text:
Companies that practice right livelihood
I am looking for companies who operate in resonance with the ideas of right livelihood. I have looked for them, but don't seem to be finding any.
Does anyone know how to find companies that practice right livelihood?
Kind regards,
Timothy

Would you like to be more specific about what you're looking for -- your definition of "right livelihood", and in what way[s] you think most companies don't operate like that, such that you "don't seem to be finding any"?

Hello, right livelihood with regards to buddhism? With regards to your question though, I have found 'word of mouth' from the ground up is the most effective way to ensure any community or company meets criteria you are looking for and the mission statement on their webpage is a rule of thumb to measure against.

Maybe try learn of/ observe their business practices & policies. Thank you

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which
five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
business in intoxicants, and business in poison." - Vanijja Sutta

Is it really very hard to find companies that don't deal with weapons, human trafficking/ slavery/ prostitution, meat, alcoholic beverages, recreational drugs, and poisons (for malevolent purposes)?
For e.g. the company running Stack Exchange (with offices in New York and London) itself should fulfill these criteria.
UPDATED:
Right Livelihood applies to individual Buddhists, not entities like companies.
It's up to individuals to run businesses or be employed in businesses based on trades allowed by Right Livelihood.
Companies don't practise Buddhism. Individual Buddhists do.

By right livelihood i am referring to companies that not only do not violate the tenants you describe in terms of the products/outcomes that they create or enable, but that also never allow financial harm to their employees/communities, esp in times of financial hardship.

@TimothyQuinn Right Livelihood applies to individual Buddhists, not entities like companies. It's individuals who observe Right Livelihood, not companies.

Imagine if companies did practice no harm to people, communities or Earth, ever, and this is their first goal, above making a profit.

A noble ideal @TimothyQuinn, but not one that can be put into play in this day and age. The majority of this world's current economy is and has been made either through exploiting needs or wants. Exploitation for the sake of economic benefit is out of the question for an ascetic with the goal of harmony.

Avoid large companies, that's step one. Most major retail companies use some form of legal or illegal slavery (third world sweatshops, prison labor, etc.). Every major technology company, as far as I know, has profited from slavery (again, legal or illegal), building hardware or software for weapons, or both. Large national and international companies will engage in business that (if they were people, not companies) would break the precepts, because that kind of business is profitable, and profit is the entire point of companies.
Smaller companies would be a safer bet, and companies that are at least nominally committed to openness and transparency. Your average small to medium sized business probably isn't running a sweatshop in Indonesia or a cobalt mine in Congo, and most likely also isn't inventing new ways to get people on drugs or writing software to more accurately guide drone strikes. Even small companies, even very small family-owned businesses, will do things that are unethical sometimes, because again, the point of companies is to make a profit. Even nonprofit work is frequently harmful, because nonprofits also have to do things that increase profits (for their donors).
I think if you're looking for an employer where you can feel like you're not contributing to harm (whether in a way that breaks the precepts or otherwise), you're always going to feel like you're in a bit of a grey area. It may be better to just stay away from directly breaking the precepts (don't work at a liquor store, don't work for Raytheon, etc.), work for an employer where you don't feel too conflicted, and not worry about what the company gets up to otherwise.

And yet, companies are in fact people, with the incorrect top priorities. The truth of a competitive workplace and a separated life is before us as we speak, and we have learned that it is not sustainable. Love based decision making at all levels of business (right livelihood between all stakeholders) is sustainable, as well as connecting and nurturing at all levels. And all it is, is a priority shift. This is quite doable, and it would be a game changer on this planet.

@TimothyQuinn I'm not disagreeing with you (and I have my own very strong opinions about the ethics and sustainability of the current dominant economic system and type of labor relationships in most of the world), but that's not the world we live in right now. We can do what we can to change things, but in the mean time, we still have to pay our bills :)


text:
What is Wholesome Meditation?
Apologies, this question has been brewing for some time after observing so many expressions of suffering from maybe not so much as misinformation, but more misdirection.
Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with relation to all the Skandha and not just one?
Wouldn't wholesome imply a working towards balance between all components that constitute an individual? Because every meditation is a technique of cultivation for the 'individual' to reach enlightenment...?
Would this also mean enforcing one and neglecting the other four is not only counterintuitive, but potentially dilapidating for the cultivation of an individual? And such imbalance may shed some light on how there are so many questions regarding some form of suffering while meditating?
Watering a tree, but no offering of light, mineral rich food, interaction from the world or even foundational soil for constitution.
Yet, plant the tree in the sun, near a creek in soil complimenting and feeding it's roots and birds to spread it's seed...

What is the text in italic? Is that quoting somebody?

It is a metaphor for emphasis on the necessity balance has on cultivation; regardless of the individual's constitution, as the Dharma is present in every individual.
The tree was chosen due to simplicity because people understand the basic requirements of a tree and how an imbalance can be detrimental to growth.

Wholesome means without defilements of greed, hatred & delusion; regardless of which or how many khandhas.

"And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

"And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root
of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html

Thank you Dhammadhatu!

What is Wholesome Meditation?

Wholesome meditation means quality over quantity. It's not about how long one sits but more about the quality of mind during the meditation, i.e. how often one is mindful and practices correctly. One moment (drop) of mindfulness is wholesome and correct practice. Many drops of mindfulness will eventually create a river.

Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with
relation to all the Skandha and not just one?

It is rather spoken of as directing of the past, present & future classes of what can be spoken of in terms of genesis, forms cognizable via five senses & mental apprehension, feelings/sensations, perception & or consciousness.
Sutta say that the final awakening to the truth is the final goal, anything conducive to it is wholesome, anything counter productive is unwholesome. That being any state of mind's development.
Particular Sutta would be those dealing with directed & undirected development, two sorts of thinking, removal of distracting thoughts, themes for frequent reflection, nourishment & denourishment of hindrances, pleasant abidings, contemplation and or the defining of the elements for perception development

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent,
friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or
disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from the other,
to delineate the difference between them?"
"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined.
It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these
qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between
them."
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: What is the difference between
these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined?"
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are
conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed,
consciousness is to be fully comprehended."[1]
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

Form is the only aggregate which isn't conjoined with the others because form is the perceived object and perception can be otherwise & without form for object, having a formless object that is approached by stilling of the perception based on forms.
Another way of grasping this is that genesis/conception conceives something, perception perceives something, feeling feels something, conscioussness  cognizes something; whereas form is that which is generated, cognized, felt & perceived and conception can be of something else, a mental object like perception of the infinitude of space or nothingness.

As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend, 'One of
poor discernment, one of poor discernment': Thus is it said. To what
extent is one said to be 'one of poor discernment'?"
"'One doesn't discern, one doesn't discern': Thus, friend, one is said
to be 'one of poor discernment.' And what doesn't one discern? One
doesn't discern, 'This is stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the
origination of stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the cessation of
stress.' One doesn't discern, 'This is the practice leading to the
cessation of stress.' 'One doesn't discern, one doesn't discern': Thus
one is said to be 'one of poor discernment.'"
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are
conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed,
consciousness is to be fully comprehended."
The eye of discernment [judgement]
"Friend, what can be known with the purified intellect-consciousness
divorced from the five [sense] faculties?"
"Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the
five faculties the dimension of the infinitude of space can be known
[as] 'infinite space.' The dimension of the infinitude of
consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.' The
dimension of nothingness can be known [as] 'There is nothing.'
"With what does one know a quality that can be known?"
"One knows a quality that can be known with the eye of discernment."
"And what is the purpose of discernment?"
"The purpose of discernment is direct knowledge, its purpose is full
comprehension, its purpose is abandoning."

First the theme of sensuality is stilled
Then sustained entertaining of thought is stilled
Then application of thought is stilled
Then physical elation is stilled
Then mental eleation is stilled

There remains only quanimity based on form, bodily feeling, sensation of the wind, sensation of the liquidity or float, or
otherwise a vision of lights & colors.

Furthermore there is a stilling of the perception of form.
There remain only the formless 'signs' where is 'form signs' are associated with perception based on material field/context of conception.

Furthermore there is a stilling of signs and analogical contact with the signless grasped as the principal stilling of perception & feeling and this attainment is grasped as signless, empty or undirected depending on how it was approched & personal inclination due to prior development.

This is sutta analysis and analysis is made explicit in the Theravadin canon (Vibhanga (abi)

What is Wholesome Meditation?...Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with relation to all the Skandha and not just one?

According to Abhidhamma and the path of purification... Wholesome Meditation is the development of  38 mind factors continuously, Phassa (contact);   vēdanā (feeling);  saññā (perception);  cētanā (volition); Ekaggata (One-pointedness) can become Sammā Samādhi;  jivitindriya (life faculty);  manasikāra (memory), Saddhā (faith);  sati (moral mindfulness) can become Sammā Sati; hiri (shame of wrong); ottappa (fear of wrong); alobha (absence of greed); adosa (absence of hate/anger, of which mettā or “loving-kindness” is a part); tatramajjhattatā (neutrality of mind, of which upekkhā is a part); kāyapassaddhi (tranquility of mental body); cittapassaddhi (tranquility of consciousness); kāyalahutā (lightness of mental body);  cittalahutā (lightness of consciousness); kāyamudutā (malleability of the mental body); cittamudutā (malleability of consciousness);  kāyakammaññatā (wieldiness of the mental body);  cittakammaññatā (wieldiness of consciousness); kāyapāguññatā (proficiency of mental body);  cittapāguññatā (proficiency of consciousness);  kāyujjukatā (rectitude of mental body);  cittujjukatā (rectitude of consciousness).

Apologies, this question has been brewing for some time after observing so many expressions of suffering from maybe not so much as misinformation, but more misdirection.

It's not misinformation. It's just no information. And we have the Buddha because we have no information enough.

Wouldn't wholesome imply a working towards balance between all components that constitute an individual? Because every meditation is a technique of cultivation for the 'individual' to reach enlightenment...?

In tipitaka and commentary... "the balance between all components" is called Appanā-samādhi, Absorption concentration.  "the 'individual' to reach enlightenment" is called pre-absorption-meditation. The practitioner is like a baby who has no skill at all to learn, so the baby need something step by step, individual, to reach the balance between all components at the end of the meditation.

Would this also mean enforcing one and neglecting the other four is not only counterintuitive, but potentially dilapidating for the cultivation of an individual? And such imbalance may shed some light on how there are so many questions regarding some form of suffering while meditating?
Watering a tree, but no offering of light, mineral rich food, interaction from the world or even foundational soil for constitution. Yet, plant the tree in the sun, near a creek in soil complimenting and feeding it's roots and birds to spread it's seed...

In the real situation five people never have same strong. Someone is strong than the other four. And the strength of each one is required for each step differently. Fro the example, if the practitioner is so genius, he will not listen the Buddha, so the strong faith is more important in learning step than the strong wisdom for rapidly getting an information. Imagine when we are listening with 1,000 doubts in our head, how can  we focus on the information from the teacher?
For the concentration meditation is same. The practitioner can't focus on right wisdom and the very deep and much information of the insight meditation if they don't have strong wholesome mind enough. The insight meditation is meditating the understanding of each moment of trillion time arising and vanishing moments in a second, so how can the practitioner focus on the insight meditation without very strong concentration meditation?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
A view of the self
I have often wondered about one particular riddle regarding the stages of the path. If Sakkāyadiṭṭhi, a view of the self, is one of the first fetters conquered at stream- entry, why is it that Māna, that is a consequence of subtle ‘I-am-ness’, is one of the last to go at Arahanthood? In what form does the ‘I’ sustain itself till the last?

Here's an analogy. Stream entry is like that point in time where you have completely understood how diet, exercise, obesity, metabolism, homeostasis, ageing and non-communicable diseases work. You've thoroughly seen how it works. There's no more denial, delusion and doubt. There's no more ritualistic practice of diet and exercise without understanding. You're still obese and unhealthy, but now you have understanding. The remaining journey to attainment of Arahatship, is like the rigorous journey of improving one's diet and exercise further till perfect health and fitness is achieved.
There's a nice explanation in the Khemaka Sutta below.

Ven. Khemaka: "I am not getting better, my friend. I am not
comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are
signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening." .....
As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka,
this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I
am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say,
'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do
you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of
which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"
"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am
something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
assume that 'I am this.'
"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone
were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the
scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"
"No, friend."
"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"
"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he
were describing it correctly."
"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I
say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
assume that 'I am this.'
"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower
fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a
lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am'
obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of
arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates:
'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is
feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is
consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps
focusing on the arising & passing away of these five
clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am'
desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.
"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.

An explanation here from Walshe on the residual "I am" (for the case where Khemaka has no wrong views but he is still not yet an arahant):

Subcommentary says: "By way of clinging and conceit (ta.nha-maana),"
that is, not by wrong views (di.t.thi). At this stage, wrong views
would have been eliminated, but the other factors would still be
residually present.

Here's a more detailed commentary by Piya Tan on the Khemaka Sutta here on Dharmafarer:

In other words, one may not regard the five aggregates as self (attā)
or as belonging to self, but this does not mean that one is an arhat.
This is because even after the destruction of the five lower fetters,
there still remains a residue of the conceit “I am,” of the desire,“I
am,” and of the latent tendency, “I am.” Only when one has totally
uprooted the notion that “I am” the aggregates, that one becomes an
arhat.

Piya Tan quotes Ven. Bodhi:

The other elders apparently had not yet attained any stage of
awakening and thus did not understand this difference, but the
Venerable Khemaka must have been at least a stream-enterer (some
commentators say he was a non-returner) and thus knew that the
elimination of identity view does not completely remove the sense of
personal identity. Even for the non-returner,an “odor of subjectivity”
based on the five aggregates still lingers over the experience.

And Piya Tan continues:

Here, what Khemaka (who is at least a stream-winner) is saying refers to
his understanding of the working of the latent tendencies that
constantly proliferates one with thoughts rooted in lust, repulsion and
ignorance. None of these latent tendencies has been uprooted by the
stream-winner or the once-returner. Even though the non-returner has
overcome lust, he still has some repulsion (in the form of
conceit), and ignorance.In any case,the latent tendencies are still
active even in such saints (short of the arhat), and Khemaka is simply
describing what occurs in his own mind. Although the notion “I am”
arises in him,6observes Khemaka, he is not troubled by it and does not
identify with any of the five aggregates. Of course, Bodhi’s
translation, too, confirms the fact that Khemaka still experiences the
“I am” notion since he is not yet an arhat.

"till perfect health and fitness is achieved" -  This seems to overlook the fact that bodily death occurs because the body is no longer healthy or fit enough to remain in this world.

Thanks @ruben2020 for the detailed answer.
"...Even for the non-returner,an “odor of subjectivity” based on the five aggregates still lingers over the experience..."- this beautiful sentence says it all.

@chasly-supportsMonica It's just an analogy.

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi means to view one or more of the aggregates as a real solid inherent self.
Mana is simply conceit; a fleeting self-view arising in the mind it is superior to 'another'. Both 'self' & 'other' are self-views.
It is important to understand the sense of 'self' is an instinct or tendency (anusaya).
Therefore, the sense of self can arise, however fleeting & unmindful, in a non-Arahant.
As for an Arahant, they still perceive 'self' as a 'convention'. In other words, an Arahant still views discrete individual lifeforms.
This lecture may help with the matter of 'self': ANATTĀ & REBIRTH by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu

Thanks @Dhammadhatu for the explanation. I am a seeker after truth from times immemorial and Buddhism is the very marrow of my bones. I have studied various books by the venerable Buddhadasa Bikkhu but not this one. I shall definitely go through it. Thanks once again.

If a very young child looks in a mirror, it sees an object there that it cannot identify as itself. A slightly older child recognizes that the object it sees in the mirror is itself. A bit older than that, and a child internalizes the mirror, seeing a reflection of itself in the actions and reactions of others around it. On this development goes until the onset of adulthood, when we have established an ongoing, unconscious, self-reflective awareness: a 'me' that we hold as an object in our heads, that we put out into the world in structured ways for others to experience, and to whom we attribute all of our thoughts and behaviors.
Stream-entry merely means that we come to see that internal mirror for what it is: an imperfect reflection of something we cannot see directly. In fact, we start to see that the entire human world is like a fun house: distorted mirrors reflecting that which is just outside of our line of sight in ways that might be beautiful or ugly, normal or strange, comforting or terrifying... an infinite kaleidoscope of perspective as the flaws in the mirrors bend and shape what is. A steam-enterer understands that this 'me' isn't himself or herself, but is a reflection of something else they cannot quite grasp.
Being arahant means grasping that-which-is-reflected, where one no longer uses the concept 'me' in the same way.

Very beautifully explained. The mirror imagery seems to be very apt. Thanks Ted.

An excellent question!
We are all growing and learning, both of which are a part of cultivation. The process of defining the self and the Dharma attached is somewhat like refining our integrity; something we never expect to compromise nor change. The compassion of free will and the contradiction of self is we have a choice to act towards 'our'  path or sabotage that original integrity - 'our' meaning with respect to every individual all a part of the system of our planet; not just humanity.
A component of this process is stripping away the influence of societal expectations and go back to the primal nature of how we define ourselves, before any historical suffering, to an existence of purity (where we would struggle to sacrifice the life or suffering of another for the sake of comfort). At that point we then go further to what makes us unique amongst every single other of the nearly 8 billion humans on this planet and what we can give that no other can.
When we first actualise the Dharma it is an obscure meaning to our existence, but we may sustain enough of how to continue refining what it is that defines us and what may happen next on our path as a reassurance. The influence of our path in the bigger picture becomes clearer and coincidence advances beyond 'common' sense. At that point the Dharma of the world reacts to the Dharma of the individual, which are in essence one and the same.
Cultivating closely to that great truth, at some point along the way the path of the bigger picture becomes blurred with the identity, conditionin the Dharma of the individual and the Dharma of the world.
It is a common question to ask about loss of 'self' for the Dharma. There is irony to the answer because we are cultivating, there is always a level of loss. When we learn, what do we lose in exchange for that information? What if that information went against what we thought was true to logic and had to be rectified by those who assured our logic was wrong? Does our path of logic come back or had it been altered?
Acting towards the Dharma of the system we are all are a part of, and therefore following our Dharma, is following a path of our own cognition, unassuming and respectful of sustainable harmony, however it is guided.
To answer your question concisely:
There are not just one or two, but many potentials of self. Once we understand our cultivation is dynamic and has an impact on the entire world at large; we either continue observing our lives in one dimension or start seeing beyond the individual self. When we become closer to what really defines ourselves beyond that first dimension of thinking, hindrances become irrelevant shackles as we are not deluding ourselves as much as we had before. Continually cultivating this path, somewhere further along it becomes apparent the individual and the definition are one and the same and the self becomes the definition of aspiration.
Cultivate in harmony

An excellent answer! To the point, subtle and clothed in modern language. Thanks @Beau D.

Thank you for the apt comment about my approach @SushilFotedar! The reason for answering these questions is somewhat selfish. The language and history is unclear online and having little relationship with buddhism other than cultivating the path and meditation, the best way to learn is to integrate.

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


text:
Does doing an ordinary day-to-day job account for good karma?
If you do an ordinary job, say anything like a software engineer, or a waiter in a hotel or a farmer, anything, like a 9-5 job. Helping society in whichever peaceful means possible. Does it accumulate good karma? I understand it is a 'Right Livelihood' but does it fill the storehouse of good karma?
I understand that 'karma' is dependent on the 'intention', but doing a job has no particular intention other than fulfilling your financial monthly obligations or getting the fodder for the fire to cook dinner.
Do we have to be in a position to help millions, like the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahma, or just an ordinary guy doing ordinary routine will also get one in higher realms?

(not really a Buddhist, so I can't properly answer), but I'd view it as working an honest job pays taxes, which supports welfare programs/etc. beyond anything of what the job itself does (i.e. more obvious benefit for a farmer who grows food for people than a software engineer), so yes they'd generate good karma

Observing the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood, i.e. virtues (sila), with heedfulness (appamāda), with the right intentions, certainly generates good karma.
In addition, accumulation of wealth as a layperson and use of this wealth in a generous, charitable way, is also good karma, generating merit.
Observance of the five precepts is also one of the prerequisites for stream entry. Please see this answer for details.
Of course, these are not sufficient for the permanent cessation of suffering. That requires renunciation. However, the path of the observing lay Buddhist may be able to lead one to stream entry.
From Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
the wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.
The wise person, heedful,
acquires a two-fold welfare:
welfare in this life &
welfare in the next.
By breaking through to his welfare
he's called prudent, wise.

The Adiya Sutta speaks about five benefits that can be obtained from wealth, and ends with:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

From SN 3.19:

Like water
in a haunted place
that, without being imbibed,
dries up:
such is the wealth
acquired by a worthless person
who neither enjoys it himself
nor gives.
But one enlightened & knowing,
on acquiring wealth,
enjoys it & performs his duties.
He, a bull among men,
having supported his kin,
without blame
goes to the land of heaven.

And don't forget virtues once again, reminded by SN 3.20:

Grain, wealth, silver, gold,
or whatever other belongings you have;
slaves, servants, errand-runners,
& any dependents:
you must go without taking
any of them;
you must leave
all of them
behind.
What you do
with body, speech, or mind:
that is yours;
taking
that you go;
that's
your follower,
like a shadow
that never leaves.
Thus you should do what is fine
as a stash for the next life.
Acts of merit
are the support for beings
in their after-death world.

I would say that the work itself is not where the karma is made. That being said work environments are excellent places to make good karma. By applying right intention (non ill-will, non cruelty, renunciation) in your relations to things, people and yourself you build good karma.

Do we have to be in a position to help millions, like the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahma, or just an ordinary guy doing ordinary routine will also get one in higher realms?
Wickedness gets you reborn in hell. Lust gets you reborn among the animals. Gluttony and greed gets you reborn as a ghost. Morality that is tainted by vanity and pride gets you reborn among the asuras. Morality untainted by vanity and pride gets you born in the godly realms. The precepts get you reborn into the Pure Abodes (or not at all!). Bodhicitta gets you to the irreversible bhūmis. A heart of great compassion gets you to Complete and Final Buddhahood.

There are clearly things we should avoid. This list is important because such things can trip up even "ordinary jobs" and lead to bad kamma:

MN117:29.1: And what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to chase after other material possessions. This is wrong livelihood.

Leaving aside the wrong behavior, we can look forward to right livelihood. Yet even with right livelihood we also have to be careful:

MN117:30.1: And what is right livelihood? Right livelihood is twofold, I say. There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

Right livelihood can also lead to suffering if we become attached to good kamma, and try to gather it in a storehouse:

MN117:31.1: And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. This is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements.

So it's not the job itself or how many people we affect. Instead, it is the way we work that matters.

MN117:32.1: And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is right livelihood that is noble.
MN117:33.1: They make an effort to give up wrong livelihood and embrace right livelihood: that’s their right effort. Mindfully they give up wrong livelihood and take up right livelihood: that’s their right mindfulness. So these three things keep running and circling around right livelihood, namely: right view, right effort, and right mindfulness.

A good example of the above is Ghaṭīkāra. Ghaṭīkāra was an ordinary potter who did his job in an extraordinary way. The Buddha declared him to be a non-returner.

MN81:18.16: And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

Doing a job has to deal with people, handling situation, deciding what to do and what not to do, etc...in each of the actions, there is a kamma either good or bad kamma.  e.g. smiling to co-worker at work is good kamma, talking bad on someone behind him/her is bad kamma

Does doing an ordinary day-to-day job account for good karma?

If deeds done by mind, speech and body are based on non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion and done with a wholesome mind then yes it will create wholesome kamma.


text:
Personality and Conditioning?
The bulk of my personality is made up of other people's beliefs about what is lacking. These core beliefs rise up like bubbles and when the attention is placed on them, they burst into a rather coarse type of emptiness. For decades and unbeknownst to me, I have laboured over this negative self-talk which takes on various permutations of not being enough. As I investigate further, it's clear where they came from: implicit messages from society, that no matter what you can do or what you have in material possessions, it is never enough. It's like a sinister melody playing in the background of human consciousness. It is a collective and implicit agreement stationed just beyond the boundaries of normal, every day awareness and generates a perpetual attitude of always becoming yet the suffering it causes goes unquestioned - no link is formed between the thoughts and the actions.
There is so much to write about concerning these observations, but it would hurt my head if I continued mainly because I see a barrel of worms inside those karmic propensities. If I look at one person, I see only the manifold accumulation of past actions which determines their current behaviour, but they see an exclusive and individualized entity making unique and specialized decisions. They seem rather clown-like in that respect - their personality lost to the conditions of their circumstances. Then I turn towards myself, and see the same things ticking away, and so I smile and kick up one of my clown shoes. What else is left for me to do. The negative self-talk has little footing these days, but it's what I built my identity with.
As humankind's defunct tutorial meanders off it takes with it those biological conditionings: eating food has the same neutrality as shoving a letter into a postbox and women's tits look like what they are: droopy skin with a pointy circle denoting some vague hint of conceptual sensuality.
This leaves me thinking curiously about what actually drives me, what is my personality? The Buddha had a personality, for sure.
In a sense I know the answer to this question, but I'd have to start writing a curious state of affairs because language seems to do it a disservice. Then, the karmic waves come rolling in, and I've lost all direction. They seem quite annoyed over in this region even throwing obscure items like the kitchen sink.

Good Morning,
It sounds you are reaching through a bottleneck of defining your Dharma:)
While moving onto the next level of enlightenment we reassess how we defined ourselves previously to judge if we deem ourselves worthy of breaking through to the next level. Going over history like that flash before our eyes that humanity seems to associate with death/rebirth and weighing ourselves in action.
Defining ourselves would require 'dropping all the petals' of attachment back to the core of the individual structure, laying the skeleton bare. We are what we are, no One can define us better than ourselves.
When we come closer to what defines us, any historical attachment can influence a shift or impose limitations so, while we are breaking through the thoughts and motives of others are unnecessary. When we drop those attachments, the respite moves from gnawing emptiness to contentment of the self. Like the 'immovable' amongst the karmic waves.
The knowing comes when that 'position' stabilises.
Cultivate in harmony

Good morning and thank you for your reply. I always enjoy reading your replies.

Thanks @NeuroMax, the feeling is mutual. Both your questions and answers hold insight not often found :D

The Buddha had a personality, for sure. His personality is who he was, moment to moment, but not the result of him desiring to become that personality.
But you are not a Buddha, and much of your life experiences has built upon the habit of creating a self-reinforcing personality. Those habits are part of who you are, moment to moment, the result of deep desires to become that personality.
You are now seeing your own personality and experiences with a different perspective, a partially complete dharmic perspective, and that too is naturally going to become part of your personality. The deep desires to have a personality will latch onto this new found perspective with excitement, but those deep desires for a personality aren't intelligent enough to realize that this perspective is set upon unravelling these very habits and what that even means.
If you are really curious and really want to know what your personality is, then you are free to ask yourself those questions. Your personality is something completely fluid that is modifiable by your own or others input. So ask yourself, what do you really want? And feel free to strive for that.

"partially complete dharmic perspective" - this term has been a bit tricky with me mainly because the mind likes to reach some sort of finality, which amounts to more becomings. The consensus seems to imply that there is a place where one can 'feel complete' and my overall experience is guiding me towards some sort of completeness, but I haven't realized that, so it's hard for me to entertain. I guess there's much to be said about faith here.

@NeuroMax, "completed dharmic perspective" is not intended to mean "that there is a place where one can 'feel complete' ", it is intended to mean a thorough understanding of the workings of dhamma, natural laws of the universe, such that one can use that understanding to more deeply pierce through and/or shed the layers of defilements built up over time.

I see. So when they say in the suttas "the job has been done. There is nothing more for this world", and various similar permutations thereof, they mean one has fully comprehended the dhamma?

It depends... dhamma has many meanings and is an can be used in many different ways to convey very different meanings. For what I said, focus on the word "perspective"; Mostly I mean the perspective you have towards your experiences in such a way that it incorporates the qualities of dhamma (three characteristics) towards whatever it is you are brining to mind. So partially complete means some part of a correct perspective is there, enough to incorporate the qualities of dhamma in a beneficial way.

In the way you presented it there, that more-so means, the full realization of dhamma, having fully investigated the entire field of dhamma and ultimately realizing arahantship.

Much appreciated. :-)

The ancient Greeks imagined the Fates as weavers, spinning out the yarn that makes the fabric of our lives. And it's a useful analogy: our experiential lives are like strands of yarn dragging behind us as we move forward. We have no control over that. We pick up experiences, and they are part of the fabric of our lives as it stretches behind us.
What we do have some control over is whether those strands are a tangled mess of knots and snags that pull on us from this direction or that, or whether they are smooth and ordered, gliding gracefully along with us. It's a painstaking process; the more we fight the snags and tangles, the tighter they become.

"Personality" ("attabhava"; individual character) is made up of nature (dhamma) & nurture (bhavana), namely:

Genetic structure: the Realized One truly understands the world with its many and diverse elements (anekadhātunānādhātulokaṃ)... dispositions (ānādhimuttikataṃ).. and faculties (indriyaparopariyattaṃ)... MN 12

Conditioning, mental development & training: Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that, when it is developed and cultivated (bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ), is so very beneficial as the mind... I do not see a single thing that, when it’s not developed and cultivated, brings such suffering as the mind. (AN 1.28)

The suttas (AN 4.171; MN 114; avoid Sujato translations) say there are four ways to acquire personality, which includes due to the actions or influence of others, such as family, associates & society:

There is acquisition of personality/individual character where one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā.

There is acquisition of personality/individual character where the intention of others is effective, not one’s own. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanā kamati, no attasañcetanā.

There is acquisition of personality/individual character where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā ca kamati parasañcetanā ca.

There is acquisition of personality/individual character where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe nevattasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā

There exists no person or personality.
All Buddha's are the same.

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. The system flagged this as a low quality answer. This answer is too short and doesn't contain enough details. Also, if possible, it is preferred to cite sources to support the answer. Did you intend it to be a comment under the question? If not, please see this guide on how to write a good answer.


text:
What is the state,the during vipassana meditation?
Now there is no bodily sensation on sitting posture of meditation. Only thoughts are coming. Always  close  the eyes can see a oil lamp in the Middle. When  the lamp not appeared in the front negative thoughts were coming. When experience breath slowly  body disappears. Sometimes thinking loose and mindfulness  appears. Can anyone tell is it sankaraupeksha ?

How long have you been meditating for? Sankharupekkha nana is characterized by equanimity and consistency of and strength of concentration, similarly to the fourth samatha jhana, does that seem to accurately describe where you are?

I have been meditating for10 years 20 minutes per day.thank you.

Perhaps this is the state called "Passambayan Kayasankharam" or "Sabbakaya Patisamvedhi" state.
[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html


text:
In what sutta does the Buddha talk about Paccekabuddhas?
Question is in the title.
Thank you for your time.

In MN116,

Once upon a time, five hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves dwelt
for a long time on this Isigili. They were seen entering the mountain,
but after entering were seen no more. When people noticed this they
said: ‘That mountain swallows these hermits!’ That’s how it came to be
known as Isigili.
desessāmi, bhikkhave, paccekabuddhānaṁ nāmāni.
I shall teach the names of the Buddhas awakened for themselves.
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī”ti.
Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“The Buddhas awakened for themselves who dwelt for a long time on this
Isigili were named Ariṭṭha, Upariṭṭha, Tagarasikhin, Yasassin,
Sudassana, Piyadassin, Gandhāra, Piṇḍola, Upāsabha, Nītha, Tatha,
Sutavā, and Bhāvitatta. ......
These and other mighty ones awakened for themselves, enders of the
attachment to rebirth— honor these great hermits who are fully
extinguished, having got past all ties, limitless.”

Other translation: From Piyadassi Thera

I'll just update your answer to provide a bit more of the surrounding text to add more context.

From AN 10.16:

“Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of
hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an
unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the
Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one
liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body
witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the
Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten
persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of
merit for the world.”

From AN 9.20:

It would be more fruitful to feed one person accomplished in view than
that great offering of Velāma.
It would be more fruitful to feed one once-returner than a hundred
persons accomplished in view.
It would be more fruitful to feed one non-returner than a hundred
once-returners.
It would be more fruitful to feed one perfected one than a hundred
non-returners.
It would be more fruitful to feed one Buddha awakened for themselves
than a hundred perfected ones.
yo ca sataṃ arahantānaṃ bhojeyya, yo cekaṃ paccekabuddhaṃ bhojeyya … pe …
It would be more fruitful to feed one Realized One, a perfected one, a
fully awakened Buddha than a hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves.

From Ud 5.3:

“Formerly, monks, the leper Suppabuddha was a son of a wealthy
merchant in this very Rājagaha. While going to his pleasure park he
saw the Pacceka Buddha Tagarasikkhī entering the city for alms, and
having seen him, this occurred to him: “Who is this leper roaming
around with his leper’s robe?” And having spat, and circumambulated
him disrespectfully on the left side, he went away.


text:
Transcription of Yamāntaka mantra chanting fragment
I am a total outsider not well-versed in the Buddhist tradition, and apologize in advance if some of the terms/names I'll write are placed out of context or misused.
To cut the story short, I am looking for a transcription (and possibly translation into English) of a certain Tantric overtone singing (Rgyud Skad) fragment, used as a sound effect at the end of each level in Painkiller 2004 videogame.
According to my research, I believe it to be a sample from Yamāntaka mantra as performed by Gyütö Monks on this album, 4th track, starting at 0:32 time mark.
I tried to make sense of the chanting by reading Meditation on Vajrabhairava and attempting to "sync" the text by looking at the places where performers play the bell — obviously, I have little to no idea of what I am doing and that didn't ring any bells (pun intended) :)

This is a really interesting niche question that I wish I knew how to answer. I upvoted it all the same. I'll see if anyone I know knows anyone who could even begin to identify it. Have you also considered asking ethnomusicologists?

@Caoimhghin thanks for the suggestion! I'll happily ask around if there exist communication mediums for that (forums, mailing lists, private messages &c). Can you give me any pointers in this regard?


text:
What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism?
What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism? Do all these religions say that other people have no minds? If all these religions are like solipsism, then are all buddhists solipsists?

Your question is so broad that it may be well answered by Wikipedia's article on Solipsism, which has sections on solipsism in western philosophy, Hinduism and Buddhism. Do you have a more specific question? Especially one that is more related to Buddhism?

Related: Why wasn't the Buddha a solipsist?, What are other peoples minds according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra?, Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?

Does Buddhism say that other minds don't exist? Chinese people believe in Buddhism, so they don't believe in other minds? Are all Chinese solipsist?

Please don't cross-post. you won't get better answers that way, and it's confusing for the rest of us (see what I mean?).

OP why don't u study them all and tell us all about it when you are done?

Why don't u go to SEphilosophy or SEhinduism and ask this? Why here? This isn't a site specific question. Voted to close!

Solipsism is not a religion or philosophy. It's just a speculative idea: "hmm how do we know the world we experience actually exists? What if our senses and minds are fooling us and nothing else exists at all?". I don't think there are many people, if any, who seriously believe in solipsism and make it one's guiding principle. It's just a philosophical joke people are playing with as they study philosophy.
Note how Solipsism doesn't say "other minds don't exist", no, - instead it says "I definitely exist because I can think and experience stuff, but there's no proof that the rest of the world exists other than in my mind".
Hinduism is not a concrete thing. It's a huge collection of traditions, myths, rituals, and teachings that developed over millennia in many different places on Indian subcontinent. There's no single system there. But in context of your question we can say that most people who roughly belong to this group, called Hindus, believe that people have souls and these souls are parts of the Universal Soul (call it God or Brahma or whatever). Some of the people in this group also believe that this Universal Soul is sleeping and this world is a dream this Universal Soul is dreaming up. Again this idea of the world being God's dream is more like a metaphor or beautiful myth, I don't think all Hindu people take it literally (although some might).
There's no teaching in Hinduism that says that other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist at all. They usually say this world of separation is an illusion or like a dream, and when the soul wakes up it realizes its unity with God or Brahman, and sees everything correctly as it really is. Note how they don't say nothing else exists, they say the awakened soul sees the true reality, and in this true reality everything is God, basically.
So in solipsism you are the only reality and everything else is illusion while in Hinduism all separate things are illusion and the unity of Everything with God is the true reality.
Now, Buddhism is not a single thing either. It's a huge collection of ideas and teachings that developed from one person's teachings. People were trying to implement this teaching, interpret it, and understand its implications - and this original teaching along with its historical interpretations and implications is what we now call Buddhism.
Many Buddhists (although not all!) will say that soul does not exist, this makes them very different from Hindus who strongly believe in soul. (There are some Buddhist whose faith is more like a hybrid between Buddhism and Hinduism but we can omit them for simplicity). Moreover, most Buddhists do not believe in Universal God or Universal Soul, whatever you call it. In this sense, Buddhists are more like the modern scientific materialists - they think the world works according to some kind of natural laws. Not necessarily same exact laws we know from science but laws nevertheless, not a God dreaming things up.
Now when it comes to mind, most Buddhists will say that mind also works according to some laws, it develops and changes based on causes and conditions - not randomly. When this mind develops, it comes up with all kinds of ideas about the world, including the idea of "I" or "self" - but according to Buddhism all these are just ideas, just concepts the mind develops to approximately understand and analyze its experiences.
So in Buddhism we don't say other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist, no. We say, the reality or the world we experience is an interpretation we make based on our experience, prejudices, on where we focus our attention and on our emotional state.
In Buddhism we often say that this world is like an illusion or our life is like an illusion, meaning that it seems to look a certain way until you look closely. This doesn't mean the world doesn't exist, it just means when our minds are childish our world is primitive, and as our minds mature - our world becomes much more deep, nuanced, more complex, and a more accurate representation of how-things-really-are.
As you can see, Solipsism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are three very different things. None of them says that other minds do not exist. Only Solipsism says the world outside our mind may not exist. Hinduism and Buddhism both say our experience of the world is not accurate. Hinduism says, in reality everything is one with God, while Buddhism says that every experience of a certain subjective world is a result of causes and conditions.
Solipsism is just a toy philosophy, it's not meant to be a real belief.
Hinduism teaches (among other things) how to strive for unity with God, both in this life and beyond.
In Buddhism we learn how our lives are shaped by causes and conditions, we learn how we create these causes by our actions, we learn how mind works, we learn how it develops illusions and superficial ideas about the world, we learn how these superficial ideas keep us entrapped in certain subjective realities, going in vicious cycles - and we learn how to liberate from all that.

that's an oxymoron, when the soul wakes up, it returns to the god's dream

By the way, Buddhists come in many ethnicities like Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese and even English persons like Ajahn Brahm or Germans like Bhikkhu Analayo.
There are different schools and sub-schools within Hinduism and also different schools and sub-schools within Buddhism. So, for this answer, I will limit the scope. I choose to limit it to Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism as taught by Adi Shankaracharya in his own writings, and teachings from the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) in Buddhism, especially the Pali Canon.
Solipsism in western philosophy
From wikipedia article on Solipsism:

Solipsism ... is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure
to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that
knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external
world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the
mind.

Solipsism doesn't say other minds don't exist. They say, "we're unsure if other minds exist". Solipsism states that we're only sure of our minds and unsure of everything external to it.
Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta)
Brahman is God, Atman is Self, jiva is individual self.
From Adi Shankaracharya's Vivekachudamani:

If the universe be true, let it then be perceived in the state of deep sleep also. As it is not at all perceived, it must be unreal and
false, like dreams.

All modifications of clay, such as the jar, which are always accepted by the mind as real, are (in reality) nothing but clay.
Similarly, this entire universe which is produced from the real
Brahman (God), is Brahman Itself and nothing but That. Because there is
nothing else whatever but Brahman, and That is the only self-existent
Reality, our very Self, therefore art thou that serene, pure, Supreme
Brahman, the One without a second.

As the place, time, objects, knower, etc., called up in dream are all unreal, so is also the world experienced here in the waking state,
for it is all an effect of one's own ignorance. Because this body, the
organs, the Pranas, egoism, etc., are also thus unreal, therefore art
thou that serene, pure, supreme Brahman, the One without a second.

From Adi Shankaracharya's Aparokshanubhuti:

This world, though an object of our daily experience and serving all practical purposes, is, like the dream world, of the nature of
non-existence, inasmuch as it is contradicted the next moment.

The dream (experience) is unreal in waking, whereas the waking (experience) is absent in dream. Both, however, are non-existent in
deep sleep which, again, is not experienced in either.

Thus all the three states are unreal inasmuch as they are the creation of the three Gunas; but their witness (the reality behind
them) is, beyond all Gunas, eternal, one, and is Consciousness itself.

Just as (after the illusion has gone) one is no more deluded to see a jar in earth or silver in the nacre, so does one no more see
Jiva in Brahman when the latter is realized (as one's own self).

So, according to the quoted verses, we see that the world that is perceived in a dream is unreal, after waking up. Similarly the world that you observe when you're awake does not exist in the dream or in deep sleep (turiya).
However, what is common in all three states, is Consciousness, the silent observer. And this Consciousness is Atman (the Self), which is the same as Brahman (the Ultimate Reality). This is a gist of Advaita to my understanding.
So, Advaita is very centered on Consciousness, the silent observer.
Although there are many living beings, there's only one Consciousness = Atman (Self) = Brahman. The perceived diversity of living beings and inanimate objects is a mirage or a dream or an illusion when Consciousness looks through the lens of maya, similar to living beings and inanimate objects perceived in a dream.
So, it is very clear that the universe is unreal and is an illusion in Advaita. The awake, dream and deep sleep states are all unreal (see Aparokshanubhuti 58). The only thing real, eternal and permanent is Consciousness = Atman = Brahman.
The enlightened person sees only Brahman, while the unenlightened person suffers because of the illusion of separation from Brahman and of diversity in forms.
Buddhism (Pali Canon)
The Buddha's teachings from the Pali Canon is quite different. It does not use the word "maya" but it does have the concept of illusion or mirage.
By convention, a sentient being in Buddhism is one where the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations come together, just as when different parts of a chariot come together, you call it a chariot (SN 5.10).
Through dependent origination (pratityasamutpada), the mental idea of the self (atman) arises. Just as how different parts of a lute (vina) interact to create music, the five aggregates work together according to dependent origination to create the mental idea of the self. If you break down the five aggregates into their constituent parts, you will not be able to find the self anywhere, just as when you break the lute down, you cannot find music anywhere (SN 35.205).
Consciousness in Buddhism is not independent. It is dependent on the six sense media of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect (for thoughts). So, dependent on this, there is eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, mind-consciousness etc. (MN 38)
The mind not just objectifies the mental idea of the self, but it also objectifies and classifies all that is perceived into non-self objects, relative to the mental idea of the self or based on its relationship to the mental idea of the self. This is also called reification or concept proliferation (papañca in Pali or prapañca in Sanskrit) (MN 18).
For e.g. a cooked meat dish is perceived by a meat lover as delicious food, by the vegan as something repulsive, and by the honey bee as dirt (because it is not its food). In this sense, the "delicious food" or "repulsive thing" doesn't exist, except as objectified and classified by the mind.
Another example is the sea. A fisherman looks at the sea as a source of fortune (like how a miner looks at a gold mine). A sailor looks at the sea as a place of adventure. A person who doesn't know how to swim and rarely spends time near large bodies of water looks at the sea as a dangerous place. Meanwhile, a fish may not perceive the sea as a body of liquid at all, since it is all around it. In this sense, the sea as a "source of fortune" or "source of adventure" or even "body of liquid" doesn't exist, except as objectified and classified by the mind.
So, in Buddhism, the universe itself is not a dream or a mirage or an illusion. But rather, how the mind objectifies and classifies what it perceives is what is unreal. Also, dreams are just thoughts in the mind based on what has been perceived before, observed by mind-consciousness.
An enlightened person will see things exactly as they are (MN 1). Meanwhile, reification (papañca) is a source of suffering for the unenlightened person, because craving is a habit of reification (this question, MN 1, Snp 4.14), and craving (taṇhā or tṛ́ṣṇā) is the cause of suffering (dukkha) in Buddhism i.e. the second noble truth.
Through enlightenment, ignorance is uprooted, eliminating self-view and reification. This in turn will eliminate craving, which eliminates suffering.
Summary
Solipsism states that we're only sure of our minds and unsure of everything external to it.
In Hinduism (Advaita), according to Adi Shankaracharya, the universe is unreal and an illusion. Only Consciousness = Atman (Self) = Brahman (God) is real. The illusion appears so when Consciousness looks through the lens of maya (illusion). There is only one Consciousness (God), while the multiplicity of minds is simply an illusion.
Meanwhile in Buddhism according to the Pali Canon, which is an Early Buddhist Text (EBT), the universe itself is not explicitly considered unreal or an illusion. Rather, that which is reified in the mind is what is unreal and an illusion, and a cause of suffering. There may be other minds of course.

"Solipsism is the belief that there is only one mind, and all other people are philosophical zombies, right?"
Not exactly. Solipsism says the only thing a mind can know for sure is its own self-existence. The corollary is that the existence of other minds can never truly be known. That it can never be known if others are just philosophical zombies.
This is different from "believing there is only one mind." That would entail the affirmative statements:

It can be known whether or not others are philosophical zombies.
Others are in fact philosophical zombies.

Solipsism does not hold these two affirmative statements.
"Buddhism Every Buddhist believes that only he has consciousness, and all other people are philosophical zombies?"
No, this is just wrong.
"Hinduism Every Hindus believes that only he has consciousness, and all other people are just philosophical zombies?"
No, this is just wrong.
In summary, none of the three - Solipsism, Buddhism, Hinduism - believe those two affirmative statements.


text:
Why do enlightened beings want to save sentient beings? Does everyone want to be saved?
Does enlightenment always comes with compassion so that all enlightened beings aspire to save sentient beings from sufferings? Or is the question 'why' only showing that I am using my discriminating mind to try to understand things?
Another part of my question is that I think most of the people  on this earth would not say they are 'suffering', there might be obstacles and negative feelings from time to time, but most people enjoy getting attached to the experience of pleasure, longing, love, etc. Most of them enjoy this worldly life so much that they wouldn't even thinking of standing back out and look at this kind of life that everyone is living from an 'outside' perspective. So my question is that why would all these sentient beings forgo this mostly pleasurable life (with net happiness larger than unhappiness, and all sorts of biological/neurological signals from their bodies guiding and incentivizing them to continue living and reproducing for the continuity and advancement of the species) to practice Buddhist teachings, to let go of things and pursue the state of nothingness? For most of them, it would be giving up net positive happiness to attain a state of nothingness and tranquility. Is that what everyone wants and needs? How do you convince them to do this? How do we save ALL sentient beings? Should we do this? Why do enlightened beings do this?
These questions have been tormenting me for some time. Would be great help if someone can help me understand them. Thank you!

I don't think they do want to save people. It is just, occasionally, a wise person pops up from the dredges of neurosis and says some interesting things, writes some interesting books, and clangs a few wind chimes. For the most part, I guess they just haul around a body like the rest of us.

Do all enlightened beings want to save sentient beings?

@Rain - there's an implication in the question that enlightened beings are on a crusade of 'help' and need desperately to evangelize the message of a better way to the 'poor' people. This seems to be reciprocal in some parts of some answers provided below. Something in me feels quite turned off by this, but I may be missing something. The typical default answers can be summarized thus, "oh, because of compassion". I think there is a larger picture to the question that hasn't really been highlighted by any of the answers. I may try to do that myself.

@NeuroMax. Thanks for the reply:)

If you knew of a really good restaurant, would you keep that knowledge to yourself, or would you take your friends there? If you saw a fantastic movie, would you go home and muse about it in private, or would you try to get your acquaintances to go see it? There's nothing mystical or magical here. People like to share good things with others; sharing knowledge of what's good creates value without cost. Why wouldn't one want to do it?
Now, people who lack understanding can get contracted. They worry that if they share knowledge of a good thing, it will create demand, then shortages. The thought of sharing the knowledge of something good invokes a fear of loss; the fear of losing something good invokes an urge to grasp; soon such people are trying to stockpile what's good, to decide who is worthy to acmes it and who is not, to police the boundaries of what they have determined is 'theirs' with all necessary force. The 'good' becomes like the ancient myth of the dragon's hoard: an accumulation of value for no purpose save to stave off that fundamental and abstract fear of loss and magnify the ego.
Are such people happy? Well, I suppose yes, but only in the twisted sense the they can share the knowledge of their own superiority with others: "I have, and you don't"; "we can do this, and they can't"; "our people are worthy, theirs are not". Their suffering isn't 'misery' in the classic sense, but more that they have no real understanding of their own selves, Like Milton's famous passage:
And they, so perfect is their misery,
Not once perceive their foul disfigurement,
But boast themselves more comely then before
And all their friends, and native home forget
To roule with pleasure in a sensual sty. — Comus, lines 73-7

Without that comparative — without the idea that 'the good' is in short supply, and that one has beaten others to secure it for oneself — this kind of wealth has no value, and makes no one happy at all.
Enlightenment is freeing — it frees us from the enchantment of that 'hoard' mentality, and the web of cravings that surround it — but it makes one conscious of the fetters that others are subject to. It's bittersweet. But still, it's a good that anyone who finds it would like to share, if they can figure out how.

More than one Buddha has faced this question. Here there are many many beings,  with much dust in their eyes, who choose to chase pleasure and run away from suffering. With so many having dust in their eyes, new Buddhas may initially be inclined to do nothing:

DN14:3.2.1: And then these verses, which were neither supernaturally inspired, nor learned before in the past, occurred to him: ‘I’ve struggled hard to realize this, enough with trying to explain it! This teaching is not easily understood by those mired in greed and hate. Those caught up in greed can’t see what’s subtle, going against the stream, deep, hard to see, and very fine, for they’re shrouded in a mass of darkness.’ So, as the Buddha Vipassī reflected like this, his mind inclined to remaining passiv
e, not to teaching the Dhamma. Then a certain Great Brahmā, knowing what the Buddha Vipassī was thinking, thought, ‘Oh my goodness! The world will be lost, the world will perish! For the mind of the Realized One Vipassī, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha, inclines to remaining passive, not to teaching the Dhamma.’ Then, as easily as a strong person would extend or
contract their arm, he vanished from the Brahmā realm and reappeared in front of the Buddha Vipassī.

Yet at divine invitation, such Buddhas will look more carefully to see that some people have little dust in their eyes.

DN14:3.3.1: He arranged his robe over one shoulder, knelt on his right knee, raised his joined palms toward the Buddha Vipassī, and said, ‘Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!’

Looking around, all these Buddhas, out of compassion, then decided to teach those who would listen. Those who would not listen now might listen later. Indeed Moggallana did not heed Buddha Kakusandha, and went to hell for an eon before he had ears to hear Buddha Gautama.

MN50:8.1: Once upon a time, Wicked One, I was a Māra named Dūsī, and I had a sister named Kāḷī.

From these suttas, one can understand that some can be helped, yet not all can be saved here and now even by a single Buddha.
Please do not torment yourself. Be at peace and may your practice be fruitful.

There were silent Buddhas (paccekabuddha) who did not help others, but only attained liberation for themselves. They had compassion but they did not have the capability to help the world at large.
On the other hand, Gautama Buddha was a sammasambuddha, who was not only enlightened but had both compassion and the capability to help the world at large.
The noble and the conventional sangha of course carries on the propagation and practice of the Buddha's teachings.
As you have rightly surmised, to go with the flow of nature and biology is to go in the direction of embracing craving and clinging, and enjoying sensual pleasures, and trying to become something. Nature and biology also brings the evolutionary drive to reproduce, and minimize suffering, while maximizing sensual enjoyment.
Suffering or dukkha has two meanings, which you can find in this answer. The superficial meaning is literal pain and suffering. And the deeper meaning is unsatistactoriness or discontent. Going with the flow of nature and biology, which is going with the flow of craving and clinging, will never result in stable happiness and security. It will always lead to the general feeling of unsatisfactoriness.
The enlightened beings are compassionate because they see others suffering in the manner described, and want to give them the help they need to become liberated from suffering, but they realize that not everyone wants to become free.
Most of humanity is too deeply entrenched in sensual pleasures and experience the vicious cycle of stimulating craving for more sensual pleasures. The appetite for sensual pleasures increase endlessly. That temporarily masks suffering, but in the long term, suffering is inevitable. So, most of humanity is not interested in liberation from suffering, even if they experience unsatisfactoriness most of the time.
From Iti 109:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

From Magandiya Sutta:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.

Most people are like heroin addicts always looking for that next fix. There is a far greater wellbeing that we can't know unless our habit of being distracted by sensual desires are put aside or destroyed permanently. You lack context as we all do of what it truly means to be happy and at peace.
What happens when you die? What happens when you get sick? What happens when your family dies? What happens when a burglar has broken into your house? What if someone ran over your arm with a steamroller? Can you handle those things without reacting with the habit of anger and greed that cloud the mind? The Buddha's Teaching teaches us how to transcend these sufferings.

This question is beyond excellent, thank you for asking it!
It boils down to potential and access. Every existence has the potential to reach enlightenment; the premise behind your question comes down to opportunity of choice. If there is no access for one to pursue enlightenment then the potential of the individual in question is for naught.
The action of creating access through opportunity comes down to desire. If someone has lived a difficult path and observe another who is not affected by the same suffering; then the opportunity to learn from the one not suffering is not beyond reproach.
What people consider as a hell is variable in definition, dependant on the individual you talk to; but hell can defined as a position where hope or compassion  is not present. If someone believes they deserve the squalor of the hell they live in, they are allowed to continue to live in such conditions. However, one decision of one person should not affect the next.
The premise of enlightenment is basically the control of our own environment. Suffering through the turbulence of another's situation only creates turbulence in our own situation; which in turn repeats the cycle with the centre of the suffering just shifting from individual to individual (if we let it).
The process of becoming enlightened is learning how not to be affected by the suffering of others, which creates a sense of harmony around the individual and if others are interested in getting on the enlightened one's 'level', the opportunity to do so is within accessibility.
Finally, say humanity managed to solve all the issues of suffering, where to go next? Human's are not the only individuals on this planet, let alone the universe. If an individual cries for help; ignoring the Dharma of the Lady of Compassion is ignoring the Dharma and so, the cycle of suffering will relapse and continue until the Dharma of all individuals has be acknowledged.
As Plato expressed, "Ignorance is the root of all evil."
Cultivate in harmony friend

First, it is not a state of nothingness, but rather than the squalor of individual aloneness, in which each of us must struggle and fight for our own survival in a world that doesn’t care whether we live or die, there is the realization of non-separateness—that every being is not an ‘other’ because there are no independent  existences anywhere, not even our own, no more than the fingers of your hand are separate beings, each with its own destiny and struggle.  This is called Emptiness because there are no things, or beings, that are independent of the primordial ground—Buddha nature. Thus it is “not thingness” rather than “nothingness”.
Second, enlightened beings are not compassionate in the manner that unenlightened beings are compassionate, who, if they have any compassionate feelings towards other beings at all, do so from a deluded sense of being an individual self acting to help another. It is a feeling hopefully connected to an action done by them and for another.  An enlightened being who has realized that there is no separate me or you has no choice but to respond as if—as we would normally think of it in our ignorance—the suffering is their own, and as “instinctively” as an unenlightened being acts through the delusion of ignorance to their own profit, gain, or happiness. This is Great Compassion (Mahākarunā). There is no aspiration or striving to be this way, because there is no other way to be, once full realization is accomplished.
Third “suffering” is more than just bodily illness or injury. Today in a world blighted by a pandemic, it is not just those who are suffering from the disease, but those who fear the loss of their home or job, who do not have the freedom to move about, who can not realize a dream long held, or see their family, or friends, etc. We suffer from frustration, from fear, from doubt, from anger, from anxiety, and from loss much more often than we actually suffer physically. And if you are suffering in this way, you feel an overriding desire to free yourself from this suffering. An enlightened being doesn’t look compassionately upon this suffering because there is no ‘other’ that is suffering it ‘themselves”—there is just suffering and they must act. No choice in the matter.
And every hero stops worrying about what they have to do and just does it, and this is true of an enlightened being even more so. This is tranquillity—accepting what is, rather than being attached to what was, or yearning for what could otherwise be instead.
I see this as the only path worth walking. The rest are based in ignorance of our true nature, and of the beauty and harmony of a world empty of personal aggrandizement at the expense of everyone else. This path is rooted in an understanding of beauty, love, and inseparable destiny. Who wouldn’t wish that for their world?


text:
Can a bad karma happen just only with a thought without any physical or verbal action?
Do we collect bad karma just only with an instant thought without any physical action or verbal action?

Yes, from multiple suttas we see that karma can be done by way of the mind and intentional thoughts only. In fact, according to the first verses of the Dhammapada, the mind precedes all mental states. It's more important than words and actions.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

From Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

From Kamma Sutta:

And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with
speech, or with the intellect. This is called new kamma."

Great answer! I was heading down the Dhammapada route myself. ;-)

Great answer Ruben.

Just only with an instant unwholesome thought (without any physical action or verbal action) is generally not bad kamma; particularly if the true nature of that unwholesome thought is fully understood; but habitual unwholesome thoughts (without any physical action or verbal action) is certainly bad kamma because habitual bad thoughts are signs of inherent ignorance that block the progress of the Path.

The text below is taken from the collected teaching of Ajahn Chah - ' about being careful '
As It reads bad karma doesn't happen by sudden arising of thought.

So, some people feel that these sudden arisings of thought are wrong
or evil. You may have an impulse to kill someone. But you are aware of
it in the next instant, you realize that killing is wrong, so you stop
and refrain. Is there harm in this? What do you think? Or if you have
a thought about stealing something and that is followed by a stronger
recollection that to do so is wrong, and so you refrain from acting on
it – is that bad kamma It’s not that every time you have an impulse
you instantly accumulate bad kamma. Otherwise, how could there be any
way to liberation? Impulses are merely impulses. Thoughts are merely
thoughts. In the first instance, you haven’t created anything yet. In
the second instance, if you act on it with body, speech or mind, then
you are creating something. Avijjā has taken control. If you have
the impulse to steal and then you are aware of yourself and aware that
this would be wrong, this is wisdom, and there is vijjā instead. The
mental impulse is not consummated.
This is timely awareness, wisdom arising and informing our experience.
If there is the first mind-moment of wanting to steal something and
then we act on it, that is the dhamma of delusion; the actions of
body, speech and mind that follow the impulse will bring negative
results.
This is how it is. Merely having the thoughts is not negative kamma.
If we don’t have any thoughts, how will wisdom develop? Some people
simply want to sit with a blank mind. That’s wrong understanding.

I'm not sure -- there might be something about this in the Abhidhamma, which I don't know.
I think that when a thought arises, that's a result of past karma.
But an "action" can be mental, as well as (or instead of) physical or verbal. And for example, when a thought arises (as a result of past karma), then an action such as deciding whether that thought is skilful or unskilful -- that action is karmic.

Excellent question Tahlia.
Karma follows Dharma, of which intention is a part. You will find Karma is most present surrounding those who are of tranquil mind and heart.
To understand the nature of Karma in a nutshell:
Imagine a bubble that surrounds every individual. When an intention is created the shape of the bubble changes in order to support the intention we send out. If the intentions of the individual continue the bubble will become shaped by the intentions that define the individual.
The if the bubble is perfect it would be round, and a representation of the purest epitome the heart, body and mind of the individual could be, and 'slippery' (for lack of more accurate language) as far as Karmic bubbles go.
The chances of being afflicted by impure intentions of another are dramatically dropped when one is tranquil. When the impure intention slips off, the energy to muster that intention results in what is commonly referred to as 'bad' karma.
So it could be said, karma has little to do with the verbal or the physical. Intention is the wavelength of karma, verbal and physical responses are an easy way to observe karma in action. Lastly, if one does not let the intentions of another reach their inner world, they do not take part in the suffering.
Cultivate in harmony


text:
How we collect bad karma?
I'm a student, and I'm getting weird instant bad thoughts to hurt my mom without any reason coz of my anxiety. they are not delibarete by any means.but I have never hurt her verbally or physically. But this anxious thoughts annoy me a lot coz I love my mom a lot. She is the best. I try my best to avoid them. Does this collect bad karma? Please help me I feel so guilty without any reason as I never want to hurt my dear mom even with a thought. At times I feel like I overthink about it even. She doesn't know that those things exist even.

Intrusive thoughts are one of the ways that the mind responds to stress. It's generally a sign that you're ignoring something that needs your attention. It might be helpful to explore if that means anything to you. Too much unwholesome focus on these thoughts can create strange behaviours/karmas. Ruban2020 has offered a great response to this.

Random thoughts don't collect much bad karma. Intentional and deliberate thoughts generate karma. Habitual intentional thoughts accumulate karma.
Now, you are feeling remorse because you had those thoughts.
What you should do is acknowledge that those are random thoughts. Acknowledge that you don't have the intention to harm her.
And now you should disassociate from those thoughts using mindfulness. Just watch those thoughts as they appear but understand that they are not related to you or anything. Just watch and acknowledge it, then let it go.
Watch this video talk on YouTube on the scientific research done in this area.
From a canonical perspective, the Lonaphala Sutta explains that a trifling evil act has significant consequences for an undeveloped person but hardly any effect for a developed person.
Your remorse is part of that unintended significant consequence. But if you learn to let go, then you would have developed your mind to detach from such trifling negative thoughts.

The situation regarding your mother

These thoughts you experience come from previous experiences. They are a wind/energy, or lung in Tibetan, flowing through your body channels and chakras and being experienced by your perception.
You are experiencing an energy that has been accumulated in your subtle energy body when you understandably made a judgment about these things when you experienced them. This energy becomes stuck when it is judged and resisted. It cannot self-heal and self-liberate if you constantly feel guilt and you unconsciously/unknowingly don't allow it to leave/heal.
The solution is to allow this energy to heal in your meditation, in a space of stillness, acceptance and surrender. Imagine it is a battery with negative energy, and your goal is to allow it to self-exhaust and self-liberate. You will experience this as pain, but it cannot really hurt you. It is just an experience that will pass after you allow it to.
Allow this anger to heal, allow yourself to feel it. When it comes into contact with the luminosity of presence, it will dissolve in it and become free.  Remember you are not purifying these energies, they will self-purify themselves. Your mission is to leave it as it is, don't try to add or change anything, just let it be. It cannot happen with effort, it can happen only spontaneously in a state of non-action. The divine intelligence in you is doing this healing when you surrender all actions, all monitoring and all effort. Don't examine your progress, this looking will obscure your meditation.
As you learn to meditate, these energies will liberate and stop bothering you.

What is bad karma?

Karma means action in Sanskrit. Good karma means good actions and bad karma means bad actions, strictly speaking.
There are 3 gates in which karma is expressed: body, speech and mind. All your karma is expressed through these 3 doors. And they all depend on the mind.
You collect bad karma by doing sins of body, speech and mind.
More esoterically, and harder to explain and understand: you accumulate bad karma when you are in a state of distraction/grasping/ignorance, disconnected from your true, luminous Buddha nature.
You overcome all negative karma when you are in a state of pure meditation and you integrate this into all your activities. They then become activities of Dharmakaya, or pure activities.

Yes, your bad thoughts about your mother obviously collect bad karma. In Buddhism, to actually hurt your parents is the most serious bad kamma. If you have thoughts to hurt your parents then obviously there is a serious problem occurring in your life. The impression is you are blaming your mother for something, for example, such as if your mother is making you feel pressure to achieve as a student.
You should investigate and precisely identify the specific issues causing you to have anxiety and to have bad thoughts about your mother.
It is OK to disagree with the wishes of your mother. If your mother wants you to achieve something but you do no want to achieve this thing or you are not capable of achieving this thing then it is OK to say to your mother you do not want to and cannot fulfil her wish.
You must be clear in your mind about the reasons why you are angry at your mother.
In summary, it is OK to disagree with your mother and it is even OK to be angry at her. But it is not OK to have thoughts about hurting her.

I'm not by any means angry at her. Those thoughts appear without any reason. I love my mom so much that's why it hurts me a lot

OK. thank you ..

Although the words are not technically incorrect, exercising Prajna when answering a question regarding the suffering of an individual is a wholesome practice. Stating something as obvious is unnecessary when the situation has already been acknowledged by the questioner; especially when the question has not even answered (How do we collect bad karma?).

this above comment collects bad karma

Karma can be expressed like the magnetic push or pull that defines the universal law of 'cause and effect'. Karma follows a similar rule as le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and in physics Newton's third law of motion.
Unfortunately when it comes to cause and effect with people, there is always a bigger picture when it comes to a cultivated situation regarding emotions. If an emotion may not be expressed appropriately, a support may incidentally act as a 'lightening rod' to ground the excess emotion. Pillows tend to be the beating bag a lot.
In the case of anger directed towards mum, she sounds like your support. You don't sound like you're even angry at her and she can probably discern you are upset about something and trying to console you - inadvertently by attempting to ground your emotions.
When it comes to hurting her, you know that isn't your intention. Getting to the root of your anger and assessing what is feeding the fire, instead of where the heat is going will solve your issue.
Now, to answer the question about how karma is collected. When we cultivate, define ourselves through our actions, intentions and emotions, every single one has an impact on the next. If they accumulate, we change accordingly. When we change, so does our karma.
So in essence, karma is our cultivation adapting to our circumstances. If we cultivate ill intentions, actions and emotions, we will adopt the appropriate karma and vice versa.
On a practical note, try this meditation to help with managing emotion, or when the need arises, listen to music that gives you goosebumps, it will help release blocked emotion.
Cultivate in harmony

The opening paragraph of this answer is obvious both wrong and unrelated to Buddhism. The law of kamma does not define "cause & effect". The law of kamma is merely a subset or one example of the law of cause & effect. This answer is best ignored. It appears to be New Age Foo Foo rather than Buddhism.

Using the 'scientific' principles of the current age (also a part of most school curriculums) to describe the a relationship of millennia past to a self professed 'student' is exercising Prajna to answer the question - admonishing without reflecting on emotion is not. On another note you are quite correct, Karma is subset, but as it is responsible for the results of cause and effect, then Karma will define (synonyms: illustrate, describe, represent) cause and effect.

the comments section on this forum is not for extended discussion. i have started a new question here about this matter: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/43840/does-kamma-define-the-universal-law-of-cause-effect


text:
What are the six beads at the end of a mala used for? And what is there meaning if there is one
I recently received a Impermanence Mala for Christmas.  I have read The Heart of Buddha's teaching and I couldn't find anything in there.
Thank you in advance for any information.

Depending on your tradition and the design of your mala, they're for counting cycles (if they can be slid around the tassels/cords), representing the Triple Gemn and/or Six Perfections, or just decoration.