text:
What is "feature of beauty" in MN 5?
Questions:

What is "feature of beauty" in MN 5?
Why does the type of person mentioned ("the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it"), focus on it?
And why does that cause them to become infected by lust?
Does beauty here refer to physical beauty or something else?
Is this subhanimitta the same as the nimitta for entering jhana?

Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not
understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of
beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind. And they
will die with greed, hate, and delusion, blemished, with a corrupted
mind.
MN 5

With footnote from Ven. Sujato:

“Feature of beauty” is subhanimitta. In early Pali, nimitta is used
for a feature or quality of the mind that, when focused on, promotes
the growth of similar or related qualities. Thus focusing on beauty
fosters the desire for that beauty.

You do know there have been previous topics about nimitta?

@ChrisW Yes. But this looks like a different nimitta, not the one for jhana. Or maybe it's the same one. I'm not sure. I can add that to the question. Furthermore, the question asks about nimitta in the context of "the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it".

I think of nimitta in the context of not grasping the signs i.e. when guarding the sense doors.

The suttas don't talk about jhāna nimitta, but they do talk about samādhi nimittas. In MN 44
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn044/index.html#44.4

cattāro sati-’paṭṭhānā samādhi-nimittā; four remembrance-establishings
(are) undistractable-lucidity-themes.

Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the higher jhānas.
The nimitta of samādhi can be visual, or conceptual, and both, just as it can be in guarding the sense doors.
In AN 4.14
https://lucid24.org/an/main/an04/index.html#4.14
samādhi nimitta suggested one develps are the corpse in various stages.

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu uppannaṃ bhaddakaṃ samādhinimittaṃ
anurakkhati aṭṭhikasaññaṃ puḷavakasaññaṃ vinīlakasaññaṃ
vicchiddakasaññaṃ uddhumātakasaññaṃ. It’s when a monk preserves a
meditation subject that’s a fine basis of undistractible-lucidity: the
perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a
split open corpse, or a bloated corpse.

you asked

Is this subhanimitta the same as the nimitta for entering jhana?

If the nimitta is subha (beauty), if one is deluded by the sign of subha then it leads to wrong sati, wrong samādhi, wrong jhāna.
If the nimitta is asubha (non beauty) such as a corpse, 31 body parts, or the conceptual signs such as aging, impermanence of body, etc., it's a suitable samādhi nimitta for 4 jhānas.
you asked

Why does the type of person mentioned ("the person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it"), focus on it?

It just means they still have the underlying defilement, but at times when the defilement is not manifested as a noticable blemish, they don't understand and realize the cause of the blemish, so when a suitable opportunity arises for the defilement to work on their mind, the blemish then appears.

I marked this answer down. MN 44 refers to samadhi-nimitta, which is the four satipattthana, in association with samādhi-parikkhārā, which refers to the four right efforts. Both are requisites for samadhi but this answer sounds like it is saying jhana is a prerequisite for satipatthana. This answer does not appear to understand what jhana is.

Feature of beauty means all things which are beautiful like girls ,boys , babies,flowers , scenery, delicious and tasty food , fragrance etc etc …
Those who not have blemish and do not understand it, will be enticed by beauty of the world and because he doesn’t have knowledge of why it looks so beautiful..He will fall into the trap and die with a corrupted mind because beauty will make him think that the beauty is permanent, which is not the case.
Therefore it is important to know that because you are unblemished ,things are appearing beautiful to you but that is not the case, and such an attitude of innocence  leads to more craving and more ignorance.

The feature (sign; theme; nimitta) of beauty (subhanimitta) is the food/nutriment (ahara) for the arising of sensual desire (SN 46.51). The term 'sensual' refers to what is 'agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing' (MN 13). Therefore, subhanimitta is obviously not the nimitta of jhana. The Buddha never refers to the jhana nimitta therefore sutta students should never refer to it when doing sutta studies.
When meditation on the feature of ugliness/loathsomeness is pursued, revulsion at the feature of beauty becomes stabilized (AN 5.30).
MN 43 says: "Greed, hate and delusion the karaṇa of signs.
Rāgo kho, āvuso, nimittakaraṇo, doso nimittakaraṇo, moho nimittakaraṇo.". What karaṇa means here appears subject to question. It appears karaṇa here can mean 'making of' or 'makers of' signs/features or possibly otherwise means 'enacting upon' signs/features.
Therefore, it appears the nimitta of beauty refers to both external appearances & internal views about those external appearances.
AN 5.30 appears to say there is an external nimitta of beauty; however the loathsomeness of an object marked with beauty can override the mark of beauty. For example, the tastes & joys of drinking alcohol is a feature of beauty. However, the loathsomeness/ugliness features of drinking alcohol can easily override the feature of beauty; resulting in revulsion towards alcohol.
The type of person who doesn’t have a blemish but does not understand it appears to refer to a temporary unblemishedness in a mind that still has ignorance regarding sensuality. For example, a once-returner abides in jhana, believes their mind is pure, but when they later go on alms round, lust infects their mind when a sexy lady gives them alms food.


text:
Is vaping nicotine considered a violation of the fifth precept?
I understand that vaping nicotine is not a particularly healthy habit and is addictive. However, I’ve used it to quit smoking cigarettes and it has resulted in me abandoning them entirely, which I consider to be a huge milestone.
I also have a significant mental illness that I am very effectively managing with the help of medication and therapy. But I have read studies which suggest that nicotine can offer some psychological benefits for people with psychotic conditions like mine (I can offer a source for anyone interested), and I have found this to be true in my case.
Does vaping nicotine break the fifth precept?

The translation of the fifth precept goes something like "these three fermented beverages cause heedlessness so I vow to abstain from them".  There's debate over what those three alcoholic beverages even are.  Were you the sleazy lawyer type, you could easily make the case that since whiskey wasn't known by the Buddha, surely it's not covered by the fifth precept!
But we're not sleazy lawyers.  We're siddhas, samanas, and so forth.  We're interested in what part of the precept will be most beneficial to our practice.  In this case, the whole precept hinges on that bit about causing heedlessness.  Does the substance you are imbibing make is less likely that you will follow the other precepts?  Will it interfere with your meditation?  Will it break your commitment to mindfulness.  If so, it's best avoided.
Specifically in your case, I would highly recommend that you maintain the nicotine habit until you reach a point where you can manage your symptoms without it.  Losing yourself to a psychotic episode is far more detrimental to your practice than pulling on a vape pen.  I wouldn't worry about it at all.

The 5th precepts is about intoxicants that lead to heedlessness. In your situation, vaping nicotine does not break the fifth precept.

You are worried about vaping but have you considered the situation of a Buddhist monks who doesn’t even have a pair of sandals to wear. Try to quit vaping as well unless it is necessary. I have quit alcoholism and I don’t drink at all. I eat bettle nuts though but I am not attached to it. I can live without bettle nuts as well. You should also have the same confidence. Do meditation on happiness. Be happy and make others happy without any external support. Intoxicants are no good.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does 'samadhi-nimitta' mean 'undistractable-lucidity-themes'?
I read the following on the internet:

In MN 44, the four remembrance-establishings (are)
undistractable-lucidity-themes.
Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi
nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with
dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the
higher jhānas. The nimitta of samādhi can be visual, or conceptual,
and both, just as it can be in guarding the sense doors.

In AN 4.14, samādhi nimitta suggested one develops are the corpse in
various stages.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu uppannaṃ bhaddakaṃ samādhinimittaṃ
anurakkhati aṭṭhikasaññaṃ puḷavakasaññaṃ vinīlakasaññaṃ
vicchiddakasaññaṃ uddhumātakasaññaṃ. It’s when a monk preserves a
meditation subject that’s a fine basis of undistractible-lucidity: the
perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a
split open corpse, or a bloated corpse.

Does the term 'samādhi nimitta' in MN 44 above really mean 'undistractable-lucidity-themes'? If so, why is 'samādhi nimitta' translated as 'basis of undistractible-lucidity' in AN 4.14 above?

Yes it really meansthe theme/sign  of Samadhi.
The question is Why Satipatthana are sign of Samadhi?
Its because when  you are mindful of one or all Satipatthana. You are grounded forever in them.

‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya
paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.

What is Smadhi ?
Its tranquilizing all Sankahara. you tranquilise them by way of Sila, Samvar, Sampajankari.
And all this is possible only because your rememberful-ness is established. Only in the presence of Sati all these Akushala Dhamma do not arise.  and if arise do not proliferate.
And thats why , Sati is Sign of Samadhi.
You are in samadhi , when you are just in Sati. with no Akushala dhamma.
An 4.14 is nothing but Mindfulness of Body.

About the word 'nimitta', the various Pali dictionaries offer multiple meanings:

nimitta
masculine, neuter

a sign or mark by which something or someone is recognized or identified or known or defined; a distinguishing mark or appearance; a
perceived (enduring) attribute, predicate (especially that of
permanence); an attribution

the organ of generation (of either sex), the pudenda

an object or appearance or happening which is significant, which expresses more than itself; a sign, a significant appearance; an omen,
a portent

an indication, a hint

what one notes or marks; an object of thought or meditation or concentration; an image

an internal/ appearance or total awareness; a mental impression (appearing as an early stage of jhāna, a sign of progress)

a ground, a cause, a reason

New Concise Pali English Dictionary

Many suttas (such as SN 45.8, MN 117, MN 27 & AN 10.61) describe the place of mindfulness (sati) & situational awareness (sampajānna) in the Noble Eightfold Path, where mindfulness & sampajano are established prior to jhana.
MN 117 says:

In one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being.

MN 27 says:

When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, this noble
contentment, this noble sense restraint, and this noble mindfulness
and situational awareness, they frequent a secluded lodging—a
wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a
charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw... Giving up
covetousness for the world, they meditate with a heart rid of
covetousness, cleansing the mind of covetousness...They give up these
five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom.... Then,
quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption...

AN 10.61 says:

Thus associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing the good Dhamma. Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention. Careful attention, becoming full, fills up mindfulness and clear comprehension. Mindfulness and clear comprehension, becoming full, fill up restraint of the sense faculties. Restraint of the sense faculties, becoming full, fills up the three kinds of good conduct. The three kinds of good conduct, becoming full, fill up the four establishments of mindfulness. The four establishments of mindfulness, becoming full, fill up the seven factors of enlightenment. The seven factors of enlightenment [which include samadhi & jhana], becoming full, fill up true knowledge and liberation. Thus there is nutriment for true knowledge and liberation, and in this way they become full.

About the terms 'samādhinimittā' & 'samādhiparikkhārā', MN 44 says:

“But ma’am, what is immersion (samādhi)? What things are the nimittā of
immersion? What things are the parikkhārā for immersion? What is the
development of immersion?”
“Unification of the mind is immersion.
The four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the nimittā of immersion.
The four right efforts are the parikkhārā for immersion.
The cultivation, development, and making much of these very same
things is the development (bhāvanā) of immersion.”

There is nothing in MN 44 to indicate the place of satipatthana (mindfulness meditation) diverges from its natural place in the Noble Eightfold Path, which, per MN 117 says: "in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being". Therefore, the term 'samādhinimittā' does not appear to mean 'theme/sign of samadhi', thus to imply the 'samādhinimittā' is a product/fruit/result of samadhi. Instead, per the 7th meaning in the dictionary, the term 'samādhinimittā' appears to mean 'a ground, a cause, a reason for/of samadhi'. Thus MN 44 refers to how 'samādhinimittā' & 'samādhiparikkhārā' are used in the development of samadhi.

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


text:
Is there no investigation in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhana?
I read the following on the internet:

Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi
nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with
dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the
higher jhānas.

Does mindfulness investigate?

Does sampajāno investigate?

Does vitaka & vicara perform the function of dhamma-vicaya (investigation) in jhana?

If vitaka & vicara cease in the 2nd jhana, is there no dhamma-vicaya in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas?

There's a reviewing process after attaining each of the Jhanas.

Thank you. My impression is the suttas do not refer to "reviewing". Regardless, for a review to occur, there still must be direct seeing while dwelling in jhana that discerns its features & characteristics.

Is it possible to go all out in a 100m dash while taking a bite or two? I supposed a person can try but it will be pretty pointless.
But to drink or eat after a 100m dash is definitely a more enjoyable experience and both activities can be performed much better.

Many suttas (such as SN 45.8, MN 117, MN 27 & AN 10.61) describe the place of mindfulness (sati) & situational awareness (sampajānna) in the Path, where mindfulness & sampajano are established prior to jhana.
MN 117 says:

In one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being.

MN 27 says:

When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, this noble
contentment, this noble sense restraint, and this noble mindfulness
and situational awareness, they frequent a secluded lodging—a
wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a
charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw... Giving up
covetousness for the world, they meditate with a heart rid of
covetousness, cleansing the mind of covetousness...They give up these
five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom.... Then,
quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption...

AN 10.61 says:

Thus associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing the good Dhamma. Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention. Careful attention, becoming full, fills up mindfulness and clear comprehension. Mindfulness and clear comprehension, becoming full, fill up restraint of the sense faculties. Restraint of the sense faculties, becoming full, fills up the three kinds of good conduct. The three kinds of good conduct, becoming full, fill up the four establishments of mindfulness. The four establishments of mindfulness, becoming full, fill up the seven factors of enlightenment. The seven factors of enlightenment [which include samadhi & jhana], becoming full, fill up true knowledge and liberation. Thus there is nutriment for true knowledge and liberation, and in this way they become full.

The seven factors of enlightenment are described in suttas such as SN 46.3 & MN 118.
AN 46.3 says:

Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are accomplished in virtue, accomplished
in concentration, accomplished in wisdom, accomplished in liberation,
accomplished in the knowledge and vision of liberation: even the sight
of those bhikkhus is helpful, I say; even listening to them … even
approaching them … even attending on them … even recollecting (anussati) them … even going forth after them is helpful, I say. For what reason?
Because when one has heard the Dhamma from such bhikkhus one dwells
withdrawn by way of two kinds of withdrawal—withdrawal of body and
withdrawal of mind.
“Dwelling thus withdrawn, one recollects (anussarati) that Dhamma and thinks it
over (anuvitakketi). Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn recollects
that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment
factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu; on that occasion the
bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness; on that
occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness (sati) comes to fulfilment
by development in the bhikkhu.
Dwelling thus mindfully, he discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom (paññāya), examines it, makes an investigation of it. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus mindfully discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom, examines it, makes an investigation of it, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states is aroused by the bhikkhu; on that occasion the bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states; on that occasion the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states (dhammavicaya) comes to fulfilment by development in the bhikkhu.

MN 118 says:

Bhikkhus, on whatever occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body
as a body, ardent, fully aware (sampajāno) and mindful (satimā), having put away covetousness and grief for the world—on that occasion unremitting mindfulness is established in him. On whatever occasion unremitting
mindfulness is established in a bhikkhu—on that occasion the
mindfulness enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops
it, and by development, it comes to fulfilment in him.
Abiding thus mindful, he investigates and examines that state with
wisdom (paññāya) and embarks upon a full inquiry into it. On whatever occasion,
abiding thus mindful, a bhikkhu investigates and examines that state
with wisdom and embarks upon a full inquiry into it—on that occasion
the investigation-of-states (dhammavicaya) enlightenment factor is aroused in him,
and he develops it, and by development it comes to fulfilment in him.

About the investigation-of-states (dhammavicaya) enlightenment factor, AN 46.2 adds:

There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and
blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states
with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them
is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor
of discrimination of states and for the fulfilment by development of
the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states.

About the 3rd jhana, the suttas say:

And with the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’

About wisdom (panna), MN 43 says:

Wisdom (paññā) and consciousness (viññāṇaṁ) — these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand (pajānāti) what you cognize (vijānāti), and you cognize what you understand.

To summarise the conclusions of the quotes above:

Mindfulness recollects past knowledge, such as the Dhamma taught by a teacher (AN 46.3)

Situational awareness (sampajanno) functions to ensure meditation proceeds following the parameters of that Dhamma taught by a teacher. In other words, regardless of the definition of sampajanna, it is clear sampajanna always functions together with mindfulness.

What performs dhamma-vicaya (investigation of phenomena/doctrines) is wisdom (panna). Wisdom (panna) is a direct product of the consciousness of the reality of dhammas. The teachings are clear that panna, here, is not sampajanna, and sampajanna, here, is not wisdom. Sampajanna is a type of wisdom arising from mindfulness (bringing to mind past knowledge/learning). Where as panna, here, is a product of consciousness or direct/present seeing.

It appears obvious dhamma-vicaya (i.e., the development of wisdom about what is blameless, inferior, superior, dark and bright) is occurring in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhana, thus, about the 3rd jhana, the suttas say: "experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare". Therefore, since dhamma-vicaya is obviously occurring in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhana, it appears obvious the terms 'vitakka & vicara' in the 1st jhana do not refer to dhamma-vicaya.

I will not be able answer all the questions but I can definitely say that mindfulness does not investigate.
Mindfulness focuses on what is present. It may be breath , (heavy breathing , shallow breathing, long breathing , short breathing), body postures ( sleeping , sitting , walking) , state of mind ( strong , feeble , joyful , sad etc) , feelings ( joyful , sad , neutral , disgusting) , body parts ( sensation in heart , stomach , feet etc) , and  you can also be mindful of your cravings.(this is not a full list but gist is that we recognise what is there and what is not there)
I read in one of suttas (I don’t remember which) that entering into Jhanas is due to following the path shown by Buddha. There is a bliss of solitude but only if you are able to isolate yourself. I don’t know in which states of jhana I am in or anybody is in because so far nobody has told me about any blissful state they are in. But it arises by following teacher’s guidelines…
Dhamma must be investigated and understood as empty of Self.

look at the standard definition of 'sati'. SN 47.2. it explicitly includes sampajāno as part of the sati definition, in other words the Buddha explicitly includes both remembrance faculty and right view and wisdom faculty as part of sati "mindfulness"

Look at MN 111, AN 4.41, and the standard 3rd jhāna formula, which explicitly contains sati and sampajāno.
We already know from MN 125 that first jhāna is explicitly defined as satipatthana done with right resolves, right vitakka, and that can be done any any posture.
3rd jhāna explicitly contains sati and sampajāno.

sampajāna - adj. clearly aware; fully knowing; completely comprehending [saṃ + pa + √ñā + nā + a] ✓

Sampajāno IS the pañña indriya wisdom faculty.
It wisely and lucidly discerns past AND present moment.

pañña- adj. wise; intelligent; learned; knowledgeable; skilled [pa +
√ñā + ā + a] ✓

The fact that they have the same root and same prefix 'pa' (intensifier) should clue you in on it.
You misunderstand SN 46.3. dhamma-vicaya, Dharma investigation can be done by any of vicāra, vimamsa (4th iddhipāda), sampajāno (2nd through 4th jhāna).
MN 111 and AN 9.36 make it very explicit the four jhānas are doing vipassana WHILE active.

All the jhana formula says is when the 3rd jhana occurs sati sampajana are prominent, which appears to mean the fully comprehension of the purpose of meditating has been strongly reinforced.

No no about MN 111. MN 111 uses the same language as AN 4.41. AN 4.41 distinguishes between vipassana (4th samadhi bhavana) and sati sampajjana (3rd samadhi bhavana). The relevant word in MN 111 & AN 4.41 is viditā, which means "understands" or "understood" rather than "knows". I will start a question on this today for your sake. Take care with your speech Frank.

hi. some preliminary reading material is at these links https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31546/8157  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34900/8157 but the new question will go further.


text:
Why isn't atta translated as essence instead of self?
In Buddhist philosophy, the Pali term 'atta' is frequently translated into English as 'self.' However, this translation can be misleading since in common English usage, 'self' often implies an inherent identity or individuality that the Buddhist concept of 'anatta' (not-self) seems to refute. Some might argue that 'essence' could be a more fitting translation, as it suggests the fundamental qualities of a person or thing. Given this, why do translators choose to use 'self' rather than 'essence' when translating 'atta' from Buddhist texts, especially when the term 'essence' might avoid the misconception of an enduring, independent self that Buddhism actually seeks to dispel?

the mods should do a better job of vetting questions

Moderation policies for Questions

The Buddha was not concerned with theories of 'essence'. The Buddha was concerned with the abandoning of ego attachment that brings agitation & suffering. This was made clear in the definition of 'anatta' in the 2nd Sermon.

Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present,
internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all
that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality,
thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
SN 22.59

Again:

Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the
grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the
thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning,
or doing with as he likes'?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do
they pertain to our self."
"In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: let go of it. Your
letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The
ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not
yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term
happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on
intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as
neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your
letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit."
SN 35.101

Again:

He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration. This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind.
SN 22.1

ok, ego attachment is self attachment. i get it.

There is no essence. For example - What is the essence of Car ? Is it engine ? Engines change. First the horse or oxes used to pull carts then cycle came then gasoline engine came then petrol and diesel engine came and now electric engines are coming… Car can not be found in the engine. What is the essence of Car ? Is it tyres ? No . Is it the steering wheel ? No . Is it an abstract idea that anything that allows travel from one place to another is Car ? No.
There is no absolute essence of Car.
Similarly for human or animal or godly body. The essence can not be found.
Atta essentially tries to convey the essence only.Therefore  there is no need to replace Atta with essence.

I don't know.  atta is peace.  so how can it be self?  how could it even be essence, unless essence is peace?
Attadiipaa Sutta

When peace is recognised. Then we a realise that there is peace but we also recognise that it was achieved through choice and intention. Choice and intention being impermanent, the peace is impermanent. Peace being impermanent. One is not attached to it.

maybe. absence is permanent(nicca). that's what i read anyway.

There is a Pali word for 'essence', often translated as 'heartwood', which is 'sāra'.

sāra
essence; the pith of a tree; the choicest part. (adjective) essential; excellent; strong

In SN 22.95, the word 'asāra' is found:

Monks, when it is raining in autumn and large raindrops are falling on
the water, a water-bubble might arise and vanish. A person with
eyesight could see it, consider it and examine it. By seeing it,
considering it and examining it, that person could determine that it
was insubstantial, hollow and essenceless (asāra). Monks, what essence could
there be in a water-bubble? Monks, in exactly the same way, a monk
sees, considers and examines any feeling – whether past, present or
future, internal or external, coarse or subtle, inferior or superior,
far or near. By seeing it, considering it and examining it, one
determines that it is insubstantial, hollow, and essenceless (asāra). Monks,
what essence (sāra) can there be in feelings?


text:
Is Buddhism elitist?
If you have means, Buddhist notions are much easier to live by. If you do not, you may have to break the precepts in order to survive. This is particularly true for women and other vulnerable peoples. Is true Buddhism an elitist ideology?

I haven’t met many Buddhist but I can tell you that Buddha Dhamma is for the masses. In India , our constitution was given by a Buddhist who had renunciated Hinduism. Because Buddhism focuses on suffering, there is not a large percentage of population following Buddhism. Buddhism is quiet popular among the poor and destitute people.

One of the strongest teachings the Buddha spoke was to not tell lies, as follows:

In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.'
MN 61

I used to work for the government. If I need a job, I will drive a bus or work in a grocery store.
The Buddha included having an ethical & peaceful job as part of his Path.

Is true Buddhism an elitist ideology?
Maybe yes.
I think that a large majority of people "have the means to survive" -- and so that, i.e. having the means to survive, is not "elite" in the oligarch i.e. "rule by the few" sense of the word.
But what is "elite" -- were you using it in some pejorative sense?
A dictionary defines "elite" as, "people in a society who are eminent because of some quality that's valued by society (e.g. 'intellectual elite')" -- and "elitist" is the view that society should be led by the elite.
I think that Buddhism does identify "qualities that are valued by society" -- wisdom, compassion, generosity, keeping precepts too.
I've read (but don't know) that the Vinaya is a bit egalitarian (e.g. monks deciding together), and a bit elitist (e.g. the junior showing deference to the more senior monks).
Monks and nuns have the "means to survive" when they're supported by laypeople. Yes laypeople probably view them as "elite". In a sense perhaps it is because monks "keep the precepts" that they are considered "elite" and therefore "have the means to survive".

Something analogous may be true of non-Buddhist society too -- keeping the five precepts is a prerequisite to being an employee (and therefore "having the means to survive)", someone would be fired if they didn't keep the precepts (but that's very rare/abnormal in my experience).

Precepts are not the essence of the Dhamma.
From Sīlabbatasutta:

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


text:
What is the story of Mañjuśrī inspiring Śākyamuni?
नमो भगवते बुद्धाय
I'm reading Candrakīrti's madhyamakavatāra. I came across this passage -

"That they are the particular circumstance means that that which acts
as the cause for the circumstance of being a tathāgata is the
circumstance of being a bodhisattva. That they inspire the adoption
refers to the case of noble Mañjuśrī who as a bodhisattva was the very
first to inspire the illustrious Śākyamuni and the other tathāgatas to
adopt the mind of awakening. Being thus regarded as the principal
cause that enabled the final result, it is taught that the tathāgatas
are born from the bodhisattvas."[1]

What is the story of the Noble Mañjuśrī inspiring Śākyamuni and other tathāgatas to adopt bodhicitta?
Thank you
[1] Source - https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=fulltext&view=fulltext&vid=1113&cid=828169&mid=1927089&level=1#FN5550rn6:~:text=That%20they%20are%20the%20particular,are%20born%20from%20the%20bodhisattvas.

Manjusri is personification of perfection of wisdom- prajnaparamita. It is wisdom which guides the previous 5 paramitas- the first 5 bhumis- to their highest use. A parable of wisdom guiding the 5 blind perfections is used as well. In short, the meaning being conveyed is that when wisdom arises, then,  all the previous accumulated qualities reach their perfection. Panna [pali], prajna [sanskrit] is what takes one to the final goal.

I have this doubt. If Manjuśri is a personification of prajñāpāramitā, why does Manjuśri asks for instruction from Tathagata in certain sutras and Tathagata also teaches him like any other disciple? One such Sutra is the dhyayitamuśti sūtra quoted in Candrakītir's Prasannapada Chapter 16, verse 9.

Google definition of personification- "a figure intended to represent an abstract quality." Once the quality of wisdom has been personified as figure of Manjushri, it is used in stories- he asks for instructions, gives teachings, etc. This is how personification functions.


text:
Dumoulin's History of Zen: The good and bad
I'd heard about Heinrich Dumoulin's two volume History of Zen a number of times, but Dumoulin not being a Buddhist himself led me to avoid it. However, I ran into the set at a library recently, and to my surprise it's actually reading pretty well, and appears to be somewhat objective / extensive.
What I'm curious about is the good and bad of the book. What did he get right, and what did he get wrong about Zen's history? Essentially a short critical analysis of this book and where / where I shouldn't be skeptical.
If there are too many factual errors in the book to list them all, then calling this out and a few small examples should suffice.

I don’t think there is a kindle edition of the book in English. I haven’t read Heinrich Dumoulin but wish to read it on kindle.


text:
Which part/s of AN 4.41 equate/s to vipassana?
AN 4.41, per subjective Sujato translation [with DD in brackets], says:

“Mendicants, there are these four ways of developing immersion
further. What four?

There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful
meditation in the present life [in the here & now].
Atthi, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā
diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārāya saṁvattati; It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption.

There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining
knowledge [knowing] and vision [seeing]. atthi, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā
ñāṇadassanappaṭilābhāya saṁvattati; And so, with an open and unenveloped heart, they develop a mind that’s full of radiance.

There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to
mindfulness and [situational] awareness. atthi, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā satisampajaññāya saṁvattati; It’s when a mendicant knows [understands; viditā] feelings... perceptions... thoughts... as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away. Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno viditā vedanā uppajjanti, viditā upaṭṭhahanti, viditā abbhatthaṁ gacchanti;

There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the
ending of defilements. atthi, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā āsavānaṁ khayāya
saṁvattati. It’s when a mendicant meditates observing [ānupassī] rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates. Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu udayabbayānupassī viharati: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling.
Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’

Note: the word "viditā" found in AN 4.41 is also found in MN 111 and in the stock definition of sampajanna in SN 47.35. MN 111 says:

Here, monks, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unwholesome
phenomena, Sāriputta attains and remains in the first jhāna, which has thought and consideration, and has rapture and pleasure produced by
seclusion. The phenomena which are present in the first jhāna –
thought [apprehension], consideration [pondering], rapture, pleasure, mental one-pointedness,
sense-contact, feeling, recognition, volition, mentality, interest,
resolve, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention – are
progressively identified [vavatthita] by him. These phenomena are known [viditā; understood] by him as
they arise, as they persist, and as they disappear. He understands in
this way: ‘It seems that these phenomena were not present, then they
manifested; then after being present, they vanished again.’ In regard
to those phenomena, he remains unattracted, unrepelled, independent,
unattached, released, unbound, with an unrestricted mind. He
understands [pajānāti], ‘There is an escape beyond this.’ Practicing that
frequently, he knows [pajānāti] that there is a further escape

Which of the four developments in AN 4.41 above equate/s with vipassana? Why?

The Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) refers to contemplating/observing impermanence that results in dispassion, cessation & relinquishment. The word used in MN 118 for contemplating/observing is "ānupassī"; the same as used in the 4th samadhi development in AN 4.41. This sounds like vipassana. The words "ānupassī" & "vipassana" both include the meaning "to see/seeing" (passa; passati).
Similarly, in the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59), the Buddha explained for the first time how seeing (passaṁ) truly with right wisdom (yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ) impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self results in disenchantment, dispassion & liberation. Again, this sounds like vipassana. Again, it refers to "seeing" (passaṁ).
About vipassana, MN 149 says when the Noble Eightfold Path is developed, two results occurs in tandem, namely, samatha & vipassana. MN 149, further says, about vipassana, samatho ca vipassanā are the things that should be developed by direct knowledge (abhiññā). Vipassana & abhiññā here sound the same as the 'right knowledge' ('samma-nana') refer to in MN 117, which comes into being due to/after/as a result of right concentration; and which itself results in right liberation.
In short, both MN 149 & MN 117 directly say vipassana results from right concentration. In short, the words "ānupassī" & "vipassana" both include & refer to "direct seeing".

Sati-sampajana is often described in the suttas as a protective/preventative practice. For example, MN 38 says:

If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful
qualities of covetousness and displeasure would become overwhelming.
For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of
mind, and achieving its restraint. When they have this noble sense
restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves. They
act with situational awareness (sampajāna) when going out and coming
back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the
limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating,
drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when
walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping
silent. When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, this
noble contentment, this noble sense restraint, and this noble
mindfulness and situational awareness (satisampajaññena).

When they see a sight with their eyes, if it’s pleasant they don’t
desire it, and if it’s unpleasant they don’t dislike it. They live
with mindfulness (sārajjati) of the body established and a
limitless heart. And they truly understand the freedom of heart and
freedom by wisdom where those arisen bad, unskillful qualities cease
without anything left over. Having given up favoring and opposing,
when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or
neutral—they don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to it. As a
result, relishing of feelings ceases. When their relishing ceases,
grasping ceases.

Bhikkhu Sujato commentates on this, as follows:

Situational awareness is a psychological term popularized in the
1990s. It has to do with the perception of environmental phenomena and
the comprehension of their meaning, which is very close to the sense
of the Pali term sampajañña. | These acts describe the daily life of a
mendicant: going into the village for alms, at which time there are
many distracting sights. Then they return, eat their meal, and spend
their day in meditation.

In conclusion:

AN 4.41 says observing/closely seeing (ānupassī) rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates leads to the ending of defilements. This is the vipassana/direct seeing described in SN 22.59, MN 118 & MN 149 because it leads to the ending/destruction/uprooting of the defilements & liberation.

When AN 4.41 refers to developing immersion that leads to mindfulness and situational awareness, this is obviously not vipassana because it does not lead to the uprooting of the defilements. Here, AN 4.41 is simply referring to having mindfulness and situational awareness when feelings, perceptions & thoughts occur so understanding (viditā) them does not allow craving & attachment to arise. The reference to arise (uppajjanti), remain (upaṭṭhahanti), go away (abbhatthaṁ gacchanti) in AN 4.41 is not the same as the  rise and fall (udayabbayā) in AN 4.41. Particularly the word upaṭṭhahati does not sound like the momentary/short existence of a phenomena that is required for observing rise & fall. Rise & fall (udayabbayā) is two impressions that signifies  seeing impermanence clearly. This relatively 'rapid' impermanence is what is required for deep vipassana that causes disenchantment, dispassion & ends/uproots the defilements. Where as arise (uppajjanti), remain (upaṭṭhahanti), go away (abbhatthaṁ gacchanti) is three impressions & the upaṭṭhahanti can last for a relatively long time. In short, the key word, namely, "viditā", appears not a synonym of "vipassana/anupassi". For example, in MN 66 and SN 12.17, the word "vidita" means "to understand" rather than merely "experience with bare awareness", as follows: "Because I understand the diversity of faculties as it applies to this person. Indriyavemattatā hi me, udāyi, imasmiṃ puggale viditā"; "I have understood individual differences. Api ca mayā puggalavemattatā viditā”ti".

Therefore, MN 111 is not referring to 'vipassana' when it says these phenomena are understood (viditā) by him as they arise, as they persist and as they disappear. The word "understand (viditā)" appears to refer to simply not being deluded by those phenomena.

If we not situationally aware (of the context of Buddhism), the word "deluded" includes have self-views towards those phenomena, such as believing: "I/me/mine have/has attained jhana".

please do not use this Q&A site as a blogging platform, asking and answering your own questions in response to a debate you had elsewhere.


text:
Why is sati sampajāno mentioned in the 3rd jhana?
MN 4 says:

And with the fading away of rapture, I entered and remained in the
third absorption, where I meditated with equanimity, mindful and
aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones
declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’
Pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca vihāsiṁ, sato ca sampajāno sukhañca
kāyena paṭisaṁvedesiṁ; yaṁ taṁ ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā
sukhavihārī’ti tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja vihāsiṁ.

Sujato has subjectively opined here:

The emotional response to bliss matures from the subtle thrill of
rapture to the poise of equanimity. Mindfulness is present in all
states of deep meditation, but with equanimity it becomes prominent.

Why do we personally think sati sampajāno is mentioned in the 3rd jhana?

Pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca vihāsim, sato ca sampajāno sukhañca kāyena paṭisamvedesim; yam tam ariyā ācikkhanti: ‘upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ti

"Why do we personally think sati sampajāno is mentioned?"
I personally think in this context sampajāno is used to specify and clarify the exact meaning in which sati is used here.
I think this is evident from the subsequent phrase "upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ti" — a (then) popular saying that uses sati in the sense of sampajāna but does not explicitly mention sampajāna.
In general, I agree with and support your interpretation that in many contexts sati means remembrance of the instructions or, even more precisely, having one's awareness be positioned and settled within the framework given by the instructions.
But, evidently, neither this particular passage nor this sutta at large set any context, expressed or implied, of following the instructions or remembering the instructions.
Instead, in this passage the Buddha explains what he means by dwelling in equanimity; first he simply describes it as a kind of mindfulness (sati) and then he clarifies that he means the peaceful bliss of being present and aware in the here and now. To this end he quotes the popular saying that succinctly summarizes what he just described.
From the rest of the jhana sequence we know this dwelling in equanimity, the peaceful bliss of being present and aware comes from having no cravings and no aversions, not making vitakka/vicara effort, no revulsion and no joy that would come from one judging phenomena as agreeable or disagreeable. The only remaining asava at this point are the subtle aversion to dukkha and the subtle attachment to peace inherent in this jhana itself, to be overcome in the next jhana.
This is what I personally think.

Sati does not mean aware. However, thank you for your effort, despite making unsubstantiated claims about what the Buddha meant 2600 years ago.

The subtle aversion to dukkha and the attachment to peace, to be overcome in the next jhana, does not sound evident in the passage. Keep in mind the Buddha, who was free from aversion & attachment, often abided in the various jhanas.

Improved the answer in response to your comments, thanks.

This is an interesting question. I cannot provide a definitive answer. But, merely speculating, it sounds like "mindful and [situationally] aware, personally experiencing the bliss of which the noble ones declare" means, in the 3rd jhana, it becomes crystal clear to the mind what the Buddha taught about happiness, equanimity & peace is absolutely true & the supreme purpose of the Buddha's teaching. In other words, rapture (piti) is not the happiness (sukha) & peace (Nibbana) the Buddha has declared. Thus this stock phrase says: "the noble ones declare".
Keep in mind, when describing the mindfulness factor of enlightenment, the suttas say:

Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are accomplished in virtue, accomplished in concentration, accomplished in wisdom, accomplished in liberation, accomplished in the knowledge and vision of liberation: even the sight of those bhikkhus is helpful, I say; even listening to them … even approaching them … even attending on them … even recollecting them … even going forth after them is helpful, I say. For what reason? Because when one has heard the Dhamma from such bhikkhus one dwells withdrawn by way of two kinds of withdrawal—withdrawal of body and withdrawal of mind.
Dwelling thus withdrawn, one recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu; on that occasion the bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness; on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness comes to fulfilment by development in the bhikkhu.
SN 46.3

I guess for the faithless, for those who actually have never taken refuge in the Triple Gem, for those who revile Noble Ones & attempt to make a career based on continuously reviling bhikkhus on every possible chatsite, the above true meaning of mindfulness is unknowable to them. Instead, these faithless ones believe 'mindfulness' means 'observing' or 'watching' or 'seeing' or 'bare awareness', similar to as taught in American Layperson Buddhism.


text:
Are scientific Truths impermanent?
There are many scientific truths which seem to be absolute. For example- matter attracts matter , whether it is the matter of earth or sun or stars or dark matter etc ,they all attract each other.
How do we identify such truths as and are they really permanent?

IMO a related question would be whether the Dhamma is impermanent.

@ChrisW I am asking question with regard to a group of truths classified as scientific truths only.

Scientific truths are forms. They have to be b/c they are cause-effect (form). they must be impermanent b/c all composite things (form) are impertinent ie the cuase-effect will become dissociated.

being composite in their nature, are unsubstantial, transient, and
subject to living and death.

can cause-effect really be considered form?

I suppose this depends on the context. If there is a time where matter did not exist or can be defined as existing e.g. the singularity of the Big Bang then there is no way to verify this scientific fact. Similarly, if we imagine a higher dimension where matter do not exist, again this scientific fact cannot be tested and would not be relevant.
I think the real value of scientific theories and laws are not that they are permanent but that they are useful to us right now. Personally, this is how I feel about the Buddha’s teachings as well although some would argue that the Dharma is true and absolute whether in the past, present or future. Suppose (although very, very improbable) all beings are enlightened, does the Dharma still matter? With Metta.

Any phenomenon which is conventionally real is impermanent. Impermanence is synonymous with functional. Something that is not functional (by way of cause effect) is not conventionally real. It is permanent. It implies it is also absolute.
Thus, if you posit that scientific truths are absolute, then it implies they are permanent and therefore you cannot say they are impermanent.


text:
How powerful is collective consciousness to the individual mind?
What? How powerful is collective consciousness to the individual mind

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.

hello, as written the question is too vague please add more context and we will reopen. Also as DD said, all questions should have some connection with this site's topic.

The internet says:

Collective consciousness, also known as collective conscience, is a
sociological concept that refers to common ideas, attitudes, beliefs,
and knowledge that are shared amongst a social group, organization, or
society.

Buddhism says:

Follow not the vulgar way; live not in heedlessness; hold not false views; linger not long in worldly existence.

One who looks upon the world as a bubble and a mirage, him the King of Death sees not.

Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.

Dhammapada

In Buddhism, there are four/eight types of Enlightened Individuals. The enlightened individuals do not follow the ways of the world. Particularly, there are times/occasions, where the collective attitude is false & immoral.


text:
Did my brother committed shedding the blood of Buddha sin?
Im too anxious,in the past my brother play football he kicked the ball to Guanyin statue i don't know he is intent or not did he committed shedding the blood of Buddha sin? the statue did not break

To my knowledge, there is no blood in a statue. Therefore, the soccer ball your brother kicked did not shed the blood of a Buddha. Buddha statutes are representations of the Buddha rather than the Buddha himself.

I think that the five anantarika-karma are described in AN 5.129:

Murdering your mother or father or a perfected one; maliciously shedding the blood of a Realized One; and causing a schism in the Saṅgha.

The same phrase is used in AN 6.87:

They murder their mother or father or a perfected one. They maliciously shed the blood of a Realized One. They cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They’re witless, dull, and stupid.

The phrase translated there as, "they maliciously shed the blood", includes duṭṭhena cittena -- i.e. something like, "evil-minded" (see duṭṭha and citta).
Some people interpret or expand on "shedding blood" as including, "harming the dharma" -- for example, by destroying sutras.

Which people say shedding blood is burning books?

I think that is what is behind the OP -- i.e. a doctrine about 'harming the Dharma', by for example destroying sutras or even statues -- which, I suppose is related to doctrine about the dharmakaya. I presume it's a tradition or country other than Theravada -- the OP also mentions Guanyin. Although as an aside re Theravada, the Pali suttas include the last paragraph of SN 22.87 which seems to equate (seeing) the Buddha's person with the Dhamma.


text:
How many types of conditions are there?
In Buddhist teachings, phenomena are said to be conditioned and impermanent. Could you explain the various types of conditions that are recognized in Buddhism, and how they contribute to the cycle of samsara and the development of individual experience?
What are some of the types of conditions in the Abhidhammas or even modern understanding. Answers could include perhaps a physical condition, mental condition, conditioned by absences or so on.

In Buddhist teachings, conditioned phenomena are said to be impermanent. Unconditioned phenomena are said to be permanent.

The Teacher himself gave three characteristics for conditions:

Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.
AN 3.47

The various abhidhammas of the various schools have invented all manner of further classifications and intricate systems to describe conditioned phenomena some more skillful than others, but none of them describe the ultimate truth.

Good answer. Though I must point out that types of conditions is different than characteristics of conditions.

That's a good point.

In Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasya and Nagarjuna's chapter 1 of Mulamadhyamakakarika, we find mention of 4 conditions- causal condition,
Perceptive condition, immediate condition, Dominant condition.
This would be valid in the context of conditions responsible for an effect to arise from a cause.

Should point out that Nagarjuna specifically refutes the 4 conditions in chapter 1.

I must clarify that Nagarjuna specifically refutes essential conditions or conditions as existing in an ultimate sense. He does not hold the position that there are no conditions at all. Recall the middle way- middle of essential existence and no existence at all [in this case].

Yes, I agree. Was just pointing out that the verse mentioning the 4 types of conditions in MMK was from the opponent not from Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna himself did not assert 4 types of conditions.

Ah yes, thank you for pointing it out. While Nagarjuna does indeed not assert that, the opponent is a person from another Buddhist scchool.


text:
Feeling a strong connection to Buddhism, but feeling lost on how to continue forwards
Good Morning,
Recently I have been soul-searching and looking for a missing spiritual aspect of my life. I have been reading Introduction to Buddhism by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. After reading part one of the book, I felt a strong connection to Buddhism. Although I don't see myself as seeking total enlightenment in my lifetime, I feel a want to continue my path and perhaps become what I think is called a lay Buddhist.
With this personal realization has come a lot of confusion. I plan to continue reading Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's book, however I'm wondering if there is another resource that could help me answer the questions I have more directly at this point. Which is why I'm making this post. I feel like I have almost no resources other than the intention I have to learn. I live in the Southern United States and so I have come up short on finding local resources. In my book, I find myself reading some of what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says and then wanting to know more, but being at the mercy of what is said later in the book to explain it. It's been a wonderful exposure so far enough that I want to continue learning, but I'm just not sure which resources to seek out.
I understand that there are several schools of Buddhism and that has added to my confusion. I think that my book is related to Mahayana, but I could be mistaken. I know that to call myself a lay Buddhist in the first place involves taking refuge in the three jewels and committing to the five precepts. There seems to be discourse on whether or not this is something that can be done alone or needs to be done at an official venue. In a way, I almost feel like I have already taken refuge. There is a prayer to Buddha, Sanga, and Dharma in my book that I have recited intentionally. I'm not sure if that prayer is a prayer for taking refuge specifically, however it almost feels like the lines are bleeding together.
In my book 12 commitments of refuge are talked about in addition to the five precepts. This has caused me some confusion because elsewhere on the web I've seldom seem these mentioned.
I guess overall to summarize what I'm asking for: I feel a strong connection to Buddhism. I want to continue learning, but feel like I am missing resources. I feel like what I want is a complete guidebook to how I can continue learning and how to practice. Something to give structure to this thing I feel the need to seek out. I know that what is important is learning from the three jewels and applying that to live a better life, but I still feel a need for something to follow to help me do so. A lay Buddhist guidebook if you will.
Some questions that have come up for example:

How can I study more Dharma teachings? The book mentions Dharma books which I guess this book would technically count as itself, but are there books specifically for Dharma teachings from Buddha in one book?
The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means exactly or how to make offerings.
Can you take refuge alone?
If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can.
Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha?

I apologize if this post is a little messy or rambling. I'm hoping it will be looked on with kind-eyes and someone can point me in the right direction and I can continue learning.

The south is a big place.  Which state are you in?

@000 I’m in Southeast Alabama.

Oh geez.  Yeah, that's going to be tough, but by no means impossible.  If no one has written an answer by tomorrow, I'll give you a couple of thoughts.

@000 Thank you. I appreciate that very much.

Welcome to the site. I too will try to post another answer this weekend.

I will address a couple of things - but leave the journey to you.
Kelsang Gyatso was trained in the Gelugpa, which itself is a major school of of Buddhism from Tibet.  All Tibetan Buddhism is Mahayana. Almost all of Himalayan Buddhism is Mahayana Buddhist.
The Gelugpa school was founded in the late 14th century by Je Tsongkhapa.  The school is large, and there are many different teachers, and many different opinions and variations within it.
Some of those within the Gelugpa have been strong adherents to the idea that the only true, 'pure' Buddhadharma is that which stems from Je Tsongkhapa.  They believe(d) that the views of the other schools (and all other traditions outside Tibet) were mistaken, and therefore toxic.
(This isn't an attribute which is found solely within the Gelugpa, or Tibet, or even the Mahayana - for example, there are a few Theravada who reject the entire Mahayana tradition).
Of those, Kelsang Gyatso was famously a purist.  He propagated and encouraged the practice of 'Shugden' - which includes taking a vow to have nothing to do with the Nyingma teachings. (Kelsang Gyatso was not alone.  It would be hard to deny that several teachers of Gelugpa followed similar views that rejected the practices of other schools, most especially the Nyingma).
Later on, when Kelsang Gyatso gathered a large enough following, he told his students not to read any book or text that he himself did not write.
Now, in your journey, wherever it takes you - if a teacher (or their tradition) says to you "only read the texts that I wrote, or approve" – please be careful:  If it is a temporary injunction, until you are familiar with the language and topics - it can be understandable (as many words in Buddhism have different meanings according to the school you practice in accordance with).  But often it is the case that the injunction is not temporary, and this is always a cause for major concern. Why? Because we must depend upon developing our own critical thinking.  In the end, we must reason - and develop our reasoning in order to identify and eliminate our self-grasping mind.  We must 'take ownership' of our spiritual path - as our path is completely about responsible empowerment for ourselves and others.
But the Gelugpa tradition is incredibly broad and very deep, with six centuries of scholarship and a practicing community of millions: There are plenty of teachers, many of whom are (or were) renowned for their practice in the Dharma, who felt that the rejection of any Dharma tradition is a great wrongdoing. From Je Tsongkhapa himself, he discusses this in the Lam Rim Chenmo, regarding the greatnesses of Atisha's tradition- the salient point being that all Buddha's teachings directly or indirectly teach methods of becoming a Buddha.  If we wish to look at what is mistaken in the Nyingma, we must first be aware of what is mistaken in our own views - and to do that we must eliminate any context. When we eliminate context, we can no longer rely upon conventional truths. Even an Arya has only a limited ability to understand the Dharma. Only a Buddha is able to unmistakably point to the flaws in the teachings of others.
When we examine the views of the Nyingma (which themselves are as varied, as broad, and as profound), and despite a completely different vocabulary that the teachings are given in, we will see that - against any other Buddhist tradition in the world, the Nyingma teachings are very close to those of the Gelugpa. Yes, definitely there are differences, but there are many similarities too.
To be so wild as to claim that the only true remaining tradition of Buddhism that leads to Buddhahood without error is the noble tradition of Je Tsongkhapa underlies the point.  It demonstrates the insularity of some Tibetan thinking, and especially those who would feel comfortable with that.  Indeed, we cannot say that about Buddhism (let alone any school within Buddhism)- for example, if you reside in a country where practicing Buddhism entails a death sentence, then Buddhism will not be so useful to you.
For me, there is no doubt that my personal path follows the teachings and practices of Je Tsongkhapa.  But I cannot claim that this path is suitable for everyone. Not being a Buddha, I certainly cannot claim that this path is the only true path to Buddhahood: To me, the very idea of "just one true path" completely undermines the basis of the insight tradition of Nagarjuna.
Fortunately I do not conflate the practice of Shugden with the practices and traditions of Je Tsongkhapa - who predated Shugden by some centuries. I am not enamoured by the activities of some Shugden adherents - involved in 'converting' Nyingma monasteries, for example or, on a less material note, criticising any sincere Buddhist practice.
Even so, we are able to learn from those whose actions are stained.  As it already stands, we are encouraged to exercise critical thinking with everything we are taught - in order that we understand the truth behind the words. This is true regardless of the actions and activities of our teachers.
The same issue with all teachers: What is it that they have to teach me right now, regardless of what they say?  Do they show me through example just what I should not do? Or do they show me what to do? This is for us to determine for ourselves.  We should not accept anyone's teaching at face value, and we certainly should not reject it either.  Our hope is that we can thread an understanding that pulls us towards enlightenment, or even Buddhahood.
But that path is for each one of us to determine for ourselves.
My thought is, that what makes us 'Buddhist' is, first of all, that we have determined for ourselves that there is such a state as enlightenment, and that enlightenment is worth striving for (indeed, it is the only journey that matters). Once we have recognised enlightenment is a fact (and how to distinguish enlightenment from serenity) then we have taken refuge in Buddha.
From that, we look to see whose teachings to freedom resonate for us: From which, we have so many choices available to us. But, in the end, we will begin to recognise the four noble truths lie as the scaffolding of the entire Buddhist project.  From which, we will then see that the fourth - the path, is a kaleidoscope of teachings that all boil down to the three trainings (triśikṣā/tisikkhā):

How to behave (adhiśīla),
How to focus (samādhi), and
How to break the cycle (prajñā).

When this seems obvious, and when it becomes the foundation to our life and our actions, then we have taken refuge in the Dharma.  (When our understanding of Dharma is thorough enough that we will recognise and distinguish Buddha's teachings from every tradition in that they directly (or indirectly) teach nothing else but the path to Buddhahood).
When all our actions become a model of behaviour and inspiration for others such that they wish to engage in the Buddhist path then we have taken refuge in the Sangha.

How can I study more Dharma teachings? The book mentions Dharma books which I guess this book would technically count as itself, but are there books specifically for Dharma teachings from Buddha in one book?
I would recommend this book:

The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means exactly or how to make offerings.
Here is a dharma teaching that explains more about making offerings.
Can you take refuge alone?
Informally, yes you can. You can also do so in a more formal fashion. First though you should know what is meant by taking refuge. I'd recommend this dharma teaching to learn more.
If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can.
You can and should repent (or purify) and here is a dharma teaching that explains some of how and why we do this.
Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha?
The Sangha is one of the three jewels we take refuge in. It is very important to understand this jewel before one takes refuge. Here is a dharma teaching that can help.
I hope you find these links and references helpful. Good luck on your Buddhist journey!

Recently I have been soul-searching and looking for a missing spiritual aspect of my life.
In my caseI couldn't believe that Christian doctrine is the only truth, and with my father's help I began to read the (translated) texts and descriptions of other religions.
I found others good in their own way. Buddhism seemed perhaps unusually among the sanest, complete and with the least fanciful premises (like, "God says"), which appealed to my sense of logic -- its axioms being humane and conventional.
A lot of the books I found were people writing about Buddhism, rather than Buddhist canonical texts themselves. One (famous) canonical text is the Dhammapada. That may be a good introduction. It may be even better as a summary or conclusion, after you get the doctrine in more detail from another source.
This site was started about a month before my wife died, as it happens -- the first topics are currently on this page -- then I used this site to get started with studying it in more detail and with more certainty.
In my book, I find myself reading some of what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says and then wanting to know more, but being at the mercy of what is said later in the book to explain it.
When I was about 12 I got a copy of the ARRL's Radio Amateur's Handbook from the library, which explained electronics and how to build and operate radios (using vacuum tubes or transistors). I read it and understood about 5% of it. I read it again, and understood a bit more this time ... and so on.
I don't know the book you're reading (i.e. Introduction to Buddhism by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso).
In my experience I find other Tibetan Buddhist books easier to read and understand than I used to, now that I know more about some of the earlier canonical texts of Buddhism. I suppose that some Tibetan Buddhist texts are by and for people who may already be Tibetan Buddhists! And so they're talking about and may presume you know something about doctrine, use vocabulary without defining it, etc.
I understand that there are several schools of Buddhism and that has added to my confusion. I think that my book is related to Mahayana, but I could be mistaken.
I think so yes -- but also no :-) in that someone once commented on this site, to the effect of, "Academics make the distinction (between different schools), but to us it's all one".
The canon of even one school is kind of vast (but that's so for anything, including e.g. "Christian literature").
Here's a map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buddhist_sects.png
One way to read this might be:

There's Theravada and the rest (Mahayana)
Mahayana may be subdivided into Eastern (Zen) and Northern (Tibetan)
Each has its own history, people and places

This map ignores the modern world, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_the_West
I think the Buddha taught in about 450 BC, which was prehistory by definition i.e. the teachings were transmitted by oral tradition (and still are though they're also recorded in writing now).
I live in the Southern United States and so I have come up short on finding local resources.
I don't know, this might be useful:

World Buddhist Directory -- United States of America
more specifically, Alabama

Also I'll mention, one of the books I found interesting was The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity -- it's a summary of doctrine in the Pali suttas for laypeople, written by a bhikkhu in Texas

Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, PhD, was born in Sri Lanka and became a Buddhist monk in childhood. He holds a Master's Degree in literature, and a doctorate in English. He serves the congregation at the Houston Buddhist Vihara, and teaches English at the University of Houston. He lives in Texas.

Being "for laypeople" it's both more and less interesting than other anthologies, he is in Texas and a teacher.
One of the issues is that all the canonical literature is non-English-language, so reliant on translators. That's more-or-less true of the Christian canon too though, so maybe that's not a big issue.
How can I study more Dharma teachings?
Maybe any of several ways:

Read books
Watch dhamma talks on video
Talk with Buddhists, listen to them in person
Practice
Ask questions (perhaps on this site) about topics you don't understand

Re. how I studied it, when this site started I was out in the French countryside. I'd read "introductions", I wanted to read some "canon", the suttas including the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, and so I asked these questions which people kindly answered for me:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

I won't try to list all similar topics on this site, perhaps there are many, here's one at random:

How to Study the Suttas?

There are several topics where people ask for book recommendations: see books.
are there books specifically for Dharma teachings from Buddha in one book?
I've seen people recommend What the Buddha Taught (by Ven. Walpola Rahula):

I have tried in this little book to address myself first of all to the
educated and intelligent general reader, uninstructed in the
subject, who would like to know what the Buddha actually
taught.

Its first four chapters introduce the four noble truths, and so on.
There's also In the Buddha's Words, edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi. This is mostly translated extracts from the suttas themselves, sorted by topic.
The book I mentioned previously i.e. The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity is not so famous as these -- it consists of paraphrased (in the author's words), not translated, extracts from the suttas.
The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means exactly or how to make offerings.
I don't know that book, nor Tibetan doctrines.
One meaning is that Buddhist monks and nuns don't own money. They subsist by laypeople giving them 'requisites' e.g. (daily) food and (occasionally) robes.
The word is Dāna -- knowing the word for it lets you "study" or read about it e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=buddhist+dana -- conversely many of the topics on this site are questions about the meaning of a word like this one.
I assume there's a different, Tibetan word for it.
Personally, i.e. what it means to me, is I'm quite taken with this sutta:

Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1)
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
(etc.)

There have been sometimes in my life when I was "generous" or gift-giving, and which I absolutely don't regret: i.e. for which I feel "no remorse".
Can you take refuge alone?
Yes and no? You said earlier, in the OP,

There seems to be discourse on whether or not this is something that can be done alone or needs to be done at an official venue.

I guess my feeling is that, the way it worked originally (as described in the suttas) was that

The Buddha (or someone else) would say something to someone

The person would hear and reply like, Magnificent!, for example:

Magnificent, Master Kaccana! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Kaccana — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Kaccana remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.

I feel that saying "I go for refuge" isn't it, their saying it is an expression of their already having gone for refuge or taken refuge, on hearing the Dhamma.
Assuming further that it's the Dhamma that's important (SN 22.87) then perhaps you can "hear" that when alone e.g. from a book as well as (perhaps even better than) "at an official venue".
On the other hand many suttas say (e.g. in SN 45.2 for monks and DN 31 for laypeople) that companions are important, role-models, teachers -- to that extent it could be impractical to "do alone".
Perhaps the "ritualistic" aspect of an "official venue" isn't what's important (or perhaps that's just my ill-informed opinion).
If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can.
Yes both, what's the difference, why do you say "or" as if it's one or the other?
I think that "repent" means "recognise unfortunate consequences of misbehaviour and resolve to avoid it in future".
Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha?
Ah. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the word "Sangha" has three meanings:

It's the community of monastics, the ordained monks and nuns
The "Ariya Sangha" is the enlightened or semi-enlightened community (perhaps analogous to "the community of Saints" in Christianity)
More broadly it's sometimes used to mean "all Buddhists"

I'd say that the Buddhist stack exchange is, not part of the Sangha. Some of the people who post or who have posted here, and/or who agreed it would be good to start this site, are.

How can I study more Dharma teachings?

There are Dhamma resources all over the internet. One mere example is a website like this or this; which are examples of Theravada sites; but I guess there are Mahayana equivalents.
If you wish to read the original teachings of the Buddha, the Pali Suttas are translated, such as:

Dhammapada - short verses, easy to read, although a very serious little book
Itivuttaka - again, short verses, easy to read, covers many basics
Majjhima Nikaya - longer but interesting teachings
first three sermons of the Buddha - SN 56.11; SN 22.59; SN 35.28

Contrary to the 12 commitments of refuge, in the original teachings of the Buddha:

not anyone who wears the robes of an ordained person is an actual Sangha Jewel.

not all translations of scripture are the actual Dhamma Jewel

Dhammapada Verse 307 says there are evil characters who wear the orange robe. For many monks today, the Dhamma Teachings are like a play thing, for them to develop their own style of teachings so they can develop their own group/sect of followers. The Buddha taught/exhorted a student to apply & develop thorough wise reflection/consideration (called 'yoniso manasikārā') upon hearing/reading a teaching. The Buddha (in Majjhima Nikaya MN 38) taught to not even believe the Buddha with blind faith but to only speak what has realized about His Teachings of Dhamma for oneself. The Buddha taught his Teachings exist for the purpose of individual verification (paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhī).

The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means
exactly or how to make offerings.

There are formal offerings, such as giving food & other requisites to monks & nuns. If there are no monks & nuns near you, can you simply give an occasional donation via the internet to a monastery, monk or nun; or otherwise give a donation to a worthy charity. The purpose of giving offering is to develop both gratitude & unselfishness; to make us 'open handed' in respect to generosity.

Can you take refuge alone?

In Majjhima Nikaya MN 140, it appears a monk took refuge alone. Otherwise, you could telephone a monastery & ask for a monk or nun to provide you refuge (over the telephone).

If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do
you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can.

Yes, if you transgress the five precepts, you acknowledge the transgression, and vow to not repeat the transgression. The Buddha taught this in MN 61. The Buddha taught all transgressions/unwholesome actions are born from ignorance (SN 45.1); which is why a Buddha does not explicitly view transgressions personally & why a Buddha has ocean-like compassion.

Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha?

Yes, in particular Dhamma Dhatu answers questions here. There are often posters on various Buddhist chatsites that have strong refuge in the Dhamma of the Buddha & who can assist you. However, most Buddhist chatsites are administered by politically synthetic left wing individuals therefore often Buddhist websites include many non-Buddhist things due to political correctness & American liberalism, which is contrary to the 12 commitments of refuge. The 12 commitments of refuge include: not to go for refuge to teachers who contradict Buddha’s view or to Samsaric gods; not to allow oneself to be influenced by people who reject the Buddha’s teachings. For example, one Buddhist chatsite says the following, which is an alien ideology not related to genuine Buddhist ways of viewing & examining the world:

Please do not: express patriarchal, misogynist, sexist,
bioessentialist, xenphobic, transphobic, TERF (Trans Exclusionary
Radical Feminist), homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, or pro-Nazi views
or any other kind of hateful views

While Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books are very traditional Tibetan Buddhism, one or two major Mahayana Buddhist chatsites I guess/image would ban the teachings of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso & the NKT (definitely here, probably here). Non-Buddhist 'cancel culture' thrives on Buddhist chatsites. But this is expected. Each person's journey requires them to develop their own wise refection (yoniso manasikara), vigilance & discernment. In Buddhism, every sense experience is an opportunity for the development of liberating wisdom.


text:
Do the Pali suttas refer to unwholesome gift benefactors?
I was browsing a new set of Sutta translations by a renowned translator, and happened to read the publisher wrote a special acknowledgement towards a certain charitable foundation that was established by a major corporation for the benefit of children; even though this corporation arguably produces & sell certain products that not only can harm children when consumed in excess but also generates craving in both children & adults. I found it ironic that a charitable foundation established upon financial profits from craving would be the primary sponsor of Sutta translations specifically on the subject of the cessation of craving.
Do any Pali suttas refer to unwholesome gift benefactors; from which proposed charitable gifts should ideally be declined?

I guess that depends on their intentions. It would be impossible to judge without this knowledge. Even Buddhists like ourselves, performed unskillful actions while cultivating dana and restraints. To denied the charitable acts (esp. those out of good intentions) of others because of their defilement would be denying them a chance of balancing their bad karma with some good ones. Everyone needs some good karma when stuck in the midst of their misfortune.

I found this sutta however it does not sound completely on topic:
“Mendicants, even if a monk is of impeccable character, he might be suspected and distrusted as a ‘bad monk’ for five reasons. What five? It’s when a monk frequently collects alms from prostitutes, widows, voluptuous girls, eunuchs, or nuns. Even if a monk is of impeccable character, he might be suspected and distrusted as a ‘bad monk’ for these five reasons.”
AN 5.102

Agreed. If I recall there was an example where Ven. Anuruddha accepted an invitation from a woman to stayed a night in her house. I think a monastic rule was created as a result.


text:
Is the reverse of “Everything which has a beginning must have an end.” also true?
When we see with an eye of Dhamma , we realise that that which has a beginning must have an end because birth is conditional. (I am using Bhikkhu Sujata’s translation of SN 35.74)
If we reverse the Truth then is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning?
PS: To clarify , I share an example, suppose a candle light is put off then can we conclude that sometime in the past the candle was lit? It was not always burning.

"It was not always burning" It was not even always a candle -- before that it was wax in a candle-factory, etc. ... where then is "a beginning"?

Also what kind of answer are you looking for, and/or why: an answer based on "logic"? Or a reference to a canonical statement?

@ChrisW Whichever way you may wish to answer.

Applying logic to religon seldom produces logic. Not sure logic suports what you're reversing. The counting numbers begin at 1 and have no end. Care to define "everything" in some way that keeps the logic from falling appart?

@candied_orange For your kind information, Buddha is very logical. Begin counting from 1 to infinity. I am sure you will be able to count only finite numbers ,no matter how large!! And then you will die. Everything means everything which has a beginning.

@SacrificialEquation you're conflating the counting numbers with the person counting. Give "everything" some context or it's far to easy to poke holes in it.

@candied_orange   Everything means everything except Nibbana.

@SacrificialEquation Unless you're saying the counting numbers are part of Nibbana that doesn't fix the logic problem.

@candied_orange Maths says there are infinite numbers but numbers are realised finitely…

@SacrificialEquation so you're saying "everything" means "everything realized". Which of these 4 definitions of realized are you using?

@candied_orange yes. I mean everything realised.

@SacrificialEquation I'll ask you again. "Realized" has more than one meaning. Which one are you using?

@candied_orange Everything phenomenal is what I am talking about. That should be very clear. Look up dictionary to understand meaning of phenomena.

@SacrificialEquation I provided a link to dictionary definitions of realized. But now you're switching to another word. I'm not sure phenomena means what you want it to mean: "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question."

Observing numbers out to infinity

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning?

The dhamma doesn't say so -- translations of SN 15.9 say that samsara has no known or knowable beginning:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.009.than.html

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, ...

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.9/en/sujato

Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found ...

See also MN 72

Master Gotama, is this your view: ‘The cosmos is eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”

When my little brother and I quarrelled, we'd say to our Mum, "He started it!" and "No, he started it!, and she'd tell us, "I don't care who started it: you both have to stop."

AN 3.47 says so

@Yeshe Tenley, it looks like ChrisW was answering a different question, I updated his answer to make it more clear. If I am correct your comment does not apply.

Hmm. I am not understanding. Anything that has an end must be a fabricated/compounded/produced thing, right? If it is, then the Buddha explicitly says in AN 3.47 (which is 'the dhamma') that it can be seen to have a beginning, right? So it would seem to follow that the dhamma does say that 'that which has an end must have had a beginning'??
I won't rule out that I'm misunderstanding something, but I think there is a very important point here that can deepen understanding of sunyata: that 'beginnings' and 'ends' and 'ceasing' etc are themselves fabricated things

This is Nagarjuna's point in chapter 7 of MMK. If you don't understand that arising, ceasing, beginnings, ends, etc are themselves fabricated things then this can lead to a seeming contradiction between SN 15.9 and AN 3.47

I think ChrisW's point in this answer is that Samsara has no beginning and yet it has an end. So there's clearly at least one case when something can have an ending without having a beginning. But also, see my answer for an explanation of how it's not really about beginning but rather about renewal and new arising.

If Samsara is a fabricated thing then the Buddha says in AN 3.47 that it had a beginning. That seems to contradict SN 15.9. I know how I would resolve this seeming contradiction, but I wonder if it would differ from yours and/or @ChrisW's resolution. That's what I'm trying to say.

Asked a question ... https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49731/is-there-a-real-contradiction-between-an-3-47-and-sn-15-9

@Yeshe Tenley, as I understood, uppāda, the word used in AN 3.47 means more like production or generation than a one time arising. This may be a way out of this conundrum.

Hmm... Not sure how that might work. First, even if the words are different between 'uppada' and 'beginning of samsara' you still have to face that samsara/transmigration - if it is a compounded thing - must have had an uppāda right?

Must have an ongoing continuous utpada. Not "have had".

When SN 56.11 says: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation", what is the important matter here is the "cessation" because the essential revelation of SN 56.11 is the cessation of suffering.
In other words, while SN 56.11 pointed out the type of suffering called 'birth' is conditioned by craving, attachment & becoming; the essential matter of the teaching is the cessation of suffering. SN 56.11 is not explaining there is birth after death. It is only explaining all of the conditioned suffering that arises/originates can be subject to complete permanent cessation.

All products have a beginning. All products are composite.
Being composite they are subject to continual change (anicca).
Being subject to continual change means that they will end.
What about non-products?
Cessations, absences, and space are all non-products.
Being non-composite, they are not subject to continual change.
Both absences and space may still end, though, (for example, the absent mother returns after a day of work).
Cessations do not end. That is what is meant by a cessation: It has ceased to be.  (For example, the mother who died).
Yet cessations begin.  (For example, the moment that the mother died).
It follows:
All products have a beginning and an end.
Some non-products have a beginning and an end.
Cessations have a beginning but no end.
(Sautrāntika Abhidharma, as presented by Jang-gya's "Presentation of tenets")

Yes, the reverse of that truth is actually very useful. That's exactly what the Four Noble Truths come from: in order to end something we must understand its beginnings.
But let's analyze it in detail.
First of all, the original saying in Buddha-Dharma is not exactly "Everything that has a beginning must have an end". The original saying uses slightly different words, it seems similar on the surface but has a rather different meaning in depth.
The original is,

yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti
SN 35.74

or

"whatever has a nature of samudaya -- all that has a nature of nirodha"

Samudaya is from sam + ud + i, literally “together + up + go”. It has a meaning of composition, coincidence, junction, i.e. an emergent effect of multiple causes and conditions coming together. Also the meaning of Samudaya is not confined to momentary beginning, it's more like sourcing or continuous generation. Consider a fire that keeps generating the heat as long as the firewood remains together.
Nirodha is NOT an antonym of samudaya, it does not imply falling apart! Instead, it comes from ni + rodha, literally "no + fence". It has a meaning of arresting, blocking, suppressing, preventing, confining, i.e. not letting something harmful to come and get us.
So the meaning of the saying is: all phenomena produced from combinations of causes and conditions can be stopped and prevented. And of course the phenomena we are talking about are various kinds of dukkha and it's predecessors or precursors: conflicts, wars, misunderstandings, diseases, pandemics, the global warming and so on.
If we try to reverse this truth, by starting with Nirodha and going back, we can say: look, we have this phenomenon that we want to stop, and we don't want a new one like this to arise again in the future, how can we do that? And looking backward to its Samudaya we can say: let's try and understand the composition of this phenomenon, what causes and conditions it comes from. Then, once we find the necessary conditions, we can say: removing these conditions will stop and prevent arising of the phenomenon. And then we can come up with a methodical plan for doing that.
Reminds of anything? Of course, because these are the Four Noble Truths! Turns out, they are based on this very principle: in order to nirodha something we must understand its samudaya.
There are two famous sayings in Buddha-Dharma:

"All composed phenomena are impermanent."
"Whatever comes together can be stopped and prevented."

— These are two sides of the same coin. The first one is the passive outlook where we find ourselves as the victims of the cosmic order. The other one is the active outlook of someone ready to be the master of his or her destiny.

See below also for AN 3.47 where the Buddha declared explicitly that all compounded things can be seen to arise, endure and then cease.

I'm not sure whether it's important to know how a thing started, or whether it's only how a thing continues, i.e. what sustains it. I mean fire stops when you remove the fuel or air, right, it doesn't matter how or when it began?

Sure, but I was trying to tie my answer with the colloquial language used by the OP.  By the way, uppāda, the word used in AN 3.47 means more like production or generation than a one time arising. This may be a way out of this conundrum. We must understand how phenomenon is renewed, if you wish.

I will answer this from a different angle. To an ant, many things seem permanent and everlasting. To us, a beginning and ending of things are more discernible. This ability to discern a start and end (and even a restart) increases as we go up the samsaric realms; the beings in higher realms with their longer lifespans would easily observe the birth, death and rebirth of beings in lower realms. But all these consciousness are nonetheless conditioned with their constraints. To reach a consciousness that is without constraints, a being must attained to enlightenment and transcend to the consciousness without surface.
So, this answer sort of twisted the question around by asking what are the constraints on consciousness that prevents it from being aware of any beginning or ending (or any cyclic existence)? As any beginning or ending (cyclic or not) that is beyond the constraints of consciousness is unknowable. Therefore, I think we should instead focus on such constraints and see if there is indeed one that is free from all conditions.

The Teacher said:

“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN 3.47

Alternative translation

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.
AN 3.47

Another translation from Tibetan canon:

Oh monks, these three are
the characteristics of the produced: The arising of the produced is seen; the ceasing of the produced is seen; that which endures is also seen transforming.
Ocean of Reasoning

This is the relative truth. If you are looking for the ultimate truth Nagarjuna has:

A state does not make
That state itself cease.
Nor does one state
Make another state cease.
Since for no entity
Is arising tenable,
For no entity
Is ceasing tenable.
For an existent entity
Cessation is not tenable.
A single thing being an entity and
A nonentity is not tenable.
Moreover, for a nonexistent entity
Cessation would be untenable.
Just as a second head
Cannot be cut off.
Cessation does not exist through itself.
Nor does it exist through another.
Just as arising is given rise to
Neither by itself nor by another.
Since arising, enduring, and ceasing
Do not exist, there are no produced things.
If no produced things exist,
How could the unproduced exist?
Like a dream, like an illusion,
Like a city of gandharvas,
So have arising, enduring,
And ceasing been explained.

That last part again comes from the Teacher who taught:

“Form is like a lump of foam,
Feeling like a water bubble;
Perception is like a mirage,
Volitions like a plantain trunk,
And consciousness like an illusion,
So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.
SN 22.95