text:
Is the Alayavijnana momentary?And is it shared in Yogacara?
I am hearing contradictorary things.Is the alayavijnana shared in yogacara?And is it momentary and subject to Kshanabhanga?What does vasubandhu say and the early yogacarins?Please cite sources.

Re. the momentariness of the Alayavijnana, the Lankavatara Sutra says:
“Mahāmati, the ālaya-consciousness, which is known as “the tathāgata heart,” is momentary in its being associated with mentation as well as the latent tendencies of the active consciousnesses [but] it is nonmomentary [in its being associated] with the uncontaminated latent tendencies.”
In verse Stiramathi's commentary to I.16 the Mahayanasamgraha, he says that the Alayavijnana is momentary - else the latent tendecies would not be momentary.
In note 144 of Volume Two of A Compendium of the Mahayana, Karl Brunnhölzl writes: “The Pañcaskandhabhāṣya (D4068, fols. 100b.3–101a.3) comments on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra V.7 as follows. Since the ālaya-consciousness appropriates bodies in one life after another and knows its own object, it is given the name “appropriating consciousness.” It is profound because ordinary beings do not understand it, and it is subtle because noble śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not understand it. Or, it is profound because it is the sphere of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and it is subtle because it is not the sphere of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Since it functions as the support of the seeds of all afflicted phenomena, the verse says, “with all [its] seeds.” In answer to wondering whether this ālaya-consciousness is permanent or impermanent, the verse says, “flows like the stream of a river.” A river flows as a momentary stream by carrying wood, stones, and so on, with it. Likewise, the ālaya-consciousness operates uninterruptedly in saṃsāra as a momentary stream by being associated with the five omnipresent mental factors. Therefore, since it is impermanent, the verse says, “flows like a river.”
Vasubandhu utilizes the river metaphor again in the Trimsatika, when he says in verse 4 that the alaya consciousness "always evolves like a flowing stream,
And is abandoned in the state of arhat."
As for whether the ground consciousness is 'shared' Maitreya/Asanga (and their commentators) deal with that question in the Dharmadharmatavibanga:
What appear to be outer, perceivable in common,
Are perceiving awareness; they are not referents
Existing as something extrinsic to consciousness,
Because they are only experienced as common.
The counterpart is the one in which what is perceived
Is not shared in common. Here awareness’ referent
Is the minds and so on associated with others.
These do not comprise an object of mutual exchange
For perceiving awareness not resting nor resting poised,
Because, for those not resting in equipoise,
It is but their own conceptions that appear;
And because, for those who are resting in equipoise,
It is its faithful reflection that appears
As the object encountered during samadhi absorption.
Finally, both Dharmakirti and Ratnakirti also address the iussue of other minds. You can read their views here --
Buddhist idealism and the problem of other minds by Roy Perret

This essay is concerned with Indian Yogācāra philosophers’ treatment of the problem of other minds in the face of a threatened collapse into solipsism suggested by Vasubandhu’s epistemological argument for idealism.

I think the URL didn't copy-paste correctly.

the alaya is standardly defined as the momentary basis of imputation of the person.
the better question is what rational source suggests that the alaya is not changing and not individual?


text:
Confusion about the word 'dhamma'?
What does the word 'dhamma' mean when the Buddha said 'sabbe dhamma annatta'.
I am being confused here. I looked through the translation. It reads 'all conditioned/unconditioned things are not-self'.
Isn't the word sankara used for conditioned things.
The word dhamma in my native language literally means 'religion'. Also I checked Wikipedia for the word dhamma. The Wiki gives similar meaning as 'religion' in context of Hinduism but not clear on Buddhist use of the word.
My question is whats translation of word 'dhamma' and in what context is it used in line 'sabbe dhamma annatta'?

Here there's an insightful discussion about the meaning of 'dhamma' in the context of "sabbe dhamma anatta'. Kind regards!

For those (like me) who need to look these things up, this is from the Dhammapada, XX, 277-9

Dhamma encompasses sankhara[created] but it also encompases the cessation principle which is not included in sankhara as it is asankhata [not-created].

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."sn22.86

There are these famous lines;
 Sabbe sankhara anicca
 Sabbe sankhara dukkha
 Sabbe dhamma anatta

Translated;
 All formations are impermanent
 All formations are suffering
 All Dhamma [teachings] are not-self

Then reconciled with;

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

It makes sense because;

Stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]
Cessation of stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]

The semantic referent of #2 is the unconditioned; is neither impermanent[anicca] nor suffering[dukkha]; but it is likewise not-self[anatta].

Like sankhara, the term dhamma is very broad and means different things per different context. In the broadest sense, sankhara is a subset of dhamma, for dhamma includes not only conditioned phenomena/sankhara, but also unconditioned element/ASankhataDhatu, ie. Nibbana. See the Pali defitions for Dhamma and Sankhara further details.

In the context of your description:

sankhara means conditioned things / phenomena.
dhamma means all things / phenomena i.e. both conditioned and unconditioned things / phenomena

What is unconditioned? Only Nibbana - it is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.
What is conditioned? Everything else, including mental and physical phenomena / things.
"sabbe sankhara dukkha" means "all conditioned things/ phenomena are suffering / unsatisfactoriness". This does not include Nibbana.
"sabbe sankhara anicca" means "all conditioned things/ phenomena are impermanent". This does not include Nibbana.
"sabbe dhamma anatta" means "all things/ phenomena are not self". This includes Nibbana.
From AccessToInsight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms:

dhamma [Skt. dharma]:
(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself;
(2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also,
principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit
in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they
should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in
and of itself. By extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also
to denote any doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of
the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of
nibbāna, the quality at which those teachings are aimed.
saṅkhāra:
Formation, compound, fashioning, fabrication — the
forces and factors that fashion things (physical or mental), the
process of fashioning, and the fashioned things that result. Saṅkhāra
can refer to anything formed or fashioned by conditions, or, more
specifically, (as one of the five khandhas) thought-formations within
the mind.

Please see this answer for details.

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta is difficult to understand.... Here is my understanding.Dhamma roughly translates to religion. More precisely all teachings about what is. Is there a God ? Is there a suffering ? Are there emotions ? Are there forms ? Are there choices ? Is there consciousness ? Is there Universe ?Whatever there is can not be said to be me , mine or myself ... That is the meaning of Sabbe Dhamma Anatta ...

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"?
The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that.
An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy".
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

What is the basis of this question? What inspired this question? What gives you the impression that the Buddhas may be submissive and androgynous? Is it the paintings and/or idols of the Buddha? Or is it some statements from the suttas?

i'm sorry, what are you confused about @ruben2020 how is adding those details going to make for a more easily answered queston?

Well, from the suttas, I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Buddha was submissive and/or androgynous - so I am just wondering where that comes from. So, yes, it would help with answering the question.

good enough @ruben2020

Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”

The traditional description of the Buddha's physical characteristics include "well retracted male organ" -- so perhaps "androgynous" in that sense.
I understand "alpha" as being a social adjective -- there are alpha males and alpha females -- and the Buddha was "alpha" in that sense i.e. socially: a leader, able to dominate (confidently and indisputably lead or teach) any assembly (of people) and any individual, with kings too (and gods) being respectful.
I think it's rude and missing the point to be asking about people's genitals, but since you ask.
You mentioned in a comment,

please be aware that 'alpha male' derives from animal behaviour, and the need for access to women's bodies / physical intimidation over other males. so you side with the 'macho' buddha

I don't think that's how the term "alpha" is applied to human beings -- some alpha humans might be faithfully married or celibate -- IMO it's just a matter of being recognised as socially superior or second to none.
For example here's a quote from a sutta, MN 12:

Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the ten?

To answer some of the details in your question, I think it's that the Dhamma (the Buddha's doctrine) is seen as being "best" -- that's why and on the subject of which the Buddha dominates an assembly -- the Buddha is described as "an unsurpassed teacher of Gods and men" but the Buddha himself reveres the Dhamma, see Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior"
You might see the Buddha as "submissive", e.g. not flaring up when insulted -- see SN 7.2 -- I wouldn't call that submissive though, I see it as self-controlled, heedful (keeping your eye on the prize), and skilfully cooperative:

You live for the good of both
— your own, the other's —
when, knowing the other's provoked,
you mindfully grow calm.

There's a fair bit of doctrine about not arguing with each other, and about how arguments (including arguments about the Dhamma) might be associated with conceit.

thanks for anwer, chris... not sure enlightenment is a "prize" hmm

"eye on the prize" is an idiom (perhaps an Americanism) -- like "keep your eye on the ball", or "don't lose sight of the goal", more generally "don't get distracted" (in this context, getting involved with or overwhelmed by someone else's anger or misbehaviour).

over literal of me  then

Not all Buddhist agree on many, many things

There are martial descriptions of Buddha — he is the Jina, the
conqueror. See John Powers’ A Bull of a Man that discusses the imagery
of Buddha’s masculinity. Julius Evola, the Italian fascist, wrote a
book, The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery
According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts, which highlights passages
that make Buddha sound macho, comparable to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch as
it was understood at that time.
As is well known, the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara = Guanyin morphs into
a female in E Asia. There are passages in some Buddhist texts that
dismiss difference between male and female, and others that emphasize
that only a male can become a Buddha, regardless of how many female
lives he may have had in the past.

For what it's worth, I think the bodhisattva vows are counter to the macho need to play to win, to lead others rather than assist their self power, etc.. ymmv, maybe dependent on whether you see the Buddha responding to others according to need, as I do, or capacity

the lion's roar will appear. He will use the power he achieved in deep
meditation to benefit countless beings

but this doesn't preclude courage, or skill.

If Answerer would know if the cited texts or excerpts are freely viewable online and could include where such might be found would be good, and perhaps similar sources regarding Kuanyin/Guanyin, and also connected painting & statuary styles. Thank you.

No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.

'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane.

I think you got the definition of "Alpha male" wrong by associating it with putting "me" and "mine" first. In dire situations like that scene in the Titanic when it starts sinking, a coward is always the guy who puts himself first, and he'd have no problem with kicking and pushing women and young children aside to secure a spot on a life boat, Or when a defensive position under heavy attack from the enemy, the coward always runs first while the alpha male stays and fight. It'd take the tremendous courage of an alpha male to be the first guy to enter and the last guy to leave in dire situations. Similarly, real Buddhist asceticism is certainly not for the faint of heart, and so in that regard, we can say the Buddha was THE alpha male among all alpha males, for He was the one who defeated Mara and his armies of lust, hatred, and ignorance; while we all more or less are still slaves bowing down to his power!

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


text:
Yama depiction on various Tankas
I saw many images of the circle of existence represented with Yama, the lord of death, with a tiger skin and a third eye. Why is he represented in this way?

I believe that it is a depiction of Mahakala, rather than Yama.
In the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia page Mahakala is a Protector of all Tibetan Buddhism, we find this info:

The Form varies according to the different teaching lineages. For
example, there is the two-armed, big-mouthed Mahakala Bernakchen of
the Karma Kagyu, the four-armed Mahakala who is protector of the
Drikung Kagyu, and six-armed Mahakala of the Gelugpas described below.
They are not all wrathful forms of Chenresi [Skt.: Avalokiteshvara)
although:

"There is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara which arose in the Form
of Mahakala and this is the Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala with one face and
six arms, in a standing posture. This Form was later adopted by
Tsongkhapa and followers as the main protector of the Gelugpa School.
Mahakalas can arise from various sources namely Vajradhara and
the Anuttarayoga Tantras but are not generically Avalokiteshvara."
~ Jeff Watt, Himalayan Art

There is a white one associated with prosperity, and also a eunuch and
some feminine forms, but it is incorrectly held that there are 75
variants.

Regarding the symbolism around Mahakala:

Symbolism of Mahakala in the 6-armed Manifestation:
The Protector's Body is midnight blue, symbolic of the changeless
Dharmakaya.
His three eyes symbolize his Knowledge of the past, present and
future, and also the manifestation of the three bodies of Buddha.
The crown adorned with five skulls symbolizes the transformation of
the five poisons of Anger, desire, Ignorance, jealousy and pride into
The Five Wisdoms.
His six arms symbolize the attainment of the six Perfections:
Generosity, Patience, Morality, Diligence, Meditation and Wisdom. The
kartika or triku [or trigu, pron. tigu] the Ritual curved knife, cuts
Attachment to ego.
The kapila or skull bowl filled with blood symbolizes the subjugation
of the maras or Evil ones. (An alternate interpretation can be found
in other contexts.)
The rosary symbolizes his continuous activity for the benefit of
beings.
The Damaru or hand-drum symbolizes his Power over the Dakinis. (Also,
different interpretations in other contexts.)
His trident symbolizes his Power over The Three Kayas -- the spheres
of desire, Form and formlessness. (An alternate interpretation can
also be found.)
The lasso binds those who break their vows.
His two feet are the means and the Wisdom to accomplish his task. That
his left leg is straight and his right leg bent symbolize his
accomplishment of the benefit to oneself and to others. He tramples on
a vinayaka, to symbolize his destruction and dispersal of great
obstacles.
The sun on which he stands symbolizes his illumination of the darkness
of Ignorance.
His Lotus seat symbolizes purity undefiled by Samsara.
The surrounding blazing Fire symbolizes his activity that consumes
neurotic states.
The tiger skin stands for Purification of desire; the elephant skin
for Purification of pride, and the snake, for the Purification of
Anger.
His other ornaments together symbolize that he has all the qualities
of a Buddha.
The material about the symbolism of 6-armed Mahakala derives from a
Gelugpa sadhana (Ritual) of Tara that includes an Offering to
Mahakala.

The snake represents anger -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons -- so I expect that the "tiger" and the "elephant" represent desire and pride respectively ... and their skins represent being purified thereof (I'm not sure why, I suppose it's to do with the animal being killed, emptied, vanquished, disappeared, harmless). I've also seen "elephants" before representing "pride" -- https://www.google.com/search?q=%22rutting+elephants+of+pride%22 -- in 12th century South Indian poetry, but maybe that shows that's a standard idiom. The tiger's representing "desire" seems plausible too.

Thank You. Also if sometimes i read the Chinese Encyclopedia website, i found it sometimes lacking of original sources . For example http://www.khandro.net/deity_Mahakala.htm is the original source used to describe in detail Mahakala as a protector of Vajrayana Buddhism.


text:
What is 'vision externally' in AN8.66?
In AN 8.66 the Buddha says, "Not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation".
I am totally confused here. If by 'form' we mean body, how not to perceive it internally. And what is meant by 'see visions externally'?

First thing, you shouldn't be relying on B. Sujato's translation for meditation specific terms. He has gross misunderstandings of key words like kāya (physical body), rūpa (in meditation context, usually means 4 elements of physical body of meditator). So in his translation, he inconsistently translates rupa sometimes as 'physical form', sometimes as 'vision', according to his wrong understanding of jhana and arupa samadhi.
Going by a straightforward, and correct EBT interpretation, 'rupa' translates consistently as 'physical form of  the anatomical body made up of 4 elements and 6 sense bases active - you can see, hear, touch, etc.'
So the first base of liberation (vimutti), having form (rupa) and seeing form is referring to the point of view of being in the 4 jhanas, where the 6 sense bases of the physical body are active.
The second base of liberation, one is in an a-rupa (form-less) samadhi attainment, you are in a meditative state where you can't perceive your own physical form of body anymore, can't hear sounds, 6 sense bases are divorced from the mind. But you can perceive external forms, for example seeing visions of the rupa (form, 4 elements) of external world, other beings, etc.

Regarding what is seen, a key part to the more detailed instruction on visions is found an AN10.29. The detailed instruction focuses on how visions are perceived (i.e., "pretty or ugly") and not on what is perceived.

AN10.29:8.1: Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limited, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’

Mastering such visions therefore requires understanding and letting go of the associated attraction/repulsion. That takes skill because everyday convention follows pretty and avoids ugly. Mastering that flood of convention requires letting go of the underlying tendency to crave pretty and avoid ugly. For example, if one sees someone pretty or ugly externally, to master that perception one would focus on the truth that we are all bags of bones.

SN22.76:9.1: The master’s knowledge has arisen: ‘This bag of bones is my last.’

I am totally confused here. If by 'form' we mean body, how not to perceive it internally. And what is meant by 'see visions externally'?

'form' in this context doesn't mean the generic physical body, but the body part that serve as a basis for an internal meditative kasina (ie one's own body part, hence "internal"); OR an external object like a blue disk to serve as a basis for an external kasina (ie. external objects, hence "external"). See Ven. Bodhi's translation and his note citing the Comy.'s explanation:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight emancipations. What eight?
(1) “One possessing form sees forms. This is the first emancipation.
(2) “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally. This is the second emancipation...

And Comy's explanation:

Mp: 'Here, form' is the jhana with a form object, which has arisen by way of a blue kasina, etc., based on something internal such as head hairs, etc. One who gains this [jhana] is said to possess form. One might also see forms with the eye of jhana externally, such as a blue kasina, etc. What is indicated by this are the four form-sphere jhanas in the case of a person who has attained jhana through the kasinas with an internal or external basis.

Mp: 'One who is not percipient of forms internally' is one who does not attain form-sphere jhanas based on his own head hairs, etc. What is shown by this are the form-sphere jhanas of one who attains jhana externally, having done the preliminary work externally.


text:
Does our conventional body belong to the external sense bases?
There are six internal sense bases named eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are six external sense bases named visible form, sound, odour, taste, and mental objects.
I have two parts in my question;

If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all these belong to the external sense bases?
If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which form elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

OP: If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all
these belong to the external sense bases?

Yes, if we see, hear, smell, taste or feel parts of the body, then those are experienced, hence they are a part of the external sense bases. They are part of "form".

OP: If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

No form elements are part of the internal sense bases, because the internal sense bases are part of "name", not "form" - they are related to feeling and contact.
The internal sense bases are the mental interfaces to the physical senses, from my understanding.

‘The six interior sense fields should be understood.’ That’s what I
said, but why did I say it? There are the sense fields of the eye,
ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields
should be understood.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
‘The six exterior sense fields should be understood.’ That’s what I
said, but why did I say it? There are the sense fields of sights,
sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts. ‘The six exterior sense
fields should be understood.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I
said it.
MN 137

And what is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling. Feeling
born of contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
This is called feeling.
And what is contact? There are these six classes of contact. Contact
through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. This is called
contact.
And what are the six sense fields? The sense fields of the eye, ear,
nose, tongue, body, and mind. These are called the six sense fields.
And what are name and form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact,
and attention. This is called name. The four primary elements, and
form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form. Such
is name and such is form. These are called name and form.
SN 12.2

Name and form is mind and body.
The idea that the six interior sense bases refer to the mental interfaces to the physical senses is supported by:

The six interior sense fields, reverends, are one end. The six
exterior sense fields are the second end.
Consciousness is the middle.
And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves
one to being reborn
in one state of existence or another.
Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end.
Consciousness is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress, for craving weaves one to
being reborn in one state of existence or another.
AN 6.61

The adjective "interior" is often used for elements that are readily re-experienced. For example:

MN140:13.2: There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness. And what is the earth element?  The earth element may be interior or exterior.  And what is the interior earth element? Anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes  head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior earth element.

So the sight of this page when your eyes are opened is external. But when you turn away and close your eyes to "see the page in your memory", that is internal. Internal perceptions are repeatable on demand.
An external earth element would be a mountain, for example. Skin and bones and mountains are just earth element, but skin and bones can be readily perceived in the mountains or at the seashore.

I have two parts in my question;

If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all these belong to the external sense bases?

If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which form elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

For 1., whether its your own hands or other people's hands, from the frame of reference of your own eye-base's view-perception, those hands are all external bases. Similarly for your body-base's touch-perception when touching your own hand or others' hands.
For 2., the internal-bases/ajjhattikaAyatana are sensitive matter/physical support for the occurrence of the corresponded consciousness. In the example above, for the eye and the body bases, those would be the various physical sense receptors, nerve cells,... located in the eyes and the body. For further details, refer to CMOA Chpt. VII-35


text:
Is this sexual misconduct?
I met a woman, far, far below me in status and physical, and mental, attractiveness. I told her I was in love with her, and now refuse to retract that, or to explain why I refuse to. In fact, this woman is very mentally ill, and she seems distressed by me...
It's not misconduct, because I'm not lying - right -- whoever else I'm involving myself with?

You told a woman that you love her and now you are refusing to go back on that statement?

yes. i refuse to discuss my declaration of love, and it's confusing her @MAGA2020 it's not infidelity - whatever happens - because she just doesn't know how i feel etc., right?

let's put it another way -- is my "sexual misconduct" limited to people i am having sex with? what about my fiance?

I still don't understand the circumstances. Is it that you have a fiance but got into an intrigue with a somehow handicapped woman?

I think you may be asking the wrong question. At the very least, you need to add details: Does 'met' mean 'slept with'? Does she know about your fiancé or your fiancé about her? Are there other women besides these? But more to the point: Protesting your love for someone in the same breath that you describe her as inferior in every way, mentally ill, and distressed by you... That strikes me as deep, deep attachment. Any ostensible sexual misconduct is a symptom of something else. Your question isn't really about her or the situation; it's about you and how you relate to the world.

The Noble Eightfold path comprises three practices: wisdom, ethics and immersion. It takes wisdom to ask about ethics. A good source of ethics is MN8. In particular, some of the following considerations may or may not apply. You would know best:
It may be cruel to continue distressing this woman:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Love is synonymous with care and nurture. Is she feeling cared and nurtured by you?

MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

Love is often confounded with lust. Is there a degree of covetousness here?

MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

The stated perspective of status imbalance is concerning. The danger to be wary of here is a perceived disparity of value. The Buddha spoke with open heart to all castes:

MN8:12.28: ‘Others will be contemptuous, but here we will be without contempt.’

MN8:12.34: ‘Others will be arrogant, but here we will not be arrogant.’

There may be a difference of understanding regarding the meaning of the word, "love". To not discuss definitions might be construed as deceitful. Some people understand "love" as "I crave you". Others understand "love" as "I am grateful for and open to you". You don't need to explain the why of your feelings, but perhaps a simple discussion about what "love" means to you might be an act of love and compassion that would explain why you are rejoicing in her and thereby give her equanimity.

MN8:12.32: ‘Others will be deceitful, but here we will not be deceitful.’

In most societies, a declaration of love involves expectations. What are the expectations here? The Buddha lived without expectation. His love was limitless.

MN8:12.40: ‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

May you both find peace.

you come off really well there mate, cheers

Strictly, according to the Pali suttas, "sexual misconduct" seems to have two meanings.

For lay people it means having sexual relations with someone you shouldn't -- typically with members of other people's families, e.g. their spouses or children.
Some modern Buddhist societies (e.g. in Thailand) appear to allow married men to hire prostitutes.

For ordained people it means sexual relations period, i.e. all sexual relations are misconduct.

Lying or "false speech" might have a strict definition too, it's something like ...

Intending to deceive
Acting on that intent

... so speaking to deceive is false speech, and keeping silent in order to deceive is not.
The statement "I love you" might be meant to deceive -- for example if it's intended to be understood as a promise which you don't intend to keep.
Still the fact that something doesn't technically break a precept doesn't IMO imply it's ethical, nor wise. I guess there's no explicit precept against hitting or intimidating people, for example, but I don't think of that as moral.
A lot of what you say in the question sounds disturbing to me: i.e. saying that someone is "far below you"; being unclear about your personal boundaries when you have a fiancé (or is she a fiancée); and maybe making life more difficult for someone who you say is already "mentally ill".

do you have a quote for the first paragraph? not how i understood it all huh

There's a more detailed answer with references here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35116/254


text:
nupassana or upassana?
A Wikipedia article about Sati uses the word "upassanā"

According to Grzegorz Polak, the four upassanā have been misunderstood by the developing Buddhist tradition, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism)

However, I could not find the word in Pali dictionary and a Google search did not explain the term.
The term 'nupassana' however is found on Google but neither in Pali dictionar .
There is upasana in Sanskrit.
What is this term upassana or nupassana and where is it used?

I think the word you're looking for is Anupassanā

[abstr. of anupassati, cf. Sk. anudarśana] looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation

It's used in compound words like Kāyānupassanā (and Vedanānupassanā, Cittānupassanā, and Dhammānupassanā).
The fact that the second 'a' in "Kāyānupassanā" is long (i.e. with an accent on it, 'ā') is I think a hint that it's a compound of two 'a's, i.e.
Kāya + anupassanā = Kāyānupassanā

Wikipedia's Vipassanā (Etymology) says ...

Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". The "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.

... so there's a "root" "-passanā" -- which doesn't have an independent entry in the PTS dictionary, it just says ...

Passanā (p. 447) Passanā Passanā see anu˚, vi˚.

... i.e. referencing anupassanā and vipassanā.

The Sanskrit is Pashyana or Paśyana -- meaning "see", apparently.
Also there's https://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox/pref.html#anu which gives six possible meaning for the prefix "anu".

after, behind (motion viewed from the front backward).
ex: dhāvati: to run > anu·dhāvati: to run after
bala: military force > anu·bala: rearguard
bhāsati: to speak > anu·bhāsati: to speak after, repeat

for, towards an aim, on to, into, over to, forward (motion viewed from the back forward).
ex: pavecchati: to give, bestow > anu·pavecchati: to hand over
rodati: to cry, weep > anu·rodati: to cry for
pavisati: to enter > anu·pavisati: to enter into

(emphasis).
ex: dayā: sympathy, kindness > anu·ddayā: pity
yoga: application, endeavour > anu·yoga: devotion, dedication
vitakketi: to consider, reflect > anu·vitakketi: to ponder over

according to, in conformity with, along.
ex: ñāta: kown, well-knwon > anu·ñāta: permitted, allowed
mati: opinion > anu·mati: consent, agreement
rūpa: form > anu·rūpa: conform
anu·dhamma: in conformity with the dhamma
karoti: to do > anu·karoti: to imitate

secondary, supplementary, inferior, minor, smaller.
ex: pabbajā: ascetic life > anu·pabbajā: discipleship in ascetism
majjha: average > anu·majjha: mediocre
pavatteti: to set in motion > anu·pavatteti: to keep in motion

each, every, one by one.
ex: disā: direction > anu·disā: each direction
pubba: previous, former > anu·pubba: 'each after the previous one' ie. gradual
pañcāha: five days > anu·pañcāha: every five days.

anupassanā
looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation
anu small, minute, atomic; subtle. As prefix meaning “along”; with verbs of motion: “along towards”
passanā from verb passati to see; to recognise, to realise, to know, to find
anupassanā = "watching/observing/seeing closely"

Hi. I could mean "worship" but the phrase "four categories of mindfulness (sati)" sounds a bit unusual.


text:
Why did Buddha need a personal physician?
Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Nowhere in the suttas did they say the Buddha "needed" a personal physician. People volunteered their services to Him and He accepted it in the spirit of good will and possibly allowing good opportunity for the donors to practice generosity and attaining great merits at the same time.

That means Buddha also didn't need food right?He could have arranged those on his own?

That's technically possible. He could just enter Nirodha samadhi indefinitely until someone comes and offer him food.

Totally agree with this answer... Buddha was a man of few wants ..

You must imagine that after enlightenment, the Buddha became omniscient and had become a god or superman of sorts.
I believe this is an exaggeration.
Enlightenment made him fully understand and realize the four noble truths, but if he was here today, he won't be able to tell you how to make a vaccine for Covid-19.
On the other hand, the Buddha and Ven. Moggallāna had some psychic powers, that may have given them some supernatural abilities, but this does not make them fully omniscient or omnipotent.
Having fully understood and realized the four noble truths, the Buddha and the arahats have no reason to find supernatural means to avoid or alleviate physical pain and diseases. They can use whatever means available to ordinary people including the use of physicians and commonly available medicine.
The Buddha and the arahats may feel the physical pain but not the mental pain, as mentioned in SN 36.6:

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not
weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a
bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a
dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a
second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart
only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.
“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion
towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the
underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie
behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek
delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed
noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than
sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure,
the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie
behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing
away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of
these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying
tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant
feeling does not lie behind this.

Even enlightenment does not make you free from Karma. Once someone becomes an arahat he/she does not have any need to live but until the past Karma is expended an arahat lives. So in the same way Buddha has told why he got certain diseases and injuries.
Eg:

A recurring headache because in a previous life as Bodhisattva, he became happy at the sight of a big catch.

Having to practice strict acsetism due to the insults Bodhisattva (Jothipala) said to Kassapa Buddha.

Devadatta pushing a huge rock at Buddha, and Buddha getting His foot injured, this was due to a previous incarnation when Bodhisattva had pushed his brother from a cliff due to greed for the inheritance etc...

So many other effects of previous Kamma had to be borne by even the Great Buddha. If a Bodhisattva has done this many bad things in previous incarnations, imagine how much more evil we might have done.

Every Arahanta is not God. Every Buddha is not God.They never act like "I can control everything. I can do everything. I will never die. I can live forever." which is impossible, imagination. And what you ask is impossible, imagination.
The Buddha and followers are genius, not daydreamers. They know the real causes and effects and get "how we can use life for discontinuing suffering forever" in real life.

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?

Our Buddha has only 45 years to help people which he has trained them for 4 Asaṅkhaya 100 thousand MahāKappa, and most of his noble one followers have not more than 100 years to help people in 5,000 years.
If they are genius, they must be experts in how to manage seven qualities of a good man.
So, they chose to teach only importance for enlightenment.
Every teaching and learning have a learning curve which is easy for the Buddha and Arahanta, but hard for the ordinary.
More time more chance. Keep focusing on the Samatha&Vipassanā meditations for speeding the enlightenment. Don't waste focusing on mathematics or physics too much because most people have only 100 years to life.
Get the most out of 100 years of life.
But if the Buddhism will stay forever, he will teach materialistic and physic as well.

Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

There are eight causes of diseases which no one can't protect some of them, especially uncountable karma causes from past-life.

I can only assume that some things must happen, as Maha Moggalanna couldn't escape his assasins so maybe the Buddha also had to endure some disease.

Okay but what about physician?If he really needed to recover,couldn't he use his own medicial knowledge?

When Buddha's back hurt he would sometimes lie down. I don't actually recall him being sick at all so that i can't really pin down where you have the physician idea from

I assume the physician is Jīvaka


text:
Cause and effect
Buddha said that every living creature is subject to cause and effect.My question is what were we paying for in our first life?Well let me put forward like this,the first living creature after the earth was created was a bacteria and life originated in the sea which is a well established fact,then what was the bacteria paying for?Why didn't it take birth as a human?Also Homo sapiens came way after the extinction of many species?Then wht did the animals like dinosaurs take birth and why did the species get extinct?Doesn't Buddha's karma theory get debunked in this case?

Well let me put forward like this,the first living creature after the earth was created was a bacteria and life originated in the sea which is a well established fact.

You're missing a few important key words. Correction: "it's a well established OBSERVABLE fact TO DATE". Therefore, resorting to what we know as of now, given all the scopes, limits, and constraints of our senses to observe and capture fact/truth, is nowhere near sufficient to jump to conclusion that the law of causation is incomplete. And also as others already mentioned, there's no such thing as a "first life".

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." ~~ SN 15.3 ~~

OP: Buddha said that every living creature is subject to cause and effect.

Not only sentient beings, everything unless Nibbana is subject to cause and effect.

OP: My question is what were we paying for in our first life?

There is no such thing called "first life". We all have been gone through an endless cycle of birth, decay, and death. We are continuing that cycle until we attain Nibbana. Saṃsāra is a cycle. Can you point out an starting point of a circle? You cannot because there's always a point before the point you point out. This is well explained by Buddha in dependent origination.
Once Buddha said, "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on." (Assu Sutta - SN 15.3)

OP: Well let me put forward like this,the first living creature after the earth was created was a bacteria and life originated in the sea which is a well established fact,then what was the bacteria paying for? Why didn't it take birth as a human?

Even-though it was the first appearance on this earth for the first bacteria on this earth, it had been gone through endless cycles of birth, decay, and death in many other planes of existence before the earth was formed. Neither formation of the earth nor the so called Big Bang can be considered as the start of this universe or life. There were endless Big Bangs and Big Crunches. If you need Sutta explanation on "how the earth was created first?" and "how first plants appeared on earth?" and "how earth will be destroyed?" then please read Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) & Sattasūriya Sutta (AN 7.66).
By reading my above explanation one may think that the earth existed before we first appeared and the earth will remain after we died. It is true if we speak conventionally. What actually happen is there's no such long lasting earth. The outer world arise, exist, and, cease momentarily with us. In other words these five aggregates arise, exist, and, cease momentarily.
Science and Buddhism don't go hand in hand yet. But some facts taught in Buddhism which were rejected by Scientists have been proven to be correct recently. (Many of those are explained by Bhante Samahita in this video: Early Buddhism, Quantum Physics, and Relativity). I suppose science should be further developed to understand what is taught in Buddhism. So don't try to understand what is taught in Buddhism with the help of Scientific facts.
If we take a moment in one's lifetime he/she/it accompanied by his/her/its own deeds/kamma of past and may receive the fruits of them with the aid of a resultant consciousness at that moment. That's why Buddha said, "Kamma-s·sak·omhi, kamma-dāyādo kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu kamma-paṭisaraṇo. Yaṃ kammaṃ karissāmi, kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā, tassa dāyādo bhavissāmī ti." (English translation: I am my own kamma, I am a heir to my kamma, I am born [in this life] from my kamma, I am the kinsman of my kamma, I am protected by my kamma. Whatever kamma I shall do, good or bad, I shall become their heir.)
So the first bacteria on earth was definitely receiving the fruits of its past kamma.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

You didn't get the point,why only bacteria evolved as the first life on earth?Why not human beings?That's my question?Isn't it also surprising that humans came into existence from nowhere suddenly though there is a precise karma?

Some conditions needed to be fulfilled in order to be ripen the kamma. You can suppress minor bad kamma with powerful good kamma but cannot escape from them. That's why Buddha said if you do five heinous crime in this very life you cannot at least become stream winner during that lifetime because that powerful kamma will definitely takes you to the hell in your next life. This earth was first formed and waited a long time (satisfying the other causes) until the first human being appear on this earth

My question is what were we paying for in our first life?
The idea of "paying" for something seems to me a projection of human society -- e.g. according to modern civil law you pay a merchant for goods you buy, you pay a labourer for their service -- or in criminal law you might say that a criminal "pays for" their crime by being punished.
That's not a good metaphor for cause and effect in the natural world -- when snow melts, or when a drop of water evaporates, or when a cloud rains, I'd say that's "cause and effect" but I wouldn't say that's "paying for" something -- it's a natural consequence of the water's existing within changing (impermanent) atmospheric conditions.
Anyway I don't think "we" have a "first life" (see SN 15.3 quoted in @santa100's answer). If or whenever we have a life, that's a consequence of being "born" etc.
Doesn't Buddha's karma theory get debunked in this case?
I don't think so, because IMO the karma theory isn't the the same as (isn't trying to explain) the theory of the evolution of species (including bacteria)
Theories have a limited scope and use.
For example the idea of "paying" for actions is more-or-less useful in describing some aspect of human society -- even then it is not very/widely useful, if it's true that the best things in life are free (a lot of human society is neither "commercial", nor a matter of criminal "justice").
But the idea of "paying" isn't very useful in describing the state changes of water over time (though you can try to force the theory to fit by stretching the analogy, by pretending that heat is "paid" from one place to another -- "conservation of energy" and so on).
I think that Buddhism defines "karma" as "intentional action" -- so I'm not sure that (the theory of) "karma" is applicable to bacteria at all, although theories about "cause and effect" are.
I think the Buddha's karma theory says something else, something like, "You should try to be ethical and wise, to avoid causing suffering for yourself and others". This is especially applicable to human life -- maybe all "sentient beings" -- hard to see how it applies to bacteria though.
And I think that the theory of karma is meant to be applicable to (i.e. useful description of) this life -- not to some hypothetical or non-existent first life -- perhaps approximately as described in this answer.

If you're interested, there is a sutta which seems to describe the origin of species, saying that the human species evolves as a result of craving food. According to this answer, though, some people don't interpret it literally:

the Aggañña Sutta is “an extended satire on brahminical ideas, full of parody and puns… As a debunking job I think the sermon is serious: its main aim is to show that the class system is nothing but a human invention”

Don't ask "whose suffering?", "whose craving?", "whose ignorance?", "whose rebirth?"
Remember sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is suffering, not my suffering or your suffering. There is craving, not my craving or your craving. There is ignorance, not my ignorance or your ignorance.
One day, our Sun will grow hotter, expand and eventually explode. This will happen at least 5 to 8 billion years later. All life on Earth will eventually be destroyed.
But just as how life started on Earth through chemical interactions, it can start again somewhere on another planet. Perhaps it already has. With the start of life, followed by evolution, eventually, the mind will reemerge, and with it, ignorance will also return. With ignorance, we would have the birth, death and rebirth of sentient beings.
Rebirth here is the rebirth of ignorance, rebirth of the individual existence of a sentient being, and the rebirth of suffering. Not the rebirth of a specific countable and distinctively identifiable individual self that is permanent and standalone - that would violate the fact of anatta.
This is why most suttas in SN 15 state "from an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident ..."
Also please see this answer about karma.


text:
Reason of pandemics
According to the theory of karma,an individual receives the punishment for one's past deeds.
Now my question is the whole world is going through a massive unprecedented time,not only corona but severe issues already took place this year,which clearly bore the same effect on every person,does that mean the whole mankind is being punished for their past deeds?
If so why don't these pandemics persist eventually?
Why only after a certain period of time?

The answers this topic (about "the theory of karma") might answer this question too: Explaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist

Based on the answers given below, I can decipher that the underlying message is these are responses to the way we treat the earth. Now my question is why did the dinosaurs get extinct? They didn't treat the earth in a bad way like human beings,then what was the cause of meteoroids falling on earth?

Possibly what I believe Rhys Davids called utu niyama karma (Inorgan order)

Pandemics are enabled by random genetic mutation and opportunities for infection. People like to be close and travel. Viruses like new hosts nearby. People are yummy. COVID is hungry.
Punishment implies "suffering from past deeds". There really isn't a "Punisher" passing judgement over us in Buddhism. In Buddhism the consequences of a deed relate to intention. The intention itself generates suffering. If one intends to walk while looking at a phone, one may soon encounter suffering. Suffering arises from unskillful deeds. In Buddhism, ethics are a guide for skillful qualities. Ethics lead us away from unskillful qualities bound to greed, hate and delusion.
So another way to rephrase your question might be, "What unskillful qualities would create pandemic suffering?"  The Buddha doesn't mention anything about travel or closeness in the forty-four ethical considerations of MN8. However, we do see that:
Denying the existence of the virus falls under:

MN8:12.41: ‘Others will be uneducated, but here we will be well educated.’

MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’

MN8:12.45: ‘Others will be attached to their own views, holding them tight, and refusing to let go, but here we will not be attached to our own views, not holding them tight, but will let them go easily.’

And that going to crowded places such as bars falls under:

MN8:12.37: ‘Others will be negligent, but here we will be diligent.’

MN8:12.40: ‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

And that coughing on others without a mask for COVID falls under:

MN8:12.39: ‘Others will be conscienceless, but here we will have a sense of conscience.’

MN8:12.43: ‘Others will be unmindful, but here we will be mindful.’

MN8:12.44: ‘Others will be witless, but here we will be accomplished in wisdom.’

Disease affects all beings. Indeed, bananas are also being threatened by their own virus. Are bananas being punished for their deeds? I find it hard to think that way. It makes little sense to me. So it would be odd to think of the pandemic as the punishment for "past evil deeds".
But the difference between people and bananas is that people can choose to be ethical. And in that skillful choice, suffering will decrease.

We shouldn't really think of karma as 'punishment' or 'retribution'; karma isn't a moral force. If a man throws a boomerang and the boomerang swings back around and hits him, he isn't being punished for throwing the boomerang. Getting hit and feeling pain was just a natural consequence of the way he threw the boomerang. If he is practicing dharma, he will either not throw the boomerang or throw it more judiciously; if he is not, then karma will occassionaly wing it back at him.
When we think about large-scale disasters (pandemics, plagues, earthquakes, wildfires, monsoons, climate change...) the karmic view on this isn't that we are being collectively punished for some wrongdoing, but that we are feeling the consequences of our lack of attention and perspective. If we build a city in an earthquake zone, we should build buildings that withstand earthquakes. If we build a global economy with quick and easy movement around the globe, we should concern ourselves with the health and welfare of everyone. If we don't act with (dharmic) conscious awareness, then the natural (karmic) order of the world will assert itself.
Illness and death are an aspect of being alive, but we want to find that middle path between obstinately rejecting their existence and cynically shrugging our shoulders.

There isn't any punishment or reward there is just cause and effect. There is no society and there is no pandemic in a karmic sense. Reality doesn't admit of those things at a moment by moment experiential level where karma works. Remember, this moment by moment experiential reality stuff is really important.

According to Buddhism Kamma is only one of the reasons for what is happening around us.
There are five Niyamas. Kamma, Dhamma, Utu, Biju, etc
A comprehensive analysis is given in Abhidhamma.
The Abhidhamma teaches us that:
there are natural laws which govern the universe (niyaama dhammaa);
our mental and physical states arise dependent on causes — dependent origination (pa.ticca samuppaada); and
conditioning and influencing relationships exist between these effects and their causes (paccaya).
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#causality

Is pandemic a natural law?By sweeping people from the face of earth?Also I hopped into your link,the natural evolution described there was an inorganic process,could you please take the trouble of relating pandemics and the description encrypted in the link?THANKS

Only Buddhas' can understand the Kamma process. It is a waste of time for Putujana trying to understand it. Having said that you still see how Kamma in action. Just investigate why the pandemic effect differently to different people.

Now my question is the whole world is going through a massive unprecedented time,not only corona

Sure, Covid is one terrible thing. But it's not the most terrible... just yet. Ever heard of the Black Death outbreak during 1346-1353?

does that mean the whole mankind is being punished for their past deeds?

No, not everyone. The rich and powerful elites are doing just fine. Even if they catch it, they'll always have access to the best hospitals and brightest doctors by their side, hence greatly enhancing the odds of survival.

If so why don't these pandemics persist eventually? Why only after a certain period of time?

Because of a Buddhist concept called Anicca.

Sorry but man great influential persons died of covid 19

Of course there's no such thing as absolute certainty. But relatively speaking, the stats clearly said that the minority and the poors have much greater odds of deaths when struck by Covid compared to their wealthy counterparts. This is just the fact!

I will answer why pandemics arise. To understand pandemic we must first understand why disease arise. This body of ours is sanitised and kept away from insects , bacteria and viruses through various means. We are given an internal mechanism to fight any bacteria and viruses and we employ external mechanisms to ward off bacteria and viruses... Our internal mechanisms are mostly responsible for keeping us healthy...There comes a time when for various reasons period of judgement arrives. Based on our karma insects , bacteria , viruses attack us with intent to make us decay and die. Our health mechanisms both internal and external fights against those bacteria and viruses. Whoever wins is declared a winner but not without suffering.
That is how diseases arise.Now pandemics are due to shared karma... we did a common mistake and we are facing the consequences of it because the period of judgment arrived.
There is no judge but the mind is at play. Mind decides who gets infected and who does not.( This answer was a personal explanation based on experience and learnings )

Samsara is a cyclic tendency.
Dependent origination is a cyclic tendency.
Living beings are cyclic tendencies.
Civilisation is a cyclic tendency.
Viral disease is a cyclic tendency.
Planet Earth's ecosystem is a giant cyclic tendency.
Cyclic tendency's "job" is to survive and perpetuate itself.
One cyclic tendency can either be an "ally" to another cyclic tendency, in which case they help each other and become part of one mega-tendency, or their natures could be in opposition to each other, in which case they will be in a kind of competition for survival.
In this case, human civilisation is a cyclic tendency in opposition to Planet Earth's ecosystem. This is especially important because the human civilisation is a parasite on top of Planet Earth's ecosystem, it depends on it for its survival.
So naturally the more human civilisation harms Planet Earth, the more the latter will exhibit a tendency to keep generating phenomenas that would undermine the other tendency (civilisation).
It is Planet Earth's survival mechanism.
Viral disease like COVID-19 is a tiny part of Earth's immune response. At this point anything that can slow down and stop human civilisation automatically becomes an ally of Planet Earth.
Things will get much more serious if we keep harming our host. The more we put ourselves in opposition to our planet, the worse the conflict becomes, the stronger reaction this conflict will generate.
At some point these reactions will help each other, by nature of coming from the same source, the interaction of two opposing tendencies. For example, global warming and viral diseases will help each other etc.

an individual receives the punishment for one's past deeds
I think this answer says that different people experience an event differently -- depending on their karma, including how they've been trained by their previous actions.
So when something (anything, like a pandemic) happens, same people may experience that as if it's some kind of "punishment" -- and some won't.

Right Chris... some people will consider disease as punishment.. some people might willingly accept it out of love..

I think you're mistaking Buddhism to science or some world-encompassing philosophical speculation. Buddhism is only about one thing and one thing only ending suffering.
The Buddha wasn't interested in these kinds of questions, probably he would say to you .. What is it to you?
What is it to you if the Pandemic starts due to the alignment of stars or by a Demigod?
Just work on things on your power, you can follow the Nobel eightfold path here and now. Why do pry and ask about your former life? Maybe you were a murderer who slaughtered ten thousand Arhant what of it? you can do nothing to change the past.

Reason of pan(dem)ics? Google, facebook, exchange and co, and common use of it. Sickness isn't new, as well as not investigated, seen, does not mean that it wasn't before.
As for why people are in tendency to be sick: here
As for why many: "common/communistic acting" and like-a-like near.
As for ultimate (no opinion-based, or conventional) answer: happiness and suffering arises by touch (of not-knowing).
[Notee that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade... but to escape from those gatis]

Sometimes there can be collective karma.
For e.g. you see many people in a certain country publicly protesting against lockdowns, social distancing measures and wearing masks. They also do not heed such advice. Even their head of state did not take this seriously. The consequence of this is that this country now has the most number of pandemic cases. This is collective karma.
On the other hand, in countries where the leaders and people work hand-in-hand to prevent the spread of the pandemic using lockdowns, social distancing, mask-wearing, hand-washing and diligent contact tracing, the occurrence of the cases have dropped significantly. This is also collective karma.
The incidences of viruses and bacteria that jumped from animals to humans of course can be partially blamed on karma. Hunting and killing animals in the wild or in captivity and dealing with their meat and blood can definitely cause a jump in diseases from animals to humans. But we should not lay the blame on humanity as a collective.
But is everything that happens to you or humanity caused by karma? Certainly not. Please see this answer for details. According to suttas quoted by this answer, not everything needs to be blamed on past karma.

I dont think collective Karma is correct.          I am the owner of my karma;
I am born of my karma;
I live supported by my karma;
I am related to my karma;
Whatever I do, whether good or evil, that I will inherit.

@m2015 Collective karma is not important to the individual but there are cases where it does manifest, as per my example

Pandemics are collective results(effects) caused by 3 poisons of human beings-- Greed,  Selfish Ego, Stupidity (collective causes).
Please repent, reflect what cruel deeds mankind had, have done to environment and other living beings and let's wake up and change and do what's right for environment and other living sentient beings.
You may see some people prosper, some suffer, some immune from pandemic are due to their good or bad fortune/karma reserves.


text:
Is Buddhism a reduced version of Samkhya philosophy?
I have read a couple of articles written mostly in passing by western translators on the influence of Sage Kapila (i.e Samkhya) on the Buddha, but I'm yet to find a detailed inquiry on a similarity of these systems.
We read that Alara Kalama one of the teachers of the Gautama Buddha was a follower of the ancient Samkhya philosophy. it is also written that the Bodhisattva Gautama eventually equaled his teacher Alara, and went on inquiring further until he was fully awakened, Buddha. And after awakening, the first person he wished to teach was his former teacher Alara.
I'm only mentioning that above to highlight why I venture to inquire in this direction, my question is mainly on the similarity of the two systems /thought. I will list some:

For both systems, the main goal is to 'End Suffering' by removing ignorance.
Contrary to most religious thought in India, both systems, although they accept heavenly beings, they reject the idea of a creator God. The gods they accept  are just like humans bound within the cycle of suffering. Samkhya satirically declares 'No one no-where Is happy'. The idea of 'Brahman' is also rejected.
Again both say that there is no-self on forms, sensations, perceptions, and all mental activities including the mind's reason [Buddhi].

Now, there is a 'Self' in the Samkhya system, but on critical reading, it's beyond any of the non-self listed in the Buddist thought. It's not a self that transmigrates and pile-up karma it's unbound ever free self. What is Bound and what is freed is the mind, not the Self.
Similarly, there are primordial matters in the Samkhya system. But Buddhism doesn't discuss or is not interested at the beginning of the matter, etc...
There is a lot to list here but in short, when one compares the two systems it seems that Buddhism is a reduced version of Samkhya with some of the ideas removed as non-essential. Was the Buddha a reformer?
Many Thanks

I found some helpful resources in this answer from Hinduism SE. But still there are doubts that if they were written after the death of Buddha or before. Only thing we can find in suttas that vedas are mentioned in pali canon, not sure about others. :)

@rht .. that answer is marred with inaccuracy.. the Vedantist, I dare say the whole Hinduism, don't like Samkhya philosophy so you would expect them to be combative like that.. but tnx there are some interesting answers given by others in the same page.

According to the wikipedia page on Samkhya:

The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya
philosophy is the Samkhya Karika (c. 200 CE or 350–450 CE) of
Īśvarakṛṣṇa. There were probably other texts in early centuries CE,
however none of them are available today. Iśvarakṛṣṇa in his Kārikā
describes a succession of the disciples from Kapila, through Āsuri and
Pañcaśikha to himself.

So, Samkhya philosophy as known today, came almost 700 years after the Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE) based on the date of Samkhya Karika. But as stated above, it is attributed by Iśvarakṛṣṇa to Sage Kapila, who obviously predated the Buddha.
It is possible that the Samkhya Karika had experienced influence from Buddhism.
What about Alara Kalama?
Apparently, the only source stating Alara Kalama as following Samkhya is the Buddhacarita, composed in the second century CE by Aśvaghoṣa. This too was written at least 500 years after the Buddha.
There is no mention of the Samkhya philosophy by name in the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon also never explicitly attributed any teachings to Sage Kapila. The only mention of Kapila is in the Jataka Tales, dated at least a century after the Buddha.
In any case, whatever doctrine or teachings that was taught by Alara Kalama to the Buddha, did not bring him enlightenment, as we see in MN 26:

"In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the
same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought
occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension
of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

So, the question is - did the Buddha copy and reduce Samkhya, or did the Samkhya Karika copy the teachings of the Buddha and tried to reconcile Buddhism with the teachings of the Vedas and the Upanishads?
Based on the dates of the writings, I would say the latter is more likely. So, you've got it in reverse.
But did the Buddha copy Sage Kapila? Well, this is impossible to say, because we don't have any authenticated pre-Buddhist writings of Sage Kapila remaining, in which he taught Samkhya.

Based on the following statements from the Samkhya Karika, the definition of Spirit (Purusha) is in violation of sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self). There is no single Self or Spirit that is the pure witness or controller in Buddhism.

The Spirit exists because (a) the aggregate is for another's sake; (b)
of the absence of three guṇas and other properties; (c) there must be
some controller; (d) there must be some experiencer; and (e) of the
tendency of activities towards final beatitude. - Samkhya Karika
17
The multiplicity of the Spirit is verily established (1) from the
individual allotment of birth, death and the instruments, (2) from the
non-simultaneity of activities, and (3) from the diverse modifications
due to the three guṇas. - Samkhya Karika 18
And from that contrast it is established that the Spirit is the pure
witness. He is solitary, neutral, spectator, and non-agent. - Samkhya
Karika 19

You may have to read a bit.. the Self in Samkhya doesn't control,  it is not a witness and is not an agent as it doesn't act... it is not the knower, doesn't get born or die, etc.

@Epic The verses I quoted from Samkhya Karika clearly states that the Spirit (Purusha) is the pure witness and the spectator.

I did read your quote.. what I mean is that you have to look for authentic translation .. for example, 19. reads [The Self] which are, by nature, eternally pure, intelligent and free, does not stand in connection with this, when there is not connected with that.  It does not say 'spectator' or 'witness' ... That which is free and pure doesn't need to see or witness Matter!... if you're interested, read also the ancient commentary by Aniruddha or Vijnanabhikshu....

what is been discussed in 17 18 19... is "What is bound?" which in Buddhism is normally answered by the 'Parable of the poisoned arrow' or something similar... I think its an interesting read if you have the time.

"Based on the dates of the writings, I would say the latter is more likely. So, you've got it in reverse";You are wrong as mahabharat was written before buddhist literature and it contains term "sankhya" As check bhagvad gita 18.13 from mahabharat :five factors that have been mentioned for the accomplishment of all actions in the doctrine of "Sānkhya, "which explains how to stop the reactions of karmas.

@Hope Nope. According to Wikipedia sources, the earliest parts of the Mahabharata was composed in the 4th century BCE, while the Buddha lived in the 5th or 6th century BCE.

Pāṇini's book Aṣtādhyāyī sutra 6.2.38 https://archive.org/details/ashtadhyayitrans06paniuoft
refer to mahabharat.                                 According to Scharfe, "his proximity to the Vedic language as found in the Upanisads and Vedic sūtras suggests the 5th or maybe 6th c. B.C."
According to Bod, Pāṇini's grammar defines Classical Sanskrit, so Pāṇini is chronologically placed in the later part of the Vedic period, seventh to fifth century BCE

Sankhya other reference यदिहास्ति किंचित् सांख्यागतं तच्च महन्महात्मन् (mahabharat shanti parva 301.109)If there is anything here that has come to Sankhya, it is also great, O great soul ; Moreover historical dating says Mahabharata, 400 BCE(Origins likely in the 8th or 9th century BCE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hindu_texts.
Also    For glorifying Buddhism, don't say others copied.

@Hope "According to Burley, there is no evidence that a systematic samkhya-philosophy existed prior to the founding of Buddhism and Jainism, sometime in the 5th or 4th century BCE." - from here

@ruben2020 give reference from books (scriptures)because historians can't agree on dates+ my reference are clear.

Last time I had the pleasure of speaking with the Buddha, he said that most of what he teaches he indeed had learned from Alara, but only after having completely realized and verified it in his own direct experience.
Before he realized it in his own experience, he could only "pay the lip-service" to the teaching - he could say the right words from memory - but he hasn't connected it with his own reality yet.
Words are cheap if you don't really know the truth.
Alara heard all the right words from his teacher and realized most of them in practice but did not attain Final Enlightenment and Liberation. The Buddha learned the theory that was passed from the previous Buddhas, an echo of previous Realizations - some parts still clear and some corrupted or lost. He got the gist and followed the tracks until he got to "the lost city".
The Dharma is a teaching about reality and about mind. It's like science it describes the laws of nature (just the different laws). It's no wonder that it has been rediscovered in some generations, then passed down, then lost, then rediscovered again. It's not an invention of the Buddha.
Why is it surprising that he learned much of it from his teacher and got the rest by himself?

None, it is not surprising at all... It is written that there were many saintly ascetics in Buddha's time, but there was a huge gap between the general public and these ascetics, Max Mueller, for example, says the Buddha was the one who invited the mass to the ascetic way away from the overbearing sacrificial religion of his time................BTW are you quoting a text when you say 'Last time I had the pleasure of speaking with the Buddha, ...' or claiming to have spoken to the Buddha? .....

We spoke in a sort of dream. At this point I can direct my dreams to a degree.

Oh.. Okay... I didn't know one can direct dream to the Buddha...Anyways, although not registered, I have asked a lot of questions in this sub SE and received a response from you and may others...  I also notice recently your response has become assertive. ..Peace!

Thanks for paying attention. I guess I have few reasons left to doubt my realization.


text:
Humbled by fate, punishment or push to right path?
Not long ago, I encountered tough "barrier" in life, tried to break through it but ended up greatly humbled and forced to take step back.
This got me thinking whether I should decouple from earthly desires like career, consumerism and similar.
Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ?
Note: I realize this question is not necessarily specific to one religion over other, but I think this community is more accepting to this type of question.

Karma is not divine punishment so it definitely wasn't that. But it could have been an accumulation of past deeds/misdeeds. Setbacks happen, spend time reflecting, seek spiritual or professional counseling. You'll be ok.

I think you need to provide more details and clarity in your question, in order to get  better answers that fit your situation.

I think the practical question to ask might: 1) Should I try again? Or otherwise, next time should I try to attain a different goal? 2) And if I do try again, what should I do differently so that I don't fail again? That doesn't seem to be literally what you're asking though -- instead you're asking whether it's divine punishment, or a divine message ("display"). The answer to that, according to Buddhism, is probably "no" as explained in santa100's answer -- i.e. events can generally be seen to happen as a natural (not supernatural) consequence.

Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ?

Kamma doesn't need some divine intervention to take place. It's a natural law like physics. You throw a ball against the wall with a certain force and angle, and it'll bounce back and hit you. You touch a hot kettle, and it'll burn your hand.

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

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


text:
Which Buddhist traditions have no gender divisions at all
I had a conversation with a friend and she was very upset that there were some gender division in the group I practice with. We have some single sex retreats and some study groups are single sexed. But mostly things are mixed.
If my friend wanted to practice Buddhism with a group with no gender divisions whatsoever - what group would that be? So all study, retreats, events would be mixed and if there is a monastic community then that would be mixed too.

Even the bathroom are sprites for the security reason. We sprit sex for the security reason. She may say she can takecare herself, but have she ever taken care of how hard the male control his mind when he being with a woman?  We meditate for taking care each other, not for feminists or meninist.

Are you asking about a tradition or a community? If the latter, there are many. Most of the "insight meditation" communities, e.g. IRC, Spirit Rock, IMS etc  in the US are sex- unsegregated. But if you ask about the Theravada tradition that these communities trace their lineage to, usually in the original country (MMY, SLK, THA etc), there is a separation in the seating in the meditation hall.
However, there are many religious activities that are not segregated - families often do them together - e.g., food donation and other donation at monasteries, meeting monks for advice or to pay respects and volunteer work of various sorts.

Our branch of Rinzai Zen has no gender division other than that we segregate by sex when bunking up for sesshin.  I can’t think of too many Buddhist communities in the US that would even consider that, quite frankly.  I think the group you’re with would be the exception in the West, at least.


text:
Why is Vipassana centred around the breath, when it's meant to be a state of observing sensations?
I can't seem to reconcile the two ideas that Vipassana meditation involves both concentrating completely on the breath while at the same time observing bodily sensations. Aren't these two mutually exclusive? How can one concentrate on the breath while being open to new sensations?

When you watch your breath, seeing the quality or character of each in-breath and out-breath allows you to really see your feelings (not sensations, that's a bad translation). Breath is the best pointer at your emotional state.

Vipassana does not involve concentrating solely on the breath. Instead (one form of) it involves resting your attention on the breath. While keeping your attention on your breath your awareness naturally has to be open to unconsciously "decide" whether or not the attention should change to something else, so already it is naturally open in this situation. By placing your attention on your chosen object of meditation you are implicitly opening your awareness.
At first it's not obvious: you may feel that you are really forcing your attention onto your breath at the expense of other sensations, but as you relax and open further you will begin to perceive your awareness with much more clarity.
Source: The Mind Illuminated

Aren't these two mutually exclusive?

No. When the breath is known within the body, simultaneously sensations within the body will be felt. Also, the impermanence of the breath will be experienced.

If you simply observe everything, eventually, the mind starts wandering.
So, observation of the breath in vipassana serves a few functions:

It anchors the mind into the task of observing the breath and you need mindfulness to keep returning to this task, to prevent the mind from wandering.
It calms the mind down.
With the breath, there comes other physical sensations that are observable, like the movement of the abdomen, movement of air through the nasal passage etc.
With the breath, there are related mental states that can be observed like calming down, agitated, unhappy, happy etc. because negative mental states tend to cause heavy agitated breath and positive mental states have lighter breath.
The relationship or mutual influence between mind and body can be observed.


text:
What are the most prominent Tibetan Buddhist texts that are only written in Tibetan script?
A lot of Buddhist texts come from Sanskrit or Chinese. I am looking at the Kangyur and Tengyur, and a few scattered others. But a lot of those are from Sanskrit and Chinese as well (or other languages, Pali, etc.). What books or groups of books/works can only be found in Tibetan script? Whether or not it has been translated to other languages isn't important, the original language should be Tibetan though.
I am trying to mentally gather an image of how much reading would be required to gain the knowledge unique to Tibetan Buddhism.

The foundational tantra (book) of Tibetan Dzogchen , the Dra Thalgyur, (“The Reverberation of Sound”) is only available in Tibetan. If you are interested in the highest practice in Tibetan Buddhism, that would be one you would need to read.

That is སྒྲ་ཐལ་འགྱུར according to Wikipedia, can its Tibetan content be found online anywhere in copy/pastable format? Is it found in the Kangyur somewhere?

Try the local university library. In the city I live there is some; just go see the Administration for a security pass first to avoid any security issues as a campus visitor. Since state collages collaborate in research; your local state university should have some as well... might want to call it first and find out; if not the largest city nearest public library should have some.
Checking them out in University not really possible unless you are a student however there are reading rooms. Public library offers a card... those can be checked out; but they too have reading rooms if distraction is a problem elsewhere.
Some colleges have their entire library and even college courses uploaded like Harvard has been doing allowing anyone to sit in on classes free as if you were a student since it is "free" it is unaccredited meaning you wont get a degree but at least you can learn it so if you attend elsewhere then it is a great primer to already know whatever it is before you take it.
So going to college library websites might be just the ticket to the quality texts you are looking for.
Translations haven't ever been good... like when watching Anime Japanese to English is the funniest like old lip syncing Kung Fu movies... There is a song in one anime that says: when you pick me up my soul feels free... As the translation. When the actual words are: Your smiling eyes embraced my heart.
Huge difference and how those two phrases are synonymous? Not in the slightest.
Just sitting like immersion in shunyata one will be like a cup or bowl and pick up the entire whatever it is like accumulation... if one leaves all formation alone is shunyata as all mental aggregates fall on the potters wheel when the senses are grasped at resulting in moving the mind/turning the wheel; instead of sitting the mind so it becomes filled when that link of becoming makes it's round.


text:
Does each Buddha find a new path?
I have a question that I find kind of interesting, and can't find an answer anywhere. Will the next Buddha find a new path, different from the middle way? Or will he rediscover the middle way once it's been forgotten. I think both are possible, but I'm not too sure.

Each Buddha rediscovers the same path and the same truth all over again, on his own.
You can find this narrated in the Pali Canon for Vipassi Buddha (SN 12.4), Sikhi Buddha (SN 12.5), Vessabhu Buddha (SN 12.6), Kakusandha Buddha (SN 12.7), Konagamana Buddha (SN 12.8), Kassapa Buddha (SN 12.9) and of course, Gotama Buddha (SN 12.10).
Furthermore, the Buddha foretold the coming of the future Buddha, Metteyya Buddha or Maitreya Buddha in DN 26 - to do the same.

When someone awakens (Buddh) he or she awakens to the Key Principle. This Principle is at the root of everything. This Principle is the Law of Nature. From this Principle everything else follows, good and bad. If you know the Principle, you can act accordingly and fare well. If you act otherwise, you create trouble.
When the Awakened awakens, he or she teaches the aspects of the Principle as well as the implications of the Principle. He or she teaches the different outcomes of Acting in accordance with -- or against -- the Principle.
To those who want to fare well, he or she teaches the practical means of mastering the Principle. Sentient beings of extremely high capacity only need the Principle itself explained - then they can see and do the rest by themselves. To sentient beings of low capacity he or she teaches basic Action in accordance with the Principle without trying to get them to understand the Principle itself.
Sentient beings of intermediate capacity need detailed step by step instructions on mastering the Principle. These step by step instructions can take many forms. In case of the previous Buddha they took the form of the Middle Way. Regardless of the exact form they take they are a gradual approach to mastering the Principle. They come out of the Principle, their essence is the Principle.
These gradual instructions can use an entirely different set of concepts, and their practical side may look vastly different because of a different lifestyle of the sentient beings at the time. They may not resemble the Middle Way at all, but their essence will be the same nevertheless.
It will always have: this is right, this is not right, this will get you in trouble, this will get you out of trouble, this is what you need to know, this is what you need to do, this is the coarse approximation of The Principle, this is the more refined, this is extremely refined, this is sublime, these are the pointers to the ultimate.

Walking towards emptiness we walk separately simply because there are different bodies, but:

MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

MN121:13.4: So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’

MN121:13.5: That’s how you should train.”

Also, in MN81, the Buddha discusses his own experience with a previous Buddha.

MN81:5.1: “Once upon a time, Ānanda, there was a market town in this spot named Vebhaliṅga. It was successful
and prosperous and full of people.  And Kassapa, a blessed one, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha, lived supported by Vebhaliṅga.

All Noble Paths converge.

New Buddha will bring understanding to what has already been said. Majority of people are not interested in Dhamma because they fail to understand it and get lost in the myriad of books and ideas. Grasping the Dhamma is the most difficult thing to do and even more difficult is applying it in your daily life. New Buddha will do all that as the previous Buddhas did.
Buddha brings understanding like a master teacher. Buddha is the teacher of Gods.

In this world or any other world nature cannot change.  That is continuous changing. Within this changing world 4 noble truths prevails. But no one knows. Millions of years  this changing keep on.  As a result of this changing civilizations arises, exists and disappears. But this noble truths prevails nobody knows. People's age limit expanding 10 years 100,000. In between 80,000 to 100 "Bodhisathwa" birth may happen.  This is very rare occasion.  Millions trillions of years passes away without "Bodhisathwa".
Once  Bodhisathwa birth happens, he is the one understand this 4 truths and preaching to the world. All the buddha's preaching the same 4 noble truths. That is to understand the ultimate realities.
May Triple Gem Bless you


text:
Lord Buddha advice on contemplation of man-made things
Hundred years ago there were many natural beautiful things to observe and it was also easy to cultivate happiness. But in today's city life, we are surrounded by long buildings, roads, and traffics. We rarely spend our time with nature and are mostly surrounded by man-made things. Although breathing meditation can be done anywhere and this cultivates a lot of relief from our suffering, I was just wondering whether Lord Buddha had given any suggestion on the contemplation of manmade things to cultivate happiness/peace?
Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes then how?

OP: Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes then how?

You can meditate on kasinas. Please see the wikipedia page on kasina.
Technically, this is concentration on a man-made mental object.
I quote from it below.

Kasiṇa meditation is one of the most common types of samatha
meditation, intended to settle the mind of the practitioner and create
a foundation for further practices of meditation. In kasiṇa
meditation, a mental object (kasina) is used as the object of
meditation, being used to keep the mind focused whenever attention
drifts.
The meditation treatise the Visuddhimagga is centered around
kasina-meditation. According to American scholar monk Thanissaro
Bhikkhu, "[t]he text then tries to fit all other meditation methods
into the mold of kasina practice, so that they too give rise to
countersigns, but even by its own admission, breath meditation does
not fit well into the mold." He argues that by emphasizing
kasina-meditation, the Visuddhimagga departs from the focus on dhyana
in the Pali Canon. Thanissaro Bhikkhu states this indicates that what
"jhana means in the commentaries is something quite different from
what it means in the Canon."
There are ten kasiṇa described in the Visuddhimagga, which are also
mentioned in the Pali Tipitaka:

earth पठवी कसिण (Pali: paṭhavī kasiṇa, Sanskrit: pṛthivī kṛtsna)
water आपो कसिण (āpo kasiṇa, ap kṛtsna)
fire तेजो कसिण (tejo kasiṇa, tejas kṛtsna)
air, wind वायो कसिण (vāyo kasiṇa, vāyu kṛtsna)
blue, green नील कसिण (nīla kasiṇa, nīla kṛtsna)
yellow पीत कसिण (pīta kasiṇa, pīta kṛtsna)
red लोहित कसिण (lohita kasiṇa, lohita kṛtsna)
white ओदात कसिण (odāta kasiṇa, avadāta kṛtsna)
enclosed space, hole, aperture आकास कसिण (ākāsa kasiṇa, ākāśa kṛtsna)
consciousness विञ्ञाण कसिण (viññāṇa kasiṇa, vijñāna kṛtsna); in the Pali suttas and some other texts; bright light आलोक कसिण āloka
kasiṇa according to later sources, such as Buddhaghosa's
Visuddhimagga.

The kasiṇa are typically described as a colored disk, with the
particular color, properties, dimensions and medium often specified
according to the type of kasiṇa. The earth kasiṇa, for instance, is a
disk in a red-brown color formed by spreading earth or clay (or
another medium producing similar color and texture) on a screen of
canvas or another backing material.

In today's city life, we are surrounded by material possessions. How should we regard them?

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

We should regard material possessions as impermanent and unsatisfactory.

DN15:17.2: Suppose there were totally and utterly no seeking for anyone anywhere. When there’s no seeking at all, with the cessation of seeking, would the gaining of material possessions still be found?”

DN15:17.3: “No, sir.”

If one can regard a tuk-tuk or a Ferrari with equanimity of transport, then one would be well on the way to living without wishes in this very life. And that would require giving up assessment and attachment.
So in the city, see the city. In the forest see the forest. Let go of "me, myself and mine". Just see.

I believe the OP is not asking about materialism. Setting kasina aside and addressing the broader question: No, it doesn't matter whether the object of the senses is manmade or not. For example, a member of the opposite sex is not artificial while a fancy car or phone is. Lust can form for both. Likewise, we can easily find examples of when the both natural and artificial objects can trigger aversion.
Regarding meditation, in reality, the objects of meditation are really only 6, the six sense doors.  Everything we know is known by the mind at these 6. The kind of objects you are talking about are objects of these sense doors. With some practice, they don't really matter.  What matters is the reactions on sense doors and the feeling tones generated in the mind as a result.
The seclusion that the Buddha talked about was really seclusion of the senses. Yes, he did recommend going to an empty house, the root of a tree etc, but this was the aid seclusion of the senses.  Notice that he did *not ask anyone to go to a place of natural beauty or look for beautiful natural things.  This is one of the most common misconceptions about meditation -  that you need a quiet, beautiful place.
The path is for practice wherever we are. There is some value to allowing somewhat favorable conditions, but this is not the first order endeavor.