text:
How would the Buddha have replied to Arjuna, if he was in Krishna's place?
While reading Bhagavad Gita I just wondered what buddha would have done in this situation?
It's truly not good to ask such questions they may seem speculative to some but I want probabilities not speculations, I feel that a mind versed in Buddha's doctrine should be able to give me Buddha's perspective.
at onset of war between Pandavas and Kauravas who happen to be cousins
Arjuna from Pandava side was inspecting war arrangements. In middle of war field, Arjuna got demotivated when he saw that he is going to fight his own relatives and teachers. He decided to surrender and told same to his charioteer Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna as an answer to Arjunas confusion told him what is now called as 'Bhagavad Gita'.
The major arguments Lord Krishna gave in favour of Arjuna fighting the war was:

Arjuna was kshatriya by varna (ancient Indian class system) so war was his duty, he should fight as he will get heaven by fulfilling his duty.
Atman or Soul is immortal so it doesn't matter even if opposition dies since we will destroy only their body their soul will take another body.
Even if you think atman don't exist then also the being will reincarnate again, so it's not virtuous to cling to your relatives.
A person should follow Karmayoga which is doing own duty without thinking about it's result. One should fix their mind on God and carry on their duty without being attached to it's result.

If Buddha were in place of Krishna what he would have done when Arjuna expressed his desire to abandon war?
Below is background of war

The cause of the Kurukshetra War was a complex and multifaceted one, involving political, social, and moral factors. Some of the main reasons that led to the war were:

The rivalry and hatred between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, who were cousins and descendants of the Kuru dynasty. The Kauravas, led by Duryodhana, were jealous and resentful of the Pandavas, who were favored by their elders, such as Bhishma and Vidura, and by the gods, such as Krishna. The Kauravas tried to harm and kill the Pandavas on several occasions, such as by poisoning, burning, and exiling them.
The dispute over the throne of Hastinapura, the capital of the Kuru kingdom. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son of the king should inherit the throne. However, Dhritarashtra, the eldest son of Vichitravirya, was born blind and was deemed unfit to rule. Therefore, his younger brother Pandu became the king. Pandu, however, was cursed by a sage that he would die if he ever had sexual intercourse. He retired to the forest with his wives, Kunti and Madri, and entrusted the kingdom to Dhritarashtra. Pandu's sons, the Pandavas, were born through the boon of various gods, while Dhritarashtra's sons, the Kauravas, were born through the intervention of Vyasa, the sage and author of the Mahabharata. When Pandu died, the Pandavas returned to Hastinapura and were raised along with the Kauravas. However, the question of who should be the rightful heir to the throne remained unresolved. The Kauravas claimed that since Dhritarashtra was the eldest son of Vichitravirya, his sons should inherit the throne. The Pandavas argued that since Pandu was the king, his sons should succeed him. The elders and the people were divided on this issue.
The injustice and oppression of the Kauravas, especially Duryodhana, who was the eldest and the most wicked of them. Duryodhana, with the help of his uncle Shakuni, a master of deceit and gambling, cheated the Pandavas of their share of the kingdom in a rigged dice game. He also humiliated and insulted Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, by trying to disrobe her in public. He refused to give back the kingdom to the Pandavas even after they completed their exile and agreed to a peaceful settlement. He also amassed a huge army of allies, such as Karna, Drona, Bhishma, and others, to wage war against the Pandavas and their supporters, such as Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima, and others.
The need for dharma, or righteousness, to prevail over adharma, or unrighteousness. The Mahabharata war was not only a human conflict, but also a cosmic one, involving the intervention and participation of various gods, sages, and supernatural beings. The war was seen as a necessary and inevitable event to restore the balance of the world, which was corrupted by the evil deeds of the Kauravas and their allies. The war was also a test and a lesson for the Pandavas and their allies, who had to face various moral dilemmas and challenges in the course of the war. The war was ultimately a victory for dharma, as the Pandavas defeated the Kauravas and established a righteous rule over the land.

when you say no speculation does that include what the 'turning of dharma wheel' might mean?

I am very familiar with Bhagavad Gita. First time I read it was 30 years ago, and I still come back to it from time to time, it sits right here on my bookshelf.
From the traditional perspective, the episode on the Kuru field is part of Mahabharata epic, happening centuries before Buddha's time, when the first Aryan settlers only recently moved from the Sarasvati river to the upper Ganges.
However, the modern science places writing of Bhagavad Gita to much later times (most often 2nd century BCE), centuries after Buddha. In fact, the modern research indicates that the Gita was written specifically as the traditional response to the (then still novel) Sramana movement. If you remove the mythical entourage, and focus just on its content, Bhagavad Gita reads as a series of Q&A on the topics of controversy between Early Buddhism and the Hindu tradition, aiming to give the reader what the authors thought was the valid interpretation:

Buddhism called for no-violence. BG declares that the soul is immortal, therefore it cannot be killed. As for the physical death, "for the warrior disgrace is a fate far worse than death".
Buddhism called for leaving home and abandoning all projects, to focus solely on attaining the Unconditioned. BG negates the inaction and reinforces the notion of duty without attachment to the results. For example, per BG the duty of baker is to bake bread, the duty of doctor is to treat patients, warrior is to fight with enemies, "indifferent to gain or loss, to victory or defeat". BG considers this action-without-attachment-to-result the only true equanimity, superior to mere inaction.
Buddhism defines liberation as transcending the notions of both the individual Atman and the Pantheistic Deity permeating everything. BG reinstates both the reincarnating Atman and its oneness with the Universal Self as the ultimate attainment.
Buddhism states that subjective experience originates from interaction of impersonal qualities, without any separate Subject that experiences the objects of the senses and the mind. BG insists that the experience originates from the union of Nature (material universe) and the Knower (the Universal Deity looking at everything through us) and liberation is attained by detaching from Nature and realizing one's identity with the Knower.

The rest of the Bhagavad Gita pretty much verbatim repeats the familiar Buddhists notions of suffering, attachment, old age and death, craving and aversion, meditation and joy, freedom from rebirth, surrender, peace, detachment, dispassion, kindness, compassion, five senses, desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, moderation, serenity, self-control, and so on. It definitely looks like the author was addressing an audience deeply influenced by the Buddhist teaching, so he wisely chose to avoid arguments and go along with most of the ideas they have already internalized, while "fixing" only the few of the most important ones that contradicted the traditional doctrine.
The entire approach of the Gita can be summarized with the following verse from it:

The wise man does not unsettle the minds of the ignorant. Quietly acting in the spirit of yoga he inspires them to do the same.

It is rather obvious to me the Gita was written specifically to protect the traditional social order from what the authors felt was a danger tendency to renunciate, making the Brahmin leadership irrelevant. Two millenia after, we can see the project succeeded brilliantly and the Buddhism in India is nothing but a shadow of its former glory.
To answer your question, if Buddha had seen the Bhagavad Gita, I think he would recognize the talent and the cleverness of the author in adopting the Dharma to fit the traditional narrative. However, I have no doubts that the Buddha of Pali Canon would have immediately noticed how the four points I listed above diverge from the Buddha's original teaching:

Certainly, Buddha would have said even though death is a convention depending on the notion of individual being, it does not excuse violence or murder.
Action in accordance with one's duty while being detached from its results would most definitely be characterized by the Buddha as politically motivated attempt of the ruling class to keep their power over the population, exploiting its labor to their advantage.
The notions of Atman and oneness with Universal God are very clearly against the teachings we see in the Pali Canon, so Buddha would have obviously pointed that out, too.
Same regarding the "Knower of the Field". As Nagasena said in Questions of King Milinda, "There is no such thing as the Knower."

And if Buddha were in that carriage along with Arjuna, I have no doubts he would have said (to both sides!) drop your weapons and focus your minds on The Four Brahma Abodes, because it's better to be considered weak by the fools than perpetuate the conflict. That said, I'm pretty sure the Buddha would not have gotten into the warrior's carriage, to begin with. If he were part of the royal family, as was  Krishna, the Buddha could have prevented the war altogether.

This answer was excellent (apart from its unsubstantiated descent into Marxism in the closing summary points #2). It appears plainly obvious, at least to me, the Bhagavad Gita is an attempt to subversively undermine aspects of Buddhism.

I have been through BG again and this time after reading the theories (that BG is reaction to sramana movement). I find danger in trusting the theories since all of them were result of British research and later backed-up by anti-Brahmin movement. Even if we assume that the theories are correct can't we make an argument that authors of BG were worried by the fact that inaction resulting from pursuit of dhamma can cause social structure to collapse. Also the point that BG succeeded in it's mission is half truth, Dr BR Ambedkar makes excellent point on why dhamma collapsed in india.

We know Buddhism discourage violence and war, but Buddha's advice is nuanced ie not as simple as coming out and saying, "war is bad, violence is bad, you will go to hell participating."  Just from reading Vassakārasutta you get the sense Buddha's technique was subtle:
King Ajātasattu representative says:

‘I shall wipe out these Vajjis [local tribe], so mighty and powerful!
I shall destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!’”

Buddha replies as such:

“As long as the Vajjis meet frequently and have many meetings, they
can expect growth, not decline.
“As long as the Vajjis meet in harmony, leave in harmony, and carry on
their business in harmony, they can expect growth, not decline.
“As long as the Vajjis don’t make new decrees or abolish existing
decrees, but proceed having undertaken the ancient Vajjian traditions
as they have been decreed, they can expect growth, not decline.
“As long as the Vajjis don’t forcibly abduct the women or girls of the
clans and make them live with them, they can expect growth, not
decline.

His rhetoric goes on to list more points that indicate the Vajjis are living in accordance with the dharma, and as such, they will not easily fare defeat in battle.  So, one might speculate Buddha has sided with the Vajjis - them being good patrons to noble ones and dharma.  Given this information, do you really think if King Ajātasattu declared war, and the Vajjis came to consult Buddha, he would say, "war is bad, violence is bad, you will go to hell if you fight, just lay down and surrender to King Ajātasattu"? Or perhaps something more appropriate?

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

This isn't the most important point, but an addition that was not mentioned in other answers.
Arjuna was kshatriya by varna (ancient Indian class system) so war was his duty
The Buddha didn't necessary support the ancient Indian class system as it was -- for example, he contradicts the idea of people being Brahmin just because they're born Brahmin -- footnote 26 in this edition of the Dhammapada:

"Holy man" is used as a makeshift rendering for brahmana, intended to reproduce the ambiguity of the Indian word. Originally men of spiritual stature; by the time of the Buddha the brahmins had turned into a privileged priesthood which defined itself by means of birth and lineage rather than by genuine inner sanctity. The Buddha attempted to restore to the word brahmana its original connotation by identifying the true "holy man" as the Arahat, who merits the title through his own inward purity and holiness regardless of family lineage. The contrast between the two meanings is highlighted in verses 393 and 396. Those who led a contemplative life dedicated to gaining Arahatship could also be called brahmins, as in verses 383, 389, and 390.

The Buddha does talk at length about the duties of a layperson (Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) -- without saying it's a duty to kill -- but also e.g. in DN 2 it praises Buddhist ordination instead of those duties:

A householder hears that teaching, or a householder’s child, or someone reborn in a good family. They gain faith in the Realized One and reflect: ‘Living in a house is cramped and dirty, but the life of one gone forth is wide open. It’s not easy for someone living at home to lead the spiritual life utterly full and pure, like a polished shell. Why don’t I shave off my hair and beard, dress in ocher robes, and go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’
Note: The word “householder” (gahapati) informally refers to any lay person, but more specifically indicates someone who owns a house, i.e. a person of standing. The renunciate life is not just for slaves or workers wishing to escape their station.

And in Getting the message:

Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

For this reason I view the Bhagavad Gita as "anathema" -- or in Buddhist terms, Adharma -- that's my view although of course, historically, nominally Buddhist countries and people have sometimes engaged in war or civil war, explaining it as justified.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

We don't have to speculate. The Buddha clearly taught that the warrior who exerts himself in battle to kill others will go to hell (i.e. suffer bad consequences) according to SN 42.3, quoted below.
The reason for this is that karma is caused by intention according to AN 6.63 and also the opening verses of the Dhammapada. Please see this answer for details and more sutta quotes. Whether one detaches from the fruits of action or not, the intention to kill was there, and therefore, there is karma.
Killing is against the first precept in Buddhism. The five precepts are the most basic training rules for purification of the mind by cultivation of virtues. There are no justifications for putting aside any of the first four precepts.
To understand this better, we find that buying frozen meat from the supermarket, and then cooking and eating it, does not violate the first precept, according to MN 55 and Snp 2.2. This is because the buyer of frozen meat did not have the intention of killing and indeed did not do any killing at all.
There's no eternal soul in Buddhism like the one taught in Bhagavad Gita 2.19-25. Views of an eternal soul is refuted in DN 1.
Also there are no prescribed duties according to one's birth caste in Buddhism. Please see this answer for details.
A king should however preserve justice and provide protection, to keep peace in his land, according to the Buddha in
DN 16 and DN 26. Please see this answer.

Then Yodhajiva (= Warrior) the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he
said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed
down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior
strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about
that?"
"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."
A second time... A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: "Lord, I
have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching
lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in
battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving
& exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after
death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What
does the Blessed One have to say about that?"
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his
mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May
these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or
destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay
him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called
the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as
this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others
then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting
himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he
is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong
view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I
tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears.
[The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by
saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'"
"I'm not crying, lord, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but
simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time
by that ancient teaching lineage of warriors who said: 'When a warrior
strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
devas slain in battle.'
"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright
what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one
who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many
lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One
for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Community of monks. May the
Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for
refuge, from this day forward, for life."
SN 42.3

To see how a Buddhist king practises the Dhamma with respect to military conquests and wars, we should read the following statement by King Asoka from his edicts:

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years
after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were
deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from
other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered,
Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the
Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now
Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the
Kalingas.
Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and
deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered.
But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this — that Brahmans,
ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those
countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father,
to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards
friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees
— that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones.
Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see
friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These
misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains
Beloved-of-the-Gods.
There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups,
Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where
people are not devoted to one or another religion. Therefore the
killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth
part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains
Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those
who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.
Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods' domain, are
entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that
despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them
if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be
killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and
impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.
Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be
the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here,
on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king
Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy,
Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the
Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni. Here in the king's
domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits,
the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere
people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Even
where Beloved-of-the-Gods' envoys have not been, these people too,
having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and
instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it
and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and
it gives great joy — the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give.
But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods
considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be
more important.
I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and
great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if
military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and
light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest
by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May
all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this
world and the next.

how can a king preserve justice and provide protection, to keep peace in his land, according to the Buddha in DN 16 and DN 26, if the king's troops mentioned in DN 26 do not engage in war?

@DhammaDhatu That's a very good question. King Asoka designed this policy in his edicts: "I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next."

This is also nonsense- intention is not the BG obviously- rather the clear-minded killing that is not namarpua


text:
Why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change?
SN38.14 describes three types of duhkha:

“Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering. “Tisso imā,
āvuso, dukkhatā. The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the
suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in
perishing. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—These
are the three forms of suffering.”

I have found a few instances that allude to vipariṇāmadukkhatā being the stress associated with being wrong, having wrong view, wrong perception, not knowing, etc.

Thag 21.1 “Your mind is on fire “Saññāya vipariyesā, because of a
perversion of perception.
an3.117 It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted
perspective, such as:
AN 10.85 ‘My dear friend, I didn’t lie or speak hollow words. But
I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.’

There are other like usages (see DN33). So why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change or disappearance of happiness - these seem to be within the scope of saṅkhāradukkhatā (impermanence of conditions)?
I have not found any usage that resembles the 'stress of change'. can you point it out?

The translation, particularly the unwarranted addition of the word "inherent", appears inaccurate and incorrect (similar to many of this bhikkhu's translations on key subjects).
The term 'vipariṇāmadukkhatā' simply means 'state of suffering due to change'. However, this meaning does not imply all experiences of change are suffering.
Vipariṇāmadukkhatā is explained most clearly in SN 22.1, which says:

Suffering when experiencing change occurs due to attachment.

Non-suffering when experiencing change occurs due to non-attachment.

SN 22.1 says:

They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am consciousness, consciousness
is mine!’
‘Ahaṁ viññāṇaṁ, mama viññāṇan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti.
But that consciousness of theirs decays [changes] and perishes [alters],
Tassa ‘ahaṁ viññāṇaṁ, mama viññāṇan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyino, taṁ
viññāṇaṁ vipariṇamati aññathā hoti.
which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Tassa viññāṇavipariṇāmaññathābhāvā uppajjanti
sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

They’re not obsessed with the thought: ‘I am consciousness,
consciousness is mine!’
‘Ahaṁ viññāṇaṁ, mama viññāṇan’ti na pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti.
So when that consciousness of theirs decays [changes] and perishes [alters],
Tassa ‘ahaṁ viññāṇaṁ, mama viññāṇan’ti apariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyino, taṁ
viññāṇaṁ vipariṇamati aññathā hoti.
it doesn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and
distress.
Tassa viññāṇavipariṇāmaññathābhāvā nuppajjanti
sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

The common notion in Theravada Buddhism that vipariṇāmadukkhatā refers to a suffering when feelings/happiness change is from the Theravada Commentaries, which I trust a footnote in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of MN 44 will affirm. This Commentary view is also incorrect.
MN 44 certainly does use the term vipariṇāmadukkhā, as follows:

Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
perishes [changes].
Sukhā kho, āvuso visākha, vedanā ṭhitisukhā vipariṇāmadukkhā;

However, if we read MN 44 with heedfulness rather than with heedlessness, we will find the pleasant feelings referred to here in MN 44 are underlain with craving or lust, as follows:

What underlying tendencies underlie each of the three feelings? The
underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.

This is why vipariṇāma dukkhā occurs in MN 44 in relation to pleasant feelings, namely, because those pleasant feelings are associated with greed or lust.
But when there is no greed & no lust, when pleasant feelings change, such as when the Buddha's mind changes from the 1st to the 2nd to the 3rd to the 4th jhana and then emerges, there is no suffering due to change.
As for the term saṅkhāradukkhatā, this does not mean the suffering of conditions. Saṅkhāradukkhatā refers to the suffering of mental formations, such as the sufferings caused by hallucinations of becoming (bhava) and self.
In summary, SN 38.14, is not about the inherent dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) that is the second of the three characteristics referred to in SN 22.59. Instead, SN 38.14 is simply referring to three types of attachment that are mental suffering, namely, suffering when attaching to physical pain; suffering when attaching to change; and suffering when attaching to things & life as 'self'.

it sounds more like stress of attachment than stress of change

although perhaps they are all suffering from changes - AN3.47 gives a good clue: saṅkhāradukkhatā (suffering from change of arising),  vipariṇāmadukkhatā (suffering from change of vanishing), Dukkhadukkhatā (suffering from change of lack of persistence)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Rimé movement and Theravada
I know that Tibetan Buddhism has the Rime movement, which is positioned as non-sectarian Buddhism. But I like Theravada methods. Can I practice Theravada while staying within Tibetan Buddhism?

Imagine you are learning to play a piano.
As an absolute beginner, you start by learning the notes, and practicing the scales.
Then as a novice, you learn to read the musical notation, and play the notes as you read them.
Then as an intermediate, you learn to play the entire musical pieces in the right tempo, without faulting in the middle.
Then as an intermediate-advanced, you learn to place the proper emphasis, accents, pauses, crescendos, and so on.
Then as an advanced, you learn to read the feeling the composer put in his piece, and express that feeling in your performance.
Then as very advanced, you learn to tweak the feeling to create customized performances of the original music, expressing your own interpretation of the works, and your own artistic vision.
And then as a master, you get to improvisation and writing your own music.
So, for example, as an advanced student, when you go to your teacher and sit down for a lesson, she will not even mention anything about the notes or scales or tonalities. She'll likely speak about sparkles and drama, and relief - teaching you to discern the tiniest aspects of the feeling you put in your performance. If you try to speak about the notes, she'll probably give you a strange look and (nicely) suggest that perhaps you should finish your beginner and intermediate training first.
Similarly, in Buddhism, and especially in the Rime movement that tries to harmonize all the different schools, there's a progression of levels. First, there is a coarse separation into Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. And then within the Vajrayana there are up to a dozen sublevels.
From Tibetan Buddhism perspective, Theravada falls into the Hinayana level, at least most of it does, except the most advanced teachings on signlessness, emptiness, positionlessness etc. - which exist in the Theravada's Canon but are classified as Mahayana.
The Mahayana level is focused on these teachings almost exclusively, but also on integrating the teachings deep into the regular life. Compare to the intermediate piano player.
And then, at the Vajrayana levels, we gradually approach teachings on energy, subconscious mind, cutting through aka leaving the raft behind, spontaneous clarity and so on. Compare to the advanced piano player.
So, yes, you can totally come to a Rime teacher as Theravada student, as long as both of you are clear where you are and where you are going. At some point you'll have to stop talking about "notes and scales" (the concepts you see in the Pali Canon) and start talking about "sparkles of joy" - the higher order concepts they teach at the Mahayana and Vajrayana levels. If that sounds exciting then you are a good Rime/Triyana material. If it sounds uncomfortable, you should probably stick to the regular Theravada.
P.S.
Another real-life gotcha: None of the Tibetan teachers will be as deeply educated in the Pali Canon as is customary in Theravada. They will have the basic concepts but don't expect them to know the hair-splitting nitty-gritties like the ones we analyze on this site. To draw on the piano allegory, they are not experts on hardcore music theory, at all. They do know the notes and that's where their knowledge of theory ends - their lineage is lineage of learning-by-doing and their ultimate focus is on soulful performance and that's what they teach.

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


text:
Where can I find the story of Kaundinya's mountain retreat?
According to my understanding Koṇḍañña was the first to understand the Buddha's teaching and reach enlightenment at the Deer's Park.  The senior monk was held in high-esteem, then he retired to the Himalayas in his last years.  Where is the story of his retirement found? I already searched the wikipedia, but it seems controversial. Was he the same one as Vimalakoṇḍañña - born to King Bimbisāra (wiki makes a relationship but I am doubtful)?


text:
KMeditation- Abdominal distention
I have been trying to pratice vipassana with abdominal movements-
Q

I never feel the movements getting settled or a state of no movements
about 5 min after starting the meditation I feel tightness in the upper part of rhe nose, forehead and the vertex of my head which lead me to stop the meditation.

What can i do for this?

Possibly you are trying too hard, exerting too much mental effort, which is causing the tightness in the head.
Possibly you can try to just sit still, with your eyes open. Place one or both hands on your abdomen; to allow the movements of the abdomen to come to your mind.

You are trying too hard. You must relax and observe. If the mind is tense, is atta, it's a personal sense of self trying to reach something (or kill something). That's not vipassana, just self delusion. Meditation is supposed to be fun, as Bhante Vimalaramsi used to say. Most of bhikkhus and meditation teachers in Theravada tradition, recommend an open, relaxed attention. And relaxing exercises too! If you can't relax your body at will during meditation, you can try yoga asanas, doing exercises before meditation or psychological techniques such as progressive muscle relaxation, autogenic training, etc. I hope this was helpful. Metta, bro.


text:
What is the right practice around empathy?
This is a practice-related question. In Buddhism the goal is to not suffer, but empathy seems to mean suffering because someone else is suffering.
In several places in the Pali Canon and elsewhere, compassion, loving-kindness, and sympathetic joy are mentioned, but so is equanimity. Here is an instance. I assume this means one should feel free from malice towards someone while also being unpained by this, but how does one deal with the wrong empathy that emerges, which is an energetic pull towards even codependency (If I were to say it in psychological terms)?
In the moment, empathy seems very blinding, so how does one extricate from it without losing the non-violence, happiness, and positive feelings?
It seems from the fetter view that empathy is at least one of the 3 forms of craving, or perhaps it is some form of restlessness. I wonder if there is an antidote for this particular complex.

In Tibetan Mahayana, there's an official doctrine for this, called The Union of Wisdom and Compassion.
Compassion or Empathy means, you can see it from their side. The child is crying over her broken toy, you can see how it looks from her side. Not just "understand" but really put yourself inside her subjective world. What the toy meant to her. The magnitude of her loss.
You love the child. You are happy when the child is happy and you empathize her dramas.
At the same time you remain somewhat detached, whether the child is happy or sad - you remain an adult. You know what's really good for the child, whether she understands it or not. You feel her frustration when she wants candy but you know she must eat her oatmeal first.
So these two qualities: Empathy and Equanimity, are not mutually contradictory, they are like the superpower of being in two places at the same time. The magic vision, from both perspectives at once.
It is important to get this context. Buddhist compassion is somewhat top-down, because there's always that equanimous core that remains above the situation. That's why you don't lose yourself in it, and not getting 100% drained of energy - because you are not actually sucked into the drama, your space ship is orbiting at 300 miles above the planet, you just send down an FPV drone.
It is that very mother ship (the Wisdom and Equanimity of the Dharma) is what drives that drone of Empathy and looks through its camera. Without that connection to Dharma (ultimately, to Emptiness), Empathy loses its balance and crashes into a tree.
And yet Empathy is essential, because if you only ever look down from 300 miles, everything seems peaceful and you end up being an ivory tower jerk.

There are direct statements of empathy in the suttas, such as:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Dhammapada

A noble disciple reflects this way, ‘I want to live and don’t want to
die; I want to be happy and I dislike pain. Since this is so, if
someone were to take my life, I wouldn’t like that. But others also
want to live and don’t want to die; they want to be happy and dislike
pain. So if I were to take the life of someone else, he wouldn’t like
that either. The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by
others. Since I dislike this thing, how can I give that pain to
someone else?’ Reflecting this way, first, he gives up killing beings.
Second, he encourages others to abstain from killing beings, and
third, he praises the act of abstaining from killing beings. So, his
bodily behaviour is purified in three ways.
Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects this way, ‘If someone were to
steal from me... ‘If someone were to have sexual relations with my
wife... ‘If someone were to harm me by lying'... '‘If someone were to
split me up from my friends using divisive speech'... ‘If someone were
to insult me with harsh speech'....  ‘If someone were to waste my time
by idle chatter'...
SN 55.7

And how do you look after yourself by looking after others?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, paraṁ rakkhanto attānaṁ rakkhati?
By acceptance, harmlessness, love, and sympathy.
Khantiyā, avihiṁsāya, mettacittatāya, anudayatāya—
evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, paraṁ rakkhanto attānaṁ rakkhati.
SN 47.19

I guess unskillful empathy can arise in many ways, including:

When we overestimate our capacity to help another person. For example, the suttas (e.g. DN 11; AN 9.5) most highly praise the gift of instruction. For example, unlike Christianity, there appears no practice of 'laying on of the hands' in Buddhism. The suttas also say only a person can purify them self, we cannot purify another (Attavagga). Therefore the suttas say if you instruct others, with a mind clear and confident, your compassion and empathy don’t create attachments (SN 10.2). In short, we can generate unskillful empathy when we unrealistically take upon ourselves the duty of removing another person's suffering.

Per SN 55.7 (quoted above), we, ourselves, have insufficient moral perspective & training. We do not truly understand the harm of transgressing the moral precepts. Then when we view another person suffering from their immoral kamma, we lack a moral perspective because immoral behaviour is normalized in our mind. For example, a person has an impulsive unthoughtful sexual affair; then later the person suffers when the sexual affair does not work out. We may think: "Oh, such bad luck, he was so handsome, she was so pretty". We ourselves lack moral perspective therefore we don't understand how heedless behavior will often inevitably result in suffering.

Our mind, itself, has not yet come to terms to ourselves being afflicted by the vicissitudes of life; including our own non-realization of not-self; and thus our mind projects self onto other life forms (aggregates) when the vicissitudes of life occur. AN 5.57 is particularly about this topic, when it says: 'I am subject to illness, have not [mentally] gone beyond [grasping] illness.' ... 'I am subject to death, have not [mentally] gone beyond [grasping] death.'... 'I will be separated from all that is dear and appealing to me.'

Therefore, equanimity, mindfulness & clear-comprehension are how to avoid unskillful empathy; while simultaneously fully recognizing how beings (life forms) can be afflicted in ways against their deepest wishes. It follows SN 47.19 (quoted above) also says:

And how do you look after others by looking after yourself? By
development, cultivation, and practice of satipatthana meditation.

Satipatthana meditation is summarised as follows:

It’s when a monk meditates ... resolute, clearly-comprehending &
mindful, rid of covetousness/longing and distress towards the world.

Dhamma Dhatu's answer mentioned "unskillful empathy".
I'd like to try to mention "skillful empathy": perhaps acting with kindness and more-or-less selflessly is the right thing to do -- it is (or fits) the definition of "skillful ethics", and as such it occasions "freedom from remorse" etc.
how does one deal with the wrong empathy that emerges, which is an energetic pull towards even codependency
Perhaps "codependency" is immoral -- so, don't lose sight of what's moral?
For example Wikipedia suggests that "codependency" derives from "co-alcoholic" (which is a context in which I first heard that word) -- Buddhist doctrine about morality might help with that, not only the fifth precept, also seeing things as they are (perhaps without "denial"), right speech (kindly and at the right time), etc,
empathy seems very blinding, so how does one extricate from it
I'm not sure whether one does extricate. Granted it says elsewhere that, "there's no association with a fool"; but perhaps this question might be why some schools of Buddhism distinguish "Mahayana" from "Hinayana" -- the latter being a vehicle where you try to extricate yourself, the former being more together in some way.

The four brahmaviharas (sublime states of mind) are compassion (karuna), empathetic joy (mudita), loving kindness (metta) and equanimity (upekkha).
Compassion is directed at others who are suffering much worse than we are. We would want to help alleviate their suffering. It overcomes the feeling of contempt. It does not include participating in their suffering, but it does include some empathy to understand their suffering.
Empathetic joy is directed at others who are doing much better in life than we are. We would want to feel joy when others experience good fortune in their lives. It overcomes the feeling of envy and jealousy.
Loving kindness is directed at everyone (including ourselves) and includes everyone who are suffering no less and no more than we are. This covers the case of equals. We would want them all to experience happiness and contentment in their lives. This overcomes the feeling of hatred and ill will.
The above is how we relate and react to others. The next one is how we respond when others react to us.
Equanimity is how we respond when others react towards us in good or bad ways. We should not feel elated when praised or dismayed when chided. It overcomes passion and aversion.
This is the right way to use the brahmaviharas.
Empathetically absorbing and indulging in the suffering of others much worse off than us falls outside the brahmaviharas. It appears to be unskillful, since it increases suffering.

Unless you have empathy , how can you have compassion? Unless you have compassion, how can you be non-violent and kind? Unless you are non-violent and kind , how can you claim to know the Truth?
What is the Truth?
All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All conditioned phenomena are suffering.
All conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not Self.
You should have empathy for every kind of life. You should have compassion for every kind of life. You should be non violent towards every kind of life. Because only then you will be able to understand that all conditioned phenomena are suffering.
You do not put yourself in everybody’s shoes every now and then , you have already put yourself in everyone’s shoes, and you know that all beings are going to suffer. You should have unshakable compassion for all. You should see with the eye of Dhamma.To those who are suffering, you should tell them that the suffering will not continue forever and should therefore be relaxed.To those who are joyful , you should tell them that the joy will not last forever and should therefore do not see happiness as permanent. We should escape this conditioned phenomena of suffering and joy by abandoning the things we are attached to. Out of empathy and compassion you should teach that body or its parts are not me , mine or myself, feelings are not me , mine or myself, perceptions are not me , mine or myself, choices are not me , mine or myself, consciousness are not me , mine or myself.


text:
Visualization in Body scanning?
Should one visualize while scanning different parts of the body? If not, should one try to suppress it? When I do body scanning practice, automatically an image of the corresponding body part arises in my mind.
In fact, every single time when I am changing attention from a part to another it is the mental image of that part that arises first and sensations after that (if any). I have a hunch that this is not the right practice. I tried to "stop" it, but I could not...and hence the question.
Can you give your insight on this? Also please share a method to avoid visualizing automatically (if that is indeed correct).

In fact, You have great opportunity to understand NamaRupa.
The image that you get is Nama and due to that your body follows it, in filtering all body sensation and giving you related body sensation(Rupa).
different people , differently do that. but the common is to create a mental image, which then accepted by your body as command.  Some people imagin the letters of that body parts. some people, subtle move their eyes.
Some people(like me and may others), actually just moves location pointer, which then followed by body. Even this is Image/Nama.
Even when you move your hand there is a subtle command to do so. In your mind a rough path of hand movement is drawn first. which is followed by body.
Walking and other routine movement are different case, You just intent to walk. but your body already knows walking. So you dont draw every steps of walking.  Think about  first time you learned cycling, and how you are cycling now.
You need not to avoid this visualization if it not too much. What you can do is, try other methods which are natural.
E. G. Brig your palm together and feel sensation.so this time it was without imagination. Right? Observe it.
Just dont scan body. Just sit idle and let your attention move naturally. Initially it will flow towards gross sensations like itch, pain. Just observe that.

Thanks, this is exactly what i wanted to understand.

in my case the image is quite strong, possibly because I have been trained that way during my scientific career in which I had to routinely use a lot of imagination. From what I understand, imagining the body part and then selectively filtering the corresponding sensation (or even creating the sensation?) Is not the correct technique. I would like to refine that. Is there a way I can avoid falling into this wrong way of practicing? As I mentioned it happens automatically, not something I do consciously.

Practice ia to observe. Witness. Not to create. Not to like and not to dislile. But problem is wherever your focus goes the tendency to create, lilke, dislike will follow there. You cant tldo much. Jist accept it.

Thats why. To bigin with stay at one place. And watch sensation related to breath. And stsy with it.  Amd train yourself not to sleep, not to distract not to create, just obsrve. Buold capacity to observe single type of sensation for long time. Like breath.

DSSL- distinct awareness of subtlest breath at smallest area. Once you master this. Body scan will be more natural

The suttas contain the practice of contemplating the parts of the body:

And further, monks, a monk reflects on this very body enveloped by the
skin and full of manifold impurity, from the soles up, and from the
top of the head-hairs down, thinking thus: "There are in this body
hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, midriff, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat,
fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid, urine."
And further, monks, a monk reflects on this very body, however it be placed or disposed, by way of the material elements: "There are in this body the element of earth, the element of water, the element of fire, the element of wind."
MN 10

This relates to maintaining understanding (if I understand correctly) while contemplating of different parts of the body. Also, was this said in the context of getting free from sexuality and attraction to body?

What I was asking is something different...


text:
Right situation for Teaching Dhamma or giving advice
I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip
I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere?
I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them.
Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated.
PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

According to the suttas, the general principle is to offer Dhamma only when asked (AN 9.5). The Buddha set this example in MN 26, when he waited for the Brahmā Sahampati to ask the Buddha to teach.

I doubt if it is a small gap in their understanding that causes them not to see how they are hurting themselves and the people around them in an indirect albeit unconscious manner.
I think it is for this reason that the Buddha advised his followers to practise restraint from telling untruths and indirectly to cultivate an unwavering integrity within themselves. So that when someone point out our mistakes, we cannot hide behind excuses but are forced to face our real intentions. Sometimes, that can be painful as we are forced to unveil our concealed motives and acknowledge our hidden desires.
I find one of the tricks we learn as humans in order to make it easier to commit reckless, unethical and selfish actions is to hide our true intentions from ourselves and others. It is perhaps a reason why our parents get very upset when we first start to lie as young children. Sadly, I learned that we never truly stop lying even as adults; we just get more sophisticated with the process. We hide our intentions, obfuscate our desires, masquerade our selfish actions with layers of excuses and convoluted reasoning. Until, one day, our mind is totally ensnared in an entangled web of intrigue and confused. And finally, the original motivation for our selfish act is forgotten. (Incidentally, I think what the woman in the video really wants is attention. If the nail is removed, she won’t have any excuses to seek more attention and sympathies).
When to give advice? Perhaps, an appropriate time and situation but, I think, the most important factor is the person being advised. They should be people of integrity who are willing to look into their mind and heart. They should be willing to identify their mistakes, errors and problems with honesty. Otherwise, I feel we should just let them be. Meanwhile we can learn by observing the process of karma as it unfolds; especially develop insights into why doing things in a “wrong” way really is bad karma. (I believe, sadly, the woman in the video will eventually find herself all alone..... the very thing she wanted to avoid).
Observing how things unfolds with these people and where their lives lead will in turn strengthen our understanding of karma and the Dharma.
Appendix I:
This is a follow-up on why “we cannot hide behind excuses” but must “face our real intentions”. The principles of the Zen tradition is often summarized in the following words: 教外别传，不立文字。直指人心，见性成佛。
My translation: Do not teach those who have no faith or do not believe in karma or the Dharma (教外别传). Because these teachings go beyond words (不立文字). The teachings point out the mind’s true nature (直指人心). Unveiling the mind, one sees its Buddha’s nature (见性成佛). (I admit that I deviated somewhat from mainstream interpretation especially the first half in order to fit into the context of this question).
I believe there is a pre-requisite for the Dharma to reveal our mind’s true nature. Firstly, we must be willing to constantly observe, see and acknowledge our true intentions. Because in the law of karma, it is our intention at the time we act that determines our karmic fruits; not the subsequent intentions, excuses or reasons we assign to those actions to masquerade, obfuscate or cover our tracks. Yes, we can try hiding behind excuses but it doesn’t change the karmic consequences one bit. Knowing this, we naturally strive to avoid all evil doings and support all good deeds. Furthermore, as we understand bad karma arise from bad intentions which has its roots in greed, hatred and delusion, we try to keep our mind free from these taints.
And this sums up the practice of the Dharma: to abstain from all evil, to cultivate good and to purify one’s mind. It is kind of paradoxical that faith and belief is a necessary factor for a person to begin this spiritual journey. But without faith or belief in karma and the Dharma, we would not be willing to start paying attention to our true intentions. I find this practice goes against the flow especially at the beginning.

Thank you, very insightful answer! Would i be correct in saying that I must examine myself and my intentions deeper when i am trying to help people, for it may be a convulated excuse to further my own agenda.

Do you mind briefly explaining this part:
"So that when someone point out our mistakes, we cannot hide behind excuses but are forced to face our real intentions. "

Yes, you are right that we need to examine our heart and mind. Sometimes, we have a perverse way of furthering a course of action that we know is selfish, unethical and reckless. And the scary part is when this perversed way becomes a habit. Our mind is no longer aware of the wrongness. Everything is just second nature.

When that happens, a cognitive shortfall arises. When others point out our erroneous ways, we just cannot see or understand what they are talking about. Instead, we get upset at their hurtful accusations and retaliate violently. So, I'll avoid advising people with little or no integrity. We may end up getting a lot of hate and revenge for our good intentions instead. It's not their fault, it's just that they have lost the ability to see their true intentions clearly.

It's best to teach Dhamma or give advice only to those who are open and engaged to receiving it.

At one time Venerable Kassapagotta was staying in the land of the
Kosalans in a certain forest grove.
Now at that time Venerable Kassapagotta, having withdrawn for his
day’s meditation, tried to advise a tribal hunter. Then the deity
haunting that forest approached Kassapagotta wanting to stir him up,
and recited these verses:

“A tribal hunter wandering the rugged hills is unintelligent,
unthinking. It’s a waste of time to advise him; this mendicant seems
to me like an idiot.
The tribal hunter listens without understanding, he looks without
seeing. Though the teaching is spoken, the fool doesn’t get it.
Even if you lit ten lamps and brought them to him, Kassapa, he
wouldn’t see anything, for he has no eyes to see.”

Impelled by that deity, Venerable Kassapagotta was struck with a sense
of urgency.
SN 9.3

Don’t try to convert others who aren’t willing. If on the other hand, they’re open to hear the Dharma and ask, give the best advice you can. If you believe you don’t have the experience to give insight the person asks for, tell them to find someone who does to avoid promoting wrong view.


text:
Is there any discussion about true nature of relationships in Buddhism?
We are social animals and while living in a society we make relationships with other humans. Relationships like mother,father,son,aunt,etc. are determined by default ie, we don't have choice. While some relationship have to be chosen by us eg wife, friends, religious master, political leader etc. While doing so I feel majority relationships are more like treatise or agreements they thrive on mutual interests and break once they are not met. Some relationships are temporary which exists till both parties are involved in particular task and get over once the task is completed like relationship of boss and employee. Some relations are considered pure since they are said to be driven by emotions rather than any purpose like that of parents and their children, but I am doubtful that there is mutual interest hidden deep under them, which maybe realised if we end our attachment.
I find understanding nature of our relationships is very crucial to avoid suffering arising due to ignorance of truth behind them. Is there any discussion on this issue in Buddhism?

Buddhism says much about how to behave in various relationships -- but less, so far as I know, about the "true nature" of relationships (nor of anything else) -- i.e. it doesn't focus on meta-physics -- except in very general terms, e.g. that everything has a nature of suffering or impermance or emptiness etc., or that some things are dusty while others are noble. Also perhaps the true nature (if there is such a thing) of relationships isn't universal, i.e. it varies from one person to another, e.g. perhaps one person's relationships aren't like someone else's, depending on their character.

This is my understanding - relationships of any kind arise in time, usually give rise to formation of attachment and soon cease to exist. Either the person leaves, or the attraction to them vanishes or the person dies and then the memory remains - but that also fades soon.
Why can't we do without relationships? Well coz we feel lonely etc. But this is exactly what must be seen and overcome. That is the real cause of suffering - it makes us either suffer directly; or makes us have relationships which inevitably result in suffering.
That is my understanding. I hope it helps.

Buddhism is also a science of worldly life. It's not only a science of liberation. I have faith (saddhā) you will find a good answer, but let's see what community says.
The answer to your question appears too vast to fully answer on this forum. However, you can start by reading the following link, which is both a summary & brief commentary on actual Pali sutta teachings about the science of relationship & worldly life.

A Constitution for Living: Buddhist principles [science] for a fruitful and harmonious life

A basic sutta about parents & children is Iti 106 With Brahma. As expressed in this sutta, it is obviously a scientific fact that "mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care of them and bring them up and teach them about the world".
A sutta that discusses the Six Directions (Types) of relationship is DN 31 Sigalovada Sutta. The Sigalovada Sutta is extremely important in Buddhism; serving as the foundation for many South Asian Buddhist cultures in history (which have recently been eroded by the export of Western Corporate Imperialism masquerading as 'liberalism').
The Mātugāmasaṁyutta contains suttas about necessary qualities of women & men in marriage relationships.
In short, there are probably too many suttas to cite about the Buddhist science of relationships & worldly life, which is why I recommended to first read: A Constitution for Living: Buddhist principles [science] for a fruitful and harmonious life.
In the history of Western Buddhism, there were gurus who, immersed in promiscuity, overtly engaged in sexual misconduct with their students. These sexual abusers & often their impressionable students appear to not understand the science of relationship found in Buddhism. The Lokapala Sutta: Guardians of the World discusses this phenomena of being ignorant about how faithful relationships uphold/sustain the human world; to prevent the human world from degenerating into a world like that of instinct enslaved animals.
In Thailand, apart from  the author of A Constitution for Living: Buddhist principles [science] for a fruitful and harmonious life, the most renowned scholar monk was Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. The first book  Buddhadasa Bhikkhu compiled & published was called "Dhamma For Worldlings (Puthujjana)", which was for unenlightened householders who do not comprehend & are disbelievers in the Buddhist science of relationships.
In the Pali suttas, the word for 'disbeliever' is natthika, often translated as 'a nihilist'. The Pali suttas say the 'disbeliever' or 'nihilist' does not believe in the importance of the relationship & role of mother & father. The wrong view of a nihilist is expressed as follows in the Pali suttas:

Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this [human; humane] world, no other [degenerate] world; no mother, no father; no beings who are... spontaneously [arisen]; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ .... this... person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of nihilism
MN 60 - The Doctrine of Nihilism

In summary, comprehending the Buddhist science of relationship & worldly life requires the right practice of empathy. We discern the needs, hopes & wishes of others and therefore respond appropriately, morally & humanely to the needs, hopes & wishes of others.


text:
Why no ghosts, Yakkhas, devas and spirits in the modern times?
This might be a more theoretical question than a directly practical one. I routinely see creatures of different realms approaching humans in the texts. and not just to enlightened ones like Buddha and some of his disciples, but even other far-from-liberated regular monks and householders.
Now even though I believe, and to certain extent, understand other realms of existence, it nonetheless remains a mystery to me why would these creatures only appear exclusively in those times and not  nowadays.
Why do you think it could be the case? I doubt the texts are wrong, although that possibility can't be excluded - especially in the sense of exaggeration etc.

Perhaps you haven't live with, haven't experienced (first- or second-hand) e.g. psychosis and schizophrenia.
Put it another way, I'm not sure it's true that 'these creatures' never appear in modern times. However if someone sees them and reports they see, perhaps their experience and testimony is discounted -- as a lie, an exaggeration, perhaps a metaphor, or a hallucination, a symptom of a mental illness.
Perhaps it isn't that unusual (e.g. 0.5% of the population) even these days to see a supreme being, or sometimes to be one, however people who experience this might be diagnosed with mental illness, and it's "marginalized" in normal society.
Further to this theory, nowadays this condition is sometimes treated medically e.g. with (often quite effective) antipsychotic medication -- which wasn't available in those times so they'd have lived without. Also I gather that people who did see "the spirit world" might have been concentrated in the spiritual communities:

I am not saying Buddhism is crazy but it might have had a slightly higher proportion of people with unusual experiences and perceptions
Habits and lifestyle of the homeless might be unusual (for example maybe sometimes a chronic shortage of sleep and so on)
People who don't "fit in" to regular society often end up "homeless" even these days, whether outcast or by choice
Conversely Buddhist monks are unusually well-able to tolerate their presence

I've seen it suggested that in some ("indigenous") societies, such people might have been respected e.g. as shamans, spiritual leaders.
Please don't read this answer as implying disrespect or animosity.

Thanks for the detailed answer. I think your points make a lot of sense, escpecially the mass cultural indoctrination and treatements with medicines.

Im not a teacher and this is my own opinion:
I believe some people do have that perception, but not everyone that sees them are unaffected by their kleshas. With that said I believe only realized beings have that pure perception, and not all of these beings do have this ability.
What I found out is that wind disorders, in Tibetan medicine, can result in mental illnesses and the best approach to heal or stabilize these disorders is to combine modern medicine with Dharma. These mental illnesses are called: Schizophrenia; Psychosis; Schizoaffective disorder; etc.
There is one condition that gives hallucinations called Hallucinosis that may be caused by epilepsy, drugs, alcohol, etc and is not considered a mental illness - because it doesn't affect your judgment nor your critical thinking. I believe that this is the condition of someone that is a medium.
With that said Mental Illnesses are a serious condition, 1 in 10 schizophrenics commit suicide, these Illnesses have to be treated so that they can live a normal life and progress in Dharma.
Buddhism is all about relieving the suffering of every sentient beings and not supernatural powers. I believe they do exist but only for realized beings that are highly attained practitioners and they are rare. Even tho if someone is realized it doesn't mean they have supernatural powers besides the power to guide sentient beings.
I hope this helps

In the Pali suttas, various gods, such as deva (benevolent gods), asura (demonic gods), yakkha, naga, etc, have certain archetypal characteristics. To understand these archetypal characteristics, we need to carefully read the archetypal characteristics of these beings as described in the suttas. Then we can reconcile these archetypal beings with living beings in the here & now. For example, about one class or use of 'yakkha', the Pali dictionary says:

Generally speaking, the Yakkhas were decadent divinities, beings half
deified, having a deva’s supernormal powers, particularly as regards
influencing people, partly helpful, partly harmful. They are sometimes
called devatā SN.i.205 or devaputta. Some of these, like Indakūta and
Sūciloma, are capable of intelligent questioning on metaphysics and
ethics.

So, when we reflect upon the above archetype, we can observe in the world how there are people who are very powerful at influencing people. These people may be politicians, musicians, comedians, gurus, etc, but they have the gift of influencing people, often partly helpful, partly harmful.
For example, right now I am watching live the International Court of Justice. The very fact the world has currently reached this perilous crossroads shows how the common people have been more & more influenced by certain influencers; compared to weaker influencers.
Related to this is a sutta such as the Subhasita-jaya Sutta, which compares the benevolent deva to the demonic asura. The benevolent deva believe in governing people with patience while the demonic asura believe in governing people with punishment & violence.
Of particular relevance to some of these gods is the characteristic of psychic powers. Most internet Buddhists have never met a person with psychic powers; be it a Buddhist monk, Buddhist practitioner or a Christian mystic or another spiritual practitioner. When we understand there are people with psychic powers who follow & propagate other religions, we will then understand why there are yakkha, mara & even deva & brahma who oppose the Buddhist teachings. Not all benevolent deva & brahma believe the Buddhist teachings are the most effective for ordinary people.

We don’t see spirits , ghosts , devas because it will kill atheism. Killing atheism will kill science, which claims to explain everything materially. Killing science will kill technological growth. Killing technological growth will kill financial growth. Killing financial growth will kill material attachments. Killing material attachments will kill the cravings to run the world united by money and food.
It is the desire to be united for financially rich goals which suppresses the spiritual revolution. Money unites the world like no other.

i understand that quite well, being in hardcore scientific field myself. But still it seems a wonder that no one has recorded, or widely known evidence of ANY kind for ANY being other than humans and animals.

@Kobamschitzo Anything which doesn’t conforms to financially rich goals is thrown away from mainstream science including ghosts, devils , ghouls etc. Evidences are cooked in the kitchen of science.

When you walk in a park and find some ants walking in a row, bend down and look at the ants and observe what they are doing. Then wave your hands at them and say, "ants, how are you today?". They don't respond back. If you place your finger somewhere near their path, they would ignore it and continue onwards.
You would find that the ants are completely oblivious of your presence.
Similarly, the devas or brahmas who are said to be superior to humans, may be watching us and attempting to interact with us, but we may be completely oblivious of them.
On this page, hungry ghosts or hungry shades (petas) are described as:

peta yoni — here the beings have deformed bodies and are usually
consumed by hunger and thirst

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas. Those who offer this, would not go unrewarded for their generosity, according to the sutta. This appears to be the practice described in the Tirokudda Kanda.
Ven. Nanda Mahathera writes here:

Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid
of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They possess
deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to
the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live in forests,
dirty surroundings, etc.

Ven. Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo describes them here as:

Hungry shades come in all different shapes and sizes — really
entertaining, the hungry shades. Some of them have heads as big as
large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle:
that's all, no bigger than the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs
six yards long, but hands only half a foot. They're amazing to watch,
just like a cartoon. Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips,
some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth
exposed all the time. There are all kinds of hungry shades. Some of
them have big, bulging eyes, the size of coconuts, others have
fingernails as long as palm leaves. You really ought to see them. Some
of them are so fat they can't move, others so thin that they're
nothing but bones. And sometimes the different groups get into
battles, biting each other, hitting each other.

Based on all the descriptions above, it sounds to me like hungry ghosts or hungry shades are microorganisms. It also makes sense that when food offerings are made to the dead, they would be consumed by microorganisms.

Quite interesting theory, that could indeed be exactly what it is! Still curious how mind when developed can see fine things like bacteria. I always assumed these other beings were spirits of some parts of physical nature, and bacteria too being one class of that.


text:
Practical steps in sense restraint
Right Effort in the Noble 8 fold path has 4 components, the first being the prevention of the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. I've found in Bhikhu Bodhi's 'The noble eightfold path: Way to the end of suffering', a kind of general description of what is called 'sense restraint' as a tool one can use to prevent these states from arising. I find the book to be a great resource. However, I think that his description here does not give me enough detail to be able to implement it. Can someone suggest additional reading material that will give more detail and perhaps examples? Kind regards and much metta!


text:
Should one be practicing restraint or be practicing mindfulness?
Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but many Theravada teachers warn against practicing restraint in the commonly understood sense of the word.
For example, if I understand correctly, Yuttadhammo Bhikku says to not stop and quit a behavior but to try our best to remain mindful. I understand to some extent that the reasoning has to do with non-self, and trying to stop a behaviour may involve deluding oneself with more of this self.
However, in the texts it is frequently mentioned to practice restraint for bad habits (for eg. 9:11). So I am a little confused here...both approaches make sense to me in their own right. Which one is the right way? or what are the conditions under which these are applicable? Hope this makes sense. Thanks

I think it's both.
"I love this bad habit but I'll try to refrain" may not work very well, in several ways.
"I'm mindful that this would be wrong behaviour, therefore I avoid it" is more like both.
Mindfulness (in the sense of 'present-moment awareness' (though this is a meaning of "awareness" or "mindfulness" which some people argue against) might tell you that, "while enacting this bad behaviour, I become aware that it is 'bad' (in whatever ways it's bad, maybe harming self or others or distracting from the goal), this was a mistake".
Having gained that insight there's mindfulness in the sense of 'remembering', for example, "I remember, last time I did this was a mistake with unfortunate consequences, suppose this time I were to 'refrain' from repeating that."

Thanks. I think the two senses of the word mindfullness in your answer may be just two sides of the same coin.

If Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu says what you wrote, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has wrong view. Remaining mindful in Buddhism means to remember to not engage in unwholesome behaviour. For example, the suttas say:

One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right action. MN 117

Just as a citadel has a gatekeeper who is astute, competent, and intelligent, who keeps strangers out and lets known people in,
in the same way a noble disciple is mindful. They have utmost mindfulness and alertness, and can remember and recall what was said and done long ago. A noble disciple with mindfulness as their gatekeeper gives up the unskillful and develops the skillful,
they give up the blameworthy and develop the blameless,
and they keep themselves pure. This is the sixth good quality they have. AN 7.67


text:
Buddhism and Mental Illness(Depression, Schizophrenia, Hallucinosis, etc)?
Hello,
I'm a Vajrayana practitioner since 2018, Nyingma School, and have been taking medication for 3 years.
What's the Buddhist point of view of Mental Illness and Hallucinations ? I'm asking this question because I want to be a monk but don't know if it's possible because I'm sick. At the same time I don't know how far this is true because this term "Mental Illness" didn't exist in this context in the ancient times and people with supernatural abilities are mentioned in legends that are believed to be real. I'm not saying I'm one of these legends because I'm not, but, I've had my share of supernatural encounters even tho they were dismissed and there were other times that the voices wouldn't stop.
Before I started to take the medication I would do Shamata meditation easier, now I feel numb, in my heart, and sleep a lot. I started o take the medication because I had problems at home, entered in a depression and decided not to take my life. My relationship with my mother was really bad, she was abusive yelled at me everyday, hated that I meditated and did yoga, but many years later things are better. It's a wish fulfilled, but now I can't stop taking my medication as I'm studying and I think it's for the best - at least for now.
As modern medicine didn't exist back in the day what was the Buddhist point of view of these illnesses ? And what was the method to solve this issues, if they are actually issues ? I'm not looking for a cure for my "illness", but, I'm really serious about my practice and daily routine - that's why I want to give my life for a greater cause and to become a monk.
EDIT:
I was informed about wind disorders and some can be classified as Mental Illnesses:

rLung, Mind, and Mental Health: The Notion of “Wind” in Tibetan Conceptions of Mind and Mental Illness

Thank you for your time

In Buddhism, supernormal abilities are knowing the minds of others, ability to send thoughts to others, ability to project images of oneself to others, etc, as described in suttas such as DN 11 and MN 119.
If your depression was related to your relationship with your mother, possibly associating more with virtuous spiritual friends, i.e., at Buddhist centres, can help improve your mind. There are modern sociological theories of depression, including this video, which say developing functional wholesome relationships can overcome depression. Thus, a Buddhist example is taking refuge in a Sangha (a virtuous safe Buddhist community; not a cult) where you feel respected, valued, loved & safe.

Thank you Dhamma Dhatu,
My supernatural experiences are not what's in cause, it's the roots of these that I'm questioning. I was told yesterday the inner wind problems do exist and they can be responsible for some "Mental Illnesses". Concerning my depression, it has passed as soon as I started to go to the psychiatric ward as the doctors and nurses were really nice, I just needed to be with other nice persons. I have too taken refuge vows but since COVID seeing the sangha personally has been difficult.

Thank you Hundred Songs. The above is good to read. Being with nice people is important. My best wishes for you.

One more thing, on rereading I see

... because I'm sick. At the same time I don't know how far this is true ...

I think this might be about the so-called "stigma" of mental illness -- e.g. "I am ill", "I have been diagnosed", etc.
Maybe it is true, as far as it goes -- but "how far?", as you said. To what extent is still true? Or was it ever true, was it "you", or was it only "then" i.e. in that time and place?
There's Buddhist doctrine about "identity" -- and I don't know about "trauma". Certainly there were times when I felt like saying, "Who cares you were diagnosed, obviously you were ill then, and (with a prescription) obviously you haven't those symptoms now!"
But it's a matter of "self-view" -- something you might have to work out, and might understand in Buddhist terms -- maybe difficult for me to explain but perhaps you recognise some of this kind of doctrine.
Lastly,

now I feel numb, in my heart, and sleep a lot

beware that medications I know have side-effects -- and I'm not saying not to take them -- but e.g. keep up with your doctor, beware new symptoms (e.g. weight gain, blood sugar), maybe (with the doctor) adjust the prescription, and make an effort to stay healthy (e.g. with proper, regular exercise which most people don't do enough of).
Buddhism is strange, maybe monks aren't supposed to exercise much for sport, and we're told that the body is impermanent and so on, on the other hand you get text like the Dhammapada saying "Health is a great gift".
I think it (health) probably helps your mood, anyway; and confidence.
If you have to choose then mental health is probably more important than physical, but minimize the physical harm as well, no? I say this because I feel guilty about implying that you're not ill now, knowing that you may have less-visible physical risks (which it's up to you to manage).

Vajrayana practice needs lots of merits. You can create merits by making offerings to your guru, seeing the actions of your guru as the purest,  seeking teachings from your guru etc.
Once you have enough merits, practicing will naturally become easier and your dharma goals will be achieved sooner.
Just live a normal life, including coping with your illness, because in Vajrayana living with an illness is considered living a normal life.

Thank you, I'm still seeing if I can actually become a monk, but, if it ain't possible then I will accept it and keep practicing while taking care of myself.

I don't know, about Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism.
I'll try to answer, based on theory (not personal experience) that I've read on this site and elsewhere.

Whether you can ordain with an illness may vary, i.e. from place to place (e.g. from one monastery or abbot to another)
Whether you need medicine is an issue, e.g. because who will pay for it? That's a reason why some monasteries will say "no".
You might stay at a monastery before requesting ordination -- to see whether you're suited for the monastic life, and vice-versa
Historically, illness has been a reason for not letting someone ordain -- because, too many people tried to ordain only as a way to get medical care from monks -- but how that rule is interpreted now, varies.

In theory this site also allows answers from personal experience, so here goes -- about mental illness, and not about ordaining:

Psychiatry broadly categorizes "affective" disorders -- i.e. mood disorders like depression -- and "non-affective".

I'm not familiar with the "affective" kind. I once read that "depression is anger without enthusiasm" but I've no idea whether there was truth in that or whether it was only a joke, in any case Buddhism presumably wants a solution other than anger.

I'm not a doctor and can't diagnose, but I guess you don't have "formal thought disorder" -- because your question is coherent, the sentences and paragraphs fit together and make sense -- I don't know whether that's because of the medicine.

Even if communication is impaired by thought disorder, or even when the voices don't stop, morality remains of the utmost importance -- for example, whether you're a danger to yourself or others. Someone who is "ill" but is not a danger is a very different situation -- easier to live with (and, not to mention, subject to a different set of laws).

"Shouting" isn't normal behaviour IMO. Perhaps your mother was ill herself, or a bully, or at her wit's end, I don't know -- people normally never shout at me. I consider it aggression/abuse/assault, but maybe it isn't legally.

When a sane, kind, normal person is with or tries to interact with someone who is mentally ill, they may find that disturbing -- "She makes me feel crazy!" Professionals e.g. psychiatric staff are obviously or at least hopefully trained to cope and experienced, and won't get upset in the same way. I guess, I don't know, that the same might be true for at least some Buddhist monks and nuns.

There are organic theories of illness (e.g. brain chemicals), but also sociological/functional -- and perhaps it varies from person to person. There's a theory that it's a "functional" adaption to a dysfunctional environment or relationship -- for example, "if I can't do what I want then I won't do anything" (catatonia), or, "if they won't listen to me I'm just not going to talk at all". It's not necessarily a clever/skilful/ideal adaptation but there it is.

One of the reason why it's "trying" (i.e. "difficult") to "deal with" someone who's mentally ill, is that they don't "respond normally", and that they don't "do what you want them to do"! It's enough to drive a mother "up the wall".

I remember this bit of dialog as one of the turning points, for the better, in a family relationship:

"But what do you expect me to do, here?"
"I don't expect you to do anything: you can do anything you want!"

Perhaps this may be why a psychiatric ward is sometimes helpful -- i.e. to "decompress".
Monastic life might seem attractive for a similar reason -- maybe monks have few "expectations", few demands, and are "easy to support".
Whether it's also easy to live as a monk, obeying the Vinaya, may be different, depending on you and on the community you're with.

Living as a "house-holder" might be OK too for some. Though there are (e.g. financial) responsibilities and expectations, these may be "within your means" if you're able to work and have a career -- and there are benefits, like being able to choose who you live with, choose to say "no" or "yes" as so on.
I once heard of a project called "It gets better", intended for bullied teens. Maybe life's like that, it does get better.

As for "I want to give my life for a greater cause and to become a monk" that reminds me of some resources:

YouTube: Geshe Tenzin Losel – How to Become a Buddhist Monk or a Nun?

Emphasizes what I said earlier, "You might stay at a monastery before requesting ordination".

YouTube: My Path To Becoming A Buddhist
She says, "to train my mind for the benefit of others" -- of course different people (reverends) have different interpretations of that -- I find it interesting that she's applying some of her lay skills, interesting here because you say that "now ... I am studying ... for the best"

Book: The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity
This is by a Theravada monk, a summary of doctrine for laypeople.


text:
Why cant we see fairies, nagas and garudas in Buddhism?
Do they exist in the same terrestrial world as ours, or is there a realm where they exist that is only accessible once you progress up the spiritual ladder?

I think they are here simulatenously with us and the higher beings exist as non-localized spirits of objects. Mind must become sharp to see them, or so have I heard.

I'm going to answer this one because this is a subject near to my heart.  The early days of my spiritual practice began like most disaffected Christian spiritual seekers in the west - I pursued paganism and Western occultism.  If you're asking this question, I don't need to tell you that these entities you mention do exist or, at least, we can have the experience of some unseen forces that defy conventional understanding.
The early 2000s hit, and like most people who came of age in that era, the New Atheist movement was becoming massively influential.  I turned to Zen Buddhism to slate my spiritual thirst in a way that didn't believe in all that fairy silliness.  I practiced diligently for over a decade until I had my first notable daikensho experience.  And guess what?  There were those blooming fairies asking what the hell took me so long!  The very act of ignoring the possibility of their existence was a barrier for me on the Buddhist path.  It was only after I allowed the possibility of their existence that the way opened for me in my Zen practice.  A practice that was once antiseptically sterile suddenly became an utter delight with angels hiding under every stone and yakshas calling from every tree.
But a word of caution is in order here.  You will meet these creatures in your practice.  In fact, some weird, fanciful, and paranormal experiences are a sign of progress.  But you know the koan about killing the Buddha on the street if you meet him?  Don't be hesitant to kill fairies either.  Seeking them out and obsessing over these encounters can sidetrack your progress.  They are just one dharma gate.  There are innumerable others.  Some are enchanting, but others, like uprooting all of your psychological obstacles, can be a real drag.  Don't stay in the land of the Fae to long.  Like any fairy story will tell you, you run the risk of getting trapped there forever.

Hello,
I believe they do exist but it's not the main point in Buddhism. If you practice and feel devotion and do believe that Buddha is here even tho he entered paranirvana you will have faith that other beings may exist. Practice Yidam Yoga and talk with your Guru about this maybe he will help you figuring this out. You shouldn't have a blind faith about this but a faith that comes from understanding.
Keep leaning Dharma and practicing for the benefit of all sentient beings. :)
Wish you well


text:
Longer retreat thailand
Wondering if anyone could please give me some recommendations for a longer retreat in Thailand. A lot seem to only be 10 days but I'd like to do longer now as Ive done many shorter ones and would like to go a bit deeper. Im not young and need my own room. Thanks

I am not sure there are any retreat centres in Thailand offering long term retreats. However, many monasteries in Thailand are willing to offer you your own hut ('kuti'). In the monastic environment, often, you must join in the morning & evening monastic activities of chanting & meditation and also do some daily chores; while having the free time to practice on your own. You can try writing to:

Wat Pah Nanachat (please read their information page & instructions carefully).

Wat Phu Khong Tong

While you cannot write to Suan Mokkh, after they get to know you (while you stay in an open dormitory), Suan Mokkh or their ancillary monastery Dawn Kiem (if it is still functioning) may offer you a hut (kuti). A relatively recent post about Dawn Kiem is here. Dawn Kiem is a 5 minute walk from the International Dharma Hermitage. Suan Mokkh has a monthly 10 day retreat at its International Dharma Hermitage. Therefore, if you are offered a hut, you can do formal retreat for 10 days and do personal retreat for 20 days.