text:
What is known about enlightenment before the lifetime of the Buddha? Are there any claims that he was the first?
I am a non-Buddhist who is curious about Buddhism.
In modern times, Eckhart Tolle reports spontaneous awakening as a result of a sudden realisation that came out of intense suffering. As far as I am aware he was uninfluenced by Buddhism and underwent none of its training or techniques.
I understand that the Buddha sat under a tree "until he was enlightened". This suggests to me that he knew of the phenomenon beforehand.
Are there any claims that he was the first to achieve this state? What, if anything, do we know historically of the phenomenon of enlightenment before the life of Buddha?

Good householder,
there had been serial Buddhas before our Gotama Buddha. In a world/cosmos-period there might appear a Samma-Sambuddha who is capable to point out the way out of suffering, Samsara. When there is no full self-awakened Buddha and the Dhamma (his teaching) is unknown, there may appear so called Paccekabuddhas (Privat-Buddhas), who, althought having found the way out by themselves, are not capable to teach the path in sufficient way for others. While a Samma-SamBuddha apears or his Dhamma through direct originated disciples (Sangha of recluses) is still alive in the world awakened people (Arahats) would just arise within his Sangha, join his fellowship, hold refuge into the heritage.
There might be such as the first stages of awakening without having come direct contact with the Tripple Gems, but such happens just for those who might have gained certain access in previous existances and in every case such "reborn minor awakened" would join the Sangha.
Paccekabuddhas would not appear as long as a Sublime Buddhas teaching is still alive.
Collection of text which provide ideas about "our" Sublime Buddhas life might be found here.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever world-binding trade but for an escape from this wheel.]

Gautama Buddha had various teachers in using different paths to seek his spiritual goal, but in each case he found those other ways defective. He wished to find a way to end the suffering of all beings, so after trying those other paths, he sat under the Bodhi Tree with the firm intention to not get up until he had found what he was looking for. And he succeeded.
There are different degrees of enlightenment, and there are different ways of describing the stages, so it is hard to compare, but the Buddha’s enlightenment is recognized by his followers as being the most profound—certainly more profound than that of Eckhart Tolle, based upon Tolle’s description of his. This is not a denigration of Tolle. It’s just a recognition that there are differences in attainments.
Enlightenment is a potential of all beings, and there are many paths to reach it. In Buddhism there are many Buddhas spoken of, who came before Gautama Buddha, and some that will come after him. As well, there are enlightened Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas. In other spiritual traditions, there are many enlightened beings spoken of as well.
The Buddha had to make his own way forward and he taught his followers so that they could find their way to enlightenment too. It’s easier to succeed if you have a teacher, but it’s not necessary. This is an important point. The Buddha found his way—finally—without a teacher.
However, without a qualified teacher there are many pitfalls and even danger that one might succumb to, without the wisdom of a guide. The Buddha succeeded, but would we have known of him if he hadn’t? There are presumably many other enlightened beings throughout history that did not teach, and who had no teacher to recognize their attainments. What if the Buddha had never shared his accomplishment with others—would he still have been known? Perhaps he would have been seen as just a crank mumbling about gibberish, and quickly forgotten.
See: “A Life of Buddha” by Asvaghosha Bodhisattva, Sacred Books of the East, Edited by Max Müller, Vol. XIX, 1968
And: Manjushri’s Summation, Chapter Two, Surangama Sutra, on Medium.com: https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-ce0017f10d2b?source=friends_link&sk=72d18baf4c053717a13c8463297c6240
Also see my article on The Danger Inherent in Modern Secular Meditation
Modern secular meditation focuses on techniques taken from ancient spiritual traditions, while jettisoning their deep wisdom born of long experience working with practicing meditators over centuries.
Friends link: https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/the-danger-inherent-in-modern-secular-meditation-2a2fe0617ffd?source=friends_link&sk=3feb7a775cd31c2e60c8afff38031f64

In modern times, Eckhart Tolle reports spontaneous awakening as a
result of a sudden realisation that came out of intense suffering. As
far as I am aware he was uninfluenced by Buddhism and underwent none
of its training or techniques.

There are different types of realisations.Which one he went through I don’t know.

I understand that the Buddha sat under a tree "until he was
enlightened". This suggests to me that he knew of the phenomenon
beforehand.

There were many Buddhas before Gautam Buddha. And there is a Buddha yet to come.Buddha shows us the path , makes us understand it , himself demonstrates it. But that doesn’t mean a Buddha takes a lesson from another Buddha. He himself discovers it.

"that doesn’t mean a Buddha takes a lesson from another Buddha". That is very interesting to me. My impression is that many students believe that lessons and practice as prescribed by experts is the only way forward. They seem to me to follow rules of Buddhism rather than anything else.  I now have even more questions! Thank you for this answer.

Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first. In the Diamond Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha said:

...before I met Dipankara Buddha, I had made offerings to and had been
attendant of all 84,000 million Buddhas...


text:
The "cow-keeper"-story?
My person remembers a possible common know story about a Brahman collecting as much as possible cow's leading to sorrows for poor. The Sublime Buddha approached him one day, gave a talk and later he released the cows.
It might be that's just a later tale not found in the scripts, my person just does not remember where having been come across aside in an illustrated "Children"-book.
Good if one likes to share messages on livelihood.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel]

"Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel" What does this mean?

That is isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel, maybe?

That's what you said, but what does it mean?

Which word does good householder not understand?

The following is somewhat like the posted question, but not exactly:

SN35.241:7.4: Sir, may I receive the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence?”

SN35.241:7.5: “Well then, Nanda, return the cows to their owners.”

SN35.241:7.6: “Sir, the cows will go back by themselves, since they love their calves.”

SN35.241:7.7: “Still, Nanda, you should return them to their owners.”

Here the Buddha emphasizes ethics in our relationships with others. The Noble Path starts with Right View.

ethics, relationship, SC... ironical, or, cow-release? Maybe good for feedback their. Sadhu for welmeant effort anyway, but Atma guesses being a commentary-story, Upasaka Karl.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Weird experience during meditation
I had a weird experience couple of days ago while doing meditation, I hope someone more expert than me could help me understand.Two months ago I started practicing 30 min of yoga and 30 min of mindfulness meditation daily, everything was going good and I felt some changes in me, little by little, I felt I was becoming kind of more aware of myself and my thoughts were slowly become less strong in my mind as I was slowly able to focus deeply inside myself. The other day while I was in a deep state , without thoughts I felt something at the bottom of my spine become hotter and hotter and all of a sudden a warm powerful energy moved upward my back. I immediately felt an intense feeling of ecstasy (as I would take drugs), my head started to spin and I lost balance. Also I had a strong sense of nausea and I had diarrea. I also felt that something was released at the level of my hips. At that point I got really scared and I opened my eyes but the feeling was still there, I felt really peaceful , complete absence of thoughts and like if I was completely extraneous of my body and nothing in life was really important anymore. Also I noticed my senses were a lot more accurate. That feeling decreased a bit over the night and the day after I wakes up completely in hang over, and I remember I could see the colours a lot more bright, and I was really sensible to light. I got really scared From this experience and I’m not able to do meditation anymore , I feel like that if I dig a little bit inside me I can “touch” that  energy again but I don’t want to!can someone explains what happened to me ? Sorry for my bad English , I’m not native English speaker. Cheers

It’s called a “kundalini awakening” in yoga, and “tummo” in Tibetan Buddhism. Seek out a qualified teacher who can guide you through this, as it is both a beautiful and a possibly dangerous event. You can get lost in it and suffer various emotional or motivational problems, but properly harnessed it can launch you into major spiritual advancements. The key is to understand what is happening to you and how you work with it. But be careful, as many yoga teachers are ill-prepared to help with something so profound, as ‘modern’ yoga practices are often focused more on external body forms, rather than on energy movements in the subtle energy body.
Congratulations, and good luck.

I agree with James.
You are describing something normal, there is nothing to worry about. You probably did some nice progress, so congrats about that.
If you can talk with a teacher, that would be great. If you can't, then be kind to yourself and remember that it's normal, so there is no reason to worry about it or get too attached to it.
Your English is really good by the way.

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


text:
How is consciousness measured?
There is a sphere of infinite space and there is sphere of infinite consciousness.
It is easy to comprehend what is infinite space is but it is not clear what is meant by infinite consciousness?
Does it mean infinite history of experience?
Or does it mean infinite presence of sentient beings with consciousness?

To ask such a question on Buddhism SE actually implies that one already knows and has faith that the infinite consciousness will answer.  :D

@OyaMist Are you personalizing infinite consciousness as a separate power?

Here there is only infinite consciousness talking to itself grasping at nothing.

In MN121 the Buddha explains his step by step method for achieving Liberation or Nirvana. This method relies on the gradual removal or abandonment or "giving up" of objects and any boundaries/limits, any separation, any division. First, the gross objects/limits/separation is removed, then medium-gross objects/limits/separation is abandoned, then subtle objects/limits/separation is "given up", and this process of incremental iterative refinement is repeated and perfected all the way until Final Liberation.
This process can be compared with a loop in a software program, a cycle:
var A = AttendTo(any object);
repeat until(A==Nirvana){
    var notA = FindComplement(A);
    A = AttendTo(A + notA);
}

On each iteration of this loop our current object is A. Next, we find its counterpart, the NOT A. Next, we combine the total of A + NOT A and make that our new A. This is repeated until Nirvana.
The first step of that process is to start where you are. Let's say you are looking out of your window and see a parking lot with cars and people. When you focus on one of those people, that's an A. When you focus on another person, that's another A. Any single person or any car can be your object. Then you try to find the counterpart (or the mathematical complement) of that A, the NOT A. If you take one member of a mathematical set, then the complement is the rest of that set. If you take any one object (person or car) on the parking lot, then its complement is everything else on that parking lot except that first object. Next step is to put together A + NOT A and make that your new A. When we combine our first person with the rest of the parking lot, the resulting A = A + NOT A is "the entire parking lot". This is the end of the first iteration.
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire parking  lot". The NOT A is the rest of the world. The A + NOT A is "the entire planet".
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire planet". The NOT A is the rest of the universe. The A + NOT A is "the Infinite Space". The reason it's called "infinite" or "boundless" or "limitless" is because it is spatially all-inclusive without any borders or separation. It is our first serious attempt at attaining an undivided meditation object.
The next iteration is when our A is "the Infinite Space". This is where it gets a bit more tricky. What is the NOT A, what is the complement of the Infinite Space in an even broader context? Can we expand from the Infinite Space even further out? In other words, if the A of Infinite Space is one member of a larger set, then what could those other members be?
(...drum roll...)
The other members are all other phenomena, all other contents of our consciousness! Then A = A + NOT A is the entire consciousness with the entire totality of all its possible states and objects. When this becomes our new A, our new object of our iterative meditation refinement process, this stage is called "The Infinite Consciousness". Again, the reason it is called "infinite" or "limitless" or "unbounded" is because it is our new standard of all-inclusive undivided object of meditation.
The next iteration of this goes as follows. If A is The Infinite Consciousness, then what is its counterpart? What is beyond all phenomena, beyond all states of mind, all contents of consciousness? It is the complete absence of any content, complete Nothingness. This is our NOT A. And what is the superset of both A and NOT A? It is that which includes both "entire realm of conscious experience, with all its possible states" and "the complete absence of anything". This A + NOT A is called "the realm of neither (just) perception nor (just) nonperception", in other words it is the common ground for both consciousness and nothingness. But what is it, really? It is the point of view that comprehends all conscious experience as well as comprehends nothingness. It is the ultimate reference point.
Finally, taking this last object as an A, we need to work harder to find its complement. Could there be anything beyond the ultimate reference point that comprehends both consciousness and nothingness? It seems impossible to imagine. However, if you look very-very carefully you can realize that this ultimate reference point is nothing but a sign of "I", the sign of "subject". The complement of that A is complete cessation of I-making, complete cessation of being a point of view. Which means, it is complete cessation of interpretation, evaluation, discernment, and recognition, complete cessation of semiosis. This NOT A of "neither perception nor non-perception" is traditionally known as "cessation of perception and feeling". And if we combine these A + NOT A, that is if we find the common ground of both, then finally we are done.

Excellent explanation of the transition from known to knower to knowing which transcends all points of reference. I've been reading about this recently .Osho used to say that we can continually go from the object (rose flower) to the subject (that which is flowering) till midpoint.But let me highlight that methods are indicative of choice which can keep I invested with volition ,probability of getting stuck at one point in an infinite loop ,so in the dynamic life this requires maybe a specific time ,it cannot really fit in real-time  ,Otherwise I salute you for this amazing explanation .

Everything depending on their causes. If you want to know anything you need to know their causes and effects, so you should comprehend both spheres' dependent origination to understand them both.
What are you talking about is the object of consciousness. Consciousness in  30 spheres are knowing the object.
When the meditator meditated, did karma, infinite-space-meditation. This karma is going to create the only Nāma, resultant consciousnesses and mind factors. This Nāma has infinite-space illusion as object too. There are the other Nāma in Arūpa too, but not it's resultant. So...

There is a sphere of infinite space

It is a sphere of the consciousness being which knowing the object, infinite space.

there is sphere of the consciousness.

It is a sphere of the consciousness being which knowing the object, consciousness which knowing infinite space.
What is infinite space?
The infinite space is the special illusion which created by the 4th jhana master's mind when he practice infinite space jhāna.
Without the fourth jhāna, you can not create this illusion by yourself.
Why it is called in finite space?
Because the forth Jhāna master uses the space between Kasina to be basis of this Jhāna and because this is no matter, Rūpa, so the forth Jhāna master must ignore Kasina, which basing on Rūpa, by knowing only space illusion.
What is infinite consciousness?
There is no infinite consciousness actually. In the KN. Patisambhidamagga's commentary there is two definition...

anantaṃ viññāṇanti taṃyeva ‘‘ananto ākāso’’ti pharitvā pavattaṃ viññāṇaṃ ‘‘anantaṃ viññāṇa’’nti manasikarontoti vuttaṃ hoti. manasikāravasena vā anantaṃ. so hi taṃ ākāsārammaṇaṃ viññāṇaṃ anavasesato manasikaronto anantaṃ manasi karoti.

The consciousness which knowing the consciousness as object. This object is consciousness which knowing infinite space, so it is called infinite-(space-object-)-consciousness.

The consciousness which knowing uncountable  consciousness as object. This object is uncountable
space-object-consciousness, so it is called infinite-(space-object-)-consciousness.

It is easier to go to Pa-Auk forest monastery to practice it directly
But if you want to understand by reading, see the path of verification in SamādhiNiddesa.

I am asking what is infinite consciousness? I am not asking to know the conditions depending on which the perception of infinite consciousness arises. Make me understand what is infinite consciousness and not how it came to be... Hope I am clear.

I edited the answer.

To measure is to assess. Consciousness exists to assess, to make choices. One assesses to gain more. Gaining more, consciousness grows. The measure of consciousness is what we gain.

DN15:15.2: Suppose there were totally and utterly no assessing for anyone anywhere. When there’s no assessing at all, with the cessation of assessing, would desire and lust still be found?”

Suffering creates limits:

SN41.7:6.2: Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.

So we have then an apparent paradox with "infinite consciousness." How can consciousness be infinite if it is limited by assessment?
Infinite consciousness cannot be measured or assessed because any such measurement or assessment would be a limit. But infinite consciousness can be perceived.

AN9.41:13.10: ‘Suppose that, seeing the drawbacks of the dimension of infinite consciousness, I were to cultivate that. And suppose that, realizing the benefits of the dimension of nothingness, I were to develop that. It’s possible that my mind would be eager for the dimension of nothingness; it would be confident, settled, and decided about it. And I would see it as peaceful.’

I am no pali expert but the English translation says that there is a perception of infinite consciousness. What does infinite means ? Infinite means something without a boundary. In a sense infinite measures. It measures the boundlessness. Suppose I say Infinite Space , what does that mean? It means I occupy a space which is without boundary in any direction. Of course this space is anatta but it is nevertheless found as a perception. Perception of the size of space and consciousness is integral part of knowledge gained by the meditator.

"Beyond measure" is indeed a measure. But it's also a measure without increase.:D

interesting observation...

Please keep in mind my answer comes from my personal experience alone, and not from a study of Buddhist texts. Also, I want to establish terminology because conversations like this can get very confusing if we aren’t extremely clear about what we are talking about.
When I say consciousness, I am talking about a specific sensate experience I can most directly explain as a combination of lucidity and identification. In my experience, consciousness is impermanent. When I am conscious, I am most likely observing thoughts who’s content kick off a process of identification (I am this not that, etc). I identify as a particular aspect of experience when conscious. In a deep sleep when I am aware of only awareness itself, consciousness is not present. But once the automatic process of self identification occurs upon waking, consciousness tends to arise.
The quality of “lucidity” that is present in consciousness is one that I can only describe as “the will or ability to act”. When I am lucid, I feel as if I now possess the ability to freely act, like during waking experience. When I am not lucid, I feel experience and actions are occurring autonomously, like during a dream.
Based on my definitions I would say the following.
When I am in a deep sleep, I am aware but not conscious. There are no experiences to identify as and I have no will to act.
When I am dreaming I am aware but not conscious. There are experiences to identify with, but there is no will to act.
When I am lucid dreaming I am aware and conscious. When I am awake I am aware and conscious. In both there are experiences to identify as and I have the will to act.
So to finally answer your question now that terminology has been laid down.

It is easy to comprehend what is infinite space is but it is not clear what is meant by infinite consciousness? Does it mean infinite history of experience? Or does it mean infinite presence of sentient beings with consciousness?

In my experience, it doesn’t mean either of the options you suggested, if I’m understanding you properly.
Whenever infinite space and infinite consciousness are paired together in conversation, I always immediately think of the altered states of consciousness that arise during deep concentration meditation. Specifically two particular Jhanas.
Infinite space is very clearly known during what I call the 5th Jhana. In this state, most of the 6 senses have dropped away, but I am left with a feeling of being a single point of consciousness, sitting within an infinite space. I physically feel the experience of space all around me, that seemingly goes on forever. The experience of consciousness is very small in this state in comparison to the experience of space.
Now in the 6th Jhana, I experience what I would call “infinite consciousness”. In this state, the single point of consciousness shifts into the space. Consciousness no longer feels like a point within space, but feels as if the entirety of infinite space is conscious/who I am. Some people describe it like the space becomes luminous, which I wouldn’t disagree with. If the previous state was described as “a point of consciousness within a sphere of infinite space”, this state would be described as “a sphere of infinite space that is conscious”.
There are other explanations of what could be meant by infinite consciousness, but they are normally talked about by people with different definitions of consciousness. When people talk about infinite consciousness from the pre-enlightenment perspective, This is what I believe they are referring to.

Although I do not agree with the answer, I think it is a good attempt. Consciousness is that through which we experience pain and pleasure. Without consciousness there is no experience of pain or pleasure. For example when we loose consciousness in an accident we do not experience any pain..we experience only when we regain our consciousness.

“a sphere of infinite space that is conscious”...by this do you mean you rxperience consciousness outside of body-mind?

@TheWhiteCloud from my perspective, awareness is the “source” of dependent origination. we label and divide awaress into the 6 senses. our interpretations of the content within our 6 senses brings rise to all conceptual phenomena, including the distinction of the senses. by the statement i mean within awareness, an experience of feeling/touch arises id classify as spaciousness. This spaciousness is experienced not as external or internal, but as your source of being. In the moment, I am not experiencing any sight, thoughts, feelings, etc that can be interpreted to be the body or mind.

@SacrificialEquation from my perspective, you are describing the natural impermanence of the 6 senses. I see consciousness as a process that unfolds through other phenomena, not as something that actually exists. Either way, I hope my perspective was helpful in some way! Good luck on the path brother

@TheWhiteCloud We as humans tend to chop up and conceptualize phenomena and make things more complicated as we add layers. Instead of viewing existence simply, we create concepts that obfuscate the true nature of reality. Going from source down, the mapping looks something like this: Awareness->6 Senses->The World. The 6 senses live within awareness. The senses can not exist if there is no awareness of them. The body, mind, and material world all live within the 6 senses. Without feeling, hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, and thinking, you would be unable to know the body, mind, or world.

@w33t Good answer.

As i understand it, It is like perception of infinite space but without the space.  There is then only the conception & perception of a boundless pleasantness.
There is the concept of infinity in play, consciousness is delineated due to the pleasantness of it's [boundless] perception.

Good householder,
infinitive means that it has no border, no end, not even a perception of such. And like Upasaka Vorapol (Bonn) tried to transmit. Coming from a merely outwardly infinitive perception of space, the object, one turns at this stage toward the "subject", the consciousness, that of what knows, be aware of, mind.
And of course, at least philosopical, infinitive is not measureuable.
Of course one can categorize diverent perceptions, individual, conventional...transcendent and sort them into minor and more sublime, like as from blurry to sharp.
After infinitive "mind at knowing" one turns to even more sublime perceptions, giving up knowing as well.
To get things really known, one needs to practice: Sila, Dana, Bhavana (reflecting the heard Dhamma). Concentration is something that has a cause, would not arise without. So one concentrates on give the cause for it.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for escape from this wheel]

These two infinite spheres that you ask about are the same.
They are the same because they are imaginative attempts to conceive of something about reality: one which you say you can comprehend, and the other you ask about so that you can comprehend it.
They are the same because ultimately, they speak of reality, which has no pieces, aspects, parts, characteristics, etc. Only that which is held to occupy space is like that.
You say you can comprehend infinite space but that is not reality. It is an artifact of modern science which conflates infinite time and space together as spacetime in order to attempt to define the ‘laws’ of motion of things that inhabit space-time. Thus you see it as something that will take ‘forever’ to traverse. If that is what you want to comprehend, you should seek out Physics Stack Exchange.
You have trouble with “infinite consciousness” because you have been confused by scientists who, limited by their understanding of reality as just a big space-time filled with things that interact physically, consciousness must be in the brain. Thus, how can it be infinite.
But these two ‘spheres’ mean “not-limited”. What is not limited? Even the universe of science has edges, and thus, limits. So in that realm, you must always envisage another ‘level’ of reality that contains the lower level.
“Not-limited” means not conceptualizable, not comprehensible, by intellect.
To properly understand these statements about that which is not limited by the intellect, which are made, not in an attempt to describe something, but rather, to point the way forward for the understanding as it develops through a meditative practice, is to meditate, meditate, meditate.
And that process is unlimited in what it can bring.

Consciousness cannot be measured. Because all is measured by itself, but measured things cant measured the instrument of measurement i.e. consciousness.
Consciousness is a pool of whole, we are part of that. When individual consciousness ceases altogether, with cessation of I, it finds itself a part of universal consciousness. So, then question of coming & going, being & nonbeing ceased totally.
He see all beings are part of him. He doesn't harm any creature with his body, mind and speech.
(Human beings are exactly the same, wherever you go. We are one single unit, but due to ignorance perceive different than others. That's where the work of Religion starts, to bind the world together as one family.)
Peace!

After a long wait , I gained some understanding of the meaning of infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness means infinite mental fabrications. This includes historical , momentary, conceptual, phenomenal etc.
There are as many fabrications as there are dictionaries and any kinds of combinations of the words. Therefore consciousness is infinite.

What about all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who lived in the past? Have you comprehended their minds to know thatKiṃ te, sāriputta, ye te ahesuṃ atītamaddhānaṃ arahanto sammāsambuddhā, sabbe te bhagavanto cetasā ceto paricca viditā:those Buddhas had such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”‘evaṃsīlā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃdhammā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃpaññā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃvihārī te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃvimuttā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipī’”ti?
“No, sir.”
https://suttacentral.net/dn28/en/sujato
I asked a similar question in Dhamma Wheel.
Can stream of consciousness naturally come to an end?
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36287&hilit=Infinity+consciousness

The answer is nowhere close to what I asked. I am asking what is meant by infinite consciousness? Infinite is a numerical quantity. Boundless. But in what sense ? In what sense is consciousness boundless?

@SacrificialEquation Infinite is not a numerical quantity  Infinity is an abstract notion.

@TheWhiteCloud Do you want to debate the technicalities or seriously try to give me a picture of Infinite consciousness? (BTW have you solved infinite series sums in maths or sums of infinite in integral calculus .... I am not an idiot...we will discuss infinity in maths some other day ... for present day understand it as boundless... I have made clear what I wish to understand..)

@SacrificialEquation chill bro....i have solved series and integrals...doesnot help here...quiet a while back ruben2020 asked this question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41378/are-the-higher-arupa-jhanas-supernatural-states-expanding-beyond-the-physical-bo?r=SearchResults based on our discussion. This question in complete is similar to yours. The answers are not satisfactory. IMO only way to know for sure is by getting thrre.


text:
Because of which element the world has come together?
The world seems to have come together. We have United Nations which is a symbol of the unity of the nations.However things come together because of an element.  That element can be greed or aversion or delusion or education or faith or love or anger... etc...
Therefore I would like to ask : Because of which element the world has come together?

Craving. Refer to SN 12.44....

Similar food, tendency, is why being gather together again and again, good householder. The virtuous, the smoker, the hunters, the Balas...
The lower the preferences, the larger the gatherings, naturally and vici versa.
People, place of dwelling, food, whether... those are matters of Upanissayapaccaya (strong condition causes), developed over long, long time and hard to leave that wheel...
That is why the is so much message in the Mangala Sutta.
And what are the highest uniforms? Stream-enter dwelling with Stream-enter... Arahats with Arahats.
Where ever one tends to, there he arrives.
Worlds come and presist by craving and not-knowing, since unimaginable beginning, time. For more on how world arises detail investigation of the secound Noble Truth will explain and the third, how this Dukkha dissolves.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, excange, other world-binding trades but for possibility to increase Upanissaya toward liberation from this wheel]

Because of which element the world has come together?

It'd require the mind capacity of a Sammasambuddha to be able to see all the necessary and sufficient elements and conditions for the formation of the world, kinda like it'd take scientists much time and effort to piece together all the elements needed for a seed to develop into a tree, which are many: root seed, water, soil conditions, sunlight, appropriate temperature, fertilizer and nutrients, etc...

The element you are searching for is Mahakaruna (Great Responsiveness):

The final attribute of emptiness to be mentioned is a quality peculiar to the Buddhist analysis: responsiveness. It is the third and final denominator in the list of categories or aspects by which emptiness can be defined: essence, nature, responsiveness. It appears anomalous, an attribute rather than a category. The third logical category is function, or manifest function, and the attribute found in its stead is responsiveness and its qualifier is all-pervasive. Viewed as a functional attribute of inner space, total presence, and light, the implication is that the dynamic, the intentionality, the purpose of being is compassion, which is a synonym of responsiveness and demonstrable as the responsive aspect of love. It is this compassion that is coextensive with space, the buddha-heart pervading all beings. Viewed as the potential form or manifestation of emptiness, the implication appears to be that every vibration of body, speech, and mind is a form of compassionate energy, nothing excluded. Consider the distinction between responsiveness and compassion. In Dzogchen, compassion is much more than the virtue of loving-kindness. Nor does the word compassion in the Dzogchen context denote its English etymological meaning, “suffering together” or “empathy,” although both these meanings may be inferred. Essentially, compassion indicates an open and receptive mind responding spontaneously to the exigencies of an ever-changing field of vibration to sustain the optimal awareness that serves self-and-others’ ultimate desire for liberation and well-being. The conventional meaning of compassion denotes the latter, active part of this definition, and, due to the accretions of Christian connotation in the West, response is limited to specifically virtuous activity. Responsiveness defines the origin and cause of selfless activity that can encompass all manner of response. On this nondual Dzogchen path, virtue is the effect, not the cause; the ultimate compassionate response is whatever action optimizes presence — loving-kindness is the automatic function of primal awareness.

Excerpt From: “The Flight of the Garuda,” by Keith Dowman, Wisdom Publications, 2003, pgs 37-38
Mahakaruna is realized through Great Responsiveness Meditation—the practice of Avalokitasvara. See: “Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö’s Prophecy of Things to Come” https://medium.com/p/c9e6e2c54f23


text:
Where can I read something more about Alara Kalama and Uddaka
I want to know more about Gautama Siddharta teachers,
I know only little about their philosophy and practice that are mentioned in suttas. (eg. Ariyapariyesana Sutta)
Is there any other texts which explains little more about them.

rht please check cht section 'Buddhsm1' room; pinging rht with @ sign doesnt seem to be going through  :)

Alexander Wynne writes about them in his book, The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. In particular, see chapter 2, which has the following introduction:

In some of the earliest biographies of the Buddha, it is claimed that the Bodhisatta was taught the ‘sphere of nothingness’ by Āḷāra Kālāma and the ‘sphere of neither perception nor non-perception’ by Uddaka Rāmaputta. Since these two persons do not appear outside the early Buddhist literature, their historicity is somewhat dubious. However, the two teachers have an incidental appearance in a number of early Buddhist texts besides the early biographies, and this supports the hypothesis that they really existed. In this chapter I will investigate the historical significance of all these passages; I hope to show that the two teachers really were historical persons, and that they almost certainly taught the Bodhisatta.

and the following conclusion:

In this chapter I have argued that the original (or at least the earliest extant) biographical account of the Bodhisatta’s awakening is found in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta. Its evidence suggests that Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta were historical persons, as was Rāma, the teacher of Rāmaputta. They probably taught the Bodhisatta, although this does not mean that the Bodhisatta did not try other methods. I therefore accept that Āḷāra Kālāma was situated in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu in Kosala as stated in the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta, and that the Bodhisatta’s act of renunciation was to join Āḷāra Kālāma's hermitage. Uddaka Rāmaputta was based in Magadha, probably in or near
to Rājagaha. The sources for these geographical locations (the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta and the Vassakāra Sutta) are trustworthy because the information in them is incidental: they have no hidden agenda. The goals of the two teachers—ākiñcañña(-āyatana) and nevasaññānāsaññā (-āyatana)—were thought by the teachers to be liberating, but the Bodhisatta rejected this. If this analysis is correct, it means that we have a knowledge of some events that occurred in the early part of the Buddha’s career. In the following two chapters, I will attempt to form an hypothesis about the intellectual development of the Buddha based on this historical understanding. In order to do this, it is important to establish the religious affiliation of the two teachers.

Can you please add some (main) portion of that article here.

@rht It's not a standalone article, but a chapter providing groundwork for the subject of the book (the origin of Buddhist meditation). I added key parts of the chapter, and a better link to the pdf.

Thanks for your kind effort for putting it here. But I have some doubt, this reference talks about location of both teachers and gives confirmation from the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta and the Vassakāra Sutta , but when I checked these two suttas I couldn't find any relation of there location there.

At the end of Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta, it does say 'Then Bharaṇḍu the Kālāma left Kapilavatthu' and It may be possible Kālāmas are caste or clan name of people at that time, also in Kalama sutta it is mentioned that they they mostly lives in Kesaputta (Kosala) not Kapilavatthu.

Actually my intention to ask this question was for understanding their meditation techniques in detail but thanks for your kind effort (you can also add meditation part from that book in your answer -- because that website may get expire in future) and please let me know if I misunderstood anything in above reference that you provided. :)

"Having gone forth in search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of sublime peace, I went to Alara Kalama and, on arrival, said to him: 'Friend Kalama, I want to practice in this doctrine & discipline.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

I remember reading this sutta earlier but even though thanks for posting, I found something else there which I was looking. :)

Please provide the link to what you found.

I'm not completely sure but reading this sutta I realised that even after practicing dimension of 'nothingness' and 'neither perception nor non-perception' still Siddharta has no insight of past lives etc. After he left these practices he started meditating as he used to when he was child, and after sometime he entered first - second - third - fourth jhana then he got knowledge of past livies etc. But still it doesn't mean we shouldn't practice these two techniques because they have their own importance.


text:
Clinging to Dhamma!
Is it way of Arhat, who does not cling to dhamma? By non-clinging even to dhamma, he set free?
Dhammas are diad, 1) Samudaya Dhamma and 2) Nirodha Dhamma.
I feel lost I think due to these:
1)view clinging: such as eternalism (e.g., "The world and self are eternal")
2)self-doctrine clinging: self-identification with self-less entities.
Can only monks attain Nirvana? Have I to renounce for cessation of clinging?
Please guide us. Thanks in advance!

Well... you know the answers!

(You said:) I have stumbled upon clinging to it, whenever I try to attach it, I
feel more desire. It's like root of pain inside. When I try to detach,
I feel more calmness.

Then clearly, an Arahant wouldn't get attached to dhamma.
I like to explain my experience this way:
Thinking something is better is unskillful. For example, "it's better to experience the taste of coffee than not experience any taste". "It's better to be a teacher". "It's better to know dhamma than not". "It's better to be an Arahant". Similarly, "it's better to not feel pain". "It's better to not be anxious". "It's better to not think". "It's better to not suffer".

Can only monks attain Nirvana? Have I to renounce for cessation of clinging?

I don't think so, I think becoming an Arahant doesn't depend on any external conditions like whether you live in a temple, a forest, or a large building. I know that in Diamond Way Buddhism the lama is lay and it's considered fully enlightened. But you'll get a variety of answers to this questions, I suggest you to test it for yourself.

I agree completely as you said, sir. Lay people and homeless both can achieve it. What question most is purity of mind and detachment. The four truth already there. One have to search for it. Many lay disciples in India have attain the fruit, like Kabir, Nanak, Tukaram and Ravidas. Thank you, for your wise answer.

Kabir suggested that Truth is with the person who is on the path of righteousness, considered all creatures on earth as his own self, and who is passively detached from the affairs of the world.To know the Truth, suggested Kabir, drop the "I" or the ego.

He said, 'passively' not 'Actively' is the word here to underline.

Is it way of Arhat, who does not cling to dhamma? By non-clinging even to dhamma, he set free? Dhammas are diad, 1) Samudaya Dhamma and 2) Nirodha Dhamma.

The Dhamma is commonly referred to as a raft that gets one across the sea of Dukkha and reach the other shore of Nibbana. Now while the raft must be let go of once one's reached his destination, there's the obvious danger of letting go of it prematurely midstream: one will drown!

Can only monks attain Nirvana? Have I to renounce for cessation of clinging?

No, not necessarily. While the monastic life apparently allows a much better more conducive environment to cultivate the Path, it ultimately depends on one's own effort and determination to get there, whether lay or monastic. There's no shortage of corrupted monks who hoard massive amount of wealth and break all the major precepts through relationship with many sexual partners, while there're lay folks who observe all the precepts and are way more advanced than their monastic counterparts in terms of spiritual progress.

Thank you sir, for answer. I agree totally. Thank you once again.

Far off to touch the topic yet not even able to give up house and go for the holly life, good householder, or? As for the practice nothing is more needed as strong clinging to the Dhamma, starting with Sila/Vinaya (to possible even arive, get in touch with it). If it might come to a point where all except the Dhamma has given up, then one needs to drop this as well, or better has no more need to carry it on.
(One could, seldom, very seldom, come till Arahata-phala while living an householder life, but latest then it would get impossible and if not joining the Sangha of monks, not possible to go forth, one may not live longer then a week, which of course wouldn't not touch one)
Have I to renounce for cessation of clinging? Yes. That's the path and explicitly one factor of right resolve, wouldn't work otherwise, not even Jhana could be attained, yet not speak of paths and fruits or even final release from all tasks for this world.
Maybe a helpful talk: The Essence of the Dhamma, good householder,and the Buddha didn't say that the path is an easy, burdenless (for desire for 'easy' going is the drive of defilements starting argue that letting go of the path would be the smart short-cut). Clinging strong to skillful, desire it, letting go of unskilful, not grasping after... this is right effort and when trouble arise, looking after it's real root, such as householding while after Arahatship.... useless and only painful as they are two ways and just one out.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding but to bind on Dhamma toward release from ths wheel]

Not satisfied with your answer sir. You hold clinging to dhamma. I have stumbled upon clinging to it, whenever I try to attach it, I feel more desire. It's like root of pain inside. When I try to detach, I feel more calmness. I am asking that.

This happens when your mind is washed away by stream of purity and one have insight. Then comes eyes of wisdom. Left and right eye of seeing, wisdom eyes. After that still there is root inside. I am asking that.

Maybe a helpful talk: The Essence of the Dhamma, good householder,and the Buddha didn't say that the path is an easy, brudenless. Clinging strong to skillful, desire it, letting go of unskilful... this is right effort and when trouble arise, looking after it's real root, such as householding while after Arahatship.... useless and only painful as there are two ways and just one out.

Sir, your talk always bound with home and homelessness. When one asking the wisdom, better stay calm when one know it not. How many Arhat have you seen, who died within weeks after attaining Nirvana? Sheer mysticism. What is there to left when 'I' is already dropped? Even thought of renouncing is already renounced. Colouring those garments are for fool, while those who have wisdom,  need not one.

Why would a smart one raise a basic question? That's useless if just seeking to maintain ones personal views. May good householder find conducts toward the paths of liberation by himself with ease.


text:
Buddhist views on talking with the dead? Is it possible?
In Tibetan Buddhist teaching it is stated that we will be in bardo state for 49 days before rebirth. So during this period we can still communicate with the dead?
What is the Buddhist view on this? Can the dead communicate with the living, for example via chimes (making sound notes that only the family member will know)?
Is it possible or just a joke?
In Tibetan Buddhism it's still possible, because i read their system on how to find the dead Dalai lama via a dream.
But based on my research, all experiment to communicate with the living one, which done by many famous people is failed.
For example:

Ian Stevenson promised will tell a code of the safebox to all the worker colleagues. Failed!
Houdini promise to do everything possible to communicate with his wife Bess Houdini. Also failed!
The Beatles also doing this experiment: they promise whoever die first will contact the living one. Also failed.
And many others

According to Theravada, you will be reborn immediately after your death. So if you communicate, you are communicating with the new being.

Good householder,
As Upasaka Sarath told and according to the truth and the Sublime Buddhas: after a breaking up of ones body, once giving up ones world, one (if not gained Arahatahood) reapears in the next world. So there are actually no death yet one does good to be reminded that very often be touched by former relative when listening, talking... and they, the death, are all around, some seen, some unseen.
Usually, untained mind, can only communicate in his common world, but it's not limited and possible to communicate even when "death", those former part of ones realm of existance, are fare or in other spheres of awarness.
Guess whom you are reading for now or why it was provided to met?
It's because of this that giving to and honor of ancestors plays a big role in traditional societies, for what one gives, one receives and you could be fast cut off and depend on gift of former relatives, having become a hungry ghost, even while alive. Current are ancestor times and it's by the giving of your former relatives toward the Sangha that you may gain this release here, if they would have done and to, it wouldn't meet you.
Don't neglegt the duties toward those before you and former beloved and supporter!
See also:

Offerings for hungry ghosts in Googleyana
Q&A Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead
Dhammavampire und hungrige Geister - Dhammavamps and hungry ghosts
P'chum Ben - Ahnengedenken / Honor of ancestors

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchabge, other worldbinding trades but for escape from this wheel, of course also always dedicated as a share of those having fallen in missery states and bound, uncapable to move]

Death is not the end of story. There are various planes of existence. After death rebirth occurs in one of those planes of existence depending upon craving. Rebirth can be spontaneous or through a womb.Dead can communicate with us when we are asleep or in rare cases when we are awake.
Western science wants progress and for that they have sacrificed spirituality.  Do not expect science to confirm communication with dead ever.


text:
Help with finding a specific sutta
I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how beings we meet in this life (family, friends, animals etc.) have all been our parents, friends, loved ones, pets etc. in previous lives. What sutta is that?
Thank you for your time.

From SN 15.14:

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. … It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

Good householder,
Who one actually meets is a matter of tendency, a matter of past and present upanissays-paccaya (strong condition/dependence causes). The meeting of other being is a matter of Upanissaya (strong condition/relation/foundation, giving into).

'Puggalokpi, upanissaya paccayena paccayo.' Upanissaya-Paccaya

It's because of relation being ones foundation, that one is wise in nourishing relation toward 'the Sublime', toward admirable people, and to turn away from those firmly caught in the world.
In case of preferring what's given not from world-binding sources but from the Triple Gems, from those heading or having already unrelated: Mata Sutta: Mother.

A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

One should be clear that it's hard to ever gain the path if no relation with the/a Sublime Buddha, with the Jewels.
Maybe also good on this topic are the effects of association:

Q&A What's the effect of association with outcasts?
Umgang mit Weisen pflegen - Association with the Wise
Association with the Devas - associated Rebirth
Association with pets - Associated rebith?

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for gain bound to relation toward escape from this wheel]


text:
SN 41:3,4 Where do these monks vanish to?
I was reading these two suttas and at the the end of both the monks seem to leave although Citta has offered to care for them. Is this a rejection of his Dana? Did Ven. Mahaka do something wrong by his display of concentration?

It should be not understood as "rejection" or disprove if offered isn't made use of, good householder, can have many reasons, often Vinaya. Ones act of merits (if meritorious intended) within such giving still presist and not touched by the receivers circumstances, deeds on it.
Noble Ones (as well those understanding Vinaya an following it) do not receive gift in return of having given Dhamma, their assistance, good householder. They avoid feeding ideas of interests in nourishment for relations. And they act in ways so that one hardly could say that they assist for a livelihood, good householder (especially the psychic power case would easy lead to bad reputation if accepting rewards, yet, because other dangers forbidden to provide such at all. Easy to be called "making favors (even for gain)" ). So it's general good and importand to make gifts in advance if wishing to do such.
Receiving a meal, for excample, after having taught the Dhamma, would be a transgression of the monk's rules. But the matter goes of course even deeper.
That's by the way the reason why common consumer hardly ever would perform high Dana with great fruit.
A giver who is actually not free from corruption gives to bind, if he gives in advance, suggest things to be "free" and the fools get trapped, of course not unwilling and innocent at all, as the pig searches for it's holder, disire for birth feeds death.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
How to deal with suffering and losing faith?
I came across this section by chance, and read another question by a person with misanthropic feelings. I read all the answers because I feel the same as her.
I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve?
Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11 virgins - depending on the belief.
I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all. Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.
Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

I did some editing to clarify stuff. If you feel the text is altered too much, please comment below.

I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism,
but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but
what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so
many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin
hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also
saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn
possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me
more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have
to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other
persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still
struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if
suffering is a tool to evolve?

Buddhism can be rather harsh in the way it describes suffering. Bottom line is that no one is free from suffering until one reaches enlightenment. Until then, we can try to make things easier for others and not least ourselves by following the noble eightfold path.
Regarding ourselves, buddhism reminds us that people are acting cruel due to their own pain. As such, cruelty is the evidence of suffering of the person committing cruel things.
The idea is that if we can develop compassion - even for the ones committing cruelties - we are in fact going easier on ourselves for preventing the development of even more aversion towards other peoples cruelty. Everyone benefits from this, but it takes a lot of effort.

Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't
help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or
psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just
another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11
virgins - depending on the belief.

Maybe enlightenment is possible in conjunction with the fact that we are chemical, biological and psychological beings? I'm not sure i see the opposition.

I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and
i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the
suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all.
Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense
of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be
around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.

This is true. Committing to helping others may be the least bad option for everyone.

Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically
because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

Just don't forget to take a break every now and then.

what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans
Humans mistreating animals used to bother me when I was younger. Now when I think of it, I think that animals mistreat other animals too -- there are predators, parasites, bullies in the animal world -- and if humans do the same then that's just humans being like animals, which needn't be too surprising. You can try to be "better" or to do better than that yourself, for example "kinder" -- but your being "misanthropic" maybe isn't the right way to do that.
Buddhism recommends states of mind as appropriate for social interaction -- the four brahmaviharas.
And the suttas are full of stories or examples of recommended ways to think and behave, recommended attitudes -- one that comes to mind is SN 35.88 where a monk describes a people with a reputation for being fierce and rough as being "civilised, very civilised"!
There is no enlightenment
I find that Buddhism suggests that "suffering" -- not physical pain, but mental anguish -- arises from a sense of loss: for example, losing loved ones (family and friends), losing wealth, health, reputation, losing pleasurable feelings, etc.
That was the type of problem for which I found Buddhism especially effective.
I'm not sure what you think "enlightenment" is.
I'm pretty sure from my own experience that there is such a thing as there being more, or less, (mental) suffering; better or worse (more or less ethical) behaviour; more or less mental concentration or absorption (not distraction) in the task at hand -- and looking back, remorse or no remorse resulting from your intentions.
I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up
There are a couple of Buddhist doctrines that might be relevant. One is expressed the opening verses of the Dhammapada:

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

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

So you ought to cultivate a "pure" state of mind -- both for your welfare and for the welfare of others.
Another thing is that Buddhism identifies many types of mental "impurity" -- see for example:

Three poisons
Kleshas or kilesas

I think that you're meant to be aware of these states as they arise, or aware of the suffering associated with the state -- and let it pass somehow (perhaps by figuring out what's causing it, and not attaching to or identifying with it, not viewing it as "right").
You may find it difficult or at least non-trivial, more specifically Buddhists tend to describe it as "gradual": it takes practice; and perhaps other factors like some knowledge of the doctrine, good friends (role-models) to learn from, and developing good mental habits and insight.
Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can
I think a big part of it might be recognising these mental impurities as being problems in themselves. For example, you might think that mental confusion is the result of inability to alleviate the suffering of animals, and that the suffering of animals is the problem -- and that to solve the confusion you need to solve the problem of cruelty to animals, which is currently beyond your ability. Instead you might need to recognise confusion itself (if and when it arises) as being a problem to be solved (or a state to be let go of), after which you might be more effective in doing whatever you can.
As for "faith" I'm not sure how that relates the question -- i.e. how faith used to motivate you and what you no longer have faith in. I guess I have faith in that the doctrine as I understand it seems intellectually sound (so it's understandable), and usable, effective.

You are the cause of your stress due to clinging, craving, desire and aversion.

→ The Four Noble Truths by John Haspel
You desire for everyone else to adopt your "do no harm" philosophy. This craving for how things should be causes self-harm. Other lives matter, but not more than your own.

Again, these are our choices when we want to stop choosing a painful behavior like depressing: (1) change what we want, (2) change what we are doing, or (3) change both.

→ Choice Theory by William Glasser
Instead of trying to end suffering externally, you can try to end it internally.

I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve?

Look at it this way, if all humans are terribly cruel beings, then odds are that we wouldn't be able to sit here casually relaxing and typing away. We'd be doing exactly what the animals are doing right now: the weak ones constantly seeking hiding places to avoid being eaten alive, while the strong ones are busy hunting and... eating the weaker ones alive! There's absolutely nothing special and innocent about living the life of an animal, which is a constant perpetual struggle to stay alive, to kill, or be killed. Sure, humans are notorious for doing unimaginably horrific things to everything around them, but beside the Gengis Khan, the Hitler, the Pol Pot, there're also the Buddha, the Gandhi, the Mother Teresa, etc. So to be fair to humans, while there's no animal that can match the cruelty of Genghis, Hitler, or Pol Pot, there'd neither be any that can match the wisdom, love, and compassion at the levels of the Budddha, Gandhi, or Mother Teresa! So, be grateful of this precious human life for we're truly are a unique class of animals that can think and self-contemplate, hence have the only shot at putting an end to this endless cycle of Samsara.

“Bhikkhus, suppose that this great earth had become one mass of water, and a man would throw a yoke with a single hole upon it. An easterly wind would drive it westward; a westerly wind would drive it eastward; a northerly wind would drive it southward; a southerly wind would drive it northward. There was a blind turtle which would come to the surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole?”

“It would be by chance, venerable sir, that that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, would insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole.”

“So too, bhikkhus, it is by chance that one obtains the human state; by chance that a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One arises in the world; by chance that the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines in the world.

“You have obtained that human state, bhikkhus; a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One has arisen in the world; the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines in the world.

“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’” ~~ SN 56.48 ~~

There are two reactions when encounter the reality of suffering, samvega arises: Saddha (faith) or getting cracy and act like a fool. So importand to get it right, good householder!
It's, good householder, to speak straight forward, simple ignorance and hypocrisy which leads good man to significant aversion toward others, especially because not seeing ones own cruel. Whom could, did good householder actually help (even out)?
All being depend on food, and all food has suffering of beings in advance. The most cruel killer is desire for sense pleasure. It's because of it that being harm and kill each other. And as the Buddha told: it's impossible that one stuck in mud (attached to pleasure of the senses) could help others out.
While the idea of leaving all behind - since whom to help: the rat or the snake - is actually a wise, one shouldn't do it with thoughts of aversion and ingratitude, but with the insight of the 1. Noble truth, Dukkha, and it's cause, imbedded in all common beings heart, and having come in touch with the teachings of the Buddha, with certain joy at the other side as well, that there is actually a way out of this nonsensical wheel of cruel for those with eyes and arosen effort.
It's a total waste live to try to fix something that can by nature not fixed since ones pleasure requires always dukkha before or after, the own and that of others. It's a total wast of live, one of an wordly hero, since their success would only please some and increase suffering for others as well. For some the fool Ghandi seems to be a hero, for others Pol Pot, but non of them, the beloved likely the current unbeloved, didn't at least cause even more suffering. Today the world is in the largest war eversince, but hardly is somebody aware of the killing fields around and burning, driven by the refuge of the fools, the most fatal hero, science and technology...
So may good householder be able to drop his foolish hypocrisy, himself still feeding on pain of others, and blessed to got known the Sublime Buddha, go and become not only free of suffering himself but also ending harming others right at the beginning till the end of the path.
Real heros, at least in all cases are making things not even worse, are really missing in this world and it's already more the full of those "heros" bond to home, stand, house, householders, attached to world, depending on satisfaction of the five sense.
For indeed the greatest fools are hypocritical people not seeing their back. So stopp this foolish way of thinking and go for and become a real hero, not another stacks & exchange fool nourishing on reputation and wasting merits away.
So here: Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
My person leaves also a very good talk from Bhante Thanissaro on the topic here behind: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada:

Popular interpretations of Buddhism today often ignore the importance of two powerful emotions, emotions that propelled the Buddha — and all those who have sought Awakening since — towards the goal of Awakening: samvega, a sense of urgency to escape the round of meaningless existence; and pasada, a clarity and serene confidence that allows one to proceed confidently towards the goal without lapsing into despair. In this short essay the author explores the meaning of these essential emotions and how we can encourage them to blossom in our lives.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but bond for an escape from this wheel, for use of those not blind]

The difference between the heaven of other religions and the "promises" of buddhism is that the results of the buddhist practice can be seen in this life, be it on the short term, or in the long term of practice.
All results will depends on your level of commitment and effort (not only in knowing the theory, but putting it in practice), and definitively the practice does not requiere to shut down your critical thinking: it can even support your practice by showing you where to focus, what to improve, what to keep doing and what to change, and to provide useful reasons and justifications for doing it so.
Kind regards!

I am glad that you care about animals and children but the world is way more cruel than you think. Humans are slaughtered. I guess you have not given a thought to it but sometimes head is taken away sometimes breath is taken away sometimes pride is taken away. It makes all the more necessary to spread the Truth of nibbana. Suffering of others and myself doesn’t make me disillusioned rather it makes me more enthusiastic about the teachings of Lord Buddha.


text:
Did infinite space had a beginning?
One of the absorption is of Infinite Space.
Did the dimension of Infinite Space had a beginning and therefore it is impermanent and non-self?
If yes then how much time did it took for this 'plane of existence' of infinite space to begin from 0 to infinity? Was it instantaneous?
(I will explain my second question in greater detail : suppose you leave planet Earth completely and all forms vanish then you enter dimension of infinite space ....my question is :this dimension of infinite space was always there and you just entered it or does it have a beginning and you entered it?)

The Buddha teaches the truths that lead to the end of suffering. That teaching clearly indicates that the perception of infinite space begins with the relinquishing of the perception of form.

MN121:6.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of wilderness and the perception of earth—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.

And since that perception of infinite space has a beginning, that perception also has an end:

MN121:7.2: Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness.  They understand:  ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of earth or the perception of the dimension of infinite space. There is only this modicum of stress, namely the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness.’

The chasing of perception is suffering. The perception of infinite space is impermanent, attractive, and unsatisfactory. It is a conditioned phenomenon.

SN8.4:3.1: “Your mind is on fire because of a perversion of perception.  Turn away from the feature of things that’s attractive, provoking lust.  See all conditioned phenomena as other, as suffering and not-self.

There is no known beginning to the perception of infinite space. As with transmigration, it can be relinquished for less suffering.

SN15.4:1.2: “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

Choosing to hold onto the perception of infinite space is a choice. And choices, born out of ignorance, are vital conditions for suffering.

Regarding the time taken for the arising of the knowledge of the dimension of infinite space, perception arises first and knowledge afterwards. Knowledge is not instantaneous:

DN9:20.2: “Perception arises first and knowledge afterwards. The arising of perception leads to the arising of knowledge. They understand,  ‘My knowledge arose from a specific condition.’

Also note that consciousness feeds on itself, so that knowledge itself can give rise to more perceptions. Such grasping is also a vital condition for suffering.

The dimension of infinite space is impermanent i.e. it rises and vanishes... second part of my question was :Does this rising and vanishing of dimension of infinite space happens instantaneously or does it take time ?

Thank you. Response updated for time.

Good householder can choose a beginning of the wheel, on a circle, where ever he likes, like if asking, "had his infinitive useless question a beginning?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape, an let go of this wheel]


text:
Consciousness - "Facets of One Entity"
I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are created by itself?
Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?
Could liberation be the realisation of this?

What kind of experience could confirm the premises you state could be the content of the realization you propose? I think we should be careful about not inferring ontological arguments from personal and subjective mystical experiences.

My experience is one of life and analytical meditation. In the scope of a human being I have an understanding bound by the mind continuum This informs my realizations. Therefore ontological arguments are as valid as subjective mystical experiences

What I meant to say is: what personal experience could tell us that all consciousness belong to one being? The Buddha criticizes other doctrines and wanderers that make conclusions about the nature of reality as whole based only on meditative and mystical experience. I think is not a coincidence that most schools teach about oneness of all consciousness, while the Buddha didn't. Why is that?

Interesting insight, my understanding is merely from my thoughts and meditation. Is there an alternative way of achieving this outcome? Imagine if a teaching, although true has parts metaphorically, covered by clouds, obscured because something else is required. Imagine being trapped in cyclic rebirth, but for a reason yet to be comprehended. Where an answer is plain to see but only when viewed from above the clouds??

That sounds more like Hinduism (especially Advaita Vedanta) and not Buddhism. You're better off asking this question in Hinduism.SE. For e.g. from the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14 : "Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears everything. In this way the Supersoul exists." and BG 18.61: "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy." i.e. God as puppeteer

Nice question; maybe as nonillusoriness develops & Reality is more seen, illusoriness reduces :)
Thank you  :)

I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity" and that in
itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity, and from
this the Entity is itself playful, and that all actions (karma's) are
created by itself?

No. There is no ONE entity.

Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?

Consciousness is Anatta. It is not me , mine or myself. Neither is it somebody else's consciousness.

Is there not One True entity that derives all? If all things are dependent arisings, what is left is nothingness or emptiness. How is it known that there is no One Entity?

@Wayne  Yes there is a dimension of nothingness but even that is Anatta...

Fascinating, may I ask how you know this?

@Wayne Buddha says so ... Sabbe Dhamma Anatta

Thank you for your insight

@Wayne please accept it as answer if you are satisfied...thanks

Could liberation be the realisation of this?

Liberation occurs after reality is observed for the first time without the lense of belief. As you know from the Buddha’s teachings, reality is not what it seems, for we provide many layers of assumptions that prop up the world as we know it. To see clearly through the illusion, we must prove these beliefs to be false, using our own direct experience.

I wonder if 'Consciousness' is many "Facets Of One Entity"

In my experience, there is some truth in what you are saying, although your follow up questions lead me to conclude you have not yet experienced your theory. Remember you can not think your way to enlightenment, so just continue to attempt to validate your new working understandings using your own experience.
For the sake of clarity I will leave consciousness out of this post, for its shared definition tends to be misguided at best. Also, I am about to describe something completely indescribable, so please know any description I give can only be partially accurate. Do not try to logically understand what I am explaining from here on out. My hope is that you will read these words, and they will guide you towards what you are searching for. Verify and search your own experience as you have been.
In my experience, the “entity” you are describing is what I will call Source from here on out for the sake of discussion. Source is what makes all experience possible, for all experience is made of it. But unfortunately source is impossible to describe. Here’s why.
Imagine a piece of clay. This clay can be used to create many different things. The clay can take the shape of many things, but no matter what shape it takes, there are limitations of the clay that persists throughout all objects created by it. For one, the color. All objects created by clay will be the same color. Also, you can only create physical objects with clay. You could never make anything non-physical like nothing, sight, or time with clay. Because of that, we would need to make the universe out of something other than clay. But what would that perfect building substance look like?
It would have to have the ability to take the appearance both something and nothing. But to do that, it would inherently be neither. How do you describe what is both and neither something and nothing? It would also have to be property-less. If it had any inherent properties, everything it created would also inherit that trait. How do you describe something that has no properties?
These are the qualities of Source, Nirvana, emptiness.
All sensate experience is born from this Source. All facets of the same “entity” that neither exists nor doesn’t exist.

and that in itself all things from Good to Bad are part of this entity

All of the 6 sense doors arise within Source. Within our 6 senses, based on preferences and desire, we determine what is good or bad. If we desire a thing, it is good. If we are averse to a thing, it is bad. All derive from Source.

and from this the Entity is itself playful,
Otherwise, are we in purgatory held by another consciousness?

Source is not a human being. I would say it is but I would not say it is anything else. It has no qualities. It does not have a personality. It is not a benevolent god that has thoughts and feelings and desires. It is not playful. It is simply the living backbone of the universe, from which all things are derived. It does not have consciousness, and it is not separate from yourself. This “entity” is the totality of everything you are and experience.

and that all actions (karma's) are created by itself?

Yes. All beings come from the one Source. Karma, understood from the enlightened perspective, is simply the understanding that anything you put out will be immediately received by yourself. If you kick a can, you (Source) are also that can, and will be experiencing that kick. When you steal from another, both the thief and victim are the same Source. Every action we take has an immediate reaction felt by our shared core. Once you know we are all the same source pretending to be different people, selfish gain serves no purpose, for you can not gain anything you don’t already have.
In closing, my suggestion to you is this: Observe your experience. All the answers you seek are there. Focus on proving your current belief system to be inaccurate by directly observing your experience. Even what I just wrote above is a belief system. It is inaccurate and only valid (as all beliefs are) when looking at life through the lense of perception. Do not believe any of it. Enlightenment comes most easily when the number of beliefs, acting as barriers, are reduced to as few as you can possibly muster.
I hope this book of a response I provided you was helpful in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

Thank you for your time on this. Indeed for all the others and yet more to come.

It is a fascinating subject. To a degree I am being somewhat fesecious, but with good intentto find truth and wisdom from those who truly have experienced it, and do not merely repeat the teachings verbatim. I understand that Buddha encouraged an inquisitive and enquiring audience? That is me. In learning the teachings it is apparent to me that there are levels of practice and understanding, but for a reason that I sense is unspoken. There are truths that are clouded and some in plain sight. I seek the clouded


text:
How is a Buddha interacting if he doesn’t have perception?
In Mahayana literature,it is said that a Buddha has no sense perception and thus no consciousness.how can he interact with the world and create pure lands then?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39862/do-buddhas-have-any-awareness-at-all

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39710/do-beings-go-into-total-unconsciousness-before-attaining-buddhahood

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

It is difficult to understand but we can try to... Perception is Anatta... it is not me,mine or myself. That which is not yours ,will you cling to it? Will you crave for it ? No . Therefore by not clinging to Perception Buddha achieved cessation of perception. It does not mean perception looses its property of impermanence...Perception arises, changes and vanishes but there is no clinging to it.

Even Buddha had the universal mental states including perception.
However, when they are in Nirodha Samapatthi, they do not have consciousness.
===================
The universal mental factors. There are seven mental factors which are called universals because they are common to every state of consciousness. Two are feeling and perception mentioned above. The order in which the other five are given has no sequential significance as they all co-exist in any state of consciousness. They are:
-Contact (phassa), the coming together of the sense organ, object, and appropriate consciousness.
Concentration (ekaggataa), the mental focus on one object to the exclusion of all other objects.
-Attention (manasikaara), the mind's spontaneous turning to the object which binds the associated mental factors to it.
-Psychic life (jiivitindriya), the vital force supporting and maintaining the other mental factors.
-Volition (cetanaa)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

The Sublime Buddha, good householder, the Tathāgata, does not inter-act, at first place, but acts just, Such. Called often Bhagavata transports this well, often translated in it's meaning "one who really gives" or "the Liberal".
This might help to uproot a main pillar of the unclearency.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape from this wheel, a gift]

I attempt to answer on similar question as below

unconsciousness state of an individual

The title of the Sutra is "Prajnaparamita" 般若波羅蜜 which means Supreme Consciousness so how can it be unconsciousness
Request for explanation on heart sutta


text:
Does this count as breaking the first precept?
Let’s say that my face was itchy but just before I scratch it, I just remember that there might be face mites living on my face and I might be killing them. And as I’m scratching my face, I keep thinking that I might be killing the face mites. My original intention was to scratch my face but if I think I might be killing the face mites but continue to scratch my face because it’s itchy then does that count as breaking the first precept?

interesting also in that itching could be illusory in some contexts, and that when the mterial was written down, & presently, lots of persons weren't/ aren't aware of such mites, &, whether the relief or illusion of relief from the illusion would be recieved as pleasant/ desirous, etc; and whether each thusly demised mite or if demise of a flock of mites would be just one infraction, or a flock of infractions, then extrapolating as for the rest of the question; general cleanliness; and the inconsistent level of consideration re the situation might also be of interest in the context of the q

if Asker could please indicate if asking only re Therevada texts, or for all contexts of Buddhisms answers, could be helpful for replying

The first precept is:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Conditions that Break the Precept
(By Ñanavara Thera)
The five factors of the first precept are:
* pano -- presence of a living being.
* panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
* vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
* upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
* tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

All factors must be fulfilled in order to break the first precept.
If you can answer yes to all of them then the first precept is broken. If you can answer no to one of them the precept is not broken.

This is a great answer. It's clear, doesn't digress and has a reference!

Thank you Erik:)

Aside of possible akusala actions (which is as soon as mental approve or wishing death, factor of intention), good householder, there are those factors to prove whether a full offence or not:

Object: living being, (In Vinaya a wording of "even small as a egg of a bed-bug" is found, here also perception of living being matters, of course)
Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting to cause that beings death. “Knowingly” also includes the factor of —
Perception: perceiving the object as a living being.
Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that being to die.
Result: The life-faculty of the being is cut as the result of one's act.

So the matter of the perception isn't that easy here (from seeing it, till thinking it might be). Acting in doubt, of course is another wrongdoing, but an other.
Also wheter alive and whether death on one action may make it difficult to know.
Don't forget for example that one "knowns" that there are being under the soil where stepping on, or doesn't he actually?
Most importand, how ever, is intention. It's actally an not easy topic and my person currently struggle with sand fleas, which actually need to be removed as well. Since month heavy disease because of those tiny beings. Knowing things in detail often makes things not easier. For many years not known that this "throns" are parts of living beings.
In any case, may one always be most patient and try all to cause most less harm => Sila, Metta.
Enduring just pains is of cause a very needed practice to cut off certain fermentaions arising on it. Circumstances, how ever, are always different and proves can be at east only by oneself if honest and discerning enoug.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding tade but for escape from this wheel, a gift for such]


text:
How did this teleportation happen in DN 16?
In DN 16 it is written that:
"Then the Buddha came to the Ganges River.
Now at that time the Ganges was full to the brim so a crow could drink from it. Wanting to cross from the near to the far shore, some people were seeking a boat, some a dinghy, while some were tying up a raft. But, as easily as a strong person would extend or contract their arm, the Buddha, together with the mendicant Saṅgha, vanished from the near shore and landed on the far shore.
He saw all those people wanting to cross over. Knowing the meaning of this, on that occasion the Buddha was inspired to exclaim:
'Those who cross a river or stream
have built a bridge and left the marshes behind.
While some people are still tying a raft,
intelligent people have crossed over.'"
My only question is how did such teleportation happen? Is it metaphorical?
What are your thoughts on it?

We shouldn't speculate much due to the Four Inconjecturables someone already mention in this thread. So, from a scientific perspective, looks like they've gained access to an extra dimension cuz beings in a higher dimension would be seen as gods to those in the lower ones for they can do simple things that seems impossible to do to the eye of the lower beings, as demonstrated by Prof. Carl Sagan here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

Piya Tan's translation and commentary of DN 16 has two footnotes:

The various texts differ regarding the details of the Buddha‘s crossing the Ganges. They however agree that he
uses his psychic power to teleport himself and the order across the river. The redactors added this episode despite
the Vinaya rule against the public display of psychic powers (Pāc 8 = V 4:25): see Kevaḍḍha S (D 11) = SD 1.7
Intro (3.3). The Pali texts apparently regard the episode as ―symbolic of the Buddha‘s attainment of the  ̳other side‘
of transmigration, ie extinction (nirvana), by the power of meditation‖ (Warder 1970:71).

According to the Sarvastivada account, only the Buddha crosses the Ganges by his own power. The monks
swim across while other disciples build a raft (Waldschmidt 1950-51:158). The imagery here is obvious: the Buddha
has crossed the ocean of suffering; his immediate disciples, the monks, crosses the river of suffering using their own
effort; and the lay disciples are working at their own means of the salvation, the raft. On this verse, cf Dh 85.

In Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77) it has mentioned that there are four things which are unconjecturable.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas(1) is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...(2)
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Notes
(1.) I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.
(2.) I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

As the blessed one said, I cannot think of how it would've happen. But with the emerge of the quantum physics, scientists built theories and tried to explain such teleportation behaviours. They have observed similar behaviour in quantum fields but unable to explain why and how it would've happen.
Bhikku Samahita discusses some of these behaviours found in Tipitaka in related to quantum mechanics through this video: Early Buddhism, Quantum Physics, & Relativity

It's not real story of man crossing over a stream, but the wisdom of going further, to the farther shore of Truth.
Don't believe in supernatural stuff.
Enlightenment means losing everything, your senses, body, mind, sens of I and also spiritual powers, if any.
✓'Those who cross a river or stream have built a bridge and left the marshes behind. While some people are still tying a raft, intelligent people have crossed over.'"
::Meaning is simple::
When man start to the way of wisdom, the purity of stream enters through the gate of . When one surrenders totally to it, he become one with stream. Then that river started to going towards the source, in reverse manner. Many disciple put hold something as goal, misses it for crossing over. Like holding onto the bridge, the raft etc. But, learned one go with the stream till the end without holding anything, not even boat. He place his foot on the farther side and leave alone the boat.Thats Arhatphala, Nirvana, Crossing over.
Also in one instace Buddha said, If I try to swim I get whirled about, I stay as steady, I drowned. So without swimming and remain steady, I find myself to the other shore. How?  The truth is 'thou' are already there. But due to ignorance, you thinks you are in the stream. I hope it gets clear.
✓Upanishadic dictum also says the same: "Thou' are That." Thou' are not body, senses, feeling, sensation, perception, councioussnes. But thou' are supreme. Awake from sleep of ignorance and throw away what is not yours!

I have personally experienced this. The farther shore is like this: There is no oasis situated yonder, what you stuck with is the mirage! How many efforts you try to reach it, it never be grasped. You run towards it your whole life, still the distance between the Shore and you will be exactly the same. So, you discard even that mirage and make no efforts. Lo! Wonder of wonder. You reached it finally without any of your efforts. That's the Truth like Flash of lightening, sudden.

Those who have achieved Nirvana have many magical powers. It did not happen metaphorically...It happened for real.

It's always better to take what ever metaphorical in line with the Dhamma, as a reminder for thinking in dhammic ways, or to nourish Pasāda or Saddhā, as sample of path and gain of fruits, than to try to nail down phenomena in terms or real, because what is non-act-ually real? It leads and will lead and cause suffering grasping thing like in common way. As there is a Austrian proverb: it would just turn out into "controversies on the empires beard". At least, the Sublime Buddha taught that trying to imagine the transcend powers of the Tatagatha, conting also for Arahats, would lead to become crazy. And that's also said to waste not time in do this instead of turn to the path.
So in this way it might be enough for letting go of this instance, and step on further with things actually bringing benefit and how and what is real, or how things may arise and decay, will become clear anyway, as soon as done the task, of which isn't investigating to rebuild a history from far, far away.
Now since knowing that it's just a nice sign along the path but not it's aim, it's good after that (un-)rest to go on -- because time is running fast and human blessed existence is difficult to ever archieve: the water level already increases rapidly and the fire mass of suffering comes rolling on from behind.
[Note, as it would serve for it as well, it's not given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release]

In a (deleted) comment the OP wrote, "I am not a householder": so I deleted that. One SE rule is that users shouldn't address others using a title or pronoun which they ask you not to -- so I feel I should insist in this case that you needn't refer to user17389 as "householder". In fact the Help says, "Do not use signature, taglines, or greetings" -- the site's etiquette never requires you to add a "greeting", it's enough to only answer the question -- but if a user explicitly asks you not to greet them in a given way then it's important not to.

SN 51.22 explains how to do levitation.
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn51/sn51-022/index.html
And it's not just the Buddha, or famous chief disciples. Anyone who develops a strong enough 4th jhana has the potential to master this ability.

This answer violates the site policy on own personal site promotion - please see this Buddhism Meta SE question and its answers, as well as this page to understand the policy. 1) You need to paraphrase, summarize or partially quote the content of the link in the answer. 2) The user need not have to click into the link to benefit from the answer. 3) The link is only there to support the answer. 4) You must disclose yourself as the author of the linked site. Please update this answer.