text:
Do the texts of Mahayana Buddhism or those of any other school posit that everything is to be regarded as ideation? (Idealism)
Does Mahayana Buddhism or any other school of Buddhism posit the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference, as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination?

hi Rodney. please define "idealism" in your question. thank you

Objective and subjective idealism. The idea that the physical world does not exist, but everything exists only in the mind as imagination

Please see: What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What are the arguments Yogacara makes to deny the reality of sensory objects?

The question is ambiguous. Which is closer to what you are asking?

That which imagines is imagined.
That which imagines isn't imagined. There is a fundamental difference.

Is Mahayana Buddhism idealism, or does it say that the entire physical world exists independently of the minds of living beings?

I voted to close because it's not clear what OP is asking as he takes for granted that the meaning of the word 'mind' is commonly agreed upon whilst the meaning of this term is the base of essential controversies. It is therefore not clear what he is asking and i don't see how anyone can answer this rightfully.

I think op is essentially asking whether there is any school which posits that 'perceived objects' exist only in as far as perception exists or that the perceived objects can exist as not perceived objects. Which is kind of funny as the latter asks whether some schools hold that x can be both x and not x simultaneously and the former whether x is x only. Obviously anything perceived is dependent on perception and is therefore called 'the perceived' or an object of perception.

the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference

This is agreeable for expression. As i understand it, the Theravadin texts posit this iow.

as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination

This is dodgy. Which is closer to what you are asking?

That which imagines is imagined.
That which imagines isn't imagined.

There is a fundamental difference and #1 is closer to Theravada. #2 would be disagreeable.

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises...
Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
Madhupindika Sutta

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing
away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
fabrications,' that would be impossible.
Upaya Sutta

That is, Mahayana Buddhism says that the external physical world exists independently of our mind?

@Rodney - Not at all. Mahayana says that only the conceptions of what we perceive are actually the mind and because those conceptions are believed, it gives rise to solidity and fragmented ideas about a physical world.

Ideation creates views. Ideation belongs to the domain of thought, which in Buddhism is defined to be one of the six senses, all prone to grasping and therefore suffering. The Buddha discusses the net of ideation/views in DN1. The Prime Net, which emphasizes how ideation/views can trap us.

When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contacts’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, they understand what lies beyond all these things.

Notice that, in the above, the Buddha points beyond all these things. The Buddha points beyond ideation. The Buddha points beyond views.
And this leads to a problem with a question that asks about "everything". It's a problem because "everything", which is literally "every" conceivable "thing", is a very slippery term, much like "infinity". Is everything countable? Some infinities are countable. Others are not.
The Buddha taught four Noble Truths. These truths all deal with suffering. In fact, the four Noble Truths deal with all suffering. They do not deal with "everything" unless we define "everything" as "all suffering". And in this one special case of "everything as all suffering", then yes, every thing is indeed suffering and there is also an end to suffering. Ideation belongs to the realm of forms. And the escape from forms is the formless, which lies beyond ideation.

DN34:1.4.27: Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.


text:
Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?
I read the following on the internet:

In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.

Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness
Generally accepted social norms.
Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time)
Law of the land.

If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as
they wish.

Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?

Could you add a link for where you read this? The quote starts with "in my opinion", and it would be useful to see what context he or she is offering that opinion in.

I was taught by my Buddhist teacher, that sexual conduct falls under the law of cause and effect, aka karma.  And that every action we do creates a future result.  If we would like to have a pleasant future in samsara then we undertake activities that will provide a pleasant result.  The laws of the land and accepted social norms often times "accept" behavior that will result in unpleasant karmic consequences.  (For instance, white lies are "accepted" by social norms, but would not constitute "right speech" and would lead to undesirable consequences.)
I can't back up this idea with a reference, but logic would say that the laws of the land and accepted social norms may not be "right sexual conduct" according to Buddhist thought.

Both social norms and laws are the result of a balance between personal freedom and the necessary restrictions imposed on those freedoms to ensure that the social order is maintained.
Or in other words, norms and laws represent some kind of balance within a social group between the desires of each individual, against their most obvious problematic outcomes for society at large.
In a social context where people can have wildly different desires, the satisfaction of which can have good and bad outcomes for other individuals, some limitations must be put in place, or the society will destroy itself. This is not the way the Buddha’s teachings arose.
The Buddha taught how to end personal suffering by learning how to end the craving and attachment for things that we cannot obtain, do not have, or should not desire,  each of which cause us to suffer.
Thus, the goal of the Buddha was focused on helping each individual to have a better life, but in a way that also ensured harmony between people, because individuals in conflict suffer as a direct result of conflict. And if a society was based on these same principals, then there would probably not be a difference between how individuals comport themselves, and how society needs them to comport themselves.
But, most people, even some Buddhists, are ignorant of, or fail to properly apply the Buddha’s teaching to their own lives, so a society that truly implements the Buddha’s teaching  is presently one of those things that a desire for will cause us to suffer, because our desire will be frustrated.
So no, you truly can’t rely on social norms and laws to be a guideline for what proper sexual conduct is from a Buddhist perspective. But you can be assured that sexual conduct that conforms to Buddha’s teaching will not violate social norms or laws.

Buddhist morality has one goal (suggested in the first bullet point of the quote): to set up the conditions in which attainment is possible. For those who embrace the restrictions of the monastic life this goal is simplified, because the purpose of monastic life is to create a social context that supports and maintains the correct conditions.
Lay practitioners face a more complex moral problem, because they choose to live in a world that does not always (or even often) create the right context for attainment, and in many ways actively opposes that goal. The wider world is driven by karma: by fixations and attachments, by fears and rages and desires... One must step carefully in the wider world, or risk getting caught up in its lunacies.
In this sense, paying attention to 'social norms' and the 'law of the land' is useful. Norms and laws represent reactions: responses to things that people in that community fear, hate, love, have pride in, etc. In other words, norms and laws are tanhā that have congealed into public institutions; like all tanhā they are based in ignorance, but like all tanhā direct confrontation can produce strident, forceful opposition. I don't mean to suggest that we should be blindly obedient to all norms and laws — we don't need to surrender to collective ignorance — but transgressing a norm or a law is an act with extensive consequences that should not be taken lightly.
It's common in the wider world to see one attachment raised against another, the 'rebel' fighting against the 'status quo' until one or the other collapses in exhaustion. Lay practitioners risk falling into that 'combat' stance, which isn't consistent with buddhist practice. On one hand we have the attachments of others that show up as these kinds of rules; on the other hand we have our own attachments that lead us to cross these rules. We need to fold those hands together to act in dharma.

The flip side of what Mahakhema said is that society may forbid various behaviours. And I get the impression that if something is forbidden by society then you should consider that before acting, for example:

If it's a crime in your society to work on whichever the "holy day" of the week is, then maybe it'd be better not
Perhaps more to the point, if for example it's a crime to marry somebody when they're aged 12 or something, then again you'd better not -- even if you did (theoretically) have their parents' permission, and/or even if there's nothing explicitly forbidding that in Buddhist scripture.

I'm not sure how to prove this by reference to scripture -- the suttas don't say very much about lay ethics. Terms like Kamesu micchacara and Abrahmacariya are used (in the precepts), and sometimes defined in a sutta, but even so different people and different societies may have different opinions about how that's applicable in the modern day -- i.e. there are various fringe topics or edge cases, for example prostitution, and "dating" outside marriage, and so on.
The Vinaya is a lot more detailed, and of course according to the Vinaya all sexual activity is forbidden to monks. But this might be a clue -- page 1069 of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's translation and explanation of The Pāṭimokkha Rules says that there are various reasons why someone might be ineligible to become a Bhikkhu, including being some kind of criminal:

Someone with an arrest warrant, or is on probation or parole

An escaped criminal

A notorious criminal, unless they're well-known for having amended their ways

Minor criminals who have not been caught and have
abandoned their criminal activity are not prohibited under this rule. This
prohibition was inspired by the public reaction to Ven. Aṅgulimāla’s
ordination

There are other places in the Vinaya which reference civil law.
I'm not trying to imply that "anything tolerated by society is considered to be moral according to Buddhism" -- which might be how you're understanding the quote.
Even the opposite -- i.e., "anything forbidden (or required) by society is considered to be immoral (or moral)" -- isn't necessarily always true, for example laws of the State which require you to kill might be considered immoral.
But avoiding extremes, maybe it's right to (as quoted) at least consider "social norms" and "law of the land" as one of several relevant "angles" when "looking at" sex.
Also the quote doesn't seem to be about "Buddhism" (as in the title) but about the Buddha. It might be presumptuous to claim to understand all of the Buddha's thought-processes, but the doctrine does seem to consider social norms and laws. For example, this answer includes a quote from the Commentary which explains what MN 41 means when it describes someone as "protected" by their parents. That social norm was presumably contemporary then, and might be universal too (i.e. more or or less true in every society, except perhaps slavery).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a separate word for pain (in Pali) which the Buddha used to differentiate pain from suffering?
Re: The common saying ... "Pain is inevitable but suffering is a choice".
Wherein by "dukkha" is meant everything from mild discomfort to intense suffering ...
It occurs to me that the "pain" we experience when the "first arrow" penetrates the heart is a separate phenomenon from the dukkha we experience when we react unskillfully to this first arrow.
Logically, therefore, if one's aim were to create a path of practice leading to the end of dukkha, one might expect a different word to be used to clearly discern between the concepts of (1) pain and (2) dukkha and for that word to be used repeatedly throughout the suttas.
I mostly listen to Dharma talks rather than read the suttas. But, strangely, I have never heard a Dharma teacher use a separate word for pain.
Does such a word exist?
Is it used commonly in the suttas?

The Buddha taught 3 types of dukkha:

Dukkha-dukkhata, the actual feeling of physical or mental unpleasantness.
Sankhara-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of the formations.
Viparinama-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of change.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html
Dukkha is principally defined as the aggregates:

Natthi khandhasamā dukkhā
no pain like the aggregates
https://nanda.online-dhamma.net/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en-chap15/

They are also called aggregates of clinging [upadana] because they are what is being clung to [upadana] as one focuses on the allure of the aggregates which are the 5 classes of past, present & future phenomena (form, feeling, perception, formation & consciousness).
Craving is a requisite for Upadana which is in turn a requisite condition for becoming.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.052.than.html
An Arahant does not cling but is not to be said to be without the aggregates. Even tho his mind is made straight, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain.
To differentiate between physical and mental pain one can use 'kayika dukkha vedana' and 'cetasika dukkha vedana' or more specifically ie domanassa which is sadness or grief and thus a type of cetasika [mental] dukkha.
The Sutta mentioned in the op uses kayika and cetasika to differentiate between mental and physical pain.

They experience two feelings:
So dve vedanā vedayati—
physical and mental.
kāyikañca, cetasikañca
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.6/en/sujato

My initial understanding is that, of the 3, only “sankhara-dukkhata” seems like it might describe a discomfort that can only come after the first arrow. The other 2 seem like they might describe either the discomfort of the first arrow or the discomfort which arises due to the unskillful response to the first arrow. None of these seem to represent only the first arrow like “agha” does. If I am misunderstanding your explanation, please correct me.

Buddha taught 3 feelings: pleasant, unpleasant and neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant. He also said that whatever is felt is dukkha, that he said simply in regards to the nature of feelings to change. Therefore feelings are Sankhara [formations] and are subject to Viparinama [change]. Parting with what is dear is unpleasant and even pleasant feelings are stressful when they end. The mental and the physical pain of the arrows can be explained to be any one of the 3 types of dukkha or all 3 of them.

In general the concept of change being inherently bad, viparinama-dukkha, is not obvious to people and it is therefore needed to grasp viparinama as dukkha in order to arrive at sankhara being dukkha because sankhara is conjoined with feeling (what is felt is formed or has come into existence) and feelings can be pleasant but even if pleasant they are regarded as dukkha on account of being subjected to viparinama.

When one can infer that sankhara is dukkha then one can apply the same line of reasoning to the other aggregates and categorically classify them as something bad. The only thing needed to do this is properly conceiving of sankhara and the other classes of phenomena [aggregates].

In general one can say that pleasant feelings fall short of being classed as pleasure on account of them being impermanent. Extinguishment of feelings is said to be pleasant and a pleasure that is there where nothing is felt. It's not the case, that the Tathagatha describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Tathagatha describes it as pleasure.

"Agha" is pretty close to what you're looking for.

Thank you. Are you aware of any suttas where the importance of not allowing "Agha" to become “upadana dukkha” is discussed?

"Dukkha" is used for both "pain" and "suffering".
The feeling of pain is called "dukkha vedana".
The experience of suffering is called "dukkha of attachment" ("upadana dukkha").

Thank you. Are you aware of any suttas where the importance of not allowing "dukkha vedana" to become “upadana dukkha” is discussed?

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


text:
nirodha vs nibbana?
I came across this excellent discussion of nirodha recently:
What is Nirodha?
wherein nirodha was defined to be "the cessation of suffering" i.e. "the third noble truth".
I tend to use the word "nibbana" to represent this phenomenon, so I am a little bit confused about the need for 2 different terms here.
If one were to set aside the concept of physical rebirth after death, would any difference between the concepts of "nirodha" and "nibbana" remain?
If so, what is the nature of this difference?

yes, good question!

Nirodha is a process, namely, the cessation of defilements & suffering (caused by insight).
Nibbana is the pre-existing element of peace that is experienced when cessation occurs.
Its like opening a window to experience a cool breeze. Nirodha is opening the window. Nibbana is the cool breeze.

This is a fantastic answer. A very effective metaphor.

Patisambhidamagga, Nibbana-dhatu:
"There are two types of relinquishment through cessation: relinquishment as giving up, and relinquishment as entering into. It gives up defilements and aggregates, thus it is relinquishment as giving up; cognizance enters cessation which is the nibbana principle thus it is relinquishment as entering into. These are the two kinds of relinquishment through cessation."
Nirodhavasena dve vossaggaa: pariccaagavossaggo ca, pakkhandanavossaggo ca. Kilesa ca khandhe ca pariccajatiiti, pariccaagavossaggo; nirodhanibbaanadhaatuyaa cittam pakkhandatiiti. Pakkhandanavossaggo nirodhavasena ime dve vossaggaa.

This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi

we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom.
https://suttacentral.net/mn31/en/bodhi

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, to what does his mind lean, to what does it tend, to what does it incline?"
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, his mind leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion, inclines to seclusion."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html#fn-4

According to the commentary, "seclusion" here stands for Nibbana.

1/ Fascinating. I will try to explain in my own words how this integrates into my current understanding. My intuition is that @Dhammadhatu’s answer (1) nirodha is the process of cessation and (3) nibbana is the state resulting from the application of that process is still true but your answer adds details of the process itself including (1) discernment between the 2 types of relinquishment through cessation and (2) how the mind is inclined to seclusion after sensation and (3) this “inclination towards cessation” is also a meaning of the term “nibbana”.

2/ So nibbana is both (1) the state itself and (2) the inclination of the mind towards this state. Did I understand your meaning correctly?

Me and DD are in total disagreement as to what these things mean. I think he is the most confused person on these boards and he probably thinks of me likewise.

3/ Deeper integration w.r.t. “seclusion” = nibbana:
My intuition is that when “condition1“ (the view that happiness depends upon the satiation of the desire for a particular sensory experience) aka “the hindrance of sense-desire” meets with “condition 2” (undesired circumstance), these 2 conditions “cause” the “first arrow in the heart” of pain (aka “condition 3”).

4/ Continuing to cling to the attachment to the sense-desire in the presence of pain gives rise to condition 4 (the thought “I will never be happy”) i.e. “the hindrance of doubt”.
(sense-desire + contact = pain)
(sense-desire + pain = doubt)

5/ Continuing to cling to this wrong view in the presence of pain and doubt, Mara reaches across the barrier between feeling and thinking to seize control of the narrative, and uses it to transform doubt into restlessness, panic, despair, etc.
Stop. My understanding is that the purpose of the first jhana is to give rise to the “happiness of seclusion”. i.e. The choice to go to war with Mara by invoking the jhanas may start with an incantation like “May I experience the happiness of seclusion from doubt.”

6/ Continuing onwards through the jhanas to kill the remainder of the hindrances culminating in extinguishing attachment to the sense-desire and then further to renounce conceit itself leads to the island of nibbana.

7/ In conclusion, because (1) the choice is made to go to war with Mara by invoking the desire for seclusion from doubt is made and (2) this choice is rewarded by (A) the bliss of the 4th jhana, (B) the extinguishment of attachment to the sense-desire, and (C) the extinguishment of conceit and (3) because the mind is so strongly rewarded for the choice invoke seclusion from doubt it is strongly inclined to do so again in the future. Does this integration sound correct?

I will have set your questions aside. You might want to incorporate at least two more terms "Saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu" and "anupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu" The Nibbana-element with fuel/residue remaining, & the Nibbana-element with no fuel/residue remaining. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044

I have not learnt the meaning of Niroddha from the Suttas but I think Niroddha is a kind of tool or process which when employed by someone prevents the effect of a cause from coming into existence... for example if you wear a fire proof glove then you can put your hands into the fire and you will not be affected.
Another interesting example would be of a chameleon. It changes color whenever it perceives a threat or seeks food. This way inspite of being present among the enemies it survives.
By employing Niroddha Nirvana is achieved.


text:
4 stages of enlightenment?
Wikipedia currently describes the 4 stages of enlightenment thusly:

A Stream-enterer (Sotāpanna) is free from:

Identity view (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi), the belief that there is an unchanging self or soul in the five impermanent skandhas
Attachment to rites and rituals
Doubt about the teachings

A Once-returner (Sakadāgāmin) has greatly attenuated:

Sensual desire
Ill will A Non-returner

(Anāgāmi) is free from:

Sensual desire
Ill will

An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five higher fetters, which are:

Attachment to the four meditative absorptions, which have form (rupa jhana)
Attachment to the four formless absorptions (ārupa jhana)
Conceit
Restlessness
Ignorance

I find this to be very confusing because, from personal experience, I believe that it is possible to

liberate oneself from "conceit" and
liberate oneself from "ignorance" and yet
for the compulsions to "ill will" to still arise very strongly.

It seems that I am missing something big and perhaps obvious to others who have a superior understanding of the 4 stages?
To aid in clarity of communication, I will precisely define the terms I am using:
By the extinguishment of "conceit", I mean
training the mind to detect the arising of conceit and
to reflexively respond forcefully to never allow it to arise again and give rise to suffering.
And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter.
By the extinguishment of "ignorance", I mean
training the mind to recognize the arising of the compulsion to avoidance and
to reflexively respond forcefully to turn towards the discomfort in search of understanding instead.
And for that decision to be backed by a solid understanding of exactly why this is skillful to the point where there is zero internal conflict on the matter.
By the "compulsion to ill will to arise very strongly", I mean
recognizing the arising of "ill will",
recognizing that it originates in clinging to a desire for a particular sensory experience,
but allowing it to arise and be transformed into a form of skillful aversion that is more appropriate for the circumstance.

The four stages are not related to "reflexively respond forcefully to never allow it to arise again and give rise to suffering". To volitionally not allow defilements to arise is called 'mindfulness & clear comprehension' and also 'sense restraint', as follows:

Thus associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up hearing
the good Dhamma. Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up
faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention. Careful
attention, becoming full, fills up mindfulness & clear
comprehension (satisampajañña). Mindfulness & clear comprehension, becoming full,
fill up restraint of the sense faculties (indriyasaṃvara). Restraint of the sense
faculties, becoming full, fills up the three kinds of good conduct.
The three kinds of good conduct, becoming full, fill up the four
establishments of mindfulness. The four establishments of mindfulness,
becoming full, fill up the seven factors of enlightenment. The seven
factors of enlightenment, becoming full, fill up true knowledge and
liberation (vijjāvimutti). Thus there is nutriment for true knowledge and liberation and in this way they become full.
AN 10.61

The four stages occur due to direct insight or "true knowledge (vijjā) leading to liberation (vimutti)".
Other Pali terms for "direct knowledge", of which there are many, include:

Vipassanā

Yathābhūtañāṇadassana

Sammāñāṇa

"Vipassana" means the mind constantly experiences the impermanence of sense phenomena. When constant impermanence of sense phenomena is experienced, the mind becomes "disenchanted" ("nibbidā") with sense phenomena because it sees nothing (except non-attachment/Nibbana) can provide stable happiness & security. The mind also ends ignorance because it sees the truth of impermanence (aniccam), the truth of lack of happiness (dukkham) and the truth of not-self (anatta). This disenchantment plus its associated "dispassion" ("viraga") and direct seeing of not-self causes craving and conceit to end via direct seeing.
Compare the above, for example, to constantly seeing images of the consequences of war, such as destroyed buildings; dead, burned, injured, raped, thin, sick and homeless people; etc. Merely seeing these images results in a lack of desire towards war. No forceful effort is required to give up enthusiasm for war because the mind sees directly the horrors of war. Vipassana is the same. The mind directly sees the horror of impermanent not-self conditioned sense phenomena and loses desire & identification towards these phenomena.

Thank you for this helpful answer. Am I understanding correctly that you are describing the difference between “conscious competence” and “unconscious competence” wherein the new habit no longer requires any cognitive effort and is effortlessly executed?

No. I am referring to vipassana, when the mind constantly experiences the impermanence of sense phenomena. When constant impermanence is experienced, the mind becomes "disenchanted" with sense phenomena because it sees nothing can provide stable happiness & security.  The mind also ends ignorance because it sees the truth of impermanence, the truth of lack of happiness and the truth of not-self. This disenchantment and direct seeing of not-self causes craving & conceit to end.

Forgive me but the “nibbana” you are describing sounds like one of layers of hell in Dante’s Inferno. Why would anyone voluntarily choose to pursue its attainment?

Nibbana is  the unconditioned peace of non-attachment. It is not the inferno of conditioned phenomena.

Okay. So it's not the 9th layer of hell. Its a slightly higher layer. But, given the choice, more people choose suicide over striving to attain it. Not hard to see why if this is what you believe nibbana to be.Just sayin.

No no no friend. You misunderstand. Nibbana is the most perfect peace. To reach the level of directly seeing the constant impermanence of conditioned phenomena, the mind must have developed samadhi, which is pure, calm, serene & blissful. The Dhamma is benign. The Dhamma won't let you see Dante's Inferno until the mind is ready. Do not doubt. To conclude, you asked a question and i kindly answered it. Regards

I am deeply saddened by this answer. It does, however, explain why some monks cling to a hope for rebirth to escape their suffering rather than nibbana. I have attained nibbana and I can assure you that it is worth fighting for. Not only is it the end of suffering, it gives rise to a feeling of fearlessness and a joyous desire to explore that is difficult to describe in words. So many good people in this world are needlessly trapped in suffering. So many are committing suicide. I feel we have a moral obligation to help them to fight for nibbana.

I know with certainty that anyone who believes that they can “surrender their way to nibbana” is misguided.  The Buddha was warrior-caste. He went to war with Mara and conquered him. Neurologically nibbana is the subjugation of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network”. Subjugation is the opposite of surrender. For your own wellbeing and wellbeing of all of those who you might help to rescue from suffering, I hope that you will reconsider this view. Any view that is attached to a feeling of discomfort should be investigated.

I agree with Dhammadhatu, although he may not be using words that are agreeable with you. Nibbana is happiness beyond feelings, which may be a contradiction, but it's not something that is meant to be rationalized and understood conceptually. Please refer to these two suttas: AN 9.34 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html and MN 72 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html#reappear

It appears you have confused the self-view (Sakkaya Ditthi) from self-identification (Asmi mana) This quite a common misconception. I learn this from our Kalyanamitta Santa some few years back.


text:
Best book or documentary related to mindfulness
What is your best mindfulness book or documentary? I have experienced Vipassana retreats. I would like to know more about mindfulness.

I would recommend Ajahn Brahms 'Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond'...

Most Buddhists don't know what mindfulness is therefore i cannot recall any good books about it except a short talk by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa called The Use of Dhamma.
Pra Payutto wrote a lengthy book called Sammasati:
An Exposition of Right Mindfulness however it contains errors, such as the following:

It is attentive, as if keeping its eyes on each impression that
passes into consciousness and then bearing down on it. When one wishes
to concentrate on a particular object, it maintains one's attention
fixedly upon it, not allowing the object to drift away or disappear.
By means of sati, one keeps placing the mind on the object, or
recollecting it, not allowing oneself to let it slip from the mind.
There is a simile likening it to a pillar, because it is firmly
embedded in its object, or to a gate-keeper, because it watches over
the various sense-doors through which sense-data pass, inspecting all
that enters. The proximate cause for the arising of sati is a firm and
clear perception of the object [OMG!], or any of the different sorts of
satipatthana that will be spoken of below.

I recommend to read the scriptures, namely:

Indriya-Vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties.
SN 46.3 - Sila Sutta.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty.
Nagara Sutta: The Fortress.

In summary, "mindfulness" means "to bring to mind (to recollect), to remember & to not forget" to practise the Dhamma teachings. Mindfulness does not mean to observe objects.
This video called "Buddhist Meditation: Sati Sampajanna" by Ajahn Jayasāro is reasonably good.

Have you read Satipathana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta?
Have you watched Goenka's ten-day vipassana video series?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html
https://youtu.be/aeqCeU8Abng

I really like the "Discourses of The Buddha", they talk a lot about mindfulness and that without a chance of misrepresenting the teacher's message.
I also like the "Book of analysis; Vibhanga" and "Enumeration of Phenomena; Dhammasanghani". They are included in the collection of books called Theravadin Abhidhamma.

Most of Thích Nhất Hạnh's books are about mindfulness, as in, what you can do and should do to achieve mindfulness. A popular one in NA is "Peace is Every Step", but you can just randomly choose one of his books since they are not that different from each other. They share the same message and often use the same set of anecdotes to convey the message. Hạnh tends to employ abstract imagery from nature to make examples, which can be off-putting to people who'd prefer a more concrete approach.


text:
Learning about buddhism through text only
I am legally deafblind. Any form of videos, images, audio, ..., so any media apart from text is difficult to access for me. Hence, even though I'm interested in Buddhism, I struggle to figure out if this is indeed my type of faith.
Going to a Buddhist community would probably be the best way to find out, but due to the pandemic, all in-person meetings in my area are canceled. There seem to be good online courses out there, but most of them are video-based.
So my question is: Are there books about Buddhism that could help me understand and perhaps start practising Buddhism without requiring video instructions on e.g. meditation? Or is physical or at least visual guidance absolutely necessary?

If you are blind how are you reading it?

Using a refreshable braille display. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_braille_display

For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Ven. Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.
The ebook "Without and Within" by Ven. Ajahn Jayasaro, available in PDF and epub formats, is 127-pages long and is meant to be a collection of questions and answers on Buddhism for beginners.
For a beginner's guide to Buddhist meditation by text only, I recommend Ven. Yuttadhammo's How to Meditate ebook. It's available in PDF, epub, mobi and HTML.

I'll accept this answer - not because the other answers aren't good and valid (all are, each in their own right), but because I feel you stuck the closest to my questions and requests. Thank you.

@TimB You're welcome and I hope these materials help you.

The website voice.suttacentral.net is designed for users with visual impairments. This website will let you search the suttas and it may be possible to read them with your braille device. For example, one can search for One thing can be developed.
Voice is dedicated to accessibility for Early Buddhist Texts and translations hosted on SuttaCentral. Indeed, we'll gladly adjust the site as we can to make it more accessible for you.
Your Braille screen reader should be able to navigate Voice.suttacentral.net much easier than the SuttaCentral website.

There are books than can get you started and there are plenty of posts on here that list several of them (if I wasnt on my phone, I'd nab some links for you, but its a little cumbersome on here!).  That said, I would say to you like I'd say to anyone else - ultimately you are going to need to find a community.  First and foremost, books can't talk back and react to your individual practice like a live teacher can.  Without that kind of interaction, your practice will quickly stall.  But more subtlety, practicing in a community influences our practice in very important ways.  Just the physical act of moving your body into a space where others are sitting pays enormous dividends.  Bowing together, eating together, sitting together - all of these things impact our mind and help us grow in the dharma.  Enlightenment doesn't occur in a vacuum and it certainly doesn't occur in the space between our ears.  When we wake up, the world wakes up.  We alone are holy throughout earth and heaven.  Nothing is not who we really are.

In that case, let's hope the pandemic eases, so we can all return from our personal vacuums. Thank you!

You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to it!

The primary set of texts held to be true are what is generally agreed upon as the earliest texts.
These are the short, the long,the middle length, the connected and the numerical discourses of the Buddha as well as discourses in the Udana and Itivuttaka.
These are generally held to be the written version of what was historically recited in concert for hundreds of years.
Loosely one can assume these were written down in the 1st century.
Around that time the various schools also wrote down whatever else they figured to be worthy of being written down. This is  the secondary class of texts.
As we talk about this latter set of texts, it is important to keep in mind it will include the works of many schools with views antagonistic & contradictory to eachother.
Some of the texts in this category are supposedly analytical of primary texts whereas other texts aim to more or less substitute the primary discourses altogether.
This period of secondary produce lasts for 100-300 years and a lot is produced during this time. These are primarily the works of philosophers and disciples.
Basically 1-3rd century is when the various schools consolidated their doctrines by comitting it to writing.
After this period and up to present day the various surviving traditions keep producing commentarial and sub-commentarial works of disciples, poets and philosophers.
It is also worth mentioning that commentating is essentially a free-for-all activity and whoever had access to the texts and writing could write commentary if they wanted to do so.
There are many attempts at a popularization & simplification of the teacher's message made even during the last 50 years.
As you can perhaps imagine, getting through even just that which was committed to writing before the 3rd century might take tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours.
If one was to thoroughly study the Buddhist texts in a reverse chronological order, starting with the lastest public discourse, i think it would be next to impossible to get through the sheer volume of text and more so doing it without becoming utterly confused.
That being said one can attempt to cross reference the public discourse with the earliest texts and this is imo the most effective way to familiarize oneself with both. Whether one wants to participate in & study the public discourse is a moot point but i think most people will expose themselves to the public discourse and pick the brain of their peers.
There are some texts produced in the last 50 years which are essentially excerpts from the earliest texts and sometimes with comments, these are supposedly meant to be introductory to those earliest texts but as it seems to me, the authors sometimes have a hard time not including their speculative interpretation or making doctrinal insinuations.
Another thing is that when cross referencing the public discourse and studying the controversies one will inevitably be faced with the issues associated with translations and this translation activity is also a free for all. You can totally expect having to learn some pali and maybe some chinese to find the correct translations and to make your own if you want.
In general this is the teacher's instruction on the matter of studying & training:

When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world.[1]
"It's not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. It's not the water property... the fire property... the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] It's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesn't disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.013.than.html

in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

"... there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.073.than.html

Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye
At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."... Okkanta-samyutta — Entering

Maybe searching for email-messenging, chat-like, getting in assosiation with good Venerables direct, would be a good way for good householder. Here, not sure if of good use from technical side, would be a given tool to stay in contact even if physical hindered.


text:
What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations?
What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?

A very broad question...

I don't know, but it produces a noteworthy factor that consists of endless squabbling about those translations.

it produces Right View explained by DD.

I think that the question has some merit in that searching out answers would lead to increasing Right View (@Dhammadhatu), but I agree more (@Andrei Volkov♦ & @NeuroMax) that it is too broad to be a useful exercise to try to answer. It is unclear there is an obtainable, definitive answer when applied to all of the Sutras. Perhaps limiting the question to a specific teaching or Sutra would avoid these problems?

From Dhp 282 translated by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so
conduct himself that his wisdom may increase.

The same was translated by Ven. Thanissaro here:

From striving comes wisdom;
from not, wisdom's end.
Knowing these two courses
— to development,
decline —
conduct yourself
so that wisdom will grow.

The word "meditation" in one translation is the same as "striving" in the other. The Pali word here is "yoga" as seen here, which also translates it as "meditation".

Ven. Thanissaro's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated "sankhara" as "fabrications" and "dukkha" as "stress".

When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

Ven. Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhp 277-278 translated "sankhara" as "conditioned things" and "dukkha" as "unsatisfactory". I feel this is more accurate.

"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
purification.

In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" or "consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that some people imagined to be a permanent consciousness of sorts, which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana. I've also explained this in detail in this answer.
Ven. Sujato translated part of MN 49 as:

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

It should rather be:

That which could be known or cognizable (i.e. Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, ...

Ven. Sujato translated "jāti" in SN 56.11 as "rebirth".

Now this is the noble truth of suffering. Rebirth is suffering; old
age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering;
association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked
is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief,
the five grasping aggregates are suffering.

In SN 56.11, Ven. Bodhi translated "jāti" as "birth". This is quoted below. Ven. Thanissaro also translated it here as "birth".

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.

To begin, any Sujato translation related to Four Noble Truths & Dependent Origination is best ignored where "ponobbhavikā" is wrongly translated as "future rebirth"; "punabbhavo" as "future lives"; "jati" as "rebirth" and "abhinibbatti" as "reincarnation".
Starting with Dhammapada:

Dhp 1 has Thanissaro engaged in solipsism by translating "dhamma" as "things" or "phenomena". Buddharakkhita's is the reasonable translation of "dhamma" as "mental states"; although I would translate "dhammas" here as "modes of conduct".

Dhp 203; probably all translators have translated "saṅkhāra" wrong. I would translate it as "mental fabrications".

Dhp 278 is correctly translated by Buddharakkhita; where dukkha is translated as "unsatisfactory" for the characteristic and "suffering" for the mental state.

Moving to the Majjhima Nikaya:

MN 1; Thanissaro is close to solipsism; translating "conceives earth" rather than "conceives self in earth".

MN 9; probably due to Nanamoli, correctly does not translate sankhara as "volitional" formations and correctly translates namarupa as "mentality-materiality"; which Bodhi does not do in his SN.

MN 38; Thanissaro and Sujato misguidingly translate sambhavoti in  in a way that refers to the arising of the functioning of consciousness rather than the origination of consciousness into suffering.

MN 38; Bodhi, probably due to Nanamoli, correctly does not translate sankhara as "volitional" formations; which Bodhi wrongly does in his SN.

MN 62; Thanissaro translates "makes the earth property fade from the mind", which sounds wrong, since DN 11 says the four elements cannot cease without remainder.

MN 118; all translators translate sabbakaya, kayasankhara and cittasankhara wrongly. Sabbakaya, per the Paṭisambhidāmagga & MN 118, means "all bodies", referring to the breath-kaya, rupa-kaya and nama-kaya. Kaya and cittasankhara means "body & mind conditioner", although this is not literally correct, which is literally "condition for the body & mind".

MN 135; all have worldly translations of upapajjati, āgacchati & paccājāyati; which an examination of the suttas (examples AN 4.197 & AN 7.64) shows can mean differently than mere "rebirth".

MN 148; Thanissaro uses "obsessions" for "underlying tendencies"; which while not fatal; is exaggerated. There is a big difference between an underlying tendency and an obsession.

In the Samyutta Nikaya:

SN 12.19; all translate "kaya" to infer "physical body", where Bodhi used to bracket "conscious body". This appears wrong. "Kaya" here appears to refer to the "grouping" or "collection" of the five aggregates. Also 'external namarupa' here refers to "external minds & bodies" rather than the nonsensical "external name-form".

SN 12.25 and everywhere else in this kamma context (such as AN 3.61) wrong translate "sukhadukkhaṃ" as "pleasure & pain", which implies "vedana"; rather than "happiness & suffering", which implies the end result of kamma.

SN 13.1; all translators falsely translate "sattakkhattuṃparamatā" as "seven more lives at most remaining"; where the Pali only says: "seven times at most".

SN 22.59; similar to Buddharakkhita above, N.K.G. Mendis has translated "dukkham" accurately as "unsatisfactory'.

SN 22.79; Bhikkhu Bodhi most appropriately translates "pubbenivāsaṃ" as "past abodes" rather than "past lives" because SN 22.79 is most obviously not about "past lives".

SN 23.2; Bhikkhu Sujato most ridiculously translates "satto" as "a sentient being" because "satto" only means "a being" and because "sentient being" is completely contrary to the intent of the text, being the same as the view of Mara in SN 5.10.

SN 38.14; Bhikkhu Bodhi has the proper translation of "suffering due to pain... formations... change (vipariṇāma)". The others are wrong. SN 22.1 makes it clear "vipariṇāma" ("change") only leads to suffering when there is attachment; just as MN 44 makes it clear the "vipariṇāma" of feelings is painful when they are underlied by underlying tendencies.

In the AN:

AN 10.58; generally all internet translations are wrong; however this was correctly explained here by Piotr & Deele.

General issues:
samparāyikā is translated by all three majors as "lives to come" however samparāyikā is found in Iti 44 and appears to not mean "lives to come" but, instead, merely "the future", as follows:

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known By the Seeing One, stable
and unattached: One is the element seen here and now with residue, but
with the cord of being destroyed; The other, having no residue for the
future (samparāyikā),

namarupa madly translated now by all three majors as the Brahministic "name-form"


text:
Does the breath literally stop in the fourth Jhāna?
I've been trying to understand the descriptions of each of the Jhānas in various Suttas, and I don't get what's meant by an element in some descriptions of the fourth Jhāna. For example:

When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled.

– SN 36:11
It seems to me that that passage is saying that the breath literally stops, but this seems physiologically impossible. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that volitional in-and-out breathing ceases? Or is the passage, perhaps, referring to the perception of in-and-out breathing?
I've even gone so far as to look up the words in Pāli, but this has only added to my confusion, since they seem to translate as literally the cessation of breath. Is this, perhaps, a shortcoming of our understanding of Pāli?
If this is to be taken literally, what is the scientific basis for this phenomenon? Is it perhaps a perceptual phenomenon, where the meditator merely perceives the breath as having stopped? Or, if this is indeed an error in interpretation, then how is it to be interpreted?
I should clarify that I'm not seeking to troll, or challenge the tradition. I myself am a lay disciple of the Dhamma. I'm prepared to accept an answer one way or the other, but I really want to have a solid understanding.
Thanks.

The breathing is imperceptible, that is all, because there must be movement of the breathing for it to be perceived. However, obviously the body continues to have breath flowing through it.

Hi @Dhammadhatu. Thank you for your answer! What do you mean by "breath flowing through [the body]"?

The body still breathes but the breathing is not perceptible because the breathing has become so refined.

Yes, I think that's the explanation that makes the most sense, to be honest. And based on this forum post, it seems that a certain translation and interpretation of the same text I linked to supports it.

As i understand it,
That which is thought & spoken about as breath is an object of perception and is tied to the body.
In the fourth jhana the object of perception is not thought & spoken about as the breath.
In general the object there is a kasina, there are various types of kasina, ie light & colors associated with absorbtion 'visions'.
An interesting circumstance about the passage:

When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled.

Is in the case where the fourth jhana is sustained in dependence on the air element as the air kasina because the in & out breaths are the air element.

It would seem physiologically impossible, and it is so, to the mind, until one experiences it. This is why it is taught that true knowledge comes from direct experiencing (through practice), and not from what one has read, or is told, even by one's teacher/guru (read: guide).
But then consider that deep sea divers, or certain tribes that live by oceans/seas free dive for prolonged periods of time on a single breath. The official Guineas book of record is > 20 minutes... The average swimmer can hold their for 2-3 minutes without breathing.
In my own subjective personal meditations the deeper I go, the shallower I realize I'm breathing. In fact, one of my methods of going in deep, fast, is to still my breath as much as possible, and prolong the holding periods in-between to close to a minute (or more). At a certain point, i consciously let go, and my body subconsciously continues it on its own. Kinda like a subtle hand-over. If I follow my breath, I've gone up to a single breath every 2/3 minutes before I lost sense of my body. And on an occasion or two, I have snapped out of deep meditation to instantaneously realize that I wasn't breathing. And I had no idea how long I was under. It could have been two minutes, it could have been 10.
Thus to me, Science has proof it is possible, but my own personal experiences remove all doubt (for me).

Hello again @xxandra. I notice you're new. Welcome and thank you for contributing. I'm not sure that the practice of holding your breath in the way you suggest is helpful in the Buddhist domain. This is considered an extreme practice, but in the Buddha's teachings we try to realize a middle way.. I think it would be better to edit that part out, otherwise I may flag the answer for moderator inspection.

True, sounds like yoga - are you sure this answer is not offtopic?

Yes, @Andrei Volkov. It's off-topic.

This answer and most of your other answers talk about yoga, siddhi, spirit etc. which are NOT Buddhism. Most of them seem off-topic.

I am new, and I am not a yogi. When I meditate, I do start with the anchor of breathwork before falling into the middle way. True, it might be extreme, I do not consider myself a lay person. My practices (and life) are more aligned to those of a monk. I follow the teachings of Buddha, but I wasn't born into Bhuddism. In meditating, across the years, all kinds of phenomena arise, and I use modern day terms rather than it would seem, the appropriate terms. But regardless of what words we choose to describe phenomena/practices/states, the phenomena/practices remains the same.

I find this group refreshing, because I am learning (gradually) all the appropriate lingo (which is new to me). But when I look them up and study them, they are nothing more than different words (in a different language) of my own daily practices / experiences. Flag away if it makes anyone feel better. All it would indicate to me is the display of tunnel vision/narrowmindedness. Bhudda looked down at all men.. I'm afraid as Bhuddism spreads, one will have to accept it spreading across languages as well.But the experience/goal is universal. Please accept my apologies for not conforming a 100%..

It would be good if you supoorted your answers with textual references because having read the texts, seen your answers and your use of terminology it seems you have little to no familiarity with the early buddhist texts and practices.

It is probably why your answers come off as those of an outsider. That being said, you should not let anyone here tell you what is and isn't Buddhism because mods should have suspended judgement in regards to these things, that is the official policy (anything is buddhism unless otherwise specified).

You are also not required to post references or substantiate your claims. So when a mod or anyone tells you it's not Buddhism you can ignore them because it's not up to them to decide. You can also complain to the site admins if the mod is harassing you by playing buddhism police.

I generally don't like your answers but you should definitely be allowed to post them without mods harassing you. That is simply the current policy here. So mods curb that judgement and keep to moderating spam.

@8257 You are correct. The texts are in my heart, but not ingrained to the extent that they can roll off my tongue  verbatim or in correct cultural lingo, nor find them easily without looking (read: digging) them up. Born, and with a lifetime of Christianity behind me, I am better versed in that Literature. I guess before (and when, or given the opposition, if) I post again, i shall have to resort to doing some research to substantiate what I say... as well as use the appropriate vernacular, to avoid offending. Thank you.

Well, I agree with 8527 in principle. It is not our job to police what is and what is not real Buddhism. However when an answer is completely offtopic (for example someone posts a Christian-only answer which by itself may be perfect, just not on topic on this site) then we agreed to try and ask the poster to add some connections to Buddhism or delete the answer. Just a matter of common sense, right? In this case we were on the fence, it may or may not be on topic, which is why I asked it as a question and the other moderator used the word "seems". Other users were less careful with words...

Let's try and resolve this peacefully by making concessions from both ends. The side that considers these things not Buddhism should try and keep their minds open for other opinions. The side that thinks that posting any answer is okay as long as it's well-intended should try and provide at least some connections to a teaching of any mainstream school of Buddhism. It will help everyone to avoid these misunderstandings. Thank you all.

@AndreiVolkov I agree with 8257. And I agree with you about aligning responses to mainstream. I will correct you on two points though. (1) My answer has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, Christianity considers meditation or any effects of it as demonic... (2) You say the answer is completely off-topic. And yet the question asked is it possible for the breath to stop during meditation? To which my answer said "YES". With two points of proof. 1 of science (i.e. it is possible for the body to live for some time without breathing), and 1 subjective example/instance of my own 4th Jhana.

You misunderstood :) I used Christianity as an example of an offtopic answer because we had several of them in the past. I did not say your answer was completely off-topic or that it was Christian. I was trying to explain why we moderate content at all vs allowing everyone post whatever they want :)

Noted. But again my answer has/had nothing of Christianity within it. And thus your presumption that my answer is off-topic is wrong, and untrue. But that is of little import.. I am saddened that you closed my question. I was curious to see ensuing opinions, and learn/grow from them. I am also of the opinion that anyone on the path to enlightenment should be able to / or should learn to free the self from emotions in discussion, or not be swayed by the storms of ego. Nor was the question off topic, since it is a very valid concern. But, you are a mod... I'll err to your decision.

100% Christianity is just an example of an offtopic answer. I could say 100% Islam, Psychology etc. It was not referring to you, it was an example of an extreme and obvious case requiring/justifying intervention. Yours is much more mild and ambiguous. Again, I did not presume your answer was offtopic, others did but I did not. I asked you to self-check. I'm on your side. Your new question was frozen because it was written in emotional tone and I was worried it would attract more negative comments. I'm trying to help you. Peace.

In the future you may want to make your answers more obviously connected to Buddhism to avoid situations like this one. I'm locking the comments under this answer. Thank you for your understanding.


text:
In any Buddhist Context, is there a Necessary Existent
I'm asking this ontological question as in the context of, e.g., an Aristotelian Prime Unmoved Mover, or some other first cause.
My guess is that there isn't, probably based on Dependent Origination or maybe even the Heart Sutra. (I hope I have not misconstrued those.)
Thanks

Yes, you have misconstrued.
Dependent Origination is about the origin of suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair) rather than about the origin of the physical universe (refer to SN 12.2).
Dependent Origination says the 1st cause for the origin of suffering is ignorance; for which no preceding cause can be found (refer to AN 10.61).
In addition, DN 11 clearly says the question: "where do the 4 physical elements cease without remainder?" is an invalid question. This means the ending and also the beginning of the 4 physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) cannot be known.

Thanks for the much needed correction. Can anything be said regarding a source for physical things or occurrences.

no. not in original buddhism. DN 11 clearly says the question: "where do the 4 physical elements cease without remainder?" is an invalid question. This means the ending and also the beginning of the 4 physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) cannot be known, at least from a meditative point of view. DN 11 is here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

The relevant conception you are looking for is “Buddha Nature.” But the Buddha himself didn’t answer questions like yours, seeing no profit in them.
Aristotle’s “first mover” was a necessary logical outcome of his assumption that there was a state other than motion, leading him to see that he then needed an explanatory device to put things in motion. Buddha Nature is not that. It’s not an explanatory device created to ‘wrap things up’. It’s not the result of speculation.
As Parmenides pointed out before Aristotle’s time, talk about nonexistence and nonexistent things is empty of meaning. Aristotle began with an incorrect assumption and then found himself painted into a corner. So he gave that necessary logical device a name “First Mover” (which he acknowledged was like “God”), and ‘solved’ his problem. This was the kind of outcome the Buddha suggested was a feature of such speculation.
Buddha Nature is the closest to what you are looking for. I prefer “naturing” myself because “nature” is a noun in English, and thus names an independent self-existing thing or idea about them, and the Buddha pointed out that there are no independent self-existing things, which is something you can verify yourself through meditation practices.  The word in Buddhism is  “Dharmata” (not to be confused with  “Dharmadatu”), and is better understood as “naturing”.
If you’re interested, I have written more on this specific question in an article: “A First Mover Is Not Needed” it might reset your thinking about this.

Really nice, and the article as well. Ironic that you assert "Still" v. motion. And I would give you substantially more credit than "Just." Unless you mean unbiased, or maybe a fleeting temporal connotation. Regardless, very cool. Best regards,


text:
What is the practice people call "shamata practice". Where did this idea come from?
I have been studying and practicing meditation for over a decade, mainly following Kamalashila's stages of meditation as a guide.  I learned that Shamata is defined as the single-mindedness which is imbued with the exceptional bliss of practiced ease due to single pointed meditation on its object.
I have just started Alan Wallace's Fall 2013 Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life (https://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2013/) where he is giving instruction in "Shamatha practice".
I believe he means a meditation practice with the goal of achieving shamata. However, when I hear "shamata practice", I automatically think that someone is already able to rest in the state of Shamata and is meditating at that level.  This would be like, for instance, someone running having a "running practice" by running.  In contrast, someone aspiring to be a runner, might first begin with walking as they get in shape.  They might say, "I am walking, with the goal of running."  Do you think they would call their walking a "running practice"?
Given the definition of shamata I know, it seems many different meditation practices could potentially lead to shamata, if that was one's intention for their practice.
My first question is:  Is there something distinctive about "shamata practice"?
My second question, is where did the custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" originate?

The custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" probably originates from wrong or faulty practise, where excess or faulty suppression concentration causes calmness to predominate.
As for the original teachings attributed to the Buddha, 'samatha' is merely one of two results (the other being 'vipassana') of developing right concentration.

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for
him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight
(samatho  ca vipassanā ca).
MN 149

If we are not clear about what right & wrong concentration are, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa offered his opinion:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely
focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
correct samadhi.


text:
Does buying meat equate to approving of killing an animal?
In the Kammapatha sutta AN 3.164(A i 297) a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows :

Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.{1} Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if
one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell.

Note

one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available,
cannot be carried out without approving their killing.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html
It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established.
(As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot).
With mettā.

Does this answer your question? Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?

I think it is even possible that being a vegetarian can be a hindrance for some on the Buddhist path. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37281/can-being-a-vegetarian-actually-be-a-hindrance-for-some

"Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)... I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not heard, or suspected (that living beng has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)..."
Furthermore, the Buddha added: "If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances... (i) When he says:'Go and fetch that living being'... (ii) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter... (iii) When he says: 'Go and slaughter that living being'... (iv) When that living bieng experiences pain and grief on being slaughter... (v) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible..."

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained in sensuality,
greedy for flavors,
mixed together with what’s impure, annihilationists,
discordant1 & indomitable:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are rough, pitiless,
eating the flesh off your back,betraying their friends,uncompassionate,
arrogant,
habitually ungenerous,
giving to no one:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Anger, intoxication,
stubbornness, hostility,
deceptiveness, resentment,
boasting, conceit & pride,
befriending those of no integrity:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those of evil habits,
debt-repudiators, informers,
cheats in trading, counterfeiters,
vile men who do evil things:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained toward beings,
taking what’s others’,
intent on injury,
immoral hunters, harsh, disrespectful:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are very greedy,
constantly intent
on hindering and killing;
beings who, after passing away, go to darkness,
fall headfirst into hell:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html

I was going to remark, "But that's addressed to monks: so it's not directly relevant to buying meat" -- but according to the link you posted, it's addressed to "a brahman ascetic", so perhaps not a monk -- but then again, it's a description of the Buddha (Kassapa) and inspired the brahman to "choose the Going Forth right there".

First Theravada monk do not cook, they alms round, hence they do not purchase meat.  They eat meat that was given and must qualified by not seeing killing, not hearing killing, not suspect killing is for him.  So, your question is towards Buddhist layperson I think.
As Buddhist follower, a layperson practices minimum 5 precepts, for us to avoid bad kamma. Purchase of meat for consumption is not a bad kamma, because we purchase a dead body.  However, we do not purchase by instructing the killing e.g. this chicken to be kill and I buy later.  We just purchase whatever already becoming a dead body.
Do Buddhist approving killing because we purchase meat? No we do not approve killing and we do not have to stop from purchase meat.  Buddhist do not approve killing, but we cannot stop others from killing and animal (even human) from being killed.  Even Buddhist go vegetarian, animal still die because car, kill for fertilizer, kill for being too many, etc.  Even Buddhist do not purchase meat, we stay in a house, to build a house kills animal & insects; we drive car, a car kill many animal or human on the road, etc...
Thus, trying to establish a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat, should NOT be at the context of Buddhism, because it is not relevant, not kamma related.
As a layperson, if vegetarian helps you, you should, it is a good practice for you, and it avoid more animal being killed, it is a good deed.  As a human, I try hard to avoid eating meat and purchase meat, but I knew it is not a requirements as Buddhist.

Thank you for your answer @Mudita, with mettā.

I understand for monk. but telling lay people to buy meat. is really irnoy. You know deep down that you are part of this business of killing. and somehow you convince that you are safe... wow..ridiculous

Speaking clinically, if you're buying meat, even if you're not killing the animal yourself, you're encouraging the person you're buying the meat from to kill the meat.
So, if you encourage a man to lie, or to cheat on his wife, or to commit murder, even though you do none of this yourself, are you without guilt if he does as you encouraged?

Trying to pretend that buying meat does not equate to killing is a complete cop out. My opinion is that when I eat meat, I have effectively killed the animal myself.
However if you genuinely need meat to remain healthy then I would continue to do so, while choosing products that are as compassionately produced as possible and minimise suffering. e.g. choose organically raised free range chickens and outdoor raised animals, or eat only fish which is a less sentient animal. It would be better to position your mind as close to the animal as possible, rather than trying to distance yourself from it.

I don't know where you got this idea that a fish is "less" sentient than any other animal but you should really re-evaluate that concept. Realistically there is no such thing ass more or less sentience, but I guess what you are trying to say is intelligence, but even then so, who are we to judge who or what animal is more or less intelligent than the other. The only clear thing we can deduce is that humans are more intelligent than animals and a small amount of animals that have interacted a lot with humans have gained more intelligence than other. Also mammals, (possibly brain size) has an...

effect on an increase in intelligence to other animals. Still even insects can have high intelligence (for animals)  Damn after writing this I only just realised the question is 3 years old.

The use of left-handed arguments to justify consumption of meat and, by extension, the killing of hapless animals cannot be accepted by anyone who claims to follow the Buddha. I think that is so plain and simple, convoluted logic notwithstanding. About the Buddha eating pork, the historical evidence is vague at best. He died of dysentery after consuming sūkaramaddava which was some kind of a mushroom, a delicacy in that area,  that incidentally pigs too were very fond of. However, some historians have translated sūkaramaddava as 'tender, soft pork'. Sūkara, as we all know, stands for a pig but, my understanding is that the Buddha, one who laid such great stress on non-violence and was vehemently against Brahmins conducting animal sacrifice, would never have even remotely tolerated the killing of animals.

Buddha ate meat as an offering. He did not have any predilection towards non-vegetarianism or vegetarianism... Meaning he did not approve or disapprove of killing animals... He just ate what was offered.. It was not his choice ... therefore what he ate did not add up to his karma...
You have to give up the choice...to experience a freedom like that of Buddha... but we humans are mere mortals ... we make choices... we want meat on some days... we crave for it... that is very much wrong... craving is prohibited in Buddhism.... but still we crave... and we ask such questions... if you want to make a choice then make a choice towards non-violence...find unpainful ways to eat... when you do not make any choice you are perfect .... you neither approve nor disapprove animal killing... but when you make choice ... try not to hurt anybody too much... under the spirit ... may all being be happy and joyful under your care... buying meat is equal to making a choice towards eating meat which equals to killing animals which equals to not so good a decision ... but then what can anybody say... it is your choice ... try to inflict as less pain as possible...

I believe this answer is based on a false premise, namely that people crave meat.  All people most certainly do not crave meat.

"Meaning he did not approve or disapprove of killing animals." I don't believe that is entirely true. The Buddha did not promote the intentional killing of any being.

@Luv did I say he promote killing of animals ?

He didn't. But, he most certainly disapproved it.

@Luv Show me where he said killing for food is a sin. Not just killing but killing for food. He himself ate pork.

Killing includes killing for food, i.e., killing is an unwholesome action. And, the Buddha doesn't use words like sin. He is obviously not a Christian.

@Luv Did he eat pork or did he not ? Instead of sin you can use unwholesomeness ... no problem

The "eating meat" part is not unwholesome the part to begin with anyways, the "killing" part is.
There is a sutta where the Buddha asks the monks to check whether the meat was prepared especially for them (as opposed to leftover from the family meal) by killing an animal. If yes, they should refuse.
Also, he wasn't entirely neutral about vegetarianism. This is just my personal opinion. Devadutta made a schism where he made vegetarianism mandatory. The Buddha approved vegetarianism as an optional ascetic practice. He must have seen value in it to allow it as an optional practice, right?

@Luv You are not getting the point ... if what you eat is not your choice then it is not unwholesome ... do you beg for food ? If not then you will have difficulty in understanding...

Cheers, take care my friend.

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".
According to the Theravada school of Buddhism (and possibly also other schools), it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.
Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.
As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.
To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.
But what about the verse you quoted?

Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off
and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life
oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of
destroying life.

Asking the butcher or chef to slaughter a specific live animal for you, would be inciting others to kill.
I don't see buying meat at the supermarket as approving destroying life, because it is done after the killing was done i.e. you're just buying frozen meat that's already dead long before you arrived at the supermarket.
Instead, I would refer to AN 5.177:

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

I would say "approving destruction of life" would be businesses that support the meat industry e.g. restaurants that buy frozen meat, chefs who cook frozen meat, logistics businesses that transport frozen meat, banks funding butchers and so on. They are engaging in a "business in meat" in my opinion, without doing the actual killing, and that is approving the destruction of life.

Thank you for such a thorough answer. Yet how would a chef or a restaurant buying frozen meat be different from someone buying frozen meat at a supermarket ?

@AliochaKaramazov The chef or restaurant buying frozen meat, is having their livelihood indirectly in a business in meat.

And regarding one working as a cashier/waiter within such a restaurant, would he be engaging in wrong livelihood considering his work revolves around service ?

You guys are just fooling yourself.  you very well know the market of today and market of 2500 back.... Now when you eat meat you are sponcering killing that all. so in future you  will be killed and that killing will be a sponcered killng... its that simple.

If you say to someone, “Kill for me,” then you will accumulate negative karma.”

The bhikkhu (pali language for monk) community was structured by the Buddha in a way that the monks would be completely reliant upon the lay communities thus creating a symbiotic relationship. Bhikkhus walked into a village with one of their only possessions, their alms bowl. The towns people who offer the monks food. Bhikkhus were to accept whatever was offered and therefore had no knowledge of an animal being killed nor carried any intentions of eating meat hence held no intention of any living being be harmed.
Fast forward to 2021AD- When someone orders any type of meat or dairy product, we are acutely aware of the incalculable amount of suffering created by the meat and dairy industry.

I would encourage anyone interested in creating a deeper relationship to the dhamma- specifically sila, to approach the question of the consumption of meat and dairy not from a legalistic framework but from sila, ethics.
Even a cursory reading of the Metta Sutta, one cannot honestly justify partaking in the consumption of meat and dairy.

Metta Sutta Sn 1.8 & Khp 9
If you know what is truly good for you and understand the possibility of reaching a state of perfect peace, then this is how you need to live.
Start as a capable person, who is upright, gently spoken, flexible, and not conceited.
Make sure your sense experience is calm and
controlled, be duly respectful, and don’t hanker after
families or groups. And avoid doing anything
unworthy, that wiser people would criticise.
May all be happy and secure.
May all beings become happy in their heart of hearts!
And think of every living thing without exception:
the weak and the strong, from the smallest to the largest, whether you can see them or not, living nearby or far away, beings living now or yet to arise – may all beings become happy in their heart of hearts!
May no on deceive or look down on anyone anywhere, for any reason. Whether through feeling
angry or through reacting to someone else, may no
one want another to suffer.
May no one deceive or look down on anyone
As strongly as a mother, perhaps risking her life, cherishes her child, her only child, develop an unlimited heart for all beings.
Develop an unlimited heart of friendliness for the entire universe, sending metta above, below, and all
around, beyond all narrowness, beyond all rivalry,
beyond all hatred.
Whether you are staying in one place or travelling,
sitting down or in bed, in all your waking hours rest in
this mindfulness, which is known as like living in
heaven right here and now!
In this way, you will come to let go of views, be spontaneously ethical, and have perfect Insight. And leaving behind craving for sense pleasures, from the rounds of rebirth you will finally be completely free!

Please note that I have excluded the lengthy scriptural quotations from my response to the OP’s question, which I have taken from an essay that I wrote in answer to this question, published on Medium.com here: Why Is It Necessary To Not Eat Meat?
It seems as if the eating of animal flesh is a flashpoint between the Buddha’s message and the desire of many Buddhists, even many ordained Buddhists, to eat the flesh of animals.
But the Buddha was clear that to eat meat is to abandon his teaching about compassion, to ensure a continued attraction to the lower realms of being for oneself, and to block the possibility of becoming enlightened, leaving ultimate freedom forever out of reach. Could this be the answer to why so few buddhists reach enlightenment nowadays?
Many buddhists seem to be playing fast and loose with the Buddha’s instructions to ordained sangha, who were dependent upon the charity of householders for their daily meal, specifying when it would carry no karmic danger for them to eat proffered alms consisting of animal flesh. His instructions were directed at a particular context which is rarely found in the modern world, and certainly not in Western countries where the tradition of begging for alms never existed and modern ordained sangha shop for their food.
Applying the exceptions given in the Buddha’s threefold contextual allowance for eating meat, given only to ordained sangha who were begging for their food thousands of years ago, to purchasing meat from the frozen food aisle in modern day supermarkets is, in my heart, the height of sophistry—using clever and false arguments to cover for one’s failings, and by so doing, leading others astray.
Eating meat is inconsistent with Buddha’s clear call for compassion for all sentient beings. Why else would he have gone to the trouble to delineate the cases where it wouldn’t cause a problem in the limited contexts existing during the time, and within the traditions, when he was teaching in the world. Obviously, he was making exceptions to his general prohibition against eating animal flesh.
Using the argument that it is ok to eat animal flesh so long as you have no direct involvement in the killing of the animal—in today’s context—is a fainthearted attempt to escape one’s weakness in following the Dharma, and culpability in providing a market for such murdered flesh. Without a willing buyer, there would be no killing. This is simple economics. It doesn’t matter who puts the words in the Buddha’s mouth, he never said that you, today, could eat meat without suffering the consequences of your culpability for the suffering of those animals.
Modern practices of killing animals are much worse than those in the past. Animals must stand by the hundreds in concentration camps, euphemistically called ‘feed lots’, for days, in the stench of death of their fellows, listening to the cries of horror at their fate, until their own time comes, some so sick and unable to walk, they must be bulldozed to the killing sheds.
And should we overlook the damage that is done to the Earth in order to raise the billions and billions of animals slaughtered for their flesh each year? Science is clear that the majority of the destructive gases filling our atmosphere, causing the Earth to heat up to a point where little life will remain, is due directly to our fashionable diet of dead flesh. So too is the mass destruction of wildlife habitat that is the necessary condition for global pandemics to emerge.
Eating flesh is incoherent with being Buddhist. The behavior most in tune with the Buddha’s message of compassion towards all sentient beings, and the end of suffering that was his heartfelt intent for all beings, is to never eat the flesh of animals.
As a Buddhist, one should also adhere to the doctrine of causes and conditions, and realize that eating the flesh of animals creates the possibility for a profitable demand for animal flesh in those of weak mind who are unconcerned about profiting from the suffering of others for their own benefit. By eating animal flesh, you may feel that you are not directly responsible for the animal’s death, but by creating the condition for someone of weak mind and strongly selfish desires to cause harm to others, you are responsible for leading them astray. You may try to abdicate your responsibility to protect the weak and voiceless, but you cannot escape responsibility for the actions of others that harm animals to provide you with meat.  It is your actions that lead them, through their weakness, to the hell realms.

Dear StillJustJames's, wouldn't the Buddha have clearly outlined a rule or mentioned something about the consumpion/purchasing of meat to lay disciples if one were to suffer consequences of doing so ?

Yes, he did Aliocha Karamazov. As I said in the first paragraph of my answer above, I took this material from an article that I published elsewhere, from which I excluded the lengthy sutra teachings on the subject, in which Buddha explicitly said that eating meat is against his teachings, so that my answer here would not be too long. I provided a link to the article (on Medium.com) in that first paragraph if you are interested in reading the sutra quotations. I apologize if that was not clear.

Thank you for your answer. Is it a sutra from the Mahayana canon ? I asked the question as I'm gradually reading the Pāli canon and I have yet to find an explicit rule for lay disciples to forgo buying/eating meat. Isn't the Dalaï Lama also eating meat for health reasons?

Five mahayana sutras and one sutta.

I don’t know what the Dalai Lana eats, and as I said, eating meat is a flashpoint between the Buddha’s teachings and the desires of individual buddhists who want to eat meat. It is also, in my view, important to remind oneself that the enumeration of conditions when it was ok for ordained sangha, who were dependent on alms, to eat the meat offered them, does not in anyway exempt lay practitioners, nor modern ordained sangha members, from his clear statements about compassion and killing. (Continued)

Let’s talk about another precept, that against sexual misconduct. Sogyal Rinpoche, a lama of great standing, was accused of sexual and physical abuse. Given his standing, surely equal to the Dalai Lama’s, in spiritual matters, should I be allowed to expose myself to women, forcing myself upon them, and abusing them? Surely not. Any practitioner’s failings in upholding the precepts do not in anyway undermine Buddha’s teachings.

Suppose a butcher or a hunter slaughters an animal and dies shortly afterwards and inb4 the meat is sold. Then a person buys the meat from the deceased butcher's widow who herself doesn't kill and there are no other people involved. Here the buying of meat does in no way leads to further killing and the stupid argument of buying meat being equated to encouraging killing is entirely decapitated of it's limbs.
Suppose a butcher or a hunter slaughters an animal and is desperate to sell it in order to pay for a critical surgery for his wife.
Now you come along and make a deal of buying the meat at a ridiculous price such that he can afford the surgery if he swears to abandon killing to which he agrees. Here too the buying of meat does in no way lead to further killing and the stupid argument of buying meat being equated to encouraging killing is entirely decapitated of it's limbs.
Do you know what encourages killing? The encouraging of killing does, speaking in praise of killing does, having an animal killed for you does. Not the buying of meat.
When you are willing to have yourself and your family tortured & set on fire because you won't kill an ant, then you are a person who doesn't kill and one who takes a categorical stance, not when you are choosing not to buy meat. When you are willing to have the entirety of the human race be killed by another because you won't kill an ant or to have another kill it for you, then you are one who doesn't kill, not when you are choosing not to buy meat.

we are living in 2024 man... wher market is monster... dont give simile of butcher widow.. and all. that was perfect argument 200 year back .. not now.. In todays time  if you eat meat you are sponcering killing.. and if you dont eat meat someone else will eat it . dont worry of market.