text:
How does buddhism describe what exactly, or where exactly, or how exactly, consciousness exists?
As a computer scientist interested in the origin of the universe and the mind, I finally have found some ancient stuff of the type of substance and depth I am looking for, the Abhidhamma. The first part of the Vibhanga (one of the sections of the Abhidhamma) talks about "aggregates" or "heaps" or "groups", Skandha. This to me seems like it is near the foundation of what a computational model of consciousness would need to consider, as consciousness is one of the types of heaps or skandha.
My question at this point in learning about this is, how exactly is consciousness structured in this model? Where does consciousness exist exactly. As a human being, I feel my body, but my conscious awareness feels like it is in the center of my brain, literally at a pin point. I can understand and model how a consciousness can use sensory organs to perceive information, but I don't understand how the consciousness itself can form. If everything is information in the end, or bundles of flowing information like these heaps/skandha, how does it aggregate and flow in a bundle in such a way to generate consciousness which you can feel?
I can even go so far as to imagine something like a biological cell with its complicated machinery going so far as to gain control over its environment, so that as a machine it is so complex and highly functional that it acts like a conscious being. This isn't too hard to imagine. But what is hard to imagine is how the consciousness is stored, or where it is! How can I perceive and feel the perception is in the center of my brain? What does skandha and the Abhidhamma have to say about this, it's structure?

When you get a thought or have an idea about solving a problem or creating something, do you feel that it came from within your brain? I never did but your question sounds like you feel like this. Or maybe even more, are you able to obeserve the operation your brain performs while thinking?

Interesting question. Now that I think about it, my attention or focus feels like it is in the center of my brain, but a thought feels like it is a cloud in the ether haha. I am not able to observe the operation of my brain performing actions, no.

There are teachings that describe thoughts as not individually created but are individually routed. Hense we only connect with the thoughts, not create them. Just FYI. I'm not sure how it is in Buddhism.

@akostadinov very interesting, thanks!

"my conscious awareness feels like it is in the center of my brain"  This is probably an artefact of your knowledge. At one point, the brain was thought of as purely a way of regulating the heat of the body and the stomach was considered the centre of consciousness.  It's moved around, e.g. https://www.oshonews.com/2013/01/15/navel-center-of-consciousness/

Why assume the best understanding of the mind comes directly from the "feeling" of experience or the codified descriptions of those feelings provided by the ancients? Isn't that like studying a cloudy lens only by looking through it, and neglecting to analyze its molecular structure and geometry? For your location question: why would the sense of "being" inside your head be unrelated to the two strongest senses (sight and hearing) being mounted in the skull itself?

Consciousness is a single threaded process. I personally believe no sentient being on this Universe will be able to develop a programme equivalent to consciousness. (So called AI is not consciousness). There are two reasons for that, first is the complexity of Patthana Dhamma and the second is inventing hardware to match the extremely high clock speed of consciousness. In reality, (in realms where all 5 aggregates are available) consciousness runs on hardware generated by itself with the help of other causes (Which is hard to imagine!).

I will join in the fun with another answer:

Consciousness is included as one of the basic six elements (dhatus), namely, earth, wind, fire, water, space and consciousness, per MN 115. Here, the term 'consciousness' is obviously used to refer to all forms of mentality.

For example, AN 3.61 says a new embryo is formed from the above six elements.

The four physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) compose or derive the physical body (rupa), per MN 9; SN 12.2, etc.

More specifically, consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa), per SN 22.82. Here, contrary to MN 115, the word 'nama' is used to refer to all mentality (feeling, perception, volition, contact & attention) apart from consciousness.

Consciousness arises (uppajjati) dependent upon sense organs & sense objects, per MN 38, MN 148, etc.

There can be no coming into existence (upapatti) of consciousness without the other four aggregates, per SN 22.53.

Consciousness, perception & feeling are conjoined, per MN 43. Therefore, to say one can exist prior to or after the other is not exactly appropriate.

This is what the Pali suttas say about consciousness.
The analogy of a CPU appears wrong because "consciousness" ("vinnana") does not "process". What processes in Buddhism is called "mano" ("the intellect"). I imagine consciousness is more akin to a computer screen. Consciousness simply experiences, that is all.

Excellent, this is the kind of stuff I was looking for. Thanks.

I'm curious how did you get to all those specific references from MN, SN, AN: do you just remember all of them? or did you use some search engine with the word "Consciousness"?

Memory. Over many years you read sutta and memorize the important suttas and quickly forget the unimportant ones. There are only a relatively few suttas that explain or define the core principles.

As a computer scientist you are bringing some baggage with you that will continue to get in the way of what you want to find in the Dharma. I am speaking from the perspective of a computer scientist that spent thirty years looking into the same questions you are asking, ultimately finding the answers  in contemplative practice.
While consciousness is categorized in the Dharma in ways that may have led you to believe that consciousness is some thing that exists separate and apart from its cognitive contents, reaching out to contact that content, the actual structure, which you can discover first-hand through meditative practices (today’s mindfulness meditation being the first baby-step on the path) is the inverse of what you believe it to be.
For me, the ultimate roadblock on the path you are following was explaining human creativity (rather than explaining it away), because, upon analysis, the proposed solutions to explaining it always assumed the result, and thus were never more than magical thinking. An example is the foundational belief, found widespread in many fields of knowledge, that order arises randomly—and sticks around—without some organizing principle driving it. That’s magical thinking.
Consciousness of some object being taken as a structure of real things harboring a ghost in the machine that somehow imparts a new feature onto its dull matter, no matter how subtly the mechanism is crafted, must assume as a given, the ability to know, be aware, or be cognizant of those skandas you’ve read about. It’s not to be found in dull matter, so you have to turn the problem around.
If you want a textual reference to an in-depth treatment of mind, and specifically “where is mind?” I highly recommend the Surangama Sutra, also known as The Sutra of Heroic Progress. There are three extant English translations of it, with my favorite being the Goddard translation because of it’s conciseness (repeating material being skipped), and the lengths gone to by the translators and the editor, Goddard, to not use unfamiliar terminology.

why don't you simply quote the Surangama Sutra rather than sending someone on a pointless endless search thru a long text. thanks

Because the whole text is focused on that subject. Sometimes easy answers are less than helpful.

It is unrelated to the subject. That consciousness arises due to sense organs and sense objects does not answer the questions being sought.

You’re wrong in your understanding of what the sutra is about, what direction my answer is pointing the OP, and what he is looking forward. Please let the OP judge the answer.

The OP states that his question is: “my question at this point in learning about this is, how exactly is consciousness structured in this model? Where does consciousness exist exactly.” You refused an answer on this point, saying it wasn’t about Buddhism. In the Mahayana it is the central focus. What is Mind? Direct experience of the nature of Mind. The Surangama Sutra is fully devoted to these questions.

Can you point to one specific part of the Surangama Sutra that describes where the mind is or how it is structured? As a starting point? Also, I am not interested in how the mind perceives, that is easy to imagine once you have a consciousness in place that perceives already. What I am confused about is how the consciousness actually perceives in the first place. It feels (positive, negative, or neutral), but how does this feeling work? What is the inner structure?

Chapter one is where you should read. These are links to the sections found there:

Chapter One—False Mind versus True Mind (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-70ce471da769?source=friends_link&sk=8c2e5ac62b507ff6af912cd93d5093d8)

Questions of King Prasenajit (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-5117c10a65e2?source=friends_link&sk=6df136435d1b9ee31dfd7e83f363610a)

Questions by Ananda (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-431e0a9f0513?source=friends_link&sk=625e1853ae94dc0d643e7385311dc597)

Questions That Arise in View of the Sole Reality of Essential  Mind (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-18ea898b6a96?source=friends_link&sk=14906da002f81aba82720d74aaf0eeb6)

Relations of Perceptions to the Four Great Elements (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-890e23eb7a7f?source=friends_link&sk=051610e86584bc2d6910c32612783c11)

Questions by Purna Answered (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-a1dbca0452d7?source=friends_link&sk=8063b990ae436adb56e65c3a434c23db)

Instructions To Ananda (https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/surangama-sutra-6f1fff13b5bc?source=friends_link&sk=b131e422dbe64f8a37d9c7103f1391d7)

And a paper about the first section by Ronald Epstein: (http://online.sfsu.edu/repstein/Buddhism/Shurangama/locations.htm)

The five aggregates are form, feeling (or sensation), perception, consciousness and mental formations.
These are part of name-and-form, the mentality-materiality or mind-and-body model.
Form is body. The rest are part of "name" or mind, with feeling and mental formations connecting the mind to the body.
Feeling or sensation senses from the six sense media of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind, e.g. images, sounds, smells, thoughts.
Perception matches it to previously recognized objects (e.g. images, sounds, thoughts). Memory is part of this function.
Consciousness is the mental function that focuses on and experiences the mental objects and based on this, the mind leads to the next mental processes forming thoughts, words and actions (i.e. mental formations). There are six types of consciousness related to the six sense media.
Please read the following quote and also the whole page, to get a deeper view into the concepts.
From The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

The Ultimate Realities
The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in an ultimate sense,
called in Pali paramattha dhammaa. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as that which knows or experiences an object. > Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of
consciousness.
Cetasikas, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the cittas.
Ruupa, physical phenomena, or material form.
Nibbaana.

Citta, the cetasikas, and ruupa are conditioned realities. They arise
because of conditions and disappear when their conditions cease to
sustain them. Therefore they are impermanent. Nibbaana is an
unconditioned reality. It does not arise and therefore does not fall
away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of what name
we give them. Any other thing — be it within ourselves or without,
past, present, or future, coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near
— is a concept and not an ultimate reality.
Citta, cetasikas, and nibbaana are also called naama. The two
conditioned naamas, citta and cetasikas, together with ruupa make up
naama-ruupa, the psycho-physical organism. Each of us, in the ultimate
sense, is a naama-ruupa, a compound of mental and material phenomena,
and nothing more. Apart from these three realities that go to form the
naama-ruupa compound there is no ego, self, or soul. The naama part of
the compound is what experiences an object. The ruupa part does not
experience anything. When the body is injured it is not the body,
which is ruupa, that feels the pain, but naama, the mental side. When
we are hungry it is not the stomach that feels the hunger but again
the naama. However, naama cannot eat the food to ease the hunger. The
naama, the mind and its factors, makes the ruupa, the body, ingest the
food. Thus neither the naama nor the ruupa has any efficient power of
its own. One is dependent on the other; one supports the other. Both
naama and ruupa arise because of conditions and perish immediately,
and this is happening every moment of our lives. By studying and
experiencing these realities we will get insight into: (1) what we
truly are; (2) what we find around us; (3) how and why we react to
what is within and around us; and (4) what we should aspire to reach
as a spiritual goal.
The Cittas
Awareness is the process of cittas experiencing objects. For a citta
to arise it must have an object (aaramma.na). The object may be a
color, sound, smell, taste, something tangible, or a mental object.
These are the six external objects. Strictly speaking a mental object
can be an internal phenomenon, such as a feeling, a thought, or an
idea, but as forming the objective sphere of experience they are all
classed as external. Corresponding to these external objects there are
six internal sense faculties, called "doors" since they are the
portals through which the objects enter the field of cognition. These
are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Each of the five
physical sense faculties can receive only its appropriate object; the
mind door, however, can receive both its own proper mental objects as
well as the objects of the five physical senses. When a door receives
its object, there arises a corresponding state of consciousness, such
as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. The union of the object,
the door or sense faculty, and the consciousness is called "contact"
(phassa). There can be no awareness without contact. For contact to
occur all three components must be present — object, door, and
consciousness. If one is missing there will be no contact. The process
of the arising of consciousness and the subsequent train of events is
analyzed in detail in the Abhidhamma. A study of this analysis will
show that only "bare phenomena" are taking place and that there is no
"self" involved in this process. This is the no-self characteristic of
existence.

As a computer scientist interested in the origin of the universe and
the mind, I finally have found some ancient stuff of the type of
substance and depth I am looking for, the Abhidhamma. The first part
of the Vibhanga (one of the sections of the Abhidhamma) talks about
"aggregates" or "heaps" or "groups", Skandha. This to me seems like it
is near the foundation of what a computational model of consciousness
would need to consider, as consciousness is one of the types of heaps
or skandha.

The five aggregates are found in the Pali suttas. Regardless, Buddhism says nothing about your idea about the "origin" of consciousness. In the Pali suttas, the "origin" ("samudaya") of consciousness merely refers to when consciousness is the object of craving leading to the origin of suffering. The suttas say:

And what is the origin of form, feeling, perception, choices, and
consciousness?
Ko ca, bhikkhave, rūpassa samudayo, ko vedanāya samudayo, ko saññāya
samudayo, ko saṅkhārānaṃ samudayo, ko viññāṇassa  samudayo?
It’s when a mendicant approves, welcomes, and keeps clinging.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.
SN 22.5

My question at this point in learning about this is, how exactly is
consciousness structured in this model?

The above question is unrelated to Buddhism, which concerns itself with how consciousness partakes in the origination of suffering.

Where does consciousness exist exactly.

Again, the above question is unrelated to Buddhism.

As a human being, I feel my body

No. Consciousness feels the body rather than the ego.

but my conscious awareness feels like it is in the center of my brain.

Really?

I can understand and model how a consciousness can use sensory organs
to perceive information

Yes, Buddhism says this.

but I don't understand how the consciousness itself can form.

Again, the above question is unrelated to Buddhism.

If everything is information in the end, or bundles of flowing
information like these heaps/skandha how does it aggregate and flow
in a bundle in such a way to generate consciousness which you can
feel?

Again, the above question is unrelated to Buddhism.

I can even go so far as to imagine something like a biological cell
with its complicated machinery going so far as to gain control over
its environment, so that as a machine it is so complex and highly
functional that it acts like a conscious being. This isn't too hard to
imagine. But what is hard to imagine is how the consciousness is
stored, or where it is! How can I perceive and feel the perception is
in the center of my brain?

Again, the above question is unrelated to Buddhism.

What does skandha and the Abhidhamma have to say about this, it's structure?

Probably nothing.

“... how exactly is consciousness structured in this model?”
Consciousness has no form or “structure.” It is like “ether.”
“Where does consciousness exist exactly?”
Nowhere, yet everywhere. Whether in a physical shell, or as part of the nameless void, consciousness has no barrier or confine to its existence.
“...but I don't understand how the consciousness itself can form.”
Consciousness does not form. It merely exists. You confuse consciousness with the arisal of a physical or mental aggregate of consciousness and desire.
Perhaps this will help explains it a bit better:
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-four-layers-of-consciousness/

Maybe you could also appreciate an answer that does not come directly from Buddhism but from paraconsistent logic. This logic is not the everyday classical logic which you use in computer science (actually you could use it, though it is not widespread). Still, there are quite strong parallels between this type of logic and Buddhism. The reason I am browsing this SE and trying to learn about Buddhism is because of my interest in that logic. I can recommend books by Graham Priest, "One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness" and "The Fifth Corner of Four". First book provides explanation on how this logic can solve a number of hard problems that classical logic fails at, including how pluralities form unities (this can provides insights for aggregates and heaps part of your question) and the mind and body problem (you do not mention it explicitly, but I understood that the second paragraph in your question is about it). Last third of this book revisits some of the discussed topics from the Buddhism viewpoint. Second book is very readable account of parallels between Buddhist metaphysics and paraconsistent logic. I hope I am not making a very bad pun if I say that paraconsistent logic is a middle way between computer science and Buddhism.
Here I will give a sketch of how the problem of unity can be solved. If you use classical logic to think about how multiple things can form a unity, you run into a problem called Bradley's regress. Imagine that you are building a brick house. At first you have bricks stacked in a shape of a cube, but after the building is completed, they are stacked in the shape of a house. In the first case the bricks do not constitute a single object house, but in the second case they do. An intuitive explanation to how this comes about is that the unity of house from a plurality of bricks is accomplished by the relations between the bricks. So, you take a set of bricks and add a set of relations and you have unity. Well, this works as long as you think of relations as being a different type of objects than the bricks, as you can not explain how a bunch of objects form a unity if you just add even more objects of same kind to them. In this example it is easy think of relations different than the bricks, as bricks are physical and relations abstract objects. Also, you have to just accept that the relations do join the bricks, there is no explanation how they do it. So this is where the Bradley's regress kicks off, if you try to find the answer here, on this new level. How do bricks and relations interact? Well, you can add more relations that will explain that, but then how do these new relations interact with the old ones on one side and the bricks on the other? Furthermore, you can try to think about different examples that are more abstract, for example how words make sentences and how multiple pieces of information can be combined into an idea. Hopefully these additional examples can show that separating objects in different kinds is not always easy.
Graham Priest was able to avoid Bradley's regress by introducing a special type of object, that he named gluon. Gluon had to be inconsistent to do this, to have contradictory properties. However, you can not reason about contradictory objects in classical logic, so paraconsistent logic has to be used.
Gluon to glue together all the bricks into a unity of one house, needs to be identical to every single brick, as well as to be identical with that house. Differently said, to have same properties as all of the bricks and the house. There is no need to explain the joining of the bricks to the gluon, the gluon is already every single brick, and through being all of the bricks at the same time, all of the bricks form a unity of a house. All of this can be proven formally as well. The contradictions of the gluon should be easy to spot now. For example, there is one brick in the front wall, and when you ask if the gluon is in the front wall, the answer is both yes and no, because gluon also has the properties of a brick in the back wall, which is not in the front wall.
What is left, is to accept that the paraconsistent logic is applicable for explaining the physical world, which is not a simple task. Beside higher complexity and lesser intuitiveness compared with classical logic, it carries its own bag of problems. Of which the biggest might be how are we to accept that the contradictions are real? This is where Buddhism could come in handy and I hope better informed people can provide answers to that. I can only point towards the quantum mechanics, Schrodinger’s cat and double-slit experiment. It looks like we have measurable contradictions in physics.

I have no compartmentalized Abhidharma-type technical terms for you, but the answer to your question is mentioned quite succinctly and beautifully here:

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
UD.1.10


text:
What is the perception of the body?
I'm following the four foundations of mindfulness. This has given me round-the-clock body awareness. It can often be painful; but it can often be pleasant. The pleasantness is marred by its opposite.
I notice from time to time the density of my body disappears along with all ideas of pleasant and unpleasant and their respective sensations.
Questions
Is the body a perception like all other perceptions?
How does the subtle perceptions described in MN 121 translate into the body? - I'm asking this as there appears to be greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness.

The body is obviously a perception (sense object) but it also exists independent of perception. For example, the automatic functions of the body (such as breathing, heart function, liver function, digestion function, growth, cell division, etc) exist and operate independent of perception.
Therefore, scriptures, such as MN 43, say the living body continues to exist when (living) perception ceases.
The question about MN 121 appears irrelevant. MN 121 ultimately says in the supreme realization/experience of Emptiness, the body continues to exist. It says:

‘This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality, empty of the effluent of [ego] becoming, empty of the effluent of ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that
connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body
with life as its condition.’

In your attempt to practise Satipatthana, there is greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness because of your past kamma (actions). Restlessness is one of the Five Hindrances to meditation and the scriptures (AN 10.61) say the food (nutriment) of the Five Hindrances is the Three Unskillful Actions.
Instead of focusing on higher teachings, such as perception & Emptiness, you should focus on teachings for rank beginners, such as the Five and Eight Precepts, which include not watching pornography, not engaging in casual sex and, on a higher level, not masturbating.
Satipatthana is the 7th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes abstinence from all sexual activity in its 5th Factor. If a person actually is practising Satipatthana "around the clock" (as you claim) then they will be free from all sexual activity because Satipatthana means giving up all lust and distress towards the world.
Your experience of restlessness is like a detoxification. When a person enters into detox via abstinence, they will experience withdrawal symptoms for a time, until they fully detox. A person cannot detoxify if they keep taking toxins.

This is very helpful. Thank you. Referring back to basic precepts seems a sensible approach with regards to the hindrances.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
fundamental level of existence in Buddhism
After long time and back to BSE. My question is; according to science all the existence are sequenced as matter made of alchemy (chemistry) , molecules , atoms, sub particles then energy. I think base of science is depend on this sequencing and it is considered as a reality. However science possesses its own controversies as unable to provide proper explanations as result of limitations of five senses and their extensions.(e.g...eye and hi tech microscopes)
i think science stuck at "energy" in sequencing the subtle level of existence. but it is so clear what have found up this level of scientific finding.science came across massive breakthroughs such as finding of atom, artificial memory, artificial intelligence , MRI etc...and science based on proofs. at the subtle level science manipulate energy at best level becomes it can do everything as "energy is everything" including our mind. Think I've made concise explanation of what science can do if i am not mistaken.
Now we turn towards the Buddhism as a great philosophy. Can Buddhism provide concrete explanations on above questions?
what is the absolute, final, subtle level of existence?
how is energy defined in Buddhism?
Is there anything beyond energy?
If there are, what is the proof?

Well, lets try to see how much suffering there's to get this mental view "molecules, atoms, sub particles then energy.", how much suffering it costs to keep it, how much far you can go with it, how you can prove it to yourself the usefulness of it, what's the life span is (i.e., when this view dies). The only reason for this answer is to reduce suffering. Every word I write has this goal in mind. For this it is important to pay attention and analyze the issue. A few useful concepts pop out, interestingly enough the same stuff what Buddha was telling us. Does it make him a sort of a God who knows, and us sort of ghosts injured and hurt wondering around without a goal? I’d say yes. But let’s the question is not about ghosts, so lets focus on the question.
Having molecules, atoms (sub particles to some extend) are useful. On a practical level this creates all kinds of machines from agriculture to iphones. Those machines increase efficiency substantially, one can gather and preprocess more food, transport and reach more people, allowed more and more people be less and less concerned how to fill their stomachs with food. Do we have less suffering in the world? Definitely. Our problems got a lot more complicated though. Now you’ve got at least 4 hours a day (typically we work 8 hours per day compared to 12 hours a century ago) for anything we want. What do we do with it? Take drugs, alcohol, do sports to shut up all the annoying voices in our heads and hide our misery.
Getting this (wrong) view is essential to keep improving our technology and make even better agricultural machines as well as iphones. The way our society does it is through suffering as well: if one learns it at school then this is through force, repetitive memorization, and addictive presentation of the content in discovery, natural geographic channels. How long did you celebrate your high school diploma? How long did you celebrate your college/university degree? Once you got your diploma did you have an inner happiness for a day or two, or did it involve drinking lots of alcohol to “forget” the stress of “fundamentals” you’ve received, that allegedly will help you repay your depts and give some financial stability?
Buddha talks about light in many sutras, e.g. sn56.11 (https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi). I have a feeling however that this is something different to your concept of “energy”. I have a feeling that what you mean by energy is the famous equation from Einstein E=mc2. If you’ll talk to scientists thought, they’ll tell you that they see this “theory” more like a material that evolves over time, with some ideas taking a birth, enjoying some sort of development (maturing, bringing us to additional knowledge) and eventually dying out. Those scientists will also tell that with every “fundamental knowledge” they introduce “fundamental problems” as well. Examples are indefinability of key mathematical objects like sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox) and what we can compute and we cannot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) We tried to patch those theories the way we tried to this all the time. This created even more complex theories and problems that require even more suffering to understand and learn.
Advances in other sciences are not helping much to reduce suffering as well. Looking at medical sciences, we have no clue why taking any bitter pill (placebo) is better than well designed drug. Even in covid-19 test studies we give 50% of test people a placebo pill, i.e., a pill that should have no effect whatsoever. Impressive enough, this has quite an impressive effect.
The fundamental level of existence is that there’s suffering, there’s an origin of suffering, there’s the cessation of suffering, and there’s a path leading towards cessation of suffering.

thank you for editing my post by including links however please take care with those Sujato translations. Thank you and regards.

Thanks for noticing. I am becoming aware that different translations may have an impact of my understanding of the subject (I read the suttas with my ebook reader, the ebook that I've got even cross reference and provide different versions of the translation). I understand that my view is quite simplistic one (yielding a feeling of joy as individual ignorances fade away, in some cases even reaching rapture and equanimity levels). At this level giving a hyper-reference to a translation looks to be better than giving a none-hyper reference. Let's see when this feeling will die out :-)

I noticed you translate suttas yourself. Once referencing to others, maybe you've got a preferred translator for overall suttas (compared to individual preferences of individual translations of individual suttas?)

Thank you. You may notice i edited your edit and chose various translators dependent on the sutta.

I noticed (I wish I paid attention earlier.) You chose quite a few translations from Bodhi, quite a few from Thanissaro and left a couple of those from sujato among a few.

the Sujato translations will be straightforward. Occasionally, Thanissaro has a translation i prefer.

The description of science given is that of the Newtonian understanding of physics and chemistry. Scientists like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman overturned this "mechanical" perspective.
For example, the "sequencing" of which you speak does not apply to the quantum level, where effects can precede cause. On the other side of the scale, in cosmology, time itself is not an independent entity, and past, present & future are completely dependent on the location and velocity of the observer and the observed (General theory of relativity).
Science does not "contain controversies". There are many questions that science currently does not have a theory for, primarily because we lack observational data. In this case, scientists will have no problem saying "we don't know (yet)". There is no shame or controversy in this.
As for the interchangeability of mass and energy, you must realize the amount of energy required to create matter is staggering and beyond human capacity to even imagine.
Science has made great strides in the field of neurology in the last decades. Quantum brain dynamics (QBD) is a recent hypothesis to explain the function of the brain within the framework of quantum field theory. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Observations have identified quanta of long-range coherent waves within and between brain cells, and showed a possible mechanism of memory storage and retrieval in terms of Nambu–Goldstone bosons.
The implication is that subjective experiences of all kinds, including experiences of subtle energies, are secondary to, and derivative of, objective, physical processes.
Where science is based on objective observation, Buddhism is experiential. Vīrya (Sanskrit; Pāli: viriya) is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "energy", but it has nothing to do with the concept of energy in physics. To discuss the relation between the concept of energy in Buddhism versus physics, we must differentiate:

energy as a primary attribute of the objective, physical world,
energy as a secondary attribute of the subjective, sensory world, and
a nondual contemplative view of energy in the world of experience.

Many contemplative traditions of the world, including Buddhism, have sought to understand a unified world of experience, which includes a spectrum of subjective and objective phenomena, with no absolute division within this spectrum. Within this world of experience emerged the Greek concept of pneuma, Indian prana, Tibetan loong, Chinese qi, Japanese ki, and Native American mana in their respective medical traditions, all of which are supposedly present in the body and the environment at large.
In Buddhism, the energies coursing through the human body are investigated from a first-person perspective by first honing the attention by means of sophisticated contemplative training. Therefore, the Buddhist view has no objective, quantitative means of examining energy. And since we know that the quantum level very likely plays a role in the brain, the uncertainty principle & the observer effect virtually make it impossible for a contemplative discipline to make 100% accurate predictions and assertions.

The Buddha's focus was empirical and soteriological, not ontological or metaphysical, as evidenced by the following sutta quotes.
The Buddha was only interested in what would end suffering permanently.
The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow from Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta:

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
to him.
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

From Acintita Sutta:

"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.

From Sabba Sutta:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

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


text:
Why five aggregates instead of just three?
If feeling, perception and consciousness are conjoined or mixed, and it is not possible to separate them or delineate them or disjoin them, then why do we have five different aggregates instead of just three?
What is the significance and usefulness in the teaching to have feeling, perception and consciousness clearly distinguished into three different aggregates? Why were they not combined into a single aggregate?
From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one
perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these
qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among
them."

From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Sujato):

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not
separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe
the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you
cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not
separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe
the difference between them.”

In your question you say, "it is not possible to separate them or delineate them or disjoin them."
But Ven. Thanissaro's translation says: "It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
So the first point of contention is: is it possible to separate them [feeling, perception, consciousness]?
One reading of Ven. Thanissaro's translation is that A. It is possible to discern the difference between them and B. It is not possible to delineate the difference between them
Here, delineate means to describe or depict. This seems to align with Ven. Sujato's translation: "And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them."
There's a difference between experiencing something firsthand (direct knowledge) and conveying that information in words afterwards.

OK... so your view is that they can be separated from each other, but just you cannot describe the difference between them?

Very good question, which i imagine i will post more about at a later time.
Firstly, about the translations, I suspect the translations of "paññāpeti" as "delineate", "describe" or "declare" may possibly be questionable. "Paññāpana" (from "paññāpeti") is found in SN 22.82 and taken by Bhikkhu Bodhi to mean "manifestation", which fits the context of SN 22.82. Therefore, substituting into MN 43, it might read as: ???????
Secondly, the three types of feelings are related to the arising of the three types of defilements, such as explained in paragraph 30 of MN 148. Therefore, it appears most essential to highlight the feeling aggregate. As said in paragraph 15 of AN 3.61:

Now it is for one who feels that I proclaim: ‘This is suffering,’ and
‘This is the origin of suffering,’ and ‘This is the cessation of
suffering,’ and ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of
suffering.’

Again, AN 10.58 says:

vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā
All dhamma practices converge/meet on feelings.

As we understand by MN 148, MN 38, MN 37, AN 3.61, etc, feeling can arise without there being the arising of craving and suffering. Before the Buddha, I imagine people were seeking a nirvana that was without feeling. Even today on the Buddhist internet, we witness individuals posting obsessively and mistakenly about the cessation of perception & feeling as though it is Nibbana. But the Buddha declared the only possible here-&-now Nibbana and Liberation cannot be without feeling. Therefore, it appears essential to the Buddha-Dhamma, as already explained, to highlight the importance of feeling.
Also, there are conscious experiences that are predominantly feelings, such as jhana. While consciousness arises & lands on such pleasant jhana feelings, obviously the feeling aggregate starts apart in and dominates such jhana consciousness.
Thirdly, as for "perception", at least in relation to what is 'supramundane', there are many suttas about perverted perception and enlightened perception, such as AN 4.49 and AN 10.60. Therefore, it appears to highlight the perception aggregate is also important and it needs to be distinguished from consciousness and feeling.

I think that's true of other teachings too. The links of Dependent Origination are pretty clearly interdependent and happen pretty much simultaneously. Karma isn't as linear and simple as it seems either (for example the current situation and state of mind plays a role in what results appear). And so on.
But I think the teachings are very useful just the way they are. If I recall correctly...
Rupa is the body.
Feeling is pain, pleasure, neutrality.
Perception is the emotions, thoughts, etc.
Mental formations is intentions, habits, tendencies, etc.
They are simply a very natural and useful way of classifying the clinging we can have.


text:
Concentration with no object?
The Buddha often makes this requests on his monks, "incline your mind towards Nibbana"
Does this mean concentration with no object?
As far as I can ascertain, concentration with no object does not seem to be possible.
I have a particular interest in the Mahayana perspective but answers from other traditions are welcome.
Thanks

It means to incline your mind towards dispassion, dispassion towards the sense objects, dispassion towards craving for existence and dispassion towards craving for non-existence.
Inclining your mind toward dispassion means to incline your mind towards disenchantment, no longer being enchanted with sense objects, craving for existence and craving for non-existence.
To incline your mind towards disenchantment, you must see reality as it is by observing any/all of the three marks of existence:

changing nature of reality
selfless nature of reality
unsatisfactory nature of reality

By observing these qualities of existence, the mind gradually loses its interest in grasping to such unreliable things for a source of lasting happiness, thus inclining towards disenchantment, thus inclining towards dispassion, thus inclining towards Nibbana.

Does this mean concentration with no object?

No - It means concentration of any object while noticing its changing nature, selfless nature and/or unsatisfactory nature.

You might also find this relatable - Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

Thanks for sutta. Disenchantment and dispassion can be absent of some qualities mentioned in this sutta thus making the field of play a little more uncomfortable. It either doesn't apply to me or I must observe my virtue with a little more scrutiny.

@NeuroMax , I'm not sure what you mean by ... can be absent of some qualities mentioned in this sutta thus making the field of play a little more uncomfortable

If it helps you to understand the Sutta better, it is describing a path, a set of conditions, one giving rise to the next, leading all the way up to realization of Nibbana. For example, the Sutta mentioning freedom from remorse, joy, rapture, serenity... etc, Disenchantment and Dispassion are not yet applicable because the mind at these stages is still enchanted, fascinated, interested, craving, hating sense objects & existence/non-existence. When the proper pre-requisites are met, the mind begins to see that none of these objects are worthwhile objects to satisfy it's desires.

Each of the stages it describes has its own spectrum of completeness; One stage does not need to be "completed" before the next begins. More-so on a sliding scale, as one develops the affinities mentioned in each stage (beginning to end), the ability to develop the subsequent stages is deepened.

An example of this being - you do not need to be totally free from remorse to have joy arise... As you become more and more free from remorse, more and more joy arises... apply this to all the stages it describes like this.

Right, I see. This was never my understanding of disenchantment and dispassion, but I think I can stretch it to fit within those parameters. It seems helpful. Disenchantment and dispassion bear the qualities of lack, grief and disappointment. From your perspective, these still remain enchantments to the mind. Thank you for outlining the path mentioned in the sutta leading to this version of disenchantment and dispassion.

Yes, but know that "disenchantment" and "dispassion" does not mean the opposite of enchantment and the opposite of passion. If you are disenchanted/dispassionate with something, it simply means you are not enchanted/passionate with that something. There is no new quality or emotion that gets created in its place necessarily. If you take away enchantment and take away passion, what is left is disenchantment and dispassion. If you find disenchantment/dispassion leads you to feelings of "lack, grief and disappointment", then disenchantment/dispassion should be applied to those feelings as well :)

Excellent! Thanks. ;-)

From Mahayana perspective true Nirvana is the non-abiding Nirvana, which is a state of not being bounded by any single interpretative framework whatsoever.

Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. - MN 72

So it's not as much a concentration without an object as it is without a reference point such as one delineating "better" (state) from "worse" (state).
Freedom from all frameworks is the inexpressible suchness or positive ambiguity where even the dichotomy of samsara/nirvana has been transcended.
As the sutta answers pointed out, attaining this freedom requires concentration to identify and stop the opposing factors, the factors of attachment/craving/aversion/non-suchness, through letting go and dispassion of wisdom.

And that concentration can occur outside of meditation, as is the case with myself. It's not that I must sit there crossed-legged and concentrate - that's helpful in some respects - but I can concentrate in the wider field of experience; in life so to speak. Could you expand on this sentence please: "So it's not as much a concentration without an object as it is without a reference point such as one delineating "better" (state) from "worse" (state)

It means the object is Nibbana and the mental attitudes leading to Nibbana, as literally said as follows:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a
monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN
48.10
To whatever extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned,
dispassion is declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing
of pride, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the
termination of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion,
cessation, nibbāna. Those who have confidence in the Dhamma have
confidence in the foremost, and for those who have confidence in the
foremost, the result is foremost.
AN 4.34
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment
factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion, and cessation,
and ripens in relinquishment. He develops the investigation-of-states
enlightenment factor…the energy enlightenment factor…the rapture
enlightenment factor…the tranquillity enlightenment factor…the
concentration enlightenment factor…the equanimity enlightenment
factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion, and cessation,
and ripens in relinquishment.
MN 118

AN 4.34 states: “To whatever extent there are phenomena conditioned or unconditioned, dispassion is declared the foremost among them". Dispassion for the unconditioned? Is this attachment to notions of emptiness?

I imagine dispassion is a conditioned phenomena despite it being the final gateway to experiencing the unconditioned Nibbana. Dispassion means loss of desire due to being disenchanted with the impermanence & unsatisfactoriness of conditioned phenomena. Dispassion is to get sick of things. Example u love your wife but discover your wife is cheating on u all the time many many times. Instead of loving your wife u now look down upon her & completely lose interest in her. This is dispassion. Dispassion is conditioned (dependent upon insight) but it allows the Unconditioned to flow into the mind.

Let's say you go to the doctor and get your blood pressure measured and it turns out to be high, probably because you were anxious at that moment. The doctor tells you to calm down, and then he will take another reading.
In order to do so, what would you concentrate on? Surely not on the blood pressure measurement device or the doctor. And surely not on nothing.
Your anxiety is due to clinging to some mental ideas related to the results of the measurement. In order to become calm, you need to let go of that clinging.
Similarly, to incline your mind towards Nibbana, to extinguish suffering, you need to let go of your craving and clinging, which is only possible by the cultivation of wisdom and uprooting of ignorance, as explained by the analogy of the South Indian monkey trap.

I searched Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations of the Samyutta Nikaya, Angutarra Nikaya, and Majjima Nikaya, as well as Maurice Walsche's translation of the Dhiga Nikaya. The closest I could come to "incline your mind toward Nibbana" was advice from Sariputta to Anurudda, wherein the latter - who had achieved the jnanas was complaining to the former about encountering obstacles. Sariputta, in Bhikkhu Bodh's translation advises him to "direct your mind to the deathless element."
In a different translation of the same text (by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hec ker) Sariputta advises Anuruddha to "direct your mind to the deathless element, Nibbana." AN3:128 / AN3:130.
Since that's as close as I could come to your original quote, I'm afraid I can't be very helpful. However, withing the context of the exchange between Anuruddha and Sariputra, and your question concerning meditation without objects - especially in an Indo-Tibetan Mahayana context I can perhaps be of a little service.
Following Kamalasila, shamatha meditation can be undertaken with an external object, such as a pebble or statue; an internal object, such as the breath or a visualization; or it can be done without an object, in which case it is known as meditation on the essence of things (or shamatha without support). This last type of shamatha is a resting meditation and shouldn't be confused with vipasyana.
Mingyur Rinpoche gives very clear, nice instructions in this technique, as does Thrangu Rinpoche and Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.
On the other hand, it seems that Anuruddha had gained the jnanas of the form or formless realm. In classical Indian texts, one is advised to begin vipasyana prac tice after one has attained the meditative stability of the four formless realms. Various Tibetan teachers have suggested that one can begin sooner - some say as soon as one has achieved the fourth or fifth level of shamatha where the mind no longer strays from the object - no matter how long the meditation session. In any case, one needs strong meditative stability in order for vipasyana practice to be effective.
Traditionally, vipasyana is divided into two parts; analyzing and resting. In the resting stage, one rests in one's realization or certainty, without engaging in further analysis or looking. One may subtly cling to a conceptualization of one's realization, but ideally, this is a sort of formless meditation. Similarly, in tantra mahamudra, one generates the image of a deity, and in the completion stage one dissolves the visualization and - ideally - rests in nonconceptual awareness.
Both sutra mahamudra and Essence mahamudra also entail objectless meditation.
All of which is to say that meditation without an object is indeed a part of the Mahayana path.

I could find "He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element" in MN 64

You said, "meditation on the essence of things". This intrigues me because my perceptive field has been very wide for about 10 months. Could you link to some more information on this please?

ruben2020 - yes, there are various permutations.


text:
Is there a line of thought in Buddhism that is less centered on suffering?
I am at the very beginning of my journey.
As I understand, suffering and the escape of it are central parts of Buddhism. (Though the notation "all life is suffering" seems to be a misinterpretation.)
Are there schools of Buddhism catering to those who see no major suffering in their lives, and hence do not feel any urge to end such?

The scripture MN 117 explains there are two sorts of Right View or two sorts of Buddha's teaching, namely: (i) supramundane/transcendent; and (ii) mundane/worldly.
The mundane/worldly teachings that focus on avoiding bad kamma, doing good kamma and 'rebirth' are less focused on suffering & the cessation of suffering.
These 'kamma & rebirth' teachings are for the ordinary people called 'puthujjana' who are spiritually blind and naturally unable to discern the unsatisfactoriness and meaninglessness of the world.
These mundane/worldly teachings are to prevent ordinary people inflicting self-harm upon themselves and others.
These mundane/worldly teachings not only include moral teachings but also teachings about generating loving-kindness towards all beings.

Sure, there's a school called Dzogchen (a subschool of Nyingma line of Tibetan Buddhism) catering to those who see the universe as Great Perfection.
There's Zen, which is for those much more interested in attaining Enlightenment or in discovering their true nature than in such things as suffering.
In general Mahayana-type schools are much less concerned about our own suffering and more about understanding the nature of reality and applying that understanding in our real lives to help those who are more confused than we are.

Just a small correction, Dzogchen teachings are found in the Nyingma school of Tibetan Tantrayana Buddhism. They are also taught in Tibetan Bön, the pre-Buddhist shamanic tradition (but now widely considered a school of Buddhism).

This does not fairly represent either the teachings of the Mahayana, Dzogchen and Zen, or those of other schools that, by implication, are said to be focused on suffering to the exclusion of other things. All Buddhist schools subscribe fully to the Four Truths of suffering as the foundational teaching -- that's one of the crucial beliefs that makes them Buddhist.

In Mahayana we do talk about suffering in context of cultivating compassion to others (this is why above I qualified it with "our own" - please pay attention)... but I swear I never heard the word suffering mentioned in context of Zen or Dzogchen.


text:
What does Buddhism say about Antinatalism?
Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations.
None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent.
My question is:
(i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking;
(ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place?
Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings.
It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.

Wikipedia defines antinatalism as follows:

Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social
movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue
that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad
(some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as
morally bad).

In respect to Noble People, Buddhism may possibly appear antinatalist, when it says:

Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search.
And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth
MN 26

However, for laypeople, Buddhism appears not antinatalist. It says:

To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and
children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
highest blessing.
Maha-mangala Sutta

Buddhism says the pleasant feelings from renunciation, meditation & enlightenment are superior to the pleasant feelings from the household family life. Refer to the Sukhavagga in AN 2.

There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of laypeople and the happiness of renunciates. These are the
two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is
the happiness of renunciates.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? Sensual
happiness and the happiness of renunciation. These are the two kinds
of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is the
happiness of renunciation.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of attachments, and the happiness of no attachments. These
are the two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of
happiness is the happiness of no attachments.

It follows it appears Buddhism is not 'antinatalist' because it appears to never say having children is "morally bad". Buddhism appears to merely say (for those capable of entering the Noble Path) not having children brings more happiness when compared to having children.
In conclusion, my personal view is Buddhism is not antinatalist. My impression is Antinatalism is merely another regressive ideology held by psychopaths, similar to Marxism and Feminism.


text:
The paradox of the Bodhisattva Path (Bodhisattvayāna)
Everybody is born under his own Karma. Indeed, while respecting the Dharma, we need to follow our own paths. Monks live an undisturbed life inside closed communities apart from samsaric suffering. And when they are ready, they try to enlight others under the Bodhisattva_vow
If Sunyata is the ultimate reality, why hasn’t anyone achieved the ability to save others nowadays?
UPDATED:
How (and with all respect) the Dalai Lama and other monks can have reached the Enlightenment if he wasn't able to free in this life ALL human beings?
They are not reborn KNOWING TO BE a Bodhisattva. They can maybe get near it with a hard work and faith, and so they cannot free others from bonds in this life. Furthermore, they can teach a path, which is of course important, but the basic logic of BEING a Bodhisattva contradicts this flow.
How can Bodhisattvas enlighten others if they themselves are not fully enlightened? If they are enlightened, then they would not have been reborn in the first place. If they were reborn, then it means they are not fully enlightened and therefore still working towards it and at this time, cannot liberate others because they themselves are not liberated. And they cannot be liberated until ALL beings are liberated, due to the Bodhisattva Vow. That's the paradox of the Bodhisattva path.
How can the paradox of the Bodhisattva path be resolved?

Taking Bodhisattva's vow doesn't mean one immediately becomes Bodhisattva, it just means one aspires to realize the Bodhisattva's Path. One can still help others even before one is fully enlightened.
Many of those who had taken the vow have attained Enlightenment eventually, and now they are helping many sentient beings to get on the right path.
But the Buddha wasn't able to free all sentient beings either. Some listen and some don't.
Also, Enlightenment is not the same as going to Nirvana and not getting reborn. In Mahayana they are two different things.
Another way to explain this would be to say that Mahayana recognizes two different Nirvanas. First Nirvana (known as the Nirvana of the arahants) requires leaving the world. Because of this it's incompatible with teaching. You can either teach others or be in this Nirvana. The second Nirvana is called non-abiding Nirvana. With this Nirvana you can be anywhere and do anything, including teaching. This second Nirvana is attained by complete realization of Emptiness and that is what's called Enlightenment.

@DoubtfulMonk Please see this chart. In Mahayana, attaining enlightenment is probably at point G, called the first Bhumi or first Ground. And then attaining liberation from Samsara is at point H at the eighth Bhumi or eighth Ground. But they can keep going on to Buddhahood after that. This is a completely different model when compared to Theravada.

@ruben2020 no, Enlightenment is the last Bhumi. 1st Bhumi is when you see Emptiness.

Enlightenment is actually the 7th/8th bhumi, but this is not full enlightenment. The 7th bhumi is the enlightenment enjoyed by the Arhats. The 1st bhumi is stream-entry.

There is no paradox.  Rather, it seems there may be some mistaken assumptions behind your question.
First, if someone is enlightened that does not mean that they will enlighten all people. For example, The Buddha was enlightened and yet he did not enlighten all people.  In fact, after his enlightenment, he actually wondered whether he should teach what he learned to others!
Second, no one can enlighten anyone, they can only help or hinder people on their quest to enlightenment.  Whether someone gets enlightened is up to that person.
Third, you don't need to be enlightened to help others on their quest for enlightenment.  For example, I am not enlightened, but I can still explain the benefits of mindfulness to another person.  This can encourage the other person to try mindfulness practices, and this can set them on their journey to enlightenment.
Finally, a Bodhisattva chooses to forego Nirvana in order to aid all sentient beings.  Depending on which definition you go by, this aid can be mundane -- such as feeding the hungry, reducing pain, etc... Or it can be sublime, such as aiding people on their quest for enlightenment. Either way, there is no paradox here; the Bodhisattva chooses to be reborn.

Questions from the OP:

"How can Bodhisattvas enlighten others if they themselves are not fully enlightened?"
"If they are enlightened, then they would not have been reborn in the first place."

So I take it the questioner is coming from a Theravadin background. Mahayana Buddhism follows the precedent set by non-Theravadin so-called "Early Buddhist Sects," which is to say mostly the Dharma of the Mahasamghikas, but the Sthaviravada-derived Sarvastivadins and Dharmaguptakas have also influenced Mahayana. Theravada has had almost no historical influence on Mahayana at all. With this in mind, we can see a number of differences between the traditions, such as but not limited to:

Multiple simultaneous Buddhas
Buddhas from foreign world-systems
Buddhas who are also devas and/or nagas, etc.

None of these are in Theravadin Buddhism.
So looping back to the two questions from the OP that I singled-out:

Bodhisattvas capable of "enlightening others" are Aryas on the irreversible bhumis. They have a kind of enlightenment that is not complete enlightenment.
Nirvana is non-abiding, which is to say that the Buddhas are not subsumed into a distant lone-gone state after parinirvana. They continue to teach the Dharma after the end of their bodies.

Both of these assertions are wrong/impossible in Theravada.

I would like to answer the question that @Doubtful Monk asked, rather than the Update added to it.
He asked: “If Sunyata is the ultimate reality, why hasn’t anyone achieved the ability to save others nowadays?” As background he stated that everyone is born under their own particular karma, that respecting the Dharma while following our own paths is necessary, and that monks, such as he, live in privileged environments. So, at least in the case of the monastic community, conditions are ripe for success, even though it is always a self-motivated endeavor, that is only guided by the Dharma.
What I don’t see in his question is the suggestion that no one has reached enlightenment. I also don’t see a statement that anyone is supposed to enlighten others. His stated question was why doesn’t anyone achieve the ability to enlighten others, given that Sunyata is “the ultimate reality.” In this I infer that the OP is referring to the widespread teaching of “Emptiness.” Apparently, everyone knows what emptiness is, so why don’t they develop the ability to save others.
I’d like to address Sunyata first. It isn’t “the ultimate reality,” although it refers to the essential nature of the ultimate. What “sunyata” is, is the name of a concept, which is, hopefully, a pointer towards a reality that is beyond naming and conceptualizing. I feel it is important to point this out because, first, “emptiness,” is often taken as meaning “void” by those who haven’t experienced the awesome beauty that it is pointing to, and thus, is a weird translation for “sunyata.” As was said:

It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty. (Suñña Sutta)

So, just an absence of self, not a void.
But in addition, the Sanskrit root “su” in the word “sunyata” conveys the concept of being swollen with possibility, according to David Loy, in the afterword to Swedenborg’s, “Buddha of the North,” page 104, Swedenborg Foundation, ISBN 0-87785-184-0.
Why this is important, is found in the eleventh “primary root downfalls” of the Bodhisattva vows listed by Santideva (found at the link supplied in the OP's question):

Teaching voidness (sunyata) to those whose minds are untrained

I have attended open teachings on sunyata with hundreds of people, all of whom likely never have had a direct experience of sunyata, nor even practice mind-training. What happens when sunyata is explained to someone without a trained mind (and presumably, no direct experience of sunyata)? Their way gets blocked by ideas and imagined experiences. Or they fall into their self-understood “void” and become nihilists, even while attending teachings and being ‘buddhist’.
Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche’s teaching on this subject is illustrative in regards to what he calls “positive activity” which is the applied means to help enlighten others (in the sense of helping them along their own path):

Generally speaking, a lama who gives teaching should have three qualities: he must be knowledgeable, he must have experience and realization of practice, and he must have mastered positive activities.

The teachings also explain that knowledge alone is not useful, and that he must put the Dharma he has studied into practice. Through practice he develops qualities of meditative experience and realization, and once these experiences have permeated his mind, his teachings will be beneficial. If he doesn’t practice the teachings he studies, trying to teach others will prove fruitless.

Take the example of a man who spends his entire life talking about compassion and bodhichitta and how extraordinary it is. He talks about how to generate compassion, how complete awakening results from cultivating compassion, and so on, but however well he is able to explain it, as he never applies the compassion teachings to himself, what benefit is there in endlessly talking about it? None whatsoever! With no compassion in his own mind, there is no benefit at all! On the other hand, the teachings of someone who isn’t as good at talking about it, but who has meditated on the different stages and developed a natural sense of compassion in himself, will have an immediate impact on others. Teaching Dharma without having practiced is like saying, “I give you all the wealth of America!” But, as you don’t own that wealth, how can you give it?

This is true for all nine vehicles. Whatever the Dharma teaching, a teacher must practice it and have matured at least some of the fruits of practice.

A teacher who has become ‘learned’ and has experience and realization of practice automatically masters the third aspect: positive activity. ‘Positive activities’ are those activities you undertake for others motivated by compassion and altruism. Anything you do that doesn’t benefit others won’t fall into this category.

Rinpoche’s emphasis on the ability of “positive activities” developed through mind-training practice for helping others, beyond just learning the Dharma, is the point. This can also be found in the teaching of Buddha (in Chapter One of the Surangama Sutra):

When Ananda heard this solemn teaching, he became very sorrowful and with tears falling, with forehead, hands and feet touching the ground, he paid homage to the Lord. Then kneeling, he said:

Noble Lord! Since I determined to follow you and become your disciple, I have always thought that I could rely upon your supernormal strength and that it would not be difficult to put your teachings into practice. I expected that the Lord would favor me with an experience of Samadhi in this body; I did not appreciate that the body and mind were different and could not be substituted for each other, so I have likely lost my own mind. Although I have become a disciple of Buddha, my heart is not yet absorbed in Enlightenment. I am like a prodigal son who has forsaken his father. I now see that in spite of my learning, if I am not able to put it into practice, I am no better than an unlearned man. It is like a man talking about food, but never eating and becoming satisfied. We are all entangled in these two hindrances: knowledge and learning, and vexation and suffering. I can now see that it is all due to our ignorance of the eternal and tranquil nature of true Mind. Pray, my Lord Tathagata, have mercy upon us all; show us clearly the mysterious, enlightening Mind, and open our true eye of Enlightenment.

Thus, the ability to help others achieve enlightenment is not earned through the study of scripture, nor even the memorization of the Dharma—it is through the application of the Dharma in one’s own life, through a dedicated and consistent mind-training practice.
Again, referring to the teaching by Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche:

The mind—basically the buddha nature—of a person who wanders endlessly in samsara is no different to the mind of the Buddha; the ground is the same. The only difference between them is that one is deluded and the other is not. The Buddha explained this difference, and it’s very important that you get to grips with it right from the start. What you mustn’t do is pretend to believe something that doesn't seem to you to be true—“These are Holy Words!”, “This is what the Buddha taught!”, “This is the Law!”, or “This idea has been imposed on me by people with power...” Don't think like that, it’s not like that at all.

The question is, how many do that today? How many don’t?
Rinpoche continues:

In the past, genuine teachers were extremely rare. Only those who had received all the teachings, practised them, and as a result had a clear vision of the yidam deity, or their own teacher, would teach. This was still the case even fifty or sixty years ago. No one would teach the Dharma unless he had practised and achieved visible signs of accomplishment. Why were such teachers so rare? Because they thought, “Until I have myself benefited from the teachings, how can I benefit others?” Those willing to give empowerments were even more rare—for example, Dharma Lord Patrul Rinpoche himself said that he didn’t have the capacity to give empowerments. And only one or two lamas taught Dzogpachenpo.

Nowadays it’s not like that. The biggest problem teachers’ have is how to find anyone to listen to their teachings. But you’ll never have trouble finding teachers who want to teach. Modern teachers advertise themselves crudely, with language like, “I give the most profound teachings. I grant the most profound empowerments”, and so on. Obviously, things have changed. I don’t know how it happened.

Nowadays, many intently study scripture, memorizing the wisdom described in the Dharma, but never go beyond accumulating knowledge, teachings, and empowerments, as if they were badges of merit. Many things are done backwards now, and even though the Bodhisattva vow may be sincerely voiced, it is nothing better than New Year’s resolutions, forgotten in a few days time.
Happy New Year everyone.
Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche teaching “Following the Dzogchen Path” is taken from: http://all-otr.org/public-talks/1-following-the-dzogchen-path

Agreed with Barzeli's answer.
Bodhisattva chosen to be reborn.
"Until the hells are empty (of suffering beings), I will not become a Buddha."
(「地獄不空，誓不成佛。」)
"Once all sentient beings are saved, I will attain Buddhahood."
(「眾生度盡，方證菩提。」)
"If I do not descend into hell, who will?"
(「我不入地獄，誰入地獄?」)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Kshitigarbha

No one 'enlightens' anyone else. People find their way to enlightenment, or they don't. The path laid out in the dharma helps; the guidance of a teacher helps; the support of a community helps; the presence of bodhisattvas helps. But no one is spoon-fed enlightenment.
If we convince ourselves that progress depends on the progress of someone else, we hobble ourselves. Sometimes that's a useful thing to do — when one is unsure of the way, and worried about straying from the path — but a hobble is a hobble, and ultimately needs to come off.
This question strikes me as a permutation of tanhā: a craving after a 'perfect' or 'unimpeachable' leader, and a consequent discontentment over the available choices. But a bodhisattva's goal to keep the spirit of the dharma alive so that others can find it; perfection is not an essential quality for that task.


text:
Fear of Samsara in Others
I have been recently experiencing tremendous fear, but as I look through my eyes at the world and the objects it contains, the fear does not accord with what I see. The world itself is beautiful but people's minds seem tarnished by a neurosis. They seem to define themselves by this very neurosis.
I notice all the little behavioural patterns they play and how they are trapped by them. I find this very fearful, and it affects my ability to integrate with people. Furthermore, I often find myself 'playing along' but knowing that I'm playing along. This seems disingenuous and somewhat incongruent. I have avoided television for 4 years because of this falsity, but it is becoming very prominent just now. Only the other day I caught a few seconds of a TV program where they were discussing Covid-19 death rates like it was some kind of sporting event. I find humans very peculiar.
At the level of mind I am able to see the danger present in the world and act accordingly but this comes from a natural inclination instead of from a fear-based story. This doesn't stop me feeling fear for that mode of being we call samsara.
It is possible - or highly likely - that this fear could be my own samsaric turmoil looking to find a footing in the world as someone who is fearful of others and that its real plight lies in keeping the wheel turning.
My question is, from a Mahayana perspective, how can I come to love the samsara that I see in others?
I'm happy to welcome answers from other traditions.
Be well.

This is pretty normal, I'm guessing most practitioners go through this phase.
You have a certain - valid but incomplete - understanding of Dharma, and so you interpret your observations from this perspective, creating subjective reality that looks somewhat negative.
What you see is not wrong, these negative observations are not wrong, but they are a small part of the Totality that can be seen once your mind completely opens. You are listening to one radio station that plays sad music.
Luckily, once your perception purifies your attitude to samsara will change. Imagine getting the superpowers that allow you to hear all radio stations simultaneously. Once you are like that, the sad radio station won't bother you like before, although I won't lie: you will keep hearing it for the rest of your life.
The transformed purified attitude to samsara is called "compassion" or "unity of wisdom and compassion". You still see all those childish behaviors, neuroses etc. but you see them as growing pains, as part of an evolution. You see that in the grand scheme of things everything is perfect and is going as it's supposed to. At that point you can try and help as much as you can but you also have patience to let things develop naturally. You don't try to fix the world, if it's raining you let it rain, you also let children be children. Within the reason.
Back to the radio station allegory. Reality is an interpretation we make. Once your awareness liberates from all interpretative frameworks, your experience won't be bounded by one radio channel. The six realms of samsara and even the divine abode of Great Perfection are only small bands in the overall radio spectrum.

You are beginning to notice the natural behaviors that we all carry out. This is a great thing as most people don't even take a moment to understand their behavior or how/why it functions that way.
As you are noticing like this, all kinds of weird side effects may start arising, as you are really shaking the foundation of the way you perceive the world. Fear for others may arise, sadness for others may arise, meaninglessness of the world may arise, great purpose for the world may arise, all kinds of things may arise because of this new noticing on behavior of others & workings of the world.
What you are experiencing is a normal phase of investigating the spectrum of behaviors. Keep investigating and don't give too much importance to the fear or other feelings that arise from it (otherwise you may feed & strengthen those feelings).
As you keep investigating, you will begin to understand why people play out these behaviors and you will begin to understand why this fear arises in you as a response. As your understanding of these things deepens, it will help you through this phase and eventually it will pass. What you'll be left with is better understanding of peoples behaviors, which parts of them are conducive to their long term happiness, which ones aren't, which ones you should support in them or not and which ones you should "play along with".
If you understand why we all "play out" these behaviors, then it no longer appears as "playing out" because you understand why you are doing it and it's purpose. For example:
"If I don't greet this person I just met kindly and go through the normal interactions they might expect, they may get upset and that would unnecessarily increase their pain/suffering, so better that I help them avoid that pain."
With this kind of understanding in your interactions, the feelings of disingenuousness should fade away.
Keep up this process and you naturally will come to love the world and everything in it. Understanding is love.
Additionally, I recommend meditating on the four Divine Abodes and trying to encompass those attitudes when interacting with others, this may be of great help.

Do you have any audio resources for the Devine Abodes that you could share with me?

I've not come across any audio resources that talk about all four, but Ajahn Brahm is a great listen for loving kindness! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj98u8peZOU&ab_channel=BuddhistSocietyofWesternAustralia

Thank you. I've always found Ajahn Brahm a bit disorganised in his talks but some of his books are good.

This answer is from the Theravada perspective.
When you feel like you fear or dislike people because of their mental traps and neurotic dramas, you can use this opportunity to cultivate the brahmavihara of compassion (karuna).
The primary purpose of cultivating compassion is to cure this strong aversion that you have of other people. Aversion or hatred (dosa or dvesha) is one of the three poisons that will prevent your progress. Fear is a type of aversion. The secondary purpose is for you to regain a healthy social connection with the people around you.
Why are they the way they are? For e.g. if your grandmother who has senile dementia lashes out at you in anger or doesn't behave like normal people do, would you be fearful or judgemental or contemptuous against her? No. You would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she has senile dementia.
Similarly, you can generate compassion by trying to understand that other people are suffering and there may be genuine underlying reasons for their suffering and condition. It could be their life situation (e.g. poverty or undergoing divorce) or even mental states (e.g. ignorance, or clouded by anger or other negative emotions) as you have correctly identified.
Instead of playing the role of a victim or potential victim or a contemptuous person or a hateful person, you can become compassionate towards others by recognizing that people who demonstrate neurotic behavior are actually suffering.
By tending to your own renunciation, you may be feeling more calm, 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.
Ven. 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.

Thank you. Very helpful. It's difficult to give language in these regions without appearing contemptuous. I guess that's due to the binary function of language alongside perceptual attachments contained inside of that language - feeling and consciousness: components that cannot easily be discerned from one another.

I have been recently experiencing tremendous fear, but as I look
through my eyes at the world and the objects it contains, the fear
does not accord with what I see.

The scriptures say there can be valid fear and invalid fear. The scriptures say:

317. Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
false views, they go to states of woe.
Dhammapada

The world itself is beautiful

The Buddha did not share the above idea.

but people's minds seem tarnished by a neurosis. They seem to define themselves by this very neurosis.

Indeed. The scriptures say:

171. Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.
174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
Dhammapada

I notice all the little behavioural patterns they play and how they are trapped by them. I find this very fearful, and it affects my ability to integrate with people.

The Buddha did not seek to "integrate" with the people of the world. The scriptures say:

There is this (mental) dwelling discovered by the Tathagata where, not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in internal
emptiness. If, while he is dwelling there by means of this dwelling,
he is visited by monks, nuns, lay men, lay women, kings, royal
ministers, sectarians & their disciples, then — with his mind bent on
seclusion, tending toward seclusion, inclined toward seclusion, aiming
at seclusion, relishing renunciation, having destroyed those qualities
that are the basis for mental fermentation — he converses with them
only as much as is necessary for them to take their leave
MN 122

Only the other day I caught a few seconds of a TV program where they were discussing Covid-19 death rates like it was some kind of sporting event. I find humans very peculiar.

Covid-19 is a serious event because its exaggerated danger can cause great harm to the world, including for freedom of religion and spiritual pursuit. You should take an interest in the Covid-19 death rate to learn: (i) suspected 100 million Americans have Covid-19; (ii) 17 million Americans tested positive; (iii) merely 300,000 dead Americans attributed to Covid-19 associated with an average of 2.7 comorbidities; with average age of death around 75 years old; (iv) Pfizer vaccine 5% ineffective even though the death rate is only 0.1%; (v) therefore healthy people may be forced to take a vaccine that is unlikely to work on unhealthy people; (iv) the above appears crazy yet you claim the world is "beautiful" and Covid-19 death rate is trivial.

At the level of mind I am able to see the danger present in the world and act accordingly but this comes from a natural inclination instead of from a fear-based story.

Possibly you are mistaking "fear" with "caution" or what Buddhism called "heedfulness" ("appamāda"). In Buddhism, there is a healthy spiritual fear called "ottappa". "Ottappa" is one of five requirements for the Path.

This doesn't stop me feeling fear for that mode of being we call samsara.

"Samsara" is merely the mind cycling in egoism, as clearly explained in SN 22.99, as follows:

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

It is possible - or highly likely - that this fear could be my own samsaric turmoil looking to find a footing in the world as someone who is fearful of others and that its real plight lies in keeping the wheel turning.

Yes, looking for a "footing in the world" is contrary to Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is to transcend or be above/beyond the world (called "lokuttara") rather than gain a footing in it.

My question is, from a Mahayana perspective, how can I come to love the samsara that I see in others?

Yes, very Mahayana ideas. Mahayana, similar to Christianity, appears to believe it can save the whole world (even though the Tibetans could not even save themselves), even though it is reported the Buddha himself denied such a possibly (in AN 10.95).

I'm happy to welcome answers from other traditions.

I already provided the Theravada viewpoint.

I like some of your replies, but I sense an element of extremism in the subtext. I never harbour any form of Buddhism with such a concretized mind and I never will.

Additionally, it looks like I may not have represented myself very clearly on the covid-19 reference and that this resulted in what appears to be a very passionate response from you. I apologise for my not being clearer about that.

Fear is internal. The Buddha discusses fear at length in MN4. The first step is to consider personal ethics and purify ones conduct by mind, speech and body:

MN4:4.1: Then I thought, ‘There are ascetics and brahmins with unpurified conduct of body, speech, and mind who frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest. Those ascetics and brahmins summon unskillful fear and dread because of these defects in their conduct. But I don’t frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest with unpurified conduct of body, speech, and mind. My conduct is purified. I am one of those noble ones who frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest with purified conduct of body, speech, and mind.’ Seeing this purity of conduct in myself I felt even more unruffled about staying in the forest.

With ethics mastered, one can then directly face fear:

MN4:20.1: Then I thought, ‘There are certain nights that are recognized as specially portentous: the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth of the fortnight. On such nights, why don’t I stay in awe-inspiring and hair-raising shrines in parks, forests, and trees? In such lodgings, hopefully I might see that fear and dread.’ Some time later, that’s what I did.   As I was staying there a deer came by, or a peacock snapped a twig, or the wind rustled the leaves. Then I thought, ‘Is this that fear and dread coming?’ Then I thought, ‘Why do I always meditate expecting that fear and terror to come? Why don’t I get rid of that fear and dread just as it comes, while remaining just as I am?’ Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was walking. I didn’t stand still or sit down or lie down until I had got rid of that fear and dread while walking. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was standing. I didn’t walk or sit down or lie down until I had got rid of that fear and dread while standing. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was sitting. I didn’t lie down or stand still or walk until I had got rid of that fear and dread while sitting. Then that fear and dread came upon me as I was lying down. I didn’t sit up or stand still or walk until I had got rid of that fear and dread while lying down.

Facing fears, one might come to understand that much of what is seen is misleading. One might understand that makeup is a lie yet still feel an unwholesome attraction. In letting go of the attraction, in seeing the skull behind the makeup, a fear vanishes. Looking further, one might see a peacock, beautiful in its shiny natural animal splendour. Yet looking again, here too, one will see that the plumage of a peacock is nothing other than makeup that has come to exist for the rebirth of peacocks. So gradually understanding arises that humans will always decorate themselves as peacocks do, for the sake of rebirth. And with that understanding fear might vanish with one's own desire for rebirth.

MN4:31.1: When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward knowledge of the ending of defilements. I truly understood: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. I truly understood: ‘These are defilements’ … ‘This is the origin of defilements’ … ‘This is the cessation of defilements’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of defilements’.

Live without fear, content without wishes.

Thank you for the answer.

A nice skilful fusion of sutta excerpts. Beautiful and progressive finishing with a mellow textual gong. I loved it.