text:
Why are the psychological forces that stop us from attaining Nibbana greater/stronger than those propel us towards Nibbana?
Why is it that the psychological forces like lust, greed, desire, unskilful emotions, etc, which take us away from Nibbana feel so strong and have greater pull than the forces that propel us towards Nibbana like metta, vipassana (insight), etc?

It's extremely difficult to let go of sensual enjoyment. Experiencing sensual enjoyment leads to clinging, meaning trying to experience even more sensual enjoyment.
Hence, the masses have the natural tendency towards burning with sensual fever, rather than trying to escape it. It's a vicious cycle.
From Magandiya Sutta:

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

There's also another vicious cycle.
According to MN 9 (below), as long as you still have fermentation or effluents, you would still have ignorance, and vice versa (also see this question). Ignorance is a very deeply ingrained and deeply lingering fetter.

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
fermentation.

There is a vicious cycle between ignorance and fermentation.
It's very hard to escape these. Natural evolution sustains these vicious cycles.
From Iti 109 below, we see that craving follows the flow of nature, and renunciation is striving in the opposite direction.

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

Hi @ruben2020, thank you so much for the answer. You say, 'Natural evolution sustains these vicious cycles.' Do you mean the dhamma somehow is a practice against the instinct of natural evolution? Sorry if I mis-understand.

@TheWhiteCloud the acceptance of the Dhamma is a natural product of evolution for those dissatisfied with the impermanent. Just as the evolution of wings gives flight, the evolution into and acceptance of the Dhamma leads to freedom from suffering. But it's work.

@TheWhiteCloud If becoming enlightened is part of natural evolution, there would be many arahants and Buddhas in the world today. Instead, natural evolution and advancement of human civilization led to maximizing sensual enjoyments while avoiding or reducing momentary suffering by advancement in medical care, education etc. However, suffering and unsatisfactoriness cannot be avoided forever. The Buddha made a revolution (not evolution) against the flow of nature, towards the other shore, Nirvana, the end of suffering.

I don't like how you have incorporated evolution into this answer. Just that small sentence detracts the attention away from the profundity of where it sits. It did so with me, and I gather it will do so with others, and now you find you need to explain it away in the comments section which looks like an excruciating attempt to juxtapose a farmer's wellington boots with a sausage. Nice answer though.

Instinct (refer to  AN 7.11). The Earth today has 7.7 billion people plus zillions of animals, insects, fish & other life forms. This whole Earth is created by lust & craving (refer to SN 12.44). Basically, each creature is born from reproduction for the purpose to further engage in reproduction. It goes on & on like this, endlessly for the unenlightened (refer to SN 15.1), until the Earth burns up.

To add to other answers, drawing more from Darwin's theory of the evolution : take 2 people, one for which the forces that propel towards Nibbana are stronger, and the other for which craving for sensual enjoyment is stronger.
Which is the one that is gonna reproduce more ?
Obviously the second one. He would be less happy than the first, but from an evolutionary point of view, more successful.


text:
Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame?
Is even Buddhahood itself a short straw next to material wealth and pleasure and fame? The Buddha could have been a wheel turning monarch, and was in deed born a prince. So perhaps his decision isn't all that confusing for the rest of the world.
Is even a small degree of enlightenment preferable to unparalleled wealth and power, or are they in fact incomparable?

Put another way, what does your karma have to be to be born as a prince, as compared to e.g. the first jana?

your imagined choice is irrelevant. the bottom line is you are fantasizing about things that are rarely achievable

Not just complete enlightenment. The Buddha taught that even the fruit of stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment, incomplete) exceeds sole dominion over the Earth and lordship over all worlds.
From Dhammapada 178:

Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of stream-entry
excels them.

The commentary for this verse:

The Story of Kala, son of Anathapindika
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(178) of this book, with reference to Kala, son of Anathapindika, the
well renowned rich man of Savatthi.
Kala, son of Anathapindika, always kept away whenever the Buddha and
his company of bhikkhus came to their house. Anathapindika was afraid
that if his son kept on behaving in this way, he would be reborn in
one of the lower worlds (apayas). So, he enticed his son with the
promise of money. He promised to give one hundred if the youth
consented to go to the monastery and keep sabbath for one day. So, the
youth went to the monastery and returned home early the next day,
without listening to any religious discourses. His father offered him
rice gruel, but instead of taking his food, he first demanded to have
the money.
The next day, the father said to his son, "My son, if you learn a
stanza of the Text from the Buddha I will give you one thousand on
your return." So, Kala went to the monastery again, and told the
Buddha that he wanted to learn something. The Buddha gave him a short
stanza to learn by heart; at the same time he willed that the youth
would not be able to memorize it. Thus, the youth had to repeat a
single stanza many times, but because he had to repeat it so many
times, in the end, he came to perceive the full meaning of the Dhamma
and attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Early on the next morning, he followed the Buddha and the bhikkhus to
his own house. But on that day, he was silently wishing, "I wish my
father would not give me the one thousand in the presence of the
Buddha. I do not wish the Buddha to know that I kept the sabbath just
for the sake of money." His father offered rice gruel to the Buddha
and the bhikkhus, and also to him. Then, his father brought one
thousand, and told Kala to take the money but surprisingly he refused.
His father pressed him to take it, but he still refused. Then,
Anathapindika said to the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, my son is quite
changed; he now behaves in a very pleasant manner." Then he related to
the Buddha how he had enticed the youth with money to go to the
monastery and keep sabbath and to learn some religious texts. To him
the Buddha replied, "Anathapindika! Today, your son has attained
Sotapatti Fruition, which is much better than the riches of the
Universal Monarch or that of the devas or that of the brahmas."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 178: Far better
than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the
abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire
universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

Well the traditional story is that the Buddha was born as a Prince -- and became dissatisfied and left after meeting the "divine messengers" (devaduta).
There are three (sickness, old age, and death) in the introduction to the Jhakata, five in the Devaduta sutta:

The five divine messengers to whom King Yama
draws the culprit’s attention are a baby lying in its excrement, an old person, a sick person, a robber caught and
punished for his deeds, and a dead person. These are five
"divine messengers" in the sense that they exemplify the
inevitability of birth, old age, disease, karmic retribution
and death.

I think we're meant to understand that a Prince doesn't have "unparalleled wealth and power" -- against death, for example.
See also the description of dukkha in the First Noble Truth.
And if altruism is a motive (which we're told it is), it seems to me that the Buddha as a teacher has done more good -- brought more cessation-of-dukkha -- for more people (throughout history) than any temporal monarch.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva?
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva? I'm asking about doing so in a liberal (no infidelity or drug addictions) and to a conservative (no sex or glass of wine) way.
Apologies if I've misunderstood them and there is a complete consensus on what the lay precepts are to be interpreted as. I thought that the point was to use them as a guide, so making up your own mind. Precept

a general rule intended to regulate behaviour or thought.

Surely "general" here means incomplete not in the sense that we can break them, but not completely defined.

Is it not obvious that murder is wrong, whereas the evil of eating meat is more moot: so that - even if wrong - it is a lesser breaking of the precepts.

I guess you're asking about the third precept specifically, not all precepts?

not especially no @ChrisW : i mean all the precepts

Precepts help to foster a calm mind. However, it seems like you might be asking about sensual relationships and how the precepts play a role. You may have implicit and/or explicit agreements about the relationship, but those are - as cold as it sounds - transactional and contractual terms usually prevailing from society that define what you both agree to be acceptable relationship-type behaviour. Sexual misconduct is when one breaches those terms. When societal values get involved, it gets a bit messy so best to find some simplicity with it: don't hold your partner to any conditions.

ii think you've misunderstood the tenor of my question @NeuroMax i'm asking about the difference between lack of sexual misconduct, with and without the precepts, and celibacy. like not being addicted to heroin opposed to drinking a glass of wine. or murdering someone opposed to not eating meat

@anon - Yes, I misunderstood. To help invite better answers I would suggest you try to rephrase the question. I've tried to mentally edit the question with your additional information, but I still remain at a loss.

What's confusing is that "no infidelity" is the lay precept (but a glass of wine isn't), so maybe that's not a good example of what you're trying to ask. And not murdeing someone is not only a precept but also normal behaviour, conversely "not eating meat" isn't a (Theravada) precept.

sorry you've completely lost me now @ChrisW yes sometimes proper conduct is obvious

Ok so I gather now (e.g. from comments under ruben2020's answer) the question assumes there's a strict and a liberal interpretation of the precepts, i.e. that there's a difference. But then is the question asking whether one is better, or asking what's the benefit of each one? The crucial sentence in the question, "I'm asking about doing so in a liberal and to a conservative way", isn't quite grammatical (English) and so that's unclear.

i'lll edit the question again

The precepts are guidelines but with a correct  approach if I want to effectivly transcend suffering. I wouldn't leave it up to myself to decide anything if I could help it because I can never tell when my ego is involved.

In answer to your direct question in the title:
What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva?
If you are a bodhisattva, you don't need to keep the precepts because you have no inclination ever to act otherwise. But if you are not a bodhisattva, you'll never get there in this life unless you keep the precepts:

The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally, no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts dwell.
Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. This is the second admonition of the Lord Buddha as to the keeping of the Precepts. (The Surangama Sutra, Chapter 2, "Importance of Keeping the Precepts)

As you point out in the background to your question, what 'keeping the precepts' means, unfortunately depends upon who you ask nowadays. The crucible in regards to the so-called 'Lay' Precepts—which all ordained sangha members must also keep, so they aren't ‘lay’ precepts, they're the Big Five Precepts—is the consumption of animal flesh, which, of course, entails killing the animal. I’ve answered this point here: Why is meat prohibited in Buddhism?  So I won’t repeat what I said there, but in side-comments to my answer an important point came up:

But as a Buddhist, one should adhere to the doctrine of causes and conditions, and realize that eating the flesh of animals creates the possibility for a profitable demand for animal flesh in those of weak minds who are unconcerned about profiting off the suffering of others for their own benefit. By eating animal flesh, you may sincerely feel that you are not directly responsible for the animal’s death, but by creating the condition for someone of weak mind and strongly selfish desires to cause harm to others, you are responsible for leading them astray. One may try to abdicate their responsibility to protect the weak and voiceless, but one cannot escape responsibility for their own actions that harm others, that lead them, through their weakness, to the hell realms.

The point here is that there is no honest wiggle-room here for any sincere buddhist, ‘lay’ or ‘ordained sangha’. If you make excuses for your behaviors—liberal interpretations, versus conservative, as you phrased it well—you are hurting yourself over the longterm, along with others who suffer due to your weakness of spirit.
Anyway, that’s my interpretation ☺

i'm not sure i understand. what do you mean by "make excuses": if i took the precepts knowing i would almost certainly continue to eat meat, vs eating meat thinking the precepts don't count or matter this time?

Not exactly that; I assume that someone who makes an effort to keep the precepts will also make an effort to absorb the teachings of Buddha, so it’s the wider context of Buddhism and reconciling the theme of compassion for the suffering of all sentient beings, culminating in the selfless dedication of merit to the benefit of all other sentient beings, which I feel would cause such a discordance when eating the flesh of those sentient suffering beings, that one would have to change, or fall into making excuses for why one is doing it.

i get what you mean, and it's eloquent: true karma comes from within?

Precepts serve two purposes:
Purpose One is training the mind by changing your behavioral/emotional habits.
Purpose Two is improving one's karma by not creating turmoil in one's future that comes from the misdeeds.
In the long run One and Two help each other to get stronger. Together they gradually propel one further and further into Liberation.
Even if you take a liberal interpretation of the precepts you will train your mind and improve your karma.
In any case you should start from the most coarse offenses creating the biggest problems before proceeding to the subtle mental habits and misdeeds creating more subtle forms of trouble and suffering.
For example, being easily irritated and getting into fights all the time is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than killing mosquitoes or eating chicken and fish. So you should start with the first.
For example, craving sex to the point of rapping someone or seducing someone's spouse and breaking their family is a source of far coarser and more obvious problems than indulging in observing people of the opposite gender at a beach, so again it makes sense to start with the coarser one.
For example having a fragile ego and pathologically lying to cover up one's mistakes is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than not phrasing one's statements precisely enough to make sure they are absolutely true.
And as you correctly assumed, having a complex emotional trauma leading to a drug or an alcohol addiction is a source of much coarser and more obvious trouble than intoxicating one's mind with videogames, not to speak of indulging in an occasional beer.
From this it should be obvious that Buddhist path should be approached from coarse to gradually more subtle - by anyone and everyone, monk or lay.
If you think about it, the Eightfold Path gets into more subtle matters than mere Five Precepts, and the Four Jhanas get into more subtle matters than the Eightfold Path (i know they are included but you get the point). Within the four jhanas, the first jhana deals with coarse issues the second is more subtle etc. Entire Path is structured like that.
Obviously, someone who professionally pursues Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi is more likely to go all the way to perfection of practice, while someone engaging with Buddhism casually among other things will probably stop at preventing the most obvious troubles. How far to go is entirely up to an individual. The benefit is proportional to implementation, to whatever degree one eradicates potential causes of dukkha - to that degree one is liberated from it.
To summarize, it's not about liberal vs strict implementation of precepts, it's about coarse vs subtle causes of dukkha - similar concepts but not the same.

It's basically for laypersons to reduce suffering, even if not to eliminate suffering altogether.
The Vera Sutta below states that the five forms of fear and animosity are stilled through the observance of the five precepts.
Interestingly, the sutta does not say that the five precepts lead to stream entry. Rather, it says that reaching a certain state of mind i.e. the stilling of the five forms of fear and animosity (which correspond to the five precepts) would lead to stream entry.
If you lie or steal, you would be afraid of being caught. Animosity is with those who could catch you. Observance of the five precepts results in a state of mind free from such fear and animosity. Additionally, virtues also result in a state of mind free of remorse, which is discussed in the Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1).
From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
headed for self-awakening!'
"Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?
"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
animosity is thus stilled.
"When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...
"When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
that fear & animosity is thus stilled.
"These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.

AN 5.57 (below) teaches that a lay person or even a monk or nun should take responsibility for their actions, and this will diminish their misconduct. This is related to the five precepts too.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

nice answer if slightly at a tangent. sorry can't upvote

@anon It's basically for laypersons to reduce suffering, even if not to eliminate suffering altogether.

yeah. i meant specifically the difference between liberal and conservative interpretations of the precepts

@anon You have misunderstood. The five, eight and ten precepts are very clearly defined by the Buddha. There is no room for liberal and conservative interpretation. The five precepts for laypersons, for example, never requires celibacy. Celibacy is only for monks.

can you include a quote that shows that "celibacy is only for monks" and that there is no room for interpretation in the precepts?

i think it would be foolish to claim that there are no conflicting interpretations of the precepts. perhaps not for the laity?

@anon The precepts are clear, but their application to modern conditions are up to interpretation. Please see this answer on sensual misconduct for the canonical description, and commentary by Ven. Yuttadhammo on whether it applies to polygamy, legalized prostitution etc. As you can see from this answer, the canonical description is clear. And this question discusses whether piracy of movies or software would be considered stealing or not.

however, there is a history of debate and conflicting interpretations of the precepts.

@anon Where is this so-called history of debate and conflicting interpretations? Can you provide more evidence of that?

you could try google?

@anon For e.g. the precept on intoxicating substances is clearly referring to any intoxicating substance (alcohol, drugs etc.) and is about the substances causing heedlessness. That's very clear in the Pali Canon. But the modern situation of whether a half liter glass of beer can cause heedlessness or not, is subject to interpretation. The precept's definition is clear. The modern application of it is subject to interpretation.

define modern? yes if you mean after the buddha's death

@anon I mean the interpretation of the application of those precepts to living conditions of today. The precepts and their purposes are clear. The application of it may not be.

cool, that works for me too

I think if "application of precepts in [some conditions]" is not clear then we definitely can't say that "precepts by themselves are clear and don't require interpretation". Precepts don't exist in vacuum, they are always enacted in context of some real life situation, so there's always a need for interpretation - 2600 years ago, today, or 2600 years in the future.

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


text:
Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"?
Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"?
I'm asking because I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.
Because that's how I'm thinking about the rebirth doctrine, for now.

I think things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up.

In the oldest texts mn43, it says that what one perceives that one also feels & cognizes. That which is spoken of as perception can be explained as something cognized by that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.
Creation, feeling, consciousness, perception are thought of as conjoined by Theravada.
Therefore the way you express it, i think would not be agreeable with the sutta expression.
It seems as you would separate consciousness from perception not by context but in a way that one can come before the other. If this is so then imho it is disagreeable in meaning as well as expression.
Consciousness is to be understood and intellect is to be developed.
The semantics of how you hold the doctrine in mind are very important to get right. If this doesn't occur then it is like a mistake in forming an algebraic equation. The term mind is to be thought of principally unlike anything else much like multiplying two negatives is a pretty unique principal seen by intellect so the function of mind is much more difficult to see and is to be comprehended for the doctrine to be properly carried.
It is said in the Sutta: 'it arises as one thing and ceases as another', 'it preceeds all things, all things are mind made', it is called 'the world' because it is that in the world which perceives & conceives the world.
Consciousness is a general term which is thought to include past, present & future instances of such or such consciousness thought to be coming into play as one thing and ceasing as another.
One can't think about consciousness as something in time. It is like the philosophy of measuring the position of an electron, it is not something you can observe as being here or there because that which is thought of as an electron is principally such that will have moved by the time you perceive it's location. With consciousness you likewise infer it's demonstrable coming into play and only think about it's function. You will see then that it's semantically tied up with conception & perception of all kind.

Hidden is the mind

I think this would be an inappropriate translation. 'Suchness' is a quick way of saying "that which actually is, as it actually is", but not everything that 'actually is' is immediately perceptible to the senses. You'd have to begin with a Western empiricist assumption that everything which 'actually is' is ultimately accessible to the senses. I'm not certain that's a reasonable assumption...
In particular, the conditioned nature of karmic action — the metaphysical relationship between cause and effect — is not immediately perceptible. We can see the first (the 'cause'), and we can see the second (the 'effect') but the relationship between the 'first' and the 'second' has to be understood. It can't be seen in any simple, sensory manner, any more than we can directly 'see' the force of gravity.

'Suchness' certainly manifests as 'directly perceptible by the senses' because the mind is not discriminating or judging something. The mind is merely experiencing or perceiving, without judgment.
The word 'consciousness' ('vinnana') in Theravada Buddhism does not mean 'divided knowing', as it does in Hinduism.  The Buddha used old terms such as 'vinnana' & 'namarupa' differently to the Brahmins (Hindus).
In Buddhism, consciousness merely means experiencing or knowing via the six senses. In Buddhism (MN 43), consciousness (experiencing) & perception (recognizing) are 'co-joined' and cannot function without each other.
Therefore, when the a Truth (such as the truth of impermanence or not-self) is directly recognized (perceived) and not judged as 'bad' or 'good' but merely merely recognized as 'just the way nature is', this is 'Suchness'.


text:
Trying to find causes of everything
Is trying to find causes of everything not a good practise? Isn't having rational mind a good thing?
I know that the Lord Buddha advised us to not to think about beginning of life. Because it make us crazy. There may be some other things like this.
I realize that this thinking causes me to loose sati. Why that thing happen? How long does it exists? etc. Most of these thinking causes to stuck at a loop. It feels like it wastes lot of energy for nonsense.
But I have fear of stopping this. Do I have to just stop thinking and let it go? Do I have to forget things without knowing causes of it? How do I select what to think and what not to think? How this affects sati? What Lord Buddha said about this? How should I handle this rationality?

You may need to know what is volition to answer "what to think/choose." and mostly "cause of everything is desire and wanting".

There is a difference between trying to find the answers to things you're unlikely to find answers to and seeking answers to questions that may have obtainable answers. For example, trying to imagine the beginning of life just for the sake of wanting to know and coming up with many theories is not likely to turn up answers. Getting a degree and studying the origins of life, designing experiments and so on, well, the academic world might drive you mad, but the work of doing research is both likely to be satisfying and might even gain answers.
So no, you don't have to give up seeking answers to all questions. Maybe take the Buddha's advice and simply notice what effect certain types of questions have on your own peace of mind, and on those around you.

It's correct that these things should not be contemplated due to their ability to destabilize the mind, making it less suitable for meditation practice. Thinking about such topics is useless from a Buddhist point of view.
Just be mindful of the habit and the thoughts when they arise. With time and practice they will subside.

In many ways, it is exactly our inquisitive nature which has been carving away our ignorance of reality for millennia by asking questions which were deemed unanswerable or were patched up with apologetics like "God did it, and we cannot understand it".
The Buddha himself set out to find the answer to such questions, and to be critical of what is deemed answerable, answered, or impossible to answer. The Kalama Sutra states:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

In the Zen tradition students are still given Koan (questions that cannot be answered logically, only experienced). The rational mind being stuck can be a powerful tool in meditation. That's very different from saying the rational mind is somehow not beneficial.
Also, who can judge which questions are answerable and which are not for another person - or even for himself? Imagine the Buddha, Darwin or Einstein having this attitude towards inquiry.
And finally, as to your question on what (not) to forget, to think, to ask: it is impossible to force these things, that's not how the mind works. It I write "do not think of a white rabbit", you cannot stop that thought from arising anyway. Meditation is a tool to learn to see that thought arising and dissipating in the mind without self-judging or attachment to oneself or the thoughts that arise.

If you investigate the reasons for thinking distracting thoughts you will find that it's based on unskillful motivations.

"Five things should be reflected on from time to time, by the bhikkhu
who is intent on the higher consciousness. What five?
When evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and
delusion arise in a bhikkhu through reflection on an adventitious
object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect on a
different object which is connected with skill. Then the evil
unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Like an experienced carpenter or carpenter's apprentice, striking hard
at, pushing out, and getting rid of a coarse peg with a fine one,
should the bhikkhu in order to get rid of the adventitious object,
reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the
evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate and delusion are
eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination the mind stands firm,
settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his
subject of meditation).
If the evil unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu, who in
order to get rid of an adventitious object reflects on a different
object which is connected with skill, he should ponder on the
disadvantages of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly these thoughts of
mine are unskillful, blameworthy, and productive of misery. Then the
evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Like a well-dressed young man or woman who feels horrified, humiliated
and disgusted because of the carcass of a snake, dog, or human that is
hung round his or her neck, should the bhikkhu in whom unskillful
thoughts continue to arise in spite of his reflection on the object
which is connected with skill, ponder on the disadvantages of
unskillful thoughts thus: Truly, these thoughts of mine are
unskillful, blameworthy, and productive of misery. Then the evil,
unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu who
ponders on their disadvantageousness, he should in regard to them,
endeavor to be without attention and reflection. Then the evil
unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Like a keen-eyed man shutting his eyes and looking away from some
direction in order to avoid seeing visible objects come within sight,
should the bhikkhu in whom evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise
in spite of his pondering on their disadvantageousness, endeavor to be
without attention and reflection as regards them. Then the evil,
unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite
of his endeavor to be without attention and reflection as regards
evil, unskillful thoughts, he should reflect on the removal of the
(thought) source of those unskillful thoughts. Then the evil,
unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Just as a man finding no reason for walking fast, walks slowly;
finding no reason for walking slowly, stands; finding no reason for
standing, sits down; finding no reason for sitting down, lies down,
and thus getting rid of a posture rather uncalm resorts to a restful
posture, just so should the bhikkhu in whom evil, unskillful thoughts
arise, in spite of his endeavor to be without attention and reflection
regarding them, reflect on the removal of the (thought) source of
those unskillful thoughts. Then the evil, unskillful thoughts are
eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands
firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his
subject of meditation).
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite
of his reflection on the removal of a source of unskillful thoughts,
he should with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate,
restrain, subdue and beat down the (evil) mind by the (good) mind.
Then the evil, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate and
delusion are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the
mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just
within (his subject of meditation).
Like a strong man holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders and
restraining, subduing and beating him down, should the bhikkhu in whom
evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in spite of his reflection
on the source of unskillful thoughts, restrain, subdue and beat down
the (evil) mind by the (good) mind, with clenched teeth and the tongue
pressing on the palate. Then the evil, unskillful thoughts connected
with desire, hate and delusion are eliminated; they disappear. By
their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified
and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation). https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

The Dalai Lama, in The Universe in a Single Atom

Despite the scriptural tradition of the Buddha's refusal to engage on
this level of metaphysical discourse [such as asking whether the self
and the universe have a beginning], Buddhism as a philosophical system
in ancient India, developed a long history of delving deeply into
these fundamental and perrenial questions about our existence and the
world we live in. The Tibetan tradition has inherited this
philosophical legacy.

My assessment is that in Tibetan Buddhism at least, rationality is part of the spiritual path. Perhaps you can read some of the dialogues between the Dalai Lama and western scientists (Mind and Life publications).


text:
Meditations on Paṭiccasamuppāda
While meditating on Dependent Origination, I have come to understand certain things that I hesitatingly put forth here:

Though the links in the chain of Dependent Origination are cyclical in nature, Avijjā is the one that can be said to be the root of deception and the primal cause of the infinite repetitions of the cycle. Also, it is present in each and every link all the time. So, as an example, though Avijjā gives rise to Saṅkhāras, it is Saṅkhāras (plus Avijjā), that gives rise to Viññāna and, in turn, it is Viññāna (plus Avijjā) that leads us to the next Nidāna, i.e., NāmaRūpa, and, so on and so forth.

The ‘self’, the deceptive ‘individual’, is present only in an incipient form till, I feel, up to the Nidāna of Phassa and starts getting organized, as it were, from the link of Vedanā, getting totally entrenched and almost ‘irreversibly solidified’ by the time the level of Upādāna is reached.

The weakest links are those of Vedanā, Taṇhā and Upādāna, and that is why it is possible to break the chain at these three places, the relatively easiest being the passage from Phassa to Vedanā and the most difficult that from Taṇhā to Upādāna.

Before Phassa, the ‘self’ is too vague and incipient and, therefore, quite weak to attempt its own break-up.

After the Nidāna of Upādāna, the ‘self’ is too deeply entrenched and solidified and, therefore, its break-up again becomes almost impossible.

Is this right? Am I only partly right? Or, is it that I have got it all wrong?
And yes, is it possible to have a profound insight directly into the primal link of Avijjā, so that the later interventions are not required at all?

I understand discussion can be helpful and that some baseline rudimentary knowledge might be necessary to incline the mind towards an intuitive understanding of dependent origination, but it looks like you're far too engrossed in forcing an intellectual understanding. From what you can currently intuit from dependent origination, ask yourself: How were you able to give birth to those fragmented concepts in your question? A small step backwards might reveal a previously unseen vista.

@NeuroMax idk if this comment is entirely appropriate. The questioners rarely welcome advise that undermines the premise of the question. On this site we usually try to abstain from such advises which are better suited for a teacher/student relationship than the Q&A format.

Though the links in the chain of Dependent Origination are cyclical in
nature, Avijjā is the one that can be said to be the root of deception
and the primal cause of the infinite repetitions of the cycle. Also,
it is present in each and every link all the time.

Correct. Every link includes ignorance within it. For example, the consciousness link does not mean consciousness itself but, instead, a consciousness polluted with ignorance. SN 22.81 makes this clear, with its phrase: "contact with ignorance (avijjāsamphassajena)".

So, as an example, though Avijjā gives rise to Saṅkhāras, it is
Saṅkhāras (plus Avijjā),

Correct. Very good.

that gives rise to Viññāna and, in turn, it is Viññāna (plus Avijjā)
that leads us to the next Nidāna, i.e., NāmaRūpa, and, so on and so
forth.

Correct. Very good. A Buddha/Arahant has consciousness without ignorance (It 44; MN 38; MN 148; etc).

The ‘self’, the deceptive ‘individual’, is present only in an
incipient form till, I feel, up to the Nidāna of Phassa and starts
getting organized, as it were, from the link of Vedanā, getting
totally entrenched

In the most primal form of dependent origination, the above is incorrect. Refer to SN 12.12, which says there is no "self" or "who" that feels, craves and clings.
However, when past becoming emerges at ignorance, then 'yes', the deceptive self is in incipient form. (Refer to the end of MN 9, which includes three asava, including becoming, within the ignorance link)

and almost ‘irreversibly solidified’ by the time the level of Upādāna
is reached

Correct. In the most primal form, the self-view emerges at upadana. Refer to MN 9 or SN 12.2, which say words about self is one of the four types of attachment.

The weakest links are those of Vedanā, Taṇhā and Upādāna, and that is
why it is possible to break the chain at these three places, the
relatively easiest being the passage from Phassa to Vedanā and the
most difficult that from Taṇhā to Upādāna.

Correct. Most suttas are about preventing vedana causing craving to arise. MN 148 is one sutta that extends the possibility to craving; where craving can still be experienced without upadana. But once upadana arises, this is dukkha; this is stress or bondage.

Before Phassa, the ‘self’ is too vague and incipient and, therefore,
quite weak to attempt its own break-up.

As said, on the primal level, there can be no self prior to upadana.
However, if there is the incipient self arising at ignorance, it can be stopped at nama-rupa link. It does not have to proceed to contact.
For example, the incipient self thought (sankhara) may spontaneously arise during meditation: "I want to eat". Nama-rupa can reflect: "No, it is not the right time to eat". Therefore, the sense bases & contact that ordinarily look for food to eat will not arise. The chain is cut at nama-rupa.
Note: The namarupa link also includes contact within it. This refers to the 'internal' contact made with the sankhara link. It does not refer to the six-fold contact which is 'external' orientated contact.

After the Nidāna of Upādāna, the ‘self’ is too deeply entrenched and
solidified and, therefore, its break-up again becomes almost
impossible.

Yes. But the self that has formed can still be cut.

Is this right? Am I only partly right? Or, is it that I have got it
all wrong?

Your analysis is excellent. Well-done.

And yes, is it possible to have a profound insight directly into the
primal link of Avijjā, so that the later interventions are not
required at all?

MN 9 includes the three 'asava' within the link of ignorance, namely, sensuality, (past) becoming and ignorance. Therefore, if the mind has silent clear concentration, it can experience the energy or vibration of 'asava' bubbling up or flowing out, without those asava brewing up thoughts & perceptions (which are the vaci & citta sankhara). However, such outflows of 'asava' will always stir-up/agitate the breathing (kaya sankhara).
In summary, on the most primal level, the subtle emergence of ignorance can be discerned within the breathing. This is why Anapanasati is developed.
Note: The 'kayasankhara' mentioned at 4th step of anapanasati is the same as the kayasankhara mentioned in 2nd link of dependent origination.
It is important to know what the 'sankhara' are, which are of three types:

kayasankhara - breathing
vaci sankhara - initial & sustained thought
citta sankhara - perception & feeling

When ignorance/asava brew up, they then brew up one or all of the above sankhara.
If required, refer to Thanissaro's excellent 'Shape of Suffering', pages 3 to 7.

Thanks a lot @Dhammadhatu for the encouragement.  I'll definitely go through the Ven Thanissaro's 'Shape of Suffering'. Thanks again for lending a helping hand with my hesitant steps on the path.

You are welcome. MN 38 makes it very clear Dependent Origination is an object of here & now insight and personal verification.

When confusion persists, it's good to review basics.
An understanding of dependent origination requires an understanding of contact:

DN34:1.2.8: What one thing should be completely understood?
DN34:1.2.9: Contact, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped.

You may be interested in DN1, which describes all the tangles involved in thinking about 'self'.

DN1:3.58.0: 4.3. Not Possible
DN1:3.70.1: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.
DN1:3.71.0: 4.4. Dependent Origination
DN1:3.71.12: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, all of them experience this by repeated contact through the six fields of contact. Their feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be.

Ultimately, the tangles are not so important as the escape.

DN1:3.72.0: 5. The End of the Round
DN1:3.72.1: When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contacts’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, they understand what lies beyond all these things.
DN1:3.72.2: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.
DN1:3.72.3: Suppose a deft fisherman or his apprentice were to cast a fine-meshed net over a small pond. They’d think: ‘Any sizable creatures in this pond will be trapped in the net. Wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.’
DN1:3.72.4: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Don't get caught in the net.

Thanks@OyaMist with your advice. You are right, 'tangles are less important than the escape', but then if we understand them properly, the escape becomes that much easier.

Thanks @SushilFotedar, I regularly study DN1 to see the net. It helps me focus on principles while meditating. Ven. Sariputta's explanation of contacts in particular was quite helpful.


text:
Music and Right Livelihood
A lay follower should not engage in five types of business i.e. business in weapon, human being, meat, intoxicant and poison. But there are many jobs can be considered harmful but not included in the five types of business mentioned in the Sutta.
I have a qualification in music and I want to put this into practice. Is teaching music can be considered right livelihood? Talaputa Sutta says

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound
by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things
inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a
festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who
are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on
things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin
with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more
delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage
in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated &
heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup
of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of
laughter.

Teaching piano may not be explicitly mentioned in this Sutta but it is possible for a person who teaches music and for those who are taught to be focused with even more passion, aversion and delusion. Does this livelihood lead us to hell? I believe the majority of healthy, normal people in the most strictest sense will not object to teaching piano. But the Sutta is probably saying otherwise and it can potentially limit your career or business you want to pursue or at worst you can end up unemployed for the sake of keeping yourself on the right path. The antidote to this type of situation is to ignore it and keep going but I don't think ignorance is the right path.
I may misunderstand the Sutta or may not misunderstand it.
Hope someone can shed some light, that will be a very helpful and appreciated. Many thanks.

Music is allowed for those observing the five precepts. This is the most basic practice. The five precepts:

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Music is not allowed for those observing the eight precepts (those observing uposatha) and ten precepts (for novice monks and full monks).
A livelihood in music is allowed by the following:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in." - AN 5.177

Music in some sense provides pleasure and maybe even intoxication, but the type of intoxication that is more controllable than alcohol or recreational drugs.
Many things can provide pleasure like food, sex, good thoughts, pleasant sights and sounds. The Middle Way of Buddhism prescribes limits on these for lay persons by way of the five precepts and lay person Right Livelihood.
The point is, do all forms of music make the lay person heedless? I don't think so. I know of people who consume alcohol and get intoxicated while dancing to trance music. That definitely makes a lay person heedless.
But a lay person listening to other types of music, like pop or classical or country, may not become uncontrollably heedless.
However, it is still a type of pleasant sensation. And for a lay person, all pleasant sensations should be experienced in moderation, in accordance with the five precepts and Right Livelihood.
Personally, I think if you use music to uplift a negative or depressed mind - it's even a skillful use of music for laypersons.
For serious practitioners, uplifting the mind using mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) is better (as prescribed in the Vesali Sutta).

Very excellent well articulated answer. Sadhu!

Thanks for your helpful answer. So teaching music such as piano or violin is not considered an entertainment with terrible consequences as described in the Sutta above. But does the intoxication mentioned in the Sutta means figuratively i.e. immersed in the music itself?

@B1100 I interpret the Talaputta Sutta as becoming intoxicated through music and entertainment to the point of inducing heedlessness. All music and entertainment is not suitable for monks, but for laypersons, it's not prohibited as far as I can see.

Music has brought great joy to my life, as I'm sure it has many others.  I think you can approach your career as a music educator in a mindful way that avoids harm to others.

In no sane way is music an "intoxicant", you can just stop playing piano or turn off the gramophone.

According to Buddhist psychology, distraction is classified, along
with such things as laziness and inattentiveness, as one of the twenty
destabilizing factors of the mind. In Sanskrit this factor is called
vikshepa. It arises when the natural flow of sense perceptions is
joined with and tainted by our emotions. In other words, distraction
is fueled by the usual suspects: grasping, rejecting, and denial. So
distraction is not just some mental tic. It is highly emotional.
Although vikshepa is often translated as “distraction” or “mental
wandering,” it refers more specifically to the wandering mind being
drawn to objects that cause it to lose its ability to remain
one-pointedly focused on virtue. So this term points to a specific
kind of distraction—distraction from keeping your attention on what
matters, on what is genuine and virtuous.

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-dharma-of-distraction-may-2014/

The Talaputa Sutta refers to comedians who generate delusions, such as here, here and here. The Talaputa Sutta refers to a "hell named laughter" (pahāso nāma nirayo). The words pahāsa appears only found in this one sutta therefore it appears unexplained.
Other comedians share useful knowledge and wisdom, such as George Carlin, Jimmy Dore or JP Sears. Obviously, these comedians have developed some morality & heedfulness that can prevent 'rebirth' into hell.
The Buddha taught 'kamma is intention' (AN 6.63). If a musician can compose music to ease the sufferings of or generate good moral or harmonious qualities in worldlings (puthujjana), then the results of such kamma will not be hellish.
In summary, the Talaputa Sutta appears to simply be a warning about heedlessness & encouraging others towards heedlessness. Many gifted musicians who have transmitted wisdom to others, such as John Coltrane or Jimi Hendrix, were still suffering from heedlessness. Despite his good intentions and gifts to others, Jimi Hendrix was particularly deluded in relation to proper sexual conduct with women, as well as the harm of drugs; thus his demise.
To conclude, on the moral level, teaching music is not inherently wrong livelihood, unless the music taught encourages others to transgress the five precepts, such as this wicked song.


text:
Trying to find a quote by Pema Chodron
I'm looking for a quote by Pema Chodron. In my memory, she's having a discussion with a Zen master, and the quote goes something like this;
Pema: "what do you do when things fall apart?"
Zen Master: "I stay"
I seem to remember it being in her book When Things Fall Apart, but I searched it for the word 'stay' and I couldn't find this anywhere.
Does anybody recognise where it comes from? Maybe it's from a video or an audio recording of an interview with her? Maybe it exists only in the recesses of my memory?

Perhaps this reference may help: https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/07/17/when-things-fall-apart-pema-chodron/

Hi I searched 'stay' in that page but I couldn't find it, does it have the quote I'm looking for or is it just talking about related ideas? I'm hoping to find that exact quote if it exists

I reckon your brain has mixed it up in some form. stay sounds like sit, anyway

@again_insane_buddhist, yes it's actually 'I agree', see my answer. In hindsight, 'Zen' may have been a more distinctive keyword to search than 'stay'.

Here is the quote I was looking for last year,

I once asked the Zen master Kobun Chino Roshi how he related with fear, and he said, "I agree. I agree."

It is on page 9 of my copy, which is a 2005 edition printed on the Element imprint of HarperCollins.

“To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be
continually thrown out of the nest. To live fully is to be always in
no-man's-land, to experience each moment as completely new and fresh.
To live is to be willing to die over and over again. ”

― Pema Chödrön, When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times

This is a nice quote, but it's not the one I was looking for. I was looking for one where Pema is talking to a Zen master. I actually found it a while back, I might post it a an answer later if I remember


text:
Dependent Origination: causes vs conditions?
I suspect that I am not alone in having a fuzzy understanding of precisely what the difference is between a ”cause” and a “condition” in the Buddha's teachings on Dependent Origination.
A concrete example illustrating the difference clearly and perhaps the interplay between the 2 would be helpful.
If that example were to be drawn exclusively from the Buddha’s teachings on “suffering and the end of suffering”, namely

Twelve Links of Dependent Origination-Dependent Co-arising
(Paticca-Samuppada)
Twelve Links of Transcendental Dependent Arising

that would be even more helpful.
Finally, if the example were to focus on only “suffering and the end of suffering” in this life and to avoid the divisive topic of “rebirth” as "reincarnation", that too would be very helpful.

Related: Are the Pali words “cause” (“hetu'), ”condition“ (”paccaya“), ”nutriment“ (”ahara“) and ”root“ (”mula") synonyms?

Related: Is causation (hetu) in SN 22.82 different to conditions (paccaya) in Dependent Origination?

The Pali word for 'cause' is 'hetu', which means direct cause, such as oxygen & hydrogen are the cause of water. An example of the use of 'hetu' is SN 22.82, which says the four elements of earth, wind, fire & water are the cause of the physical body aggregate:

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the form aggregate.
Cattāro kho, bhikkhu, mahābhūtā hetu, cattāro mahābhūtā paccayo rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya.
SN 22.82

SN 12.2 uses the word 'paccaya', which means "resting on, falling back on, foundational". For example, AN 10.61 says ignorance has no preceding cause (hetu) yet also says the five hindrances are a condition (paccaya) for the maintenance of ignorance. AN 10.61 clearly shows the words 'cause' ('hetu') and 'condition' ('paccaya') are not synonymous because the five hindrances are not the cause of ignorance. If the five hindrances were the cause of ignorance then when the five hindrances are absent during the 1st jhana or even lesser concentration, full enlightenment would occur via the absence of ignorance.
SN 12.23 uses the word 'upanisā', which appears to be from 'upa' ('close') and 'nissaya' ('support'). It appears 'upanisā' and 'paccaya' are synonymous.
In summary, ignorance is obviously not the cause of the three sankhara (breathing, thought and perception & feeling) in Dependent Origination because the three sankhara continue to exist in a Buddha. Similarly , the three sankhara are not the cause of consciousness because a Buddha remains consciousness depsite having no ignorance; just as consciousness is not the cause of nama-rupa because consciousness cannot cause the existence of 'rupa' ('physical matter').
In Dependent Origination, ignorance is merely something the pollutes or taints the sankhara, consciousness, mind-body, sense bases & sense contact. However, it can be said ignorance causes (hetu) craving, attachment, ego-becoming, ego-birth, ego-death, dukkha and any other unwholesome mental state.
In conclusion, it appears paccaya (condition) is a general and flexible word that can accommodate both a condition and a cause. This appears why the words 'paccaya' and 'upanisā' are used in Dependent Origination rather than the rigid 'hetu' ('cause').

Am I understanding correctly that (1) “paccaya” (condition) is a more general word meaning something like: this is necessary but perhaps not sufficient for the arising of the new phenomenon. i.e. the arising of the new phenomenon is dependent upon this. e.g. the arising of water depends upon the condition of hydrogen gas being present, whereas (2) “hetu” (cause) is the word used to describe a situation in which ALL conditions are present and the arising of the new phenomenon can be observed, e.g. hydrogen gas + oxygen gas + heat => water.

Mmmm.. you make me think more thoroughly. For now: (i) all conditions present is probably "samudaya"; (ii) an example of "cause" ("hetu") is an empty stomach & its painful feeling causing hunger & lust for food to arise; (iii) an example of "paccaya" ('condition") is an external object, such a pizza, influencing hunger & lust for food to arise. Pizza is not a cause (hetu) of physiological hunger because hunger is based in internal physical mechanisms & chemistry, hormones, amino acids, whatever.. Pizza is is merely a condition (paccaya) that indirectly stimulates the causes (hetu) of hunger.

When there are multiple causes it is difficult to say what causes what... however we can say what are the dependent things needed to make the outcome realize. For example in order to generate fire we must have fuel , we must have spark of fire .... fuel and spark both are necessary ... fuel and spark can be described as causes for fire... but a better word would be that fire depends on fuel and spark of fire...  If both the conditions are met the fire gets generated...

This is a fascinating perspective. It is akin to a “chemical reaction”. If a chemist creates the appropriate conditions by placing certain chemicals together, the chemical reaction just happens. The “cause”, from the perspective of the chemist, is creating the conditions.

Re: fire. Condition 1: The belief that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for THIS sensory experience. Condition 2: undesired circumstance giving rise to the belief “I will never be happy”. When these 2 chemicals are placed together, a chemical reaction occurs: doubt > restlessness > ill will. i.e. the “cause” of suffering is the creation of the conditions.


text:
Did the Buddha say that practitioners inclined towards hate rather than greed are closer to nibbana?
I have heard more than one Dharma teacher say the Buddha claimed that practitioners who are more strongly inclined towards hate than greed are closer to nibbana.
Is there any evidence from the suttas to support this claim?
If true, did the Buddha offer any hints as to why this might be true?

I have seen this discussed at length in a traditional Buddhist text, but I don't remember in which one
To be precise it was not "hate" vs "greed" but "aversion" vs "attachment" ( or "indulging").
Basically, the logic went as follows: aversion is by its nature unpleasant and so the person naturally wants to get rid of the feeling it generates, while indulging is pleasant and so is more difficult to abandon, because there's no motivation to do so.
That's the basic logic, I'll try to find the text but can't promise.

This is helpful and it intuitively feels correct. Thank you.

Most suttas that I have read seem to treat passion/ greed and aversion equally.

An 'annihilationist' is a person that still believes in self however believes or is cognizant the self will end at death and whatever the self possesses will be lost at death.
Iti 49 provides an example of the views of 'annihilationists' who have hate rather than greed; which it contrasts with 'eternalists' who have greed rather than hate; as follows:

[Annihilationist view] How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled (harāyati), ashamed (aṭṭiyati) and
disgusted (jigucchati) by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
[Eternalist view] And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.
Iti 49

AN 10.29 describes views which are 'annihilationist'. AN 10.29 says these views are closer to Nibbana because they are expected to cause dispassion, as follows:

Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence.
AN 10.29

Which part of your answer relates to the question? It's too obscure. Your answer is about views and not the fetters of sensual desire & I'll-will or attraction & aversion or greed & hate.

No. It is your reading that is obscure. I have edited my answer for those who don't understand Buddhism very well. The answer is now perfect.

Excellent! Very sharp: This is how they (the annihilationist, the hateful ones) are closer to nirvana: For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence.

very good........


text:
Relationship between truth and compassion
Can a bodhisattva or lay Buddhist be too concerned with truth at the expense of compassion and altruism?
What is the relationship between truth and compassion? e.g.. is the truth always compassionate, and if not, which is more important? Or, can we pursue the Buddha dharma out of a desire for the truth alone. etc.

One can cling to the idea of truth without any truth or compassion
One can cling to the idea of compassion without any truth or compassion.
Compassion  is a mental attitude that is against suffering. To be clear, it's not a belief or theoretical idea.
You don't have to be a "me"  and they don't have to be a "them" for compassion to arise.
The idea that there is a "you" or that there are "other people" is not admitted of by actual non-conceptual ultimate truth. If you are close with this ultimate truth then you are also close to compassion. You know, "You" and "other people" have no apparent separation that isn't assumed.

there is no compassion without truth
when the truth is not beneficial for another person, what is practised in 'equanimity' rather than 'compassion'
how can something be 'altruistic' if it is not the truth?

Love is a one sided affair... compassion is a one sided affair... you love no matter whether you get love in return or not... you show compassion no matter whether you get compassion in return or not .... why so? because you believe in the truth this is suffering... everyone is going to suffer... why show cruelty towards those who are bound to suffer...???

By tending to your own renunciation, you may become dispassionate (which is a way to deal with your own suffering), but by cultivating compassion, you can create the balance needed in dealing with others. Renunciation and equanimity is how you deal with your own suffering. Meanwhile, compassion is how you deal with others' suffering.
In fact I would say, in order to get closer to the truth, you need to deepen your renunciation and compassion.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

If I understood right, I think Samana Johann suggested that acts of generosity help to counter-act one's own clinging and desires -- so to the extent that generosity and compassion are related, maybe those aren't just two (the other being "renunciation") separate wings, but mutually reinforcing.

The 'truth' (such as it is) is subtle, transcendental, and wordless. The best we can do is see it and point at it; we cannot own it. Unfortunately, the word 'truth' has come to imply a kind of absolute intellectual property. When someone says "I know the truth", the implication is that the person 'owns' a piece of information that cannot be questioned or evaluated, and this can lead to loss of compassion as the person struggles to maintain his 'truth' against any contestation or alteration.
The truth — in that subtle, transcendental, wordless sense — is neither compassionate nor un-compassionate. It's merely factual. Compassion or its lack are qualities of our attitude towards that truth. Human suffering is a part of truth; what we think we know about human suffering — those little pieces of information we own and try to apply — is something else. If we see that higher truth we will always (unavoidably) act with compassion, regardless of what we know. However if we cling to the little truths we know... Well, clinging is poisonous to compassion.

Only if they think that one's lies can prevent other people from having bad experiences.
Ie one lies to save another from a painful circumstances but one is heir to his own actions. Lying just confuses the one being lied to and corrupts the liar.
Basically when a person lies to save another thinking it is a refuge, it doesn't work because what is due to be experienced will come into play even if in future lives.

The conditioned truth is the smallest elements which is possible to arise and vanish by conditioning.
The conditioned wholesome truth can think of either living beings or lifeless things.
Non-anger, adosa is a conditioned wholesome truth only which conditioning each other with every each other wholesome elements.
Only non-anger on living beings is called loving kindness, compassion, metta when focusing on giving happiness to them.
The other non-angers is called patients, khanti.
When the practitioner can see through  the truths and their processing by seeing dependent origination, they are automatically enduringly trust on karma and can't break 5 precept through that life.
This is the perfect basis of the compassion, an elements of 3 SammaSankappa (right thinking).
After really getting seeing the dependent origination, the non-angers must growing up only until the end of that life.
It is impossible for a practitioner who gotten seeing the dependent origination to say "I want to kill living being" even for keeping the truth because this is perfectly broken by automatically enduringly trust on karma.
Meditate Jhana with Pa-Auk Tawya and see Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga for getting in detail.

I'm not sure there is "truth" and "the truth".
Perhaps like other things in Buddhism, there is the arising and cessation -- e.g. of ignorance, including falsehoods and wrong views, and cessation of ignorance.
There are truths or observations -- "that pot should be washed" -- transient though, right?
So I'm not sure you can "pursue truth"; only cessation or non-arising of ignorance.
That isn't antithetical to compassion, I think we're told that Gautama Buddha was motivated by compassion -- compassion remained -- before and after his enlightenment.
I don't know what happens with a "private Buddha" -- why they don't expression compassion in the same way (e.g. by teaching) -- I don't know whether that's some absence of compassion; absence of skill (e.g. of teaching); or some other necessary condition. I think that "by definition" though, that doesn't apply to a "bodhisattva".


text:
Did the Buddha ever mentioned what is the cause for having lovers / marriage?
I know there are clear explanations of cause and effect for things like the 5 precepts whereby;
Killing is the cause for short live, stealing is the cause for being poor etc...
But did our Lord Buddha or in any Sutta mentioned what is the cause for having romantic partners / marriage? Why do some people have lots of relationship, gets married and able to establish a family at a young age while some people might doesn't even have a lover?
This is aside from worldly conditions such as being good looking or rich. We all have seen some people whom might not be good looking or rich but was always attached while the good looking and rich lived a lonely life.
I'm not asking is it due to sexual misconduct whereby a relationship is broken due to adultery etc but rather the cause (Karma) for having a partner.
Thank you.

Largely, the cause of two people coming together is biological along with a desire for sensuous experience. Another cause is societal conditioning. However, one can be drawn to another without the that biological and sensual desire aspect and at the absence of conditioning. I'd say that karma works across the entire field of those areas for which specific situational causes are extremely wide, varied and unique to an individual.

Thank you very much NeuroMax for taking the effort to reply. However i am still looking for the answer to my question because frankly speaking, my intention is such i've found difficulty in wishing for a partner to settle down. I hope to find the cause of it so i can cultivate the cause for the effect. Thank you.

It's difficult for me to understand you here, because Buddism seems to only have one primary function: the understanding of a liberated mind. One of the ways we come to that understanding is by looking at how we interface with form using our repetitious behaviour which is fuelled by tanha. There's nothing wrong in wanting companionship but when the tanha aspect is removed, the function of relationships become pure and unconditional. Here, there's no need to scrutinise karmic formations, but play around with them instead.

@NeuroMax I wonder if the basis of the question is something like, maybe there's an idea (or a sutta reference saying) that if you kill someone then you'll have a short life yourself -- conversely if you have a short life perhaps that's because you killed someone, perhaps in a previous life -- so what's the cause of having or not having a relationship?

@ChrisW - precisely what I was referring to, but I've always found it problematic to speculate about how karma shapes our experience in this world and to verify this there's a sutta that discourages such contemplations. However, insight about these things can occur in such a way that one is able to think, "ah, I'm experiencing this now because I did that or those things in the past". These things don't come about through speculative thinking. It might be helpful to conglomerate these comments into an answer. I'll see what I can do.

Dear NeuroMax, thank you for taking the time once again. Allow me to be frank from here on. I understand the purpose of Buddhism is to be liberated or to gain Nirvana or at least be on the way to it. I understand my question is very shallow to begin with. I am merely asking on the line of layman buddhism like "dana/generosity is the cause of being wealthy in a life time". To be frank i am getting older and if i do not find a partner soon i may end up dying alone. That is what i seek and need materially. I still do my dharma part of the practice but i am a layman after all. Thank you.

I remember a master ever said. The Buddha has laid a solution to life's every problem. And we should practiced well so we live a satisfied layman life too. Otherwise if others look at Buddhists and sees us all poor and unsatisfied, unhappy, what kind of image we represent Buddhism? I am not versed in the Suttas and i wonder did the Buddha ever mentioned anywhere how can one cultivate to achieve a good relationship / partner? Thank you.

I started writing an answer, but as I initially expected, I don't think you will find it satisfactory; I don't think you will see the depth; I can't see my answer laying comfortably within your frame of reference, which is to say, in your own words "shallow".

Geshe Michael Roach taught that the cause for finding a companion was to give companionship.  He recommended nursing homes as one place to go and offer companionship to others to create the cause for relationship.  He also said that there is a text that did list "deeds" and the "consequences".  I am not sure if it is words of the Buddha.  Unfortunately, I don't know the name and I don't think it has been translated into English.  When someone wanted to change something that was sticking them, he would go into the book and find out exactly what they needed to do.
I have used the basic ideas of cause and effect to find a spiritual partner.  I was looking for someone to share my spiritual journey with me and support my practice.  Knowing the general idea is to do to others what you would like to have or have done to you, I figured out a way to do this.  I located a person in long term retreat and set up a monthly donation to their practice.  I don't think they even knew.  I then dedicated my practice to their enlightenment.  My current partner and I met soon after I started this, although it was a few more years before we became a couple.  I am essentially a hermit, so finding a partner really is a miracle.  We've been together 5 years.
To leverage cause and effect, simply find ways to help people have relationships or encourage people to stay in relationships or improve their relationships.  Be creative.  Offer what you would like to receive.  Get detailed about what you would like to receive, do those actions, and dedicate what you do to your goal.
I was taught about a sutra called The Teaching of the Four Practices that teaches how to purify karma.  Perhaps you already know a purification practice that you can undertake to clear your obstacles. You can create new causes, but always good to get rid of old causes for not being in relationship.
The four practices (or powers) in brief are:

Foundation power  - this is simply Buddhist refuge
Destruction power - recognizing what you did will come back to hurt you (if you don't have a memory of it, just realize that in some life you harmed relationships - your own or others)
Power of restraint - resolve never to harm relationships again
Power of antidote - studying and understanding emptiness and karma  as well as undertaking action to undo what you did (in this case, helping people stay in relationship and/or being a nice companion)

It can't be possible to list deeds and their consequences as a universal guide for people. Given the extraordinary complexity of karma/vipaka it's impractical and silly to make a guide. Karma/vipaka doesn't always follow the conventional thought of this will cause that. There is only one way to navigate through karma and that is to not navigate through it; there is only one way to navigate through vipaka and that is to navigate through it, manage it, embrace it. Seen from this wise perspective they are organic, personalised and create unique path for each practitioner.

As lay followers, approaching relationships from a kalyāṇa-mittatā perspective is the next best thing. Your answer does this beautifully.

Romance can be understood by observing as the Buddha did:

AN1.1:2.1: “Mendicants, I do not see a single sight that occupies a man’s mind like the sight of a woman.
...
AN1.6:1.1: “Mendicants, I do not see a single sight that occupies a woman’s mind like the sight of a man.

Indeed, similar observations also hold true for transgender people. In other words, romance occupies a mind. It is a feeling that leads to craving. And the Buddha explains how craving leads to seeking gain. Romance leads to the seeking and gain of romantic partners.

DN15:9.1: So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of possessiveness. Possessiveness is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.

In particular, the Buddha talks about "assessing", which can apply to "counting romantic relationships."
Notably, whether one has many, one or no romantic partners, all romantic relationships have a beginning. And anything that has a beginning has an end. So if one assesses, craves and seeks romantic relationships, those exciting beginnings are bound to be followed by wrenching ends.

DN14:3.15.7: ‘Everything that has a beginning has an end.’

In contrast, giving up assessing, giving up craving, mindful of the infinite, our hearts can be released.

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Assessing also impedes relationships. We look for partners who meet certain arbitrary criteria--we assess them and reject others. Mindful of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity for one and all, our hearts open to all sentient beings. We will always feel happiest around good spiritual friends. And some spiritual friends will become closer than others. I met my wife through a stranger simply because of a warm greeting. And she became my closest spiritual friend.
Note that the above is not advice to seek a relationship In fact, the Buddha specifically warns against the unworthiness of matchmaking:

DN1:1.26.2: This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells for good or bad luck, curses to prevent conception, bind the tongue, or lock the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror, a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck.

Dear Oyamist, thank you for taking the effort to reply. I understand that romance might not be the most wholesome thing in our Dharma journey. But i've come to realize that i would very probably be a layman for the rest of my life. To be frank my intention is such i have found great difficulty in searching for a partner to settle down in life. I am trying to find out the cause of it so i can cultivate the cause for it's effect. Thank you.

Thank you, George, I've updated my answer to reflect your clarification. Perhaps it may be of some use. May you find peace with others.

Dear Oyamist thank you very much once again. I'm not sure if my question is not clear enough or it is merely too shallow to be asked here. Allow me to be frank, i am getting older and if i do not find a partner i may just live and die alone rest of my life. I am not forsaking the dharma part of the religion. I still keep my precepts and meditation. But i am still a layman afterall. I seek a partner to form a family. I am thinking simply if there's a cause such as "dana is the cause of wealth" for seeking a partner. Like if being friendly is the cause of having a relationship. Thank you.

Georg, yes, I understand your question. Unfortunately, the good kamma of ethical people is not guaranteed to ripen in this particular life. AN8.35: “Mendicants, there are these eight rebirths by giving.". Simply be a good person, generous, kind, ethical, content and grateful. The good kamma will ripen.

The most important causes for lasting relationships are listed by the Buddha in AN 4.55 & AN 4.53.
Also DN 31 says:

A husband should serve his wife as the western quarter in five ways: by treating her with honor, by not looking down on her, by not being unfaithful, by relinquishing authority to her and by presenting her with adornments.
A wife served by her husband in these five ways shows compassion to him in five ways. She’s well-organized in her work. She manages the domestic help. She’s not unfaithful. She preserves his earnings. She’s deft and tireless in all her duties. A wife served by her husband in these five ways shows compassion to him in these five ways.
And that’s how the western quarter is covered, kept safe and free of peril.

You may also read the Mātugāma Samyutta, which is about women; and SN 7.63, which is about seven types of wife.
Other relevant teachings of the Buddha are listed here: The Partner (A Constitution for Living ).

Excellent answer about how it is bad qualities in people that cause them to misbehave and not have good relations

The more we wake up, the more we realised how amazing & clear the Buddha was!

Thank you Dhammadhatu for the reply. I will look into the links of Sutta you've provided. To be very frank my intention is such i've difficulty in finding a partner to settle down in life. I am hoping to find the cause of it so i can cultivate the cause for it's effect. And i am still trying to find an answer. Thank you.

@Dhammadhatu. Couldn't agree more - this really is a practice in waking up.