text:
Is the self like a rainbow and is it just as real?
No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined in any meaningful way.
You can point to it so that others can see it and you can even photograph it.
If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it.
Yet, if you got into a helicopter and traveled into the rainbow, all you would find would be atmosphere, moisture and sunlight, i.e. the elements of the rainbow. You would no longer perceive the rainbow itself.
Yet, someone further away would see both the rainbow and the helicopter you were in, so even though you no longer perceived the rainbow because of your proximity at such close scale it would not mean that the rainbow ceased to exist or that it was never existent in the first place.
Similarly, a meditator might perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and thus conclude that the self does not truly exist, yet it wouldn't mean that it actually did not exist, only that the meditator's awareness of it had ceased.
As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still exist for others, one of whom could wake up a sleeping person and return them to the world and body they had become unaware of.
Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness.
Is the affirmation of a self somehow analogical to the affirmation of a rainbow ,is it just as real and not-real in that sense?

Hi @slowburn, please rephrase the body of the question to have an explicit inquiry you'd like to be answered, not just your own analysis. The question can be reopened after you do that.

@Andrei
Not necessary. It's already been answered to my satisfaction.

@SlowBurn i will mend the body for you to include an explicit line of inquiry you'd like to be answered.

@SlowBurn, that's your prerogative. FYI this is a Q&A site and not a discussion forum, in the future please use it appropriately. If you have doubts about the permitted tone and verbosity, amount of dialogue, comments etc feel free to ping one of the moderators.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

OP: "No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined
in any meaningful way."

In fact, I can define 'real' as follows:
real (adjective): actually existing in just the same way it appears to exist

In this sense, then neither the self nor the rainbow can be considered real. In the case of the rainbow, it appears to exist as a shimmering/solid object in the sky. It actually exists as an interplay of reflection/refraction of light with water moisture in the sky. Thus, a rainbow is not real.
Similarly, it can be said that the 'self' is not real as it appears to truly exist in a substantial and independent way, but it utterly does not. Thus, the self is not real.
This definition can be found in the "Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers" by Pur-bu-chok and is the definition used in the the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition of Buddhism.

OP: "Is the Buddhist conception of a self similar to that of a rainbow or
not?"

It can be said given the above definition that both are not real. However, the same can be said of (nearly) all things. That is, phenomenal things in this world appear to have true existence, but they utterly do not.
This is why it is said in the Diamond Cutter sutra:

“As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an
illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all
the compounded like that.”

And as it says in the Lump of Foam sutta:

“Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception
seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness
like a magic trick: so taught the Kinsman of the Sun."

I never asserted that the rainbow existed independently or that the self or anything else exists independently either. Our bodies don't exist independently of its atoms or the external environment which supports and sustains it, but I wouldn't then conclude that it wasn't real merely because it lacked independent existence or was composed of constituent parts as you are claiming.

According to my definition of real you can clearly see that they are unreal. Of course, you may have another definition, but that's on you to provide what that definition is.

A rocket is composed of compounded things as is the fuel which propels it to the moon which is also composed of compounded things. I wouldn't deny any of it as real. If a lump of foam, a banana tree or a rainbow isn't real, then what is real in your opinion? If consciousness is a magic trick and perception a mirage, then why would you trust those senses when they convey the teachings of the Buddha?

What you do with the Lump of Foam sutta and what you wish to define as 'real' I'll leave to you. I've answered as best I can given the fuzziness of your question.

What is fuzzy about asking for a simple example of something you consider "real" if you consider a banana tree or a lump of foam as unreal?

Only an Arya being or a Buddha with a direct non-conceptual perception of sunyata is properly considered ultimately real. For us sentient beings, we can say the moon is real. Hope that helps.

So an Arya or Buddha is no longer composed of compounded things? If not, then why did the Buddha die of old age? Or are you saying that their perception is real? If so, then does perception exist independently?

No, I am saying 'sunyata' is ultimately real in that it exists exactly as it appears to the direct non-conceptual perception of an Arya being or a Buddha. Buddhas and Arya beings themselves are not real.

See the Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85) for the Buddha being not real. https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi "But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life..."

I know that semantics are a sticking point in trying to apply words to things which transcend them, but you're suggesting that emptiness "appears" to non-conceptual perception, yet perception is an element of beings which you say are not real. In spite of this, somehow the unreal can perceive the real even though perception is just a dimension of consciousness which is dismissed as a "magic trick."

I am saying that sunyata is real given the definition of 'real' I outlined above. Nothing else. Take it however you like.

In other words, a newborn infant would be conscious of an object which an older child would perceive as a toy. Perception does not exist independently of concepts.

Dualistic perceptions are not independent of the objects they perceive. Dualistic conceptions are not independent of the concepts they conceive. Seems correct.

Perhaps, you are reading these words on a computer monitor. You must have a conception of a computer monitor before you can perceive a computer monitor.

All words are formed from conceptions. Conceptions are what words traffic in. Nevertheless, I think it possible to conceive of an apple and also possible to perceive an apple and that the two experiences are not the same. The former is much less vivid than the latter. Isn’t your experience the same?

If you give a cat a toy mouse, she will play with it because even though she knows it's not a "real" mouse, she still perceives it as one and understands the concept of a toy. Her powers of perception are not dependent on words.

I am not saying that the conception of an apple and the perception of an apple are the same thing. I am saying that you cannot perceive an apple unless you already have a conception of an apple. One is dependent on the other and neither are dependent on words, which is just a clunky medium for sharing our conceptions and perceptions with each other.

Excellent question was closed. Please look at DN9. It discusses self and perception. https://suttacentral.net/dn9/en/sujato

@OyaMist
I'm sure Andrei believes his actions are for the greater good. Rules are rules. Thanks for your reference and I will check it out!

Excellent question, and the analogy is very appropriate in a Buddhist context. I would point to instructions that one receives for meditation practices, to meditate on the meditator (in different ways). The objective is to see the ‘self’ that we habitually cling to, as you have described seeing a rainbow up close. When we, as you say, fly up to it in a helicopter (meditation practice ☺) we can no longer see it. And yet, until we reach a certain stage in our meditation practice, that self causes all sorts of mayhem. You can see what I mean exhibited all around us, even here.
So is the self as real as a rainbow? Hearing your intent in asking your question, rather than focusing on word definitions and imposing idiosyncratic or otherwise scholarly meanings on them, I would say, yes, the self is as real as a rainbow. And I would add that while a rainbow is real, flying into one won’t kill you, whereas, getting hit by a bus will.
And yet, both the rainbow and the bus, when analyzed, lack a permanent and intrinsic self existence. Emaho ☺

I was going to write a response for you, but this topic has been closed. Kudos for your nice picture!

Well, I've voted to reopen the question. Perhaps others will as well. The only clarity issues are not in your question, nor your explanation of your question, using your analogy of a rainbow. I hope that a sincere question will be met in the spirit of open inquiry.

"focusing on word definitions and imposing idiosyncratic or otherwise scholarly meanings on them" ... if this was directed at my answer I'd just note that the def. I wrote is not meant as scholarly or idiosyncratic. Rather, it is meant as the same usage that the Shariputra used in SN 22.85 when it was said the Tathagata was not to be regarded as real and actual. It is a very easy to understand def. and fits with the everyday language of the world.

@StillJustJames
Yes, I think it's my sincerity that's being questioned, but your actions and responses vindicate me. All I've ever tried to do is to formulate questions to stimulate genuine discussion of difficult, nuanced topics with no easy answers. Thank you for participating in that instead of cowering behind rules and etiquette

Oh, I should add that I've been informed that this is not a discussion board, yet I still don't understand how you can find answers to difficult questions, if at all, without a meaningful and possibly lengthy discussion of a complex topic, which is pretty much any topic related to Buddhism.

Yes, and I understand that discussion boards tend towards being unreliable sources of information, unlike a site like this. But the clarity of a question is not independent of the of the subject being questioned, and the Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness—your subject—is the epitome of hard to conceptualize subjects. In my opinion, concepts specifically get in the way of this subject. Your use of analogy in your background explanation of the question is a useful technique. Perhaps there could be more of that here.

@SlowBurn - Buddhism isn't complex. Its simplicity is such that it is oblivious, but as a concession, the neurotic mind needs something to chew on. It is that chewing process you call complexity. It is your own neurosis meeting its limitations.

@NeuroMax
Your username says it all.

@StillJustJames
I'm not really expecting this place to be a reliable source of anything besides possibly the moderation issues I've already addressed elsewhere and the comment quality to be expected of users like NeuroMax

@NeuroMax btw, one shouldn't be oblivious to their spell checker. It comes in handy sometimes before you post.

the deluded self is not like a rainbow.
the delusive self is not formed from five aggregates but is merely a thought (sankhara; SN 22.81)
therefore the delusive self does not dissolve into any constituent elements because the delusive self is merely a thought and all that dissolves is the thought of self
when there is a rainbow, the different colors can be clearly seen. even a child can discern red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet
but the deluded puthujjana (worldling) cannot clearly discern the various aggregates clung to & identified with that cause the becoming/creation of the delusive self. the deluded puthujjana (worldling) cannot discern the various manifestations of form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations & consciousness
the analogy of the rainbow appears unwarranted & merely theoretical

Are you claiming that thoughts aren't real? If not, then what can you define as real? Also, just because some of my posts apparently cause cognitive dissonance in some, it does not mean it's "opinion based", "unwarranted" or "merely theoretical".

thoughts are formations in Buddhism. SN 22.95 says they are without any real tangible substance, like a banana tree that has no heartwood or core and is merely bark

Maybe it's just semantics, but a banana tree is still substantial even without heartwood because it's still made of atoms, just as heartwood is. So are formations real? If not, then what can be defined as real as a reference point to compare with what is not real?

i answered your question. your premise of "real" and "unreal" is not related to what the Buddha taught. MN 122 says talk about whether things are real or not is animal talk. in Buddhism conditioned things arise & cease. naturally, the arising is "real" and the cessation is also "real". the delusive "self" in buddhism is conditioned & impermanent. refer to SN 22.81

Teaching a doctrine of non-self implies that the self is not real, so I can't see how discussing what is defined as real can be dismissed as "animal talk." Also, the hallucinations of schizophrenics are also conditioned things which arise and cease. They are experienced as real by the schizophrenic but not acknowledged as objectively real by anyone else. Having an objective definition of what is real is a necessary starting pointing for understanding anything at all. If you say that the here and now is the only thing that is real, then what about dreams?

not-self does not teach the self is not-self. this idea is the confusion of Vaccaghota in SN 44.10

not-self teaches the five aggregates are not-self. refer to SN 22.59

Is the self like a rainbow and is it just as real?

A rainbow is not real. It is a concept. What is really going on is the process of seeing, i.e. visible forms come into contact with the eye faculty whereafter eye-consciousness arises and passes away. After that arises a mind-door process wherein the object just seen is being cognized. If one is not mindful before that point, conceptual proliferation will take place.
The self doesn't exist. It is a concept as well. It's an idea that belongs to the 4th aggregate of mental formations. A self cannot (nor anything pertaining to a self) be found inside the 5 aggregates of clinging.

If a rainbow is merely a concept, then what would you consider real and not merely a concept? And if nothing is real, then why have a designation for it at all?
Actually, nevermind, Andrei has unilaterally decided that this discussion is over. Better luck next time.

@SlowBurn. According to the Theravada Abhidhamma the only (ultimate) realities that can be considered real in and of themselves are: Rupa, Citta, Cetasika and Nibbana (Paramattha Dhammas).

you can't say both that self doesnt exist while saying that is exists within the 4th aggregate.

In defense of Jade's expression, he didn't say that the concepts aren't real or that they don't come into play. It is like saying "thinking about thinking" one is a process of ideation and one is the object of ideation, which is the realest? Jade basically says the object of ideation is not the process of ideation and that the process of ideation is always a truth in that it is something other people can see with intellect; whereas the object of ideation can be entirely fictional and untrue, not something great minds can think about alike.

Therefore his definition of real seems to be derived from the inherently true property of the process because great minds can agree upon that there is thinking, whether they agree on an idea being true or not is not a given because ideas can be delusional.

Then the question SlowBurn asks 'If a rainbow is merely a concept, then what would you consider real and not merely a concept' is exactly the question that is ought to be asked and how this expression is rightly scrutinized.

That is because if you keep unwinding the expression, one will infer that a world is conceived & perceived in the world and the word concept as to it's normal usage is something conceived & perceived. Therefore anything you can name in mind qualifies to be called a concept.

Furthermore Theravada asserts that whenever there is contact at any of the sense bases pertaining to the 5 faculties that depends on contact at the mind base because the 6 classes of consciousness are implicated in any instance of contact.

As far as i know the classification of ultimate and conceptual reality is hardly canonical to Theravada and is made explicit & much of in the course of the development of various commentary traditions.

the pali is paramatha dhamma meaning ultimate reality, something great minds can think alike, however where the train goes off the tracks is in asserting that only the "aparamatha dhamma" are conceptual. It is just very confusing.

Ideas are inherently conceptual and some can be untrue, this is possible and is how we normally think about concepts and abstract ideas. Some of it is right inferred such as the truth of the process of inference and some of it is wrongly inferred such as inference of there being monsters under the bed. I think saying that a rainbow isn't real because it is a concept, also insists on not normal definitions of the word concept and reality.

Normally we say that concepts are real in as far as they are something among everything. If concepts and untrue things weren't real then people wouldn't lie to influence others. This is just normal use of language and there is nothing mystical to the object of ideation not being real in the sense that the process of ideation is real.

The Buddha kept it phenomenally simple. What is the designation for consciousness? It cognizes, demonstrably implicated in contact to be inferred by smart people. It is normative use of language and terms are further defined by inference likewise by smart people.

the buddha didnt asset that not-self is the dissolution of the self.  nor that nonapprehension of yourself is the meaning of selflessness.
that deluded ppl lose the capacity to clearly ascertain in deep sleep or even recognise dreams as dreams is standard but has nothing to do with examples of ascertaining reality.  falling asleep and failing to ascertain urself is not a perception of not-self

If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it.

Hold on. If rainbow was mind created phenomena, wouldn't the camera also be mind created, wouldn't the eye be mind-made and if these are likewise mind-made then why wouldn't the camera be able to photograph it? Seems like photographing would be the only thing a camera should do, it is not going to cognize the shape & color of a tree or see it, the instrument is essentially an extention to the nervous system and is not supposed to do what mind does.

Similarly, a meditator might
perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and
thus conclude that the self does not truly exist,

There is something that can be spoken of as 'a sign' in your analogy, the sign is complete with form & color, which is perceived as it is grasped & interpreted by the nervous system to be 'a rainbow' or 'sign of a rainbow'.
That which is thought about & called 'sign' can be said to be an abstract expression of what is thought to be the sign's causes & conditions coming into play. If the causes & conditions prompting the expression are understood then there is no confusion in regards to the expression and it's meaning is rightly seen with intellect.
Interpreting & grasping the signs correctly is the directed development, grasping correctly one acts correctly, acting correctly one begets the correct sign which is associated with the consummation of the 5 faculties.
When a person grasps with underdeveloped intellect he reacts badly, in example a person grasps the sign of a bodypart and assumes that it is personal or that it is a self and makes an evaluation. Based on this evaluation he may become glad or aversive. Experiencing this excitement the intellect is clouded, one is not thinking straight and is carried away on the currents of bad intention, due to bad intention there is a wrong directing of attention and a weakening of the faculties due to frequent giving of attention to unwholesome themes which become the inclination of the mind due to a frequent giving of attention.
In this way a person might grasp something as self and be stuck thinking along those lines due to obliviousness to that which is his best knowledge.
Then having calmed down one might realize that he has been stuck interpreting the signs according to the false doctrine of 'self' and having become aware he is no longer entertaining those lines of reasoning based on delusion and is at that time  interpreting the signs correctly.
There is this kind of dissolution of self. I don't know another.

As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one
loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still
exist for others,

Well yeas but the others, like the dream, don't exist for you until you start perceiving them, so the others are here semantically just as real as the dream because both elements come into play only when they are perceived by the observer and you have absolutely no way to establish these as a truth or reality beyond a particular person's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling with the body and grasping with intellect.
To say that external world persists beyond it's conception & perception on a base primary frame of reference is akin to saying that dreams are a place you go to and that it persists while you are awake without your participation.

Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness.

It is kind of amusing how people first establish something as a truth based on it essentially being an "objects of awareness" and then attempt to remove the 'of awareness' part.
It is not defined as an object which is sometimes of awareness and sometimes not of awareness. You don't get to take something defined & understood exclusively to be an object of awareness and talk about it as an not an object of perception.
That is a mistake of mixing two mutually negating contexts and you get a contradiction where you basically say 'this object of awareness is not an object of awareness because it's an object' and on this basis you create a doctrine about an object disconnected from everything meaningful as if a term's meaning is changed by using a shorter expression, in particular 'object of awareness' to 'object [not of awareness]', that doesn't work.
The problem arises when you talk about an object of awareness as an object and then insist on overriding normal usage in making the assumption that it's affirmation of a truth & reality isn't presumed to be dependent on contact and awareness.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

To say that the perceived world & it's objects exist independently of a single observer's frame of reference is not to be done because without an observer the world can't even be talked about in terms of the electromagnetic process because there [that frame of reference] is then not a process, not without an observer to collapse the wave function.
In non physics terms;
There being no observation there is no contact, there being no contact there is no expression of causes & conditions, there being no expression there are no signs, there being no signs there is no awareness of signs, there being no awareness of signs there is no awareness and that exactly because awareness is also always associated with a sign or an object of the 6 sense doors as it's existence is postulated on it being demonstrably implicated in contact which is a requisite for expression of a sign. There being no awareness there is then no awareness of a before & after and hence it is not a process.
Think about this.
If you and i both look at a rainbow, we are actually conceiving & perceiving two different worlds altogether because you can calculate the distance light travels to hit your eye and compare it to the distance light has to travel to hit my eye and take note of the fact that it's not even technically the same light that does the travelling.
Let alone the fact that we are technically only seeing the light that was emitted before contact occured and our seeing depends on it but we are not seeing things change simultaneously. Given the variance in the distances the sign of the rainbow will even dissolve at different time assuming our clocks were calibrated correctly and we could even prove it by making timestamped video.
Of course the distance between us would have to be enormous for light to be measurably delayed but as a thought experiment..
Suppose you are looking at a rainbow from a helicopter and i teleported instantly 1 light year away, i wouldn't even see the rainbow for a year no matter what optical zoom i have because the light from the rainbow won't make contact for a year whilst my watch would still be aligned with yours if i were to teleport right back.
Furthermore were i to immediately look back at earth with superzoom, i wouldn't see the rainbow at all and would be looking at events from 1 year ago.
Furthermore with this kind of teleportation powers i could teleport and watch myself teleport to my current location appearing as a second me beside because apparently i got faster than light travel...

"When the four bases of spiritual power have been developed and cultivated in this way, a bhikkhu (monk) wields the various kinds of spiritual power: having been one, he becomes many; having been many, he becomes one; he appears and vanishes;

note: here by light speed i talk about just the speed of the smallest discernable change in the electromagnetic process. It is entirely dependent on the instrument of measure.

The word real isn't in & by itself tricky. It is only made tricky by people insisting on overriding normative contextually defined usage, the Buddha never did that. We can say dreams aren't real in the sense that it is not like being awake but there is no 3rd control for what is the measure of real in definitive sense in this discussion. Therefore one can say either is realest or that both are equally real or that neither is real, pick your poison.

So you believe that all subjective experience is a mind created event and that there is no external reality impinging upon your senses? What is the purpose of the mind creating anything at all?

It is not that mind creates it per se. That which we call mind is part of the creation. It is not one and the same mind that creates everything else because then what created the mind one would ask. Subjective experience changes as it persists, it i's a process of signs persisting as they change, all things are thought about as an All, it is thought about as an everything; dreams, the waking state and what can be derived from that, all of it is collectively called 'everything' .

That which is called mind is a term used to understand the requisite conditions for the subjects affirmation of everything & anything. Since it is an everything then it can not have an outside cause, it's must be internally caused & perceived. Seeing is something of nature, it sees nature and that in nature. Conception [creation] is also something of nature, it is in nature and it creates nature; it is thought of as creating form as form, mind as mind and etc.

An analogy i can give is to language. Every person carries a personal dialect of a language, there are no two alike like fingerprints. We say we speak the same language but if we were to draw 'a dog' it will come out different. Therefore each person has his own language and other people are merely trying to interpret the signs they see. If a person was to disappear then a language would have disappeared analogically to how a world would disappear.

Basically to say that mind creates everything must be a figurative speech because everything will include that very mind per definition so it follows that it can not be one & the same mind that creates everything.

Imho focus on how you think to recognize logical mistakes & cognitive dissonance in order to embrace it with discernment. Meanwhile learning the sutta method of expression first and then to sleep on it so to speak. Entertain it a lot and train yourself with that very type of analogical reasoning as the rainbow and though experiments. Eventually you will become trained in the sutta method of expression and it will start to sink in as you will see how it all connects when keeping it in mind and developing those lines of reasoning until the neural pathways run into eachother 'connecting the dots'

Someone may say the rainbow doesn't exist.
But you can see it with your eyes and you can take photos of it, so it surely exists.
Similarly, someone told the Buddha that the self-doer doesn't exist at all.
But the Buddha said, hey, one could decide to move forwards and backwards by his own volition, so a self-doer surely exists. Or I may say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There
is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’” ...
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
AN 6.38

On the other hand, if you look closely at the rainbow, it doesn't exist as a single standalone object or entity. Rather, it is an emergent phenomena.
The Buddha used a similar analogy - a stringed musical instrument called the lute. The lute produces music. But if you break it down into its constituent parts, you cannot find music as a single standalone object or entity.
Similarly, the self doesn't exist as a single standalone object or entity. Rather, it's an emergent phenomena that appears when the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) work together according to dependent origination, just as music is an emergent phenomena that appears when different parts of the lute work together.

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."
SN 35.205

if you look closely at the rainbow, it doesn't exist as a single standalone object or entity. Rather, it is an emergent phenomena.
If you read my earlier comments, I never denied this, but pointed out that this fact doesn't make the phenomenon unreal.
Yes, if you tear a lute apart, music can't be found, but the "tearing apart" is done by the analytical mind, i.e. in the imagination, whereas, in reality, the lute is real in its wholeness, though comprised of constituent elements and, therefore, music is heard.

It's like saying, you know, if you think about all the components of what an airplane is made of, "flying" can't be found. Yeah, that might be true in an abstract, academic way, but in reality, planes are real and they fly.
I tried to add this to my earlier comment, but it went over the character limit.


text:
Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally?
If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned.
Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him.
Even worse, someone whose profession involves the daily killing of animals as is the case in a slaughterhouse, has to bear the mental consequences of this daily ritual as well as its kammic consequences.
Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the dead animal in his bowl. The morality of this doesn't make sense.
I would think the only morally harmless situation would be for a monk to only eat an animal or plant that had already died naturally, either by scavenging for it or waiting for another to do so on his behalf.
Question:
Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer this to him?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I have modified this question from, the karma or ethics of meat eating or plant killing, to one about monastic rules and dhutanga, so that it will not be a duplicate of existing questions, and still covers the original intention of the OP. And it will be reopened.

This answer is based on the Theravada tradition.
Please read The Bhikkhus' Rules:
A Guide for Laypeople by Ven. Ariyesako, Bhikkhu Patimokkha by Ven. Thanissaro and DN 2 for details.
A bhikkhu is a fully ordained monk who is required to strictly follow the rules of the Vinaya. All rules come with exceptions.
A monk cannot scavenge for his own food or engage in agriculture or cook his own meals. A monk is not allowed to eat fruits with seeds that can germinate and tubers that can be planted again, unless it is made allowable (kappiya) to him by a layperson. A monk is not allowed to damage or destroy plant life, so agricultural activities like tillage is not possible for monks. DN 2 states that monks should not receive uncooked grains, raw meat, cattle, fields etc.
A monk has to get his food from alms obtained from lay people. This is because the Buddha didn't want monks to become disconnected from lay people. He wanted the monks to depend on lay persons for alms and the lay persons should depend on monks for teachings and guidance. This applies to forest-dwelling dhutanga practitioner monks too.
Furthermore, it is wrong livelihood for monks to engage in agriculture, as they are meant to spend most of their time in study, practice and teaching of Buddhism.
Monks cannot choose what alms food is given to them and they must accept whatever is given to them. They cannot be choosy or fussy. They can only ask for specific food if they are ill.
Monks however must reject meat that is seen, heard or suspected to be slaughtered specifically for them. They also cannot kill an animal, or order a specific animal to be killed.
Monks must also reject alcohol and recreational drugs.
Besides these, monks cannot impose preferences or restrictions on lay persons with respect to alms food.
Devadatta once requested the Buddha to make vegetarianism mandatory for monks but this was rejected by the Buddha. Vegetarianism is also not part of the optional stricter dhutanga rules.
Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. It's not a universal system of justice. A person who eats meat that was long dead before he encountered it, does not have the intention to kill or cause killing e.g. by ordering a butcher to kill a specific animal. Plants are not sentient beings and the first precept of not killing doesn't apply to plants. There are many questions on these in Buddhism SE.
If a person wants to create his own quasi-monastic rules (beyond the Five Precepts) in Theravada Buddhism, he could choose to become an anagarika.
In some cases, The Great Standards (method to create modern exceptions to ancient rules) can be used for regional adaptation. For e.g. monks who reside in Buddhist minority countries with not many lay Buddhists nearby, may need to prepare their own food from stored raw ingredients. This is only my speculation.

Thank you to both Ruben and ChrisW for pointing out the rules forbidding picky/fussy alms rounds.

Plants are not sentient beings
There are many other and better sources than this, but it's a good start:
https://gizmodo.com/is-plant-intelligence-just-a-human-fantasy-1844217825

Plants are certainly alive, so killing is killing, being sentient has nothing to do with it. And a lot of animals are not any more sentient than plants. And I don't see how this answers the question at all. The answer is "because that's what the rules say", but the question is "how is this rule moral?" I don't see how that is answered.

@Davor  I don't see this question as "how is this rule moral?" The question of morality for animals and plants has been answered many times over in Buddhism SE and will not be duplicated here. Please search for the "vegetarianism" tag and also search for "plant".

@ruben2020 - this is the core of the question: "The morality of this doesn't make sense."

"this is the core of the question: "The morality of this doesn't make sense.", do you have an answer? from what i can tell Davor and Slowburn believe that eating the flesh of any living thing (plants or animals), that was not found after dying of natural causes... is immoral? Is this OP/question/comments all about promoting fruititarian or grazeitarianism?

Davor or Slowburn, what do you call this diet/ideology? grazitarian? not trying to mock, but really would like to know does this diet/ideology have a common moniker?

@YesheTenley Is it called ... "Jainism"?

@ChrisW, maybe? but I did not know this 'only found dead plants/animals' was a diet that Jain's practiced... is this practice in a living tradition? i recently met someone who was Jain and did not see any signs of this kind of militant diet

I don't think theravada monks are allowed to pick up fruit fallen to the ground or catching it mid air let alone plucking it off lest there is a famine and in that circumstance he may pick fruit and take it to a family that has children and if offered some the food becomes allowable.
As to hinting at one food one wants. If a monk even in need of medicine needs a particular food and another monk secretly goes to request the medicine food to be prepared for alms round, if it becomes known to the recepient monk then the food is not allowable for him. This happened to Sariputta, Maha Moggalanna brought the food and Sariputta turned over the bowl.
Abandoned requisites like lodging and robes can be appropriated if they are perceived to be abandoned.

Interesting story, but when monastics need medical care, it's usually provided to them.

I don't know all the rules & precedents pertaining to sickness but monastic association with lay people is heavily regulated in general.

If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned.

Hiring occurs before the event of taking life. Eating occurs later, i will try to explain why it matters.

Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him.

Well in the sense that demand supposedly drives production then yes one could say that the producer's choice depends on the consumer choice.
However this is Economic Theory, it is not some law of nature. EG;
Suppose person A kills an animal and asks B to sell the meat. Person C buys the meat and A & B are killed by a stray cow before they do any more killing.
Here a real example that shows that economic theory is just a theory and is often inapplicable to real life situations and here proven false by contradiction because according to the theory of economics here we can say the consumer's choice effect was canceled by a cow's choice.
Of course it gets really absurd if one keeps drawing out the implications like animals themselves being responsible for killing because they choose not to kill people and etc
According to the early buddhist texts and theravadin commentary to Dhp, the only way to truly stop killing is to attain at least the Sotapanna stage. These do not kill and will not be taking an 8th birth.
If one is not Ariya then one can't really say that one will stop killing because one will die and appear as a different person with inclinations based on prior development. No one can speak for another and if not Ariya then one can eventually start killing again in course of development, gods come born again as pigs even.
Therefore a non-ariya has too weak of a resolve to claim to having stopped beyond the breakup of the body and if he holds pernicious views then hell or animal womb will be the destination even if one abstains from killing all his life.

Great answer @Letsbuddhism!

"Here a real example that shows that economic theory is just a theory" - dear god you seriously used the "it's just a theory" defence.

The reason (and ethics) for this is found in the meditation practice regarding states of mind and their underlying intentions (cetana).
There's no unwholesome intentions present when accepting and eating meat unless one intentionally accepts and eats meat with the purpose of killing animals. I can't imagine any monk doing that.
When killing another living being there are incredible unwholesome states of mind and defilements present. The act of killing is therefore deeply unwholesome.
In Theravada Buddhism we care about one's state of mind first and foremost and accepting and eating meat is not unwholesome in any way meaning it requires no unwholesome states of mind to perform the actions.
That's why these 2 acts are differentiated like this based on ethics.
Hope this helps.

But using that same logic, you could claim that no unwholesome intentions are present when accepting or eating meat bought with stolen money. However, if you are aware that the meat was bought with stolen money, is it moral to accept it? Similarly, if you know an animal was intentionally killed for meat and killing sentient beings is presumably worse than stealing, then is it moral to accept the meat?

@SlowBurn. This is not logic. This is how the mind, Kamma and reality works and it can be tested out for oneself by practicing Buddhist Vipassana meditation.

Oh, so then as long as the mind of a meditator is at peace with himself, morality doesn't apply anymore and everything becomes permissible and kammically neutral?

@SlowBurn are you Jain?

@YesheTenley
No

@SlowBurn, fascinating. Are you Buddhist?

@YesheTenley
This is not a discussion forum.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

theyre not complicit in the negativity of murdering or trading of murdered animals because they are begging for any type of food.  it is only up to others to associate with murdering or trading of murdered animals.  if a monk notices a habit in others developing of associating with those things the monk may request they cease associating with those activities,  or else the monk always has the option of seeking alms somewhere else
in short no the monk is not complicit since ppl are free to function as they see fit.

If someone gives you something that was stolen, and you know it was stolen and you keep it, you are complicit, both morally and legally. How is this different?

a corpse is no longer a persons body is the difference.  stealing their body and life is synonymous with killing them but this terminates upon completion of their death.  having been completed one is now able to engage in the fault of being the cause of the theft to varying degrees.  a beggar seeking any offered food is extremely distant from being involved with the stealing,  especially if they are practicing nonattachment there is a strong argument that being a vegan with attachment to food  is more involved than the former who nevertheless eats offered meat,  assuming genuine nonattachment

I have no idea what you're talking about and how corpses and bodies relate to this in any sense. The point is you are benefiting from something that is forbidden by rules, and you know it. You don't get to say "I'm not guilty of anything" because you didn't directly participate in the act.

it doesnt logically follow that benefitting from something immoral necessarily makes one immoral.  above i explained why a corpse is not a possession and therefore has nothing to do with stealing and stolen goods.  a corpse is a corpse not a possession to be stolen.  what was stolen is the living things right to life aka the fault of killing,  but this terminates with the completion of the killing.  you dont kill or own corpses.

"it doesnt logically follow that benefitting from something immoral necessarily makes one immoral" - it does if your actions are complicit. And stealing was just an example.

Then it was a bad example as eating dead flesh does not make one necessarily complicit in the death of that animal.

OP: "Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died
naturally?"

Yes. (The monk could make that choice, but as was pointed out by others the monk's should not be picky or fussy or instruct/command lay folks in what they should give them.)

"This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to
offer this to him?"

Yes. (The monk could do this, but then the monk would be picky/fussy which could run them afoul of vinaya rules.)

OP: "Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the
dead animal in his bowl."

Yes.

OP: "The morality of this doesn't make sense."

The monk would be faultless as it is simply not true that the monk acted as a condition for the killing of the animal. In your hypothetical, the animal was killed and dead before the monk had any contact with it. The animal was killed and dead before the monk had any contact with the person who killed it. Saying the monk is at fault is akin to misunderstanding how the law of cause and effect works. To say that the monk was the cause or a necessary condition for the killing effect would be akin to saying the effect preceded the cause. This is  a logical error and not how the world works.
The law of karma is not an impersonal arbiter of universal justice meting down punishment on sinners who have transgressed some moral rules. To suppose otherwise is to believe that karma is truly existent. It is not.
Cause and effect is described over and over in the Pali suttas as:

iti imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti; imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati; imasmiṁ
asati idaṁ na hoti

Which has variously been translated as:

"When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this,
that ceases."
Bhikkhu Sujato
"When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that
arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the
cessation of this, that ceases."
Bhikkhu Bodhi
"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of
that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes
the cessation of that."
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises;
if this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this,
that is stopped."
I.B. Horner

The Buddha said this again, and again, and again, and again, as he taught the Dhamma to people. Your contention boils down to if the monk stopped accepting dead meat placed in his bowl, then all the suffering that resulted in the killing of the animal would cease. However, we know this is not the case simply by virtue of the fact that the killing of the animal and all that suffering that necessarily followed preceded the monk accepting the dead meat in his bowl.
To see this clearly, try putting your contention into the words of the Buddha:

"With dead meat in monk's bowls, killing of animals comes to be; from the
arising of dead meat in monk's bowls, killing of animals arises; When
dead meat is not in monk's bowls, killing of animals does not come to be;
with the cessation of dead meat in monk's bowls, killing of animals
ceases."

That is just clearly not true. Were the dead meat not in the monk's bowl, the animal would still be every bit as dead from the killing and the suffering that necessarily entails would follow.

I never accused monks of being complicit in killing, I was simply posing a moral dilemma. I honestly don't agree with your reasoning. Look at it this way:
A criminal robs someone of their money. They feel guilty about their crime and buy food to offer as alms to a monastic. The monastic knows the true source of the money used to buy him food. Is it moral for him to accept it?
Similarly, if it's immoral for a monk to kill animals, then it's immoral for everyone to kill animals. Knowing someone else killed an animal that eventually is offered to you as alms food poses a moral dilemma.

I don't have a solution to this dilemma. That would require me to either claim the monk is guilty or innocent and I don't take a position because I simply don't know. I will say that if the monk has a better option to receive food that wasn't intentionally killed for food, it's likely more clean in a kammic sense.

What would happen if the monastic refused to accept the food that was purchased with ill-gotten gains? Would any suffering of anyone cease? You have this idea of 'morality' as a fixed law or thing. Some platonic ideal of 'morality' that is inflated and truly existent. No such 'morality' exists.

BTW, 'guilt' is considered a non-virtuous emotion. Guilt is not helpful.

Well, it's just semantics if you would claim someone upholds precepts because it's skillful to do so as opposed to a sense of guilt if one breaks them.
I don't think the monastic would refuse the food with the thought that anyone's suffering had ceased, but rather that it was bought with stolen money and thus he would otherwise be taking what was not freely given by the true owner of the money.

If you want to discuss further we can do so in https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/127032/general-discussion

"The animal was killed and dead before the monk had any contact with the person who killed it." - the same applies when dealing with stolen goods, yet you are guilty if you do it, even if you didn't participate in the stealing at all.

Karma is not a legal doctrine and it is not a universal arbiter of moral justice. By your logic you - Davor - are complicit in the death of countless beings as your mere existence as a human has acted as a condition for the death of sentient beings.

Question: Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had
died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for
others to offer this to him?

Yes, they could chose to only eat an animal or plant that had died naturally. The monastic could do this either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer him food that did not require animal death whatsoever, such as with cellular agriculture.

A monk's scavenging or being choosy about what they accept would be contrary to the Vinaya, isn't that so? And so I think that no, a monastic couldn't do this.

See also this quote

@ChrisW
But a monastic is forbidden from eating an animal specifically killed for him, so I wouldn't call that being choosy if he refused such food offerings. Seeing that animals intentionally killed for food are generally killed for the benefit of humans, it could be argued that any animal is killed for the monk in a general, if indirect sense. I guess the point here is that the monk should at least be mindful of his food source and have a natural preference for food that does not involve intentional killing of any kind.

BTW, Ajahn Brahm is a great monk and teacher and he would likely prefer food that wasn't intentionally grown, raised or killed for food consumption. I understand that such food is not always an option. I simply advocate for a mindfulness of food sources and a preference for the most compassionate sources. It's not about monks feeling bad for taking food that might not fit into that ideal category. Hope this clarifies my position on this topic.

@SlowBurn This may be useful for you: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37281/can-being-a-vegetarian-actually-be-a-hindrance-for-some

@YesheTenley
Thank you, but I'm not actually a vegetarian because, as you already pointed out in the deleted comment, agriculture results in the death of many animals. So whether plant or animal, the best sources are those which do not involve intentional killing. Admittedly, this is very hard to come by, but it should still be the natural preference for anyone with metta for all beings.

Ok. It may be the case that you are attached to the idea of metta actualized through your preferences for eating. It may manifest as you lecturing/preaching to others and/or stirring up controversy where none need exist. Perhaps think on it?

@YesheTenley
You may find this hard to believe but what I share here are thoughts I consider for myself. I consider moral issues for my own development, not to preach or tell others what to do. I am also not afraid to both respect traditional teachings while, at the same time, I respect scientific knowledge and research. To that end, contrary to ruben2020's beliefs, current research suggests that plants are indeed sentient beings. I don't think it's attachment to food as much as spreading metta to all beings without exception. Who am I or you to decide what any other being can know or feel?

I do believe it. The passion and zealousness of your beliefs is apparent.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Was Devadaha a Sakyan town and were the Buddha's maternal relatives Sakyans?
In the literature we generally read that the Koliya clan, a neighbouring clan of the Sakyans, had two capitals - Devadaha and Ramagama. Moreover, the Buddha's mother Mayadevi and foster mother Mahapajapati Gautami were Koliyan ladies from Devadaha. But the following few facts cast doubt on whether Devadaha was actually a Koliyan town and whether the Buddha's maternal relatives were actually Koliyans.

We read that the Sakyans and the Koliyans resided on the opposite sides of the river Rohini and they often quarelled with each other over the water of that river. Now, the Sakyan capital Kapilavatthu is on the west side of the Rohini. In keeping with this, the Koliyan capital Ramagama is on the east side of the river. In contrast, Devadaha is on the west side of the Rohini.

In her Apadana, Gautami says that she was born in Devadaha and her father was Anjana Sakya.

In the opening of the Devadaha Sutta (MN 101), Devadaha is mentioned as a Sakyan town.

These facts strongly point to the possibility that only Ramagama was the capital of the Koliyans. Devadaha was actually a Sakyan town and the Buddha's maternal relatives were also Sakyans. There are few additional points that strengthen this conclusion:

Since the Sakyans and the Koliyans were opponents, it is unlikely that they would make marrital relationship with each other.

We know from Bidudabha's story that the Sakyans were so proud about their nobility that they were unwilling to make relationship even with the mighty king of Kosala, Pasenadi. So how could they make relationship with the small clan Koliya?

The Koliyans, being a small clan like the Sakyans, were unlikely to have two capitals.

Is my conclusion correct? If so, I would like to know how the ideas that the Buddha's maternal relatives were Koliyans from Devadaha entered the literature. Are there any evidence in support of this in the Pali canon or commentaries?

This might be exactly what you're looking for:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-woman-who-raised-the-buddha-by-wendy-garling/20804

The Buddha and his wife were first cousins through his paternal aunt, Amita. You can check out the numbered references on the wiki page to get more information from the listed sources.

Yaśodharā was the daughter of King Suppabuddha,[4][5] and Amita, sister of the Buddha's father, King Śuddhodana. She was born on same day in the month of "Vaishaka" as prince Siddhartha. Her grandfather was Añjana a Koliya[6] chief, her father was Suppabuddha and her mother, Amitā, came from a Shakya family. The Shakya and the Koliya were branches of the Ādicca (Sanskrit: Aditya) or Ikshvaku dynasty. There were no other families considered equal to them in the region and therefore members of these two royal families married only among themselves.[7]

I should have read your question more carefully. You were asking about his maternal side. This is all I could find on wiki which states that the Buddha's parents were also first cousins:

Māyā married King Śuddhodana (Pāli: Suddhodana), the ruler of the Śākya clan of Kapilvastu. She was the daughter of King Śuddhodhana's uncle and therefore his cousin; her father was king of Devadaha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(mother_of_the_Buddha)#Life_of_Maya

I have consulted all the relevant wiki pages and references therein. But I could not find any canonical or commentarial reference to support the general idea that the Buddha's maternal relations were Koliyans. On the contrary, I have found a few such references in support of their Sakyan identity which I have mentioned in my question. What I actually want is the original source of the idea of their Koliyan identity - be it canonical, commentarial, or even some later works.

@Soumen
Yes, wiki is either a great source or a terrible source of information depending on the topic, but the listed references are a starting point for your research. If you don't find what you want here, then you can contact the authors/site administrators of the listed sources or just look at the references listed in the references themselves, following the chain of references until you get to primary sources. Hope this helps.

@Soumen
You could also try this forum which seems to specialize is early Buddhist writings and historical references:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

Thank you very much for your concern. Maybe I'll also try the suttacentral forum.

@Soumen Sorry, I just deleted my other post because after a closer reading I realized it was a book about a woman other than Buddha's biological mother. However, I'll still link it here just in case there are any useful references included there:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-woman-who-raised-the-buddha-by-wendy-garling/20804

But Mahaprajapati was Mayadevi's own sister. They came from the same family. So this book will just be equally helpful for me. I hope I will get all the relevant references in this book. Lot of thanks to you for suggesting this book.

@Soumen
OK, I just undeleted that post, so it could be chosen as a better answer than my original answer. Glad I could help.

Lord Buddha's father was a Sakyan King and his mother's Queen Mayadevi and Queen Prajapati were Koliyan princesses. They were daughters of King Suddhodhana' paternal aunt who was married to a Koliyan King of Devdaha. His wife Yashodhara was also a koliyan princess. The Sakyans and Koliyans married only among themselves because they were very proud of their caste and aristocracy.There is a long story behind that.

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


text:
Death and nibbana
If no thing transmigrates, and nibbana is cessation,
Is a perception of death - a perception of cessation, then akin to a perception of nibbana?

The question in my opinion needs to be reframed. There can be no 'perception' of death for death is cessation of all perception. Similarly Nibbana too cannot be 'perceived'; it is beyond perception.

Nibbana is cessation of delusion, cessation of ambition and greed, cessation of lacking, cessation of needing more, cessation of "everything is wrong", cessation of worrying about one's future, cessation of "i am better" and "i am worse", cessation of ego-centric hoping and fearing, cessation of taking reification of signs seriously, cessation of the need to escape, cessation of Path, cessation of Attainment, cessation of taking boundaries as something absolute, cessation of overgeneralization - just to list a few examples.
Death is merely one abstraction, one concept, one simplistic generalization - of many such ones that cease at Nibbana.
Perception of (someone's) death is making, while Nibbana is not-making. Making is constructing or shaping reality with your mind, playing a game of make-believe. Nibbana is cessation of playing games. They are actually quite the opposite, death and Nibbana.
The only aspect that I can think of as common between death and Nibbana is letting go.

It was taught to Anurādha,
That the Buddha himself
Wasn’t to be regarded,
As a real and genuine fact.
Not being a real and genuine fact,
How can it be that the death
Of the Buddha should be
Regarded as a real and genuine fact?
Not being a real and genuine fact,
How can it be that the Nirvana
Of the Buddha should be
Regarded as a real and genuine fact?
If the Buddha is not to be
Regarded as a real and genuine fact,
How can it be that lesser beings
Should be regarded as real and genuine facts?
The Buddha taught that
The death of a real and genuine being
Has never been perceived anywhere,
Anytime, by anyone.
Not being perceived by anyone,
How can it be that the perception of death
Should be regarded as the perception of
That which is described as the deathless?
Depending upon ignorance,
The fabrication of “death” is perceived.
With the pacification of all fabrications
How could such a thing as “death” be perceived?
“The pacification of all fabrications”
This is how Nirvana is described.
The emptiness of these fabrications
Is taught as a door to the deathless.

Well said, well said

Is a perception of death - a perception of cessation, then akin to a perception of nibbana?

No, it's not - Nibbana is the only unconditioned Dhamma out of the Four Ultimate Realities (Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, Nibbana). Nibbana does not arise or cease and is not subject to the Three Marks of Existence, except the Third Mark: Anatta, which applies to both conditioned and unconditioned Dhammas.
It's an independent, existing reality that meditators/the mind can experience through correct practice (following the Noble Eightfold Path). It's an experience that is not like anything else one has ever experienced before and cannot be compared to anything in Samsaric existence.

persons transmigrate. nirvana is the cessation of that.  that is not merely death.

The is no such as perception of ones death, once avijja is already uprooted, good householder. And to reach such, even perception of Nibbana has to be abounded.

No. Perception of death is usually the fear or terror of losing what one clings to, usually consciousness, form etc.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a
river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift,
carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa
grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing.
Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa
grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would
come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the
reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away,
and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears
away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling,
or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. That feeling
tears away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing
perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
perception. That perception tears away from him, and so from that
cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as
possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
as in fabrications. Those fabrications tear away from him, and so from
that cause he would come to disaster.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness. That consciousness tears away from him, and so from
that cause he would come to disaster.
SN 22.93

Nibbana is peace, bliss, deathless (i.e. free from the fear and terror of death), permanent freedom from suffering.

Health is the greatest gift,
contentment is the greatest wealth,
a trusted friend is the best relative,
Nibbana is the greatest bliss.
Dhp 204

At one time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Rājagaha, in the
Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.
There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, Nibbana is
bliss! Nibbana is bliss!”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend
Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”
“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.
AN 9.34

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor
water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of
space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension
of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor
moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor
staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving,
without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress
(suffering).
Ud 8.1

One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no
wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm,
there is no yearning. There being no yearning, there is no coming or
going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or
arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a
here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of
stress (suffering).
Ud 8.4

Death is like cessation, isn't it -- dissolution, transformation -- whereas nibbana is the unborn and the undying.

the above appears to say nirodha (cessation) & nibbana are unrelated; even though both words are commonly found within the same definition of nibbana

Canonically I think that nibbana is attained by cessation of tendencies from which birth (and ignorance) arises, but I think that wasn't what the question was asking.


text:
Are the Five Precepts a gradual training?
In this answer it's said that the Five Precepts are not a form of gradual training.
Are they are a gradual training? If not, why?
Thank you for your time.

The five precepts are not a gradual training. Buddhists undertake it as the most minimum training in virtue (sila).
Followers of Buddhism are expected to undertake the training in the five precepts mindfully (i.e. keeping it in mind) with right effort.
If they lapse, they should continue to try their best the next time, without feeling remorse, as this is a voluntary training and not divine commandments.
What might be gradual is the degree of perfection of the practice of the five precepts. This is not strictly required for lay persons, but it is definitely expected of monks and nuns.
Here's the sutta stating the expectation on monks to practise perfection in virtue.

"And how is a monk consummate in beauty? There is the case where a
monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
slightest fault. This is how a monk is consummate in beauty.
AN 3.94

For e.g. you may avoid killing humans and most animals, but you may occasionally kill mosquitoes or house pests intentionally. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of the first precept means not causing the death of any sentient being at all.
You may not steal or take what is not given, but you may occasionally park illegally when you are not able to find legal parking available, and you may get away with it without getting a parking ticket. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never parking illegally. Please also see this answer.
You may not drink alcoholic beverages till you become drunk and heedless, but you may drink a little occasionally for social reasons. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never recreationally consuming any intoxicating substance at all, even a little.
You may not have a sexual and/or romantic relationship or fling with anyone who is not in a mutually exclusive long term relationship with you, but you may occasionally mildly flirt with someone other than your exclusive long term partner. Striving for perfection in the undertaking of this precept means never engaging in a flirtatious manner with anyone who is not your exclusive long term partner (should you have one).
And what about the precept of not speaking untruth?
Well, you should try to practise it to perfection, even as a lay person. The reason for this is explained below.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."
The person who lies,
who transgress in this one thing,
transcending concern for the world beyond:
there's no evil he might not do.
Iti 25

There are many suttas that say merely transgressing one of the precepts leads to a bad outcome. For example, if you keep the four precepts but not the 3rd, this won't stop your spouse divorcing you; or if you keep four precepts but not the 1st, those won't stop you being imprisoned for murder.
For example, imagine being a strict moralist about not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying and not taking drugs & alcohol; and therefore you go around executing (killing) people who transgress these four precepts. Keeping four precepts won't protect you from the repercussions of killing others.


text:
How do we unconditionally love and wish people the best?
Deep down, I know there is a core that wants to love everyone for who they are. No matter who they are to me, the world, no matter how terrible of a person they are, no matter how much they make me jealous.
The only problem is, the stuff in the middle. I feel like I cannot move past things due to unclean closures to relationships and overall jealousy. I really want to wish everyone the best, but my intentions are tainted by negative emotions.
How do we break through this terrible barrier that stops us from loving ourself and everyone else, and how do we unconditionally love everyone?

Deep down, I know there is a core that wants to love everyone for who they are. No matter who they are to me, the world, no matter how terrible of a person they are, no matter how much they make me jealous.

The only problem is, the stuff in the middle. I feel like I cannot move past things due to unclean closures to relationships and overall jealousy. I really want to wish everyone the best, but my intentions are tainted by negative emotions.

How do we break through this terrible barrier that stops us from loving ourself and everyone else, and how do we unconditionally love everyone?

Meditation practice really helps with such thoughts and worries. Samsara is already (inherently) broken. It can't be fixed. An important part of meditation practice is for the mind to see that it's not in control of how reality works. Actually the only thing we can control is our own reactions to arisen phenomena.
Fixing things is not the way to solve this. Fixing is another way of controlling and clinging to past, current and future events. If one has done others wrong it's of course a good idea to apologize and try to work things out but one shouldn't go out of ones own way to do this. It's much more important for the mind to gain clarity - seeing things clearly leads to letting go. It's not something one actively does. Letting go happens as a result of seeing clearly, i.e. to consistently see how things are subject to constant change, how they bring us suffering when we cling to them and how we cannot control thoughts, feelings etc. They arise and cease on their own.
When the mind sees that again and again it begins to let go which leads to peace, happiness and freedom which in turn leads to a more universal love and acceptance of all beings.
One can also practice Metta meditation. It can be effective but only on the surface level as it doesn't deal with the underlying problem, ie. the Latent Tendencies (Anusaya) and the Ignorance (Avijjā) in the mind.

Insight sees conceptions to be self-imposed that is to say generated by us,  and not residing in the object we are seeing. We can remove this cognitive defect that since birth has misperceived conceptual characteristics as within objects themselves.
When you can observe reality closely enough to validate this you will no longer be able to generate suffering or ugly characteristics since those do not accord with reality.
Your mind is set free from these and in the absence of them there is discovered the nature of spacious luminous cognizance and are glad never to be separated from this ever again. Suffering no longer has fuel to ignite.  Then you look at others and see they are exactly the same as you, engines of spacious cognizance, except they are adding a miniscule superfluous unnecessary extra activity onto it and this creates all of their samsara.  But that's just 0.01% of what they are, what they actually are is that purity and cognizance with this minor fluff on top that just needs to be blown off. When you see that others are the same nature as yourself, you have a cessation of preferring some over others or yourself over them since that is not in accord with reality which you have seen. Each mind possesses the same defining characteristic of purity, and they are equal,
there is no basis for preference or inequality there is just equality and a measure of who is easier to help and how.
This is pretty easy to accomplish by the way, you just need a society that's not insane surrounding itself with unfavorable circumstances. All you need is a quiet place, a couple of years with a qualified teacher and to study the following and related reasonings over and over until you approach a conclusion for or against: if a particular cow possesses the characteristic cow then no other particular object could be that characteristic. If on the other hand a collection of particular cows is required for the characteristic then you would need to perceive each particular before you could know cow, and so on there are endless reasonings.

"spacious luminous cognizance" - this seems like your referring to the radiant mind. I recently understood the radiant mind to be the primary pull towards samsara. I could write some more about that, but it's too lengthy for the comments section. In any case, when you say, "spacious luminous cognizance," in this context you mean nirvana?

ur right,  the words can indeed refer to the characteristics of mind as seen with perfect concentration free of the 5 hindrances eg. minimum shamata/access concentration but it can also refer to that minus the clinging to self.  the mind of shamata for example will still see characteristics as being either the same as its basis or separate to the basis it is only with vipashyana that the spacious luminous cognizance free of the 5 hindrances will be accompanied by the spacious luminosity that no longer sees grasping to substantial characteristics

Venerable Godatta once taught Citta the limitless release of the heart.

SN41.7:1.3: “Householder, the limitless release of the heart, and the release of the heart through nothingness, and the release of the heart through emptiness, and the signless release of the heart: do these things differ in both meaning and phrasing? Or do they mean the same thing, and differ only in the phrasing?”

Conditions are limits to the release of the heart:

SN41.7:6.2: Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.

Thinking "this is mine" is a limit. Thinking "this is not mine" is limitless.
Thinking "love others" and "love myself" is limited. Thinking "spread a heart full of love to the whole world" is limitless.

SN41.7:2.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

We must train ourselves in good behavior towards what we call other people because one's self is included in the classification 'a people' and by developing a sympathetic outlook on humanity we will be changing how we treat ourselves.
One should see others as yourself and realize that if you develop cruelty it is going to affect you as well because it will color the choices you make.
One should see others as yourself and realize that if you develop compassion it is going to affect you as well because it will color the choices you make.
A person might think that there is distinction between cruelty that will affect others and that which will hurt oneself but that is mistake because the self can not be pinned down as a truth & reality and therefore the cruelty is completely unchecked in that sense.
Put yourself in the place of others and realize that they are doing exactly what you would have done given the same amount of delusion and if we punish them for it thinking 'a being is unworthy of kindness because of delusion' then we will also punish ourselves for being delusional using the same justification in mistreatment of ourselves.
Therefore if we want to succeed then we want a being to succeed and by being we mean any being whatsoever because we want to include ourselves and we are like others. There is no workaround this and otherwise one will have cognitive dissonance like 'we are all one as nature' and 'i am me and you are you, we are two', with this dissonance one will justify greed, self-sabotage, lack of discipline and all kinds of bad behaviors.
If we think our ultimate goal is xyz then it is the same for everyone else and we must strive to help ourselves to attain it also by helping others because in helping others we are helping ourselves by developing good qualities and thus strengthening the mind.
A person might treat others badly to indulge his excessive greed thinking 'another's loss is my gain' but his actions will put him in hell because he is playing a losing strategy.
It is as if a tree among trees could decide to produce fruit that kills other trees of the same kind, not realizing that it will destroy itself likewise.
Or like poisoning your own drinking water in order to hurt another and then keep drinking it yourself unwillingly because it's the only water left.
We only have one mind, it must be saturated to soak in good qualities which are pleasing to good people and only then will it invariably work for the benefit of all beings.
You are essentially training yourself & others all the time and to your best ability. Thus better you are as a trainer of others thus better you will train yourself and vice versa because your training ability depends on your faculties.
To sum up, you love others unconditionally exactly how you love yourself unconditionally but you don't have to love & tolerate bad behavior.
You should want the best for the best in you & others and be intent on the highest good.


text:
Is a via positiva, cataphatic definition of Nibbāna possible?
When Time is conditioned, when Space is also supposedly conditioned, when all ‘phenomena’, in the strictest philosophical sense of the word, are conditioned, how can the unconditioned Nibbāna be ever defined?
When language itself is mired in conditionality, a slave to the world of perceptions and conceptualization, how can we even try to use it to convey the meaning of the unconditioned, asaṃskṛt Nirvāṇa? Isn’t it a semantic impossibility?
Was Nāgārjuna right when he subjected Nirvāṇa to the catuṣkoṭi logic and came out with strictest and most comprehensive negative answer, the ultimate via negativa, apophatic explanation?
Based on my understanding, I can thoroughly appreciate the following ‘definitions’:

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor
fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor
dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of
nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception;
neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there,
I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing
away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support
[mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." — Ud 8.1

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If
there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there
would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made
— fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an
unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born
— become — made — fabricated is discerned." — Ud 8.3

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do
not shine,    the sun is not visible,     the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found. And when a sage,     a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless,    from bliss
& pain,
he is freed. — Ud 1.10”
_(Courtesy, ATI)

But this is what I find difficult to accept:

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbāna." — AN 3.32

There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the
aggregates,
no ease other than peace.
Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one
knowing this truth as it actually is,     Unbinding is the foremost
ease.
Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the
foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship.
Unbinding: the foremost ease. — Dhp 202-205

The enlightened, constantly   absorbed in jhāna,  persevering,    firm in
their effort: they touch Unbinding,
the unexcelled safety   from bondage. — Dhp 23”
_(Courtesy, ATI)

Is a via positiva, cataphatic definition rationally, linguistically even possible? Could somebody help me understand Nibbāna better?

Nirvana isn't a thing.
Were it a thing it'd be subject to aging and death.
No thing exists
Without aging and death.
If nirvana were a thing,
It'd be compounded.
A non-compounded thing,
Doesn't exist anywhere.
If nirvana were a thing,
It'd be conditioned.
A non-conditioned thing,
Doesn't exist anywhere.
Nirvana isn't the absence of a thing.
How could it be the absence of a thing?
Just as it's not a thing,
It can't be the absence of a thing.
If nirvana were the absence of a thing,
How could it be non-conditioned?
Whatever is non-conditioned,
Can't be the absence of a thing.
The absence of a thing is dependent
Upon the thing of which it's the absence of.
Since things themselves are dependent,
Their absence is also dependent.
Things arise and cease
Dependent upon causes and conditions.
Nirvana as taught by the Buddha
Is independent of causes and conditions.
The Buddha taught relinquishing the
Becoming and passing away of things.
Therefore it should be understood that
Nirvana isn't a thing nor the absence of a thing.
"That which is neither a thing nor the absence of a thing"
Can only be established as a real and genuine fact,
If the things of which it speaks and their absences as well,
Can be established as real and genuine facts.
If even the Buddha himself
Can't be established as a real and genuine fact,
How can other lesser things,
Be so established?
The complete relinquishment of fabrications
Was taught by the Buddha as bliss.
Nirvana can't be established through the
Proliferation of fabrications.
Relying upon things as real and genuine facts,
Can't bring about the cessation of fabrications.
The Buddha taught that even the Tathagata,
Should not be relied upon as a real and genuine fact.
No real and genuine Buddha,
Taught a real and genuine Dharma,
To be relied upon by anyone, anywhere,
At any place or at any time.

"Nirvana isn't the absence of a thing. How could it be the absence of a thing?" Isn't this just a question, not an argument or an explanation? Is this contradicting AN 9.34 as quoted in ruben2020's answer?

It is a rhetorical question and the explanation is given in the following verses. No, I don't think it contradicts AN 9.34.

I've also added a verse to help erase doubts.

Thank you that makes the logic and its implication a lot clearer.

Google doesn't find this quote, if it is a quote, I assume it's Nagarjuna ... I'd welcome a reference, a hyperlink or a citation.

It is a poor paraphrase and creative endeavor relying upon verses from the middle and my own imperfect understanding.

'the absence of a thing depends on the thing which its the absence of'...except for vaibhashika all other buddhadharma systems explicitly realize the arya truths and therefore know how to posit absences as non dependents ie. unchanging nonimplictive unproduced and nonfunctioning

That might be so, but the absence of a thing is not that kind of absence.

absences are exactly like i said it is for everyone except vaibhashika,  who dont know how to establish imputation and therefore are forced into asseting absences as functioning things or just 'things' as u are calling them here

@bwtho Are you saying that this is not an accurate paraphrase/explanation of Nagarjuna?

@bwtho, Are you saying it is possible to establish the absence of a thing without depending upon that thing?

@ChrisW everyone from mindonly to middleway and even some sautrantiks make claim to arya nagarjuna. nevertheless what they all hold in common is absences/negations are unchanging since they are imputedly known and require no production

@Yeshe Tenley yes absences are imputed onto their basis eg. obstructive contact and empty space, production and disintegration,  truth of suffering and nirvana,  absences are not dependent ie. produced.  in gelug this is the difference vetwee and rationship of identity and relationship of causation iirc berzin has the best explanation on it

Yes, some negations are non-affirming negations. However, this does not mean ALL negations are non-affirming negations. In order to establish the absence of an elephant from a room, it is necessary to depend upon “elephant” and thus the absence of an elephant from a room is thoroughly dependent and conditioned. Can you please plainly state whether you disagree?

sure,  if we take dependent as meaning causally involved then no an elephant is not a cause or condition for a lack of elephant even slightly.  however elephant is a basis for imputation,  no difference if implicative or non,  in that sense absence of elephant can only be established on the basis of elephant

And we also agree that nirvana can’t be established as the absence of a thing as that would depend upon the imputation of thing as a basis?

in our language we would say a self of a person doesnt exist even conventionally whereas the person does.  however the appearance of such a self of person does exist conventionally and it is this object of negation we finally become able to apprehend and once done we imputed its absence or if we have shamata form a yogic direct perceiver of this object ie. mind takes on the aspect of lack of impossible way of existing,  and what appears is just that

I think @Yeshe Tenley is right when he says that all the questions here are rhetorical. The answer is clear as daylight:  the unconditioned can NEVER be defined.

The cataphatic definitions of Nibbana like peace, bliss, profound equanimity, etc., to my understanding, are what the sa-upadishesha arahant 'experiences' in his pure mind. It is the 'taste' of Nibbana, not Nibbana-in-itself.

Both cataphatic and apophatic definitions of Nibbana are reconciled here:

At one time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Rājagaha, in the
Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.
There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, Nibbana is
bliss! Nibbana is bliss!”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend
Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”
“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.
AN 9.34

Please read the rest of this sutta.
Nibbana is experienced by the mind when it is completely free of defilements.
It is bliss because it is free of suffering and discontent.
It's the experience of the lack of dukkha that makes it a pleasure.
If you can understand what is dukkha (suffering and discontent) then you can use that to understand Nibbana a little more easily.
Nibbana is the extinguishment  of dukkha or unbinding to dukkha.

OP: When language itself is mired in conditionality, a slave to the
world of perceptions and conceptualization, how can we even try to use
it to convey the meaning of the unconditioned, asaṃskṛt Nirvāṇa? Isn’t
it a semantic impossibility?

Both Nibbana and dukkha are empty of inherent substance or svabhāva (that is given to it by the mind) according to Nagarjuna.
That means it's not what you think it is.
What you conceptualize with your mind is papanca.
So trying to describe Nibbana with words would be like trying to describe the sweetness of a mango with words, to someone who has never tasted a mango and worse still, by someone who has never tasted a mango himself.
And that's the genius of Nagarjuna.
He slaps you philosophically and wakes you up to understand papanca.
The true Nibbana is also the complete and permanent end of papanca. This can be found in MN 1.

now that you have studied Nagarjuna extensively, do you identify yourself with the Mahayana?

@YesheTenley Actually I don't know much about what Nagarjuna taught. I identify with Theravada and not Mahayana because I prefer to stick close to the original teachings of the historical Buddha. This doesn't include the second and third turning of the wheel.

@ruben2020 You said: "Nibbana is 'experienced by the mind' when it is completely free of defilements." That is what I am driving at : We can at best talk about the 'experience of the mind', Nibbana ‘as experienced', not 'as it is in itself', because that is an impossibility. In itself, as described so wonderfully by Nagarjuna, it is indefinable, ineffable. That is why all the cataphatic definitions like, 'Nibbana is bliss; Nibbana is peace, etc.', I feel, are only ‘this-worldly’, second-hand explanations of the transcendental inexplicable.

@SushilFotedar Nibbana is not bliss in the way that a cheesecake is bliss. Nibbana is bliss in the sense that the absence of dukkha is bliss.

impermanence or disintegration is the lack of a thing being able to endure into the next moment thru its own power
therefore the ending of the thing is the nature of its production.
like that ur death is uncaused by virtue of ur having been born.  u need nothing else and so ur death is unconditioned.
similarly nirvana is this but applied to your mind and its afflictions.  once u can perceive negation/unconditioned/absences on command accurately u are well on the way to nirvana.

here in sautrantika negation are as unconditioned as nirvana since unlike theravada they know how to posit negations by way of mere imputation instead of not knowing how to do that and therefore needing to rely on causes to establish them as conditioned negations which is far inferior

It is possible to click the edit link below your answer if you need to add any further information to your question. ;-)

thanks i know but i wanted it more like a footnote :p

I found this answer helpful.
The experience I asked about in the question, i.e. the thought or experience which prompted the question, could be phrased as a positive ...
"I'm glad I did X which was a good thing!"
... but when I experienced it, it was more precisely phrased as a negative ...
"I'm glad I didn't do Y which would have been a bad thing!"
Perhaps that's analogous to AN 9.34 quoted in ruben2020's answer

The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.


text:
What does it mean in Bhikkhu Bodhi's *Life of the Buddha* when he describes Maha Maya as being possessed of the five kāmaguṇa
In  Bhikkhu Nanamoli's The Life of the Buddha when describing the circumstances around his birth, Nanamoli writes

When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, no thought
of man associated with the five strands of sensual desires came to her
at all, and she was inaccessible to any man with lustful mind.
When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, she at the
same time possessed the five strands of sensual desires; and being
endowed and furnished with them, she was gratified in them.

I understand the first paragraph.  And, I assume that by "the five strands of sensual desires" he's referring to the five kāmaguṇa in this answer.
The first paragraph seems to be portraying that this was a virgin conception (or, if not virgin, then it was a pregnancy that did not arise through coitus).
However, I don't understand what is actually being said in the second paragraph quoted.  Is it merely saying that, in addition to the purity of her being just described, she was herself exceptionally comely?
Another aspect of this that confuses me is what is meant by "she was gratified in them"?

When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, no thought
of man associated with the five strands of sensual desires came to her
at all, and she was inaccessible to any man with lustful mind.

It means after she was pregnant, while B. was in her womb, she did not have lustful thoughts, therefore she would not have had any sexual activity during that time of her pregnancy.

When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother's womb, she at the
same time possessed the five strands of sensual desires; and being
endowed and furnished with them, she was gratified in them.

Here is every reference to 5kg kama guna in the suttas:
https://lucid24.org/sted/5kg/index.html
You can see how it's used in both a negative sense, and positive sense. The negative sense is that one attached to 5kg, such as food, music, sex, will continue to rebirth in samasara infinitely. The positive sense, such as a king enjoying 5kg, or the devas enjoying 5kg, means that they're enjoying food, sex, music, etc., obtained in an ethical way that doesn't harm others.

Another aspect of this that confuses me is what is meant by "she was
gratified in them"?

So it means the Buddha's mother, while pregnant, enjoyed food, music, etc., and probably didn't experience the typical pains of pregnancy.

Without any scholarly investigation of the text, my impression is the text says:

When the bodhisatta entered her womb, her mind was without any thoughts of the sight, smell, sound, taste or touch of a man.

Upon knowing she was pregnant, she was gratified with thoughts of sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches associated with pregnancy.

In other words, a man may foolishly think a woman loves him but, in reality, a woman is primarily interested in getting pregnant & her offspring.