first and started eating, then I was served next, then the laypeople served themselves. Basically we ate together; even though the monks started eating first.
I recall once at a very large ceremony, I tried to sneak past and avoid it but the abbot spotted me in the distance & called my name over the public microphone to come & eat. The Thai people were offering me delights such as cooked chicken blood.
Here is a past life video from Australia. Everyone is eating together.

I can find this in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha:

A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. If he should eat more than that, it is to be confessed.

A group meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of
giving cloth, a time of making robes, a time of going on a journey, a
time of embarking on a boat, a great occasion, a time when the meal is
supplied by contemplatives. These are the proper occasions here.

An out-of-turn meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a
time of giving cloth, a time of making robes. These are the proper
occasions here.

There's no mention of sequence.


text:
According to Buddhism, everything that happens, happens for a reason, which is due to karma. How does Utu Niyama, Bija niyama fit into this?
I've listened to many theravada buddhist sermons and something that is always mentioned is how everything that happens, happens for a reason. Does that mean that if we get sick, it's our karma to get sick, but then we get better because of our good karma as well? How does taking medicine fit into this? Does the temporary relief that medicine gives us our good karma as well? What if one never takes medicine thinking that they will get healed according to karma?
I've personally found great comfort in the fact that everything happens according to karma. So I feel really confused about the other 'niyamas' as well, which recently came to my mind. How does Utu niyama, Bija niyama relate to the fact that everything happens for a reason?
Edit: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html The Devadaha Sutta answered my questions. Thank you so much to everyone who responded

Related: Does everything happen for a reason?

In the Sivaka Sutta (SN36.21), the Buddha explains that not all experiences are caused by kamma. Sometimes, it's just the weather or something else that's not extraordinarily significant. Not everything happens for a reason.
So, Utu Niyama explains change of seasons. Bija Niyama explains bile, phlegm etc.
There's even harsh treatment from others, as a cause, which are unrelated to our kamma or natural laws.
And of course, there are consequences caused by kamma.
So, the important point is: not everything happens for a reason.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama,
there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine,
this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done
before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on
bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on
bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view
that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
— slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."
Sivaka Sutta (SN36.21)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html
The Devadaha Sutta answered my questions. Thank you so much

I'm not sure I'd summarize it this way:

So, the important point is: not everything happens for a reason.

For a start, the sutta is talking explicitly about "everything a person feels or experiences" -- paṭisaṁvedeti -- maybe that's more precise as a topic than "everything".
Perhaps more importantly it doesn't say that some things "do not happen for a reason" -- I think it suggests that sometimes the reason is "the weather" and so on, just that the reason is not "past actions" i.e. kamma.
And the term it uses for "reason", or "is based" (i.e. "basis"), is samuṭṭhāna -- which I presume is related to paṭiccasamuppāda -- so there's that theory too (which perhaps you're familiar with and already accept), of the "twelve nidanas", which are not exactly kamma; and if you were to say, "ah but kamma is the basis of everything else", there's a different theory i.e. the root kilesas which are said to be the centre of that wheel.
And I think of kamma as personal -- I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions. And I think that's a useful theory -- it encourages Right Effort instead of nihilism -- and perhaps it encourages you not to blame other people for "your problems".
But there's the Anattalakkhaṇasutta -- which I think argues that form, feeling, and so on are "not-self" because you can't "compel" (or 'control') them.
It also says in AN 4.77 that the results of kamma are "unthinkable".
In summary I think this leads to the doctrine of emptiness or sunyata. Kamma is a theory or view, a way of seeings things, like a lens or a perspective. And it's a useful one sometimes and (so) it would be wrong to say there's no such thing -- but it isn't the only "reason", the only theory about why things happen or about the 'basis' of everything.

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html The Devadaha Sutta answered my questions. Thank you so much


text:
Did Gotama (the Buddha) practise incest?
The Dasaratha Jātaka says Gotama (our current Buddha) was Rama in a past life and his wife (Gotama's son's Rahula's mother Yaśodharā) was his sister Sita in the same past life. In this past life, Rama appeared to marry his sister Sita (who, according to the translation, became Rama's queen-consort). Then later Rama was reborn as Gotama and Sita was reborn as Yaśodharā (Rahula's mother).
Was Gotama's marriage to Yaśodharā an example of 'incest'?

I'm voting to close this question because it does not clearly specify the intent. Are you looking for the dictionary definition of the English word "incest"? Is this an invitation to discuss the status of jatakas in Khuddaka Nikaya? Are you using this example to explore whether the concept of personal identity carries across multiple lives? All of the above? Not clear, and as written, somewhat provocative.

It was posted further to this answer and presumably that question.

The Buddha clearly reaches not to latch onto any marks. But if we keep running around the clinging aggregates like a dog bound to a post we are going nowhere except losing our precious time. Just contrary to the transcendent teaching. It can be gratifying for folls like me to check out some enlightening answers though.

Some folks in here really write awesome answers. Every once in a while I stumble upon enlightening QA.

A worldling without a knowledge of past lives would not see that as "incest".
SN 15.14

At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.
It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.
Why is that?
Transmigration has no known beginning.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

The Buddha had no knowledge of "past lives". Pubbe nivasa does not mean past lives. Also, there are suttas, such as SN 22.70, that say there are Arahants without knowledge of pubbe nivasa. Also there are suttas such as DN 1 that say Eternalist puthujjana have knowledge of past nivasa. As for this answer, it does not answer the question but seems to support the idea the Buddha approved of & engaged in incest.

this answer ... seems to support the idea the Buddha approved of & engaged in incest That may be your interpretation of it but I think that's nonsense. Also -- and this a separate topic and still not intended as an apology -- "incest" is seen by modern societies as a taboo or bad thing, a crime, and llegal as a marriage, but I doubt that was also so in ancient societies, where royalty might intermarry.

again this comment supports the idea of family intermarriage. since people have known for a long time family intermarriage causes biological & mental disorders, this comment gives the impression the Buddha lacked omniscience or at the very least did not understand the results of such kamma.

family intermarriage causes biological & mental disorders The OP says a "past life", not a close "blood" relationship. this comment gives the impression the Buddha lacked omniscience Gotama wasn't "the Buddha" when he was married, nor marry his (blood) sister.

no no no..... the Buddha purportedly spoke the Jataka & SN 15.14. Surely if the Buddha was aware of this incest he would have spoke against it rather than exalt it leading to Buddhahood.

Do you figure the Jataka has an intent, a desired effect on or lesson for the audience?


text:
Translate few Pali sentences
Cant find a translation online anywhere, just a quote.
Samanattata ' ti samanasukhadukkhabhavo. Ekacco hi danadisu ekam ' pi na paccasimsati. Ekasane nisajjam ekapallanke sayanam ekato bhojanan ' ti evam samanasukhadukkham paccasimsati. So sace gahatthassa jatiya pabbajitassa silena sadiso hoti tass ' ayam samanattata katabba.

As far as I know there's no complete English translation of the AN commentary. My Pali isn't very good, so I pieced this together with my handy dictionary. Rough translation:

Equanimity means the state of being impartial towards pleasure and pain. Some, even when receiving donations/generosity, do not feel satisfaction. They sit in one place, lie down on one side (on a simple mat), and eat food from one bowl. Equanimity is achieved in this way. If a householder has similar virtue to one who has left the householder life and entered a state of being homeless, this equanimity can be achieved by them.

Interesting. I tried translating it myself, I managed to find the words in various dictionaries, and based on that and some other things and my attempt goes like this:
"Self-equality (or making oneself equal) is to be equal in pleasure and pain (with others). Some people do not desire to be given things. In one place sitting together in seats and eating foods together of equal pleasure and pain is what they desire. If one is a householder or a matted hair ascetic, embracing them as equal, this is how self-equality should be done."

I was using an already existing explanation I found which sounds similar to this to get this idea about 'making oneself equal' (and it does have atta there). The context is how to make someone (feel like) a member of the community, how to befriend people. It mentions that one of the ways is dana, to give them things, to share things with them, thats why here it mentions some people dont desire that. Thats why I think samana is better translated as equality than equanimity, and etako as together rather than as one, and ekapallanke as siting together rather siting in one place.

Ven. Sujato translates samānattatā in the sutta as "equality" https://suttacentral.net/an4.32/en/sujato -- Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it as "impartiality" https://suttacentral.net/an4.32/en/bodhi

@ChrisW thanks! I was using the PTS dictionary but "equality" seems to be more correct here.

@zelenisok Your translation might be better than mine! As I said my Pali is really not good, my method is basically to look through the PTS dictionary and then the Concise Pali-English Dictionary to try to cobble things together.

I was looking primarily at wisdomlib and wiktionary, lol, both are pretty good sources, wiktionary has some stuff, some not, wisdomlib has lots, and an option of searching a word as 'prefix', where I type it without last few letters, and it gives me all results starting like that, so that the suffixes don't mess up my search. Also I browsed dictionary.sutta.org for the "silena" word to find similar stuff, that was basically the only one I had problems finding on the previous two sources. That and ekapallanke, where I fortunately knew to search without the prefix.

Maybe you know this already.
It's quoted in this document:

http://www.dhammarain.org.tw/canon/pali-tipitaka-f1/4-Anguttaranikaya/AA-2~4.doc

Here's a screenshot of the page:

According to that it's AN 4.32 i.e. after AN 4.31 (Cakka sutta) and before AN 4.33 (Siha sutta).
Here are those on suttacentral:

https://suttacentral.net/an4-cakkavagga

But the Pali text translated in AN 4.32 on Suttacentral isn't the same (and is much shorter).
You might get a reply by asking the author. There's an email address on the last page of the document, and another though similar email address on the translated home page of http://www.dhammarain.org.tw/ -- where they offer lessons in Pali (listed as "2023 Event Information").

I believe the "vaṇṇanā" suffix mean that it's a commentary (not from the sutta itself). The citation here also points to the commentary.

Nice answer! By the way, you can change the image size by adding s, m, or l before the file extension, (small, medium and large, respectively).


text:
How to practise SN 15.14 to attain enlightenment?
I read the following on the internet, where a person either claimed to be a Noble One or, otherwise, was exhorting with a Lion's Roar the path to stream-entry or possibly Full Enlightenment. The hairs and goose bumps stood up upon my skin as I read with awe the following Lion's Roar:

A worldling without a knowledge of past lives would not see that as
"incest".
SN 15.14

At Sāvatthī.   “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.   It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has
not previously been your mother.   Why is that?   Transmigration has
no known beginning.   This is quite enough for you to become
disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

My question is how does believing "It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother" result in  becoming disillusioned, dispassionate and freed regarding all conditions?

You seem passive aggressive bro https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/8157/dhamma-dhatu.

Your wording seems to disparage the answerer of the last post. Either take this question down or fix your wording in a nice manner

This kind of behavior is toxic which makes us not use this platform.

I have deleted all my answers on your questiona thanks to your troll verbiage. With metta

I’m voting to close this question because it is written in an inflammatory manner and provokes worried comments by other users.

On the subject of a moderator's closing this, I guess the "inflammatory manner" might have been the preamble: "...where a person either claimed to be a Noble One or etc." -- including "a person" as a subject can be contrary to the CoC whose advice is, "Focus on the content, not the person."

A focus on "content" instead of "person" might be different in real life -- in real life I heard it advised to "study the teacher, and not [just] the teaching" -- but it might be good advice for 'conduct' on this site.

The version you linked is truncated, as is common for repetitions of previous sections. Each section ends:

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.

The point is not that making balls of mud to represent one's ancestors, or that removing mustard seeds from a three-mile-square blob once per century, is enough to achieve enlightenment; all of these discourses on causation, and these (in the Duggatasutta) concerning misery, conclude with a statement of the misery of timeless transmigration (using Bhikkhu Sujato's term for "saṁsāro"); the point is that mindfulness of all of this may be enough for attainment of Nibbāna.

Thanks for the explanation of the missing text. I suppose it makes some sense now (although it does not really because many will be inspired if all their mothers continue to be reborn thus not really die) although samsara does not mean transmigration. The Duggatasutta does not indicate any transmigration. I suggest to read SN 22.99 about the real directly knowable sanditthiko meaning of samsara. You should also be mindful Sujato is not an authority to many & mentioning Sujato's translations can reduce the credibility of answers in the eyes of some.

Since you study Pali, could you kindly explain the Pali for "your mother" in SN 15.14. Where does the "your" come from? Is not "so" a 3rd person demonstrative pronoun? Thanks

@DhammaDhatu you seem extraordinary smart why don't you answer your own questions.

@DhammaDhatu According to Bhante Dhammanando, possessive pronouns are less frequently used in Pali when referring to pronouns, so the default (for example with "mātā") is to mean "your." I'm really not a Pali expert, just a student, but "Na so" in that line seems to me to mean "It's not," using the meaning "it," not "he," for "so."

Thank you Zac for explaining this. Yes, "na so" would mean "it is not".

Interesting what Dhammanando said. Based on the example from MN 130, I suppose it is true although MN 130 is contextually different to SN 15.14.

From experience, whether I sometimes view or viewed my own wife as my "sister" isn't really your business, and youngsters sometimes think a lot of foolish things -- but certainly no-one, neither our two different families nor the laws, ever called it incest.
And I think the sutta is relevant, to the answer to your previous question. If nothing else it's a reminder that this kind of idea is in the suttas -- not only in the Jataka which you referenced. As a sutta it also helpfully includes the exhortation or conclusion (where the intent or "direction" of the Jataka may not be obvious):

This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions

As for your question -- "how does believing?"
It's said elsewhere that there are many "dhamma gates" as I suppose this is one.
FYI I see the sutta as having several meanings or implications.
One is to see all sentient beings as not unlike your mother -- to be treated kindly, or at least not hurt -- and to the extent that you're an adult, to avoid being a burden on them. I don't know about your own relationship with your mother (I'm pretty sure my wife's relationship with hers was not the same as mine with mine), but that i.e. "kindly" is how I see it. This manifests in Buddhist societies with people being kind or harmless even towards animals.
Another might be, are you hoping to find an object of lust out there somewhere? Someone who might be your lover or your wife? This sutta might imply there is no-one like that, instead everyone is your mother under different guises.
Another -- and I guess the main sense, a previous sutta is the "Assu Sutta: Tears [SN 15.3]" --  I suppose a lot of the audience knew very well that their birth mother was already dead, or mortal. So this is a proxy way to say, "Not just your own mother, everybody is like this."
Consequently perhaps you understand, that as a description of the "gate" itself. I'm not sure I can explain the process, of passing through the gate, e.g. how does that lead to being "released" (vimuccati)? I think it says elsewhere, that the way forward begins with sila even if not all the perfections, but perhaps that's another gate.
If I may I would draw a parallel with a verse of the Dhammapada:

6.: People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

Hi. It was interesting "one is to see all sentient beings as not unlike your mother". which is similar to Bharadvaja Sutta . This also negates the superstitious eternalistic interpretation of SN 15.14, including the suspicions of incest.

Yes, that section of the Bharadvaja Sutta reads like a parallel.


text:
Is nirvana just a checkpoint in an eternal journey?
Life in this world has been amazing. I was amazed by this world growing up travelling to amazing places seeing hills, mountains and what not. Then the tech boom that got me addicted. And the amazing food the world offers, I could go on. When I discovered Buddhism, I just couldn't believe that nirvana is the ending to all this journey in this vast universe.
While I now have been transformed a lot studying the Buddhism stuffs, and a bit bored of the current world, somehow deep I am expecting more from the universe. I just can't believe nirvana is the end of it all.
Is it possible that nirvana is just a temporary resting point in the eternal dance of the universe?
A bit speculative but would love to get some perspectives from the wise ones.

I don't have enough reputation on this side to vote to close as a duplicate, but this is discussed here, and a little bit here, with some additional context here.

@ZacAnger actually I have read those. What I meant was a very different kind of samsara with different kind of physics or anything the universe can conjure up.

I have read somewhere in theravada about this eternal dance and nirvana is just like a temporary rest. Just like there are the tusita heaven worlds, pure abode etc.

Oops I meant Mahayana in the above. I don't use a PC and got distracted while using my fingers.

I think you would benefit from the five daily recollections, which is a contemplation of old age, illness, and death. These contemplations can temper the desire to see more, do more, get more, explore etc. AN 5.57 https://maggasekha.org/2017/03/15/death2/

I am expecting more from the universe. I just can't believe nirvana is the end of it all.

And that, sir, is your problem.  You’re expecting, looking, seeking.  That’s going to drive you batty after awhile.  The ability to put that kind of searching aside is what pushes us in the direction of liberation.  So as long as you have the idea that something, somewhere out there is worth seeking, you are walking away from nirvana.
And not for nothing, but don’t you think you’d have to have experienced enlightenment to make that assessment?  Just sayin’.
Case 29 of the Blue Rock Collection
The Kalpa Ending Fire
A monk asked Dasui, "When the kalpa fire flares up and the great cosmos is destroyed, I wonder, will "it" perish, or will it not perish?"
Dasui said, "It will perish.
The monk said, "Then it will be gone with the other?"
Dasui said, "It will be gone with the other."
What is it?  Why are you chasing it?

Haha! I am chasing the wonders of the universe / universes. If the world was a dreading place, I wouldn't seek. But nature is just mysterious. Have you never chased anything in your life sir, if not as an adult at least as a kid? I admit too much chasing can be a problem but the Buddha teaches the middle way which is not to overburden ourselves. For example,  don't mind being rich if it comes with a little bit of chase, etc

No, it certainly is enticing.  Can’t argue there.  But ultimately there is no compromise between tanha and moksha.  You can walk a little ways carrying both, but in the end ya gotta pick one.

Let me add for clarity - nirvana isn’t the end of action.  It’s simply the end of compelled action.

Ven. Yamaka expressed a similar type of view i.e. speculating whether the Buddha exists or doesn't exist or both exists and doesn't exist, or neither exists nor doesn't exist.
The sutta below clearly explains how it should be, according to the teachings found in the Early Buddhist Texts (the Theravada suttas and Mahayana agamas).
The question is not whether the journey continues or not. In reality, there was never a journey or a being or a person in the first place that's concrete and standalone.
All that was, is suffering that came to an end after Nirvana.

Then, in the evening, the Venerable Sāriputta emerged from seclusion.
He approached the Venerable Yamaka and exchanged greetings with him,
after which he sat down to one side and said to him: “Is it true,
friend Yamaka, that such a pernicious view as this has arisen in you:
‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Exactly so, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, friend.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the
Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception …
volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As
apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in
volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in
consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
SN 22.85

Thanks for the answer. Yes, a being is dependent on myriad other conditions. Reality is a big river which keeps on flowing and we all are just the tides on the river. And Nirvana is doing something with your nervous system / mind and body such that you forget that you are a tide but just the whole river. Total release from the sense of self. Training the mind for ultimate relaxation.

Nirvana is not the end, although from the perspective of a mind bound inside the illusion of time and space, it will appear that an end is arriving. As such, the mind will ask yearning-based questions, even at the mere thought of nirvana.
My understanding of Buddhism, particularly from the Theravada tradition, is that the entire human consciousness is seen to be an illusion. This is generally framed using the 5 aggregates, from which an experiencer feels they are having a true and real experience situated inside the body. That experiencer feels like they are looking out through the eyes into a real world, but even the concept of an outside world is an internal conception.
One later sees that the aggregates are not-self. This is sometimes referred to as being in the witness phase. It is a type of effortless mindfulness. Later though, something quite astonishing happens, whereby the aggregates themselves completely vanish, and my goodness, do they vanish! This is the meaning of nirvana - to be completely blown out!
There is no centre to experience, and there never was. Therefore, the ending is of this very illusion, but since it is an illusion, thereby not being real, nothing was ever realized. In the Mahayana tradition, this was emphatically delivered in the Diamond sutra:

Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, when you attained complete
Enlightenment, did you feel in your mind that nothing had been
acquired?”
The Buddha replied:
“That is it exactly, Subhuti. When I attained total Enlightenment, I
did not feel, as the mind feels, any arbitrary conception of spiritual
truth, not even the slightest. Even the words ‘total Enlightenment’
are merely words, they are used merely as a figure of speech.”

So these words aren't true - they are only meant as figures of speech. What remains can be so breathtaking, it stuns the mind into a deadening silence. The world becomes a mashable kaleidoscope of colours, shapes, and noises, and the body becomes the environment. One keeps going, in a sense, but you don't know what is moving you any more. Perhaps the words unconditional love fits best; one is moved by a love for everything.

"The world becomes a mashable kaleidoscope of colours, shapes, and noises, and the body becomes the environment". However the world my appear after that, the mind won't get enthralled because nibbana is dispassion of highest level. Total detachment. Of course from that comes the ending of misery.

"There is no centre to experience, and there never was. Therefore, the ending is of this very illusion, but since it is an illusion, thereby not being real, nothing was ever realized".                Sorry, but I don't think this is the case . Normally, people latch onto things as me and mine. But after nibbana, the grasping habit is permanently ended. The grasping habit was not an illusion that's why we can't say nothing was realized. It's the bad habit of mind that was permanently deleted.

That's why there is a saying "in seeing there is only seeing, but no one who sees" "in hearing..."

You sound like someone from the Deva realm :) I guess you've had many good experiences on this earth, but you also have to remember that there is a lot of suffering in samsara.
Devas in heavenly realms are living in bliss, and therefore they have less motivation to seek the Dhamma, since they barely experience any suffering.  But once their good karma runs out, they will be reborn somewhere else, and it could be in one of the hell realms as well. In the 31 planes of existence (https://i.redd.it/ruc3w8ej7x381.jpg), you're only safe from the hell realms once you get reborn in Suddhavasa realms.
A large number of Devas attained enlightenment during the Buddha's time after listening to his sermons. So, I think that for you, you're having a wonderful life because of your good karma. But don't forget that that too is impermanent, so don't ever shy away from doing 'good merits' so that you will get an opportunity to attain Nibbana (since by doing good merits, you have more of a chance to be reborn in a realm where you are exposed to the Dhamma).
You can be mindful about the fact that there's an vast amount of suffering in the world, and use that knowledge to motivate you to pursue the Dhamma so that you can work towards liberating yourself from any possible karma that may arise to cause you any suffering.
The Buddha said to practice putting an end to the cycle of birth and death without any delays - as if your head was on fire (https://suttacentral.net/sn4.9/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false).
I cant find this reference, and I'm saying this story from memory. Once a monk had attained either sotapanna, sakadagami or anagami, and then he thought "I'm almost there now, I might just relax for sometime before attaining enlightenment". And in the time that it takes to bend your arm, the Buddha was there. The Buddha said, if there was even a little bit of faeces on your clothes, would you not find it disgusting? So this is like that too. You need to practice and attain enlightenment right now, so that you are fully released from suffering.
Edit: Thought I'd add - I remember as a young kid when my mum was talking about Nirvana, and how it's the end of the cycle of birth and death, I asked her why you wouldn't want to be born again. My mum said because to keep being born and dying is suffering. I didn't understand it at the time since I was having so much fun being a kid that I wanted to keep being born to enjoy it. I feel the complete opposite way now though at 30 years old and can't wait to not be born again!

Thanks Belle. I might have been in Deva realms before I descended into the hungry ghost realm. I had been a hungry ghost chasing money, chasing chicks, etc. But I found out the hard way that we need to take it slow and just chill in life because life is too damn long and gives plenty of chances.

Given the Four Noble Truths, I think that the suttas explains nirvana as permanent or perpetual non-arising of suffering, following a complete uprooting of desire and craving (including any craving for further material or immaterial existence), including of their causes (e.g. asavas meaning "outflows" and "intoxication").
Metaphysically (I'm pretty sure it's right to say that) it is not "temporary" at all -- because it's not created, so it cannot be uncreated (see this answer for a partial explanation or small example).
One bit of Mahayana (Tibetan) doctrine on that kind of subject that I read is quoted in this answer -- which I think says that there is a "not the final nirvana" which is manifested by the Buddha as a "resting place" and that after a while "Arhats" are awoken by the Buddha and "practice the bodhisattva’s path for many limitless kalpas and eventually achieve enlightenment."
I'm not saying that Mahayana contradicts the Theravada, perhaps it sounds like they do.
I think both schools have a doctrine of gradual enlightenment -- Theravada's is outlined here for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that even a first stage is temporary, it's described using words like "complete".

Excellent answer with references. Thanks for the effort. I have no doubt that there's some absolute bliss in nature because I've had glimpses of deep contentment and peace as if being one with the nature. But it's very hard to let go of passion, aversion and delusion which keeps us mired in conflicts and excited state. Nature is brutal in some cases but overall I find it fascinating TBH.

Nirvana, according to Buddha, is the ultimate treasure for Human and any kind of lives, surpassing all other forms of satisfaction. To illustrate this, consider the peak satisfaction during sexual pleasure akin to the mesocarp of a coconut, while Nirvana's contentment is akin to the innermost endocarp and coconut water. However, there exists no comparison or illustration that can truly encapsulate the profound contentment Nirvana bestows. Buddhism teaches that Nirvana can be attained by transcending ego, hatred, desire, and bonds, and comprehending the universe's truth. After Nirvana, there is no rebirth – no body, no soul – akin to a lamp's flame extinguishing, its destination unknown. Achieving Nirvana is breaking the cycle.

What lies beyond our universe? Are there other universes? Not like that of a multiverse but other universes that evolved just as ours evolved. What if these universes evolve at different rates and are in different stages of their evolution. Will we ever know them, how they operate, the beings in them? And if we travel beyond our universe, will our body (the atoms, sub-particles and whatever that makes up matter) and mind be freed from the bondage imposed by our universe?
Once, a highly accomplished seer named Rohitassa attempted to travel to the end of the cosmos (or universe) to find out if birth and death ends once beyond. He failed and was reborn as a deva. After he related his story, the Buddha declared:

But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos.

So maybe there are even more amazing things waiting to be discovered after nirvana (or parinirvana). But this is only possible if we are willing to free ourselves from our existing cage. I suspect our consciousness in its current form is just unable to fathom or traverse the sheer immensity of what lies beyond. Perhaps, this is why a new consciousness is needed; one that does not land anywhere or increase (and decrease) as alluded in Atthi Raga Sutta.
In any case, who says this existing cage has only amazing things to offer? For one, there’s illness. When we are sick, amazing places like hills, mountains and what not are just not that enjoyable. It is not the places, people and things that brings us joy, it is what is inside us. Besides, after immeasurable rebirths, have we not tasted enough of this universe? With Metta.


text:
Buddha Statue Identification

Greetings, a delivery driver crushed my statue with a giant truck. I would like help with identification so that I may replace it.

̶I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶R̶e̶d̶d̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶u̶d̶d̶h̶i̶s̶t̶S̶t̶a̶t̶u̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶r̶e̶d̶d̶i̶t̶ ̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶t̶t̶y̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ Oh I see you already posted there — don't forget a picture, though!

I cannot be definitive but I guess it is a Angkor/Khmer/Cambodia Buddha or Avalokitesvara, as found in the many Google images here, here & here. Some similar statues are here & here.


text:
How do I practice not-self or Anatta whilst talking?
The Buddha has taught the concept of 'not self' (anatta) - which comes into play when we are dealing with our body, feelings, perceptions etc, to think that it's not actually 'my' body, or 'my feelings and perceptions', but rather to observe them as if you're an outsider.
For example, instead of thinking "my ear hurts", it should be "there's an ear, and it hurts". Instead of "I feel angry", it should be "a mind has thoughts that have anger in them", so observe these thoughts as if you're an outsider and watch the anger arising, existing whilst constantly changing, and passing away.
I was wondering whether the Buddha ever said anything about how to apply this principal when we're "talking"? The words feel much like 'myself', and I'm wondering how I can practice not-self while talking as well. Are there any suttas that address how we can practice not-self when we talk?

For convenience you can use words such as "I" and "mine" but strongly disbelieve in them.

@Max, the best way is to associate with a bonafide Buddhist monks who practice anatta.

You can use the third-person pronouns -  he, she, it (non-binary) - instead of first-person

SN 5.10 is a very good sutta about the practice not-self or Anatta whilst talking. In SN 5.10, Mara (the Destroyer) approaches an enlightened nun and asks:

By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

The enlightened nun replies:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions (saṅkhāra):
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

Not-self or Anatta whilst talking can be practised by constantly reflecting: "There are no beings to be found. There is only aggregates/collections of parts (internally & externally) talking".
If the question then arises: "Why are these collections of parts driven to talk?" The answer again is found in SN 5.10, which says:

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

For the most part, the aggregates are driven by 'sankharas'. 'Sankhara' is a very broad term for mental formations or urges that are always bubbling up within/among the aggregates; driving the aggregates to talk. Talk or words is caused by the 'vaci-sankhara' ('verbal conditioner'). The verbal conditioner is caused by the three fermentations of sensuality, (past) becoming & ignorance. The fermentations are caused by the underlying tendencies. All of these phenomena are not-self, meaning these phenomena are merely impersonal elements (dhatu; SN 14.12; MN 115) of nature.

Thank you! This made things clearer for me.

A relevant sutta is SN 1.25.

“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended,
bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak
to me’?”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended,
bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they
speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d
use these terms as no more than expressions.”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended,
bearing the final body: is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit
if they’d say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties, the ties of conceit are
all dissipated. Though that clever person has transcended identity,
they’d still say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s
conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

It's a matter of the aggregates, and not you. One thing you could try out is notice how there appears to be a difference in the perception of other people's speaking vs your speaking. What is that particular thing that says: this is mine (you speaking) and that is theirs (their speaking)? Is there really an imaginary partition wall that creates that separation?
There is something in the aggregates that seems to strain reality into two parts: mine and not mine. So, what is that? Is it really a 'that' even?
Because you're looking at the aggregates, one can not find that thing that appears to be the operator, that self, the 'I' that strains reality into two parts. That duality is illusory, in the same way that when you see a rainbow in the sky, you move to investigate it. As your discernment grows closer, the rainbow disappears. From a certain perspective, there appeared to be a rainbow, but upon closer scrutiny, there wasn't.
When speaking happens here, at its bare rudiments, it's noise coming from a hole somewhere. That might sound rather dry, but it can present itself in some very dynamic ways. Apparently, I'm told that great wisdom can exit this hole, but nobody is there to apprehend any of it. That is why the Heart Sutra says: there isn't even any wisdom to attain. However, there are people who can seemingly cognize those noises, which I'm always fascinated by, especially when they have insights or shifts in their awareness.

Similar to SN 1.25 cited in Dhamma Dhatu's answer, there's a Milindapañha which begins,

King Milinda went up to Nàgasena, exchanged polite and friendly greetings, and
took his seat respectfully to one side. Then
Milinda began by asking:
“How is your reverence known, and what sir, is your
name?”
“O king, I am known as Nàgasena but that is only a
designation in common use, for no permanent individual
can be found.”
Then Milinda called upon the Bactrian Greeks and the
monks to bear witness: “This Nàgasena says that no
permanent individual is implied in his name. Is it possible
to approve of that?”

The "common use" there is similar to the "conventional" in SN 1.25:

Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
Loke samaññaṁ kusalo viditvā;

... with "world’s conventions", loke samaññaṁ there, as literally something like "worldly name".
Conventionally, English language grammar has "sentences" which are built using "verbs" and "subjects", and "objects" and so on. There are different ways to use it (i.e. to be expressive or to produce the language) -- for example:

There's an imperative mood, giving orders: "Cut the grass! Build the house!"
Or there's a passive voice: "The grass needs to be cut soon."
FYI I tend to often use an I-message -- because I find that less bossy and argumentative, to say, "I think it's X", instead of, "It is X (and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong)!"

Pali might not always use explicit words to denote the "subject" in a sentence but I think it might as well, because in Pali the verbs are "conjugated" -- like in Latin for example, the verb amare is "conjugated" as amo, amas, amat, to mean "I love", "you love", or "he or she loves", as different single words -- I don't know if you know a language like that. But I think when you read Pali the "subject" of the sentence may be explicit as a separate word or just implicit (but still implicit), in the conjugation of the verb (which is necessary i.e. conventionally required by the grammar).
In any case I think that, using these languages, it's difficult (or stilted, unconventional) to use the languages "conventionally" without implying that there's a subject and "who" (which person) the subject is.
I think that's maybe less so in some other languages like Chinese -- I don't this know for sure, mind you, I know very little about Chinese -- I think in Chinese you can use an ideogram like "Run" or "Running" without a subject. So you could have a two-word phrase like "run" and "mountain" to say "mountain-running" or "running in the mountain" without implying any particular person who is doing that.
I think there's a form of Buddhist "mindfulness meditation" in English where you're told to think "hearing" when you're hearing something, or "walking" when you're walking. That's maybe similar to the Chinese, i.e. an activity without a subject. It's not conventional dialog though. If we were face to face I could say to you single-words like "grass!" or "hearing!" but that would be kind of odd.
I've definitely seen people (mostly in writing, rarely orally in person) avoid using "first person" (i.e. "I") expression -- for example instead of, "I want X", say, "This person wants X", or even, "She wants X". I think it's good to be sympathetic and permissive to the way people express themselves, but that kind of sentence isn't convention (and other people might find it unusual or uncomfortable). Still it may be what you were asking.
Maybe what's more important or more fundamental isn't grammar but "conceit". I mean this answer:

How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Also, more about "conceit" on Wikipedia:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

I think it may be "conceit" that's in evidence, in the quarrel or harsh words ("wounding each other with weapons of the mouth) depicted in the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant in Ud 6.4.
So I think that may be another answer to your question -- i.e. what's more important than whether you use the word "I" conventionally is whether you think automatically, "I'm right and they're wrong" and so on -- even if that's rephrased impersonally like, "such is truth, such is not" etc.

I said,

In any case I think that, using these languages, it's difficult (or stilted, unconventional) to use the languages "conventionally" without implying that there's a subject and "who" (which person) the subject is.

... but that's not true, or not the whole truth -- because you can write "objectively" in English. I think "objective" is when the grammatical subject of the sentence is some kind of object, something other than a person, and other than personal (e.g. "my feelings" are "personal").
Here's an example of objective writing -- the subject here is the Ear (or "an ear"):

An ear is the organ that enables hearing and, in mammals, body balance using the vestibular system. etc., etc., etc.

This implies that you could try to talk about objective or impersonal topics. Here's a page titled Right Speech which quotes nearly a dozen suttas on that topic -- including ones about wholesome and unwholesome subjects of conversation.

I also like this, non-Buddhist discourse -- Bryn Mawr Commencement Address (1986) -- the speaker is an expert skilful with language. It starts with a play on words, then begins to describe "objective" language:

It began to develop when printing made written language common rather than rare, five hundred years ago or so, and with electronic processing and copying it continues to develop and proliferate so powerfully, so dominatingly, that many believe this dialect - the expository and particularly the scientific discourse - is the highest form of language, the true language, of which all other uses of words are primitive vestiges.
And it is indeed an excellent dialect. Newton's Principia was written in it in Latin, and Descartes wrote Latin and French in it, establishing some of its basic vocabulary, and Kant wrote German in it, and Marx, Darwin, Freud, Boas, Foucault - all the great scientists and social thinkers wrote it. It is the language of thought that seeks objectivity.
I do not say it is the language of rational thought. Reason is a faculty far larger than mere objective thought. When either the political or the scientific discourse announces itself as the voice of reason, it is playing God, and should be spanked and stood in the corner. The essential gesture of the father tongue is not reasoning but distancing-making a gap, a space, between the subject or self and the object or other. Enormous energy is generated by that rending, that forcing of a gap between Man and World.

I'll leave you to read the rest if you like. I don't think "objective" language is necessarily better. It has a place or use, it's the language of science, engineering ("The requirement is X, the design is Y"), and probably medicine -- and of a lot of Dhamma. But it's also the language of lies, misunderstandings, half-truths, disputes, bad jokes, and so on, hence my earlier warning against "conceit". It may claim to be "objective" but in fact I think the person is expressing their "view" and to that extent perhaps it's subjective too -- it may be wiser sometimes to phrase as statement as an explicit "I message".
And sometimes I'm not sure it matters -- if a doctor asks "What's the problem?", then whether you answer "There's some pain in the ear" or "My ear hurts", maybe both mean the same thing.

Develop awareness through practising vipassana, and overtime you will be able to observe without thinking, and this is the birth of not-self.  Everything else is accomplished through continual practice and time.
At first I practised vipassana for about 3 hours a day, experiencing not self came spontaneously and lasted about 30 seconds; since that time, I meditate and I try to turn activities into meditation.  Recommend the miracle of mindfulness, that helped me at the start.

Is there a specific way to practice Vipassana, other than through the development of Anapana Sati meditation?

Well, the modern name for vipassana is mindfulness meditation. Essentially it means observing without labelling or judging.  Undoubtedly the best way to start is watching the breath, anapana - caution here though, some people teach beginners to count their breath, this is wrong, and creates the habit of using the mind. Relax and allow the breath to rise and sink from the bottom of your body, feeling your muscles rise and sink to, whilst being aware of the sensation of air coming in and out of the nose.

But in answer to your question, walking vipassana is a great second exercise.  Take a nice long walk through the park, nature, it even along the streets. Feel you hours swaying, feel the muscles moving, becoming more and more sensitive to the internal movements, but just observing. Noticing too sounds, like birds sining in the park, the scent of flowers.  But just observing, no judgements, not saying to yourself, those roses smell nice.

For anapana, allowing the breath to occur naturally, never controlling it, if the body breathes shallow, observe it, if the body breathes deeply, observe it.  Never trying to correct it.

Thank you so much. With being aware of the sensation of air coming in and out of the nose - I can feel when the breath goes in but I can't feel a thing when my breath comes out. It's hindered my meditation and caused me to become a bit frustrated over the years. So as a result, I follow Ajahn Brahm's advice and just try to be aware of the breath as a whole, rather than trying to feel it in a specific part of my body.
Are there any tips though for feeling the breath coming out of the nose? I've even tried placing my hand in front of my nose but I still barely feel it.

As I said above, 'Relax and allow the breath to rise and sink from the bottom of your body, feeling your muscles rise and sink too'. So yes it is important to sense the whole body as it breathes.  In actual fact single pointed awareness, just the nose, is not correct.  Myself, first I feel the movement of my body as I breath, from below the naval, then I add to that the sensation of air coming into the nose, and that widens my perception beyond a single point.  If you can only feel air coming in the nose that is enough. The purpose is observing the senses of your body, not awareness of the air

I recommend two books of Thich Nhat Hanh.  The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Diamond Sutra. Which explains Vipassana as an exercise.  And The Miracle of Mindfulness which explains moving beyond exercise and integrating Vipassana into life.

Try not to obsess over one sense, such as the nose, meditation is an activity we relax into. Certainly never hold your hand in front of your nose.  The objective is to sit and do nothing, and to achieve that goal, we start be trying to do very little, such as observing our body breathing and hope to eventually let go of that.

Correction, I think I have quoted the wrong book, it is another book by TNH that explains Vipassana I will try to find the title, unfortunately after I moved all my books are in storage.

I think the title is: Breathe! You Are Alive: Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing.     That and The miracle of mindfulness are enough.

Not-self is an insight. One example is  MN 148. You practice on your own and cultivate the insight. Going around saying "the ear hurts" instead of "my hear hurts" is faking it. It won't do much for you.
Impermanence is a gateway into seeing not-self.  SN 22.45

What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self. And what’s not-self should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ Seeing truly with right understanding like this, the mind becomes dispassionate and freed from defilements by not grasping.

But the monks that I have listened to have said that you can begin your practice in the way that I've mentioned, which may eventually help with gaining the not-self insight.
It has personally helped me as well

The newness might cause a shift in awareness

@PrincessBelle I thought this answer useful i.e. to see pain as "information".

ChrisW already touched on this in his answer but it is buried in a bunch of other thoughts, so I'll say it here again:
It's not as much which words you use, as it is what meanings you convey with the words.
The ego is a samskara that reproduces itself by maintaining its stories and narratives. Via these narratives it strives to prove its own significance and "rightness" - to itself and to the world. Oftentimes we ourselves do not notice how the ego uses our communications to defend, rationalize, and self-promote.
The best you can do to practice anatta "whilst talking" is by not allowing the ego to sneak its agenda into your messages. This requires cultivating a high degree of self-awareness and critically scrutinizing every single word you say to see if any of it serves a hidden purpose to self-aggrandize, rationalize complacency, or otherwise feed the ego.
There's not much else to it, but you must realize that ego is an extremely tricky and clever mechanism and it will try to do its thing in very sneaky ways, despite your best efforts.
Starving the ego is a quintessential Mahayana practice and its importance cannot be overemphasized. For more information on this practice, I recommend studying Chogyam Trungpa's 'Cutting through spiritual materialism'.

While SN 1.25 presents this from the arahant's perspective, SN 22.89 presents this from the stream enterer's perspective.

The Venerable Khemaka replied:
“These five aggregates subject to
clinging have been spoken of by the Blessed One; that is, the form
aggregate subject to clinging … the consciousness aggregate subject to
clinging. I do not regard anything among these five aggregates subject
to clinging as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not an arahant,
one whose taints are destroyed. Friends, the notion ‘I am’ has not yet
vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to
clinging, but I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’”  ......
“Friends, I do not speak of form as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’
apart from form. I do not speak of feeling as ‘I am’ … nor of
perception as ‘I am’ … nor of volitional formations as ‘I am’ … nor of
consciousness as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from
consciousness. Friends, although the notion ‘I am’ has not yet
vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to
clinging, still I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’
SN 22.89

For a stream enterer, the conceit and habit of "I am" is a deeply ingrained scent or stain that is difficult to be removed and yet to be removed. But being a stream enterer, he does not assume "I am" to be any of the five aggregates.
This is like a person who is still morbidly obese (due to his previous unhealthy lifestyle) but now he fully understands the benefit of healthy living with good diet, exercise, sleep, hydration etc. So, he has already let go of his bad lifestyle habits and bad beliefs, but he still has some distance to go, with a lot of very hard work, before he manages to improve his health and weight.
When he speaks, he uses "I am" without the belief that it refers to his form, feelings, perception, consciousness or volitional formations. But he still has the habit of "I am".

Let's first look at the self as we usually do. We tend to think that we exist independently from others and everything else. We also tend to feel the self is fixed, permanent. Our body is made up of all sorts of particles (atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.) so when we want to locate the self as a body we think it is just a collection of these particles. When we investigate further, we realize that our body, and thereby the self, also interacts with the air around us, the food we eat, radiation from the sun and other sources, the gravitational pull of the earth, moon and sun, other people, etc. Basically, we really do not exist as an independent entity apart from everything else. We exist interconnected to everything else in the universe.  There really is no self that exists inherently and independently from everything else. This is the concept of non-self (anatta).
Anatta is a concept that falls under the general umbrella of what is called Śūnyatā (emptiness). It is called "emptiness" not because you or other things aren't real or don't exist but because you and everything else is empty of inherent, independent existence. This is called ultimate wisdom which is basically to say that everything is interconnected. Now it is just fine to think that you exist apart from others. This is natural and a way to practically get along in this world. This is part of what is called conventional wisdom. In Buddhism it is valid to view the world with conventional wisdom or with ultimate wisdom. This is part of the "middle path" that the Buddha ultimately advocated.
When you say anatta is when you "think that it's not actually 'my' body" and that "to observe them as if you're an outsider" you are misunderstanding the concept. Conventionally, your body is always your body. You are always you. But on a deeper level your self and your body, feelings, thoughts ,etc. are connected to everything else in the world. This is anatta. When you say you want to "to observe ... as if you're an outsider" this is closer to the vajrayana practice of exchanging self with others.
With this background I can now answer your question. It is totally possible while talking to people to have the mind of anatta at the same time. If while you talk with others you are also continually aware of your interconnectedness with them and everything else then you are practicing anatta and ultimate wisdom. If you add selfless love and compassion to this you are basically a bodhisattva and on your way to becoming a Buddha. Everyone has the potential to achieve this because, at our core, we all want peace and happiness and we are all good even though we may go astray. No one is beyond hope. The wish to become liberated for the sake of others is called bodhichitta (the enlightening mind) and is a very powerful way to free yourself from all suffering.


text:
Ignorance and 5 hindrances
The five hindrances or obstacles of common buddhism are:

worry/restlessness/regret  /distraction
hate (ill-will)
sensual desire
skeptical doubt (ignorance?)
lazy/lethargy

Ignorance is not listed.  Do all 5 together imply ignorance?
It says:

These are the five obstacles and hindrances, corruptions of the heart
that weaken wisdom.

Another theory might be that ignorance (confusion) is the same as doubt.  If one doesn’t know any better, the opportunity to gain access to concentration (right meditation) are more slim. If one misunderstands that is also ignorance.  If one is skeptical that might be ignorance.  Perhaps the five hindrances are primarily a technical manual, a means to access concentration or develop tranquility/equanimity/energy (seven factors); in which case ignorance has an indirect role.
Why (How) is or isn’t ignorance one of the five hindrances?

Ignorance is not listed as one of the five hindrances.
There is a relationship between ignorance and the five hindrances. The five hindrances are the nutriment of ignorance, or in other words, ignorance is fueled by the five hindrances.

“I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not without
nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said:
the five hindrances. The five hindrances, too, I say, have a
nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment
for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of
misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a
nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment
for the three kinds of misconduct? .....
AN 10.61

Ignorance is one of the seven underlying tendencies.

“Mendicants, there are these seven underlying tendencies. What seven?
The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt,
conceit, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the seven
underlying tendencies.”
AN 7.11

Ignorance is also one of the ten fetters:

“Mendicants, there are ten fetters. What ten? The five lower fetters
and the five higher fetters. What are the five lower fetters? Identity
view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual
desire, and ill will. These are the five lower fetters.
What are the five higher fetters? Desire for rebirth in the realm of
luminous form, desire for rebirth in the formless realm, conceit,
restlessness, and ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. These
are the ten fetters.”
AN 10.13

Ignorance is also an effluent or mental influx (asava):

As “mental influxes,” the oldest list is probably the set of 3
influxes—of sense-desire (kāmāsava), of existence (bhavāsava), and
of ignorance (avijjâsava) ...
Piya Tan's commentary on AN 9.36

The five hindrances are the food/nutriment of ignorance (AN 10.61). What this means is as long as the five hindrances remain, ignorance will remain.
However, the complete ending of the five hindrances does not mean ignorance completely ends.
When the overt obstruction of the five hindrances ends, there will be access concentration. When there is access concentration, insight/wisdom will begin to generate and ignorance will commensurately begin to reduce.
When all subtle remnants of the five hindrances are dissolved in meditation, jhana (attainment concentration) will manifest. The super clarity & super sensitivity of the 4th jhana is particularly necessary for full enlightenment; for the full destruction & uprooting of the underlying tendency (AN 7.11) of ignorance.
Therefore, ignorance is not one of the five hindrances because ignorance is something very deep and continues to exist despite often not overtly functioning when the five hindrances have been allayed. There is a relatively very long period between the allaying of the five hindrances and the destruction/uprooting of ignorance.
For example, when a stream-enterer completes the 16 stages of Anapanasati, there are no hindrances obstructing these 16 stages. Then when a non-returner completes the four jhana, there no hindrances obstructing these four jhanas. In takes a relatively long period of time to complete the 16 stages of Anapanasati and then advance to complete the four jhanas. But ignorance has not yet been fully ended. Varying degrees of ignorance still remain for the stream-enterer, once-returner & non-returner until the reaching of Arahantship (full enlightenment).
To end, while doubt is the closest literal hindrance to ignorance, doubt is a fetter (AN 10.13) removed by the stream-enterer; where as ignorance is the last fetter (AN 10.13) to be removed by the Arahant.
Be warned, there are manic-overestimating jhana-underestimating posters on the internet who falsely believe, as soon as the five hindrances are not present, this is jhana. This is not true. The suttas say only non-returners & arahants have completed jhana (AN 3.86) yet obviously a stream-enterer & once-returner have developed so much wisdom (e.g. SN 13.1 & SN 12.28), which can only occur when there is the allaying of the five hindrances. To reiterate, there is a relatively long time between the allaying of the five hindrances & the manifestation of real jhana.

Quote is from Page 214

Wow. Thanks for the knowledgeable write up

I sometimes have a state of mind where when I see the sense the outer world there is some kind of detachment. It's like the mind wants to remain aloof from the world. However, I have no idea how this state arises. The state can be best described as mindfulness immersed in the body. It feels like precursor to something huge maybe jhana. I am trying rigorously to create that detached mind state at will. But, damn it's hard right now. Hard as in taking days for the state to randomly manifest.